Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

Turning all inactive TV-show Wikiprojects into WP:WPTV taskforces

All TV-show specific WikiProjects I could find are listed below:

WP	Created	Active	Other parent WikiProjects	Turn into taskforce ?
WP:WikiProject 24	May 18, 2006	marked {{inactive}}		Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/24 task force
WP:WikiProject The 4400	28 August 2006‎	marked {{defunct}}	Science Fiction	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/The 4400 task force
WP:WikiProject The Apprentice UK	27 January 2007‎	marked {{inactive}}	British television	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/The Apprentice UK task force
WP:WikiProject Awake	28 July 2012‎	marked {{inactive}}		Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Awake task force
WP:WikiProject Babylon 5	18 August 2006‎	marked {{inactive}}	Science Fiction	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Babylon 5 task force
WP:WikiProject Battlestar Galactica	28 October 2006‎	marked {{inactive}}	Science Fiction	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Battlestar Galactica task force
WP:WikiProject The Bill	21 November 2006‎	marked {{inactive}}	British television	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/The Bill task force
WP:WikiProject Buffyverse	26 April 2005‎	apparently inactive since 2011	Science Fiction	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Buffyverse task force
WP:WikiProject Big Brother	30 April 2006‎	Yes		Opposed
WP:WikiProject Coronation Street	12 January 2008‎	Yes	Soap Operas, British television	Opposed
WP:WikiProject CSI franchise	10 May 2007‎	marked {{inactive}}		Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/CSI task force
WP:WikiProject Degrassi	30 July 2006‎	marked {{inactive}}		Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Degrassi task force
WP:WikiProject Doctor Who	6 April 2005‎	Yes	Science Fiction, British television	Opposed
WP:WikiProject EastEnders	4 November 2005‎	Yes	Soap Operas, British television	Opposed
WP:WikiProject Emmerdale	21 September 2006‎	apparently inactive since 2015	Soap Operas, British television	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Emmerdale task force
WP:WikiProject Fawlty Towers	11 July 2006‎	marked {{inactive}}	British television	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Fawlty Towers task force
WP:WikiProject Firefly	30 June 2006‎	marked {{inactive}}	Science Fiction	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Firefly task force
WP:WikiProject Futurama	20 June 2006‎	marked {{semi-active}}, apparently inactive since 2015	Animation	Moved to WP:WikiProject Animation/Futurama task force
WP:WikiProject Grey's Anatomy	22 February 2009‎	marked {{inactive}}		Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Grey's Anatomy task force
WP:WikiProject G.I. Joe	19 September 2007‎	marked {{semi-active}}	Toys, Animation, Comics, Film	?
WP:WikiProject Hollyoaks	11 October 2009‎	apparently inactive since 2015	Soap Operas, British television	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Hollyoaks task force
WP:WikiProject Jackass	1 March 2007‎	marked {{defunct}}	Film	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Jackass task force
WP:WikiProject Monty Python	26 July 2006‎	marked {{inactive}}	British television, Film	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Monty Python task force
WP:WikiProject Red Dwarf	13 November 2006‎	apparently inactive since 2008	Science Fiction, British television	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Red Dwarf task force
WP:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race	15 February 2019‎	Yes		Not done WP:WikiProject Television/RuPaul's Drag Race task force
WP:WikiProject The Simpsons	4 September 2005‎	Yes	Animation	Opposed
WP:WikiProject South Park	3 October 2006‎	marked {{semi-active}}, apparently inactive since 2015	Animation	Moved to WP:WikiProject Animation/South Park task force
WP:WikiProject Spooks	19 September 2006‎	marked {{inactive}}	British television	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Spooks task force
WP:WikiProject Star Trek	25 October 2004‎	Yes	Science Fiction, Film	Opposed
WP:WikiProject Star Wars	11 February 2006‎	Yes	Science Fiction, Film	Opposed
WP:WikiProject Thomas	31 May 2006‎	marked {{semiactive}}, apparently inactive since 2016	British television, Animation	Moved to WP:WikiProject Animation/Thomas & Friends task force
WP:WikiProject TUGS	11 March 2007‎	marked {{inactive}}	British television, Animation	Moved to WP:WikiProject Animation/TUGS task force
WP:WikiProject The Twilight Zone	11 March 2007‎	apparently inactive since 2016	Science Fiction	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/The Twilight Zone task force
WP:WikiProject The Wire	18 March 2008‎	marked {{inactive}}		Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/The Wire task force
WP:WikiProject The X-Files	6 April 2008‎	apparently inactive since 2016	Science Fiction	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/The X-Files task force

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Descendant WikiProjects and task forces#Show-specific projects and task forces, We now strongly recommend that new show/topic-specific WikiProjects become task forces of WP:TV. This still allows for greater focus on that show/ topic, but without having to start a whole new project from scratch. Many existing show-specific WikiProjects became projects before the concept of task forces was widely known, and many of them will become task forces in the future. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide for more info, or ask for help on WT:TV. (emphasis mine).

