Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

Merger discussion for Disney La Chaîne

An article that is part of this wikiproject, Disney La Chaîne —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spshu (talk • contribs) 23:39, 20 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dual Survival season articles

The 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 articles have been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the articles should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Storyboarders listed?

Should we include storyboarders in episode lists? I see nothing about it in the TVMOS or in past discussion. I've seen some users add it, such as Luigi1090 did in edits like these. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. First because they're credited in the TV presentation of an episode. Second because they're the key for the development & operation of the animated series, which are really different from the live-action series. Luigi1090 (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not terribly opposed to their inclusion. I think they might be a bit too minor in some cases, but I know they're very important and influential in some shows like Adventure Time and Steven Universe. I think we should add it as a parameter to {{Episode table}} though... I'm gonna try to do it now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir and Luigi1090: The problem is that this makes the episode table too crowded. Something being listed in the credits does not mean we must include it, per WP:IINFO. If they're really that important, maybe they could be included at the end of the summary, like guest stars, I don't know. But general consensus seems to be not to include storyboard writers. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Fairly OddParents (season 8) is pretty crowded even on my 1600x900 screen, and it's even worse on 1024x768. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 Can you point to where this was discussed before? I didn't find anything in the archives here when searching "storyboard". I did update the template and honestly don't think it looks too bad. Check out an example at The Fairly OddParents (season 4). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• No Important credited crew but part of the production process (also all mostly credited crew), not the process of creating a story. No more important than any other animator, just part of the animation process. Some description here of what they do and also at Storyboard and Animation#Production. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• No per Geraldo Perez. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – Note that TheHonestEditor has been adding storyboard writers to a few articles as well. I have pointed them to this discussion. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• No per Geraldo Perez. We don't need to list everybody who has a hand in producing TV episodes. The episode lkist columns are already crwded enough. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Note – {{Episode table}} already has a column heading parameter |storyboard= for the storyboarders. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dark Cocoa Frosting: I added that a couple days ago. :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems consensus is that it should not be included. I am going to remove it from FoP pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Can we include the storyboarder credit on the Clarence episode page? While there is a separate writing credit for that show, one of the show's storyboard artists confirmed that it's a Board-Driven show that's written the same way as most board-driven shows (like Adventure Time and Steven Universe) http://givememountaindew.tumblr.com/post/137535586512/so-clarence-is-a-board-driven-show-but-it-has Zemblant (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Bolding in character lists

Should character sections in lists be bolded? See List of Disney's Aladdin characters for example. AFAIK, it should not be bolded, but I cannot pinpoint anywhere that says this specifically. (WP:TVCAST says not to, but that seems to be within a series article, not a standalone list.) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have also seen it italicized, or bold+italics. All of this should be discussed together. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If there's no set standard yet, we should set one and add it to MOS:TV imho. I think we need to standardize a bit more of the MOS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

MOS:BOLD gives the limited cases where bold is used. We shouldn't change MOS:TV to conflict with MOS:BOLD. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm suggesting the opposite; if boldface should not be used, let's specify that in MOS:TV. MOS:BOLD doesn't expressly forbid it, so I think MOS:TV should if that's the way we wish to go with it (and I think that's the correct way). But there's also the issue of redirects... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the list. For the Aladdin characters, they are already bolded by being section headers, so no, they do not need to be bolded twice. However, some character descriptions are done in bullet list "dictionary definition" form or paragraph form, and bolding might be helpful to stand them out, as per MOS:ANIME / MOS:BOLD. WP:TVCAST and WP:FILMCAST applies mainly to "Actor as Character" lists, so if your cast list is in that format, they do not need bolding. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: I can agree with the bulleted list idea... still wondering what to do with bolding regarding redirects like Richard Nixon's head. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Take off all the bolding on the List of recurring Futurama characters where the character is already mentioned in the section header. Link to characters within the series as example link to Headless Body of Agnew instead of Spiro Agnew. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. I will update similar lists and articles in the future. Any objection to adding this to the TV MOS? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would the MOS TV need to be changed? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added to the MOS but I can see where EvergreenFir is coming from. MOS:BOLD permits bolding in description lists using appropriate markup (; Heading : Description text) but WP:BADHEAD says Do not make pseudo-headings using semicolon markup and try to avoid using bold markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings for navigation. These are contradictory guidelines so we need something more definite. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

