Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 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:

Merger discussion for Disney La Chaîne[edit]


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 (talkcontribs) 23:39, 20 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Noting season and episode[edit]

I have found there is not a consistent way to notate season and episode for television series. Sometimes they are written as 1X19; 01x19; season 01, episode 19; or season 1, episode 19. Which is preferable? (I lean towards the last one. This was previously discussed at Manual of Style/Dates and numbers) LA (T) @ 21:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Where are you noting it out, and in what context? Also, are we talking about shows that don't have names for their episodes?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
In most cases the actual episode number is of very little help, unless a lot of episodes from the same season are being referred to. Since I'm a big fan of MOS:NUMERAL, which says Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, and giving readers some extra help, I generally write something like season four episode "Murder in The Air". When referring to a series of episodes in a season, I use "season 4, episodes 1, 2, 4, 5, 17–23" or something like that (spelling out the numbers in such a case is messy at best). --AussieLegend () 04:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Bignole and AussieLegend: I am trying to wrest some sense from Oceanic Airlines and Morley Television sections and possibly other articles which lists television episodes like those two do. LA (T) @ 23:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah. I'm not sure I would say "season, episode, episode title". I might just say, "season four's 'Episode Title'". The number becomes irrelevant when you have the title. As for writing, the seasons should always be spelled out (unless you're like The Simpsons with 25+ years.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Bignole, so how does this get into the Manual of Style/Television? LA (T) @ 07:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, it's not something likely to be covered at MOSTV. When it comes to just spelling out season numbers, that's already part of the WP:NUMERAL. It should always be spelled out (unless it's the article title). As for the order of saying "Season ten episode 'Title'", that's more of a professional writing standpoint and not something likely to be dictated directly by MOSTV. We don't typically cover basic writing guides at MOSTV, just layout, appropriate information, etc. What I would do is point people to WP:NUMERAL for spelling out the season numbers, and then just be clear that professionally it's better to write it as "season number's 'episode title'", or something like that. The actual episode number, if it has a title, is irrelevant at that point.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It should be consistent within the article, so if it goes by season 4 for the bulk of the prose, then keep it as season 4, as if it were books and referring to volume 4 or chapter 4. So capitalizing "season" would not be needed. Sometimes I prefer the number in case I need to mention multiple seasons like "She was voiced by Katie Griffin in seasons 3-6." I don't see a reason to use SEE (e.g. episode 301) or SxEE (e.g. episode 3x01) format as typical of the TV references unless there's no other way to distinguish the episode like if it didn't have a title. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
In most cases we should be using plain English, to suit the sentence and its context: In season 2, episode 13, "The BFG-9000", B.J. fends off a horde of demons; or In "The BFG-9000" (season 2, episode 13), B.J. fends off a horde of demons; or whatever (using "series" instead of "season" for British shows). Shorter forms should be reserved for infoboxes, tables, and highly compressed lists, and use abbreviations anyone can parse without being w@r3z d00dz: sea. 2, ep. 13 (British: ser. 2, ep. 13). If we wanted, sn. 2, ep. 13 (Brit.: sr. 2, ep. 13) would be slightly shorter but still parseable. We could also use s. 2, e. 13, for simplicity.

The problem with the geeky formats is they are not used consistently, on or off WP, and they are meaningless to people not already familiar with them. If for some reason we were to settle on one of them, s2e13 is much clearer than the alternatives. Also, the "x" in the examples given above is actually × and should be rendered thus, per MOS:NUM. There's no need to use a leading zero (that is mostly done with TV-pirating torrents, for alphanumeric sorting reasons, and torrent sites mostly use s02e03 format, anyway, not "02x13"). If we actually came to a consensus to use ×-format in a table, it should be "The BFG-9000" (2×13), "Return of the BFG-9000" (10×3), but the s2e13 format really is easier to understand. If for some reason we want a leading zero (I argue against it), that would only be done for the short numeric form: s02e13 or maybe 02×13, not for plain English: season 02, episode 04 or abbreviations thereof; we don't use leading zeroes for any other such constructions (e.g. dates, measurements, book volume numbers, etc.), also per MOS:NUM.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dual Survival season articles[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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.

