Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


Poll Temporal issues

After the recent TfD'ing (again :D ) of some of the below templates, I would like to get some more input from users on the issues surrounding the categorization and template banners of some of the television articles with temporal issues. Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Current and future event templates for similar issues.
Current templates: {{Future tvshow}} and {{In-progress tvshow}}
Current categories: Category:Upcoming television shows, Category:Future TV series, Category:Running television shows
Types of Articles: Television show, List of episodes, individual episode

Problematic articles and content:

  • Running show/season/episode
  • Not yet aired episode/season
  • Not yet airing television show
  • American Idol like programs with a seasonal competition element for which no final result has yet been reached

The question becomes what kind of templates/categories should be used on what kinds of pages? In my eyes:

  1. TV shows not yet airing should be using {{Future tvshow}} + Category:Upcoming television shows. The episode part should be remove from the notice, and the template should not be used for individual seasons or episodes
  2. American Idol like programs/seasons should carry a template like {{current sport}} but then {{current television}}. perhaps based on {{In-progress tvshow}}, but less obtrusive? I'm unsure about a category name....
  3. Television shows that are currently airing, should be added to the category Category:Running television shows or Category:Current television shows, but don't have to use a template denouncing the show is still running and still being produced. The Infobox should make note of this (last_aired=present).
  4. Television season/episodes listings/articles that are currently in production, are verifiable, but have not yet aired are allowed if notable, but should make use of a small "section" template banner {{future television}} or something and category (Category:Upcoming television episodes) that mark the content future". Only episodic related sections should use it. It's mutual exclusive with the {{current television}} banner. (there is overlap there. do we want this type of distinction?)
  5. In case {{Future tvshow}} keeps it's current wording, Category:Upcoming television shows should be renamed to Category:Upcoming television

The list is numbered for a reason. Please comment.

Discussion on Temperal suggestion 1

  • I disagree with the episode part of this. Template forking is bad. The rest is already in use. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I wanted to make this distinction because of the potential higher risk that future content of seasons and episodes is inaccurate, compared to tv shows that are gonna be on TV. That same risk makes this specific content a higher risk for possible deletion within wikipedia, and categorizing it separately, with a less layout obtrusive banner then the "top banner" for tv shows, would be useful for maintenance and be less annoying to users. See also Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes with more on how episode content is much more sensitive due to notability then tv show. - The DJ 09:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You're still template forking. One template can be used for more than one situation. Most of these episode pages are properly marked so the risk of their deletion is relatively low. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Temperal suggestion 2

  • I don't see any need for specifically pointing out that a show is still running. It's basically a given in most cases. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Temperal suggestion 3

  • Same as 2. No point in making a tempate to state the obvious. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You didn't read this point. i specifically say they should NOT use a template, but should only be categorized. Seems like a useful maintenance system for ongoing shows. We could even do it automatically if "last_date" of the Infobox == "present" perhaps? I'm not sure if template magic allows that. - The DJ 09:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I guess we could use {{Switch}} for that {{switch | {{{last_aired}}} | case: present=present [[Category:Running television shows]] | default={{{last_aired}}} }}
  • Even without a template, you're just adding another category that is basically stating the obvious. There's no real reason to do so. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Following that reasoning all the Genre and Year Categories could be removed from wikipedia as well. - The DJ 22:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Not everything uses a year category and genre is a more specific category set. Running applies to potentially thousands of shows with no real relation other than the fact they happen to be currently running. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • A relation is a relation in my eyes. I think there are thousands of less useful categories. But we are clearly not gonna agree :D - The DJ 10:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Temperal suggestion 4

  • Again, unnecessary template forking. Generalizing is better in this case. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Temperal suggestion 5

Another idea

We could also rename future tvshow to future television and give it a paramater type=[show|episode|season], then word the banner and layout of the banner (small vs. large for pages vs. sections) and categorize the articles appropriately. Of course this will have to use {{Switch}} logic and as such be more intensive when calling the page. It's just a thought. - The DJ 14:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Since there was no consensus, does this mean that the "in-progress" template is free to use, or we should shy away from it and let it orphan itself back to tfd? Pacific Coast Highway blahhow to beat gas prices 21:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In my eyes we should take the best ideas from the TfD proces and redesing the temporal templates appropriatly. Personally i prefer a category for current TV shows instead of a template with a banner (see above), but if we keep a banner then it should be less obtrusive in my eyes. And perhaps the normal {{current}} template is just fine for the cases where active editing is to be anticipated. - The DJ 22:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Just because there was no consense doesn't mean we should go nuts and throw it everywhere. What this template suggests is usually not applicable to most televisio shows. Once a week hardly makes for rapidly changing details. Use of this should be limited to main articles, not sub lists of episodes. Also, this template should definitely not be included in any character article. I've removed it from a bunch already. Using it on those causes those characters to be added to the category. They certainly aren't TV shows. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 09:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I think a category could do the job just fine of saying the show is in progress. The template should probably just be used for reality shows and the like. Pacific Coast Highway blahhow to beat gas prices 14:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


