Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15


Is considered a good source of information?

Is a reliable source for he man related info because I think it needs a mass over haul and cull because too many articles are unnecessary of simply Fancruft WP:FAN. Also some of the articles are dead because the site seems to be updated so alot of links don't work on many of the articles. I personally think its semi reliable since they seem to interview alot of people related to making the toys or writers of the show. My final point for the He-Ro article I found a carbon copy of the old article and found a released series bible relating to He-Ro should it be used.[1] Dwanyewest (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. Its a fansite by its own declaration, and a messed up one that that. It fails all aspects of WP:RS and should not be used (and it should be removed where found). Further, the link you point to is clearly a WP:COPYVIO violation, further making the site completely unusable, even for its own interviews (which may or may not be theirs). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case He-Man and She-Ra should have their website links removed because their is at least 8 or more He-man related articles with such links. There is a host of poorly written Fancruft written articles I wouldn't know where to begin and plus are these articles even using the correct character inbox for TV characters? Dwanyewest (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge I gotten rid of every article with Dwanyewest (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Good deal. Unfortunately, 99.9% of the He-Man/She-Ra related articles are in out right hideous shape and getting them cleaned up will be a seriously long term job. If you're up for it, I'd recommend starting with the main series articles, then dealing with the lists and merging in all the bad splits. Its unlikely most are using since they were using custom made, crufty boxes, but most shouldn't even have articles to begin with. There is also the hideous smurging of stuff from both series in some places which needs to be undone. He-Man != She-Ra and visa versa. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am just trying to cover my back are these acceptable sources [2] [3][4]

Dwanyewest (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

dvdtalk might be i need ot review it more to say for sure, toonzone news is realible it editroal content is reviewed and probally checked before publish and any mistake have updates posted afterwards., the final one i probally say is unrealible--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Is a reliable source for info about Mighty Morphin Power Rangers being "remastered"

There is currently a discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu‎ where me and User:Ryulong have disagreed on whether this news article from is a reliable source for info about Mighty Morphin Power Rangers being "remastered" for its 2010 rebroadcast. As Mighty Morphin Power Rangers is a TV show I decided to start this discussion so users here can say what they think about this. Powergate92Talk 23:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC) is realible source, howeve ri decided to look at the news article and since it only provided by a forum emmber although the back of the dvd sets does meantion it at the momnent the dvds are not offical there only where apromotinal for a futture release so i say in this case no it cant be used--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Request additional opinions

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Smallville (season 9)#DVR ratings about creating a separate table to list the DVR numbers for episodes. As the page currently (or, at least originally) stood, ALL the viewership numbers were on one episode table--with DVR numbers separately identified. It is my assertion that having 2 episode tables is needlessly redundant, when the ratings can easily fit on one table along with the rest of the episode information. Another editor disagrees, and feels that it's confusing to have two numbers listed. More opinions are requested.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

TfD to Merge {{Plot}} and {{All plot}}

A discussion has been started about merging these two templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 23#Template:All plot. There is also a rename discussion at Template talk:Plot#Requested move that may be of interest. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

TuVisión - Is it now defunct?

I would assume the fact that almost all stations involved have removed the company logo from their site, and that network website is no longer online, I would assume the network defunct. However, I've been wrong before, so someone should check to make sure. Retro Agnostic (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC help

Could some editors please take a look at the nomination of All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural) and give their input? Thanks. Ophois (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of similar edits sourced to the same one article

I'm reposting these comments here, from the help desk. I'd like to get some more input.

One editor made a series of edits to multiple articles, citing a single source that opines about the sexual orientation of various cartoon characters. Here are the diffs: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. I don't see how, on the basis of a single source, these theories deserve weight in the articles. As far as we can tell, this is one guy's opinion. This opinion seems to be based entirely on subtext, as homosexuality is either rarely or never mentioned in these cartoons. In some cases, this one person's opinion is receiving substantial weight in the article, in something of a bizarre way. I think it would be wise for this kind of discussion to happen in one place, rather than on six different talk pages. Croctotheface (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this is definitely a valid issue, but I don't think this is the correct place to be raising it, as the Help Desk is really more for questions about using the site itself. As you correctly point out, this does undoubtedly require some discussion. I'd recommend that you bring this issue up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. GlassCobra 14:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Extensive use of research articles is not a good idea in general, and it's not clear that this Journal of Popular Film & Television is a peer-reviewed source. Plus there is the extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof rule and these claims to seem to me to be pretty extraordinary. Some of the changes seem to be starting edit wars and some sort of consensus building should be done, the TV project seems as good a place as any to do it. You might check WP:NPOV.--RDBury (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
In the text I attributed the statements to Jeffrey P. Dennis himself, making it clear that it is his opinion. Its not extraordinary to claim that it is his opinion. Also his article appears in EBSCOHost, an academic research engine that is accessible from American libraries. Also the particular journal is mentioned in research guides, like this one and that one. Croctotheface isn't arguing this on NPOV grounds; he is arguing this on grounds that Dennis's statements are not important enough to be noted.
The problem is that the article Daria Morgendorffer as it stands now is all plot summary. The article needs analysis from third party sources. Otherwise it would have to be merged into a main character list; we can't have articles with plot summary.
If Daria Morgendorffer already had a wealth of other "character reception" info where other people looked at the character and analyzed her, then maybe one could argue that the Dennis statements are not important enough. But as of right now there isn't much good content in the Daria article.
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
According to this the Journal of Popular Film and Television is peer reviewed WhisperToMe (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
If the source isn't good, or is used incorrectly, then that's one thing. Otherwise, it's a quick and dirty way to make a lot of improvement to the pedia. I've done similar things when some text and a source applies to more than one article, and it's a good way to go considering how many articles we have. The fact that it's a "fictional characters are gay" thing (I think, I didn't read it closely) is a little bit problematic, although not much. We had some issues with that at the Hardy Boys talk page archive, but it probably only matters at the FA level, where we're trying to get everything to perfect WEIGHT. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the articles so far haven't made it to the GA stage yet, so I guess right now the focus should be trying to get whatever analysis one can get. Also I am making sure in those edits that the analysis is labeled as Dennis's own statements. In the case of Daria, Dennis was saying that, based off of dialog in an episode, he concluded that Daria and her friend held negative views towards the concept of homosexual romance. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I tend to think that it's arguably an even bigger issue when it's the only commentary of note. My concern here (and perhaps I was unclear about this in the section title, etc.) is not so much that it's one source for a bunch of articles, but that it's a SINGLE source advocating something of an oddball viewpoint that isn't likely to receive attention from other scholars or commentators. I think it's very unlikely that one guy's speculation about the sexuality of Heffer from Rocko's Modern Life or about whether Daria is repulsed by homosexuality is going to receive any attention from other sources because, well, it really doesn't deserve any attention. The article makes a lot of weird claims, there's little-to-no discussion of homosexuality in the show's dialogue, so the author is relying almost entirely on his interpretation of subtext several levels beneath what's actually happening on the show. In the case of, say, Batman and Robin, that's not an issue.
So, to be clear, I don't see how this material improves the article. Rather, it does the opposite. In a lot of cases, Wikipedia is the most widely read source for fictional characters like Heffer and Daria. Featuring this stuff so prominently in our articles would serve to focus a lot of attention on one author's obscure article and its outlandish claims. "We want to be able to say that we're citing a journal article" shouldn't trump everything. Croctotheface (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, wait a second: weight only matters at the FA level? Huh? Croctotheface (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Croc: But you are using your personal viewpoint in determining whether they are outlandish, not in terms of Wikipedia's guidelines or policies, nor in terms of the overall body of reliable sources. Wikipedia:Reliable sources (content guideline) says "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."
Wikipedia:Undue weight refers to a mainstream viewpoint vs. a fringe viewpoint that are mainly in opposition with one another.
Peregrine's point is that in order to judge the "weight" of something, one needs to build up the article with analysis before judging weight-wise whether something is included. In Daria we cannot judge since we do not have much reliable sources. It's plot summary.
If you want to prove in Daria's case that there is little weight in what Dennis says, build up the "Creation and Conception" and the "Reception" parts of the articles with citations to reliable sources. See if they get too big.
The best way to deal with it is to include Goodman's response in the cases when he did respond. Let Goodman do the talking regarding whether Dennis's statements are credible or not credible. Goodman, however, has no comment on the statements on Daria and Heffer.
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime I found some more content for Daria and added it to her article. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
We really need to stamp out this fallacy that some editors hold, where acknowledging opinions is bad. We edit from our opinions all the time. That someone's change to an article is not written neutrally is an opinion. That a section is too long is an opinion. That we should base the article more on source X instead of source Y is opinion. Nearly of the editorial judgments we make are ultimately opinions, or "personal viewpoints," and pretending that they're not doesn't get us very far.
If you're looking for subjective ways to demonstrate that I'm wrong about Dennis's viewpoints being wacky, then maybe you could show how often his article has been cited by others in their research. It seems that the only citation you found is someone saying he's dead wrong.
I agree with you that journal articles tend to be reliable, but that's not the main issue here. Because they're reliable, are we forbidden from excluding ANY material sourced to a journal article? Could you imagine the chaos this would cause if we actually followed it as a practice? Croctotheface (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Crocototheface: Generally we use Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in determining what makes the cut. We can't rely on
"If you're looking for subjective ways to demonstrate that I'm wrong about Dennis's viewpoints being wacky, then maybe you could show how often his article has been cited by others in their research. It seems that the only citation you found is someone saying he's dead wrong." - Whether something is "wacky" or not is an opinion. The response that I found disputes most of what Dennis said, but he agrees with some of what Dennis said. The response I found has no comment on the statements about Daria or Heffer.
"Because they're reliable, are we forbidden from excluding ANY material sourced to a journal article? Could you imagine the chaos this would cause if we actually followed it as a practice?" - Whether something is included or excluded depends on how much other content there is and what else the article has. It would be understandable if someone didn't want to accept additional material about an aspect of a subject which has an already well-detailed and well-polished article, and adding the subject would add too much detail to an article section. But the articles involved in the dispute are not well polished and need more secondary information.
Croc, trust the reader to decide for himself whether a published opinion is good or bad.
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Please stop treating me as if I've never edited here before. My issue, the one you seem to refuse to acknowledge, is that of course we should look to policies and guidelines, but they require interpretation, and those interpretations are subjective. That something is "well-detailed and well-polished" is opinion. You seem fine with making decisions on the basis of such an opinion, as you should be. "Too much detail" is opinion. I've articulated my viewpoint, and you don't have to agree with it, but you haven't made an arguments on the merit of the opinion, just that the source is reliable. Well, that same argument, presented the same way, would shut you down if you removed content on the "too detailed" or "already well-polished" grounds you mentioned already. Your "trust the reader" response to my weight concern could be used in response to ANY concern over weight. I trust you'd find it unpersuasive in lots of other such cases. Croctotheface (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll point out the same thing I mentioned on the PatB page: the article sources may be reliable and all that, but feels like a isolated thesis that was done to beg an unstated question instead of in reaction to a public response. If, say, one of the anti-homosexual groups were berating these cartoons for promoting homosexuality (and that was sourced), then it would make sense to have a statement why they aren't doing that, using that article. But there's no statement to that effect that I can tell. It is just suddenly, this paper says "hey look, lets talk about the sexual traits of these characters even if they've never been brought up". It really doesn't fit withou some backing, which I suggested to WhisperToMe to use the other sources in that paper to see if that can be asserted. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Peabody Award

