Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Television (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Television:

To do list:
Major discussions/events:

Guiding Light[edit]

Moved to Talk:Guiding Light § Episode count: Topic seems more appropriate at the article Talk page.

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Basing major layout changes to a Featured List on the consensus of two editors[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Basing major layout changes to a Featured List on the consensus of two editors.

This discussion regards the recent proposal to merge the prose plot summaries from the Game of Thrones season articles to the Game of Thrones episodes article, a Featured List, and the apparent consensus to do with by the support of two other editors. -- AlexTW 08:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The Use of Ellipsis in Article Titles[edit]

A discussion over the merging of two articles is occurring over at Talk:There's...Johnny!. The main issue of debate at this moment is the use a space after an ellipsis in the title (see There's... Johnny! and There's...Johnny!). I am inquiring to the Wikipedia community as to whether is a policy or some sort of guideline in the Manual of Style that might give some direction on how this situation should be handled. Is there a proper way of using an ellipsis in an article title or sentence? Is one more grammatically correct than the other? If anyone has any insight into this, I would certainly appreciate their response. – BoogerD (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

USA or Other Viewers of Episodes[edit]

Is there a policy/template on listing viewers per episode of a series. I ask because for example this article List of My Hero Academia episodes includes the USA episode watching numbers and Kantō region rating details in the Summary section. My feeling is that this information is of marginal interest, and if it is to be included, it should probably be in a separate column, not in the Summary. Are there any examples where "episode watching numbers" are included in summaries? Ozflashman (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Ratings provide important real-life context to fictional topics. I'd include both of them, or perhaps just the Kantō ratings unless the show is particularly popular in the U.S., in columns of the table (alongside air date). Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Not sure I agree with this, especially as Kantō is only one small region in Japan. Just because data exists it doesn't automatically warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also the data is from a secondary soutce, Anime News Network. Ozflashman (talk)
I wouldn't call an area with 43 million inhabitants "one small region". I'm not saying we should include it because it exists, but because it's important real-life context. Including ratings is simply the standard in television-related articles. Find a better source for the data if you think it's inadequate, but as long as it's reliable I see no problem with secondary sources for ratings. Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • My argument is that Kantō is one of 8 regions in a country of almost 127 million people, so why not include statistics for all regions, or total Japanese viewers? Also reliability is not the question, it is a secondary source of unverified data and also no clarification of what the rating actually means. That being said, this information still does not belong in the Summary. Ozflashman (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I see multiple issue here. The first is – why aren't these ratings listed in a 'Ratings' column in the table, rather than appended into the episodes summaries prose? Or does {{Japanese episode list}} not have such a parameter? (If so, I support its merging into {{Episode list}} even more strongly!) Second, why are there separate "season" articles in this case?! The "season" articles don't contain enough separate content to justify standalone "season" articles, and the content there should be merged back to the LoE article (and to the parent article in the case of DVD info...). They are also misnamed under WP:NCTV, regardless – it should be My Hero Academia (season 1), not List of My Hero Academia episodes (season 1)... All these kinds of issues seem rife with the so-called "anime" articles, from what I've seen... --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There are multiple issues with the My Hero Academia collection of articles, however I'd like to focus on the "episode watching numbers" first. Ozflashman (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, to me the main problem is the fact that a Japanese show has US release date and viewership information. Either WP:TVINTL is followed or it isn't and then all countries should be added. As an additional note, "English airdate" column seems to me also out of place, as it gives a date, but doesn't say what country and channel it was shown on, so not very useful information. --Gonnym (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes – that should be "U.S. air date" or "UK air date" or "Canadian air date" (whereever it aired in the "English-speaking world" first), but "English air date" is so vague as to be opaque! --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with the two above comments, especially the vagueness of "English airdate". Ozflashman (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


If interested, please share your opinion on the Rfc on Character Names in plot summaries. Jauerbackdude?/dude.

Articles for Deletion for Two Upcoming Episodes of the New Series Into the Dark[edit]

Thought I would make all who follow this page aware of the deletion discussion occurring over two upcoming episodes of the television series Into the Dark. The discussion is happening here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Body (Into the Dark).