I went Bold and executed #5. Still leaves us with current/in-progress, but i didn't see enough support there for picking a direction. - The DJ 19:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

TODO list

Star Trek

I noted that someone placed the project tag on the main franchise article for Star Trek. I removed it from there only because that article is an overall examination of not only the TV series, but the films as well. Better, instead, to just have the tag on the individual series articles IMO. Some had them, some didn't, so I made sure all the Trek series have been tagged (along with the untelecast Phase II, for good measure). 23skidoo 13:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Related to the above, however, I'm a little confused as to handle Battlestar Galactica (2003) and Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) which appear to be, at first glance, duplicate articles. However the (2003) article appears to fill the same sort of "franchise overview" role as the main Star Trek article does. Should these overview articles be included as well? 23skidoo 18:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


I strongly believe that the article of Mystery Science Theater 3000 can really do with some improving and definately believe a WikiProject thereon would be appropriate for its being a cult classic with a cult following.. Basically, there's a link to a Portal but leads not thereto.. There's also been discussion that there should be an actual listing of episodes on the List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes that's really just a list of the B-movies aired on the show. Any help would be appreciated. DrWho42 06:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

{{TVep}} and other

Just alerting you to the existence of the {{TVep}} template, which is designed to formalise the introduction sentence to a TV episode article (so they're all similar/same format/no funny business). its already in massive use on every Stargate page, and i suggest putting it into full use in general (the point is the standardisation and ease of use/removal of tedium).

Also, WikiProject Stargate/Episode style sheet has a well-tested and well used style sheet for episodes, along with a naming and citing convention I think works well enough to go into a wider use.-- Alfakim --  talk  22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think that might be a good idea. I'll try fixing up the single episode WP page, to reflect this. It's good to see that we are finally getting somewhere on this entire issue of TV articles. - The DJ 12:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Whats everyone's opinion on spoilers? I'm starting to get more and more annoyed by {{spoiler}}, especially on Episode pages. I mean if you are giving a description of a single episode you are almost guaranteed to include spoilers, what does anyone expect when reading such a page. I think we should avoid them on episode pages and only include them in TV series mainpages in the sections that describe seasons for instance. - The DJ 12:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. However, one might be only interested in guest stars or airing date or something like this. I think this was already discussed on the Stargate project some time ago. I would prefer keeping the templates for now. --Tone 16:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. Maybe we can come up with something less intrusive? Sven Erixon 12:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention

I would like to propose a a standard for naming episode articles. While checking categories, I found out that there is quite a mess regarding this topic. There are articles that are named either Episode name or Episode name (episode) or Episode name (Show) or Episode name (Show episode). I decided to clean things a little, I renamed Futurama, Rome, Sliders and My name is Earl episode articles to the Episode name (Show episode) variant, that is the most commonly used (see Startrek or Buffy). I took this action because the namings were really messy.

There are two major types of naming, Stargate episodes use Episode name (Show) convention. If different naming conventions are used, it results in a mess so I suggest we rename all these articles following a single convention. Episode name (Show episode) is the one that is used more often. --Tone 21:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You apparently forgot to read the mainpage because it says this: "Articlename: When creating a new article, bear in mind the Naming conventions concerning television articles." The WP:TV-NC consequently says: "Where an article is created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses if there are other articles by the same name, e.g. Bart the Genius, but The Sting (Futurama). For Star Trek episodes, always add the series name." These are rules which were franktically discussed for over a year before coming to a concensus. - The DJ 09:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I did read the section you mentioned before posting the proposal. It clearly shows where I think the problem is. Different shows use different naming conventions. For example, why having the series name added for Star Trek episodes and not for the Simpsons? It is messy. I would appreciate if you could give me a link to discussions that were going on before, I wasn't around then. My proposal is simply to bring more order to the articles. --Tone 09:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Now I went through past discussions but they were mostly about whether it was appropriate to have episode articles at all. But I found out that I was not the first one who came up with the idea. Still, I couldn't find the page where the consensus about the current convention was reached. --Tone 10:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It came out of discussions about disambiguation in general (i'm not exactly sure anymore on which Talk page). There are policies about this in Wikipedia which say disambiguation-naming should only be used when required to distinguish something from an identically named other article. The problem is just that ST and Stargate WikiProjects have used the "(show episode)" convention for ages. it would take an enormous amount of editing to fix it everywhere. And beyond that disambiguation policy is different, there is no real reason to do so. Also the naming used by ST and Stargate is used to do some quick linking tricks with some of their special templates. Most other shows don't have such templates. Besides most shows shouldn't write Episode articles at all. In my eyes only the shows which currently have their own Portal (ST, Stargate, Simpsons, South Park, Lost) have been notable enough to warrent such articles. But that is my opinion. It's difficult to get all this sorted out with the large number of fandom edits in the TV pages. - The DJ 14:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A lot of Stargate templates rely entirely on the fact that SG episodes end with (show name) and not (show episode). (e.g. {{sgcite}}). To be honest, I think all episode articles should follow their own convention as long as they keep it standard. The diea of only paranthesising if there's a name clash is silly.. an article called "The Brotherhood" is not about some brotherhood. it's about an episode of Stargate Atlantis. anyway. here's a simple idea:

