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:

English universal spelling over American spelling.[edit]

If TV shows are more universal than what some people call an American TV show, why do lots of editors insist that American spelling is correct? It doesn't seem very universal. And every so often I correct a word on a TV show article, some person reverts it to be American spelling stating it's American so should be American. I really don't understand the consensus for this and it looks like lazy writing on articles. Maybe a new consensus for real English can be installed throughout? Govvy (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Govvy: If it's an American show, WP:TIES applies. Otherwise, there's MOS:RETAIN. Also, you are not going to achieve anything by insisting that British is the "real" English, neither is "more correct" than the other, per WP:ENGVAR. But if the article uses some American word which may not be widely understood (I can't tell since you haven't provided any links), there's WP:COMMONALITY. – nyuszika7h (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Generally WP:ENGVAR would point to using the style of English to which the subject is more closely tied. If there isn't one, for example on an article about a non-English-language programme, I'd say we could just go with author preference in that same way that we tackle other formatting approaches like citation styles. GRAPPLE X 14:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I am more concerned about TV articles which have a wide spread release across the world using Americanisms. Govvy (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I took a quick look at your recent edits, to take a look at what you were talking about as you didn't provide an example, and re: Agent Carter, at least, that article should use American spelling because it is an American production, no matter how English the title character is or how international the broadcast. Past that, what nyuszika7h said and Grapple X said. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
If they are American in origin, they use American English; likewise Canadian, Indian, UK, etc. A subject's reach is not of any importance to its national ties for things like ENGVAR (for example, they watch a lot of Dr. Who in the US too but I'm sure the article doesn't mention the "color" of the Tardis). GRAPPLE X 14:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I give up, it's clear wikipedia doesn't want any uniform standard. Shame really, I find it rather annoying reading English which is poorly written, laziness not to put an extra letter in colour! Latin maybe a dead language but at least it was consistent. Govvy (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
As someone else said, classifying American spelling as "lazy" makes it less likely anyone will take your opinion seriously. You want a "uniform standard", but why do you assume that should be UK-centric? Wikipedia has a pretty consistent and evenhanded policy which basically allows for "British" articles to use that spelling and date format, and "American" articles to do the same. Forcing the issue one way or the other would be universally unfair and unbalanced, this is a compromise that seems to make sense to most people. Sorry.— TAnthonyTalk 15:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
And I should add, the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, is American, so if a uniform standard was ever forced, it would probably be toward Lazy English. ;) — TAnthonyTalk 15:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I am so use to the Oxford English dictionary, Jimmy is Jimmy, just because he is American and Wiki-OverLord doesn't mean he needs create a bad piece of work. Govvy (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Imposing a variety of English onto the entire project isn't going to gain any traction. At any rate, it's not about consistency across articles, but about consistency within articles. (I feel like there's a guideline to link to here, but its name is escaping me.) Calling non-British varieties of English, particularly American English, "lazy" and "poorly written" and saying that it's "annoying to read" and is contributing to a "bad piece of work" is certainly not winning any sympathizers, especially considering millions of people don't spell color with a u. At any rate, this isn't the place to bring this grievance. This is a WikiProject for just television-related topics, and national varieties of English fall outside its scope. If you want to pursue imposing one variety of English onto Wikipedia, I suggest taking it up at WP:Manual of Style or WP:Manual of Style/Spelling. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:LANGUAGE, WP:SPELLING. Here's the quick, most appropriate answer that has been touched on before and is addressed in multiple guidelines. Whatever the topic's country of origin is, in the case of TV articles that would be who owns the property and is producing it, defines the spelling of words (consistently). There is a difference in say the fact that Harry Potter is an English character, written by an English woman, but the films are owned and produced by an American company. In that case, you would see English spellings of certain words on the book pages, because it was published originally by an English company, but you would see American spellings on the films (because they are owned by Warner Bros...J.K. Rowling doesn't own the rights).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

← If you get down to it, the internet is owned by the US government. Wikipedia is on the internet thus American spelling would win out if you want to force it to one version of the language. Spshu (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Please take your tin-foil hat opinions elsewhere. "The internet is owned by the US government"? Not the place for it. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
This is relevant to the discussion. Take your insults else where. Just because you want to remain ignorant, do not force it on others. This is not the place for your insults and ignorance. The U.S. Gives the Internet to the World: "U.S. to advance Internet freedom, work with ICANN to privatize domain management by 2015." Spshu (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
According to the article that you've linked, your assertion that the internet is owned by the US government was wrong. The article says that "the only part of the Internet that any country owns" was (the article is from 2014) "the root server for the domain name system". --AussieLegend () 15:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to add native_name parameter to TV infobox.[edit]