Remove viewing figures from episode tables[edit]

I believe that including viewership data in episode tables is not appropriate. The episode table is supposed to provide information (title, airdate, credits, plot) that help identify an episode. Having a column for viewership data in the same table appears to be out of place. We could instead have this data presented in the appropriate "Ratings" section of a season article with ratings tables using {{Television episode ratings}}, that also provide info on share/rating and a more accurate picture of delayed viewing with DVR ratings. - Radiphus (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this. However, it's such a big change that it would require a very strong consensus. I think it actually came up somewhere while discussing the viewer graph templates... Anyways. I would support the removal of the viewer parameter, as it's not something that relates to the episode as it airs. You don't say, "The episode was titled A, directed by B and written by C. Oh, and did you know that it had D viewers?" This way, viewership info can be confined to the correct sections and templates. It will also match with episode tables for Netflix(/other online streaming service) series that don't have ratings information, so that broadcast series have their own separate section for such info. Often, rows on the {{Television episode ratings}} template are hidden until the episode has actually aired, else it appears as just duplication of the episode name and date - having the viewership info in the episode table is exactly the same manner of duplication. -- AlexTW 13:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
As I don't usually edit these templates, just to be clear, articles use both Template:Episode list and Template:Television episode ratings? If so then I agree it shouldn't be added to the episode list. --Gonnym (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
That's correct. -- AlexTW 14:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
A lot of articles don't include ratings tables so the viewer figures in the episode tables is the only viewership data that there is. Once upon a time we didn't include viewership data in the episode tables but it became so popular to do so (usually by using |Aux4=) that in 2012 we added a field specifically for viewer data. Currently, 10,671 articles use {{Episode list}} while only 357 use {{Television episode ratings}}. How many actually have a ratings section is a bit harder to work out. However, it would be rather silly to even consider removing the Viewers field as this would remove the only ratings data in thousands of articles.
The episode table is supposed to provide information (title, airdate, credits, plot) that help identify an episode - That's never actually been the case. The episode table is supposed to provide encyclopaedic information about an episode and that includes everything that is catered for in {{Episode list}} including viewer figures. There have been plenty of articles where ratings tables have actually been removed because what was in them was redundant to what was in the episode table.
You don't say, "The episode was titled A, directed by B and written by C. Oh, and did you know that it had D viewers?" - You may not but a lot of people find value in the information. Strictly speaking, all you really need to identify an episode is the title and air date, not writers, directors, production codes and so on. Different readers have different requirements and so we incorporate a lot of information to cater for the needs of different readers. --AussieLegend () 14:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Then we move it back to Aux4, while removing Viewers, then we as a team review the articles and take a look at which ones need ratings sections. We did it with the over 2000+ articles that needed colour updates, it's not that big an issue. If episode table is supposed to provide encyclopaedic information about an episode, then why are the complete ratings and shares not included there? They are encyclopaedic information about an episode. Why do we not include air dates in other countries? The multitude of people listed in a varying number of occupations in the credits? It's not really a solid reason for the inclusion of one piece of information, when so many more are available but also not included. Removing the requirement for a viewers parameter means that the ratings sections would no longer be redundant, and would give an actual reason for such a section, as well as removing the duplication. (Personally, I believe production codes have no place there either, but that's another discussion.) -- AlexTW 14:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
In a word, "No", that's a terrible idea, and will make {{Episode list}} less useful to editors. There's a disconcerting attitude among many Wikipedians, that "editors should serve template editors, and readers should serve editors" – that's exactly backwards. --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see that attitude. The only one I've seen is that I never understand these discussions, as almost nothing ever passes with consensus in this WikiProject. I can't recall the last time something did. -- AlexTW 16:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Then we move it back to Aux4, while removing Viewers - I'm sorry Alex but that is probably the most absurd thing that you've ever suggested. Aux4 is a general field while the entire point of the Viewers field is to display viewer information. There are thousands of articles that have viewer figures and nothing else. They're always going to need the Viewers field because the other ratings information likely isn't available any more. We're not going to create ratings tables where we don't have information necessary to populate the tables and we won't be removing viewer information without damn good reason so why move the information from a perfectly valid field? It makes no sense at all.
We did it with the over 2000+ articles that needed colour updates - We were compelled to do it for those articles because colour is an accessibility issue. There is no issue that requires us to revise ratings information in articles.
why are the complete ratings and shares not included there? - Like everything else on Wikipedia that is missing, it's because nobody has added it. In some cases it's not available, especially for programs that aired decades before Wikipedia existed.