if the show name is abbreviated in any way (e.g. "Buffy", "TOS", etc) then use "Ep name (TOS episode)". If the show name is not abbreviated (e.g. "Stargate SG-1") then just use "Ep name (Stargate SG-1)". This actually follows the status quo quite well.-- Alfakim --  talk  14:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that the episode articles for just some random show are not to be placed here. And I understand the disambig policy. To fix it all in reverse would take time. Still, I guess it would be possible to use a (semi automated) bot to do the job. I just thought it would be good to act now before there are thousands of episode articles and the thing gets out of control. I would like to hear some more comments, if it is worthy to pursue this debate. Otherwise, when working on episodes, I mostly edit Stargate stuff and there everything is perfectly in order :-) --Tone 19:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Network show cats

I noticed an increasing number of "NBC network show" etc. being added to articles. I don't really see how this adds in categorizing a TV show. In my eyes this information should rather be mentioned in a "List of NBC network shows". What do others think of this? - The DJ 18:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


I have opened a discussion regarding the tv related stubs which truly are becoming quite a mess. I would love it if people would assist in defining the set of stub templates and categories before we start cleaning this out. - The DJ 09:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject The Simpsons

Hi, just a note, if you are interested, you could list WikiProject The Simpsons under the Descendant Wikiprojects... - Adolphus79 23:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

tvtome templates

{{tvtome show}} {{tvtome person}} Perhaps it's time they are renamed ??? Problem is that i can't think of a good name... - TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 13:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Lists of quotes.

I was curious to know what people thought of having lists of quotes in articles. It seems obvious to me that its redundant with sister project Wikiquote, and violates the "indiscrimante information" provision of WP:NOT. Thoughts?--Sean Black 08:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree... a couple of the more famous or important quotes per episode page or character page, but the rest are on a matching page on WikiQuote... - Adolphus79 08:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well it depends. For instance, Seinfeld has the "superman references". Those are just fine in my eyes. Also quotes that help tell the plot are no problem. However the random "lists of quotes" that many articles have (as for most trivia), is a problem because of WP:NOT. There is actually a proposol being worked on that deals with this as well Wikipedia:Avoid trivia in articles. - TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 09:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Seinfeld quotes are organised and serve a purpose, in addition to (hopefully) being accompanied by commentary and analysis. However, my real concern is with the articles in Category:Simpsons episodes and Category:Futurama episodes, which all contain generic "quotes" sections; I removed these from every article in the latter category and was mass reverted, my edits being referred to as "vandalism". As such I decided not to bother with the issue any further, but hopefully they will be removed by others at some point. Thanks.--Sean Black 20:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If the quote is used and discussed then there would not really be a problem with it, but a plain list of quotes is better at wikiquote. Tim! 21:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Note that simply removing things that should be in wikiquote is probably not appreciated :D. If you would actually MOVE them, i don't think there will be many problems. Definetly not by any of the more experienced editors. - TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 21:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But is Wikiquote an appropriate place to put television, or even movie, quotes? Here is where I disagree, a rarity indeed, with Wiki's policy. Television/movie quotes are often a very important aspect of the show. Quotes are sometimes even the definition of the show, and usually are culturally important to us all. It is through quotes that we identify with the characters and we tend to repeat our favored ones for years. Many times it's not just the show that makes it good, but the things which are said. While I can completely understand Wiki's stand on encyclopedic information, I still say there needs to be a place for things like this. In fact I was thinking last night about this very subject, and it occurred to me that perhaps there should be an almanac by Wiki, or something along those lines, where we can add lists of items such as these. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem lies in the fact that adding quotes is essentially original research- while the quotes are real and verifiable, I see an issue in deciding which quotes should be mentioned in articles, especially considering users' views of importance or humour will vary greatly. Unless the quote is monumentally famous or defining, I don't think it should be mentioned- however, I wouldn't mind seeing quotes if they were important to the character, such as the first time a character utters a catch phrase. Other examples of quotes that could be included are ones that show Easter Eggs or references from the writers, like the last line in Futurama where Leela asks Fry to keep playing because she doesn't want it to end (referncing the writers wanting to keep the show going).--Wafulz 17:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You are right that selecting quotes violates NPOV. Wikiquote has lots of quotations from movies and television; it's organized just as Wikipedia is. Make a Wikiquote page and link to it. --Chris Griswold () 19:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for this. My post, I know, kind of rambled but basically this was what I was wondering. So I need to move the quotes to Wikiquote and organize them there in the same way that Wikipedia organizes the information. Perfect! I'll take a look at organization over there now. Again, thank you. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 23:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Glad I could help. --Chris Griswold () 23:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorperate into the project

(television series) vs. (TV series)

Both of these are used to disambiguate between TV shows and other things. Could we maybe get a vote on one or the other to standardize ? That is, if it hasn't already been done—I just came by this WikiProject for the first time today.  OZLAWYER  talk  19:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There already is :D The Television naming conventions explain what is preferred. You may change non-compliant pages when you run into them. - TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thx.  OZLAWYER  talk  23:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of control plot "summaries"