Hey all, I'm proposing the addition of a native_name parameter to the TV infobox to facilitate the inclusion of native language titles. Currently the hack that most people use is to add a <br /> to |name= and paste the native script beneath. Comments invited! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone have any objections to this? There are two comments of support. If there are no objections, I'd like to proceed by asking someone at VPT to tweak the template. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Using {{TPER}} on the template talk would be easier, and would not decentralize discussion. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Assistance requested[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Cutthroat Kitchen#Tournament/Returning Contestants regarding the inclusion of contestants in episode tables. Your input and thoughts are requested. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I know I'm on the cusp of being annoying, but I really am curious as to WPTV's stance on this issue, particularly since the issue has migrated to the "List of episodes" page and I'd like a third opinion before cleaning things up. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Episode table production code link[edit]

Should "Prod. code" be linked in {{Episode table}}? There's an editor constantly adding it at Module:Episode table, even after I removed it. They then cleared the notice I posted on their talk page after they re-instated it when I said they should discuss it first. While adding it, they changed the colour of the link to white/black (depending on the background), so a reader isn't going to even know it's linked unless they're deliberately looking for it. Personally, I believe there's no need for it, as they're also removed the abbreviation template. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Per the editor's contribution history as well ( (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)), they converted a multitude of usages of {{Episode table}} to raw header code, so that they could link the code. This goes against the very reason as to why {{Episode table}} was created, and hence, all such revisions have been reverted. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
What are they linking it to? If it does get linked to something, the link should be a normal link anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Production code number. And the user has cleared the notification of this discussion from their talk page, so apparently they refuse to discuss it. Alex|The|Whovian? 08:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem with linking is that it would cause issues with color contrast. We already need to use a white background for references with most colors, otherwise the available range would be much more limited – it would look ugly to have to do that with the text or the entire cell. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted the edits, inviting the IP to discuss on the talk their proposed changes, as well as requested generic semi protection for the module. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't really think that we need to be linking to that, and it will just cause problems. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to invite the IP editor to discuss the changes, see here, after AlextheWhovian's initial invitation, but it is to no avail. They've also made a comment to User:AlexTheWhovian's talk page: see here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If they have no desire to discuss, then so be it. The module has been protected, so they cannot re-implement it anyways. Alex|The|Whovian? 04:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


Just a heads-up for anyone that uses this script.

User:AlexTheWhovian/script-seriesoverview.js is a script that transforms a tabular series overview for television series to the templated version {{Series overview}}.

This mass update in September 2016 provided support for the newer features of the {{Series overview}} template, including custom link text for all seasons, split seasons, special rows (the previous two now implemented in the maint template itself, rather than sub-templates), excluding to-be-announced info cells, proper support and html-to-wikitext linking for the network column, auxiliary columns, released series (for seasons both released in their entirety and not), twenty-six info cells rather than five, and end dates identical to their start dates. The mass update also included a lot of code cleanup, optimization though functions, adding in the proper page link, and insertion of reminders to re-insert references not included in the table-to-template conversion

Alex|The|Whovian? 06:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Rachel Bilson[edit]

Rachel Bilson, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary infobox templates?[edit]

So I just came across Category:Television episode list templates with many template that house all episodes for a given season of a show, to add to the infobox of a specific episode. Why do we need these? The current documentation for {{Infobox television episode}} allows for these lists to appear under a heading of "Season X episodes", above the "Prev/Next" section. The documentation says to use one or the other, but not both. I don't really think these lists should exists because a) so few articles use them, based on this cat (thought there may be more out there) and b) if a series is using this, they most likely have a navbox with all the episodes, but if not, then at least an LoE somewhere. Can anyone explain to me why these serve a purpose? I think we shouldn't give this as an option in the episode infobox, and just use the "Prev/Next" option, plus the linking to the LoE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The Medical Drama's page issues[edit]

In the Medical Drama wikipedia page, there are several issues. Firstly, many statements are assumptions because they are not cited specifcally in the lead section. Every fact made does not have a corresponding source. For example, the statement "A typical medical drama might have a storyline in which two doctors fall in love" is not cited and there are mutliple other assumptions made in this article that are not verified. As a whole the article only has two sources. It severly lacks verification.

The second problem with this article is that it contains a direct quotation from a copyrighted book Understanding Media: The Extions of a Man "creates an obsession with bodily welfare", although the book is cited this is still a violation of Wikipedia's plagerism policy.

