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.

Disney-Kellogg Alliance?

This discussion was originally brought up here by Spshu, but I decided to refer it to WikiProject Television because I felt that we need to hash it out in a larger forum.

Personally, despite reliable sources being provided, I do not think we should refer to The Disney Afternoon as the Disney-Kellogg Alliance in the article because I don't think the name is notable enough to supplant the more well-known name in the article. I want to see what all of you at WikiProject Television have to say about this whole matter. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It should be discussed there. Notability is only a test for having an article. Spshu (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone's gonna discuss it there. I need more than just your input, which is all I'm getting out of this discussion so far. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There are several quotes from reliable sources with links indicating The Disney Afternoon was renamed Disney-Kellogg Alliance listed at Talk:The Disney Afternoon#Disney-Kellogg Alliance like Variety: "The Disney-Kellogg Alliance, formerly known as “The Disney Afternoon,” would cease to exist in syndication,..." Please check them out to inform yourself if you want to comment. Spshu (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This thread is long past its usefulness. The issue was settled outside of WikiProject Television, and it seems like this discussion is going nowhere. Can we close it now? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 07:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no actual requirement to formally close discussions and, until today, nobody had commented here in 3 weeks, so the discussion had more or less closed itself. If you hadn't posted, the discussion would have been automatically archived in a few days. Now it's here for another 25 days, assuming nobody posts again. Sometimes it's best to let things just fade away. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Early online release

With increasing importance of the internet it has recently become common that TV show episodes have been made publicly and legally available online by the networks themselves not only after they aired on TV but also before. Sometimes for whole seasons at a time, e.g., Aquarius, Satisfaction, sometimes just for some episodes, e.g., Public Morals, Telenovela, Superstore, and sometimes including the pilot, e.g., Moonbeam City, The Expanse. Note that my question is not about teasers, trailers, leaked material, limited audiences / conventions, or press only access, but full episodes that are identical with the ones that air on traditional TV at a later time and available to everyone who also has access to the episodes on TV later.

I find no explicit mention how to deal with this in the MOS. I see that (even the above listed) articles deal with these facts differently. I find an implicit distinction in the wording of "released" (online) vs. "aired" (on TV), but I find that these distinctions are not made consistently or at least not in a way that can reflect the mixed releases (online and over the air) as described above. Points of conflict are

• the "No. of episodes" in the infobox: the description talks about "aired", to distinguish from "ordered" or "produced" – maybe also from "released online", or has this just not been reflected yet?
• the "Original release" date in the infobox, in the case where the pilot is available online before it is on TV. In rare cases this could even influence the article title if the pilot is released online in 2015 and on the air in 2016.
• The dates in the Episode table, which can be switched between "air date" and "release date" but only as a whole, to reflect streaming-only services like Netflix but not the new mixed approaches by the "classical" networks that expand into the streaming business.

I see three possible consistent approaches in general:

• The traditionalist approach, where one would ignore all online dates for shows on a network where they later air on TV on a regular traditional weekly schedule.
• The mixed approach, where one lists both dates at least for cases where the online is in advance (as it is common and never reported when episodes are released online after they air on TV). The question still remains if this is in prose or in the Infobox and Episode Table fields.
• The first is first approach, where whatever comes first counts. After all, WP does not list online release dates after the TV air date. So one could say why would it list TV air dates after the online release dates, those are repeats, and WP does not list repeat dates. With one exception: viewer numbers and ratings are usually not available for streaming, another reason not to ignore the fact when online is first, as it potentially diminishes TV viewer figures of those episodes that stream first.

–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Obviously we do need to address this in the MOS. I'm not sure that there is an easy response, because it's not consistent and as you pointed out sometimes you get one episode and times you get the whole season (which is more like a Netflix show and completely different anyway). I would say that it should be approached from a consistency standpoint within the article itself. If a series airs all of its episodes early online, then that is the date of release. If a series had a single episode, or a single season, out of several that had this happen, then I'm less inclined to want to list it that way. Take the seventh season of Smallville. That season aired all of its episodes a day early in Canada, for whatever reason. Never done before that, and never done after for the remaining seasons. Instead of creating an inconsistency within the list of tables by having one table include dates from another country, what we did was used the dates from the country of origin and then put in a note indicating that the season itself aired a day early in Canada that year. It kept the consistency while also acknowledging the change in airings.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Much shorter (also skipping the above motivation): For mixed (i.e., on-demand and broadcast) releases, while it does not appear to be notable if an episode or season is made publicly available online after it airs on TV,

• is it notable if episodes are made publicly (i.e., to the same audience) available online before they air on TV, and
• does this depend on if it is all / only one / the premiere / the finale / some episode(s)?