I note that the Wikiproject says that plot sections should be "relatively brief", although this may refer to summaries of the plot of an entire television series. I've noticed a lot of TV shows that get full articles for each episode end up with long, long, long blow-by-blow accounts of practically every scene, often without much wikification (and even if you did, there might not be that much point, because of repeated uses of the same items such as character names). I guess we can call this the Television-Without-Pity approach. Does anyone want to work on making a stricter guideline that we can point to so that these sorts of things can be trimmed to a reasonable length? In almost no case, for example, do I think that more than 8 paragraphs is encyclopedic; at that point it's fancruft. In terms of being encyclopedic summary for someone who hasn't seen the show, it's lots to wade through. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) will be dealing with this. Note that it is very difficult to fight the fancruft. They usually have very committed users, so we will be taking this slowly. Also note that you should never simply remove this, artciles should be rewritten instead. - TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 11:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that overly descriptive plot descriptions incfringe upon fair use. --Chris Griswold 15:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Need "List of notable TV shows" article

Of course, not just any popular show would be in it. Basically, I would like to see an article for things such as:

  • Television firsts (first TV show ever, first of a genre, first to do something, etc.)
  • Records (longest running, most episodes, highest rated, etc.)

I don't think it should be too hard to do, and as long as all of that shows listed are based on statistics and not opinion, it should keep a good NPOV. There may already be something like this, but I was unable to find it.--SeizureDog 07:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

List of notable television programs -- Zanimum 13:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your daughter has a gift for you, List of TV eps

Daughter project, WikiProject List of Television Episodes, has come up with a template method for constructing lists of episodes for many articles. See Template talk:Episode list, as well as the Japanese version at Template talk:Japanese episode list for examples and more details (and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Japanese episode list for more examples). Requesting feedback, ideas, comments, praise, food, and so on. Let us know what everyone thinks, ether on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject List of Television Episodes or on the talk pages of the templates. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will also help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please keep updating your Arts WikiProject article table for articles of high quality (thanks for entries added so far). If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Thanks! Walkerma 04:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Really important articles:

Television series
Television commercial
Television movie
Television special
Television channel
Television network
Television system
Terrestrial television
Cable television
Satellite television
Digital television
Commercial broadcasting
Public broadcasting

Fairly important articles:

Animated television series
Dramatic television series
Game show
News program
Reality television
Situation comedy
Soap operas
Talk show
Television comedy
Variety show
Live television
Videocassette recorder

Important articles:

ARD (broadcaster)
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
British Broadcasting Corporation
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
China Central Television
Deutsche Welle
Disney Channel
Rede Globo
Television New Zealand
Blue Peter
Coronation Street
The Flintstones
Guiding Light
I Love Lucy
Idol series
The Simpsons
Star Trek
The Tonight Show
Regis Philbin
Jerry Seinfeld
Aaron Spelling
Thanks a lot, that's extremely helpful! Since this is so extensive, I've created a separate television worklist. Please feel free to add in any assessments, and I'll make sure any A-Class are reviewed for Version 0.5. Thanks, Walkerma 05:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots as fair use

In order to resolve the long standing debate over fair use of screenshots on List of Lost episodes, I am now trying to resolve the issue under the belief that the issue is an opinionated matter and not a matter of policy. Talk:List of Lost episodes#Fair use criteria number 8. I ask that people share their comments, but please try to keep the conversation in this section focused.

One thing that works against us is that the conversation tries to defend too many points at once. Try not to respond to comments about other aspects of the debate, and just take this one step at a time. Basically, respond if you think this is an opinionated matter regarding policy point 8 of WP:FUC or not.

I believe if we can break through on the issue of point 8, the rest will fall into place. -- Ned Scott 07:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Justice League episodes

At List of Justice League episodes,we have an editor who wants to split all of the episodes off at once into their own articles. Unfortunately for him, the majority of editors has asked him not to create so many stubs at once, saying that the current page should be expanded before we go to individual episodes. Despite several Wikipedia bans over the last month, this editor refuses to listen, is uncivil toward the editors who do not agree with him, and continuously splits of articles and reverts the current one dispute consensus being against it. He is now seeking support at a number of other TV articles. This has gone on far too long. I have asked as a compromise that he add the information he wants to add to the current article so that it will expand enough to split off. I would appreciate it if editors from here came and provided some guidance one way or the other because I have never seen one editor rage against a number of other editors and revert their edits for so long.--Chris Griswold 06:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Categorisation work

Hi. I've done some refactoring work on your Project's categories and templates today (along with several other WikiProjects). I'm confident you'll find that the new organisation a big improvement. For more information and a rationale please see what I've written at Wikipedia:WikiProject/Best_practices#Categorisation or drop me a line on my talk page.

