Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5


I believe that this WikiProject needs a major overhaul. The page itself hasn't changed much since September 2003. More importantly, there seems to be no standardization among articles about television series. I think that this page should outline a more comprehensive template with an infobox as well as information about linking to subpages, proper styling of episode names, sections that should be included, etc. See User talk:Clueless for a discussion about this.

In any case, I plan to edit this page mercilessly in the future. I'm interested in what others have to say about possible changes as well as whether anyone might be willing to help me make changes to this page and apply them to individual articles.

Acegikmo1 20:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mighty Quiet Around Here

It appears that things have been pretty quiet around here since a flurry of activity in 2004. I'd like to try to jump start this project again. There are a growing number of TV articles and a standardized format is badly needed. Would anyone object to me re-working the main project page, using Wikipedia:WikiProject Films as a model? Regards, Jeremy Butler 14:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

(From User talk:Clueless)


I think that we have several things to focus on now. First, we need to better define what sections should be included in an article on a television series. Next, we need to specify how these sections should be ordered. For example, I think that a list of characters should be placed at the end of the article while a list of episodes should have its own page. What do you think?

Of course, a larger problem is establishing some standards for formatting. Episodes, I think, should always be linked if they're mentioned in the body of the article, because this indicates that they're probably significant and it will encourage people to write articles about them.

On episode lists, however, I think that only episodes for which articles have been written should be linked because most of the episodes will never have an article. Moreover, not linking all episodes lets people know when a new article about an episode has been written because the author will link it from the episode list page. I've worked to implement such standardization [1] [2].

Of course, other would argue that "significant" episodes should bnbe linked. I think that, in the few cases where a large number of episode articles have been written, all episodes or a specific group of episodes should be linked. The problem with this is that it could seem non-neutral and that it introduces a double-standard. Again, what do you think?

Of course, I've probably written too much already. Perhaps we should just focus on one thing at a time. I've mentioned above how I think we should proceed. Is there a specific section on Wikipedia:WikiProject Television that you want to tackle first?

Acegikmo1 14:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)




First, the episode lists... yes, I think they should be on separate pages as well. To be clear... I think the character list should contain only the major characters and the rest should be placed on a separate cast & crew page (either internal or external, like to the IMDB). On the other hand, most episode lists would probably be too long to include on the main series page. I think putting it on a separate page would look better, but what do the others say about this issue?

Ok, so episode lists will be a separate page. Most people seem to agree, as about 85% of the shows I've encountered list the episodes on a separate page. The only exceptions are shows that have been cancelled quickly (Wonderfalls) and shows that haven't been on the air for very long (Stargate Atlantis). I think that such shows (say, one season or less broadcast) should have the list on the main page, while all other shows should have it on a different page.
I think that the major characters will be listed on the main page, but a full list of cast and crew should go on a separate page. I'm not sure whether such a full list will be necessary for every television show. It would probably be useful for long-running shows with lots of recurring characters (e.g. ER, The Simpsons), while a show with a handful of recurring characters like Star Trek: Enterprise doesn't really need it (yet?). I don't think it's useful to list every guest star who has appeared (execpt on individual article pages). I've said this on Talk:Stargate Atlantis.
Acegikmo1 01:17, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Anyone interested in a list of ... episodes project? Likely as a subproject of this one. Consider this page. You will notice there is no consistancy in article title, article layout, and article content.--Will2k 18:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Will2k, I originally tried to revive this project because I wanted to create a standard for list of ... episodes pages. Take a look at Clueless' user talk history. Sadly, User:Clueless seems to have left the project.
In any case, I'm very interested in working with you on this. You may notice that I lost a fight to get X-Files episodes to follow a standard page format like those of the Star Trek shows.
Of all the episode lists I've seen, I think List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes and List of Star Trek: DS9 episodes are the best. I'm interested in your thoughts, because I've always been very interested in creating a standard format; that's the main reason I joined this project.
I'm not sure we need a separate project for this, but I'm certainly interested in your thoughts for how to approach this. I look forward to working with you!
Acegikmo1 19:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I knew I couldn't be the first to propose the idea. I still believe a seperate page to help advertise the project and to distinctly display proper structure would be useful. I agree those Star Trek episodes are very well done. I think all lists should have:
  • season headers
  • name
  • original air date
  • episode number
  • synopsis
Other possible sections include:
  • screenshot of a defining part of the episode
  • trivia
  • quotes
  • categorical labels
If we can conglomerate that all either into tabulated format or as subheadings, that's what we'd be looking for. There's a lot of lists so it'll be a lot of work.--Will2k 19:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that we need season headers, episode titles, air dates, episode numbers, and synopses. I would also argue that for certain television shows, we include the "fictional date" (e.g. Stardate for Star Trek episodes or Leap Date for Quantum Leap episodes. The screenshot is a difficult issue. The VOY and DSN pages look pretty, but the TOS page looks so...clean. I'm up in the air about this. I think that trivia, quotes, categories, etc. should be left out for now. These would work better in an article on the episode itself, and if no such article has been written, I don't think it's worthwhile to include them. Should we look to making a separate page, perhaps wtih a "template" demonstrating what episode lists should look like? Acegikmo1 19:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Should we look to making a separate page, perhaps wtih a "template" demonstrating what episode lists should look like? That's what I'd like to see. At least start with that and see if we can gather some interest. I've never been involved in a wikiproject before so not sure how this all should be done.--Will2k 20:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Will2k,