Removing the requirement for a viewers parameter - There is no requirement that the field be populated, or any ratings information be included at all. It, however, is encyclopaedic information seen to be important by many editors and readers so we provide a venue for it to be included.
means that the ratings sections would no longer be redundant - Existence of the field doesn't mean that the rating sections are redundant so removing it wouldn't change anything.
would give an actual reason for such a section - Similarly, lack of a field doesn't justify the creation of a section. --AussieLegend () 17:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
You insulting my opinion isn't going to make this discussion go faster, so I'm done here. No discussion in this WikiProject ever gets consensus anyways; as soon as someone suggests a new topic, they get attacked: this, the ratings graphs, merging episode lists, overhauls, everyone's personal standard practices. -- AlexTW 17:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't insulting your opinion, just stating that the implementation is absurd, and I explained why this is so. --AussieLegend () 06:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose on the grounds of "table creep". IOW, it's not the 'Viewers' column that needs to be removed from episodes tables – it's the unnecessary proliferation of 'Ratings tables' (esp. {{Television episode ratings}}) further down the article that needs to go. --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Why would we keep the single piece of information (that doesn't properly describe an episode's ratings) and removed the table of detailed information? -- AlexTW 14:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm also opposed – it's fine to decide on an article-by-article basis whether the column, a ratings table, a prose section or a mixture are best. I simply don't understand the arguments that ratings are out of place on the episode table – it's a simple numerical fact about the episode – and "if we include one rating we would have to include them all" is a slippery slope fallacy in this case, because we often include just one airdate or just one episode title when the episode might have been broadcast in 153 different countries and 86 different languages. Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
My feelings on these matters have been clear for years. I've never been in agreement for ratings tables that contain a lot of redundant information and information that most readers don't understand. I would actually be more of a proponent of adding 1 additional column that has those precious shares, so we can do away with an entire table that isn't necessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. This is a general interest encyclopedia, {{Television episode ratings}} contains a bunch of WP:INDISCRIMINATE info (see: "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics.") that we should not be reporting . We should not be playing Madison Avenue's tedious game, and reporting upteen iterations of "demo" ratings. For a general encyclopedia, "All Viewers" "same day" ratings is sufficient. I don't even think we need to report "share"... --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
"Share" is linked to Nielsen ratings. Should we then nominate that article for deletion? It's nothing of interested to a general reader. -- AlexTW 16:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
How "viewserhip" is obtained from "share" is a tedious technical question that we don't need to throw at readers in the 'Ratings' info we present. Obviously, the details on that are relevant specifically at the article Nielsen ratings, but not necessarily elsewhere. But most of what is derived from that is irrelevant Madison Avenue b.s. that we can, and should, ignore. --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I can't imagine the average person browsing Wikipedia even knows what a share is. It's just an extra bit of data people add for broadcast shows as it's never really reported on cable. Cable shows have served just fine without it as people only really care about the 18-49 demo and the amount of live or dvr viewers. Esuka323 (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so we delete the article. The average person doesn't know what a share is, right? What's the 18-49 demo? -- AlexTW 16:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The 18-49 demographic is a metric used to sell commercials to advertisers. Basically it's how virtually all of the networks out there make their money from shows. It's more important than overall viewers. There's only a few instances where total viewers mean something and that's for networks like Starz or HBO that rely on how many subscribers are viewing their shows live and ondemand. Esuka323 (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Aussie, IJBall, Bilorv, and Bignole. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per other points raised. They serve a valid purpose in the episode tables for casual users browsing wikipedia. Esuka323 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I oppose this as well. Listing total viewers for episodes along with titles, credits, etc. is appropriate, historical, encyclopedic content (a secondary benefit no one has brought up- the inline citations after ratings also serve to verify air dates). In fact it’s the inverse that I find less useful to the general public: the ridiculously excessive demo ratings data tables, as mentioned by some above. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
If the C3 ratings were made public I would have suggested a few changes for tables. C3 ratings are the internal numbers held by networks that track Live + 3 days of commercial viewing and are generally around the same level as the L+SD 18-49 viewing as Nielsen viewers skip commercials. With a short explanation someone could have created a table of sorts. Esuka323 (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been suggested already, but could we just encourage users to not include viewership information in the episode table if there is already a separate ratings table covering it? And if there is not enough data to fill out a separate ratings table, then they could be encouraged to just use the viewership column in the episode table. That gives editors and option depending on what is available for each article. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the column should be removed, however I agree with some other editors that if a ratings table exists, then the episode table shouldn't include ratings (no need to duplicate the information). -- Whats new?(talk) 09:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The King of Queens[edit]