If yes:

• Is the later TV broadcast still notable?
• Should this be reflected in the infobox and episode table and how?

–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe: It's as notable as the broadcast of the episode itself. Which is to say that the release itself isn't notable unless there was something noteworthy about it. It's just a means of release. If we said that a release itself was "notable" then we get into this, "that makes the episode notable", which isn't true at all. Is it worth noting? Yes, it's worth noting.

Yes, the later TV broadcast is still just as important. It would be even more important if they never broadcasted it on TV only released the episode online (ala the Hannibal episode that never aired on TV in the first season).

In the infobox..No. In the episode table...No. Unless the entire series is always broadcasted earlier online than on TV. If it's a special event, then a note should be created to alert the reader that it's a special event and leave consistency for the rest of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these explanations, but I do not share the views for mixed releases.

Why does WP list dates? Certainly WP:NOTVGUIDE. But because it was found noteworthy to mention when an episode was first publicly available. Nowadays, for all practical purposes from the viewpoint of a TV watcher, it makes no difference whether this is on demand or by broadcast: the contents is the same. (The online content can even be cast onto the same TV screen that shows the broadcast, too.) If some episodes are available online first, this certainly deserves more than just a footnote.

Consistency: For tables or boxes, while one can find it consistent to choose a delivery channel and have only that type of dates, and inconsistent to mix dates between online and broadcast, one can as well find it consistent to have first-publication dates, and inconsistent to mix some real first-broadcast dates with other broadcast dates that for practical purposes are really repeats of earlier published contents. Both types of consistencies will not be possible in a mixed release.

The mixed release schedules are a new development not explicitly covered by the MOS and applying old broadcast-only or streaming-only guidelines does not do them justice. And my WP:CRYSTALBALL tells me that the examples I listed above are just the beginning with many more yet to follow. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Of the options you listed, I think I align with the mixed approach, as I do believe that it is notable enough to mention/list when episodes premiere online earlier than on television. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between not mentioning something at all, and making a special mention of it outside of an episode table when it's an outlier.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

For series normally broadcast on television, I would stick with broadcast dates and ignore on-demand streaming on the episode listings unless it was an exclusive. The broadcast section can certainly talk about how some episodes were made available for streaming in advance as pilot and sample episodes or to streaming subscribers. Some series have a "sneak preview" broadcast, perhaps even on a different channel, to generate interest in the series. Whether a bonus episode is given an "airdate" depends on how the episode was presented, but it can have (DVD extra) or (web) attached to such an airdate. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: I asked mainly about full episodes of identical contents. I am not sure what "sneak preview broadcasts" are—If that means broadcasts out of the assigned weekly schedule, why does it matter? TV networks would certainly like to have their content "premiere" a dozen times over and invent colorful WP:PEACOCK words for it just not having to call the later ones repeats, but fact is, premiere literally means first, and there is only one first release of the content. (Maybe one first release per delivery mechanism, e.g., first on-demand, first broadcast, first discs.) Or if the MOS:TV/Infobox/Episode Table guidelines mean not to give "original" broadcast dates but the original broadcast date in the "regular" time segment, they should say so.