ArianaDuford (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ArianaDuford

for the first problem, it's better to add a small link that says "citation needed". i've seen it in other articles, but i don't know the name of the template. wait for some time and if you still see no citation, remove the content. and for the second problem, i don't think mentioning the source in a direct quotation is a violation and plagiarism. it's used in several other articles. but if you know it's a violation, you'd better delete it. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The quote is cited and in quotation marks, so it is acceptable and certainly not plagiarism. Any statements needing citations can be removed or tagged with {{citation needed}}. By the way, per WP:LEADCITE, statements made in the lead do not require citations if the same information is cited later in the article. The lead is supposed to summarize the entire article. — TAnthonyTalk 04:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

New TV script[edit]

New script at User:AlexTheWhovian/script-updateepisodes, if anyone wants to use it. Description:

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 9#Category:2017 television series debuts[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 9#Category:2017 television series debuts. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Episode list issue[edit]

I can't figure out what's wrong with the episode list at Hey Duggee § Episodes, sometimes the viewers cell is blank and spans down to the summary row below. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue with most of the error'ing cells was that that they didn't have |AltDate= included, hence decreasing the number of cells in those columns by 1, and the final row had a typo in |DirectedBy=. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Chad Harris-Crane - featured article candidate[edit]

I've nominated the article about the episode Chad Harris-Crane for Featured Article consideration. This article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions. The character made daytime television and soap opera history for participating in the first instance in a soap opera of two men simulating sex, and has also been cited as expanding the representation of LGBT characters of color on daytime television.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chad Harris-Crane/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek series[edit]

Can the all of Star Trek tv series be considered a single series? This is relating to a naming discussion going on at Talk:The Dauphin (Star Trek)--Prisencolin (talk) 05:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Treehouse of Horror.png[edit]

This file is listed for discussion at FFD. I invite you to discuss it there. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Linking: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 1#File:Treehouse of Horror.png Alex|The|Whovian? 23:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NFF equivalent for TV?[edit]

Hey all. WP:NFF is an interesting guideline. I'm sure most of you are familiar with it, but in film articles we have to establish that principal photography has begun in order for a film article to be created. Obviously there's the general notability guideline to contend with, but if everybody's talking about a film, and principal photography has not yet begun, it would be premature to start an article, because anything could derail a film production.

Do we need anything like that for TV articles? We often encounter upcoming series, and in most cases, so long as there are sufficient references chattering about the project, we tend to let the article stand, but as with film, anything could derail a TV project. Thoughts? No es necesario? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

the tv series that have received a pilot order and the production of the pilot is notable, according to nff, can have an article about the pilot, like Most Wanted and Krypton. when the full series is ordered, the article can be renamed to a series. if the pilot is passed on, the article will remain titled as a tv pilot, like what happened to most wanted. films and tv series are kinda differently approached. --HamedH94 (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I think creating some sort of language is probably a good idea as a preventative measure, all we need is one well-meaning newbie to read an article in Variety and create 100 stubs for potential shows. Is the creation of articles about pilots actually spelled out anywhere? I do think we should attempt to create some notability guidelines for them. The above examples (Most Wanted and Krypton) and others like the FA Aquaman are notable in part because of they belong to notable franchises and have received significant coverage. The problem I foresee is that nearly every produced pilot is usually mentioned/described in some way in publications like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, and possibly more mainstream sources depending on attached talent, source material, etc. This technically makes them notable, but not necessarily deserving of individual articles. I would argue that whenever possible, stubs and smaller start articles about pilots should actually begin as sections within larger articles. For example, a pilot based on The Adventures of Tom Sawyer would be described in a couple of sentences there, one centered on Frankenstein's monster would be mentioned in that article, and a pilot starring Kim Kardashian as a powerful lawyer could be covered in her article.— TAnthonyTalk 15:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I would add that being mentioned in Variety of THR doesn't make something notable just because of the reputation of the magazine. Per the GNG, it requires "significant coverage", which does not mean mentioning by a high profile magazine, or 100 mentionings by high profile magazine. It means coverage beyond that trivial mention of "hey, they're making Krypton on SyFy and it's going to star actor Y." I do agree that we should have some form of NFF (ala NFTV?) so that we can direct people to said page. I would also agree with TAnthony that just because it make also have "significant coverage" doesn't mean that it needs an article. For example, they have been trying to get a Friday the 13th show off the ground for years, and there have been 2 major attempts in the last 10 years. One might argue that it has received "significant coverage" simply from the discussion of everyone working on it. Interestingly enough, that "significant coverage" exists quite well in the paragraph or two it currently has on the franchise page. It doesn't need an entire page devoted to that information. That is what we need to help people understand. Which is probably a good discussion for the MOSTV overhaul that's happening right now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that for the most part, we shouldn't make a series/season page until it has at least been picked up, if not started filming. Before then, information can go in other appropriate places (like at a franchise article, or a studio's article, etc.) if at all. If the pilot is passed on, then I think an evaluation can be made as to whether it could sustain an article as is, and if that is the case then the article can be made then (this is the process we went through on Most Wanted (TV pilot): we just had some info on the series in a spin-off section at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., but had a draft article for the pilot in the works; once the series was passed on, we felt that the draft was good enough to be an article anyway, and so moved it to the mainspace then). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Great question Cyphoidbomb! I was just thinking about this, as Bignole said, to potentially bringing this up during the MOSTV overhaul (which you can all find info on and join in the discussion(s), here). Currently, the only thing "on paper" regarding this is WP:TVSERIES, which is at Notability (media). It says there, Television pilots which have not been picked up to series are not normally eligible for Wikipedia articles — in most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network. A mere announcement that a pilot is in development may be noted in the Wikipedia articles about its creators, writers or confirmed cast members, but absent significant evidence that the pilot has notability for reasons beyond simple confirmation of its existence, the announcement itself is not sufficient basis for a standalone article about the pilot. A dropped pilot which does go to air as a standalone television film or special may, however, qualify for an article on that latter basis. As I read this, and my own thoughts, is that, in the early months of the year when networks reveal what scripts are becoming pilots, nothing in the main space should be created regarding them. Once May comes around, if that pilot has been picked up, an article could be created for it, given it still pass WP:GNG, and passed pilots should only get an article if it also has significant coverage regarding it (a la Most Wanted). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
In case it is worth anything, the article that inspired this query was Pardes Mein Hai Meraa Dil, an upcoming Indian TV series. There's little written about it, it's unclear when it will begin (a blog says it'll begin in October 2017, some random users have said it's been postponed till 2017--no way to tell what's factual.) I like to plan for the most difficult cases, and in cases like these, pickup orders ain't exactly the norm. So I think we need some kinda guideline that takes into consideration that the rest of the world duzn't operate the same way that US television does, with well-publicized pickup commitments. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's another one: Sangharsh (TV series). The series name is tentative according to Times of India. Only the lead actor has been cast, his future co-stars are still in talks. Worth an article or not? What criteria would have prevented the premature creation of this article? Is maybe a release date the trigger? Like, if a series says, "We've got some stuff in the works, we should be ready to go on MMDDYY" would that be sufficient? Maybe not because there are lots of shows that are planned for "November 2016" or the beginning of the next Fall season. I dunno. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