I've noticed that in many articles for television series, there is mention that the series itself is "Peabody-Award winning", or somewhere else in the lead and/or main body it might say "Show X won a Peabody Award". Setting aside the former example as a vio of the guideline that the subject of an article should never be introduced with "award-winning" in the first sentence of the lead, I would like to bring up something else: I wandered over to the Peabody Awards article and read that the award is actually given to a network...not to a specific show. The network may receive the award if one of its shows or specials is deemed as an "area of excellence", but said show or special is not the official recipient, and a person associated with the show usually receives the physical award on behalf of the network. So instead of "Show X won a Peabody Award", should it instead read "Show X garnered a Peabody Award for Network Y"? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if a network is the one that actually "wins" the award, then I would go with your latter suggestion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The more I read around the its official website, the more I begin to realize that it's a gray area. This PDF opens with "The George Foster Peabody Award recognizes distinguished and meritorious public service by radio and television stations, networks, producing organizations and individuals." Notice it doesn't mention recognizing a specific program, but never actually mentions to what the specific award goes (except for personal awards to individuals). On the same PDF, the networks are mentioned first (aligned to the left side of the list) presumably as the "winner"...
  • Fox, Gracie Films, Los Angeles, CA, in association with Twentieth Television, "The Simpsons."
But, elsewhere on the site, you'll find a page like this, which states...
  • For providing exceptional animation and stinging social satire, both commodities which are in extremely short supply in television today, a Peabody Award is presented to "The Simpsons."
Now I'm wondering if it's safe to say that either of the wordings I mentioned are acceptable. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I guess it would depend on what the source itself says. If we're talking IMDb, I wouldn't take their word that the award was given to the show and not the network. Other, more reliable sources, will probably say "FOX won a Peabody Award for The Simpsons", or "The Simpsons was awarded a Peabody for its achievement in ..." -  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Flags in the Infobox

A discussion is on-going at Template talk:Infobox Television#Flags regarding the removal of flag icons from Television infoboxes. As the talk is not as widely watched, it seems appropriate to make a note here as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ion network related articles

Previously, Ion Television was moved from ION Television per the standards of capitalization in WP:MOSTM. The concern I'm raising here is that move, done properly and according to our conventions, wasn't accompanied by moves for related articles such as ION Media Networks (the parent company) and ION Life (a digital subchannel carried on Ion O&Os). What I'm asking for here is a list of affected pages so I can do a proper requested move of them, as apparently at least some of the pages previously had been at the Ion capitalization and been moved to the ION version despite the naming conventions at WP:MOSTM that we don't use irregular capitalization of brand names just because the brand owner does. It should also be noted that "Ion" is not an initialism, so all caps wouldn't be appropriate here unlike CBS, NBC and ABC which originally were. oknazevad (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Weight Gain 4000 FAC

I've nominated the South Park episode "Weight Gain 4000 for an WP:FAC, as part of the South Park Featured Topic Drive. So far it has only one commenter, so I was hoping if any of you had the time, you could swing by and take a look at the nomination? Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

FLC - List of Supernatural Episodes

Can anyone familiar with featured lists please give their opinions/input on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Supernatural episodes/archive1? Thanks. Ophois (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Game of Thrones (TV series) article

I would like some outside perspective on this matter in regards to the external links section of Game of Thrones (TV series). WP:MOSTV states that linking fansites are appropriate only if they demonstrate "more [significance] than any random fansite." contains an overwhelming amount of helpful information, but as the TV series do not necessarily pertain to the books, the link given is the forum. Technically, WP:MOSTV states that forums should not be linked to, but what differentiates the forum at is that the executive producers post there (as does the girlfriend of the author, who works as a co-executive producer and is a reliable and credible source in regards to series), hence signifying a sanction of "recognized authority" (to quote from WP:EL). Winter is Coming blog is a fansite (in the form of a blog, so calling it 'only a blog' would be wrong) that is generally recognized within the ASoIaF fan community as the big source for HBO's GoT, as it alone receives insider information that proved to be right (HBO reacted to the leaks by punishing those who worked there and leaked info) and has been cited and/or mentioned by news articles by TV critics as an authoritative source. In addition, both fansites interact with some of the crew working on GoT on what seems to be a regular basis. I was wondering if I should either keep at least one fansite (or both) or remove both of them (along with a third that seems be a very small, random fansite) from the article altogether. Thoughts? —MirlenTalk 18:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

At first glance, they all seem to be providing largely the same information. Fansites are generally discouraged, and while there are some that can be significant enough to include I doubt there are 3 of them. My personal suggestion, based on WP:EL, WP:MOSTV, and the information I see presented on the fansites is that you determine which one is generally considered to be the most significant than any of the others and use that one only.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't considering the third one at all, as it is a newly created fansite and does not yet prove to be more significant than the first two. After much consideration, I've decided to keep the WiC in the external links, which essentially serves as an informal 'further reading' section, and keep's forum as a primary source when quoting the executive producers and another member of the crew who posts there (as there is no need to post a primary source in the external links section when it's already in ref. section). —MirlenTalk 17:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends

I've nominated this article a week or so ago, and has received only one a comment since then. If anyone would like to comment, I would greatly appreciated it. The Flash {talk} 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Title cards in infobox

Is it the best option considering the limited amount of FU images we're allowed? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think they really are. Most of the time, they are just stylized text that really do not do much to identify the series. I think a DVD cover or a promotional image would generally be better. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Using the title card is easy and consistent, but I think we should ask ourselves "if we can only have one image to represent this television show, what's the best image". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's my three cents. The majority of title cards consist of (a) the show's logo and (b) some sort of embellishment or background to the logo. Now, the logo itself is what represents the show; it appears on merchandise, DVD sets, websites, production material, etc. The title card on the other hand is typically--is not mostly--only used in the show's opening sequence; even then, it can change from season to season depending on the show's subject or budget. The logo then is therefore more appropriate and representative of a show than its title card. Logos also have the benefit of frequently consisting only of text and simple geometric shapes, making them ineligible for copyright, and opening them up for much wider and liberal usage here in Wikipedia.