If you're not yet assessing articles for Wikipedia 1.0 and using Mathbot, you might also find Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index of subjects and it's talk page very useful. --kingboyk 17:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Shows where a main character dies in the first episode

I wasn't sure where else to put this. I think this would make an intersting category. I only know of Six Feet Under and Whistler, but I assume there must be others.--Attitude2000 19:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, there's also Dead Like Me. It would be tricky to define, though. Is Jesse from Buffy a main character? He's set up to seem like one, and whoops! he's dead. And what about characters who are only quasi-dead, as in Now and Again? Interesting idea. Karen 20:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
According to Joss Whedon's DVD commentary for the first episode, he wanted to add Jesse to the first episode's credit sequence, but it was too costly. (The actor also appears in the unaired pilot with FrumpWillow™)--Chris Griswold 22:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I can see this getting CfDd so fast it would make your head spin. I spend enough time over there to know what gets people's attention, and this would be one which would get some attention from deletionists. Start a list here, and if it gets long enough, make a list article out of it. I don't see that many characters or series in this category.
    Lady Aleena talk/contribs 21:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I second the list article idea. Great idea. --Chris Griswold 22:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
After reading the following objections, I feel I should clarify that this will only work if heavily cited, and it must have a point and show significance rather than simply being a list. The list part should stand as a list of examples that emphasize the point of the article. --Chris Griswold 12:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Terrible idea. It's OR-cruft, basically. --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Trivial and crufty, bad idea. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • To elaborate, all of these ideas hadn't crossed my mind. I simply meant a show has like these set characters in place, and then all of a sudden, one of them has a car accident or is shot or something. Yet they "live on" because people imagine how he or she would advise them on situations in their lives.--Attitude2000 18:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Running time

What's the standard? With or without adverts? I see both and it's rather confusing. Kinda need to figure out the poilicy on that. --SeizureDog 23:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think an infobox guideline says without commercials, but this seems impractical for some cases. If you can sit there with a DVD or edited video tape and watch the readout, you can derive the running time of one episode, but even that's not a guarantee that other episodes will conform to that. If there is no commercial release, there may not even be that much to go on, only syndicated airings with extra commercials, or nothing at all except the length of the time slot the show aired in back in the 1950s or whenever. I've personally done it both ways for this very reason - and I haven't been at this for long! Karen 00:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Time with commercials is substantiated by many sources. Time excluding commericals is likely derived through original research. —Twigboy 17:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler debate

Thought you guys might be interested in weighing in on this debate-- someone is requesting the removal of spoiler tags. -plange 22:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, beat me too it ;) Well, so it doesn't go to waste, here's also my little summary I wrote up for it:
There is a dispute on whether or not spoiler tags are appropriate for Wikipedia. Some editors wish to remove spoiler tags while other editors wish to keep them and/or update their guidelines and appearance. A request for comment has been started at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC with a structured discussion page on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. All editors are invited to share their input on any or all of the issues being discussed. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request?

Can I ask your indulgence on reviewing this article about a TV show and let us know how we can improve? We're hoping to get it to a stage for FA nomination. Thanks! -plange 04:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Preference for actor template?

I notice there are several infoboxes available to use when doing an article on a television actor. Which do you, as a Project, prefer we use? I'd like to stay consistent. {{Infobox actor television}} or {{Infobox actor}}? -plange 04:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, looking at both, I see that one is extremely detailed, with a lot of stuff that's unlikely to be used. The other is not. I did an informal survey of a bunch of actors, and didn't find any examples that are definitely the "television" one. Karen | Talk | contribs 02:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll just use the infobox actor one since it looks more professional. I added homepage as a parameter... -plange 16:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Fawlty Towers

Template:Infobox Fawlty Towers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. The JPStalk to me 16:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Dawson's Creek

Dawson's Creek is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 02:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Coronation Street

Coronation Street is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

British TV shows project

I've found a few articles where instead of the Wikiproject Television tag, there's one for the British TV Shows Wikiproject. Pardon me if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but is this related to this project or is it a separate (and potentially competing) project? One place that has both tags (because I just added one) is Talk:Sahara (TV serial). 23skidoo 22:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever draws interested editors to the article, or outwards into the projects! I don't think there was any formal structure discussed, but I'm pretty certain the ideas are the same. No competition! We're all playing for the same team :) The JPStalk to me 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Television marathon stub

Simply bringing in the attention of a certain stub that should definately do with improving since it seems an integral theme or special event for alot of television channels. Personally, I linked it to S.C.I.F.I. World myself since that was the beginning for regular marathons but I should imagine there'd be other programming blocks or &c like it. DrWho42 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Need opinions

TrackerTV has created a barnstar proposal relating to Broadcasting. I would really appreciate it if interested people could give an opinion here.--Ed 20:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:This barnstar may be used in assoiation with your Wikiproject.--Ed 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Justice League episodes

People are taking consensus against the conventions in this page. Votes are needed to keep the work up in that page. These people (I think most of them don't even get any work done on the article, just criticize) don't want neither expand the synopsis on the episode list nor create articles per episode and it happens in most cases. --T-man, the wise 06:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What are the differences among...