I've created an Episode list style guide subpage to outline general rules for episode list articles. I was going to create a template at the bottom, but the pages I liked to seemed like good enough examples of the style in use. We can still create an abbreviated template showcasing all the possible combinations of the rules in practise. I was originally going to start up a new WikiProject, but looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject made me think that we should wait for some more interest before we do that. In any case, feel free to edit (or completely overhaul) the page I created and/or leave comments and suggestions on the talk page. I guess the real question now is "Will we be able to implement this style guide?". I look forward to hearing from you.

Acegikmo1 06:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Names and Links

Next, about whether to make the episode names links... I don't think it's that big of a deal. Wikipedia already provides readers with the ability to distinguish between written articles and empty ones when they're linked to (the current red vs blue link system). Using a plaintext vs hyperlink system would be a redundant method of accomplishing the same thing. However, from a completely personal point of view, I think that the plaintext vs hyperlink system is much easier to comprehend than the red vs blue system. Wikipedia, IMHO, should not have done the red vs blue thing to begin with because after years of web usage, it's easy to automatically assume that off-color links are simply ones that I've already visited. Wikipedia actually uses purple for that purpose, but it's hard to conciously keep that in mind when browsing. So I'd vote for the plaintext system, but I don't think it matters too much one way or the other.

I agree for plain text on the separate episode list page, but I think that if the episode is mentioned in the text, it is probably an important episode in the show's developement and we should link it to encourage people to write about it, as we did on The X-Files. Acegikmo1 01:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I do agree with you that episodes should not be linked to on a "significance" basis. Whether something is "significant" is a purely subjective thing and different viewers will think different things are significant -- for example, one viewer might find all the Mulder and Scully romances in The X-Files to be significant while another fan might find them a total waste of time and would prefer to focus on the Alien Conspiracy episodes instead. Both types of episodes contribute to the series, no doubt, but there is no objective way to measure their importance.

If somebody really believes an episode is significant for one reason or another, well, all they have to do is write an article about it and it'll naturally be linked to. That way, not only do we avoid the previous issue altogether, the writers can also tell readers why the episode should be considered significant.

