Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media

Discussion at Talk:MSNBC #Rebrand discussion

I have started a discussion on Talk:MSNBC #Rebrand discussion to see if we can get consensuses on certain things like article title, seperate article or not ETC. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Comparison of webcam software

The article Comparison of webcam software has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as unsourced 8.5 years. WP:NOTHOWTO

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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Clean up request for Mark Lazarus (businessman)

Hi editors, on behalf of Mark Lazarus and Versant via my work at Beutler Ink, I posted an edit request for general clean up on the Mark Lazarus (businessman) article. As a media executive, Mark Lazarus may be of interest to people here. Thanks, Danilo Two (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

Requested move at Talk:Sahil Mehta (actor)#Requested move 4 December 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sahil Mehta (actor)#Requested move 4 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Request for comment: Historical timeline sections with "No events"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to remove "No events".

Given the concerns raised by participants in this RFC about the sourcing for "No events", there is a consensus to remove the statement, unless explicitly attributable to a reliable secondary source, as called for by Thryduulf and supported nearly unanimously by participants in this RFC. This is in line with our policies, No original research and Verifiability. To quote WP:V: Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.. As such, I find there to be a consensus, supported by policy, to remove the statement. (non-admin closure) LightlySeared (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

---

In media-history timelines, should empty dates with no information and no sources be listed as "No events"?

For example, the current Timeline of ITN [Independent Television News, British company] has many sections lacking information, and the gaps are filled with: "1956 No events. 1957 No events. 1958 No events.", etc. This has been done on hundreds of timelines about UK TV and UK radio, but on few other history timelines on Wikipedia, and it isn't common practice in sources on media history, e.g. [1], [2]. Editor guides like WP:TIMEL don't seem to go into this. - Thanks, Responsible? (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC) (2nd occasion); Responsible? (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC) (First occasion)

Not unless there is a source stating there were no events in that period. It seems unlikely there were truly zero events in that year, even if there weren't any that turned out to be of long-term encyclopaedic significance in the context of the geographical/topical context of the specific list. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Thryduulf. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with Thryduulf. There may be specific occasions where it's important for a timeline to say that an event did't happen (e.g. the table at Summer Olympic Games#List of Summer Olympic Games is correct to note that in 1916, 1940, and 1944 the scheduled Olympics did not happen due to the ongoing world wars. I can't imagine a situation where it's ever important to say that "no events" happened in a whole year, but it's possible that there's a case I'm not thinking of where reliable sources do explicitly say that. In that case we absolutely need to provide a reliable source for that claim. We certainly shouldn't insert blanket "no events" entries whenever we don't have anything else listed on the timeline yet.

In the case of Timeline of ITN (or Timeline of snooker on UK television, where this has previously been raised I simply do not believe that there literally were no events in all of the listed years where we make that claim. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

No, for reasons already stated above. —LeastConcern 16:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thryduulf says it succinctly. It's pointless filler. Our readers don't need to have their intelligence insulted like that. oknazevad (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thryduulf says it succinctly. Now that's a statement you don't often see! Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

No. In addition to the statements made previously, it's perfectly possible that there were notable events in those years that editors so far have overlooked.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

• No - difficult to prove a negative. ~Kvng (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

No, unless you have a source explicitly saying no events. Rolluik (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

No, (Summoned by bot) It's pointless fillerPincrete (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Listing “No events” is defensible and policy-consistent in media-history timelines when the timeline’s declared unit is a complete chronological sequence.

Proof, stepwise.

1. Timeline integrity (implicit in WP:TIMELINE) A timeline is a structured chronological dataset. If the unit of organization is “year”, then omitting years breaks internal completeness. Stating “No events” preserves continuity and makes the structure explicit rather than silently discontinuous. This is standard practice in chronology-based datasets outside narrative history.
2. Avoidance of false implication (WP:NPOV) Omitting years implies either editorial oversight or selective emphasis. Explicitly stating “No events” communicates neutrality: nothing notable enough to be sourced is known for that year. This prevents readers from inferring significance where none exists.
3. Negative statements are not prohibited (WP:V clarified) Wikipedia does not ban negative knowledge. What is prohibited is unsourced contentious claims. “No events” in a corporate media timeline is non-contentious and trivially verifiable by the absence of coverage in reliable secondary sources. The claim is procedural, not factual: “no sourced events are recorded here”.
4. Not original research (WP:OR) Original research is synthesis or inference beyond sources. “No events” does not infer hidden facts; it reports the documented state of the record. The editor is not claiming nothing happened, only that no notable, sourced events are recorded. This is a metadata statement, not a historical claim.
5. Reader usability and auditability (WP:USABILITY principle) Explicit empty years allow readers and future editors to audit coverage. They can distinguish between:
   • years reviewed and found empty, and
   • years accidentally omitted. This increases reliability and editorial transparency.
6. WP:NOTEVERYTHING is not violated The page is not documenting every minor occurrence. It is documenting years, some of which legitimately contain zero notable events. Recording “none” is not adding trivia; it is completing the framework.
7. Precedent is sufficient, not mandatory Wikipedia policy allows multiple valid editorial models. The existence of hundreds of similar UK media timelines establishes accepted practice. Absence of universal adoption does not invalidate the model.