ToonZone Forums

I looked through the archives here and on RSN... there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of discussion or consensus about using Toonzone as a source. I've seen people citing the toonzone forum as a source for upcoming episodes and ratings (and have removed them as not RS). But I wasn't sure if this was the consensus about it and figured getting a few voices on the matter would be useful. To me, it seems like a non-RS because forum posts are anonymous from what I can tell and have no fact checking to them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion forums are addressed at WP:SPS and ToonZone was specifically addressed in this RSN discussion, as well as others.[1] WP:SPS says that Internet forum postings are largely not acceptable as sources. ToonZone is listed at WP:TVFAQ as an unreliable source. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Didn't see the FAQ. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We really should advertise the FAQ more. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:TVFAQ

I'll reiterate again that it would be really great if we could come up with UK and Australian (and Canadian) equivalents of The Hollywood Reporter and Variety (and Entertainment Weekly) for the TVFAQ 'Reliable sources' links. For the UK, I was hoping that Radio Times might work, but it didn't look like they do articles much. For Canada, I've been stuck using The Globe and Mail (and occasionally Mclean's or the Toronto Star). For Australia, the The Sydney Morning Herald sometimes works... But, for all three countries, it would be better if there were film & television "industry trade" papers/magazines that we could add to the WP:TVFAQ 'Reliable sources' list for people to refer to... So does anyone have any suggestions here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Miniseries runtimes

In May 2015, {{Infobox television film}} was merged with {{Infobox television}} after a TfD discussion. At the time, nobody noticed that runtimes for miniseries were not being listed per episode. Instead the entire length of the the miniseries is listed. I only became aware of this today, after I found this discussion at Talk:And Then There Were None (TV series). The instructions for Infobox television specify runtimes per episode. Should we be adding different instructions for miniseries, or should we remain consistent and specify episode runtimes for all programs? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

If the article is about the entire series (as in the example mentioned) rather than an individual episode for the series I would recommend that the total runtime should be listed. Another possibility is to note each episode separately as is done in this infobox War and Peace (film series). Whatever the final consensus is please make sure to add it to the documentation for the template. MarnetteD|Talk 16:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

A simple way to make it unambiguous when the infobox runtime is for the entire miniseries is to write "runtime: 864 minutes total". Does it have to be broken down into individual episodes? Such a listing might become quite long. (Also, this will lead to lots of discussions which shows are a miniseries, a short-order TV series/season, a limited series, or a TV serial.) –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. MarnetteD|Talk 17:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

War and Peace (film series) uses {{Infobox film}}. {{Infobox television}} doesn't specify that we need to list episode runtimes individually, just the average runtime per episode. That typically means one figure. For And Then There Were None (TV series), all parts were 60 minutes long so the runtime would just require |runtime=60 minutes. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I should probably mention that, when I was converting articles using Infobox television film to instead use Infobox television, I found less than 200 articles that were disambiguated using "(miniseries)". That leaves about 36,600 articles that are not miniseries. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand this statistics. Not all miniseries would have to have the parentheses (miniseries) disambiguation, that's only if their title exists as something else, too. So having 36,600 articles without the disambig (miniseries) would not mean that none of those were miniseries? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have comments about this matter? Should we provide an exemption for miniseries in Infobox television? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Programming by language categories

Is there an explanation somewhere on how these work? Like I am not sure if this means 'you can only have one, the original language' or 'you can have any language the series has been translated into'.

Code Lyoko is originally French but has an English dubbing aired overseas. Would this make Category:English-language television programming appropriate or not?

One thing I am not sure how to place is when a series debuts in different languages for different episodes. Pac-World for example, had seasons 1 and 2 debut in English, but season 3 debuted first in Japan and only had English debuts months later.

Legends of Awesomeness is similar, seasons 1-2 and the first half of season 3 were I believe first all released in English. But then due to a hiatus with Nick delaying the airings of the show for over a year, the latter half of season 3 was actually released earlier in German in Germany during January 2015. It is only just now getting English releases during December 2015-February 2016 in Canada and the United States.

So would it possible be appropriate to list English/Japanese programming for Pac-World and English/German programming for Legends of Awesomeness? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguity of Category:Directors

Pre-CFR discussion on possible new names at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Ambiguous_name:_Category:Directors_and_national_subcats.