Agreed. Episodes within an episode list should not be discriminatorily linked. Acegikmo1 01:47, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Marking episodes

If enough episode articles are written, it may then be necessary to provide readers with a way to find episodes of personal interest to them. Perhaps a very simple letter-based marking system next to each episode name, with an accompanying legend on top. Use this fake Star Trek: The Next Generation episode list as an example:

(Legend: Bo=Borg presence, Q=Encounters with the "Q", Ch=Major characters are introduced or taken away, Ho=Holodeck, Kl=Klingon, Ro=Romulan, etc.)

Second Contact (9x10) - Bo Kl

Alternate Realities (9x11) - Ho Ch

Reunion (9x12) (Does not follow any recurring themes so does not have any identifying codes)

Greater Powers (9x13)- Q Kl Bo Ro Ch Ho

However, I suspect that such a system will not be needed for a very long time. As you mentioned, most episodes will probably never be written about. This is just a potential solution to satisfy people who want a way of marking episodes as "significant".

Now this is an interesting proposal. I've noticed that episode lists also vary in how they're formatted. Compare List of Star Trek TNG episodes, List of Earth Final Conflict episodes, List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes, and List of episodes of The X-Files. Notice the differences in naming, table vs. list format, what information is included, etc.
I very much like the idea of adding a key with codes signify episodes that relate to a specific theme. For The X-Files, I imagine that this could be used to distinguish between "Monster of the Week" episodes and "Mytharc" episodes. The examples you provide above elaborate on this.
One thing that I've considered for a fairly long time is whether it would improve the article to mark episodes that are generally considered very high quality by fans of the series. For example, should we use data from a few offsite surveys [3] [4] to designate episodes that consistently rank in the top ten among surveys of fans of the series. I should note that some episode articles (e.g. "Spock's Brain", "The City on the Edge of Forever") make note of the fact that such episodes are considered very poor or very good by fans. Would extending this information to the list be introducing POV? I'm interested in your view.
Acegikmo1 02:04, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think we should use something similar to the ST: Enterprise's table format. It's the most easily understood and it allows for the greatest flexibility while maintaining the same general style. I suggest something like this:

Season One

# Title Original Airdate Rating1 (Optional) Codes (Optional) Additional Info2 (Optional)
1 The Last Chicken September 14th, 2008 9.55 Ch Bw
2 The Dead September 21st, 2008 4.55 Ki Guest starring Thomas McThomas

1 Can be either from Nielsen, a survey site, or any other quasi-authorative source. If it's not just the writer's personal opinion, but rather the collective thoughts of many fans, it shouldn't be a POV issue. However, I'm not sure if we will be allowed to use any of these sites' scores...?

2 There should be space for a few more columns (or one general "Notes" column) at the end of each row. This would allow article writers to add additional info should the need arise while still adhering to the standard template format.


--05:13, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

I like the table format as well. I also must admit that I find your false episode names rather amusing. In any case, we can specify table format as standard for cases in which the list includes more information that just the episode name, number, and date of broadcast. Otherwise, I think a list would be best. Is this ok with you?
As for using other sites' scores, I'm pretty sure that we can use them. For a work to be copyrighted, it has to include a creative element, and raw data (e.g. the average score a group of fans assign to an episode) has no creative element and is thus not copyrightable (Feist v. Rural). Well, as far as I can tell :-). Acegikmo1 05:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks :)

And about the lists vs tables... hmm, I'm not sure. Do you think it is a good idea to use both? It might seem a little inconsistent that way and, besides, the tables can represent everything that lists can (or vice versa, if you prefer lists). Isn't it our goal to make all the pages look as similar as possible? If so, we should probably stick to either lists OR tables... not both.

And about the scores... OK, great. I'm not too familiar with copyright laws myself so I'll take your word for it :)

--Clueless 11:40, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

That makes sense. Tables are easier to add to, so we can make them the standard. Acegikmo1 03:00, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Okay, now moving on.... the introduction section. I think we should use a layout similar to the Presidents template (see the George W. Bush page), meaning a chart with technical/basic information should appear on the right side, along with a picture. Then, a brief few sentences covering other things can be added to the main body text. I believe this would make quick comparisons between different TV series easier.