Conclusion:

When a media-history timeline is explicitly annual, listing “No events” is valid, neutral, non-speculative, improves clarity, and does not violate core content policies. It is a structural annotation, not encyclopedic fluff. ~2026-33054-9 (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move at Talk:Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros.#Requested move 15 December 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros.#Requested move 15 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 04:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for PlayStation

PlayStation has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Request for notability assessment (media / broadcast context)

I'm seeking an experienced editor's view on whether my work would meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, particularly from a media/broadcast perspective. I've assembled a short proposed lead and a list of independent secondary sources on my user page for evaluation. I recognize this involves a conflict of interest, so any guidance would be appreciated. User:VideoPaul2012 VideoPaul2012 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

You are talking about Draft:Paul Dougherty (video artist) page, correct? Historyday01 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes — I'm referring to Draft:Paul_Dougherty_(video_artist). I posted an updated request below (January 30) with a link to the draft and a clearer summary of the independent sources, after receiving feedback elsewhere about process and sourcing. Thanks for your patience. VideoPaul2012 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment: Changing "No events" entries to no notable events

I had not been aware of the recent discussion regarding the removal of no events entries, despite this being seemingly raised because this kept coming up on timelines I created when someone had removed them and I had reinstated them. I am sure that others will appreciate that one tends to be defensive over articles that they have created and I would have given my view if I had known about this discussion.

It was only a week or two ago that, following a registered user, rather than an IP, removing these that I thought that changing this to no notable events might be the way to go as this wording suggests that events may have taken in this period but they are not seen as notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, and therefore not for inclusion in the timeline.

I included the no events entry on the timelines I created because I thought it was the correct thing to do as I had seen this included in UK broadcasting timelines which were online before I began creating my timelines, and it is only now that this really seems to have become an issue. However if I had been aware of the discussion I would have suggested this as the way to go so therefore I would like to propose this and the only way to do this is to begin a new discussion. Rillington (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you remind us where the no events discussion took place? If I recall, notability wasn't the only issue involved here.

Please have a look at WP:OWN and try to resist defying consensus in these cases. ~Kvng (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not trying to resist consensus. Instead I am suggesting an idea following a discussion, of which I had not been are, which was relevant to me as this was directly relevant to articles I had created. We are asked to modify the original discussion so this is the only way I can express my view, and suggestion, which I hope will be considered, and that people will respond to. If I had been aware of the previous discussion I would have suggested this as an option at that point. Rillington (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rillington, I still haven't been able to locate that original discussion. I'm not sure I'll be able to find it again on my own. It sounds like you've looked at it recently. Can you share a link to it here? ~Kvng (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kvng, It's the now closed Historical timeline sections with "No events" discussion on this page, three discussions above this one. Rillington (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Request for editor assistance - Draft:Paul Dougherty (video artist) - COI disclosed

Hello — I'm seeking an uninvolved editor to evaluate sources for Draft:Paul_Dougherty_(video_artist). I have a disclosed COI and have stopped editing the draft. The draft needs to be rethought and rewritten with inline citations; I understand that interviews are not appropriate sources for establishing notability. Independent sources include coverage in The New York Times, Artforum, The Village Voice, and The Rolling Stone Book of Rock Video. The subject's work is in MoMA's permanent collection and has been exhibited there multiple times. I'm looking for guidance on whether these sources support an article under WP:GNG, and if so whether someone without a COI would be willing to take it over. Draft link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paul_Dougherty_(video_artist) VideoPaul2012 (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Splitting apart Speculative fiction by writers of color page

There is a discussion at Talk:Speculative fiction by writers of color#Implementing the split about how to split this page following the AfD discussion where there was agreement to split apart the page. Please share your thoughts for what sections you believe should be split off/merged to other pages. Thanks and have a great rest of your day. Historyday01 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)