First of all, I'd like to point out (and laud) the House WikiProject and its members for extracting that show's logo (and converted it to SVG!) for wider usage on Wikipedia. Not only is the logo employed across the articlespace where logical, but it's even used in the talkspace, wikispace, and userspace! That's awesome!

Secondly, I realized that while a lot of shows I watch have title cards that meet the threshold of originality for copyright, the logos in those title cards--that are used far and wide without the copyrightable elements of the title card--are usually textual only and fall into the public domain. But that I had the image manipulation skills, I would extract the logos myself from the six Star Trek series, CSI (1, 2, & 3), NCIS, FlashForward, Lie to Me, Life, Warehouse 13, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, and Journeyman come to mind off the top of my head. All these shows have a base textual logo that, while usually included in their copyrighted title cards, cannot be copyrighted by themselves.

Therefore it's my argument that no, using the copyrighted title cards is frequently not the best option, and in fact can be construed in many circumstances to fail WP:NFCC#1 and #3. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Then what would you suggest? The idea of using "promotional art" creates its own problems, because you get new promotional art each season, and none of it typically reflects the show as a whole but more a specific season. You can't just go with the most recent, but at the same time, sticking with something that was used to promote the pilot episode of a show is not really the best option either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Bignole... are you asking me? I'm suggesting we use the basest common elements of a show's representation (it's base logo, if you will) and use that as it'll frequently be only text and shapes.

For example, Star Trek: Voyager's title card (File:VOYlogo.png) incorporates elements that cross the threshold of originality: the starfield in the background, and metallic overlay of the text are apparent. However, if we look at how the Voyager logo is represented elsewhere, we'll see that only the words and particular shape/layout of the words remains consistent across the product: all seven DVD sets simply colour the textual logo white in their box art [11], the books vary its colouring, but retain the same shape and layout of the textual logo [12], the Star Trek: Voyager magazine continues the colour-play while retaining the textual identicality [13], and the Star Trek website itself only uses the base text arrangement (in white, occasionally with a drop shadow) [14]. What this shows me is that what represents Star Trek: Voyager across the board is the specific arrangement and font of the series' name, and that can be simply enough recreated (if not copied from elsewhere) without running afoul of copyright limitations due to its intrinsic simplicity ({{PD-textlogo}}). — pd_THOR | =/\= | 07:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If only one image is allowed, do we really think some text is the best possible image? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking. "If only one image is allowed"? Where? How? Are you referring to a show's article or its infobox? Are you confusing non-free image use with libre-image use? As to whether "some text" is the best possible image, in many instances I think it is, because it is that show's logo. Not only does the House logo not fall under the auspices of the non-free content criteria, but it is the actual logo of the show as presented across that franchise. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
So, you're suggesting that instead of using the actual title card, which is typically the considered the "logo", we should just use a user created version of the logo (which would ultimately be "free" because most logos are basic shapes and texts that cannot be copyrighted)? If so, I ask, how do you prevent the edit wars over who's "logo" is the better option? I can see that getting out of hand very easily.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Bignole, I respectfully disagree with the consideration of a show's title card as its logo, especially since some shows will change their title card over the course of the series, but the logo implemented itself doesn't. Furthermore, the franchises themselves don't use the title card as the logo, but implement a specific logo across all their associated products. As to edit warring, I haven't seen any where implemented, but as that's been a small sample thus far, I can't speak to the possibility. All this being said though, if both the title card and logo are representative of the product, and one is copyrighted and one isn't, then the latter is preferred by the direction of WP:NFCC#1. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
However, if the logo is purely stylized text, as is in the case in House, it does not meet WP:NFCC and does nothing to identify the series. "House" still equals "House" no matter what font its written in. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Then what should be there? I mentioned promotional image or DVD, but a DVD is only going to represent one season (and we can't have all the DVDs, because it wouldn't pass NFCC). A promotional poster is often the same way, being specifically directed at either one episode or one season. Then it becomes a fight over which promotional poster is better, or which season of DVD to use. I think the reason we've always kept it at "title card" was because there wasn't a lot to argue about (what..which second of freeze frame to use?). Obviously, as PD pointed out, in most of those cases we could get away with just using the stylized logo that the studio uses, because we can use that for free (which, I think is an acceptable alternative to the title card, but I'm not sure if a promo image or DVD is).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
You're saying that the image above does nothing to identify the series House? It is consistently--if not singularly--used across the franchise to identify the product from its title card to its website to merchandise related to and produced by FOX. Apparently both I and the Fox Broadcasting Company find the font, arrangement, and shapes of this logo to be sufficiently distinctive to identify the TV series House and all related with it. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't read your earlier post correctly when I made my last comment. If there's something non-copyrightable that represents a show well, that would be a good thing to use where needed. What about using cast images? It seems between a non-free text and graphics image and a non-free cast image, the cast image more important. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't think so. A non-free cast image (assuming you can find a group image, because it would look odd to join multiple images together) for the main page infobox would seem odd to have when the page is about more than just these select people in a picture. Especially if you didn't know what the show was about and as such didn't know who these people even were.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I can see some merit to that, but make two points in return. (a) The TV series infobox doesn't have a restrictive function for images, it just takes regular old wiki syntax. You could then even accommodate both in an infobox, by just typing [[File:SHOWLOGO.svg]]<p>[[File:SHOWCAST.jpg]]. (b) Since most shows have a cast section specifically discussing them, wouldn't a cast photo be more apropos there? And if so, would you use it twice in the article, then? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of if it's being used somewhere else, it still creates a "who is this" effect when come to the article. If the only image you have is a cast image, why even put it in the infobox at all?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(redent)Well, if only one non-free image were allowed, I'd guess that the most important one for most TV shows would be the cast image. Showing the cast in the infobox doesn't seem confusing to me, but I could be wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How much of the cast? Which iteration of the cast? What about shows with rotating casts or no recurring cast? Then there's the complication of whether a non-free image of the cast would meet all the auspices of the NFCC. It's rather an untenable decision to determine just exactly what segment of the cast at which time constitutes the "identity of the show", if they do at all. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, you do the best you can on a case by case basis. But, I imagine it's easier than meeting the NFCC with a title card. Unless you happen to find commentary on the selection of the font and background image, all you can say is "it represents the article", which I don't think it does best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a cast image does it best either. First, a lot of shows don't have free images of the cast (whether together or a part). Secondly, the article is about a show, not just the select people in front of the camera. You'd be just as inclined to have a photo of the creator, or some writer/director.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning Discussion

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55#SPOILER ALERT disclaimers discussing whether spoiler alerts should be added to all articles that cover a fictional topic. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As an update, this discussion now has several editors calling for the removal of plot summaries from all articles, except for what plot can be sourced to secondary sources (and therefore the bulk of spoilers all in one go). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

TV Channel Infobox Proposal

I have made a proposal at Template talk:Infobox TV channel#Remove of Channel params to remove all of the individual channel number/carrier params of the infobox. Further input would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Episode mergers

Diamond Ray of Disappearance, The Problem with Power, The Cosmic Comet, Teela's Quest, Origin of the Sorceress all should be merged into List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe episodes

Dwanyewest (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that you've tagged the articles and notified this project are you going to start the discussion at the list of episodes? Help:MergingSarilox (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If this is what I must do I shall Dwanyewest (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct tense

I know that we're told to say "Hogan's Heroes is a television series", rather than was because it continues to exist, per MOS:TV ("References to the show should be in the present tense since shows no longer airing still exist") but I'm having a problem at Popstars The Rivals, because it no longer airs, and it focussed on a single event (winning a singing competition). The event no longer exists, so it sounds odd to say "Popstars The Rivals (often stylised as Popstars: The Rivals) is an interactive reality, talent show broadcast in the United Kingdom during the autumn of 2002." Is this an exception to the rule? Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Is is still correct, as the episodes do still exist. It was a single event, but it was recorded and video from it still exists, so it still exists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
One solution is to put the information into two sentences. Popstars The Rivals (often stylised as Popstars: The Rivals) is an interactive reality, talent show. It was broadcast in the United Kingdom during the autumn of 2002.sgeureka tc 13:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I started drafting a little guide at User:The JPS/tense. The JPStalk to me 13:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC for Supernatural (season 1)

Can anyone familiar with featured articles please take a look at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Supernatural_(season_1)/archive2 and give their input on whether or not it meets the criteria? Thanks. Ωphois 08:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger

It has been proposed that History of Family Guy be merged into Family Guy on the grounds that it is a content fork. Can editors please give their input? Discussion is here. Thanks. Ωphois 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How the Earth Was Made