New here[edit]

I have added 4 more articles to this wikiproject after reading user:Megalibrarygirl’s article in the Signpost. I was surprised to see that these articles were getting very little traffic even though they all deal with people who have shaped television’s history, exactly the kind of articles that are usually not pursued by wp:deletionists., I think? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Thanks for your contributions! Psst: Michaelangelo was a deletionist. Face-grin.svg Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for responding. I also tried to add the Signpost box at the top of this page (right before the table of contents) but I don't seem to be able to get it to link to the right Signpost article. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Actress change for character[edit]

In Hank Zipzer, another actress replaced Ashley's actress starting from season 2. How should that be indicated in the cast list? I added the new actress below the other one with parenthetical notes about the seasons as I think it makes sense for them to be together. Or should the new actress be added to the bottom of the season 1 cast list (above Mr Joy), or perhaps put them on the same line with a slash separator? nyuszika7h (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

How about Chloe Wong (season 1) and Alicia Lai (seasons 2-3) as Ashley? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk shows and episode numbers[edit]

I would like to make a suggestion that we stop using the "no. of episodes" section for articles on talk shows. Since these shows aren't scripted and episodes are taped and aired every day (excepting during the summer), its just more work that needs to be done, because the number of episodes is going up faster than editors can keep up with, automatically leaving the parameter open to inaccuracies (say article on [talk show] says it has 1,000 episodes but [talk show] actually has 1,200 episodes). The number also lacks context, because we don't even list every single episode that aired, just a brief summary of the topics that the talk show covers. It also lacks context because talk shows episodes rarely air in reruns, and after the shows go completely off the air, pretty much never get reran on television again. Long story short, the context of the number of episodes does not go beyond that of just the number itself. These are not reality shows or children's programming or animated series or sitcoms or dramas whose episode numbers maintain longstanding notability and relevance well after the episodes have already aired. Talk shows are in the same as news programming or newsmagazines where a summary of topics which it covers suffices to summing up its episodic content. I guess this is a case of recentism, while I know that page is only an essay and although there's also positives to recentism, I don't think that's the case here. If we have to treat this thing as solely a number, without any other sort of content or context to it, then I don't see why we should be listing the number at all. Thoughts? —Mythdon 07:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Live blogging the Emmys on Medium[edit]

Hi all, I work with the Wikimedia Foundation's communications team; you may know me better under my volunteer username The ed17. We've been working for awhile on the idea of Wikipedia as a 'second screen' during major events. For the Super Bowl, for instance, we looked into the minute-by-minute page view spikes.