@Bignole: If in mixed releases the television content delivery mechanism (broadcast in contrast to on demand) is actually so essential, the Infobox has to be adjusted, because it always displays as "Original release". But that original release apparently would not include an on-demand release for shows that also broadcast some/all episodes.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As a specific example, there's Star vs. the Forces of Evil which aired the first episode in its entirety on Disney Channel on January 18, 2015, and then had its "premiere" on Disney XD on March 30, 2015. The show was intended to run on Disney XD regardless, but the Disney Channel premiere was significant enough to generate interest for the show to be renewed for a second season. The table lists both. If the show had its premiere and "sneak preview" on the same channel, I agree there would be no point to list the second date as it would be a rerun. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

TVmaze as a source

Can I get some opinion on if TVmaze is a reliable source regarding episode titles, air dates, cast, etc.? I see it popping up as reference, there is no TVmaze wikipedia article, and I didn't understand where their information comes from, is it user-generated, like IMDb? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a wiki equivalent - see http://www.tvmaze.com/site/copyright - "TVmaze is a collaborative site, which can be edited by any registered user.". Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue of criticism content at the The Walking Dead (TV series) article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)#Early criticism content. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The issue concerns including criticism in a section that is currently full of positive reviews, and especially the issue of including criticism of season 2 and noting how the show progressed from there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

COI edits on Top Model series

I just noticed that articles from Category:Top Model series have been extensively edited by Michh1 (talk · contribs · count) and Moo1991 (talk · contribs · count). And they have edited articles related to this series only. I have dropped a note on their talk pages in relation to this, to declare their COI in these cases. I personally have no interest in the series and would not be able to pursue this if its going to get bitter ahead. Hence requesting other regular editors to look into this matter. @TheRedPenOfDoom:, if you are interested and willing, do keep an eye on this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Millennium (miniseries)

So a while back, i never knew about this Millennium TV-mini series. And originally, i thought it was a completely different production then the original Swedish films. However, now that i'm digging a little deeper, i realize that the "miniseries" is a compilation of the three films with extended scenes. In the US, its not even considered a separate entity. That means that most of its success is due to the original films. The miniseries was released on DVD/Blu-ray as the "Dragon Tattoo Trilogy".

I'm still working on the article just in case i find out more that makes this piece of work. But, i'm having a difficult time find out about the subject as a "miniseries" and more of a compilation. it might be more beneficial to repurpose the article into a Millenium (film series) instead. This is a very big change but it ultimately might end up making a better article. Lucia Black (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

If it is repurposed as a "film series" article (there isn't one already after all), I don't see too much of a problem as long as the content keeps it clear that it was shown as a TV miniseries. I'm trying to think of comparable examples to see how we handle them - Das Boot, Out 1 and Fanny and Alexander spring to mind, but each of those has only been shown as a miniseries or a single film, not a series of films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I also found more of a tv series being reconfigured as a film. Not the other way around. But I'm confident I can make it work. All the information will remain. it'll just be organized a little differently. I believe this will be better anyways because the article can cover the Millennium/Dragon Tattoo Trilogy (non-extended edition release). Lucia Black (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:ABC Persons of the Week

Category:ABC Persons of the Week, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for TV season articles

Hello, I wonder what are criteria for TV season series? There are seasonal articles for some programs, for example The Voice UK (series 1), while others, such as The Face (TV series), doesn't. --Horus (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

See also the related above discussion.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry I duplicated the thread. --Horus (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Wabbit (TV series)

Anyone have thoughts about how to treat the title in the lead at Wabbit (TV series)? It looks to me like someone took the logo a little too literally, and instead of considering the series' title to be "Wabbit.", they've inflated it to "Wabbit. - A Looney Tunes Prod." Reminds me of a weird debate AussieLegend had with someone who interpreted "Songs from and inspired by the television series" as part of a TV soundtrack album's title. Thoughts? Also, there's a discussion about whether or not the alternate European title of "Bugs." is widespread enough to be included in the lead. My concern is that there might be multiple country-specific titles, and we shouldn't encourage the addition of all of these. Since I might be being stubborn here, some other input would be appreciated. Thanks all! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I would treat it as a WP:SUBTITLE, so it doesn't belong in the common name / article title. Cartoon Network doesn't show it when listing individual episodes of the show. [1] As for European titles, that should not be in the lead, but can be relegated to the International broadcast section if it spans a large number of countries as "Bugs.". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Kalyeserye episodes