Could we please get some more eyes of The King of Queens? There is an anonymous editor there persistently replacing the partially referenced "Syndication" section with an unreferenced, listified, flag heavy version,[1][2][3][4] despite reversions and any requests on his talk page. --AussieLegend () 05:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

In cases like this, the editor should be reported to WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. -- AlexTW 06:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
That's the next step but I've only just given him a final warning today. --AussieLegend () 07:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Ozark (TV series)[edit]

Hi all, your opinions are needed regarding whether a lengthy section detailing symbols and their explanations from the opening credits of Ozark. I'm a somewhat newer editor to the Ozark article, and by looking at the edit history, the content has generally been deleted as per being trivial. Here's a few examples of it being deleted previously. The newest version of it is even more lengthy and detailed, and the editor who created it, now moved the content to its own article: Ozark (TV series) Opening Credit Symbols, which is even more problematic. Please see the talk pages, Talk:Ozark (TV series) and Talk:Ozark (TV series) Opening Credit Symbols if you wish to share an opinion. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources for air dates outside the U.S.?[edit]

For the air dates of TV shows that (formerly) aired in the United States, there are numerous possible sources – TV Guide, Zap2It, Amazon, The Futon Critic... even EpGuides.

What I'd like to know is – are there any equivalent comprehensive "authoritative" sources for episodes and air dates for TV shows in Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, et al., and if so, what are they?! (I took a quick look at the Radio Times website, but it doesn't seem to have the kind of episodes/air dates database that TV Guide's does.)

I'm particularly interested in something like this for Canada, and the UK (but I'd be interested in a source for air dates for any of these countries...). TIA. --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

UK, I've always used RadioTimes (example). Australia, Australian Television. Canada, I've always seemed to have to use Zap2It (like at List of Killjoys episodes, but that may be because it airs in the US at the same time...). -- AlexTW 03:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
There's some links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/FAQ that may assist. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Featured article nomination for San Junipero[edit]

Editors familiar with the featured article process may be interested in the nomination of "San Junipero", an episode of anthology series Black Mirror. The nomination can be found here. Thanks! Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


What is "xtreams" inserted here:[5]? Is it something we should use for anything? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The Witcher[edit]

Can we get some more eyes on the articles for The Witcher, please? We don't create articles for the television series in the mainspace until production has started filming, which is why I moved The Witcher (TV series) to Draft:The Witcher (TV series), but then someone decided to recreate the article at The Witcher (U.S. TV series), and a discussion was started at Talk:The Witcher (U.S. TV series). I have a feeling it may be a problematic issue. Cheers. -- AlexTW 00:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to fix the redirect issue, as the article will ultimately reside at The Witcher (TV series), not The Witcher (U.S. TV series) (which is unnecessarily disambiguated).... --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Witcher (TV series); contributions are welcome there. -- AlexTW 08:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Tardigrades in popular culture[edit]

