Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

Merger discussion for Disney La Chaîne

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

Proposed deletion of Dual Survival season articles

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

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

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

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

Storyboarders listed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miniseries runtimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preferred national disambiguators?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Season categories for episode list articles

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

List of episodes titling

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

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

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

TV series ratings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a bit confusing when the recent Nielsen charts show viewer estimates in the thousands. [1] But I agree it should not be a mix, especially if sorting by viewers. The ratings are typically shown up to the tenths precision though, regardless of viewership. The viewer count column is also not needed if the ratio of rating to viewers is the same for the entire period. MOS:LARGENUM says 843,000 and 843 thousand are both usable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Defining what nationality a programme is

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

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

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

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

Theater section at Danai Gurira article

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

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

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

Replacing br-separated director and writer lists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applying WP:TVCAST to an LoE page

Additional editors of the project are invited to weigh in on a discussion at Talk:List of K.C. Undercover episodes, here, which is looking to see if a part of WP:TVCAST applies outside of cast lists on articles (this one in particular) that lists actor absences. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that is exactly the wrong approach. The discussion needs to be held here, not there. Also, it's best that this actually be proposed as a formal RfC for maximum effect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of continuity, it is best to keep the discussion contained. Should it be deemed to take it further, then it can come here. Right now, that is not the case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"Last appearance" in the infobox

What is the purpose of this parameter? These are fictional characters so nothing (not even death!) means they will never be seen again. Fictional characters come back from the dead all the time! Sometimes, they end up never having even been dead... it was all just another character's dream! Unlike a first appearance (which can only happen once), a character's last appearance can change at anytime for any reason without warning for all eternity! Not only is having this parameter not encyclopedic in the least, it creates a lot (like... a LOT) of confusion, leading to continuous errors, even when sources confirm a dead character is not done on a show.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please direct any responses here. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Being: Mike Tyson

I've been working on and off on a draft for the FOX series Being: Mike Tyson. I've been searching for some rating information which I might be able to use, but have had no luck so far. I've checked TV by the Numbers, but haven't found anything for this particular series. The series was only one 6-episode season and originally ran in Sept./Oct. 2013. Just wondering if anyone has any suggestions on where I might be able to find such information. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes I've found that newspaper archives can be useful, the Rocky Mountain News carried some ratings info when I was working on Millennium episodes although that was for a show broadcast 20 years ago so there's no guarantee they'd keep printing the same kind of thing. GRAPPLE ^X 08:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Grapple X. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox character

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox character#Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2016. There is a request to add |mother= and |father= parameter aliases to {{Infobox character}}, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48

Persistent sockpuppetry at multiple TV articles

Almost 2 weeks ago I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isla Riordan because of multiple edits like this to multiple television articles. In the past few days I've seen similar edits, to different articles, by multiple anonymous editors, being reverted. It appears that the problems that I identified haven't gone away. I encourage anyone reverting such an edit, or seeing one, to either mention it at the SPI report, or here, as it is an ongoing, cross-wiki problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for starting this. I've definitely noticed an uptick in these edits of late. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm amazed at how much vandalism TV related articles attract. That's an impressive amount of socking there... also suspect an automated script. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably some person or persons paid to add spam links. Like the people who post on all message boards everywhere about how their mother-in-law's cousin's boyfriend's dog made $3000/month working at home. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That can happen?! Wow, I've got to get me one of those dogs! (On a serious note, I've added a bunch, especially IPs to the report. Keep planning to do so as they appear on pages on my watchlist.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I only created my instagram account in December and made a single post. Within a month I was tagged by somebody who posted a comment on a photo Selena Gomez uploaded and apparently I now have tickets to see her in LA. It's no $3,000 dog but.... Thanks to those who added to the SPI. The more information we have, the easier it is to come up with a targeted fix. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Experienced editor removing spoilers

At List of The 100 characters an experienced editor is removing is removing what he considers to be spoilers, despite WP:SPOILER.[2][3] Some eyes on that article would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

AussieLegend, there is no need to report me here like I am some vandal. I explained here and here. I am very much against unnecessary spoiling, and cases like this one at Talk:Kingsman: The Secret Service is just one example of why. I will be starting a WP:RfC on this matter very soon. And I will come back here to link to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And let's not forget that I left in this spoiler, for reasons explained. But the other one? No, I do not see it as necessary on a page that is meant to give a brief character description; that character has her own Wikipedia article, and I am against unnecessarily spoiling in the lead of her article or with a heading. I included the spoilers where readers should expect them or possibly expect them, and that's the way it should be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As I have said on your talk page, apparently while you were typing here, by all means, draft a change to WP:SPOILER, as you claim to be doing,[4][5] or start an RfC, but don't preempt the outcome of the proposal or RfC by removing what you consider to be spoilers from articles. At best it's inappropriate, as WP:SPOILER has had wide support for a long time. As an experienced editor, you should know better than to make such edits.

let's not forget that I left in this spoiler, for reasons explained. - As you should have, since WP:SPOILER says not to remove them.