As to what actual information should be included, I think the list you made is good.

Thank you. What specifically do you think should be included in the table. I've noticed that sometimes tables tend to be redundant (e.g. with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, some of the information in the table is naturally going to be repeated in the body text). So I think we need to be careful that information that should logically be presented in the textual introduction is not repeated in the table. Tables, in my view, should be more for statistics than important quantitative information, but I'm not sure what your view on this is. Acegikmo1 03:13, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Next... the characters. What do you think about using a table-based format instead of a sentence-based one? Something like:

Character Name (May be a link) Actor Name (May be a link) Description
Captain Jean-Luc Picard Patrick Stewart One of Starfleet's most trusted captains, he has a keen sense of what to do, and thus has been known to ignore the Prime Directive.

As with the intro, I believe a chart would improve readability.


This is a section I'm not too sure about. The thing about television series, as opposed to movies, is that they're incredibly long and their plots are constantly evolving and expanding. Even "completed" series, like The X-Files, have huge amounts of information... basically, I believe it'd very difficult (if not impossible) to condense so much information into one single section of an article.

Also, as with the episodes, there's the problem of maintaing a NPOV... who is to say which plot elements are major and which are not?

What I'd like to suggest, instead, is having a very brief synopsis about the series's MAIN theme -- the kind of thing you might find in a TV Guide blurb. For The X-Files, it might be something like "A couple of FBI agents, working in a special unsolved-cases department of the Bureau, investigate paranormal phenomena (however you spell that). Along the way, they begin to unravel a cospiracy involving aliens and the government, yada yada yada."

Star Trek: The Next Generation's might be something like "The series details the travels of the U.S.S. Enterprise and its crew as they live life in the 24th or whatever century, explore new sectors of the galaxy, and encounter alien lifeforms along the way. There is war and peace, love and intrigue, etc."

And then, important plot elements (or "subplots") can be given their own page under the main article (like X-Files/conspiracy or Star-Trek/Borg) and they can be linked to from the main Plot section.

More straightforward series, perhaps things like "Friends" or "Sex and the City" might not need any subplot pages at all. This would probably also apply to nonfiction/documentary-style television series like the stuff on Discovery or TLC, e.g. Trading Spaces or Monster House.

What do you think?

Societal Impact

I think that's a great idea. Would help set Wikipedia further apart from sites like the IMDB.

Critical Reviews

Uh-huh, exactly. Something like the IMDB or Rottentomatoes blurbs should do just fine.

Production Notes

What exactly do you have in mind for this section? Also, sometimes this information might fit better under specific episodes rather than the series as a whole.


--Clueless 17:16, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

DVD Releases

Should DVD releases be listed? And, if so, in what format? --Jeremy Butler 13:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes,it should be released as well but I am not sure about which format it should be in. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Making a Rough Draft

Is there any place we can post a rough draft of the template for viewing and collaborative editing? I think working on the actual layout would be simpler than trying to describe it using lengthy paragraphs.

I don't want to mess up any of the existing TV series pages, so perhaps we can make a sub-page from this article or maybe use a part of the Sandbox?

--Clueless 05:13, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Is there a list of television shows filmed in front of a live studio audience?

I tried locating an article that contains a list of TV shows filmed in front of a live studio audience, but I couldn't find it. I've found several articles, such as the one on I Love Lucy, that mention that the show was filmed in front of a live studio audience, but I can't find any list. CryptoDerk 19:35, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)


Is is best to write about shows (cancelled shows specifically) in the past or present tense? For example, I'm refactoring the lead of Sex and the City and I can't decide between:

The series, set in New York City, focuses on the love lives of four female best friends who are reaching their forties. A sitcom with soap opera elements, the show often tackles socially relevant issues such as the status of women in society.


The series, set in New York City, focused on the love lives of four female best friends who are reaching their forties. A sitcom with soap opera elements, the show often tackled socially relevant issues such as the status of women in society.