Episode count templates[edit]

Category:Episode count templates contains a number of templates that consist of "onlyinclude" tags and a raw episode count, and occasionally a date. All of these templates have been nominated for deletion. The discussions for each may be found at the following locations:

--AussieLegend () 13:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

All of the templates in the category have now been nominated so I have completely updated the above post. Most of the discussions are on the same page. --AussieLegend () 06:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Needs further action[edit]

All of the above discussions have now closed as delete, with the exception of the discussions for {{South Park episode count}} and {{The Simpsons episode count}}, which have closed as "No consensus". However, even these templates are no longer in use. It seems to me that we should be discouraging use of these templates, as they are unnecessary. If it is necessary to transclude episode counts there is a simpler way than creating templates specifically for the purpose. Simply wrapping the episode count in <includeonly> and </includeonly> so that you see something like "| num_episodes = <includeonly>140</includeonly>" allows the episode count to be transcluded anywhere. At the article where the count is to be transcluded, it is done the same way that we do when transcluding episode lists. Instead of adding "{{Futurama episode count}}" to an article, you add "{{:Futurama}}", which is a lot simpler. This is the process now being used at many episode lists. See, for example, this edit and this one, in which AlexTheWhovian added the feature to Scorpion and List of Scorpion episodes. This is far easier than creating {{Scorpion episode count}} and having to update it constantly, since we already update the main series articles. Opinions? --AussieLegend () 09:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

As a note, I have started an RfC here. Your input is requested. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Since this discussion was started in order to gain input from TV editors per the TfD closer's instructions, the RfC should never have been opened. --AussieLegend () 18:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
All remaining templates should be deleted, and transclusion implemented. It is much easier and simpler and removes redundancy. Update the number once on the main page infobox and the correct number appears everywhere else you need it. And this works because you shouldn't be transcluding anything else off the main page, so this won't present any issues of unwanted content moving over. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
This also goes against WP:TG guideline 1: "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree 100% with both of your sentiments. Simplification is always the best way to go as far as I'm concerned. LLArrow (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I suppose we should delete the templates and transclude. However, in my heart of hearts, I think we could significantly reduce the amount of numerical vandalism through the use of semi-protected templates, however this is a proposition that irritates a lot of editors who are into the whole "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" concept. I'll avoid rambling further. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what the discussion is about, as the above templates are in fact already deleted (with one exception). Transclusion seems to be better, if one really really really (really) needs this information on different pages at all. What remains to be done is to document this standard solution: a good place might be the {{Infobox television}} documentation. Furthermore, if there really is a big need for those, maybe it is possible to build this feature directly into the infobox, so that the episode number is automatically put into a transclusion section? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
There should be no problem enabling transclusion in the infobox. Since the vast majority of TV articles are not transcluded, this should not cause any problems. A switch can be included so that it is possible to turn transclusion off in the event that it is not needed. --AussieLegend () 05:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd support building the feature into the infobox. Though we'd really have to document this well, because based on what I've seen, I don't know how much the average user or IP user knows about transclusion and how it works. Shall we move the discussion over to the infobox talk at this point? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Got the message on my talk page, not sure what I can contribute to the discussion. I implemented the "includeonly" tags on multiple series' pages after finding another where it had been done, and had only one user have an issue with it before I explained it and the accepted it. Also not sure how we can implement it within the infobox template... Adding the tags will affect the transclusion of the template itself. (Noted, I'm also guilty of creating {{DW episode count}}, where this transcludes to two instances on Doctor Who and two instances on List of Doctor Who serials, so it only needs updating once and not in four locations.) Alex|The|Whovian 10:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all; just to note that on the basis of the clear consensus in this discussion to use the article-transclusion system as general practice, and on this request, I went ahead and deleted the last two remaining templates from the batch of TfDs at the top of this thread, and annotated the TfD discussions to match. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The X-Files (2016 miniseries/season 10/miniseries/other?)[edit]