In the same spirit, we're planning to do a live blog on Medium about the 68th Primetime Emmy Awards, inviting people to use Wikipedia as their second screen when the winners are announced. As the editors and maintainers of these articles, we'd like you to take part to give your opinions and insights. Please leave a message here or on my talk page, or email if you're intrigued. Thanks! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Lexa (The 100) talk page[edit]

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Lexa (The 100)#Proposed merge with Lexa Pledge. Along with discussion of merging includes whether or not to actually merge the content or simply redirect the Lexa Pledge article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: The content concerns a major spoiler. So if you would rather not be spoiled on the matter, it's best to avoid the discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Stranger Things episodes[edit]

Before I take this to the next level, I thought I would start here. A crop of Stranger Things episodes have popped up but are basically retreads of each with only individual plot changes done. I believe this to be a major no-no on many levels. In addition, the plots are taken directly (read: copied) from the episode wikias with the added {{Wikia content}} template in the Reference sections. This also appears to be a no-no, as I thought WP:Copyvio only affords partial copying like a line or two not full sections. Does any regular TV editor see any of this as wrong or am I just blowing smoke? Here are the individual articles so far: Chapter One, Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six. — Wyliepedia 11:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"Infobox television season" for parted seasons[edit]

I'd like to suggest that this edit be implemented into {{Infobox television season}}, giving two date ranges in the template for parted seasons. I understand that the template is a summary for the season, but when you have Haven (season 5), for example, listing the date range as "September 11, 2014 – December 17, 2015", this is factually incorrect. The season didn't air continuously between those dates (in fact, it had a break of ten months, which is rather significant), so that's why I would like to suggest something like this. As a summary for the season, such major details should be noted as such, as in several cases, the split seasons are sometimes advertised as two separate seasons. Another example would be Vikings (season 4), which lists the original release as "February 18, 2016 – present" - it is not currently airing, only Part 1 premiered in February; Part 2 is in November. Hence, it should list "Part 1: February 18 – April 21, 2016", and then adding the second part should comply with the existing documentation, and not be added until it premieres. Such a listing would not necessary for regular fall shows that take only a month break, only seasons that are advertised as split. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This is also increasingly common in anime, though they typically tend to use their own infobox. --Izno (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
If this gets added, we'd all have to make sure that this is used in these instances, and not "normal" winter hiatus breaks for network shows (ie, the first 12 or so eps airing from Sep - Dec, then breaking for the holidays, and returning in the following year to conclude in May). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: Most definitely. Only for seasons that are advertised as split, and who's home media is released as such, and that use {{Episode table/part}}. Perhaps I should bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Parent, season, episode infobox? Alex|The|Whovian? 00:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Eh, this isn't really something that needs to be added to the MOS, so bringing it up in that discussion wouldn't be helpful. Doing it here and at the infobox television season talk is fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: But... isn't this exactly a style change that should be mentioned in the MOS and so wouldn't it totally make sense to include it in that discussion? I think if someone forgets to include something there, fine, understandable oversight, but I feel like if you actively encourage people not to put info there when there's a big push to revise the MOS, you end up looking like you're trying to sneak something through. Not saying you are, but I've seen some comments around that imply that people can get that impression, so shouldn't the default be to overshare?
I'm thinking it would be particularly important given the final point re: when not to list split dates (i.e. normal "winter" or mid-season hiatus, not released or referred to as a split season) vs. when to use them... because you can just totally see people coming in and relabelling all regular hiatuses (hiatusii? LOL) as split seasons, so having a section in the MOS to point to will really help ward off those well-meaning yet confusing changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyconnick (talkcontribs) 02:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
We've had virtually the same discussion regarding dates in {{Infobox television}} and decided not to do what was proposed. The consensus was essentially that first_aired and last_aired are merely meant to show when the first episode and last episode of a series were aired and it didn't matter if there was a long hiatus between seasons. The same applies to seasons. Even if it is broken into parts, and really, most seasons are even if they're not specifically called parts, all we need to list are the first and last dates.
when you have Haven (season 5), for example, listing the date range as "September 11, 2014 – December 17, 2015", this is factually incorrect. The season didn't air continuously between those dates - That's true for any season. Most seasons have a small hiatus, but it's still a hiatus. They don't air continuously, almost no programs do. Between the last week in September and the first week in May there are 32 weeks, but how many series have 31 episodes?
As a summary for the season, such major details should be noted as such - At the discussions regarding infobox television, we decided that if the information is significant, it should be addressed in the prose. --AussieLegend () 06:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not proposing multiple dates be added to the one parameter, I'm suggesting that new parameters be made for seasons advertised as split (hence, not including regular fall shows). So, can you explain to me why {{Series overview}} should allow for split seasons, but {{Infobox television season}} should not? Especially when the latter displays more information than the former, and should then list the same information available in a series overview. If it really is a case were first_aired and last_aired are merely meant to show when the first episode and last episode of a series were aired and it didn't matter if there was a long hiatus between seasons, then this should apply across all television templates, no? Alex|The|Whovian? 09:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Joeyconnick: The MOS isn't really meant to go indepth with template parameters for the infoboxes, which is what Alex is proposing changes. I'm not trying to sneak anything by any means, but all the MOS is showing currently, and should continue to, is the templates for users to copy for use. If they want more info on the specific parameters and how to format them, they should go to the template's documentation. Does that make sense? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
To Aussie and Alex's points above: for {{Infobox television}} it makes sense, in my eyes, to not do what Alex is proposing. But for seasons, which are single entities, doing what Alex is proposing seems fine to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not proposing multiple dates be added to the one parameter, I'm suggesting that new parameters be made for seasons advertised as split - That's just the same thing using a different method. We could have done that with infobox television to allow for situations where a show is cancelled, and then started again.