There's a discussion at Talk:Tardigrade#In_popular_culture about this currently removed section (see history for details). This is a version I'm personally ok with:[6], South Park, Discovery etc. If you have an opinion, please join the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Fokus (Indosiar news program)[edit]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the best way to hadnle Fokus (Indosiar news program). It's unsourced, at the wrong location, the lead looks like it might be a copyvio and I don't understand the purpose of the "Programme Fokus at Indosiar" section. I've already done some cleanup and the prod notice was removed. --AussieLegend () 13:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

If it was WP:DEPRODed, you'll have no choice but to WP:AfD it, then. But unsourced = no claim to notability in my book. --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Seconded to AFD. -- AlexTW 14:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Same editor created Kompas (Kompas TV news program), it was moved to Draft, and he moved it right back. --Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
And I just moved it right back to Draftspace. We may have a WP:DE editor on our hands... 16:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
There appears to be a similar problem with various other articles. I just moved two to draft space (Draft:Liputan 6 and Draft:Kompas (Kompas TV news program) but am noticing more, like SCTV (Indonesia)... I suspect WP:COI editing. —PaleoNeonate – 05:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Adding: To discover more, we can use the "what links here" feature when on the mainspace pages (it works even if they were moved). —PaleoNeonate – 05:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll add Pandji Pragiwaksono to the list. While it seems that is sourced, one is to a blog, one is to the subject's website and another is to a school record? (have no idea what that is). --Gonnym (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: Conversion of Project Blue Book (TV series) to article about History drama[edit]

Seen in Archive 27, it seems that this discussion never really got off the ground, and the further advice the user sought was never given. I’m willing to pick up the project. Is this okay?--Sarcathmo17 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"Serial" in the context of Pakistani television[edit]

Is anyone here familiar with Pakistani television and can explain to me what "serial" or "drama serial" means in the Pakistani television context? From reading various sources I'm left confused, as some make it seem as they are either drama TV series, telenovela series or a limited 1-season series. Pakistani dramas doesn't help nor does Miniseries. The Hum Awards which give a Hum Award for Best Drama Serial says in the lead Best Drama Serial is considered the most important of the Hum Awards, as it represents all the directing, acting, music, writing, and other efforts put forth into a drama. They also have awards for sitcom, soap and televilm, which either means they have no "regular" non-sitcom TV series on their network, or that "serial" in Pakistani television means "TV series" in western television. --Gonnym (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I finally took a look at Pakistani dramas (sidenote: should the article be plural like that?! or should it be moved to Pakistani drama?!...) – I've edited the article to replace all mention of miniseries (which is basically a North American term that I've never seen used in the context of Pakistani television) with use of the term "serial", as pretty much all sourcing, including that used at the Pakistani dramas article! use the term "serial", but never "miniseries". Thus, use of the term "serial" definitely seems widespread enough here, that "serial" can be used to disambiguate these single-season (i.e. "limited series") Pakistani television dramas... I'll ping Cyphoidbomb, in case he'd like to comment here. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Should probably be in singular form. Back to the point though, my main question was does the term "serial" in Pakistani television mean the same thing that it does in UK television? "Serial" for disambiguation, is used for television series that are in a miniseries format, with the name matching local usage. Limited series are still just a TV series, so for disambiguation (NCTV) matter, it really doesn't matter what they call it as we aim for a WP:CONSISTENT style. However, if "serial" does mean a "miniseries" then it's usage is OK. Also, going back to the Hum Awards, does that network not have any television drama series which are not "Limited series"? It just seems that there is a missing piece here... --Gonnym (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Splash and Bubbles[edit]

I need all eyes at Splash and Bubbles. We have a user who hates the eel character and his song and keeps removing them from the article. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

If they do it again, hit up WP:RfPP. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Members Only (TV series)[edit]

I'd like some WP:TV opinions on this one, and whether it meets WP:TVSHOW despite having never aired on television. What concerns me about this article is that there is no info on whether anything more than the pilot was filmed, and no information as to why a "straight-to-series" order was eventually cancelled and not filled/filmed. Without those two pieces of information, I don't think it merits its own article... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