It would be great to have input from this project's editors on the naming conventions for the upcoming "event series" of The X-Files, which is being called "Season 10", "revival", "reboot", "event", "miniseries".... Please chime in, thanks: Talk:The X-Files (2016 miniseries)#Season 10?. Jmj713 (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about TV shows and production[edit]

Should we only include TV shows that have begun production in "List of programs broadcast by X"-type articles? TV networks perpetually have thousands of shows in development, and only choose around a few to go into production. I cut a few shows from Nickelodeon's programs article since no further word about them was made since they were initially announced.

So, to re-iterate my question, should we only include shows that have begun production in these kinds of articles? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 13:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd say wait until they've actually been broadcast, as there's no telling how late in the game a show might be cancelled and not make it to air. GRAPPLE X 13:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. It's a different list from "List of programs produced by X". AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox television changes[edit]

I recently modified {{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox television season}} to comply with WP:IMGSIZE, which states that image sizes should not be forced without good reason. This change should not have been noticeable, but it does make image formatting easier. In the old days it was necessary to fully format the infobox image: e.g. | image = [[File:image name.jpg|250px|caption text|alt=alt text for image]]. Implementation of Module:InfoboxImage some time ago supported the old format but added some parameters so that it was only necessary to include unformatted information:

| image         = image name.jpg
| image_size    = 250
| image_alt     = alt text for image
| caption       = caption text

The latest changes support both formats but now also allows for automatic image sizing based on user preferences. Most TV articles that I checked used 250px as the default image size, so this is reflected in the infobox changes meaning that, since captions are not normally necessary, only the following needs to be entered:

| image         = image name.jpg
| image_alt     = alt text for image

In the event that a size other than 250px needs to be specified, the image_upright parameter my be used to specify the image size:

| image         = image name.jpg
| image_upright = 1.22
| image_alt     = alt text for image

The value required for image_upright is easily calculated by dividing the desired image size by 220. For a 270px image, image_upright = 270 / 220 = 1.23. A convenient table has been included in the template documentation. Please note that the previous methods of formatting are still supported. --AussieLegend () 07:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Ordered episodes' list[edit]

On any page of an "episodes' list", to prevent the disorder I found a system: in place of "width:%" insert this method (<'br />) on a determined space of a title or writers of that episode. Example on the animated series Be Cool, Scooby-Doo!:

Luigi1090(talk) 11:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Settings widths is actually preferable to adding line breaks (and easier to do with {{Episode table}}), especially for readers with larger screens. Alex|The|Whovian 10:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I have to praise Luigi for finally soliciting feedback from the community about this. Thank you, Luigi. If any of the regulars have some input on this, I'd like to understand what the impact of line breaks would be for data parsing. Would a machine interpret this as two titles, or one title? Obviously it would depend on the machine, I guess. I do, however, think that breaking up a title with a forced break is not the ideal way to populate tables. It also creates a problem whereby, if I wanted to edit in the area of "Where There's a Will, There's a Wraith", and I copy the title from the live page, go into edit and CTRL+F and paste the title, my browser won't find it, because it should be looking for "Where There's a Will, There's a<br />Wraith". So it's one more hoop that editors have to jump through. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Dino Dan[edit]

The article Dino Dan is in need of assistance. A copy-edit has been done but it still needs an infobox and logo. (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC) The article is not protected, so this is something you can help with. I've started the infobox. If you find anything else to add, please do so. I was reluctant to add a starring cast, since in the episode credits there are no "starring" roles, only "featuring", and the credited actors aren't very consistent. I looked at "The Chicken and the Dino" and "Switched at Nest". Trek Buccino seems to be a common name between these two. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Disney-Kellogg Alliance?[edit]

This discussion was originally brought up here by Spshu, but I decided to refer it to WikiProject Television because I felt that we need to hash it out in a larger forum.