can you explain to me why {{Series overview}} should allow for split seasons, but {{Infobox television season}} should not? - Most of the edits to {{Series overview}} have been made by you. It's a table, not an infobox. Two different things.
this should apply across all television templates, no? - Maybe it should. Where is the discussion where we decided that it should be changed?
But for seasons, which are single entities, - A TV series is a single entity, comprised of parts called seasons. A season is a single entity, comprised of parts called episodes. --AussieLegend () 19:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Favre1fan93: Keep the standard and current method for {{Infobox television}}, but adjust as suggested for {{Infobox television episode}}. And don't put the series overview on me - parted seasons in series overviews existed far before I even joined the site. All I've done is made it easier to display such content. An infobox is also a table, and one that provides further information than a series overview - you would expect the infobox to then display the same info provided in the overview. It might be interesting to see the views of other editors who oppose this edit as well, to see how far the opinion reaches. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: I see what you mean. --Joeyconnick (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: Prior to the creation of {{series overview}}, series overview tables all used raw code and parted seasons were never, as far as I am aware, discussed. It was only after you created {{series overview}}, along with several other highly useful templates that you also created, did parted seasons become an issue because of the coding of that template.
All I've done is made it easier to display such content That's actually a modest reply. Your templates have been of huge benefit to the project. As a courtesy, I personally have generally left editing of the templates to you, since you are intimately familiar with them.
And don't put the series overview on me The fact is, you are the editor who has made the vast majority of these templates, and the response to your question, can you explain to me why {{Series overview}} should allow for split seasons was not able to be answered because I couldn't find where this had been discussed. I don't oppose this functionality, it's essential content as far as I can see, but it's not an infobox, so there is no comparison between the two. The infobox and the lead are similar, both are supposed to summarise, the lead in prose, the infobox in a dot point format. The series overview is an adjunct to, but not part of the lead.
We need to be consistent in the way that we do things, which is one reason the MOS discussions are occurring. Over recent years we have made changes to the infoboxes so that they are more similar. This change would be inconsistent with the previous discussions that we've had and the changes that we've made. --AussieLegend () 11:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't necessarily think this is needed. It's not incorrect to simply include the start and end date, it does not suggest that the series aired continuously and consistently over that period, per the above comments. And, say, a series goes on a long – possibly unplanned – hiatus, but they are never called "parted seasons". Those wouldn't fall under this definition even if there was a longer period of no new episodes. The infobox is meant to summarize information, it's just a date range. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I have only been an editor here for two years, so I am obviously not aware if there were or were not discussions of the issue before I joined, but when I created the series overview template, I was aware that many articles, that had split seasons, if not almost all such articles, did use raw code to display them as such in the overview table. Whether if was by some unspoken consensus, agreement between editors, private discussions on talk pages, I do not know. That is why I created support for this in the template (initially through another template, then through the module).
If the lead and the infobox are both similar, then they should put forward mostly the same points as each other, albeit in their different forms. In this case, many leads for split seasons describe the mid-season finale and premiere dates (which as previously stated in this discussion, this has been discussed as acceptable) as well as the regular season premiere and finale dates, and hence, the infobox should display these separate dates as well.
Discussions are held all the time, and are mostly always about content that has already been discussed previously; these discussions then may or may not go ahead to change the content that the previous discussions has settled upon. This is just one of those. Infobox content has been agreed upon in the past, and now this is a discussion on that content; it is certainly not the first of its kind.
What I have proposed is also just a date range. It is just an extra added date range. A discussion may have been held for {{Infobox television}} to simply include one date range, but it does not seem that this has been adhered to; just earlier, I came across an instance of the template that has four date ranges for the original release bracket, and I believe that this is perfectly alright and normal, as the infobox is meant to summarize the series. And both the example I gave and the proposed edits, they both do so, by reflecting and showing a quick summary of when the show has been airing, and when it has been off air outside of its regular hiatus breaks. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Any further opinions on this would be greatly appreciated. Alex|The|Whovian? 14:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
If the lead and the infobox are both similar, then they should put forward mostly the same points as each other - Mostly, but not all, and we have to be consistent in our approach. If we allow splits in the season infobox, why not in the main series infobox? In the two years sonce you started editing, every change we've made to the infoboxes has been to ensure consistency, and this would be a step in the opposite direction. In any case, content in the infobox is supposed to be significant, and splitting a season is not all that significant. As you, or someone, said, it's becoming more common. The infobox is also supposed to be about the season as a whole, and for that we need to know when the season started, and when it finished. We don't need to know about breaks in the middle. As already said, every season has them. And what are the criteria for identifying a season as parted? Does it specifically have to be identified as part 1 and 2? If so, then a number of articles will have to be modified because we used common sense when determining that they were parted. If we decide to get around this by giving a specified period between episodes, which is a bit ORish anyway, what is the period? A month? Two months? Three months?
What I have proposed is also just a date range. It is just an extra added date range. - Somebody can always argue that something is "just" this or that. If we look at the simplest effect, we often have problems with this infobox because of its length, especially now that we can include starring cast. Often that alone increases whitespace between the "Episodes" heading and the table. "Just an extra added date range" will contribute to that.
A discussion may have been held for {{Infobox television}} to simply include one date range, but it does not seem that this has been adhered to; just earlier, I came across an instance of the template that has four date ranges for the original release bracket, and I believe that this is perfectly alright and normal, as the infobox is meant to summarize the series. - The consensus was that there should be just one date range. If there were more, then this is an edit against consensus and should have been fixed. People can't just add things willy nilly. What if the infobox is changed and that breaks the display in that article?
and when it has been off air outside of its regular hiatus breaks - If a season has been broken into two parts, then the break is a regular hiatus break. --AussieLegend () 16:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