No, I do not see it as necessary on a page that is meant to give a brief character description; that character has her own Wikipedia article - Whether or not she has her own article is irrelevant. The death of a character is a significant event and should be mentioned in a narrative about the character. After all, she's not going to be in further episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I told you on my talk page: What I consider to be unnecessary spoiling is, in fact, considered to unnecessary spoiling by many editors. This is seen with cases like this one at Talk:Kingsman: The Secret Service, and by multiple complaints at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, and various complaints by our readers across Wikipedia. And yet nothing is being about editors placing spoilers any and everywhere and using the WP:SPOILER guideline for justification. First of all, it is a guideline, not a policy. And there are indeed cases where we should not spoil, such as spoiling the twist ending in the lead of the The Sixth Sense article. If you were to add that spoiler to that lead, do you think most editors would support that it stay there if I started a WP:RfC on it? I don't. WP:Spoiler does not support spoiling any and everywhere without good cause, and yet it is used that way." I follow WP:Spoiler, but I do not blindly follow it and treat it like a policy; like all policies and guidelines, adhering to it should be used with WP:Common sense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also notice that I took care not to directly spoil in this section by mentioning her death. You know, for those WP:TV editors who have not watched the show but might want to, and hate being spoiled. My proposal is at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler#RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the guideline. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

On a side note: Even though I think it's best not to include huge spoilers unless necessary, I do understand the point that readers should expect spoilers in a plot section or in an article about characters where the sections are mostly plot. And I apologize if I came off as aggressive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm female, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Most of the complaints at WP:SPOILER seem to be from anonymous editors, no doubt people who have never read a paper encyclopaedia and expect this to be like imdb, tv.com or other fansites. That we've had an issue at one article doesn't indicate that opposition is widespread. Nearly 900 pages link to WP:SPOILER so it clearly has been widely discussed. That many editors treat it so seriously just demonstrates that there are enough editors out there who understand that in order to be an encyclopaedia we have to treat subjects neutrally and not concern ourselves with whether or not something that is publicly available might upset somebody. When it comes to spoilers people can be completely irrational. I was once abused by (ironically it seems) a girl because I happened to mention that in Titanic the ship hit an iceberg. That was two weeks ago.

"First of all, it is a guideline, not a policy." - What you're proposing to add to the guideline comes from an essay, which has even less authority, so your argument is less than consistent. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I know when to spoil and when not to spoil, and I am not basing those thoughts on a lone case or simply on the complaints of less experienced editors at the guideline talk page. I am basing those thoughts on experience and what I consider common sense. Of course, you and I, or some other editors, won't always agree on when to spoil; not agreeing on a rule happens all the time here at Wikipedia. And such matters are often settled at the article's talk page, especially if it's just a guideline instead of a policy. WP:Policies and guidelines is clear that "Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules and that "policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." It links to WP:Common sense, an essay, just like I did above. And what it states is how I edit here. I've made my case in the RfC, where some experienced editors agree with me. No matter what happens with the outcome of that RfC, I am certain that the WP:Spoiler guideline will eventually be changed so that it is clearer that it's not okay to place spoilers any and everywhere just because certain people interpret that guideline as a license to needlessly spoil. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I write a lot of summaries and use this as a guideline for short summaries. Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Spoilers. One editor insisted naming the murderer at the end of each SHORT summary of a detective series. My take is if you wish to add the murderer of other spoiler, an episode article should be created. REVUpminster (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the murderer is part of the plot summary, adding the name seems reasonable. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. People coming here should expect to be spoiled and if they aren't, they really need to visit a library and ask to see an encyclopaedia and a fan magazine so they can compare the two. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

REVUpminster, I don't agree with your take that "an episode article should be created," but you should weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler#RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the guideline. There, you can help form a change when it comes to how we include spoilers. I'm hoping for a reasonable compromise between those who like or love to spoil, or don't mind spoiling, and those who are more conservative about spoiling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Are Hollywood.com bios considered a "reliable source"?

Are Hollywood.com bios considered a "reliable" enough source to be used for article referencing? I ask because I'm looking at their bio for Haley Tju, and it's riddled with errors (e.g. incorrect dates), so I'm thinking if they're considered reliable now, maybe they shouldn't be... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussions at RSN and older RSN were inconclusive about this. They look to be a news aggregator more than an originator and fact checker. Who knows where they get their info, they don't seem to say. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Tju has a New York Times filmography, but it's less complete than the Hollywood.com one; however the NYT bio does at least confirm a birthdate. In any case, I think my advice would be – if you can replace a Hollywood.com bio references with something else (like the NYT), do so! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

When in doubt, I tend to err on the side of no. Sources should have established reputations for fact-checking. Also if a site doesn't indicate who's running it, or who the editor is, or things like that, it makes me uneasy. And since BLPs must be impeccably sourced, using non-impeccable source should be avoided. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Revivals

I'm wondering if anyone has any opinions on how revivals ("event series") should be treated since there's so many of them nowadays. As in, is a "revival" series officially a part of the original series, or is it a separate entity. For example, Heroes and Heroes Reborn are being treated separately; Reborn is not counted in Heroes' season/episode count or its original run and is just listed in the related show field. Is this the best way to go, or should it be a case-by-case basis depending on the series and editors of that article. Or, do we develop an overall consensus that a revival is officially part or not part of the original series. I'm mainly taking about this should be handled in the infobox. Other examples: 24 and The X-Files both treat their revival runs as part of the original series, unlike Heroes. Any thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say case-by-case. Depends on the separation and how the network is treating this. If the revival starts with an advertised season 1, for example, it is a strong indication the network considers it separate from the original. See Doctor Who for a weirder example. Judgment call as to how to best present info to the readers. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree with a case-by-case situation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think they should all be treated separately – for all practical purposes, they are all different productions than the original series – and we should ignore this silly "X-Files (season 10)"-type stuff. But I suspect my position won't be the consensus one... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I also think case-by-case is the best approach. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Depends on whether the parent article covers the media franchise. In most cases it does, and lists "revival series" in the infobox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on case-by-case. Heroes Reborn was not referred to as Heroes Season 5, but the X-Files revival was referred to as The X-Files Season 10. Doctor Who is another separate case entirely... Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)