Personally, despite reliable sources being provided, I do not think we should refer to The Disney Afternoon as the Disney-Kellogg Alliance in the article because I don't think the name is notable enough to supplant the more well-known name in the article. I want to see what all of you at WikiProject Television have to say about this whole matter. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It should be discussed there. Notability is only a test for having an article. Spshu (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Not everyone's gonna discuss it there. I need more than just your input, which is all I'm getting out of this discussion so far. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 17:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello! It seems that former TV channels like Noggin (Playhouse Disney, Toon Disney, and several other sister networks that have been renamed) have their own pages, so I think that Noggin is notable enough for its own page, especially since it is linked from many of pages. The channel, originally being a co-production between Sesame Workshop and Nickelodeon directed at pre-teens, was so different than what the current Nick Jr. network is that I think it was more than a simple renaming. I would have done the page myself but I feel that having the community's input first will help. Let me know what you think, thank you! Squiddaddy (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

When is a miniseries not a miniseries?[edit]

There's a move discussion going on at Talk:Bag of Bones (film) which needs more participants to build consensus. The underlying question is whether a miniseries can have only two installments, or whether the minimum number of segments is three; and, if consensus is that three is the minimum, what to call two-part television events that are longer than a movie but shorter than a miniseries. Thanks in advance to all who contribute to the conversation there. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 01:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking for help with Colleen Bell[edit]

Hello, I'm looking for someone to help with updates to the Colleen Bell article and I wonder if anyone on this project might be willing to help get things started. In addition to being the current U.S. ambassador to Hungary, Bell is also a television producer known for working on The Bold and the Beautiful. The Producing career section of the Colleen Bell article says she is producer of the show, followed by a few sentences about the show itself. Since the Wikipedia entry is about Colleen Bell, not the show, I think it best if this section focuses more on her work with the program. (You can find the request here.) Please note that I have a financial conflict of interest: I am working on behalf of Ms. Bell through my firm, Beutler Ink, and SKD Knickerbocker, so I won't make any edits myself. Can someone look at my request and make the changes if they seem appropriate? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Navbox templates[edit]

Please see discussion of "Does the current text of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL have broad consensus?" at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements. Montanabw(talk) 01:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Severe fancruft at List of The Big Bang Theory characters[edit]

I've been watching List of The Big Bang Theory characters for a long time and have been frustrated by the amount of fancruft creeping into this article. A good example is the section titled "Appearing in one scene only", which I removed earlier.[1] However, as has happened more than once in the article's history, the removed content has mostly been restored, this time to a section titled "Appearing in one episode only".[2] The justification for this restoration is "Joyce Kim was mentioned in several episodes besides the one scene in which she appeared", "minor characters who are relatives of the main characters (Amy's mother, and Raj's cousin) should also be listed" and "Analeigh Tipton, should also be listed given that Tipton appeared on the show in a different capacity".[3] The entire article, some 17,200 words, is supported by 64 citations using {{cite episode}} and two from, leaving only 9 that are non-primary, reliable sources. This article could really do with some extra eyes and editors as I'm having a hell of job trying to keep the article under control. We really shouldn't have such crufty articles for any serhies, let alone one as popular as this. --AussieLegend () 03:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've begun to do some work on it, and will revert other reverts until this discussion comes to an agreement. Some of the maintenance tags have been in place for almost four years. If that's not an indication to the editors of the article that something is wrong, then who knows what is. Alex|The|Whovian 05:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I watch the show, so I'll add the page to my watch, and see what I can do to help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
By far not the worst, though! For comparison: List of Scream Queens characters, List of Pretty Little Liars characters, List of The Vampire Diaries characters. Maybe have a look at those, too.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I object to the massive removal of content that was done in 7 edits a few days ago.

  • Just because a character played him/herself does not mean that (s)he is not a character. This is fiction, so all people on the show are characters
  • The blanket removal of characters who appeared in only one episode is completely unjustified. Case in point: Joyce Kim. She is mentioned in many episode -- still mentioned in the article -- yet because she appeared in only one episode she was removed from the list.

