Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British TV shows/Archive 1

*Only Fools and Horses*
Only Fools and Horses
Created by	John Sullivan
Starring	David Jason
No. of episodes	64
Production
Producer	BBC Drama
Running time	30 to 90 minutes
Original release
Network	BBC One
Release	15th September, 1981 –; 25th December, 2003
Related
	The Green Green Grass

Things that need doing..

So, three things need doing:

Create a template for talk pages. I'll get to this later today.
Infobox.
Find out what we're going to do project-wise. Are we going to have a project of the week? Month?

9cds 12:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

For the infoboxes, we can either use Template:Infobox television or a slightly modified version (currently on my user page User:Smurrayinchester/Infoboxes). Maybe a vote? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Ho Ho Ho!)} 13:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the one you did. Maybe add fields like production company? 9cds 14:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added production company and related shows (spin-offs etc.) and created Template:Infobox British television. This is an example:

Looks good to me :) I'll make it the project's infobox, and add it to /infobox, if everyone else likes it. 9cds 14:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, but it doesn't seem to accept any width limitations for images (See User:PS2pcGAMER/UKTVTemplate). Any chance you can add this? Or should I just downsize the image? -- PS2pcGAMER 10:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a feature I wanted to add, but this is one of my first templates and I wasn't sure how to. If anyone can, please do. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've just updated the box so blank fields now don't appear. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added this to a couple of sitcoms yesterday, and i thought that maybe "Creator" isnt clear enough. Sometimes there isnt anyone that this can be accurately attributed to; should the writer(s) be put here when there isnt a specific creator? -- jeffthejiff (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The field isn't necessary; the infobox will work fine without it (as Top Gear shows). If you can't think of the creator, just leave it. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 12:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, but do you think it'd be useful to add a Writer(s) row? -- jeffthejiff (talk)

How notible will that be? We could have something like a crew row? -- 9cds^(talk) 16:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, writers are more notable than the crew; there are often shows written by popular/notable writers. Mostly i was just suggesting it to provide a better definition when "Creator" is too ambiguous to use. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I choose creator over writer is that this infobox can be used for reality TV, documentaries or drama; writer didn't feel right in the context of reality TV. I suppose it could be used, but maybe as 'Chief writer(s)', 'Executive writer(s)' etc to distinguish the Matt Lucases from the Joe Bloggs. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

couldn't you have fields for creators and writers? for reality tv, you'd just leave the field blank? and yeah, it could be just principal writers, or chief etc. just my tuppence.--Sammysam 14:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, don't see the point. -- 9cds^(talk) 17:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hope no one minds, but I added a no. of series field to the infobox. also, after about half an hour of struggling with the code (sorry, unfamiliar with html.. *blush*) i managed to add an imdb field.--Sammysam 14:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - thanks! -- 9cds^(talk) 17:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, why do British TV shows need their own infobox ? I see no reason why some of the fields that this Infobox has cannot be added to the higher up Infobox Television. In my eyes this Infobox is an unnecessary case of template forking WP:TV - The DJ 09:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are subtle, yet important, differences. 'Station' has been replaced with 'Channel', and other such things. -- 9cds^(talk) 18:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox Television}} currently uses "Original Network/Channel". Seems to suit UK just fine now I think. I really think it would be better to expand the original Infobox to be more flexible then that we end up with multiple boxes that need to be maintained. Currently the only difference between the two templates that I see are "related" and "no. of series/seasons" - The DJ 19:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As this template is redundant. If this template was redirected to {{Infobox Television}} would people be willing to help me modify the existing article to change the code.--NeilEvans 15:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once num-series is implemented, then we'll be able to change them. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented num_series and related fields from the British template into main template. So any articles need to be changed to reflect the new code.--NeilEvans 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project

I think collaboration of the month would be good: means that since there's a lot of articles on there, lots of articles will get worked on. What does everyone think? What about article? I found The Terry and Gaby Show by accident, and it looks like a good one for improvement. - 9cds 20:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like nobody has anything against it, so we'll say January's collaboration is The Terry and Gaby Show. -- 9cds^(talk) 20:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does need a bit of a cleanup, although im not familiar with the show so i wont be able to add much new content. I think The Smoking Room could be a side collaboration: it needs a bit of cleaning too, to narrow it down from the 32KB of almost pure waffle. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can make that next month's collaboration? -- 9cds^(talk) 17:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; both these articles are messy, but at least they have content. I'd like to see a pretty major show with a very short article, like My Family (BBC Comedy). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They still need cleaning up :) -- 9cds^(talk) 21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.. thinking about it again, cleaning up articles isnt as important really; its more of an ongoing thing. I'm for My Family - looks like it needs some serious attention. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel that - its a dupe. Check out My Family (television). Just needs to be merged. -- jeffthejiff (talk)