Another editor and I are having some disagreements over what is and is not appropriate in the infobox. Specifically whether there should be a caption on the image and if so what, if (without commercials) is appropriate to add after the episode runtime, if "Science" is a genre that needs to be appended to Documentary, and whether we should use History or The History Channel (which even the channel itself can't seem to decide on). Additional views would be useful at Talk:How the Earth Was Made#Infobox issues.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have a standard way of doing most of those things. I think we usually have a "Showname title card" caption, although I'm not a fan of it. I've seen the time as 44 minutes and 1 hour, so whether or not it has commercials is a good thing to mention, in my opinion. We have Category:Documentaries about science, but I kinda think that's unnecessary (unless we have a specific page for that type of doc). And, I've seen History used instead of The History Channel, and I'm not a fan of that because it's ambiguous. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There is now a dispute on this article regarding if the episode width should be set at 65-70% (current), 100% (one editor), or removed all together (from the 30 responder to the disagreement over the first two). For such a tiny article, it sure seems to bring out some crazy arguments. Further views would certainly be appreciated and useful at Talk:How the Earth Was Made#Episode table width dispute -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television Name

A proposal has been made to rename the Television infobox. Views welcome at Template talk:Infobox Television# Name -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

San Diego Comic Con

Would San Diego Comic Con fall within the scope of the project due to large number of shows which premier or hold a panel at the event? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC for Supernatural (season 2)

I have nominated Supernatural (season 2) for FAC. Can anyone please take the time and review it here? Ωphois 21:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about TV channels

I think this is the most relevant WP so I'll ask here. I was thinking it would perhaps be a good thing to restructure Canal+ Sport 1 (Scandinavia) (and it's sister channels 2, HD and Extra (no article)). Now the channels are "merged" into articles by channel name, I think it would be better to merge by country. So we have Canal+ Sport (Sweden), Canal+ Sport (Denmark), Canal+ Sport (Norway), Canal+ Sport (Finland) where 1, 2, Extra and HD are show similar to Sky Sports. The main reason for this would be that the broadcast rights for the sports are not exactly the same in all countries (for example, Serie A is not shown in Sweden but in all 3 others, in Finland the UEFA Champions League/Europa League are shown but not in the others) and I would say the Swedish C+S1 has more in common with S2, SExtra and SHD than C+S1 NO, DK and FI.

So how should I go about implementing this or getting some merge/move/split discussions going (There doesn't seem to be many people watching either Canal+ Sport 1 (Scandinavia) or C More Entertainment) chandler 00:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Too many useless Masters of the Universe articles

There are too many poorly written and articles with little justification for notability or evidence of third person notability. Wikipedia is not for fan speculation or essays. There were no reliable sources, and as such constituted original research (specifically WP:SYNTH). If sources can be provided to demonstrate that this is notable in any real-world sense then sources should be added.

List of Masters of the Universe characters needs rewritting.

Minor characters which I believe are minor and have no reliable third person sources needs deletion



Ninjor (Masters of the Universe)


Lizard Man


This does not meet general notability and I believe is WP:FANCRUFT needs deletion

List of Masters of the Universe vehicles

Dwanyewest (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Masters of the Universe vehicles

Clamp Champ

Ninjor (Masters of the Universe)


Wind Raider

Need to be dealt with they are a waste of space

Dwanyewest (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

New articles

I've set up the AlexNewArtBot to list new articles related to this project. I recommend watchlisting User:AlexNewArtBot/TelevisionSearchResult for anyone interested in patrolling new television articles. The search results are updated daily. Sarilox (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Television to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy

can someone review Wikipedia:Peer review/Family Guy/archive5 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 5)/archive2--Pedro J. the rookie 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Since several Wikipedia-Books are TV-related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP TV people can oversee books like Seasons of 30 Rock much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.

There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone for/against this? Is anything unclear? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Navigation boxes

There is a discussion occurring here about the use of cast/crew members in navigation boxes, including TV navboxes. Comments would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a relevant TfD going on here. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 11:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Soap opera

In {{infobox television}}, there is a field for both format and genre. Does format include reality television or would that go in genre? Also, would you classify My Antonio as a soap opera, reality television show, or is docu-soap a better description. Should the genre soap opera be reserved for scripted fiction? Or does it include reality television shows, which are usually partially scripted? Any input and all input at Talk:My Antonio is appreciated. After that we can discuss what colour to paint the bikeshed. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm starting to wonder if format should be removed all together. If you check the infobox talk page archives, it was discussed awhile ago and no one seemed to be able to remember what it was supposed to be for and the docs have no guidance. For the series, what do third-party sources call it? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live WikiProject

Hi everyone. While Saturday Night Live is under the domain of WikiProject Television and Comedy, after spending the last few months working on it, I'm seeing more and more just how mammoth a task it is. There are literally dozens of articles dedicated to it, and most need A LOT of work. Because of this, I've proposed the WikiProject Saturday Night Live. Please leave comments, and consider joining as a potential project member. Mainly.generic (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see why it needs a separate project. A taskforce at best should be more than sufficient. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

List of House episodes

Just wanted to drop a note that the List of House episodes articles, and the individual season articles, need some attention.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What about ti need attention everything on the page is to what was faile don feature list staus last time nitehr nor anyoen else has bothered to take it back to feature lsit review--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The big thing is the inappropriate transclusions being used to transclude not just the episode tables, but whole content from the season pages. That needs fixing so that only the episode lists are transcluded in the main list, using the proper template and parameters. So really its more the season pages that need fixed so that the main one is correct. It will never pass featured list status in its current form, in part because of that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
If oyu read the feature lsit reviews they said to include a summary of each season and that was decided in the tal page a logn time ago i only translcuded the data--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
If people want to insist on a season summary, that's fine, however it should not be done through transclusion. Its a very lazy way of doing it. The content should be written for that list. However, most featured episode lists that are divided do NOT have those summaries nor are they appropriate in such a list, IMHO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
that i agree with but i am only transcluding what was discussed and the same sumamry fo rth seaosn is used for the seaosn article so bit daft replicating, it the same with teh final diagnostic coloum its not required you can put it in the summary but there alot of peopel refusing to have it removed--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
That also needs to be dealt with. The "diagnosis" is an in-universe thing that has no place in the table like that, only in the summary. It doesn't need special attention, nor to be its own column. If the fans on the talk page are refusing to remove it, I'd look at opening the discussion up to a wider audience, first starting with project members, then an RfC is not enough project members response. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


Unfortnally that something i dnt have time to do anymore due to work and child commitments but RfC require other memebr consent doesnt it? as i didi propuse this a logn time ago and it was jsut said there a conesus so need for it. if soeone else wants to take this up and follwo it through be my guest i wont complain and will support it :) for now until a new conesus can be mae i think it best ot leave it the way it is hopefully this can be resolve soon :)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Since it per guidelines i am removing the content the fans are wanting to be kept so the final diagnosis coloum is getting put intot the summary and the season summaries are not being transcluded now :) i will point fans who revert ot here--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

List of The Game characters

Following this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Barnett, would anyone mind merging all the character pages for The Game (TV series) into List of The Game characters? Thanks. Fences&Windows 14:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural Season 2 FAC

Supernatural (season 2) has been renominated for FAC here. Does anyone mind helping review the article? Thanks. Ωphois 16:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Major merge effort needed for Characters of Oz

There needs to be a major effort to merge in the myriad of character articles about characters in Oz into Characters of Oz - I poked around and saw many character articles. They don't seem to have any "creation and conception" or "reception" sourced content, and they seem to be all plot summary. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Amy Pond

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Pond. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The Beautiful Life

I'd like more input for inclusion of some content on The Beautiful Life series article please. I opened an RfC about ten days ago and haven't received much input. Thanks! Pinkadelica 15:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Nielsen ratings?

Where are the Nielsen ratings for TV shows located? An IP keeps adding them to the Law & Order: SVU Season 11 page. I have asked for a source from this person, but have received no response—not a peep. Are these numbers valid and verifiable? Thanks. --Mike Allen 05:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless they have a source for them, I'd consider them invalid and unverifiable and remove as unsourced. There is no central source for the ratings that I am aware of. Can check Google News or the like, to see its been published somewhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Is a reliable source? --Mike Allen 04:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say yes as I found several instances of it being quoted by quite a few other reliable sources at Google News. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
from my experiance of it, it is realible it pass from the fact it only a one or two editors who post and they take there ratings from neilson but isnc eoyu have ot pay neilson they post them for free, abc use to do it but stop in 2007 i suspect due to costs--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Wait. What? --Mike Allen 05:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
TV by the Numbers is reliable. –thedemonhog talkedits 06:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sapphire & Steel

Any fans of this series out there? After mentioning this a year ago on the talk page, I noticed that the List of Sapphire & Steel television stories gives story titles when they never actually had any. I've come back to this now after viewing the currently released DVD which mentions both in its sleeve notes and on the bonus documentary that the stories never had titles. I believe the story name section should be changed, as it seems the titles given (although it does state they weren't official) will give the casual reader false information. Anybody agree or care?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire list should really be done away with. Its wrongly titled (normally would be List of Sapphire & Steel episodes), but with only six episodes it is completely unnecessary. Particularly as they have no titles anyway, the plot can easily be covered in the main article (and seems to already be so). I've redirected it to the main article, which is need of a major clean up and overhaul. And yes, the titles were inappropriate as they are made up fan titles. Fansites are not reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your agreement and your action sort of solves it, albeit a little drastically! Perhaps however the episode table could be reinstated to the main article (airdates and so on would be needed from it), sans fake titles. I'll do it but I'll wait to see if there's further comment first.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
For a series this short, I think a good option would be to have the plot section have the summary, then just note the airdates in the prose. If it aired weekly or on some other schedule, just note start and end dates and the cycle. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Amy Pond

Please see: Talk:Amy_Pond#RfC:_Is_Photo_in_Casting_and_initial_filming_section_relevant. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:TV programmes and films shot in Bristol

FYI Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_28#Category:TV_programmes_and_films_shot_in_Bristol. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Masters of the Universe mass merger

These characters need to merged I wish to hear opinions if anyone disagrees.