I would say that all characters that have more than a casual interaction with the story should be included. Examples of characters that should not be included are: a clerk at the DMV, a mall security guard, the minister who married Leonard and Penny. Basically their interactions with the story was just casual. --Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yikes, that also needs a severe pruning of those episode counts that we have been discussing over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television Notable fictional characters can be retained. If Joyce Kim is mentioned regularly in the series to the point where people anticipate who will portray her when she appears, but personally does not appear until that one episode, then she's a notable character. But if she's on the level of the main character's parents, that might be relegated to guest or not be that notable. Shouldn't there be some Big Bang Theory companion guidebooks to help source things these days? Cite episodes are okay. It might be good to group those references separately as Works cited. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's a book HERE. It has a section on supporting cast too, which might highlight who should stay and go. Unfortunately the online copy doesn't display that list. It might also just be an exhaustive list, which wouldn't really highlight notability. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Sometimes the sky is blue: Disagree. The removal of content was completely warranted, as per the maintenance tags that have been in place since 2012. The characters do not required entries; their inclusions can be included in episode summaries on the respective page and the filmography tables/lists on the actors pages. Alex|The|Whovian 03:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It's worth setting out a clear set of criteria for inclusion in a list like this, like a minimum number of appearances (in the FL-quality List of Millennium characters, I used five or more episodes as the minimum, and that was for a show with less than seventy episodes overall so that may bear adjusting for scale for longer-running shows). It's also worth noting that there is absolutely zero merit in an article which is entirely devoted to recounting plot information from a television series as some of the linked articles do; any which have no cited third-party information should be machete-ed with wild abandon. GRAPPLE X 10:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club[edit]

Does anyone here watch Bad Girls Club? Back on 8 November I made several corrections to the article only to find yesterday that all of the fixes had been reverted, predominantly by one anonymous editor who seems to be asserting ownership over the article and doesn't use edit summaries or respond to posts on his talk page. Virtually every edit since 8 September by an IP or newly registered editor has been vandalism or the addition of unsourced content. The vandalism is easily fixed but I have no idea what in the article is correct as none of it is sourced and it really needs somebody familiar with the series to have a look. --AussieLegend () 03:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Season articles[edit]

Should there always be season articles whenever there is more then one season? For example, Younger (TV series) has aired 12 episodes, with only one section of out-of-universe information on reception, and yet there is a separate List of Younger episodes and also Younger (season 1) and Younger (season 2) articles. I see there is WP:WHENSPLIT, and MOS:TV says season articles may be necessary for 80+ episodes. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry this may be obvious. But are those 12 across one season (first) that hasn't actually finishes airing yet? If so then none of the extra pages should exist. Mostly what I have seen is that the season articles are made when a second season is greenlit (to make infomation separation easier) and the LoE pages doesn't tend to be made until the second season begins airing.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 23:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The first season is finished and consists of 12 episodes, and a second season is announced. Then this means creating season articles is warranted then? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Well my example is for something like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D or flash, I would say that if there is enough detail on production and stuff then split, if not then it should all really be one article until a little later on when the main article is struggling to house everything.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 23:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