Hey all, I'm planning to nominate List of Kalyeserye episodes for deletion, but before I do, I thought I'd float it past you all in case there was something I was missing, or if anyone had any thoughts for how it could be saved. As short as possible: Kalyeserye is a daily, live, semi-serialized, improvisational comedy segment that airs during Eat Bulaga!, a daily, live, variety show in the Philippines. Here's what it looks like. While it's very popular and presumably notable, my concern is that since we're talking about a live segment within a live show, a list of episodes seems like an academically fruitless endeavor, since no real "story" is being told, and more importantly, the article will never meet WP:V. How does one verify any of the "episodes"? Is anyone ever going to release DVDs of this live, improvised segment? It would be like trying to catalog the daily banter between Hoda Kotb and Kathie Lee Gifford on The Today Show. (Which I said verbatim in the AfD for this related article). If you read some of the episode summaries, I think you'll see what I mean. There's no real story happening, it's mostly banter with some story-like beats interspersed. Also, I appear to be the only one participating in discussion at Talk:List of Kalyeserye episodes. Community input would be greatly appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If it appears as a separate production from the show as with cartoons The Simpsons shorts or The Ambiguously Gay Duo then it can be separated out. But if it's just a usual segment like Late Show Top Ten List or Weekend Update then it doesn't need to be documented down to each individual episode. The segment articles themselves can cover the details and highlight any significant episodes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Awards from what looks like some random blogger

Hi, everyone. Going through my watchlist, I noticed someone recently added an award nomination from what looks some random blogger, cartermatt.com. I removed it, but a linksearch indicates that there are quite a few more of these citations. Before I unilaterally remove all of them, I figured I'd ask how the WikiProject feels about this – are these awards something we should be reporting? I located a draft article about the site, and that doesn't really instill me with any more confidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Offhand I don't think that the site would be considered a RS. A look at their Twitter account shows less than 9,000 followers. Follower counts don't automatically mean something is or isn't a RS, but a low amount of followers can be fairly telling. In comparison, Twitch Film has over 37,000 followers and they're still considered to be relatively unknown as far as mainstream awareness goes. Now I do see it listed as a source in this book published through Lexington Books. I do see that there's a Matt Carter that has worked as a reporter for various topics, many political, but this doesn't seem to be the same person. I'll od some more searching, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I know that the criteria for the TV project doesn't always line up with those of the film project - nor should they. However, this case reminds me of the discussion earlier this year about the removal of several local/regional film awards from various articles. One question should be "Do these CM.com awards receive coverage in secondary sources?" If not then they shouldn't be in WikiP articles. As I look at these they are too WP:SELFPROMOTIONAL for my liking. But that is just me if others think they merit a place in the articles then that is fine. MarnetteD|Talk 05:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• They're listed in this book as a source. It's Cambridge Scholars Publishing, which initially sounds good but a quick look brings up things like this and this where people dismiss it as little better than vanity publishing, meaning that this wouldn't be seen as a reliable source so being listed in this book as a RS would mean nothing to Wikipedia. As far as news goes, I can't see where they're repeatedly referred to as a source by other outlets, nor do I see where they're listed anywhere else. They do seem to be popular and for a site that launched in 2012 they seem to have a nice following. It's possible that in the next few years they could be seen as a RS, but right now I would say that no, they're not a RS. This means that any award given by this site would be non-notable and not worth listing on Wikipedia. I'd say that we should probably remove or replace the links in the various articles, since it's not a RS. However I doubt that the information in the articles is incorrect per se, so it doesn't need to be as big of a rush as it would be if people were linking to my personal blog site or something like that. The awards though, those definitely need to go. From what I can see, there's zero coverage of the awards outside of the site itself and I can't really find anything for the awards from years prior to 2014, so this seems to be something that they just recently launched. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't post a direct link because Examiner dot com is on the spam blacklist, but there are some funny scathing comments directed at this guy at examiner dot com/article/exclusive-interview-tila-tequila-dishes-on-new-reality-show-pregnancy-music-and-more Also, for whatever it's worth: "Matt Carter is a poet, journalist, and screenwriter from Dallas, TX. A former reality and game show contestant, he published his first book, 'Storms of Change,' in May 2008." From here we get: "Matt Carter is best known to millions of Americans as "The Poet" from the hit television show "Beauty and the Geek," but he has also appeared on the television program "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" in addition to hosting "Mustang Movies with Matt and Christy" for Southern Methodist University. He also reports frequently on sports for Most Valuable Network. Carter currently lives in Dallas, where he enjoys writing, video gaming, and pining away at what to do next." I don't have a plan for what we're supposed to do with all this information, but there ya go. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Is Carter a notable television critic? That he's been a former reality television show contestant is nice, but are his writings regularly published in news entertainment magazines (Variety, Hollywood Reporter, etc.) or relegated to self-published places like Yahoo Contributor Network, Examiner, Facebook, Livejournal, Wordpress, or forum posts where anyone can write about anything? If he's a legit critic, then is the award that he gives meaningful? Any writer can write up their "best television show of 2015" or "my top 10 favorite shows of 2015" list or write-in their own categories of superlatives. A website can also gather nominations and have their subscribers and viewers vote on the winners, publishing those results. If it's a viewer vote, that doesn't count for anything either. Some of those year-end results might be listed in critical reception or even Metacritic among the hundreds of others, but is hardly a notable award for an Awards and Nominations list. Then on the recipient side, does the recipient even get anything or consider it important? Do they come on the show and thank the awards site? Do they add it to their resume as their own accomplishments? (e.g. I was named the Best Actress in Houston Metro!) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think Tokyogirl79 is suggesting the best test. Is this award itself something that would be notable enough to be covered in third party reliable sources independent of the awarder and awardee - basically does the award itself meet our standards for WP:GNG? I don't think we necessarily need an article for the award but if there were one, that would show that the award is notable enough to matter. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That's generally how I feel, though I agree with everyone who's posted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject NCIS