I'd like to lead with a good example and finally perform the last step and batch-turn all inactive WikiProjects from the above list into taskforces. All affected WikiProjects will receive a talkpage message within the next few hours that links to this discussion.

• If someone thinks this move is a bad idea in general, then say so in the Discussion section below.
• If someone feels a few selected WikiProjects should not become taskforces, please mark that in the above table with {{no X|Opposed}}, so that they can get a separate discussion at a later time.
• If someone feels that WP:WPTV is not the right parent WikiProject for a certain taskforce, mark it in the above table or say so in the Discussion section below.

– sgeureka ^t•c 12:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support as initiator. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race needs to be added to your list. It was created on February 15, 2019 but is currently active, discussing and improving all related articles. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Added, and I also added Wikipedia:WikiProject Thomas. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support – frankly, there shouldn't be TV show-specific WP's in the first place: they should all be Task Forces only. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, the same should be made true for TV channel-specific WP's like WP:NICK and probably WP:DISNEY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we should take a look at all of them except the ones that fall under WP:ANIME's purview as they have already turned them into task forces of that project except for WP:POKEMON and WP:TRANSFORMERS. I'm on the side that any current active decedent WikiProjects should retain their WikiProject status. Out of the 8 active descendant WikiProjects, 6 of them were created prior to the creation of task forces (July 1, 2007). In fairness to the 8 active WPs we should grandfather them as long as they continue to be active. As time goes on if they become inactive we can evaluate them on an individual case by case basis. This is how WP:VG handled all their decedent WikiProjects and it has worked out very well for them. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per sgeureka, this is similar to what other parent WikiProjects have done which is convert any inactive/defunct decedent WPs into task forces while grandfathering in the few remaining active ones into their current status. It also wouldn't be a bad idea adopting what WP:VG has done with WP:INDIE which is archive the talk pages of some of these long-time inactive/defunct projects to WT:TV. This way if someone is looking for help with Hollyoaks related-articles for example they are not taken to a dormant task force talk page instead they will be redirected here so we can help them. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment After looking those shared with other WikiProjects I propose the following:
  • Those that are also shared with WP:SCIFI, WP:SOAPS and British Television should become task forces under WP:TV except if they are shared with WP:ANIMATION. For WP:SCIFI and WP:BTV this follows current precedent.
  • Jackass and Monty Python (shared with WP:FILM) should be task forces under WP:TV since those franchises started off as TV series and the films came after the TV series.
  • For those that are shared with WP:ANIMATION projects like WP:FUTURAMA, WP:GIJOE, WP:SOUTHPARK and WP:TUGS should become work groups under WP:ANIMATION similar to Spongebob, Loony Tunes and Family Guy in order to keep everything consistent. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 14:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Seems reasonable to me as it has precedents. I'll wait a few days for more replies before changing the proposed taskforce names in the table. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support moving all to workgroups (since the delete button is somehow blasphemy). Lesser support for moving them under any other WP. A TV series is a TV series, regardless of it's format, animation or otherwise. But again, lesser support is not opposing. Just get rid of the WikiProject aspect. Less clutter is better. --Gonnym (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Consider whether you even want them as task forces, especially if they are inactive. WP:VG/IPC#Cleanup log logs a number of pages which were successfully redirected, archived, and deleted. --Izno (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support moving inactive projects per proposal. Active projects should remain as-are. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for media franchise wikiprojects South Park and Babylon 5 have scope that differs from WP:TV. Just because it falls within WP:TV's scope doesn't mean that it should be part of WP:TV's taskforce right away.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Blue Pumpkin Pie: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Babylon 5 (franchise) doesn't look much different than the Stargate franchise, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Stargate task force works just fine (and it's dead, just like Babylon 5, so it's not like anyone will use the taskforce anyway). For South Park (franchise) (and I am no expert), I'd argue even more that it's first and foremost a TV show, everything else second, so if not even the (still running) TV show can mobilize editors to join forces, then the franchise behind will do so even less. But yeah (not trying to be snarky), inactive media franchise wikiprojects should be considered more carefully here. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree with sgeureka's rationale here and just like I mentioned above we have established precedents to look at. In my original rational all western animation based WikiProjects like WP:SOUTHPARK and WP:THOMAS would become task forces under WP:ANIMATION to match the task forces for Spongebob, Loony Tunes and Family Guy. WP:B5 and WP:BSG would become task forces under WP:TV because their primary works are TV shows. Any other major parent WikiProjects like WP:FILM would continue supporting these task forces via their respective scope and media. WP:SCIFI doesn't have any task forces under its project space instead it supports different existing task forces under WP:ANIME (aka Gundam), WP:NOVELS and WP:TV. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support moving inactive projects per proposal. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support for inactive projects ONLY, active projects should remain as they are unless they ever become inactive for an extended period of time. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment on GI Joe. IMHO this one is harder to fit into one specific task force. It has roots to comics, animation, and toys too. And TV series isn't the dominant media.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward

There is consensus for turning most of the listed WikiProjects into taskforces. I'll carefully re-read the discussion above, summarize here what I'll do and perform the move over the weekend. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC) whenever I have time in the near future to do this properly. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

There is consensus for:

• Only the inactive WikiProjects should be turned into taskforces for now.
• Per precedents, inactive WikiProjects that have WP:ANIMATION as a parent WikiProject, should become a taskforce of ANIMATION rather than TV. This includes WP:FUTURAMA, WP:SOUTHPARK, WP:TUGS and WP:THOMAS.
• Per precedents, media franchises with strong TV-based origins should become taskforces under WP:WPTV or WP:ANIMATION, respectively. This includes WP:B5, WP:BSG, and (to a lesser regard) Jackass and Monty Python, but not WP:GIJOE.

Ideas for the future and things to keep in mind:

• TV channel-specific WikiProjects like WP:NICK and probably WP:DISNEY should be turned into taskforces as well.
• The new (still inactive) taskforce pages should somehow make it obvious that editors can get help at the parent WikiProject WP:WPTV/WP:ANIMATION.
  • (Solution: Adding the template {{WikiProject status|inactive|type=TV show|parent=Television|taskforce=yes}} will take care of this. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC))
• Some of the inactive WikiProjects (i.e. future inactive taskforces) would be better off deleted.

– sgeureka ^t•c 12:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree that only inactive WP's should be turned into taskforces. But agree that both WP:NICK, and probably WP:DISNEY, should be turned into taskforces as well – WP:NICK is mostly inactive; not sure about WP:DISNEY – that one will need to be checked first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Should we merge the Wikiproject templates. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 21:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I fixed a broken transclusion, but otherwise I'd say there are more productive things to do than moving/merging WikiProject templates. If you're talking about modifying {{WikiProject Television}}, then I'd say it desperately needs a |taskforce= parameter rather than spelling out each possible taskforce. I don't fully know yet. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Done All inactive WikiProjects are turned into taskforces now. I'll start cleaning up Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Navigation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Descendant WikiProjects and task forces soon. What might need more input/action from others:

• I left a note at WP:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race to invite them to convert into a taskforce voluntarily, but the result is not of my concern.
• I noticed Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Avatar: The Last Airbender task force is part of WPTV rather than ANIMATION. If this is wrong, I think it's best to move it within this cleanup process.
• User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA named the ANIMATION WikiProjects "taskforce" rather than "work group". Is that a problem?

– sgeureka ^t•c 22:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sgeureka: So after these have been converted to task forces, what about the banner templates? {{WikiProject The Apprentice UK}} does not tag the articles as TV WP-related. --Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I've made sure that all new taskforces got a {{WikiProject status|inactive|type=TV show|parent=Television|taskforce=yes}} tag. So when someone clicks on e.g. the Wikipedia:WikiProject The Apprentice UK link in the banner, they immediately get greated by a "... you may still want to consider joining it or its parent project WP:WikiProject Television" message. Sure, someone could rewrite the banners to link to here immediately, but it's not worth it for me to do so. Most of the articles of these old wikiprojects are often already banner-tagged with WP:TV as well, and the minor fictional-element focused articles will likely get merged or deleted as WP:FANCRUFT in the foreseeable future. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Have no idea of the amount of articles, but I just came from an AfD for reality list of cast article and they weren't tagged with the TV one, which is why I noticed it. I'm not sure if redirecting them was the correct way. Instead I think it would have been better to use {{WikiProject Television}} and add the task force into it like all other tasks forces it supports. --Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, someone with template editing experience can surely change the template code of {{WikiProject Television}} per your suggestion. Despite my programming background IRL, I always freak out when I see raw template code. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 11:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There is at least one bot that can move/fix/handle WikiProject banner removal/transfer cases. Leave a request at bot requests. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sgeureka: did you leave out Wikipedia:WikiProject NCIS for a specific reason? --Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't listed in the three places I looked (pre-cleanup 1; 2; 3), so I simply missed it. It's been in-active since 2016, so I recommend to either boldly turn it into a taskforce, or open another move proposal including the above mentioned inactive DISNEY and NICK. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of Showbiz Cheat Sheet and We Got This Covered

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Showbiz Cheat Sheet (cheatsheet.com) and We Got This Covered (wegotthiscovered.com). If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Omigosh, are Cheatsheet.com and WeGotThisCovered.com reliable?. — Newslinger talk 11:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments requested at Template talk:Infobox television#RfC: Should a "dialogue" parameter be added to the template?