Ninjor (Masters of the Universe),Icer and Scare Glow need to be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters

Blade (Masters of the Universe) and Gwildor need to be merged Masters of the Universe (film)

Snake Face needs to be merged to Snake Men (Masters of the Universe)


Clamp Champ need to be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters

Zoar (He-Man) to Sorceress of Castle Grayskull

List of She-Ra: Princess of Power characters needs reorganising

Dwanyewest (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, once you tell us what "I wish to here opinions" means?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Support all, and more. Those articles are all in horrible shape and almost all of the individual character articles are for unnotable characters that do not meet guidelines and should not have individual articles. I'd suggest really that only He-Man and She-Ra themselves, and maybe Skeletor, might be notable enough for having standalone articles while most of the side characters and side kicks, and location articles, should be merged to the appropriate lists and articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This also I feel needs deletion List of Masters of the Universe vehicles This article fails on multiple levels there is no third person information, it lacks notability and is really just trivia it needs deletion see the criteria. WP:TOYS Dwanyewest (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree...why not send it to WP:AFD? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is agreed how do these articles get merged I dunno how to do it? Dwanyewest (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:MERGE -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have started the debate regarding the List of Masters of the Universe vehicles Dwanyewest (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Saturday morning television and some subcategories

FY: Deletion discussion for Category:Saturday morning television and some subcategories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 30#Saturday_morning_television, where contributions from members of this project would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


Primeval could use some editor love. Never saw the series myself, so not totally vested in trying to improve it beyond some semi-quick, rough clean up. Trying first to deal with the insane number of side articles made for this short 23 episode series. Check out Template:Primeval for the list of most of them. So far, I've:

The main article really needs some good clean up, as does the episode list. I've done some of the work on the episode list already, cleaning up the lead a bit and expanding it some, and tweaking the layout. The ratings need to be moved up to their ep tables though. The character list formatting needs fixed, its lead expanded, non-free image culling, plot trimming, and sourcing. The rest, I'm inclined to say need the actions I've done (of course), but other eyes and views on how to clean this one up would be great. Even better would be someone interested in adopting this series to get its articles into shape and clean up behind the self-proclaimed "cult" fans who have gone crazy with it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Updates: Through the Anomaly now at AfD, Extinction Event (novel) is at AfD, and Shadow of the Jaguar and The Lost Island now redirect to the book list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Image use in infobox

Please see Talk:Eleventh_Doctor#RfC:_Image_use_in_infobox. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

GAR Notification: Stephen Colbert

Letting everyone know that a good article under the scope of this project, Stephen Colbert, is underoing an individual good article reassessment. You can see my concerns at Talk:Stephen Colbert/GA1. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


Can someone help me find ratings for the first five episodes of Million Dollar Challenge (poker).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

stub templates?

Stub templates section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television says "The complete list of Television related stubs can be found here: List of Television related stubs", but Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types no longer has Television section. Change wording to "The complete list of Television related stubs can be found at WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types"? --EarthFurst (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Television section was moved to the /Culture subpage. Sarilox (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Firefox News

After a short discussion at WT:ANIME, which concluded that Firefox News is a WP:SPS and should not be used as a source, I have started a general discussion about the reliability of Firefox News at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/ I'm placing this notice here as a number of television articles also reference Firefox News for information. —Farix (t | c) 14:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles about W.I.T.C.H.

Need your help to improve and reorganise W.I.T.C.H. and its related articles, as well as their structures. Discuss more at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney#W.I.T.C.H.. -- JSH-alive talkcontmail 11:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge of television film templates

A proposal has been raised on WT:FILM under WT:FILM#Merge of minor infobox variants which is pertinent to the {{infobox television film}} and {{infobox Hollywood cartoon}} templates; as these may be considered to fall under "television series" it was suggested that a note be dropped here. Please leave comments or suggestions on that thread. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bolding of Actor/Cast

A discussion started in June 2009 regarding the bolding of cast lists in series article, has been restarted after an editor disputed the updating of the TV Style Guidelines to no longer call for this bolding. Additional views would be useful at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Bolding -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

EL's On Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives

Just as a note, I added the project tag to the talk page on Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives. Also, this user ( seems hell bent on adding in a fan site. I wouldn't be surprised if this person was the sites owner. Regardless, the link doesn't belong, and it should be removed per WP:EL. Since i'm not very active on Wiki, it might help if someone from this project kept an eye on it. Cheers! (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Left them a warning, which hadn't been done yet. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ADF gone wrong

I am massively trying to clean up Masters of the Universe I tried to nominate the following articles for deletion something has gone wrong. Slime Pit, Attak Trak,Battle Ram,Battle Ram,Talon Fighter,Wind Raider can anyone help?Dwanyewest (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

All fixed. Did you use Twinkle or do manually? If you did manually, it looks like you didn't use {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ When you created the page. You also neglected to list them on the appropriate AfD page, which is also done, and in notifying the creators (which I'm leaving to you to do). I'd highly encourage reading WP:AFDHOWTO and following it each time you do an AfD if you do not use Twinkle to do it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC at article Dalek

Please see Talk:Dalek#RfC:_Free-use_image_for_infobox_picture.3F. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Colors in navigation boxes

The coloring of the navigation boxes {{Nickelodeon}}, {{Nicktoons}}, and {{Nicktoons video games}} is being discussed here. Any and all opinions are needed! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Episode tables and transclusion

I should state right off the bat that I generally tend to stay away from TV articles here on Wikipedia for the simple fact that there seems to be a tendency for editors in this subject area to be more combative then is usual (which is really saying something, my hat's off to those of you who "live" in this topic area).