Babysitting

Hi folks. Could I ask a favour? I'll be away for a few days (4-7 Jan), so could someone please keep an eye on my user page? I've attracted a particularly hostile vandal who wasn't happy that I reverted his rants to Phil Redmond (OK, I did provoke him, somewhat, through my regrettable edit summaries). He's only made one edit to my talk page, but he could make more while I'm away. He's mainly getting at me through private e-mail, by attempting to subscribe me to gay porn. He's tracked down my work e-mail addy too, so he's becoming rather scary!! Cheers. The JPS 01:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do :) -- 9cds^(talk) 11:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions (television)/poll

Were people aware of these discussions? Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/poll I think it would be more productive if people advertised these proposals in relevant projects. I only stmbled across it from a link from someone's talk page. The JPS 17:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, we should but I feel that most are not aware of these discussions. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 20:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that's exactly why i'm trying to push WP:TV and these rules again :D The problem is that the information is all scattered and added as "supplement edits". So i'm trying to force a bit more guidance on the various projects. - The DJ 23:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Future tvshow}} has been nominated for deletion (correctly, this time). The template is very useful and also 'traps' unsubstantaited articles (rumoured shows and episodes can be verified and dealt with if they are in one place, but not if they are lost in one of the huge categories). The JPS 18:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parentage

This WikiProject doesn't have a Parentage defined. I think it would be good if it became a daughter of WP:TV. - The DJ 09:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems logical to me. I've added it. WP:TV has us as a related project, but I'm not too concerned with the asymmetry. As long as there is a link to the two projects somehow. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they've now made us a daughter, which is good :) -- 9cds^(talk) 18:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subcategorisation of Category:BBC television programmes

This category is very large and so far only has the subcategories Category:BBC children's television programmes, Category:BBC television sitcoms and those for individual shows with categories.

Anyone have any ideas for subcategories? Tim! 23:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe by genres (drama, comedy), or even channels? -- 9cds^(talk) 23:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, genres should work. What about Category:BBC television documentaries? It would tie in with Category:Television documentaries (a currently under-populated cat, but would become huge if it were used properly, so populating its 'child' first, so to speak, would probably save work later on). I can take care of that, if you like. The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. ;) Now to find a suitable project for this month :) -- 9cds^(talk) 23:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. How about something like 'BBC television dramas' and 'BBC current affairs programmes'? Tim! 08:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We now have Category:BBC television comedy. The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to Template:Infobox British television

To make the template consistent with Template:Infobox television I've added picture_format and country tags. The picture format will also be useful once the BBC and Sky high definition services start (a number of programs are already recorded in high definition, e.g. Bleak House (TV serial)). Rnt20 06:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being a "British TV show", I think we can guess what will be in the country tag. No programs so far have been filmed in HD. Reverting, because they're useless. -- 9cds^(talk) 08:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC searchable database

I just discovered http://open.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax which is an experimental database of (nearly) every programme produced by the BBC over the last 75 years. It appears that it went live at the end of April 2006. I have added a link to it to the resources section of this project page. Jooler 00:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! I wonder if it's worth adding links to the infobox? -- 9cds^(talk) 01:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a search for David Attenborough -http://open.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax/contributor/1444 interestingly it links back to our David Attenborough article! Jooler 01:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Wars

Hullo everyone - after almost a year of editing Wikipedia with not much to show for it I've decided to take on a project and, hopefully, some of you might be able to help me.

I dedicated many years of my life to watching Robot Wars and even appeared on the show once (only as an audience member, alas)! I was therefore disappointed when I saw the shoddy state of the article and have decided to take on the task of improving it from the very foundations upwards, hopefully getting it to at least GA status. I've copied the original article to User:CountdownCrispy/Robot Wars.

Are there any fans of the show out there who would be willing to help me? I'm hoping that some members of a forum I'm on might be up for it, but to have someone experienced in revamping TV articles would obviously be a great help. There's already a lot of information already on the page to work with, though how much is superfluous remains to be seen! If you're up for it, please leave me a message on my talk page. Many thanks. :-) - CountdownCrispy 20:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Maybe you'd like to make it project of the month next month? -- 9 cds^(talk) 01:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, how do I go about that? Having looked further there are loads of minor articles that could be merged into the main Robot Wars article - House Robots of Robot Wars (sic) for instance. Lots of other enthusiasts on the aforementioned forum seem up for it so we might well make a start so that, come next month, you guys can us where we've gone wrong! ;-) Regards, CountdownCrispy 14:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just add it to the end of the list :) Want me to do it? -- 9 cds^(talk) 14:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, found it! Thanks for your help. :-) CountdownCrispy 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation work

Hi. I've done some refactoring work on your Project's categories and templates today (along with several other WikiProjects). I'm confident you'll find that the new organisation a big improvement. For more information and a rationale please see what I've written at Wikipedia:WikiProject/Best_practices#Categorisation or drop me a line on my talk page.

If you're not yet assessing articles for Wikipedia 1.0 and using Mathbot, you might also find Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index of subjects and it's talk page very useful. --kingboyk 17:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Fawlty Towers

Template:Infobox Fawlty Towers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme)

Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme) is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation Street

Coronation Street is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]