Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

Bullshit

There is a disagreement at Penn and Teller: Bullshit! over whether to use quotation marks around the word "bullshit" alone. Since this article falls under this Wikiproject umbrella, you may want to weigh in on that Talk Page. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kamlesh Pandey

Dear television experts: This old Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable person, and should the draft be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Production Code

This discussion has been moved from the Helpdesk to this page. User: Dk113040 has been adding "production code" to a whole bunch of pages on televiskion series. Does anyone see any value in this? I for one don't. I doubt that a significant number of readers/ users know what a production code is and to anyone who does, it really adds no value whatsoever to the page. If we are going to retain it, could we at least link it to Production code number in the column heading? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the long-term value of production codes, even assuming that the information could be properly sourced, which it almost never is. Sometimes sites like Futon Critic get it right, sometimes the information is pulled from TiVo, but oft-times this information is pulled out of editors' asses, and I don't know how most of the existing data can be deemed reliable, or even verifiable. In my personal experience, I've noticed production codes being added well after episodes air, to coincide with whatever the season/episode line-up is in the relevant article. So S1E3 becomes 103 by default, S4E15 becomes 415 by default, even if we have no idea in what order the episodes were actually produced. I am of the opinion we should do away with them unless they come with a seriously reliable source, preferably a printed source. I don't think Futon Critic has been especially accurate on this, and it's likely because the networks aren't reporting the data consistently or correctly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Pulling from pages I work on, The Big Bang Theory episodes each have production codes (ex. 4X5301) where as Parks and Recreation just has 40x, where the first number is the season, and the last two, the episode number. So in a case where ones exist and are sourced like The Big Bang Theory, they can be included, because sometime production sequences result in out of order airing (ie 4X5301 might be episode 2, while 4x5302 is episode 1, airing-wise). But if it is just the season number with the episode number tacked on, they should not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Favre, so what does this information add to the article? Does it make a difference if you want to find it? No. it does not. Does it make a difference in any other way? No it does not. I bet that if a film director released the information about how the scenes were shot, in whcih sequence, and at the last minute the director changed his/ her mind and the film was put together different from originally intended, someone would want to put that in the article. But that is a besides the scene process, it has no bearing whatsoever. If the studios had not released production codes, we would not even know the right sequence. When you go to a restaurant and for some reason the chef decided to do things in a different order, UNLESS you have that information, you wouldn't even know there was anything different about it. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Where are we as a WikiProject on this issue? Should production codes be included? Excluded? Included only if sourced? Cut if not? Is it possible to get any movement on adding previous consensus decisions of these sorts of matters to MOS:TV? I've noticed a reluctance to add to the MOS. It's somewhat frustrating. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Generally, nothing should be added without a source, especially something as hard to find as the production code (the actual code). My general feeling is that, if the show filmed and aired them in the right order, then it isn't necessary. It becomes a code that has no value. If they filmed and aired them out of order, it can be useful, but we should strive to find out why they were aired out of order so that there is some prose that goes along with it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Full character names vs just "nicknames"

What, if any, is the policy of referring to characters on the main show page? The show in question is Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and questioning if in the character section, it should have the listing of Philip "Phil" Coulson, versus Phil Coulson. Does WP:COMMONNAME apply in this instance? While that is the full character name, they are always referred to as Phil in the show, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, and doesn't seem like an instance of Hugo "Hurley" Reyes from Lost (TV series). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be common name. Fictional characters are not real. We get into this all the time with Michael Myers, where people want to add Aubrey to the middle name because it's seen in one film. It's not the common name that the show refers, or that audiences know them as. I wouldn't call Freddy Krueger "Frederick Krueger" (although that is a constant battle on that page). At the end of the day, how is the actor credited on the show. If it's "Phil Coulson" (and it was in all of the films), then that is the name. I don't mean how is the fictional universe created on their website crediting him, but the actual credit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks for the insight Bignole. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Even though WP:COMMONNAME applies to article naming, we aim to be consistent throughout Wikipedia (not that it always works!) so applying the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME to characters seems entirely appropriate. We are supposed to write articles so that they are understandable by all readers, not just fans of a specific series, so using the name commonly used in episodes is the best way to refer to them. After all, that's what casual watchers will be looking for. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about "List of X episodes" articles

I've recently noticed that episodes lists such as List of SpongeBob Squarepants episodes don't exist for reality shows such as The Amazing Race, Big Brother, The Bachelor, Survivor, etc. Is there a reason for this? Is there a consensus to not make episode lists for reality shows like those? Gloss • talk 23:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Most reality TV shows (specifically those competition-based like those you list) have a per-season/cycle page, where details of what happens relative to the whole season is done. This is because single episodes typically don't mean as much as to fiction/story-based works where an individual episode may stand out and thus the need for the episode list there. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards

Please see the RfC at Category talk:Filmographies#Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards. Comments are welcome there. —sroc 💬 14:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested template for series overview at Wikipedia:Requested templates

I have created a request for a template to be made for series overviews, which are frequently seen on television episode lists. You can see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Requested templates#Series overview. Whisternefet (t · c) 22:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Need list organization help

I'm having some major trouble with List of programs broadcast by Toonami. I've done a major reorganization of the list so that the programs listed are placed first, followed by previous lists of programs that have been broadcast on the channel, organized by block. However, an anonymous IP user insists on restoring the old version which has 200+ sections and details every single schedule lineup since the channel's conception (90% of which is unsourced). HERE The old version violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE in all sorts of manners, but he is threatening edit warring. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Ask for a third opinion on the talk page? If it is found to violate those policies (which it looks to be) and the IP reverts it again, you could possibly bring it up on the administrators' noticeboard. Whisternefet (t · c) 16:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

'The Walking Dead' screenshots (possible copyright violation)

Hi, an editor named Hutto1419 recently posted some screenshots (See [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) to some articles about 'The Walking Dead' episodes. All of the images you added have been tagged for speedy deletion from Wikimedia Commons due to possible copyright violations. I am assuming these were just added in good faith by someone unfamiliar with Wikipolicy since these are the only contributions made by this editor. Since I'm fairly new myself and not really sure if these images satisfy WP:FAIRUSE, I did not revert. Perhaps somebody more familiar with this kind of thing can take a look and edit the articles as needed? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Another editor (AussieLegend) has deleted the aforementioned screenshots so this matter has been resolved. Thanks. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Eyes at The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series)

Hey, could someone please keep an eye on The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series). IP user from Brazil keeps adding Latin American broadcast info. I've reverted twice, so I'm at my limit. I dropped him a note on his talk page re WP:TVINTL but he apparently ignored my note. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What makes a co-production?

Hey, so I was looking at this edit. Started wondering what, to the WikiProject's satisfaction, qualifies as a co-production? Many companies like Nickelodeon own a property, but use foreign studios (let's use South Korea as an example) to animate because it's cheaper. That doesn't automatically qualify as an American/South Korean co-production does it? On the other hand, a show like The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) appears to be a co-production because this article describes it as being produced in conjunction with a Canadian company. Anyone have any at-a-glance guidelines on this? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure of a guideline on it, but I would view "co-production" more as "co-financing" and "co-ownership". People working on a project don't make that project part of their respective countries. For example, I wouldn't call any of the CW shows "Canadian" just because they choose to film in Canada and use Canadian actors. It's for cost saving reasons.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

How about Orphan Black? The Wikipedia page only lists it as Canadian, even though it's produced in association with BBC America. -- Wikipedical (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hi! I requested a peer review of the article on "The Wonder Years" because I find it to be of poor quality and would like suggestions as to how to improve it. The peer review can be found here. Twyfan714 (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion for improvements to Wonder Years article

Okay, so I got the peer review I needed for The Wonder Years and it is clear that it needs a lot of improvement. Unfortunately, I have a lot of work coming up, and therefore, won't have the time to be bold and change it all myself. I have started a discussion on ways to improve the article and would appreciate any suggestions you all have for improvement! Thanks! Twyfan714 (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request for China, IL

I have also requested a peer review of China, IL, so that I may be able to improve it to Good Article status. The review can be found at: Wikipedia:Peer review/China, IL/archive1. Thanks, Whisternefet (t · c) 04:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Kayro Productions

Shouldn't Kayro Productions be redirected to Universal Television. If so, maybe there should be a separate chapter on the company. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory template instructions

I've started a discussion about contradictory instructions at {{Infobox television}}. The discussion is here. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

TFD?

Why is Template:Buffy and Angel cast any better than adding the cast names to Template:Buffynav and Template:Angelnav?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Per a discussion a long time ago, cast and crew names should not be added to navboxes so {{Buffy and Angel cast}} is completely redundant and should be deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

List of The Amazing World of Gumball episodes

Hi, could I get a few extra eyes at List of The Amazing World of Gumball episodes. Users (mostly IPs) keep adding a May 27, 2014 premiere date for S3 and the only source that has been provided is a forum post at ToonZone. The IPs are prolific and I'm doing too much reverting. Alt, if someone could dig up a reliable source for this info, that'd be nice. I'm having trouble finding one. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried resolving the dispute on the article's talk page? If not, I would try and do that first, redirecting those users to the talk page for discussion if they persist. If you have already done this, and the dispute continues, consider seeking dispute resolution. Cheers! Twyfan714 (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)