If it was never aired, I'm not sure it merits being called a TV series, but its existence, & (more importantly) how it ended up cancelled before airing, IMO deserves a page. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
But when/how/why was it cancelled?! And was more than just a pilot filmed?!... I agree that a "straight-to-order" series not actually airing is unusual, possibly even unusual enough to merit an article, despite the fact the WP:TVSHOW is quite clear that unaired TV pilots generally don't merit articles. But the current article doesn't cover any of this. If it did, I'd probably consider it "notable". But, without this, what makes this different from any of the zillion other "unaired TV pilots" that don't merit their own articles?... --IJBall (contribstalk) 01:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Notability is about the sources that exist, not the ones in the article at present. I'd research further before I commented if we were at AfD, but with a cursory glance at the article and the sources, it looks quite borderline. A few of the sources don't contribute to notability and I have a feeling the rest fall under WP:ROUTINE. The fact that it was cancelled after broadcast announcements does make it quite a rare case, so maybe there are more sources out there. Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Dispute over content[edit]

User:Fordham73 and I disagree as to whether Award Theatre#List of movies shown is appropriate or not. Comments? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree with your singling out this particular entry as showing "too much information" when I thought that Wikipedia tried to show as much information as possible on a related subject. There are literally hundreds of Wikipedia listings regarding television shows that list every episode, the plot line, who starred in the show, the director and the date the episode was shown. Why single out Award theater for information limitation when there is such great detail in other areas. I happen to remember watching Award theater as a kid and enjoy the information as it does have a nostalgic touch as I'm sure many of the listings do for millions of Wikipedia users. Fordham 73 Fordham73 (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
No, including "as much information as possible on a related subject" is not Wikipedia's goal. (See WP:TRIVIA for instance.) Of course, (some) shows with actual original content have episode listings. It's not the same thing. List of M*A*S*H episodes, for example, is an entirely different animal. The essence of WP:ILIKEIT is applicable here. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
First of all, the ones listed aren't even sourced. Saying Per respective contemporary TV listings in The New York Times, Daily News and TV Guide (New York Metropolitan edition) is not a reference. To the point, I also think the list is irrelevant. There is a huge difference between an original TV series having information about the original episodes it airs vs a (semi-local) TV "show" which aired theatrical films. I couldn't even verify the NYTimes sources to see if they actually talk about the show or just mention it in passing (site is blocked to me). --Gonnym (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Gonnym – including the list of movies may or may not be encyclopedic, if the entire list is sourced to something. But, right now, the list (save 1 or 2 entries) doesn't even appear to be sourced – and by that, I mean explicitly sourced, not generally sourced to, "Hey! Check the TV Guides and NY Times of the era!!" – until that happens, it needs to go... --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the list is encyclopedic because Award Theatre wasn't producing these films, only showing them, and we wouldn't list every film ever shown on (for instance) NBC, or every book ever sold in a notable bookshop. Of course the size of the list is important, but I think this list of ~100 items is too many (it would be different if it was a list of five). As others have pointed out, the aim of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, not to include every piece of information that exists (see WP:IINFO). Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
As there appears to be a strong consensus, I'm going to delete the section. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

List of Oggy and the Cockroaches episodes[edit]

Hi all, would any interested parties please keep an eye on List of Oggy and the Cockroaches episodes? There appears to be some article ownership issues going on by an unresponsive editor, who keeps bringing the article out of alignment with MOS.