This would effect the parent categories of Category:Film directors, Category:Theatre directors, Category:Television directors, Category:Opera directors, etc. It would not effect the titles of the categories used on individual biographical articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment - List of Doctor Who Serials

There has been a long, circular discussion at Talk: List of Doctor Who serials#Edit Request: The Husbands of River Song on whether or not to include Christmas specials in the individual series articles/sections. Some argue including them based on their inclusion in "Complete series" DVD/blu-ray box sets. Others argue that these sets are not valid sources for this. I have created an RFC at that talk page in the hope that outside editors can help break the impasse we have there. If you can, please contribute to the discussion at that talk page. Thanks! Etron81 (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

"Controversial" reception

In a reception section, the MOS asks for broadcast ratings, and reviews from conglomerates, major newspapers and major periodicals, as well as impacts on society, language, or the medium.

Many articles contain a paragraph in the reception section about some (often special interest) groups who dislike the TV series and express their dislike on their website. Sometimes a minor newspaper picks it up. Sometimes there are official/unofficial responses from the production. What some groups say about a show on their website is probably WP:SELFPUBLISHED, and if a small special news organization reports it, potentially still WP:SOAP? If there is no effect on the production of the series, are those opinions WP:UNDUE?

Some examples are Lucifer, Angel from Hell, The Real O'Neals, The Muppets, or The Fosters. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I can guarantee without even looking at these that the Family Research Council is going to feature heavily. Groups like this, as far as I can see, are little more than fringe opinions and don't represent the wider critical audience, and should no more be given the undue weight they already receive than the man on the moon. I think these kinds of thing fly under the radar because people want to show two sides to everything, but the trick is to understand that balance is not served by overinflating a minority opposition. GRAPPLE ^X 14:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Category clean up recruitment - Category:Lists of television series episodes

I've stumbled upon Category:Lists of television series episodes and see that there's a lot of pages (1) in this cat but also with subcats and (2) just in this cat without being subcategorized. Requesting help in removing parent categories per WP:SUBCAT and adding subcategories when possible.

It seems this category needs some reorganization. I've created Category:Lists of documentary television series episodes for example to help categorize pages. I'm generally adding subcats based on the episode article's categorization.

If you're bored and want some mindless work, this is right up your alley. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the parent category from pages containing Category:Lists of American television series episodes and/or Category:Lists of sitcom television series episodes (56 articles). – nyuszika7h (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Good Heavens! I didn't even realize these cat's existed!! Ah, well – looks like I have some work to do... [sigh] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

And then there are sub-subcats like Category:Lists of American comedy television series episodes, fun. That makes me wonder what to do about sitcoms, do we add both American comedy and sitcom? As there is no American sitcom category. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

+8 articles for subcats of American, no additonal matches found in subcats of sitcom. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It might be better to use a bot account for this to avoid polluting RC. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

BRFA opened at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Nyubot. Any comments welcome. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you all for your help! I've been trying to do some by hand, but a bot would be wonderful. If we could get some of the categories organized by country, that would awesome too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Interview Request

Hey everyone! I My user name is Gen. Quon, and I'm a user pretty active in the X-Files, The Office, and Adventure Time fandoms. Anyway, I have a request. I'm currently in grad school working on an MA thesis that focuses on Wikipedia, fandom, and canon. I'm particularly interested in how fan editors aggregate and define 'canon'. Are there any editors here that would be willing to partake in a short (roughly 10) question interview via email or talk page? Thanks so much!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gen. Quon: I'd be interested. You can send me an email of the questions. Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I would also be willing, just add them to my talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ditto, on my talk page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Gen. Quon. If you want to save some typing - or at least some cutting and pasting - you could create a sandbox with your questions in it and let each editor who is willing to take part come to that sandbox to add their answers. Just a suggestion and you can handle this however you wish. MarnetteD|Talk 04:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Good idea.

Adamstom.97 and AlexTheWhovian: I would greatly appreciate your input! I have made a sandbox with my questions. If you would like, you can just add your responses underneath each question. If you want them to be more private, feel free to email via Wikipedia. Thanks everyone!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Super Bowl viewership

FYI

You are invited to join the discussion regarding the television viewership of Super Bowl 50 at Talk:Super_Bowl_50#Poll_on_viewership. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at {{CGuest}}

There is currently a discussion at Template talk:CGuest regarding how to handle the template's background color and if the information should be linked. As this template (and {{CMain}} and {{CRecurring}}) are used mainly on TV-related articles, it would be great to have other editors voice opinions. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

What is TV?