La Banda season 2[edit]

I was wondering if it's okay to create La Banda season 2 article? The show has gained popularity in the U.S. and other countries like México and their first band CNCO has gained popularity too. Seriesphile (talk ·ctb) 03:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: The Great British Bake Off (series 7)[edit]

Anyone interested to contribute to the discussion are welcome at Talk:The Great British Bake Off (series 7). Hzh (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Naagin (season 2)[edit]

I could really use some input regarding a merge proposal of Naagin (season 2) to Naagin (2015 TV series). Discussion is at Talk:Naagin (2015 TV series).

I'm all alone in Indian television articles... It's me vs. sockpuppets. Confused.png Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel your pain. I see that in normal articles. --AussieLegend () 19:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article mention the national and/or iconic aspect of Lexa's impact?[edit]

An RfC titled "Should the article mention the national and/or iconic aspect of Lexa's impact?" has been started at Talk:The 100 (TV series). Interested Editors are invited to comment. --AussieLegend () 19:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Including former creative members in the infobox and noting in the article[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Talk:30 for 30#Removed quote regarding the removal of Bill Simmons from the producer field of the infobox, since he is no longer involved with the series, or at ESPN for that matter. Additionally, it is being discussed if "former" should be included in front of Simmons' name in the text, as well as the inclusion of a "dated" quote. Editors are invited to weigh in on the discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

What do we do about "Special Preview" airings?[edit]

OK, I dunno what's going on this TV season, but this has become a proliferating issue lately – the problem is TV shows that have "special previews" before their "official" premiere dates. Here are three recent examples:

  • Falling Water – special "preview", last night (Sept. 21); "official series premiere", Oct. 13
  • Van Helsing – special "preview", July 31; "official series premiere", this Friday (Sept. 23)
  • The Last Ship – special "preview" of season #3 premiere, May 30; "official season premiere", June 19

The question is: how should we handle situations like this, in terms of the episode list/table, and in terms of the infobox?...

Personally, I liked the way List of The Last Ship episodes episodes handled this in terms of the episode list (i.e. using a 'note' about the "special preview", and then using the "official premiere" date in the table), and copied that for Falling Water. But the Van Helsing article is simply ignoring the "official premiere" date outside of the lede... The bigger issue for the first two examples is does the "special preview" airing still count towards the "first_aired" parameter in the infobox? (I'm assuming it does...)

