Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements

RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

This RfC is specifically about one episode, "Oathkeeper," but it is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Specifically, should the episodes contain a line such as, "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book(s)]"? Right now, some episode articles have lines like this and some don't, always in the Writing section. Here's an example: [6] So far, the first few respondents have outlined the reasons for and against inclusion pretty well, but we need more voices. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Outro"

The usage of Outro is under discussion, see talk:outro -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus required

My purpose for reporting this issue here is to get a consensus. User:सुनील मलेठिया (For your convenience I would like to inform you that this user users the Devanagari script for his username. If to write it in English/the Roman script then it will be - Sunil Malethia. This user's userpage is blank but you can visit his talk page) is constantly:

• De-italicising the television show names in Template:Star Plus Shows and Template:Life OK Programmes. However as per WP:ITAL we must "use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, pamphlets, films (including short films), television series, named exhibitions, computer and video games (but not other software), music albums, and paintings".
• Is also removing the space between two consecutive names in the list, making the source cumbersome while editing.
• Is classifying part of the template as per format (such as reality) and partof them as per genre (such as drama). Note - I had classified them as soap opera, anthology series and reality show.

What did I do? - I notified the user in his talk page and even started a discussion in the respective talk pages of the templates (here and here). I am refraining from using rollback, as I am afraid that it may lead to an edit war.

What is सुनील मलेठिया doing? - The user is not responding and have undone all my edits to the templates.

My last edits to the templates and those of सुनील मलेठिया - This was the last edit I made to Template:Life OK Programmes - here and this is his last edit (current revision) to the same template - here. This was my last edit to Template:Star Plus Shows - here and this is his (current revision) - here.

My purpose for reporting this issue here - To get a consensus regarding this issue.

Thank you. --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Quick answer - You're correct. He is not. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Amount of episodes required before split into episode list?

How many episodes does a series need to have before an episode list can be split into its own page? I've had the list of SheZow episodes episodes merged into the main article by CAWylie a while ago on the grounds that the main article was too short, but in my opinion this only makes it look worse. It lists 52 segments (of 26 episodes) individually, which makes for quite a long list. Not to mention we have featured episode lists like the list of Awake episodes which only consists of a season of twelve episodes. What's the limit here? ₂₃W (talk · stalk) 01:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything codified, nor do I think there's been a consensus discussion I can point to. My personal take is that anything more than a season's worth should be broken off, anything a season or less can be integrated into the main article. But that's just my three cents. — fourthords | =Λ= | 01:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The SheZow segments can be combined into episodes with "SegmentA/ SegmentB" titles, as both were aired as part of the same episode. If episode summaries are planned for each segment, then consider splitting them off again. If they're left to be a list, then it might be okay to keep in the main article. Splitting by season is usually for 80+ episodes per MOS:TV -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot speak for what some editors have done in other pages, but it's a combination of things. WP:MOSTV doesn't generally say when to create a LoE page, but it does address breaking those out further. You should generally follow WP:SIZE. As there is no point in splitting a table of episodes if the main page is not large enough to justify the split in the first place. Otherwise, you're merely gutting one partially fleshed out article and splitting it into 2 smaller articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

SheZow topic six months ago. If you look at the size of Awake's main article vs. SheZow's, you will see why I merged it back. If Awake's episode list page was just a list of titles, I would merge it, too. — Wyliepedia 01:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

MSN TV has a new design

FYI to all: MSN has a new design, and existing references like http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/nicky-ricky-dicky-and-dawn/?ipp=40 at Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn may not work any longer. Gaak! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Try http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/series/nicky-ricky-dicky-and-dawn/seasons-episodes/BBuYtC instead. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks GP. I'm not so much concerned about one reference though, rather how we now have numerous articles with non-functional references. Also, a lot of info seems to be missing from the new site. Note that there's only one episode at NRD&D when there used to be 4. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Numerous is an understatement. I just found at least 500 broken links. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I figured it wuz gonna be bad. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Order of "Starring" in the TV Infobox when new cast members are added.

Could I get a few opinions about the order of the stars in TV series infobox at Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#Starring_order_in_Infobox. The statement that: "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show" seems clear to me, but one editor doesn't want to add the new people at the end. I think the policy should be adhered to for consistency unless there is justification and a consensus to change.AbramTerger (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on at that article but neither the infobox or the cast section is organised per the MOS or the instructions for {{Infobox television}}. I've made appropriate comment in the discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Appropriate category?

I recently created Category:Television episodes in multiple parts for... episodes that are in multiple parts, but I'm not sure if this was appropriate or not anymore. Would it be helpful to anyone to have this? ₂₃W (talk · stalk · pend) 00:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone? ₂₃W (talk · stalk · pend) 00:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I like the concept, but thinking of its execution, if one was to go to that category, how would they know which episodes are the connected ones, especially if titles are different across each of the episodes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Addams Family (TV series)#Requested move

Page move request is still ongoing. If you like, you can relist the discussion; see WP:RM#Relisting for instructions. --George Ho (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of Sailor Moon episodes (season 1)

Page move proposal is discussed; join in. --George Ho (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Free money!