I've noticed that there's a recent tendency for editors to transclude the table portion of the "<Show name> (<year> season)" articles onto the main "<Show name>" article (for examples, see List of MythBusters episodes or List of House episodes, two TV show articles I know are doing this). Now, I recognize right off the bat that this practice makes the immediate maintenance task easier for editors, since only one list needs to be maintained. However, I find this development troubling for the simple fact that it makes editing article content that much more difficult to accomplish. The ability to transclude content from one article onto another is a needed capability to have, but it's regular use in the mainspace (outside of established use with templates) has generally been frowned upon, historically. So... I guess hat I'm asking is, is this something that we're going to find generally acceptable now? I'm willing to live with it, especially since I'm probably more technically inclined then most, but it seems to be an odd enough departure from the established norms that I wanted to bring the subject up for discussion.
V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is only something i have started doign after getting complaints about trying ot edit this and that, and for constiant. to me it is simplier, but there isa bigger reason why it it gets done for the simply reason of wp:verylarge since a article over 100kb should be split then that what gets done but if oyu split it then the list then become sueless without trancluding data--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You shouldn't be transcluding large portions of a page. There are many problems with it. First, it restricts who can easily access the information. I have had several new editors (both IPs and registered) complain that they cannot find the information that needs updating because they click the "edit" button and all that appears is some text that has a page title. They don't understand the idea of transcluding. Wikipedia is not about "making it easier for the regular editors", it's about allowing anyone to edit the page when necessary. Secondly, if someone comes in an vandalizes a season page's episode table, then it appears on multiple pages, because a page protection on one page does not transfer to any pages being transcluded there. The idea of an article over 100kb doesn't actually apply in this case, since these transcluded pages are typically List of episode pages. As such, WP:SIZE is based on "readable prose", so the coding for tables is not included when determining whether an article is split. Clicking "edit this page" and seeing 101 kb long, article may need splitting is not always accurate. The reader Wiki uses just counts characters, no matter what they are. So, it includes categories, external links, the brackets around a word that signal it should link to a page, etc. What determines if an article should be split is the prose content within it. So, "easier" isn't always "easier" for everyone, nor is it the better option all of the time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes and it lazy editors tht do not leave a hidden note saying to edit the season article, ther both good and bad points to doing it and it long been accepted to do it, trancluding data means it speeds up as eahc section is processed invidual instead of the whole page--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't buy the vandalism arguement. For starters if someone for example vandalises the episode summary or lead, then that won't transclude to the main list. Additionally those watching the main list or a season list will surely usually be watching the associated lists as well? So I don't see how it's any different to vandalising a standalone page, it'll get reverted pretty quickly if it's a high profile page, and fairly quickly if not. And if it's a large scale vandalism (such as page blanking or repeated characters etc) it'll show up for recent change patrollers. I'm not convinced on it preventing easy access either, it doesn't take much even for new users to deduce that the code is doing something, and the link to the appropriate page is right there. Theres no reason to not add a comment telling people what to do, the japanese episode list template suggests you copy/paste a pre-written note. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This is not a "recent" tendency, its been done for the last 2-3 years, at the least, then streamlined in 2008 to use just one template. This year it was modified to seriously reduce load time and increate performance. And yes, it is fully acceptable and is fully appropriate. Almost all multi-season series use this method for putting a slimmed down version of the episode tables in the main episode list, and it was done for reasons already noted - to deal with the issue of conflicting data and maintaining two lists where one might be formatted different. It is used on hundreds of lists by both the Television and Anime/manga projects, and a similar template is being used for chapter lists. Possibility of vandalism is really no reason to change that. If people are having problems, that's what comments are for and they can be added, but I've worked on dozens of these articles and have yet to see any real issue with IPs with editing them. Check many of the FL ep lists and they use all use this technique. I see no reason not to, only to continue encouraging its use, and its proper use (which House was NOT doing but now is finally).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Question (that might help): is there a way, via wikitext and not via server backend, to have big warning/information boxes appear on the edit page of specific pages? Ohm's caution is valid - that editors won't know where to edit, but if you plaster a big yellow box atop the edit window, with specific language saying "Hey, you can find the place to edit the tables over here!", that helps to resolve the main issue --MASEM (t) 17:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the only substantive objection to transcluding season lists into a master list have to do with confusing when an editor attempts to edit a table from the main article? That seems quite fixable. The vandalism argument doesn't hold any water as any page on Wikipedia can be vandalize, especially templates which will affect far more pages than a transcluded season list. Nor does the claim that "we don't do this" a good argument as we do transclude project pages into other project pages all of the time without any issues, for example example WP:XfD. Of course, the advantages and disadvantage have to be considered. That being sead, I don't see that many disadvantages in transcluding season lists into a master list when the advantage is having to maintain only one data table per season instead of two. —Farix (t | c) 17:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be if not the only one, the largest complaint. I think some code could be implimented to check if the article has transcluded tags in them warning them about it before editing.Jinnai 21:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting... I should state that I don't really object to this practice, and I acknowledged that I can certainly see how it may make maintenance easier, but it is unusual. The main thing is that it's also unnecessary, really. If we're going to have these remain as transclused lists, why not put the tables on an actual template? That will at least keep the source for the specific season "List of" articles from looking like a train wreck, and everyone understands the deal behind templates. Besides that, from a policy perspective, that would keep us from getting into an area where people are creating c-forks and transcluding them into the parent article, which is what the general proscription against transcluding mainspace content is really about anyway. We should do what's best for the encyclopedia, but it would be nice if we don't shoot ourselves in the foot at the same time.
V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "why not put the tables on an actual template?"
Because there really isn't a need to and it won't solve the claimed "problems" with transcluding the season lists into a main list.
  • "That will at least keep the source for the specific season "List of" articles from looking like a train wreck"
It doesn't look like a train wreck to begin with. I'm not sure where this claim is even coming from.
  • "from a policy perspective"
Are you planning to make main space transclusions a policy issue?
  • "that would keep us from getting into an area where people are creating c-forks and transcluding them into the parent article"
Is this even a problem or is this just WP:BEANS? Besides, I think its best to leave it to common sense to know when it's appropriate to transclude parts of one article into another.
  • "which is what the general proscription against transcluding mainspace content is really about anyway"
But this isn't even remotely similar to scenario as you described.
  • "We should do what's best for the encyclopedia, but it would be nice if we don't shoot ourselves in the foot at the same time."
I would suggest that prohibiting all main space transclusions over a non-issue is a shot into the foot. —Farix (t | c) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
wow... calmly, please. I'm not on a witch hunt, I'm just asking questions here... The normal practice is that content which is to be included in multiple articles should exist in template space. That's exactly what templates are for, after all. I can tell from your comment that you haven't actually looked at the kludge that has been made of the source for the tables in order to make the current setup work. I'm a professional programmer and even I had trouble figuring out what was going on with all of the markup. I can't imagine how a real newbie would reasonably be able to edit those tables. Anyway, there is policy stating not to do this. It's currently being done, which is fine (I see it as a clear case of replying on IAR, which is cool by me), but there's a better way (using normal templates) which makes this seem a bit odd to me.
V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question? The actual episode tables ARE in a template Template:Episode list and Template:Episode list/sublist for those being transcluded (except anime which has Japanese episode equivalents)? If there is an episode list using hard coded tables instead of the templates, they should be properly converted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's use House as a convenient example. There is a template for the formatting of the table itself, which is a separate topic (and is an excellent idea, by the way). the content of the tables in both List of House episodes and each of the "House (season X)" articles is located in each of the "House (season X}" articles though. All I'm asking is, why isn't the table content itself in a template, which would then be transcluded to both of the main "List of episodes", individual "<Show> (season X)" articles?
V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe because template space is not were article content should be. But also, a template that is only called twice isn't very a useful template. (edit conflict) But it also now requires the editor to edit two places to maintain a season list instead of one, which defeats the purpose of using transclusions in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 23:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Because such content doesn't belong in the template? There are hundreds of episode lists using these templates. If I'm understanding your suggestion, we'd have to have individual templates for every last series, which would be really really really bad. The sublist template was made to stop that practice. The templates are, in some ways, similar to infoboxes - you don't store the actual content in the infobox template, just fill in the params in the article it is used as. The same is done with citation templates, the book series template, etc. The current system is the best way to go. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
uhhh... *confused* that's the exact purpose for templates. Content which is to be used in multiple locations within the mainspace is specifically what the template namespace was designed for. I'm even more confused about the comment that using the template namespace would be "really really really bad"... are you advocating that the entire namespace should be deleted? We shoudl go back to subpages, like the way it was in 2003?
V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
No, templates are not for article content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I've seen "content" templates go to WP:TfD and the consensus is generally to subset the contents back into the articles and delete the template. So no, it doesn't solve anything. In fact, it makes things more complex as we now have two articles you have to go "somewhere else" in order to edit them instead of just one. —Farix (t | c) 03:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
House was convert well over a year ago to episode list and mythbuster within the last 3 months but i really dnt see the problem with transclusion--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Kludge? What kludge? I see a fairly strait forward solution to a maintenance problem and the only "strange" thing that an newbie editor will encounter are a couple of <onlyinclude></onlyinclude>. But based on your comments, it seems that you have more of a beef with how {{Episode list}} and {{Episode list/sublist}} are called in the articles. (Note: I attempted to combine the two templates six months ago to reduce the transclusion size, but that was quickly reverted.) I also don't see how moving the tables solves any of the claimed problems or is "better". You insist that it is, but don't even provide argument to support it. As for a policy prohibiting main space transclusions, I've never came across it. WP:TRANS even describes one benefit of a main space transclusion. But also, isn't moving article content, especially large portions of it, into template space just as equally "frowned upon" as you claim main space transclusions are? —Farix (t | c) 23:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with this practice, though I can see how someone might become frustrated when the click the link to edit a section only to find they need to edit a separate page instead (I've experienced that frustration myself). I think the various suggestions for fixing this issue may help with this, as would including some sort of small edit link at the top of the transcluded table (similar to the v-d-e links found on many templates). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Including the somewhat standard v-d-e links in the table was going to be something I was going to mention myself. That's how we've dealt with the issues we're talking about here throughout the rest of Wikipedia, after all (and another reason why using templates in place of transcluding portions of mainspace content is a good idea).
V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a edit option on the main series episode page would work unless it either opened up editing the entire page (very clunky and prone to those same kind of users who don't know about transclusions from making edits in inappropriate pages) or redo coding for how Wikipedia can open up certain sections of a page to allow opening up just a specific table (would require be better but require coding which would likely make it not very viable). There is no real ease of compromise here because different pages are structured differently so you can't easily have a one-size-fits-all template like that.Jinnai 20:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is odd. How does { {:House (season 1)}} create what I see at List_of_House_episodes#Season_1:_2004.E2.80.932005? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It transcludes everything in House (season 1) that is between the onlyinclude tags. The template automatically hides the summaries on the main list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

\i think maybe somerthing should be changed in the code so that when you press the edit button it also brings upt he contents of what is included in the onlyinclude tags--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:How I Met Your Mother

Can we get some opinions at Template talk:How I Met Your Mother about linking to subsections? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Major copyright violations on COPS articles

Articles such as LongArm and various COPS characters have YouTube videos and have questionable notability see others for yourselves Sundown (C.O.P.S.) I believe all the character bios should be deleted or merged if there is no third person info on the characters. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi; is there anyone involved with this project that knows of/can recommend a copyeditor for "A Rugrats Chanukah," which is currently at FAC, where a reviewer noted his smitten recommendation of another copyedit to the article as soon as possible. Thanks, The Flash {talk} 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

How detailed should plot summaries be?