I have suggested that WP:WikiProject NCIS be converted into a taskforce of this project, WPTV, similar to how other inactive TV wikiprojects have been converted to WPTV taskforces over the years. For the proposal discussion, see WT:WikiProject NCIS -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sherlock and Talk:List of Sherlock episodes

At the above there are claims that it is a British American co-production using cites that may be right or wrong and on the list of episodes since the new template allows multi countries and dates British and American date formats are being used setting what I believe is a precedent. As a non interventionist editor who does not get into edit wars, I think some guidance is needed from the experienced editor here. Over to youREVUpminster (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No one has commented but another tv series Jekyll and Hyde (TV series), An editor has used the multi airdate format to list Canada two months after it's initial broadcast. There must be a stop or every English speaking country will want an air-date. REVUpminster (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Alternate dates are acceptable under some circumstances and {{Episode list}} has always supported them. However, per MOS:DATEUNIFY, dates in the body of the article should use the same format. I don't see any reason for the Canadian dates in Jekyll and Hyde (TV series). --AussieLegend (✉) 16:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I took out the Canadian dates and I was shot down on the Talk:List of Sherlock episodes re date consistency and life is too short. REVUpminster (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is an acceptable use of AltDate to you? So far as I am aware, Canada is the first country to pick up the show after its UK debut. Do we even know of any other countries broadcasting it? If it is the first extranational broadcast then this is notable to me. We're talking about the show getting exposure after its creator announced the originating network dropped it. 174.92.135.167 (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Numerical season category proposal

Under Category:Television seasons we have Category:Television seasons by year on the basis of when they happened.

We also have Category:Television seasons by programming which collects the seasons of multiple series.

I would like to know if we could also collect seasons on the basis of their counting. As in a category for all articles about a first season, another for all second seasons, and so forth.

For example Lost (season 1) and WordGirl (season 1) and Total Divas (season 1)

The only thing I am not sure about is the formatting of the naming.

Before creating I figured I would throw out some ideas to see if anyone had better ones. It would be a big project but it wouldn't have to be done all at once. There are a lot of pages like these and this would be a good way to track them. Naturally the population of each category would shrink as we went forward.

Category:List of television seasons by number perhaps?

As for how to populate it...

1. category:1st television seasons
2. category:2nd television seasons

and so forth.

Once we got to season 10+ the category would display out of order, a problem the 'by year' has not had to deal with since it ranges from 1950 to 2016, so it would only approach a problem on the year 9999.