There is an RFC for an article that I edit that has prompted me to write this. While I am not directly involved in that content dispute -- although I am trying to keep the RFC process on task -- I do notice that an interesting meta-question has arisen in the discussion, to wit: Does Wikipedia need to embrace a new definition of "television" to encompass the many forms of media that "TV shows" are now being broadcast on?

Comments? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 21:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Anime-styled show later broadcast in Japan. Should it have Japanese VAs?

Need your thoughts on Talk:RWBY#Remove_Japanese_VAs Thanks. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Preferred national disambiguators?

Does WP:TV have "preferred" national disambiguators for the United States and Britain? Are "(U.S. TV series)" and "(UK TV series)" preferred? (I've certainly seen these more often...) Or are "(American TV series)" and "(British TV series)" also OK (or even preferred over the former)?... I'm asking because I've come across the occasional "(American TV series)"/"(British TV series)" disambiguators, and I've wondered if I should move them to "(U.S. TV series)"/"(UK TV series)"?... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the policy, but IMHO "American TV series" seems far too vague. I mean, I know it's referring to the US, but technically, any TV show from any country in North or South America would count as an "American TV series". I think "U.S. TV series" is not only more specific, but also is more compact. Like I said, just my opinion.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

American as an adjective in common English usage always refers to the U.S. as in American actor, American television series, etc. Canadians sometimes make a fuss about that – nobody else seems to care, and Canadians seem resigned to say North American when they want to be included (Canadian here). There is no confusion with other countries in the Americas. For the disambiguation pages as long as they are disambiguated it should make no difference whether we use the adjective descriptors of the country modifying the noun or the country name as part of a noun phrase. Only related issue is Brits seem to like things described as English, Scottish, Welsh, etc. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Given that Britain is only one element of the UK, I'd say using UK as the disambiguator is eminently more preferable to British, or you're making the claim that it was produced solely on one the country's islands. GRAPPLE ^X 01:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

By the same argument, "U.S." seems vastly preferable over "American" to me as well... But am I correct that there's no "formal" WikiProject Television "standard" disambiguation scheme (which I guess means it's "editor's choice" here)? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree here. But I don't think there is an explicit policy. As for "American" being a common English reference to the US, I get that (I'm American!) but I think, between the choice of 'American' and 'U.S.' one is much less (potentially) ambiguous and also shorter.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

British (see Terminology of the British Isles) in common usage means of or related to the UK so British TV series would be accurate replacement for UK TV series. I'd say in general if there is a disambiguation need to be consistent. If we are using <country adjective> <article type>, use that for all related articles. If <country noun> <article type> use it for all. Definitely if we are saying Japanese, French, German TV series for some related disambiguaters we should be using American and British but this is not important enough to change existing articles if there is no confusion. See Supergirl (disambiguation). Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: - To address the original question, yes there are "preferred" national disambiguators for the United States and Britain. Disambiguation is specifically addressed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), specifically at WP:NCTVUS (or WP:NCTVUK if you prefer). If you choose to move any articles, it's probably a good idea to use the more appropriate link in the explanation for the move, i.e. WP:NCTVUS for U.S. articles and WP:NCTVUK for UK articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, that seems to answer the "U.S." vs. "American" question. But I'm not sure it settles the "UK" vs. "British" issue... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

That guideline was written 10-years ago so not worth a change. Inconsistent usage with NCTV saying use country name with support of U.S. (UK is not in an example) but does not support "Canadian" in the example as "Canadian" is not a country name. If we stick with country of broadcast we should be consistent and not use country adjectives here for any disambig. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but "U.S." seems to also function as an adjective, grammatically synonymous with "American" ('the American capital city', 'the U.S. capital city'; 'the American military', 'the U.S. military'). Is this the same case with 'UK'? I feel it might, but I'm not from the UK!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:NCTV links to WP:NCA which says, Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. That's why we use "Foo (UK TV series)" and "Foo (U.S. TV series)". "Foo (Canada TV series)", "Foo (Australia TV series)" etc just doesn't read correctly, which is why we use "Canadian", "Australian" etc. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I think you meant "UK TV series" and "U.S. TV series", not the other way around. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Season categories for episode list articles

Should episode list articles have Category:2016 television seasons and such if the article does not have separate season pages yet, or not? nyuszika7h (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