While this example (Younger) may be inappropriate for splitting (although I completed it, since it was half-accomplished), I do believe MOS:TV should be updated to reflect both television and Wikipedia today. That '80+ episode' designation was inserted in March 2009, when serialized stories, limited/anthology series, and shorter seasons weren't as widespread as today. Also, TV series rarely even make it to 80+ episodes- Breaking Bad was 62. Moreover, at that time season articles weren't as well-maintained as they are today- now we have users adding much more information on production and reception, and many season pages that have become featured lists. I believe we need to address these changes and rewrite that section about season pages and splitting LOEs. I lean towards something broader- not a rigid episode count but whether there is enough information to split. Shows like American Horror Story and Fargo are shows that have obvious needs for season pages once they were renewed, since their seasons are completely different, and the pages would have new information on casting, locations, and production. Incredibly popular shows like Empire too make sense to have season pages once renewed, since inevitably there will be a lot of well-maintained work, too detailed for a series page. Procedural broadcast shows with less information are the ones that I would be more reluctant to split. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it should be based on the amount of information you have rather than the length of the series. The case presented here is obviously problematic in that it is neither long-running nor in depth, but I think that the MOS should be altered anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
"Should there always be season articles whenever there is more then one season?" - No. Most definitely not. We don't even need "List of <Foo> episodes" pages in all cases. Like any Wikipedia article, we split when there is a good reason to split. For TV series, this is usually because the episode list has become too large for the main article although, most often, it's done "just 'cause". As soon as an article starts airing a second season, the LoE page is created, and that's not always necessary. Some articles just aren't big enough to justify a split. See, for example, Hotel Impossible, Kitchen Nightmares and Restaurant: Impossible. If the episode lists were removed from those articles they would become little more than stubs. Once there is justification for an LoE page, that list doesn't need to be split until there is good reason to split. Again, that is usually because of the amount of content, and splitting should always be based on WP:SPLIT. If the article isn't big enough to split, then it shouldn't be, unless the new article(s) would result in the LoE page becoming too large due to the inclusion of additional information (production information, ratings etc - but not the lead or infobox). Remember that WP:SPLIT refers to readable prose, not file size. They are two different things. When splitting articles, appropriate attribution is required, otherwise the resultant articles are technically copyright violations. The requirement for attribution is explained at WP:CWW and is most simply done using {{split from}} and {{split to}}. The "80+ episodes" in MOS:TV is only a rough guide, but it does correspond roughly to when articles should be split. For example, using a very loose interpretation of the definition of readable prose, the first 80 episodes at List of Castle episodes correspond to about 28kB of readable prose, which is well below the "Length alone does not justify division" upper limit. Articles with longer episode summaries could reach the "May need to be divided" lower limit of 50kB. The split of List of Younger episodes fails both in readable prose size and no attribution for the split has been provided. --AussieLegend () 06:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand that the "80+ episodes" recommendation originally came from WP:SPLIT and article size, but at this point it's not at all representative of television today nor when articles actually get season pages in practice. Potential for content backed by reliable sources dictates season articles in my opinion, not readable prose size. In many if not most cases what you've described is actually a Catch-22- there won't be enough content to fill a season page until the page is created, and it won't be created until there's enough content to create one. I view season pages like individual episode articles- production/themes/reception sections (which aren't included on or split from List of Episodes pages at all) will as a matter of course be added, so splitting existing text isn't and shouldn't be the entire concern. -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
As I said, "80+ episodes" is only a rough guide. It's not a hard and fast rule. There is no catch-22 either. Again as I said, if the article isn't big enough to split, then it shouldn't be, unless the new article(s) would result in the the inclusion of additional information. Simply splitting an LoE page to a season article that contains nothing more than a lead, infobox, episode list and maybe a list of starring characters, as happened with Younger, shouldn't be done. If you can't immediately add additional content, then the article shouldn't be split in the hope that some day somebody will do it. If you can add significant additional content then that might justify a split regardless of WP:SIZERULE. --AussieLegend () 10:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The 80+ episodes is a guide when you're dealing with size only, because a LoE page that has 150 episode summaries is insanely largely to read. Articles can be created earlier is the GNG is met. The catch that we run into is that almost no show can justify splitting after a season or two (definitely not 1 season). The reason being is that most of the "production" information for the first season is the