I've been expanding episode summaries at List of Metalocalypse episodes. One of the episodes I wrote a pretty decent paragraph for, which one editor (an anon) thought was too long. I was wondering if there was any consensus as to the depth of explanation for a single episode. I recall reading a Star Trek episode plot in great detail on Wikipedia, but then again, I figure that's going to have the same problems as DBZ, with a lot of people really passionate about it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll do whatever the heck I want, lolz. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:MOSTV and WP:WAF - 100-300 words. The plot summaries should cover the major plot points, without excessive minor detail, and the ending. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

TV ratings

There appears to be a bit of a dispute of the ratings on the ER page. My question is whether the ratings are based on total number of individual viewers, or viewers per household? --The Taerkasten (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Where do the sources say? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
[15] The source gives an estimated number of households with TVs, but the rating figures are to do with estimated audiences, which probably is per household. The question is whether the household figure is the correct one to use. --The Taerkasten (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess my first question would be what makes that a reliable source? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, the reliability of it is questionable, there doesn't seem to be any notable books or online sources citing it, so it could be removed, and possibly replaced. That aside, I'm still unsure whether ratings for TV shows in general are based upon the total number of individual viewers or per household, which was my original question. --The Taerkasten (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It depends on what kind of ratings those are. In general, its per television, I believe, but it depends on whose numbers those are, which the site isn't indicating. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

How to find Ratings

I'm working on List of Code Monkeys episodes and I have no idea how to find its Nielsen ratings. Is there a website that has ratings or something because I can't find one. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor Character lists

A discussion has started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Advice on Lists of Minor Fictional Characters purportedly asking for "advice on when a list of minor characters is appropriate and what the content should be" and is moving towards a suggestion that they be allowed under WP:SALAT. Views from project that deal with fictional works would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC help

What Is and What Should Never Be (Supernatural) has been nominated for FAC here. Does anyone mind contributing to the review? Thanks. Ωphois 17:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Encantadia & Mulawin help

I'm afraid I might get blocked by insisting the use of one template for both series given they exist in one universe. See Template:Encantadia. A well-meaning yet misguided user does not seem to understand what a spin-off means. Please help in mediating. Thanks. Please read. --[[User:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]] ([[User talk:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]]) (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons billboard gags

I'd appreciate some input at the above AfD. (this is a neutral note, any comments are appreciated) Theleftorium 09:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

GA: Survivor: Borneo needs C/E

I left some feedback on the talkpage, Talk:Survivor:_Borneo#Did_anyone_proof_read_this_article.3F -- GateKeeper (talk) @ 01:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessing seasons

Is there a reason why most of the featured seasons are classified as featured lists, but the featured Smallville and Supernatural seasons are classified as featured articles? Sarilox (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Articles such as LongArm and various COPS characters have YouTube videos and have questionable notability see others for yourselves Sundown (C.O.P.S.) I believe all the character bios should be deleted or merged if there is no third person info on the characters.

Go check it if you don't believe me. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sakis Rouvas?

Hello, I feel that Sakis Rouvas is in too many irrelevant wikiprojects and I have identified yours as possibly being one. Could someone familiar with the scope of this project please read through the article and decide whether it fits or not? If it doesn't please remove the project banner. Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; he is not covered under the scope of the project. I've removed the banner. Thanks! Jrh7925 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't there a standard for the tv episode synopses ?

All the American Tv Series like seem to be listed that way, but is not. Why is that ? Is there not a standard for All Tv Series episodes ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowboy83 (talkcontribs) 01:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a standard. Heroes is following as do the bulk of episode lists. Dr Who is not, to the lists detriment. It should be delisted as a featured list as it clearly is not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
And the base line starts to go out the window when the show/series includes material that falls outside the the "standard" format. In the case of Doctor Who, specials, the TV movie, radio plays, etc definetly go beyond what the base can handle. Then there is the way the episodes are listed within the season/series - almost everything prior to 1996 (the TV movie) has a season that is broken down into 3+ serials (stories) which are each composed of 2+ episodes. And it may be more helpful to compare Doctor Who to other British shows rather than American ones.
Oh... as for de-listing... considering it is covering more than "just the show" it looks like it meets the criteria, just not a "Featured TV episode only list". - J Greb (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, that list needs serious splitting. Its overly broad (which also fails the criteria). Dr. Who is a huge franchise, and having everything together is just too much. I'd split out the episodes. Just because it is British doesn't negate its television series alone being perfectly fine for using the standard format. Plenty of other British series do, as do other non-American shows. I could easily use the standard format, or a variation there in if anyone were so inclined to bother. As it is now, the list is absolutely useless for anyone looking for the standard epiosde lits as its missing basic information in favor of trying to cover far too much. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominated He-man and COPS characters for deletion please help

If any one whats to join the debates feel free. Blade (Masters of the Universe), Scare Glow, LongArm, Sundown (C.O.P.S.)

Dwanyewest (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Top Gear Race to the North GA review

The Top Gear Race to the North article is listed as of interest to this project. The GA review has been put on hold for seven days to allow editors to deal with the issues raised at Talk:Top Gear Race to the North/GA1. Regards SilkTork *YES! 12:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Toon Zone RS assessment

Members of this project are invited to comment on an assessment of Toon Zone ( as a possible reliable source. Arsonal (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Horrid Henry Takover

Should we mention the Horrid Henry CITV takeover that is taking place between the 15th February and the 19th February, thought I'd mention it here. Paul2387 17:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Added section on the Purple Hang Gang takeover, could someone take a look at it and rephrase and change/add bits as necessary. Thanks Paul2387 13:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox character

I have a thought on the removal of a parameter, if people want to weigh in at Template_talk:Infobox_character#Parameter_removal CTJF83 GoUSA 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured topic nomination help

Supernatural (season 2) and the two season two episodes are currently nominated for featured topic here. Can anyone please give their view on it? Thanks. Ωphois 02:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Which He-man characters should be deleted it has become bloated?

I have over the last few months tried to improve the Masters of the Universe articles by adding third person information. In terms of characters I feel it has become bloated and in many cases not notewothy. Many I feel should be deleted or merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters which also needs a major rewrite.

The only characters I feel are worthy keeping are the following:

He-man,She-Ra,Battlecat,Orko,Man-At-Arms,King Randor,Teela,Sorceress of Castle Grayskull,Hordak,Queen Marlena,Snake Men (Masters of the Universe),Skeletor. Does anyone have any opinions?

Dwanyewest (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, stop deleting stuff‽ Or at least move it to wikia before you do. Evan1975 (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Pilot (Parks and Recreation)

Hey all. I have nominated the episode Pilot (Parks and Recreation) for FAC. I've been working on P&R articles for some time now, but am concerned that not enough people have commented at the FAC for this particular article. If anybody has time to take a glance at it, any comments, suggestions or criticisms would be highly appreciated! — Hunter Kahn 13:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Adventure Time with Finn and Jake

Can somebody explain this to me? Is it still upcoming? Woogee (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Scratching my head on that one. I'd guess check the sources. How can an upcoming show win an award years before it arrives? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The series is still upcoming, and the seven minute short that inspired the series was nominated for an award. Sarilox (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding fields to the television template

Please see the proposal at Template_talk:Infobox_television#Additional_fields. Fred the happy man (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone willing to do a peer review?

Hey all. I'm hoping to nominate Parks and Recreation (season 1) for FAC. It's passed at GAN and GLN, and gone through a peer review before, but it failed the first FAC because of prose problems. I've listed it for another peer review and was hoping someone could take a rigorous look at the prose and grammar before I nominate it for FAC again. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 18:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Cooper Freedman

Hey, has anyone noticed the page abuse on the Cooper Freedman page from Private Practice? I am new to this and do not know the info to replace the written page abuse on this page. Could someone please fix this? (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

FixedMike Allen 10:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Masters of the Universe ideas some of these need resolution

I really believe some of these issues need resolving and discussion these are my ideas I thought I better ask otherwise it will likely go into an edit war again.