Thoughts, suggestions or comments on this issue are welcome... --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: WP:TVOVERVIEW says the preview date should be used. Although it does not explicitly apply to other parts of the article, I'd say we should use the preview date elsewhere too, and if the "official premiere" can be referenced (it usually can be, so that's not the main issue), mention it in the "Broadcast" section and/or as a footnote. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, that does seem to answer the series overview table/infobox question... But I'm not sure it answers the episode list question... Waiting to see what others say... --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't explicitly mention the episode list, but if I wasn't clear, I'll repeat – I would suggest just using the preview date there too. A footnote may or may not be added to the episode list, no strong opinion on that, though I wouldn't add footnotes in the series overview and infobox as the guideline there says to just use the "preview" date. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I think "original air date" is pretty clear. 'Preview' is just a marketing term. Should list the first airing in the episode list table. And as a compromise I can totally agree to a footnote that also lists the later, formal date. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Where it has relevance, though, is that sometimes these "previews" air unadvertised, whereas the "official premieres" are always heavily advertised. (Which leads to the philosophical question: If a "special preview" airs in the middle of the night, unadvertised, does anyone see it?!...) But getting back to Nyuszika7H's point, I agree with you that I believe these 'special cases' should be footnoted in the episodes list, one way or the other. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Another issue, that has just come up at Falling Water, is which ratings do you report (in the episode table)? For the reasons I've already outlined, I'd argue strongly that its the ratings for the "official" premiere that should be listed (the ratings for the "preview" airing can be mentioned in the 'Ratings'/'Reception' section). So this whole thing isn't purely an academic exercise... --IJBall (contribstalk) 12:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Well, that's a good question. But listing the preview date as air date then listing the premiere ratings is misleading. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Hence it's a problem. One solution is to list the premiere date in the episode table, and then add a second 'note' to the ratings figure (to explain why they don't match). But that seems overly complex to me. The other solution is to go back to the way they had it at List of The Last Ship episodes, and list the "official" premiere date (with the 'note' about the "preview" airing added) with its ratings figure... Like I said, this turns out to be more than an "academic" question... --IJBall (contribstalk) 12:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Over at List of Star vs. the Forces of Evil episodes we listed ratings for both the special preview (January 18, 2015 on Disney) and the series premiere (March 30, 2015 on Disney XD). The show resides on Disney XD. But the overview and episode listings can always list multiple premiere dates if it helps. This is a bit like a film festival release prior to the mainstream premiere. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

True Detective (season 1) — featured article candidate[edit]

Hello! I have nominated the article about True Detective's first season as a featured article candidate. Feedback and comments would be greatly appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/True Detective (season 1)/archive5. Thank you for your time and consideration. DAP 💅 5:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Maragatha Veenai (TV series) became Maragatha Veenai (Tamil series)[edit]

In January 2014 Arnav19 created Maragatha Veenai (TV series) an article about an Indian soap. This article went through a deletion discussion, which he did not participate in. As a result of this, the article was converted to a redirect.

Over a year later, he reverted the redirect, then made some cosmetic changes to the article. (AussieLegend, I notice some of your gnomish edits as well.) Arnav added a few sources (I'm not sure that any of them resolve.) When that version was converted back to a redirect by Natg 19 based on the previous AfD, Arnav waited three days, then recreated the article at Maragatha Veenai (Tamil series).

I'm bringing this here for community scrutiny. Arnav's edits were squirrely, but I'd question the original deletion. It's not like WP:TV has specific notability criteria for TV shows. And are we suggesting that a daily soap produced in one of the major languages of India, and that has survived 800 episodes, is potentially non-notable? It would seem that anything that makes it to a network's broadcast lineup is probably a reasonable thing to write an article about. Do we ever give a thumbs-down to original cartoons that air on Nickelodeon? Anyhow, if anyone has any input on this or how to proceed with the recreated article, that would be appreciated. If it helps, I'm no more of an expert on Indian entertainment than you are. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

If the article is to exist it should be at Maragatha Veenai (TV series) and not Maragatha Veenai (Tamil series) per WP:NCTV. While the TV project doesn't have specific notability guidelines, we do have WP:N, or more specifically, WP:GNG. If there are reliable sources, and the sources in the article do not appear to support anything in the article, then a subject is notable. If no sources can be found, then there shouldn't be an article. That it has survived for 800 episodes (has it? where is the source?) is probably not a big thing when you consider the population and how these programs are churned out. Looking at all the articles that I've had to fix, they seem to either have one channel per person or work on a 72 hour day. Personally, I think the AfD result should stand unless there are some reliable sources added. As you are aware, Indian TV articles are sadly lacking in this aspect. If it were a US program, what would we do? --AussieLegend () 07:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
If it was deleted per AFD, the article should be redirected until a sufficiently different article is created. If the user is being disruptive on the point, then we educate. If he continues to be disruptive, then we proceed to poking an admin to block for edit warring. --Izno (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)