...Category:Filipino television series, Category:Philippine television, Category:Television shows in the Philippines? Are they supposed to be classified that way or should some of the categories be deleted? Thanks. --Howard the Duck 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tag usage

I know you guys have already been informed of the spoiler tag RfC, noted above on this talk page, but I thought I'd give you guys an update.

I thought I'd let editors here know that revisions are being proposed and discussed for WP:SPOILER and its templates at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/guidelines. This is a result of the (still open) RfC going on at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC. Any input and collaboration between fictional guidelines and WikiProjects is welcome and encouraged.

In addition, it was proposed on the RfC talk page that it might be a good idea to have some WikiProjects discuss this issue themselves and also present a "group answer". It might be a good way to get a fresh take on the issue and avoid groupthink. Basically, start a discussion on how your project uses spoiler tags and notices, and what you think could be improved about the process and the WP:SPOILER guidelines. Individuals are still free to comment with their own personal ideas and comments as well. -- Ned Scott 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Anyone here willing to be a liason with WP Biography? We've reorganized and are re-energized and we'd like to collaborate more with related Projects. Thought it might be good to have some one from here a member with us too so that we can collaborate on actor biographies... Also wanted to invite you guys over to where we are currently voting on implementation of task forces, one of which is Arts and Entertainment. If you'd like to see it get its own task force, vote now :-) plange 02:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wire peer review

Wikiproject television article The Wire is up for peer review here. Any feedback would be welcome. --Opark 77 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

VERY stupid and moderately irrelevant question

I guess this is more suitable for WP:RD, but I guess there is little chance somebody knowledgeable in the topic would see it there. I am desperately trying to trace a TV series I watched quite a few episodes of and completely forgot the title, not to mention the names of actors in leading roles. The plot outline was that a man called "Jared" somehow escaped from a secret facility where gifted children were kept and used for some shady purposes by a covert organization, and then he eluded the agents of this covert organization by assuming different identities, like being a doctor or airplane pilot (which he managed to do thanks to his abilities), invariably, however, referring to himself as "Jared". Or perhaps I got the name mixed up for some reason.

Thanks to any merciful soul who would help me finally get rid of this obsession. Bravada, talk - 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Pretender (TV series). NBC, 1996-2000. --Dhartung | Talk 17:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! A fellow member actually already answered this all-important question on my user page! Thanks for your attention and happy editing :D Bravada, talk - 18:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

House M.D.

Will anyone work with me on making this meet featured article criteria - I'd appreciate the help! --TheM62Manchester 18:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I can help. Give me a shout on my Talk page. St jb 18:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Past or present tense on old TV-series?

I see that most TV-series no longer being produced are refered to in the past tense, which to me reads as no longer existing. And also in the example on this project page it's doing that: "M*A*S*H was an American television series". I'm wondering about this. Doesn't a TV-series still exist even if it's no longer being produced? We never refer to books, music, movies or plays in passed tense, ("Romeo and Juliet is a play by William Shakespeare.", "Yesterday is a song by the Beatles." and "The Impossible Voyage is a 1904 film".) Any reason for this difference? I was just watching a rerun of some old TV-series, looked it up on Wikipedia, and thought that the "was" word looked strange. But I'm not a native English speaker, so maybe I'm missing something here. Shanes 02:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fiction should be written about in the present tense. A series still exists even if it is not in production or on the air. So you're actually right. I brought this idea to the comics wikiproject a few months back; editors were reluctant at first, but once I found the Wikipedia guidelines, they became regular practice with us. --Chris Griswold 02:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Makes sense to me, and I changed the tense in the example on this project page to reflect this. Btw, where's the guideline you found that states this? I just skimmed WP:WAF (again) but can't see it mentioned there. Shanes 03:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Look here and here. I keep them on my talk page. --Chris Griswold 04:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Anyone here interested in biography articles on tv actors and directors? If so, we've set up a rudimentary work group at WikiProject Biography for actors and directors. Let us know how we can help improve! Come join us :-) plange 03:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Saturday morning schedules

As I asked here, why are there separate articles for primetime and Saturday mornings for the U.S. network listings? Shouldn't they be merged? —EncMstr 09:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