Hi there, your input would be appreciated at Template talk:Infobox television#RfC: Should a "dialogue" parameter be added to the template? Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging this topic. I made a boneheaded decision to open an RfC before Christmas. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Cast sections - spaced dashes?

I keep seeing edits like this, where an anonymous editor keeps adding dashes to cast/character descriptions. I've seen these in a number of articles, but aren't they typically double-spaced, like "SpongeBob SquarePants – A happy yellow sponge"? Is there a preference for these? I don't see anything in the MOS, specifically. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

One, the edit you are linking to above is certainly revertable, as there is nothing that requires the use of ndashes in 'Cast/character' sections, and there was nothing wrong with the previous format for that Cast listing. Second, yes, you are correct, it's supposed to be "SpongeBob SquarePants – A happy yellow sponge" (in fact, technically, I think it's actually supposed to be "SpongeBob SquarePants{{nbsp}}– A happy yellow sponge". So that edit was incorrect on this front as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion that the style there is something common in Indian writing, where colon might be more appropriate. Our own MOS proscribes the dash spacing in question, but I think also we should prefer the colon in that case. --Izno (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC about TV and radio station style variances

Editors of this WikiProject may be interested in an RfC at Talk:WNGH-TV#RfC about TV and radio station style variances. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Robot series finale titles

First of all, happy holidays everyone! On to the issue at hand, I would like to get a wider range of opinions regarding the series finale titles of Mr. Robot (see here for the initial discussion. A recap:

• Prior to episodes broadcast, the final two episodes were known as "Series Finale Part 1" and "Series Finale Part 2" (likely placeholder titles), sourced via NBCUniversal, the shows's distributor and this is how the titles were known until after the episodes were broadcast when the real titles were revealed, to be "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot" via The Hollywood Reporter, "titled 'whoami' and 'Hello, Elliot,' respectively, according to USA reps".
• The "Series Finale" titles still appear on the USA Network website, such as here, but the titles have been updated in other pages such as the individual episode pages here and here, and also appear as such on the sidebar on right under "Season 4 recaps".
• A multitude of other reliable sources use the updated titles as well, including digital versions of the episodes via NBC, iTunes, Vudu, Google Play, and online guides such as Zap2it and Gracenote.
• It's clear that these are the updated, finalized titles. NBCUniversal uploaded press photos for the finale the day after it aired, and used the title "Hello, Elliot", as seen here, scroll down to photos. The title "Hello, Elliot" (although, misspelled with an extra "l" was submitted to the WGA database in October.
• There is generally a consensus on the talk page to just use the finalized titles, but one editor is insisting on keeping the original "Series Finale" titles too. Personally, I'd like to just scrub those titles from the actual episode lists, and maybe just leave a note, like "the episodes were simply known as such before broadcast". For comparison, the season 8 titles of Game of Thrones were not known until after the episodes were broadcast, but obviously we're not listing "Unknown" or "TBA" as the episode titles.

Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Should use title post initial broadcast, either evident from the title card or reviews etc. Same case happened in Watchmen where one so was officially listed as "a god walks into a bar" but title card and post showing interviews showed it as "a god walks into abar". Now if there is change of title well after first broadcast (e.g. From some negative feedback on the title), the original tifle.should be used with footnotes of the change. --Masem (t)

Right now the article lists both titles, which is verifiable and reflects the change USA made to the titles prior to broadcast and the post-broadcast use of what are presumed to be the original titles. Editors are trying to alter this based on supposition that "Series Finale, Part 1/2" were "placeholders" or designed to avoid spoilers (not that there are any particular spoilers in either title), sans any sourcing to support either, which is entirely WP:OR. I was just commenting on the talk page that I do not understand this burning need to list one or the other title for each episode rather than listing both, which fully reflects what was actually used. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There was no change prior to broadcast, the change was after broadcast. NBCUniversal's episode page and USA's Network schedule always listed "Series Finale" as the titles, same as other online TV guides (Zap2it, Gracenote; which have since updated to use "whoami/Hello, Elliot"). It wasn't until after the episodes were broadcast that the actual titles became known via the half-dozen sources I've supplied on the talk pages. The Hollywood Reporter source should honestly be enough, as it literally states: "...the two-part episode (titled "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot," respectively, according to USA reps)". At the very least, their placement should be switched around, so "whoami/Hello, Elliot" appear in the Tittle parameter while the former appears as an AltTitle. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There are spoilers in both titles. "whoami" alludes to something major about the main character that is revealed in that episode. "Hello, Elliot" is also related to that same reveal and is the last line of dialogue in the series.