production information found on the main page. Thus, you're just create a duplicate page and justifying it by saying it meets the GNG (when in fact, the main page met the GNG, not the season). Having a couple of reviews, which is what I often see, does not separate it out. Again, when a show is just 1 or 2 years old, those reviews are likely what's on the main page and we don't need separate pages for that information. When a show gets into multiple seasons and there is enough independent coverage of the independent seasons, then you can talk about splitting and reformatting the main page (i.e., summarizing more and leaving details to season pages, ala Smallville) so that there isn't as much or any duplication. Would you feel better if we said "Additionally, season pages may be created after X number of seasons have taken place, and there is independent coverage of the independent seasons that allows them to meet the GNG"? Obviously the wording would change, I'm merely giving you an idea of a caveat that could be placed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
For many series, like the reality series AussieLegend cited above, of course, there are not enough changes between seasons to warrant season pages. But I would argue that a show like Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad or even a freshman show like Empire have enough content, popularity, and editor interest to create season pages when their second season begins airing. While Younger may not be ready for season pages, True Detective, by its anthology nature, is. The first and second seasons of The Wire and The Leftovers differ tremendously in tone and characters, and since that information is rarely if ever documented on a List of Episodes page, I don't view those season pages as a split – and I imagine season articles are more common and better maintained now than they were in 2009. So regarding changes made to the MOS:TV section, firstly I believe it's time to strike the "For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes" phrase and begin the section with "It may be necessary to break...". Secondly yes, Bignole, I like your suggestions. Instead of 'X number', does 'two or more' make sense? The emphasis is definitely on meeting the GNG, however, not the number of seasons. And is it worth mentioning anthology series / shows that have completely different casts between seasons? -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying strike the episode count, again I am telling you that that is meant to be about size of a page. If a show doesn't have a lot of independent content and it's approaching 5, 6, 7 seasons, then you may need to turn the LoE page into season pages because that's a lot for a page to summarize for plots. I'm saying we can add another guide of number of seasons, if those seasons meet the GNG. Anthology series do not necessarily mean that there is a significant amount of independent coverage. That depends on the show itself. Casting information is not significant coverage, so the fact that they replace the cast every year is trivial in the grande scheme of the GNG (notice I said the GNG and not readers or fans of the show). This is also not about being "better maintained". We didn't set are guideline based on whether people can maintain articles. Given that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a current events encyclopedia (e.g., another reason why episode pages shouldn't be created the day after they air), there isn't a need to "maintain" them for "current" seasons. I'm not suggesting that current seasons of shows don't deserve a page, but that maintenance is irrelevant. As for "more common", again, many shows have season pages that probably don't need to exist but do so because there are less editors around those pages actually applying the guidelines of the GNG (let alone WP:MOSTV).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe there are two simultaneous uses for season pages, and MOS:TV should reflect that. Yes, if a show's LOE has excessive size, it should be split, using a season page as an organizational tool. That is where the 80+ episode sentence stems from, sure, but I don't think it's a guide worth preserving anymore since fewer series reach that number (and it's arbitrary to begin with- why not leave it to editor's discretion?). But more importantly season pages also serve as means for covering a series in more detail, providing a place to describe casting/production/reception/awards in detail which is worth acknowledging since that use certainly in the spirit of an encyclopedia, like individual episode articles. As well as, yes, more common- why shouldn't our guidelines reflect how users write articles in practice? As for the word "maintain"- I wasn't referring to current seasons – something you brought up – merely the writing and paying attention of season articles. And naturally season pages that don't meet the GNG shouldn't exist... no one has argued that they should! All I'm suggesting, as Dark Cocoa Frosting alluded to at the beginning of this section, is a need to recognize in the MOS how season articles early in a television series' life can/should be written. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Reality TV show contestant bios[edit]

Is it appropriate for celebrity bio articles to contain detailed week-by-week analysis of a current reality show that they're appearing on? I cut some from a biography article recently, as it seemed clearly undue emphasis and failed the WP:10YEARS rule of thumb, but an IP added it back saying it was "often standard for contestants on reality shows". Is it? (Or is that maybe just for reality show contestants who have no other career? The bio in question was an actress with decades of other TV work.) --McGeddon (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments requested[edit]

Comments requested here re: the ordering of The Backyardigans episodes and, as a lesser matter, MOS:CT. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)