I'm leaning towards the present tense, since that's the way I'd write about a book or movie.

– flamuraiTM 05:23, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

I also think that present tense is preferable. Articles on individual episodes of a television programme are written in the present tense, a practise creates an effective article. I think the practice can naturally be extended to articles describing the programme itself (just the collection of episodes after all).

Acegikmo1 07:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proper format for Wikipedia entry name of TV series?

I just came across a proposal to rename the entry for Battlestar Galactica at Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2003)#Title Rename. I assume that there is somewhere on Wikipedia, a definitive format guidance. Where does one find the answer? --Tony Hecht 17:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on television? I'm also contacting the daughter WikiProjects. Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 06:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The Adventures of Shirley Holmes

I'd like to see this article become featured, but unfortunately I lack the time nor the skills to write a stunning article. However, the linked fan site has a few bits of behind-the-scenes info and repeated guest star Leslie Wolos and main star Meredith Henderson may be available for questions through their personal websites. I would like to invite anyone with a passion for Canadian children's television to get this article in a top-notch state. If it ends up featured, I'll award the people who made major contributions to the article with a personal award. - Mgm|(talk) 21:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

List of missing TV shows

I have added a list of TV shows as part of the Missing encyclopedic articles wikiproject. The goal is to help organize creation of articles about TV shows between these two projects. If you can help by either pruning the list of existing articles or creating new articles it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 00:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that the introduction to this list refers to the non-existent category Category:Needs television infobox and suggests that articles lacking the television infobox be added to this category. Is this out-of-date advice? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Suggested the category because other similar projects, Albums and Songs have a similar category to help identify articles which have content but not an infobox. I thought that there would be at least one item in the category already, but this is a relatively quiet wikiproject. Thanks for asking! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps participants from this wikiproject would be interested to work on the TV IV wiki. Jacoplane 11:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To me it seems an exchange the other way around would be quite a bit more needed. I made a similar invitation on TV IV - The DJ 23:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

not quite

i have just joined so where can i start ?

--Madcowpoo 11:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just joined too. Let's wait a couple days for a reaction. Otherwise we could go fishing for new participants. Lvr 12:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just joined too but mainly on the episode lists front, there don't seem to be older members around Discordance 13:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Shows broadcasters

One thing that annoy me in TV shows articles are that the broadcasters section. If it is relevant to know the original broadcaster, all the national broadcasters are not really intersting. What I suggest (and already did for some shows), is to create a separated pages in order to list them. Eg: ER (TV series) broadcasters. Would that be a good pratice for all shows ? Lvr 12:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambigution - (TV series) or (television) or (???)

Which is the prefered disambiguation - (TV series) or (television)? I've seen both used or similar variants but (TV series) seems to be more popular. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

For series, let's use (TV Series). Lvr 10:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, but what constitutes a series? A sitcom, a drama, a miniseries, a cartoon? Are they all series? What about game shows or news programs. I'm not clear which is which.
Also does adding "series" make it an unnecessary disambiguation, shouldn't "TV" or television be sufficient unless there are two similarly name shows or shows that have coverage in two separate countries like Blind date (disambiguation) which has the UK and the US version. Or something like TV show name (sitcom) TV show name (game show). I would really like some help and other opinions on this. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have solicited other opinions at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Please add new comments there. I will update the project page to reflect community opinion. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

poll for naming conventions available. Voting starts on Jan 24

A draft poll for a new naming convention for television shows is now available for comment and questions. Voting begins on January 24 and continues for 3 weeks. Your input is appreciated. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting has begun at the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)/poll to determine the naming convention for television shows. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 05:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up discussion after poll

The poll has been completed for the naming conventions for television content , but several items remain unresolved. I would appreciate any comments others might have for the follow-up discussion - Thanks --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Video links to articles

Folks, Does this make sense?

I have been in the home video business for over twenty years and the historical footage business for nearly as long. I also wrote a book on the great television series, The Prisoner, starring Patrick McGoohan.