It's hard to find a more clear cut example of placeholder titles. I'd be curious what Drmargi would considerable an acceptable source for that. This is tantamount to calling some episode "Episode 401" in an article because some web page had that listed for a TV episode before the official title was released. --SubSeven (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot" are the official titles; Drovethrughosts has put forward solid points. The original placeholder titles can be noted in an external note that that was how they were listed pre-broadcast, but "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot" should be the only actual titles listed for those episodes. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I support using the titles "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot", for the reasons given already and for what I've said on the talkpage. Esuka (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

With four editors agreeing on the titles, I'd say that there's a clear consensus on the topic. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually six; me, you (Alex 21), Esuka, Masem, SubSeven, and Gonnym (who posted on the Mr. Robot talk page) all seem to be in favor. Unless I'm misinterpretating some of their comments. On a similar note, I'd like point out a new issue, the article for the series finale: Mr. Robot finale and what we should be naming it; see the talk page. Thanks! Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Please see Talk:Eps3.4 runtime-error.r00#Title and Talk:Mr. Robot finale#Title for discussion on how the episode articles should be named. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Definitely agree that the latter needs discussion; it does not conform to MOS:TV at all. Nor does Runtime Error (Mr. Robot). -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You

I recently created {{You (novel series)}} for the novel series and television adaptation, but I'm not sure on the disambiguator "novel series", as there's more articles for the television series than the novels, and {{You}} already exists. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 21 (talk • contribs)

I dislike the brackets. How about {{You franchise}}? – sgeureka ^t•c 07:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Paid editors

Posting a notice that we have two new users User:SonuMohkh and User:MadhuShree1717 working for Zee Entertainment Enterprises. They've created around 40 new articles in draft-space. --Gonnym (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Turning all inactive TV-show Wikiprojects into WP:WPTV taskforces (Part 2)

Following on from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Turning all inactive TV-show Wikiprojects into WP:WPTV taskforces, here is a list of more TV-show specific WikiProjects that could be converted into task forces:

WP	Created	Active	Turn into taskforce ?
Wikipedia:WikiProject British television	December 29, 2011‎	seems to be inactive since 2012	WP:WikiProject Television/British television task force (similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/American television task force)
Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV/Channels	September 30, 2004‎; Converted to task force December 29, 2011‎	seems to be inactive since 2015	If British television turns into a task force, redirect to it.
Wikipedia:WikiProject British television/Shows	December 18, 2005‎ Converted to task force December 29, 2011‎	seems to be inactive with one comment today (2/1/20), one in 2018, and before that one in 2014.	If British television turns into a task force, redirect to it.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish television	May 1, 2009‎	marked {{inactive}} since 2010	WP:WikiProject Television/Scottish television task force
Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian television	January 6, 2007‎	marked {{semi-active}} since 2011	WP:WikiProject Television/Canadian television task force
Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series	September 6, 2006‎	marked {{inactive}} since 2014	WP:WikiProject Television/Idols task force
Wikipedia:WikiProject ITC Productions	July 23, 2005‎	marked {{inactive}} since 2018	WP:WikiProject Television/ITC productions task force
Wikipedia:WikiProject NCIS	August 12, 2013‎	seems to be inactive since 2013	WP:WikiProject Television/NCIS task force
Wikipedia:WikiProject Nickelodeon	October 25, 2008‎	marked {{inactive}} since 2019 last real comment on talk page in 2012.	WP:WikiProject Television/Nickelodeon task force
Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations	March 26, 2004‎	marked {{semi-active}}; seems to have comments from this year.	WP:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force
Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Game Shows	July 11, 2006‎	marked {{semi-active}}; last real comment on talk page in 2016.	WP:WikiProject Television/Television game shows task force
Wikipedia:WikiProject Top Model	December 15, 2016‎	seems to be inactive since 2017	WP:WikiProject Television/Top Model task force
Wikipedia:WikiProject The X Factor	March 22, 2009‎	seems to be inactive since 2013	WP:WikiProject Television/The X Factor task force

Copying the statement given by User:sgeureka before:

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Descendant WikiProjects and task forces#Show-specific projects and task forces, We now strongly recommend that new show/topic-specific WikiProjects become task forces of WP:TV. This still allows for greater focus on that show/ topic, but without having to start a whole new project from scratch. Many existing show-specific WikiProjects became projects before the concept of task forces was widely known, and many of them will become task forces in the future. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide for more info, or ask for help on WT:TV. (emphasis mine).