One prevention might be to make it double digit from the start:

1. category:01st television seasons

but that might not be easy for people to remember... I don't know any shows approaching 100 seasons so it seems to fix the problem at least.

It occured to me we could spell it out rather than use the numerical characters:

1. category:first television seasons
2. category:second television seasons
3. category:third television seasons
4. category:fourth television seasons

we can see that breaks down even sooner in terms of automated parent category order though. I guess we could simply comment |01 and |02 and so forth when adding them to do that though. It seems like using number characters would take up less space though. 174.92.135.167 (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

What purpose would this serve? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Organization, like any category. It would let us easily know which shows have become notable enough to not just have a -list of episodes- page but also a season-based page, and of those, how many season articles there are for higher-numbered seasons. --174.92.135.167 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There are no different levels of notability. If a series has a page then it's notable. Having a season page doesn't make it any more notable. Grouping The Simpsons (season 9) (1997/98) with NCIS (season 9) (2011/12) and The Big Bang Theory (season 9) (2015/16) in Category:Ninth television seasons serves no useful purpose that I can see. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Aussie. I don't see the benefit. How will these categories help readers? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The purpose is to identify how many shows have gone into that many seasons. Just like when we group seasons by year of air date, it lets us know how many shows aired during that year. Just as people might be curious about what other shows were airing during a given year, people might be curious about what other shows have accrued as many seasons. 20:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

ABC Family/Freeform

I think the articles on ABC Family and Freeform (TV network) need some attention. It looks like a cut-and-paste move was done.

Also, Category:ABC Family shows was moved to Category:Freeform shows which I don't understand either. Are even old shows that have been produced by ABC Family now automatically Freeform shows? Shouldn't there be a new category for Freeform shows, leaving the ABC Family as it is? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And this applies to Category:ABC Family and Category:Freeform, too. There is also Category:ABC Family original films.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I have requested speedy deletion to delete the cut and paste move article, Freeform (TV network), which is an incorrect name per WP:NC-BC, and for Freeform (TV channel), its correct location/article name. (You are welcome, Frosting.)

Not sure about the category issue. In some regards with Freeform being a new name for ABC Family that moving that category makes some sense. On the other hand, they may be better know under the ABC Family name. Perhaps based on the number of shows should determine if the old category name should continue, nested with in a new Freeform equivalent category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spshu (talk • contribs)

For the categories, there is still a Category:Fox Family shows which has not been moved into ABC Family, either. Same for The WB/The CW.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Netflix "Original" programming in Navbox

Additional opinions welcome at Template talk:Netflix#River. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Phil episode list or season articles

Would there be any opposition to organizing a list? The show seems notable enough to arrange one. Usually each episode has a page on the site which could be used as a reference to support its title and air date. Due to there being over a thousand episode it would not seem appropriate to allow summaries on a master list and to save that for if season pages were made.

Are any notability criteria needed to allow for a Dr. Phil (season 1) to Dr. Phil (season 14) to be made? I'm personally only interested in doing a master list but I imagine some people might want to add summaries so if they begin to do so it would be nice to have a season page to divert them to. 174.92.135.167 (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Citing TV guides behind pay and registration barriers

Would template:cite AV media be appropriate for this? Or perhaps template:cite AV media notes? I have just been using template:cite web til now. Would an online log-in TV guide be considered a template:cite encyclopedia? I am told there is some kind of registration=yes field to make use of. Bell Fibe TV has a basic TV guide anyone can view without logging in, but if you have an account and log in you can view a more extensive guide that goes more days into the future and also lists original air dates for programs, like when I view the guide for the TV itself.

Brought this up at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Template to use for TV guides and some repliers advised to ask here too.

Unfortunately it is just a basic page for the guide, I don't know how to produce any unique URLs to link to content, I can provide an access-date in good faith to show when I viewed it. I can't archive it due to the registration barrier. Unfortunately this means that once an episode airs, it would have to rerun and someone would have to find the rerun to verify the Original air date data I provide from it.