List of episodes titling

OK, I'm bringing this up here because MOS:TV doesn't explicitly mention the issue, so I thought I'd get clarification here. If a TV series article has something like a "(TV series)" disambiguator in the article title, should that also be included in the "List of [TV series] episodes" article – like "List of [TV series] (TV series) episodes"? Or should it always be dropped – like "List of [TV series] episodes" (i.e. no disambiguator) – on the pretense that the disambiguator is strictly unnecessary in this case? TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The disambiguator should only be used when necessary—for example, Millennium (TV series) is disambiguated because it needs to be, but there is nothing else with which List of Millennium episodes would be confused, and so it need not carry the same disambiguator. However, if there were to be two series with the same name, like the US and UK versions of The Office, for example, then their episode lists could still be mistaken for each other and would need to remain disambiguated. GRAPPLE ^X 16:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, with the series I'm thinking of, there's just the one series, so no disambiguator. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

TV series ratings

A discussion recently came up here regarding displaying viewership for a series which ratings are always under a million viewers to be displayed in thousands. AlexTheWhovian recently added the viewer-type modifier to Template:Episode table which allows for the ratings column to say "thousands" instead of "millions". This is particularly useful, for example List of Black Sails episodes (among others), where viewership is in the thousands and not millions. It seems illogical to display, for example, the number 843,000 as 0.843 million when it can just be easily listed as 843 in the episode table, as constantly listing the zero and decimal being unnecessary. What do other TV editors think? Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the decimal. A lot of the time "0.843" doesn't actually mean 843,000 because of rounding. I'd prefer not to list a full number like 842,540, which could seem encouraged because of the extra digits places. Consistency among pages is also preferred. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

0.843 and 843,000 are the same thing. The table would not list 843,000, it would just list 843 with the column stating the viewing figures are in thousands, not millions. The numbers are already rounded though. The exact viewing figure is never released. You'll never see a number like 842,540 in a ratings release. Look here or here for example. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

With that clarification, I would prefer "0.843" (in millions) over "843" (in thousands). (I would have preferred "843,000" over "0.843" (in millions) though...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It's quite technical, but .843 million is not the same as 843,000, just as .843 is not the same as .843000. The decimal point limited to three places can imply rounding, whereas "843,000" seems like a precise figure. So I would still prefer we keep the parameter consistent. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

And again, Wikipedical, we are not listing 843,000, as mentioned before. 0.843 million implies rounding, yes, but so does 843 thousands. If the latter were not rounded, then it would be listed as 843.481, for example, but it is not. In my opinion, viewers should be display in the highest base of 10 (in multiples of three, 10^3, 10^6, etc) as their highest rating is. That is, if the viewers were to go over 1 million for a single episode, then they get displayed in millions, but until then, thousands. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The standard always seems to be putting viewership in millions. For cases where it's under 1 million, decimals are usually used. But viewership below 100,000 is rarely (never?) reported so I don't see a pressing need to make a "thousands" option. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, I just don't see the need for this. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I would stick with the millions and the decimal. You might be able to say "in thousands", but the vast majority of articles use "in millions" and it would be easy for a reader to get confused and wonder how a show had 843 million viewers and not realize that the column actually says "in thousands". It's better to be consistent across the board.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, just use millions. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing when the recent Nielsen charts show viewer estimates in the thousands. [2] But I agree it should not be a mix, especially if sorting by viewers. The ratings are typically shown up to the tenths precision though, regardless of viewership. The viewer count column is also not needed if the ratio of rating to viewers is the same for the entire period. MOS:LARGENUM says 843,000 and 843 thousand are both usable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Defining what nationality a programme is

I'm wondering how the nationality of a TV programme is (e.g. is it a British production, an American one or a British-American production?). The reason is that some British people get really pissed off when they see statement saying a what they see as a British programme being entitled a co-production. Theoosmond (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've always considered the production companies to be the source of the "nationality" of a series. Usually (though not always) the show will initially air in the countries where it is produced as well. See The Amazing World of Gumball as an example of a multi-national show. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Sofia the First episodes#"Mimimus is Missing"

Hey all, there's a discussion at Talk:List of Sofia the First episodes#"Mimimus is Missing" about whether or not one episode, "Minimus is Missing" belongs in S2 or S3. Additional feedback from the community would be greatly appreciated. Despite being ongoing for 3 months, it's not a huge discussion, so it won't take much time to read and reply if you get a sec. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Theater section at Danai Gurira article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Danai Gurira#Theater section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:TBS (U.S. TV channel) network shows