• If someone thinks this move is a bad idea in general, then say so in the Discussion section below.
• If someone feels a few selected WikiProjects should not become taskforces, please mark that in the above table with {{no X|Opposed}}, so that they can get a separate discussion at a later time.
• If someone feels that WP:WPTV is not the right parent WikiProject for a certain taskforce, mark it in the above table or say so in the Discussion section below.

Discussion redux

• Support as nom. --Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per precedent of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/American television task force. I see all WikiProjects have already been notified. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – WP:DISNEY is marked as "semi-active", so why wasn't it included here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Possibly because its a media franchise thing, similar to WP:GIJOE before. Per WP:DISNEY, "This WikiProject will attempt to cover the various fields affiliated with Disney: movies, theme parks, merchandise, affiliated actors/actresses and the Disney Channel." TV is mentioned last. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Exactly why I didn't include it. I felt that it's too big to be only one type. If the project is not really about the MCU films, Star Wars and parks, but only about the Disney Channel related topics, then it should be added. --Gonnym (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support – I'd still like to see WP:DISNEY included here, but I won't stop the others for this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support, at least for WikiProject Television Stations. The work associated with the project is very active, but I'd argue the project as a construct is largely inactive (and I've been involved for more than a decade to observe the decline in activity). I can't see the harm in this change. Mlaffs (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

List of episodes param in "Infobox television" template

Hullo,

At Talk:The Alienist (TV series)#List of episodes param in {{Infobox television}}, I queried IJBall about his recent edit to that article removing "#Episodes" as the value of the |list_episodes= parameter in the {{Infobox television}} template. He feels the template documentation requires (encourages?) this because it says If a Wikipedia "List of" article exists for the show's episodes, put its name here. and that the intent behind this sentence is that if there isn't a list of episodes actual article, the parameter should be left blank.

I've seen this use of "#Episodes" throughout the project in TV program articles and while I understand his interpretation of the documentation, I disagree that the documentation requires or even encourages this type of removal. I feel like having a link to the list of episodes (wherever they may be, either in the program article or in a separate one) in the infobox is useful. I wanted to hear what others thought because if the removal interpretation has wide consensus, that'll require changes to a pretty substantial number of articles (if we want to be consistent). I would prefer we simply don't take a strict literalist approach to the template's documentation by assuming "if" in the sentence means "iff", i.e. "if and only if", or that we just change the documentation to more clearly allow for some flexibility. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

FTR, I'm not the only editor who feels this way – I've certainly seen other editors remove "#Episodes" from that parameter. As i said in the linked Talk discussion, especially for short articles, doing that is pointless, and even for longer articles, doing so is of limited value – that's what the article's TOC is for. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Didn't say you were the only one; posted here to take the temperature of the room, as it were. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I am against this sort of removal, and support the inclusion of the "#Episodes" anchor in the infobox, as a clear common practice of WP:TV. The template documentation says nothing of the sort that if a LoE article does not exist, then we cannot include any sort of link; that sort of apparent "clear implication" is a user's thought and nothing more. A list of episodes is a list of episodes, regardless of where it's located, and including a link (to another article or an anchor is regardless) allows the reader to quickly access such a list. Articles also have a different order of where everything is located within them, not every article conforms to the same layout, so the episodes section does not necessarily exist in the same location across every article. That's therefore the same for the ToC, so having a link to the episodes in the same location in every article is also beneficial for the readers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I've included the "#Episodes" link in numerous Infoboxes that don't have their own LOE articles. MOS:SECTIONLINKS even says If an existing article has a section specifically about the topic, you can redirect or link directly to it, by following the article name with a number sign and follows with text about linking to sections within the same article. With that, I don't really have a problem with these type of links. TheDoctorWho ^{(Happy Christmas!)} 06:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with IJBall. It is pointless and does not need to be placed there until an episode list article exists. And not everything has to be mentioned in template documentation, guidelines, or policies. There is a little thing called common sense. Amaury • 07:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