NUMB3RS vs. Numb3rs

There's been a debate/small edit conflict over whether NUMB3RS should be renamed Numb3rs, i.e. the lower case version. The arguments for the rename are that most other TV shows have lower-case names, and that other sites (i.e., use the lower-case version. The arguments against are that the TV show, DVDs and official site all use the capitalized version. Usage on the web in general seems to be split roughly 50/50. If anyone else has comments / supporting evidence either way on this, please drop by the talk page and join in the debate. Thanks. Mike Peel 09:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This should be a project guideline because as the talk page points out, there are a number of series in the same situation. --Chris Griswold 09:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
A reason that was given for why NUMB3RS should be a special case, seperate from the other examples, is that it has a number in its' title - i.e. it's a form of L33T. A guideline probably is in order for the general case, though. Mike Peel 10:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the official "spelling" be used? Meaning however it appears in it's own title screen/DVD's/other promo items should take precedence shouldn't it? -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, my thought is that the title screen is a stylized logo only. The name is not Numb-three-ers (or, in the case of all caps, En-you-em-be-three-are-ess). I realize my stance is weakening (Se7en), but the 3 is clearly an E, so Numbers (TV show) should suffice. If the title card is the arbiter for text instances of a title, why not make these changes: DIFF'RENT STROKES, the pRice is Right, $ALE of the CENTURY, or PunKY BRewsTER (or however that one read, I can't remember)? I might let the l33t text slide, begrudgingly, but not the all caps, unless you pronounce each letter in the title or it's some kind of acronym. —Twigboy 15:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This rather reminds me of the LEXX vs Lexx discussion.. DrWho42 15:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Or "?" as an episode title, versus "Question Mark" as in Lost; the actual title is "?" if anyone wonders. As for the original question, I would go with whatever the official title is outside of a logo. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 23:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Which reminds me: is So Weird really so weird, or is that just a logo? The article is currently inconsistent on that point. Karen | Talk | contribs 23:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well the article does say that the title is actually so weird and they are even using the correct tag, {{lowercase}}, which points out the problem. However, you're absolutely right in that the article itself is inconsistent in the usage of the title, which is a common problem indeed. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 00:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


The barnstar for your Wikiproject and all of your descendant wikiprojects has been approved. Please "spread the word" as needed.----Edtalk c E 19:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


{{Infobox Television episode}}

There is a bit of an edit war going on at {{Infobox Television episode}}. MF and ed seem to be the only two discussing it, with a couplf of messages on MF's tak page about skins. Does anyone have any thoughts about it? I'm not knowledgeable enough about templates, but I know that third parties need to get involved to stop it esculating. The JPStalk to me 09:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be great to get some more opinions, please. There is a difficulty over gaining a consensus. The JPStalk to me 18:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I voted. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 23:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Err.. since when was it a vote? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Survey... vote... concensus... I don't see much difference in any of these terms relating to the subject at hand. The whole problem here is that one person is trying to implement a change, and others disagree. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 00:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide related articles

...are in dire need of cleanup I can't do that, however, beacuse I don 't know much about the show. Would ther be a user willing to do so? Thanks, «ct» (t|e) 20:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for cleanup and offered some suggestions on the talk page. I'm meeting a little resistance from editors who are removing the tags I've added. I'm also unfamiliar with the show so I'll leave the cleanup itself to someone else!--Opark 77 01:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wire (TV series)

The Wire (TV series) is now a featured article. Thanks for the guidelines which helped the contributors to structure the article. I've awarded two major contributors the new project barnstar for their hard work.--Opark 77 16:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

S.C.I.F.I. World and Referencing...

Early this morning, I went through and created the list of shows that aired on Sci Fi's programming block of S.C.I.F.I. World... Though, I was wondering on whether inserting references would help out (i.e. when did either The Bionic Woman or Brimstone first air on Superhero and Inhumanland?) but the problem is that with my primary reference: Sci-Fi Channel schedule listings being divided up into months... Would it be wrong for the references to be title: 2000 Wed Jul 26 10:00 am Star Trek - Plato's Stepchildren and the like? DrWho42 20:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention for disambuigation of character articles

Shouldn't there be a naming convention for disambuigation of characters articles?

For the characters from The Sopranos and The Wire I followed standard disambiguation conventions. i.e. if there is no other article with the same name I used the name alone (Omar Little). When there was a conflict and need for disambiguation the name was appended with the show title alone (e.g. Jay Landsman (The Wire)). I can see that this would not be sufficient for a show like Rome where many of the characters are real people from Rome! However it would work well for the 24 characters. I think a guideline for the wikiproject is an excellent idea. This is probably the best place to disuss it and come up with one.--Opark 77 09:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The character articles, when necessary, should be marked "(television)" because they are of that medium. This is how we disambiguate in the comics project. Characters are marked "(comics)", and comic books and strips are marked "(comic book)" and "(comic strip)". --Chris Griswold () 10:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What about cases where there is more than one character with the same name in different shows? Julius Caesar and Richard III are two examples I can think of that have appeared in more than one television show.--Opark 77 10:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there is a need to display the associated show/work in the article name itself simply for that reason alone. Articles themselves and that which link to it need to make clear the acceptation, it shouldn't be left up to the document title. Not to say that I'm against such naming, I just don't see it as necessary. -- Ned Scott 10:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, my comment is to articles where there is no disambig issue. -- Ned Scott 11:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Are they different characters, or different iterations of the same characters? After (television), if need be, go to the individual series: (24), (Prison Break), (Punk Brewster) --Chris Griswold () 10:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Are they different characters, or different iterations of the same characters?
Yes they are. Julius Caesar, as mentioned, as been portrayed in various movies, television shows and so on, but I have to say that your answer is actually part of the problem because then there are still questions as to how to go about it. IMDb had this problem also when it began to compile information and the easy answer at the time was to add dates, but eventually we resorted to switching to a numbering system as this issue seemed to not just go away. As for user end problems, it might get confusing when a user searches for different characters and page names are not fluid. One character will be named with the series in it, while another isn't and personally I would wonder if anyone knew what they were really doing and wouldn't find it reliable. Do you see the issues with this too, or is it just me? I'm just believing there should be concise naming. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 23:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Invisible Man (TV series)