I have been told that taking a photograph of my TV showing the OAD or a PrtScn of the logged-in website guide is copyvio but since I am merely citing a date I don't see how, it seems like fair use to include brief snippets of something in the 'quote' field from a source for verifying basic data like air dates and titles. Would there be a way to qualify them for fair use if I cropped it to be a small-as-possible portion which was only large enough to show the title and OAD but small enough that it crops off a portion of the summary? 174.92.135.167 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Picking an online guide from the TV itself is rather difficult to cite, well, I suppose you could use cite AV media for that. I would suggest a URL-based website to login to get the content. You can list the basic Bell Fibe online website and then in the citation, put a "postscript=" to list what the commands and terms you used to navigate the site/app to get to the episode. Example: url=www.attuverse.com, postscript=. Search show "MyShow". Selecting "Episode 302" shows "Original airdate: 01/15/2016." Be sure to set the accessdate and set subscription=yes. If there's a direct link to a show page with episodes as with Netflix or Hulu, you could try citing that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Siya Ke Ram

Would someone from WP:TV mind taking a look at Siya Ke Ram and possibly assessing it? I'm not sure if including information about "dubbed" versions, etc. is something commonly included per MOS:TV and also not sure about the "Former cast" section. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

What constitutes a franchise?

At NCIS (franchise) an editor is claiming that JAG is part of the NCIS franchise. (NCIS was a spin-off from JAG, not the other way around). Unfortunately discussion has suddenly stalled and the editor has decided to make his edits anyway. So what constitutes a media franchise? Can a series be part of a spin-off's media franchise? The complete discussion is at Talk:NCIS (franchise)#JAG. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

My case rests with the fact that NCIS is clearly a JAG spin-off, and then therefore NCIS spin-offs also exist in the JAG universe. CSI: NY, for example, exists within the CSI franchise, whilst being a Miami spin-off. Series creator Donald P. Bellisario filed a law-suit noting that NCIS: Los Angeles is technically a spin-off of JAG, and all three series exist within the JAG/NCIS franchise. JAG has crossed over with NCIS multiple times, as recently as 2013. Hollywood insiders such as Matt Carter, who states that "all [NCIS series are] stemming from JAG" ([2]), also agree that the series are inter-linked. JAG's existence is already outlined on the franchise page, so it wouldn't mean adding new content, simply moving it around a bit - which I'd be happy to do (and have done, actually), myself. JAG was already included as part of the franchise when the page was first created, though this has since been removed. --Unframboise (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I would personally say based on what's presented here, NCIS would be part of JAG's franchise, rather than JAG as part of the NCIS franchise? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That has been (part of) what I have been arguing, and why JAG was originally removed from the NCIS franchise article. Media franchise says A media franchise is a collection of media in which several derivative works have been produced from an original work of media (usually a work of fiction), such as a film, a work of literature, a television program or a video game, which supports the view, since NCIS: Los Angeles and NCIS: New Orleans are derivative works of NCIS. However, the only spinoff from JAG was NCIS, although it's not a spinoff in the traditional sense, since the series itself is totally different to JAG and the NCIS spinoffs have no no resemblance to JAG. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few more: Matt Mitovich ("JAG/NCIS franchise"; [3]), series star Zoe McLellan, who discusses what its like to play different characters in the same franchise ([4]), and JAG front-man David James Elliott describes himself as the "grandfather" of NCIS: Los Angeles ([5]). Obviously one option would be to re-direct NCIS (franchise) to JAG (franchise) or JAG/NCIS (franchise), however I'm more than happy to concede and just have JAG added to the NCIS page. TenTonParasol, what are your thoughts on all four series existing as part of the same franchise, regardless of whether its under the JAG or NCIS moniker? --Unframboise (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that the first link refers to the "JAG/NCIS franchise", not the "JAG franchise" or the "NCIS franchise", the second refers to "universe", which is different to "franchise" and is really a more accurate term, and the third refers to NCIS: Los Angeles being a spinoff of JAG, which it clearly never was. NCIS: Los Angeles follows the NCIS premise, which is far different to JAG and JAG had ended 4 years before NCIS: Los Angeles aired. NCIS was a completely different series that used two episodes of JAG as a backdoor pilot and the NCIS characters never appeared in JAG before or after those two episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