My family happens to own a video portal and British Pathe...On the video portal, there are CLEARED VIDEO clips for streaming. This includes The Honeymooners Lost Episodes, Lucy, Jack Paar, and literally dozens of quality stuff.

I started linking to external resources and was targeted for "Link Spamming" and self-promotion. I made it known that I was connected to, the video portal.

I agreed that I would no longer link videos. By the way, each video clip is preceded by a :15 commercial... I would be willing to compose a list of all video clips dealing with television shows and make these available to any Wiki editor or writer. I will no longer link appears to be a conflict of interest.

EVTV1 has cleared rights to Lucy, Hoineymooners Lost Episodes, Jack Paar, and dozens of television shows. The clips are between 1 and 2 min. in length.

The thing about the list is that there is no question regarding the rights... these have ALL been cleared (the ones I would make available. I will also post this message in "Resources". Please let me know if I should go through the work to do this. I am willing to do it if the community thinks it is worthwhile. Please post responses. or contact me at

Thank you, Jaffer 13:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see video clips linked from articles, however I do have to agree with comments on your talk page. The main issue is the 15 second video commercial, the rest of the advertising on the site is reasonable but i think a lot of users would find the video commercial objectionable which is point 4 of Wikipedia:External links#What should not be linked to. If you create a list some users may decide to use some of your clips, but if the 15 second ad wasnt there im sure some users would definately use clips Discordance 06:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Some editors will think the :15 commercial is too much, others will not. But it will be up to them, not me. Is the :15 excessively commercial? That is of course subjective. Jaffer 21:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
well the only way youll know is to go ahead and make the list and see if people use it Discordance 23:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox, with ratings...

I plunged and retrofitted the infobox with ratings. For more info, see here. |Pacific Coast Highway|Leave a message ($.25)

Perhaps you should just use text rather than those images? The box looks a bit cluttered with more than one image although theyre only small. Also youve only covered american ratings, if your going to add ratings to the box i'd like to see you add all the international rating systems listed on the Television rating system page. Discordance 04:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone in another country can get the images, I'll try to inplement them. |Pacific Coast Highway|Leave a message ($.25)
I've just gotten the Canadian ones. They'll be up in a moment. They'll conform to the same guidelines as well. |Pacific Coast Highway|Leave a message ($.25)
They're finished. I'm templating them now. |Pacific Coast Highway|Leave a message ($.25)
Everythings templated. A note:
  • Due to existing templates, for ratings "C" and "PG", use {{Canada-C}} and {{Canada-PG}} respectively.

Pacific Coast Highway|Leave a message ($.25)

Ok can you edit the example on the project page to show what it looks like with more than one countries rating? I'm also slightly concerned that the american images look at bit distorted. I would'nt know if they were or not so hopefully another american can check them. But I still think representing them as text eg. TV-14 would make the box less cluttered. If that all checks out though and everyone else thinks we should use images over text then great job. Discordance 17:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It was agreed that shows would be classified by "country of origin". I'm gonna assume that includes ratings as well, as it would be akward to put a TV-PG on a canadian show. If it comes to a point where it's two ratings, the one used the most gets in the box. It both are used extensively, then how about this TV-PG|TV-14 icon.svg, or some other symbol to seperate the two. Pacific Coast Highway|Leave a message ($.25)

Ok sounds good Discordance 18:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else find these boxes hard to read? In addition, they're discordant; everything else in the template is text. Making them images is distracting and gives undue attention to the rating. I think they should just be text with link to the rating article. Lefty 12:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who is against including these ratings? I understand the issue of country of origin, but there are many ratings systems around the world and including only a single version only complicates the matter. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be made clearly that the rating is the original rating on the original broadcast channel? I am happy with a rating being included but I feel they should probably be text. Discordance 13:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems the consensus here is to use text rather than images, and I definitely agree. The images:
  • Only really contain text anyway, so don't add anything to the article
  • Are copyrighted
  • Link to the image description page, as opposed to Television rating system.
PCH seems to have gone ahead with this implemenation despite consistent objections, and I am most confused by this comment: "A question, why did you remove the icon? It was agreed we'd use the icon here. Please contact me on my talk page. Pacific Coast Highway|Leave a message ($.25)". I propse we use text links such as: TV-14, preferrable not even as templates. ed g2stalk 13:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Date links