No, not really. There is a content dispute at List of The Big Bang Theory characters. Unfortunately, the page doesn't seem to have a lot of active editors so I'm seeking wider input. The relevant discussion is at Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters#Content dispute - October 2014. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't get in the habit of crying wolf on talk pages. Also, just contacting Talk:The Big Bang Theory might have been sufficient or that and a normal notice. In the last 90 days, the readership has been over 7.5 times higher for the main article. I would bet that the number of watchers and active editors has a similare multiple.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

just checked to see that the watcher ratio is 5.1:1 (610:120).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Crying wolf? Huh? Despite the number of watchers and editors, discussions often don't attract participants, which is why posting in more than one place is the norm. We should always try to involve as many members of the community as possible and there are experienced editors who watch this page but not every TV article. Quoting ratios and other statistics is all well and good but you need to be practical. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Posting here is not so bad, but there is no reason to title the section "Free money!".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I was trying for a little humour. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

How about trying for a little humility? (--like the phrase "I'm sorry" or "Pardon me".) Also, if I might add, it's preferable (to me anyway) not to make a whole paragraph in small type. It makes it too hard to read. Just a little constructive criticism. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Where is the paragraph in small type? Are you sure your browser settings are correct? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's the quoted paragraph that comes after "The discussion copied from FleetCommand's talk page follows:". Not that it's wrong; I was just letting you know that it's harder to read for some people. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You can blame another editor for that. She decided it should be formatted that way.[7] That said, it looks fine to me. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Redundant cast list vandal

Hey all, just a heads-up that I've had some run-ins with a now indeffed user, Avenger2015 who keeps adding unsourced and redundant cast information in articles typically related to children's television. Typically if a main article has a list of characters, or even a unique LoC article, the user will (usually over the course of one or two dozen consecutive edits) add a litany of names/roles. The lists are indiscriminate and often include presumably non-notable roles like Raccoon #4 or Man #2. So if you see cast lists pop up, you might want to take a look to see if there is already a character list. Here are 23 sample edits from Avenger2015. 16 edits from IP 98.24.156.14 and 17 edits from new user Speedball1988, whom I suspect of being a sock of Avenger. The new user repeats the same edit summary in each of his edit, which is a new affect. The user almost never speaks. The first time Avenger spoke was after his third trip to ANI. My hypothesis is that this is another incarnation of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Voice Cast Vandal. If you notice any new socks, the SPI report is at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Avenger2015. Danke, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for the heads-up. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sock has been confirmed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOX animated universe

Some of you might be interested in weighing in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOX animated universe. Flyer22 (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG comments subpages cleanup

Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Television articles that would be affected by this action are these:

• Tara Strong

If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Television's use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters

Hi,

Could someone from Wikiproject Television take a look at this edit and see if the sources cited are OK and if this type of information is something typically added to article's like this. As I posted at Talk:List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters#Gareth if cited by third party reliable sources then it's probably OK; One of the sources, however, appears to be from an interviews so I'm not sure if that's a problem per WP:PRIMARY. Also, I am a little concerned by the wording "It is rumored ..." even if it's cited. Anyway, I don't have lots of experience with these types of articles and since it's listed as being under this project, I thought I'd ask for feedback here. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the "rumored" language either. Especially not here where clearly does not appear to be a rumor. I'm not sure why Anon went with this language instead of saying "Andrew West has stated that the character Gareth is based on Chris the hunter from the comic series." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree Cyphoidbomb. The wording has been cleaned up a bit with this edit , but it still seems like possible synthesis. I think your idea eliminates that since the source being cited is from an interview, so the article should simply state what was said in that interview. Just my take on things. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Real Housewives timelines of housewives

Earlier last week, I had redone the timelines of housewives for each of The Real Housewives articles in a style that I thought was more clear and visually appealing that the original version. I had been reverted a couple times before I supposedly came to a compromise with another editor who was working on the tables, although they unexpectedly went back and reverted the tables to the original versions again. Instead of reverting them myself and running the risk of an edit war, I would like to reach a consensus here as to which style is preferable: WikiRedactor (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The original (and now current) versions

• Orange County
• New York City
• Atlanta
• New Jersey
• Beverly Hills
• Miami

My versions

• Orange County
• New York City
• Atlanta
• New Jersey
• Beverly Hills
• Miami
• Per WP:DTT, those empty cells are going to need some text or unique symbols. I'd say yours looks better though, from a design standpoint. ₂₃W (talk · stalk · pend) 22:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• New version. I was summoned by a bot. I agree that the new version looks better. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• I have to go with a combination of both. As 23W pointed out, the empty cells need labels. Per WP:COLOR, color should not be the only method used to convey information. {{CMain}}, {{CRecurring}} and {{CGuest}} can be used to simplify creation of cells with labels. The table needs row and column scopes as well, per MOS:DTT. With proper text labelling, there's no need for a separate key. I don't see the need to split recurring into current and former. The table makes that redundant. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As an example of what is needed, I've made these changes to The Real Housewives of Orange County. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

A little bit of background here, at least as far as I've been able to determine. It seems that WikiRedactor has been working on the articles for some time, and had updated the tables periodically, but there came a time when he had a minor dispute with Mgaisser123 over the tables. They had a discussion and came to an agreement. However, since August 2014 Acpurdy has been reverting attempts to change the tables,[8] and he hasn't been involved in the discussions. He's continued to revert, right up until today.[9] I've finally managed to engage him in discussion and his rationale is essentially "because it is the one that has been there the longest, for years".[10] Despite the outcome of the RfC, he seems to be a hurdle that needs to be overcome before any improved table can be implemented. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Inside No. 9/archive1

Any feedback would be appreciated! J Milburn (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Original run for shows that get restarted

There is a discussion at talk:Futurama#Original run as to what should go in first_aired and last_aired for this show with a large time gap between some of the seasons. See also Category:Television series revived after cancellation for shows of a similar sort. This may impact the instructions at Template:Infobox television as the desire is to do something that goes against the existing instructions for attribute use. It may also lead to modifications of that template to incorporate the concept of large time gaps in the initial run. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)