But JAG characters appeared on NCIS after those two episodes. I think the thing you're having trouble getting your head around is that JAG doesn't have NCIS in the title. If the series was called NCIS: JAG, then you'd have no problem with including it on the franchise page. CSI: Cyber doesn't follow the same premise as CSI, but they're considered one franchise. The Lone Gunmen follows a completely different premise to both The X-Files and Millennium, but again, one franchise. --Unframboise (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The name is completely irrelevant. The premise, crossover characters etc are all important but none of the NCIS characters were spunoff from JAG. They first appeared in the NCIS pilot and didn't return to JAG after that. Even JAG characters didn't really crossover. One JAG character appeared in one NCIS episode during its first season and that was really the only crossover. A JAG lawyer, who did not appear in JAG before or after the NCIS pilot, later appeared in 2 NCIS episodes, briefly. She spent more time on NCIS than JAG. Another character appeared in 2 unrelated episodes of JAG and NCIS. He only appeared in JAG as a minor character after the NCIS pilot, and then appeared in NCIS with no, as I remember, mention of JAG. Another reprised his JAG role in a single NCIS episode 8 years after JAG ended. NCIS and JAG were like chalk and cheese. You can't claim that anything in the NCIS franchise was derived from JAG. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing you list an awful lot of links between the series, and I'm also seeing ridiculous attempts to claim they're not *really* links. I've given my two cents - we'll see how this plays out. --Unframboise (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Nobody said they're not links, but links alone do not demonstrate that JAG is part of the NCIS franchise. There are plenty of links between Homicide: Life on the Street and Law & Order: SVU, they even shared a main character, but Homicide: Life on the Street is not part of the Law & Order franchise. You are, by the way, ignoreing the alck of links that I've presented, lack of a similar premise, no JAG characters spun-off into NCIS, distinct lack of character crossovers (2 in hundreds of episodes), etc. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If the star of JAG, and the creator of both JAG and NCIS believe these "links" (which clearly indicate a franchise) are enough to indicate a franchise, then I don't see why you're so against the idea. Law & Order and Homicide existed concurrently, and crossed over throughout the shows (like Hawaii Five-0 and NCIS: LA), while JAG spun-off NCIS. NCIS is *clearly* a spin-off of JAG, as noted by CBS here [6] ("Spin-off of the highly successful JAG"), therefore NCIS: LA and NOLA exist as part of the same media franchise. Your argument that "no JAG characters spun-off into NCIS" (aside from appearances by the core four, which were introduced on JAG, Cmdr. Faith Coleman, and Commander Rainer, Bud Roberts, and AJ Chegwidden), would also mean that CSI: NY is not part of the CSI franchise, but instead part of the CSI: Miami franchise, as CSI: NY has only featured an appearance of two CSI characters, and no characters spun-off, not even via an embedded pilot. Again, if anyone knows what series exist as part of the NCIS franchise, its the creator of NCIS. --Unframboise (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the brand/name licensing an important aspect of a franchise in contrast to a universe? Then even a multitude of spin-offs would not automatically form a franchise if they are produced by the same people/companies. (I don't know what the production or licensing situation is for JAG/NCIS.) Another important feature of the examples in Media franchise seems to be the common brand or name, but does JAG carry the NCIS name anywhere, or vice versa?–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

JAG and NCIS are produced by CBS and Bellisarius Productions, NCIS: LA is a Shane Brennan production, with CBS, and NCIS: New Orleans is produced by CBS, Gary Glasberg's company, and Mark Harmon's production company. The common brand, in this case, would be the military justice nature of the series, as claimed by Bellisario and Elliott, CBS also explicitly uses JAG to promote NCIS overseas (as demonstrated above, [7]). JAG and NCIS do not carry each-others names in title, though both reference the activities of the other group throughout the series - JAG even sent one of its characters off for a secondment with NCIS. And I mean, hell, even this mainstay of the NCIS opening credits [8] is taken from a JAG episode. --Unframboise (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

And I know that part of Aussie's (poorly formed) argument is that a JAG/NCIS franchise is different to an NCIS franchise, but I created the franchise page originally, and the only reason I didn't include JAG in the title is because it seemed redundant, and I assumed everybody would know it was part of the same group of series. Clearly I overestimated the intelligence of some editors. --Unframboise (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)