This is really irritating. The dates in the infoboxes that are linked to the date page. It makes absolutely no sense to link the date in the infobox the the date article if the date article has no relevant information about the series in question. The only reason that the date link should be added to the infobox is if the article on that date has any additional information about the series. Most series are not spectacular enough to even have a mention on the date article pages. LA

Date format

I have been formatting the date as...


This is so that the people who come from nations that don't do things backward will not get confused. LA

You just mentioned why the dates should be linked. 1981-07-17 lets people see the date in any format they want. see Wikipedia:Date. Lefty 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
And how are those two articles relevant to the current conversation? That is the point of the previous heading however. I was just hoping to open a dialog about the date convention that should be adopted by the Television project. LA
Ummm, the first is a demonstration; the second is about the date format in Wiki. This conversation doesn't belong here; it belongs there. I do partly agree with you -- it would be nice to tell Wikipedia that "this is a date" without creating links. Lefty 15:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason I put this here is so that we, the Television Project, don't do it. We could start a trend. :) LA
You might want to read WP:POINT.Lefty 01:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
That is why I am discussing it here before I go any further. I have created a lot of infoboxes lately for tv shows without linking to the date (which IMO is not necessary) without knowing about linking to date pages. If I am overruled on this, there are a lot of new infoboxes out there that need date links. All I would like to see is that all dates listed in this fashon...
Example date: 9 February 2006 or 10 February 2006.
No links to those dates in infoboxes UNLESS the date page has information pertaining to the show on it which is NOT in the show's article.
Lady Aleena 07:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

IMDb and links

Since these links are in the infoboxes, they should not be repeated again at the bottom of the article. (I added the link, BTW, hope you all like it.) Redundant links of any kind should be scrupulously avoided. LA

Lady Aleena 07:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Are there any standards for the image, or is it up to the authors of each article to decide what image they want to put in the infobox? Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about people changing the family guy picture? But no the general consensus with the infobox has been to leave it flexible. Its nice to see a picture with the logo or the main characters or preferably both but theres no given standard. Discordance 14:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well several pictures have been changed, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more. I want some confirmation from the project to see what's accepted before this gets out of hand. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont like how heynow reverted back to the logo under a blanket edit description of revert vandalism. A bit underhanded there. Someone has also vandalised the original image. Not cool. Looks like its getting out of hand already. As far as I know its up to editors of the individual pages at the moment and Heynow shouldnt be making such changes without gaining consensus here and on the individual pages first. Not sure if anyone in the project views things differently Discordance 14:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Business International

Business International needs some attention and categorization. I ran across this page when tracking down a user's contributions. If someone from here could take a look at it, that would be great. Thanks everyone! Semiconscioustalk 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