Side note: I see US air dates listed, but the series is French and those US dates in some cases come years after the debuts. There is also some weirdness in the Series overview, where we're tracking multiple airdates on different networks and there's no context for any of the information. My attempts to discuss with the editor have been met with silence, but I'm hoping that people more familiar with the series and current WP:TV community preferences please take a look. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Home media release tables[edit]

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Supergirl (TV series)#DVD and Blu-ray releases regarding media release tables, especially regarding combining DVD and Blu-ray regions. This is part of a much wider issue that exists at multiple articles so it would benefit from much wider discussion on the matter. Accordingly, I'm inviting everyone to participate in the discussion. --AussieLegend () 06:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't such a discussion about a "much wider issue" not be held here? -- AlexTW 09:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The immediate problem is the Supergirl article and that provides an example of the problem. However, it does affect multiple articles. --AussieLegend () 13:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sequel/spinoff parameters[edit]

This is in regard to preceded_by, followed_by, and related. It's not clear in the template instructions, but the way I've always understood it is that the first two are used for actual sequels, while the last one is used for spinoffs. However, this is an area where disputes can commonly arise because people don't understand how the parameters work, and it's somewhat understandable, given the ambiguity in the instructions. I think it would just be better if we had related for both sequels and spinoffs and got rid of the other two. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've stated in the past that I believe the preceded_by and followed_by parameters of {{Infobox television}} should be phased out/merged into the related parameter. Such a move will likely set in motion a new set of problems (namely, IP editors adding everything under the sun to the related parameter...), but I've already seen editors do some weird, inexplicable things with the preceded_by and followed_by parameters anyway, so this is nothing new... But simplifying all of the "related" programming together into just the related parameter is, IMO, an improvement over the current situation where there is so much confusion, with some commensurate editor conflicts being generated as a result, as to when to "correctly" use preceded_by, followed_by and related. Better to just put all related programs, whether they be "prequels", "sequels", or "spinoffs" or "revivals", under the related parameter, and be done with it. --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The video game infobox doesn't allow parameters like these exactly for the reason that they are a pain to manage. (It might be the standout infobox in this regard.) Something to consider would be removal everywhere. --Izno (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I would support a removal/phasing out of |preceded_by= and |followed_by=, and stuck to related. I've barely ever used the parameters myself, but I can easily see how it would be a hassle. We may need to revise the description for it in the documentation for Template:Infobox television, to make sure that editors know it is for directly related shows; i.e. for Doctor Who, we would only list the spin-offs, not the documentary series as well. (Unfortunately though, I can see this not happening. Nothing ever passes for consensus at WT:TV.) -- AlexTW 01:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd support removal of these parameters as well. They are more trouble than they are worth and I'm sick of trying to explain them to other editors. --AussieLegend () 04:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the other option would be to "Nuke /all". That would be my second choice, after merging the other two into the related parameter... But I could possibly be talked into it. --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
They may be a general nuisance, but that raises the question: what do you do with a series that has spinoffs or prequels? "STTOS", frex (or maybe, more accurately, "TNG"...), with "DS9" & "ST:E". TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Keep them under related, in the order of their prequel/sequel status. At the moment, those articles are linking "Star Trek TV series", which is pretty sufficient. -- AlexTW 13:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Let the Right One In (TV series)[edit]

Another TV pilot that was not picked up to series, and never aired anywhere. Thus, subject does not seem to meet WP:TVSHOW... So, leave the article alone, or take it to WP:AfD?... TIA. --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd say to AFD it, but I can see non-WP:TV members strongly suggesting to keep it because of the sufficient content and enough sources. I'd then suggest to draftify it, but then it may never come to series... -- AlexTW 01:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead image for Emilia Clarke article[edit]

We need some opinions on the following: Talk:Emilia Clarke#Lead image. A permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Main image for American Horror Story: Apocalypse article[edit]

The main image is being discussed on the article's talk page. The options are the season's key art or the one being used on the article now. --DrBat (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Gifted (TV series)#Requested move 14 September 2018[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Gifted (TV series)#Requested move 14 September 2018. This one is getting contentious, so the opinions of more WP:TV regulars would probably be useful here... --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Episode plot length tags[edit]

An editor has taken exception to tagging individual overlength episode summaries with {{plot}} at Lost in Space (2018 TV series).[7] Interested editors are invited to comment at Talk:Lost in Space (2018 TV series)#Episode summary lengths. Should we be tagging individual episodes or just the section? --AussieLegend () 21:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)