"Common sense" varies between person to person (as is clear by this discussion existing), and when it doesn't, that's where documentation, guidelines and policies clear things up. I'm sure a lot of things in MOS:TV are common sense, and yet they exist to pave a distinct, clear way for articles. Every policy that exists are all definitely common sense, and yet they all exist. Where there are differing opinions, that is where consensus and clear statements in documenation come in. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• I support the inclusion of "#Episodes" links. As an en.wiki reader (rather than editor), I don't care if the episode list is a stand-alone list or still part of the series main article. I just briefly look at the info box, and if there is no link to the episode list, I just assume there is no ep list at all. Having to look over at the TOC or scroll down to see if there is an ep list after all, is a disservice. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, doing this for short TV series articles is utterly pointless. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line for "short"? These are articles from Category:Spanish drama television series without #Episode links in the infobox where I have to mouse-wheel-scroll 2+ times to even see if there actually is an episode table: Locked Up (TV series) (doesn't even say "Episodes" in the TOC), El Internado, Isabel (TV series), El Príncipe (TV series), The Time in Between (TV series), Carlos, rey emperador; also notice how there is no standard naming for the Episode section in the TOC, so I'd have to parse the full TOC to find episodes. And here with an #Episode link: Física o Química, Velvet (TV series), ahhhh, so nice. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT – Locked Up (TV series) should have a section 'Episodes', with 'Series overview' as a subheading under that. And none of that changes my point – I will oppose any change to the template wording that blanket "allows" (or "requires") use of "#Episodes" in that parameter, because there are plenty of articles where doing that is inappropriate or unnecessary. Personally, I think the current wording is fine – people can discuss at the longer TV articles where doing "#Episodes" is appropriate. There's no need to make allowances for this in the template wording. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I was just going to add that where I've had to interact with episode lists most is Spanish shows - but of course, these can be fixed, and with such a simple solution there is no need to create a new (apparently controversial) instruction. Kingsif (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 WikiCup is on!

2020 WikiCup

Do you want a fun and exciting Wiki challenge? An opportunity to get involved in some of the most important editing on Wikipedia? A giant shiny cup to display on your userpage? Well then you should join the WikiCup challenge! Folks of all experience levels are welcome to join. It's a good way for veteran editors to test their mettle, and for new users to learn the ropes. The competition revolves around content creation, such as good and featured articles, DYK's, reviewing such content, and more. See Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring for full details. Over the course of the year, users compete to create the most and best content in a round based format. The top performers in each round will advance to the next, until just 8 remain in the final round. Out of those, one Wikipedian will walk away with the coveted silver Wikicup. Could that user be you? Find out by signing up! Signups are open until January 31, 2020. May the editing be ever in your favor! — Bilorv (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merger/deletion of Jan Pol (veterinarian) and The Incredible Dr. Pol

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Jan Pol (veterinarian) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Needs more sources. Notability, independent of the show? The Incredible Dr. Pol Impending AFD or Merger. Merger discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:The_Mandalorian#Keeping_Star_Wars_lore_and_fancruft_out

Incase you didn't know, there's a very long discussion going on at Talk:The Mandalorian you may enjoy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion: List of Late Night with Conan O'Brien sketches

Discussion here. Opinions welcome. Popcornduff (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Characters looking like animals

If a character looks like an animal but isn't that animal, is it appropriate to use "-like"? For example "rabbit-like" for a character who looks like a rabbit without being a rabbit. 2605:E000:2E52:FA00:91EF:58A5:7AF9:DD23 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It's really better if that comes from sourcing – IOW, if a source says "...rabbit-like character..." then clearly it's OK to say this. Without that, though, it might qualify as WP:OR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It depends on what features establish that. If the character has long floppy ears, a short puff tail, and bounces around, it would be reasonable fair to call that a "rabbit-like" character as a broad statement. It needs to be non-interpretive, and something that if shown to a large body of people, they would nearly all agree with the "rabbit-like" description. --Masem (t) 22:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

we could use the word "Anthropomorphic".Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 22:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your takes. In that case, Bozzly in Abby Hatcher does fit the description of "rabbit-like" as he has floppy ears and a short puff tail. I ask this because there seems to be a disagreement in the article. The way I look at it, the animal descriptions that were in the article are pretty accurate. However, some user is quite objecting, has the descriptions removed, and has even protected the page. 2605:E000:2E52:FA00:91EF:58A5:7AF9:DD23 (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at images online, I can see why there's question. Most of the other animal creatures in that are definitely more vague to any specific animal type, and so there's fair caution here, and the character in question is in that grey zone - they have rabbit-like features but don't look like a rabbit. (Add that collectively the group of characters appear to be under a single species name but yet look all different) In such a case, if you can find reliable sourcing that describes them as "rabbit-like" that would be better, but I would tend to agree with the person that has removed them that this is just in the bounds of interpretation. --Masem (t) 23:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

What do official avenues describe them?Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 23:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering that the show was released only a little over a year ago, it's unlikely that there'll be online interviews from the creators to give interesting information anytime soon. Therefore, we only have the show right now as a reference. In the case of Mo and Bo, those characters have pointy ears, w-shaped mouths, would purr sometimes, and would try to touch light beams that shine on the pavement, thus making them pretty much "cat-like". 172.250.44.165 (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