External links on Season articles

Should links to general fan sites be included on the Season articles (such as Smallville (Season 5))? These links are not specific to the season itself, and are already present on the main Smallville (TV series) article. I have been removing these when I see it to conform to other shows' season articles (like Episodes of Lost (Season 1)), but some editors have protested their removal so I thought I'd put it to the relevant wikiproject to see if there was a more official policy on this. --DDG 19:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is official policy but its at WP:EL there preferably shouldnt be more than ONE fan site listed only at the main article exceptions made only for fan sites full of factual information (This excludes Trivia!). If its a link to an informative section relevant to the season say a transcript thats fine but if its a general link delete them on sight. The external link sections on the main articles always need regular trimming too as they start creeping back in. Discordance 22:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok looking at the page their being claimed as references. They just need to be moved to the reference section and linked to the proper section on the site rather than the homepage. Discordance 22:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the season 5 page if your wondering what i mean. Discordance 22:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a few problems with this. Another user claimed in an edit summary that pictures were being used from As I understand it, Fair Use only covers the person who captures those images directly. By uploading pictures that have been captured by another person or site, we are violating copyright law. As it stands, I can't really see what information is necessarily sourced from kryptonsite that does not originally come from the broadcast show. User:Bignole had an example that I couldn't quite follow, but it sounded like plagiarism with a few words changed just to avoid a google test. However, he seems really passionate about keeping the link there, and I just don't have time to get into it this week. The "Lost" fanboys are a handful all by themselves... --DDG 01:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
In my experience, people who are very passionate about keeping fansites are usually somehow affiliated with them (be it the owner or a die hard fan). My suggestion is to keep with the external link policy. More specifically, if the site does not provide any exclusive, original material (not including fan made content) on a regular basis chances are it is not notable. It seems the best way to avoid these kinds of problems is not to allow any fansites. Jtrost (T | C | #) 01:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I explained the fair use issues regarding images on the smallville page, the images are all fine they just need their pages cleaning up. If any text has been taken from kryptonsite and altered very slightly that should be reported though. I've compromised on the season 5 page and linked the guide and the main page, hopefully it will stick, Bignole already seems to be leaving it alone hopefully the anon will too. Discordance 03:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, now there are TWO links to kryptonsite from the season 5 pagee, one for the episode guide and one for the main site. This seems to me like linkspam, they want the link in as many places as possible, and they even protested exclusively using a more direct link- on Bignole's talk page the site's creator thanks him for not having us bypass the ads. I don't see why we need ANY content from this page, and other than referencing it as a fansite on the main article, I don't think we should have any other links to it. However, any attempts I've made so far to ameliorate this have been met with hostile words on my talk page and I don't have the time or energy to get into it this week. Going forward though, if the WikiProject could set concrete rules and guidelines as to what the format of seasonal episode pages and set policies on the use of external links/material, it would make all of the other editors' jobs a lot easier. --DDG 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to do that but we need more members and more discussion on the main policy pages. Theres a few emerging policies on general format and naming but nothing specfic to links. The season pages do need references of some sort though and if thats what theyve been using thats what should be referenced. I dont like the compromise but it doesnt seem worth pushing at the moment Discordance 17:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

new portal

see Portal:Television AzaToth 16:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Restructure WikiProject Television

Currently this project mostly deals with Television series and as such is somewhat incorrectly named. I propose to move the series specific information to a WikiProject TV Series (see naming conventions) and use this project as a central point for the subprojects (channels, producers, series, episode lists, episodes, TV technology), conventions, and television in at large. In this it will become the backbone of the Portal:Television effort.

Also I propose to largely Archive what's on the current talk page, because a lot of information is starting to become outdated. The DJ 15:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, most of them should actually be merged into one Project, with apporpriate subpages I think. opions ? - The DJ 19:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that to split this project into many subproject is a good idea. I fear we may loose focus/involvment from wikipedians. A good introduction should be enough. We should try to finalize first the TV series stuff first, no ? The discussion could be archived. If you have the time to get out of the page intersting conclusion that could be added to project, it would be nice too. Lvr 13:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I became bold and did a lather large reordering of the main page. In my eyes the new order of the various sections will allow for a better guide to writing new articles. I hope everyone agrees, but if you have any grievance, better ideas etc. be equally bold or put them up for discussion here please - The DJ 22:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI

A television related category, Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI, was nominated for renaming. The debate ended with a consensus to delete the category. I raised the matter on Wikipedia:Deletion review as the category was never tagged for deletion. It would be good to get opinions from people actually interested in television shows. Tim! 13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A similar category of Simpsons voice actors was also deleted. Personally, I'm fine with their deletion. The lists in question are way too long. Lambertman 19:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)