Category:TBS (U.S. TV channel) network shows has been nominated for renaming to Category:TBS (U.S. TV channel) programs. Please take the opportunity to share your opinions on this proposal at the discussion entry. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Replacing br-separated director and writer lists

I created {{ubc}} as a shortcut that can be used in articles that separate directors and writers with <br />, since {{Unbulleted list}} is left-aligned by default, and it would be tedious to have to add |list_style=text-align:center to every call. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: just looking at your use of this template at List of K.C. Undercover episodes, at least for the writers, don't they have '&' or 'and' credits? Or are they just credited as together? IE, for ep 1, is the credit "Written by: Rob Lotterstein[break]Corinne Marshall" or "Written by: Rob Lotterstein [& or and] Corinne Marshall"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: They are credited as "Teleplay by: Rob Lotterstein and[break]Corinne Marshall" (and "Story by: Corinne Marshall", but that was eventually removed because it couldn't really fit nicely and she is in there already anyway). Many Disney/Nickelodeon shows were changed to just use line breaks to fit better (previously just "&" was used everywhere). I don't think they even knew there's a difference, even I only recently learned that. But I don't feel like it's important enough, it looks better this way if it can't nicely fit on one line (or two, for separate story credits). nyuszika7h (talk) 12:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Make the title column narrower and use {{StoryTeleplay}}. They should be listed directly as they are credited (i.e."Story by: Corinne Marshall"[break]"Teleplay by: Rob Lotterstein and Corinne Marshall", and not what best makes the lists look nicer. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I get that the creators consider it significant enough to make a distinction, but I still consider it a minor detail for an episode table with limited space. The current version wraps much more nicely on smaller screens than the version with two writers on one line. It's not really possible to make it look good on smaller screens even with column width trickery. I believe accessibility is much more important than a minor detail like this, even if it has some significance. If a collaboration is special enough that we need to care, it will be covered by reliable sources and can be explained in prose. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

But I don't feel like it's important enough, it looks better this way if it can't nicely fit on one line... I still considered [the distinction] a minor detail for an episode table with limited space. You can't make that decision about the credits. If they're credited in the episode with story and teleplay distinction, you need to make that apparent, because right now, just listing the writers is incorrect and false, and material that can be challenged. And I'll say now, I'm challenging it, because it is wholly incorrect. As you've portrayed them, is not correct credits. As Alex said, you can definitely shrink the title column width to make the writer column larger to properly use the {{StoryTeleplay}} to give the proper credit. I can sense myself getting sidetracked here, so back to the template, I don't see the immediate purpose for television application. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The distinction is between two writers collaborating on a particular script (names separated with "and"), or an established writing duo who always work together (names separated with "&"). A writing team is really an entity in of itself, like a partnership name. See WGA screenwriting credit system for more on this and why it matters. I would consider line breaks and commas equivalent to "and" but "&" means a single entity so should not be broken. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I see, that makes it more clear than before. If it's really that important, okay then, I've figured out a way to make it look relatively good on List of K.C. Undercover episodes (at least on 1280x800, can't really do much about 1024x768 either way [using Firefox's "Responsive Design Mode"; my screen is 1600x900 so things usually fit for me, but we have to think of people with smaller screens]). And for the other articles, it will be eventually done by someone (I might do some too, along with correcting guest star lists which I've been doing anyway). Anyway, I guess the template is not going to be so useful in this context then. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Teleplay and story may be two different things, but the people that partake in them are still writers. As such, there is nothing inaccurate or untruthful if we just list the persons in the Written by column without those labels on such episodes. And as Nyu states, it condenses things and makes them more organized. It looked ugly before, and yes, aesthetic pleasantness is just as important. Amaury (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Talk:Agent Carter (season 2)

The article currently cites a commentator's opinion that the series contains a thematic allusion to Jessica Jones as an MCU tie-in. One user believes that if the source says "tie-in" then we should say "tie-in"; the other user claims that the source does not say "tie-in" and thinks that thematic allusions are not tie-ins, and thematic allusions to other TV shows set in the same universe should not be distinguished from thematic allusions to other properties not set in the same universe. There is gridlock as we do not agree and don't seem likely to convince each other, and while one other user has been pinged this can not resolve the dispute, as that user can at best take one side or the other, and it will still be a 2-1 gridlock with no consensus. Outside contributors would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)