As a note: since the show is notable (just notable, but notable), you can reasonably include a "major" cast picture (it will be non-free, but one picture is reasonable), and then in the caption ID who is who. This alleviates the need to even approach OR to try to describe them: just let the picture do it. --Masem (t) 07:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note for context, this content has changed back and forth many times over the past year from "cat fuzzly" to "cat-like fuzzly" (and many many more), with both sides failing to discuss the matter in any significant way or to come up with a work-around. I removed the descriptions entirely since they are somewhat interpretive anyway, and since they have been so problematic and distracting. Typical for young kid TV articles, the contributors, it seems, are obsessed with trying to describe every mundane physical attribute--colours, shapes, interpretive comparisons--rather than adhering to the guidelines at MOS:TV. Having paragraph after paragraph describe characters and other topics as "slug-like", "rabbit-like", "meerkat-like", "cat-like", "doll-like" "red raspberry-like", "toy-like creatures", "detective-like skills", "watch-like communicating device gadget right on her wrist", "goo-like string", "quail-like feather" (yes, these are real[1][2]) doesn't quite seem like the professional tone we're trying to achieve, particularly when you can describe the appearances without deciding what you think they resemble, e.g. "Bozzly has floppy ears and a puffy tail", "a long body", "___ is a fuzzly that has whiskers", etc. So if any of you WikiProject Television regulars want to get involved to bring some reasonable shape to those descriptions, feel free. The article has been devoid of objective community scrutiny for a long time, and the obsession with *-like has been downplayed here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

With regards to content going back and forth, that's the fault of that dynamic British IP who only wants to edit pages, and not go into discussions (That IP doesn't even states his/her edits in edits summaries). Anyway, I believe stating what animal a Fuzzly resembles is more convincing than just describing the appearance. 172.250.44.165 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Noooo, edit-warring takes at least two people. The fault here lies with all interested parties who can't figure out other ways to describe characters than getting ridiculous about physical appearances, and only figuring out one way to describe those appearances. I don't see anywhere at MOS:TVCAST where it suggests that cartoon character descriptions should be focused on colours and description of hair styles and should try to draw comparisons to real-world animals that might have inspired character design. Rather, the focus in these areas should be on brief character descriptions, for instance explaining the role that the character might play in a typical episode, and then trying to find real-world information about how the character was designed, how the voice actor was cast, etc. Colours? Shapes? Deciding that something is "goo-like"? That's not the typical focus of our usual character description section, and I don't see how those sorts of amateurish descriptions have a place at Wikipedia, and I don't understand your limp argument that interpretive comparisons are "more convincing". We're not trying to "convince" readers of anything. We're trying to briefly describe characters, so that if a reader were to watch the series, they'd understand who the characters are. Do we describe Jerry Seinfeld as a beige-like horse-like man with fluffy-like lion-like hair? No, that's absurd. But maybe other members of WikiProject Television will see things your way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

In the case of Seinfeld, things like skin color aren't described much, and hairstyle isn't either unless it plays a role in some episodes or has an impact in popular culture. When it comes to non-human characters, eye color and hair color are mostly trivial, but the main color is one of the general things stated in descriptions. As far as the animal descriptions are concerned, I wouldn't use the word "interpretive" much, considering the descriptions are based on aspects of the Fuzzlies that are commonly associated with certain animals. True, character aspects may be obvious to those who watch the show, but some people just want to read articles and not see the show, thus I figure it may be necessary to be more detailed. If we describe a character without naming an animal in particular, a number of animals are likely to come to the reader's mind. But if we named a particular animal, that would be more specific and more convincing. 107.77.227.125 (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It's all largely unnecessary, since a person watching the show could presumably see what the character looks like. Cast and character lists aren't written for police sketch artistes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's okay, there's a transcript on the TVOKids website that uses the description: https://www.tvokids.com/transcript/125841x/preschool/abby-hatcher/videos/princess-flugs-flower-float "a blue rabbit-like Fuzzly creature" and does the same with some of the other Fuzzlies. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Steven Universe Future#Episode table

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Steven Universe Future#Episode table. This discussion regards whether an episode table should exist on the season article and then transcluded to the List of Episodes article, or should only exist on the List of Episodes article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Episode titles

On Doctor Who (series 12), there's an ongoing battle on whether the first episode of the season should be written in the episode table as "Spyfall, Part 1" (as according to official BBC episode guide), or "Spyfall, Part One" (as according to the title card of the episode). I did change it to "Spyfall, Part One" at one point due the the reason in brackets, but this was because I misinterpreted Alex 21's comments, which were along the lines of "WP:TV has always deferred to the official episode listings by the broadcaster". While I'm not losing sleep over whether it's written as a number or a word, I wanted to ask other editors a) are Alex's comments correct? b) is there a guideline on what to do if title cards and listings differ? and c) should there be a guideline? just to make sure these issues aren't based on what one editor thinks they know (Alex I think is the only editor who's reverted changes to "Part 1"). Thank you --TedEdwards 00:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)