I feel that there should definately be a splitting up of the segments listed thereon.. Or, at least, links leading to the adjacent articles as: Gemini Man and The Invisible Man (2000). DrWho42 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

House Episodes

I'd like to get the project's opinion on the articles dealing with House episodes. Much of the content of the individual episode's articles aren't very encyclopedic. For example, the Medical terms section contains pretty much any medical term used in the episode. It doesn't explain it, just mentions the context in which it was used, who said it, etc. Some of the terms don't even link to the proper article, but disambig pages (i.e. epi instead of epinephrine). I figured I could fix it, but is it worth it? There is also a section which lists any music used in the shows, and extensive trivia, including sometimes lengthy paragraphs on allusions made in the show. I'm a huge fan of the show, but I really don't think this stuff belongs here. It's not a fan site. Any comments? jag123 13:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The page you linked to is the episode's list but not the place where you mention the medical terms. In any case, I'm not familiar enough with the show, but generally speaking if medical terms are pretty much used properly then I would personally add links to medical term lists under a 'See Also' section, unless it is directly related to the plot. I'm reminded of an early scene in ER where Dr. Benton trached a child with a pen. Or was that George Clooney's character who did it? Anyway the trach was directly related to the plot, and I would suggest using the term only in prose and then link to a wiki page explaining what a trach is, or an outside source if there isn't one at Wiki. Also, at random I selected The Socratic Method (House episode) to take a look. I see that while the layout is well organized, it is loaded with bulleted lists (guidelines prefer prose) and you're very right, the 'Medical Terms' section is inappropriate. For someone like me, who isn't familiar with House, I have to wonder if this show even makes any sense the way that the section is written. The funny part to this is that I'm a nurse! MagnoliaSouth | Talk 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Standard templates, Mitsumasa, etc

I've recently put myself up to the task to changing all templates in Yu-Gi-Oh! media and release information from {{digimon episode}} to the more flexible Template:TlEpisode list, but I keep running into larger problems. In a nutshell, I've discovered that User:Mitsumasa is the one who did this, and has used {{digimon episode}} in every episode list that he's worked on, including Jackie Chan Adventures and almost all Pokémon Episode lists. He also hasn't been using {{Infobox Television episode}} at all, either.. so I'm asking for your opinion on what I should do: ask for help on changing/updating/copyeditng all of this, or just leave it and copyedit? I was thinking of trying to find someone willing to create a script to do the repetitive template switching, but we'd all have to do the copyediting by hand. - Zero1328 Talk? 10:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

{{Digimon episode}} is actually bases for {{Episode list}}, and until rather recently, shared almost identical template code. I'm in the process of merging the five episode templates ({{Digimon episode}}, {{Episode list}}, {{Episode list (no image)}}, {{Japanese episode list}}, and {{Japanese episode list (no image)}}) into just {{Episode list}}. So in other words, it won't actually matter what template name they call, they'll all be using the same template. I'll probably have NedBot switch it over just so there's no redirects. -- Ned Scott 10:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That's good to hear, Ned. I guess I don't need to worry much about which template is used right now. - Zero1328 Talk? 11:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"TNA iMPACT" ep guide nommed for deletion

Here. Not pointing so you folks can descend (which you're welcome to), but I was wondering what your views are on fringe TV shows like this, and if you have any good arguments for keeping them. —Trevyn 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

DVD information

What is the general concensus about adding information for DVD's on the main series page? Should this be a separate page, or??? MagnoliaSouth 10:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of TelevisionWikiProject template

Is {{TelevisionWikiProject}} to be applied liberally or does one need to ask someone/get a concensus from anyone? What does 'This article is part of WikiProject Television' mean/entail exactely? Is there any TV show that is not fit for {{TelevisionWikiProject}}? --Liberlogos 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! Well in truth, I haven't asked. I could be wrong, but my feeling is that any television series is television, as well as television movies and miniseries, which the stubs seem to indicate. Since this is Wikipedia, my feeling is that we should follow it. Is there something in particular that you're wondering about though? Something out of the ordinary? MagnoliaSouth | Talk 23:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Verity Lambert

Hello all. I've currently got this article up for review at Peer Review here after having done a fair bit of work on it this past week, but it hasn't attracted much response or feedback yet. I just thought I'd mention it here in case any of you were interested in possibly giving it a look over? Cheers! Angmering 10:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Are lists of broadcasters necessary?

There are a few TV series articles that contain occasionally quite extensive lists of broadcasters of the series, both domestic and foreign. Examples include Threshold (TV series) and Alias (TV series). If a series is still in production and a going concern, that's one thing, but once a show has passed into cancellation, I don't know if such lists are necessary. Certainly they are not consistently applied to articles. I mean, why does Alias have a broadcasters list and Holmes & Yo-Yo doesn't? (Just a silly example, but you get my point). Has there been any discussion/decision at the WikiProject level as to standardizing such things? 23skidoo 04:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)