I feel that Horde Trooper and Horde Prime should be merged into Evil Horde. Tung Lashor, Snake Face, Sssqueeze into Snake Men (Masters of the Universe) and Double Trouble (She-Ra) and a few others into List of She-Ra: Princess of Power characters and episodes such as Teela's Quest should be merged into List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe episodes I feel also some other characters should be merged or deleted.

    • Your probably right about most of this. Try a merge, and if it doesn't go well, mention it back here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't know how to merge articles if someone else knows how to do it be my guest. The second issue after trying to clear up some of the articles relating to Masters of the Universe and C.O.P.S. I am really not in the mood to argue again I would rather gain some sort of conseusus before inclusionist fanboys throw a fit again. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    • To merge an article, you need to do a few things. First copy a few of the most important paragraphs or sentences from the article to be merged, and paste it into the merge target article. For legal reasons, you have to attribute the text, so if you were merging Snout Spout, put something like this in your edit summary: "The text for this merge was taken from the article Snout Spout, see its history for who wrote it". This allows anyone who cares to click on that link, and look at that article's history to see who wrote it. Then, you redirect Snout Spout to List of She-Ra: Princess of Power characters. It's pretty simple. Just saying "Text from Snout Spout" would probably be enough.
    • As far as inclusionist fanboys go, the best thing to do try reason with them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

    • I don't feel confident enough to make the merges without a mistake to be honest and I would rather have some sort of general argreement before a mass disagreement. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The shield characters need massive additional sources

I added a reliable third person source [16] for Vic Mackey and other articles and it keeps been removed I don't believe trivia without sources should be allowed. [17] other shield characters need additional sources too. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it. Good job on adding the source. One thing to keep in mind is that newbies don't know jack about how things work, so try and be nice when reverting them. I asked them if they wanted to talk about it on their talk page, but they usually don't respond. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

informing project about merge proposal

just informing this project about merge proposal of the two The Tonight Show with Jay Leno tv shows. see Talk:The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno_(2010_TV_series)#Propose_to_Merge_with_The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno_.281992_TV_series.29. Gman124 talk 05:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Image use

Recently, an admin replaced[18] the promo image for the House character Thirteen with the actress's image. I have never encountered this before, and was wondering whether this is right, as the admin basically stated that actors images should be used if it "serves the same encyclopedic purpose". This is per my discussion here. Any feedback? --Hanaichi 10:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Small 2¢ - I'd think that in most cases, characters in shows set in the "here and now" can get away with using free use images of the actors. That stops being possible when:
  • The free use image pushes real world context - the actor at a signing, convention, or premier for example.
  • The free image is substantially later or earlier in the actor's life - ie a free and current image of Clint Eastwood for Dirty Harry.
  • The character has a distinctive costume or mode of dress.
In this case, it could go either way as the characters in House aren't relegated to white coats all the time. - J Greb (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Journey to the West

Are the pages Journey to the West (TVB) and Journey to the West (TVB series) relating to the same subject? I can't quite tell. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 13:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks to be. Going to recommend a speedy delete per A10. Jrh7925 (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


I wanted to consult those in WP:TV about a specific question related to the style guidelines. Generally, where should the the pick-up date of a TV series be mentioned under the 'Background and production' heading? Would it be better to place it under 'Conception and development' section or 'Filming' section? I should mention that the casting happened before the series was greenlit, so perhaps that changes things. Thanks in advance. —MirlenTalk 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mirlen's question stems from a discussion we're having at Talk:Game of Thrones (TV series)#Article format about Game of Thrones (TV series). A pilot was shot and the series was picked up, but will not likely air until 2011. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 23:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
If an article has two such sections, it would probably be a good place to "end" the production section and move into filming. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for info. We don't have a filming section right now, but we'll add one as we have more info on the series. —MirlenTalk 06:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Another Proposal Against Plot Sections

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_-_stricter_guidelines_against_plots_in_articles -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Two-part question on L&O: SVU season 11

Sortable ratings table

On the page Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 11) (yet again, I'm sorry), an editor moved the newly (and sourced) episode ratings that I added out of the episode list table and into its separate (sortable) table below it. I asked him/her how to make the ratings column sortable within the episode table. But not sure if that is feasible and they insist that it be in its own table. However, I think a whole new table for the ratings is redundant and just more [unnecessary] table code within the article. Other articles, such as the FL Lost (season 3) have the ratings within the episode table. I do understand the usefulness of having the ratings sortable, so could just the ratings column in the EL table be made sortable? —Mike Allen 03:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's unnecessary and rather redundant. You're basically forcing people to look at two lists that pretty much do the exact same thing. You can just as easily present the numbers with the episode. It's an unnecessary, extraneous table to have in the article. That said, I'm sure you can do a sortable episode table, just not with the episode template you're using. You'd have to use the customizable table the ratings information is using. That would be the other way, and I'm not sure what exactly you'd have to do in order to make that work. I'm not sure that I know why you need to be able to sort the figures in the first place. Is it that hard to write some prose and say "Episode X was the highest rated of the season, while Episode Y was the lowest"? No one really cares about some random, mid-season episode that earned mid-grade ratings.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I will indeed make a "Ratings" section once the season completes. Making it sortable is too much trouble. —Mike Allen 00:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments on article quality

Also, I do wish I could help upgrade the article to a FL in the future, but I'm afraid information about "reception", "production", etc aren't found with L&O: SVU (like for example, Smallville (season 9)). Well other than, blogs, which just sucks. So I'm just trying to make the article the best that I can given the material to work with. Any suggestions on any improvements that can be made on the article that could help it one day pass a FL evaluation? (Note: I have removed the copied summaries, which I was ineptly guilty of doing.) Thanks. —Mike Allen 03:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

FL is FL for a reason. If you need prose of information on reception, or production, then it would be an article and going up for FA. A lot of articles exist as "FL" because they don't actually hold enough information to qualify for FA criteria (i.e. they are not comprehensive). That said, they probably shouldn't be FL either, because they're more than just a list of information. In the L&O season 11 page, you have a list of episodes, and a list of episode ratings. So, you technically have "Reception", just not critical reviews. Nielsen ratings are the equivalent of Box Office dollars. The more you got the more we assume audiences liked what they saw. Otherwise, they'd just stop watching.
Anyway, the FL criteria for 3a states: "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items." - It's subjective as to what actually constitutes "all major items" when you page is a list. To say that you have to cover production would mean that you're trying to build a body to the page, and thus make it an article. It has always been my opinion that all a "FL" page (for TV seasons) really needs is an episode list, and then maybe a list of the Nielsen numbers for each episode. Too often I see people recycling the cast list and the filming locations on every single season page. To me, that's just fluffing the page up because there's no other information available.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just read the FL criteria and looked at a few similar FL. I've been through a FL evaluation helping another editor, and it didn't seem as demanding as a FA (which I am not ready for). It would make sense to wait until the season is over (in May) to begin the nomination, since right now it fails #3a and #6. So far, do you think it's on the right track? I've mostly added all the material under "Guest stars". —Mike Allen 21:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I would say so. I don't know about the inclusion of "Principal cast" or "Recurring guests", simply because it seems like fluff...but I've always felt that way about those things when people put season pages up for FL status. I use the "principal cast" on the Smallville pages only to help keep the table of contents out of the episode table section (i.e. it's a structural fluff). But, once the season is over and I'm filling out the page (e.g., full lead, full reception, etc.) then I typically remove such sections. It's just as easy to put "This season stars ....." in the lead, then put a needless section ala IMDB on the page. But that's just me. I do like the real world content for the guest stars section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


I am working on Chanakya (TV series), adding the plots of every episode to a section devoted to the same. The problem is, at the end of 47 episodes (45 min each), the article might become too long (still to come: a plot section describing the overall series, and a few more paragraphs in the production and criticism sections).

The question is, can the list be moved to a separate Chanakya (episodes) article or something similar? Unlike American or British serials, Indian ones hardly, if ever, have episode titles. So I can't exactly create pages like Episode 1 (Chanakya). And I am not sure if this can go into a List of Chanakya episodes article. Last Contrarian (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be List of Chanakya episodes. Unless the episodes are notable (which would require secondary sources verifying such), then a page that just lists the episodes and their plots is what you should probably do. But, at this time you don't need to do that either. The page is at 28kb, and maybe half of that is readable prose. Until you have readable prose in excess of say 50 to 60kb, then you don't need to separate anything. See WP:SIZE#A rule of thumb and WP:SIZE#What is and is not included as "readable prose".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
There may be a couple of episodes that might be notable (read controversial) in their own right. But I guess I could cover them within the main article itself. I'll keep the size factor in mind if/when I decide to move the episode plots to their own page. Last Contrarian (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC) to be used as episode links?

Should you be allowed to use links as episode links? See this. The edit was made by Kamyar Aflaki (talk |contribs). I reverted the user's edit, but I am not sure what reasoning to give why, since I haven't witnessed an edit like this before. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's against the rules. I think WP:EL. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why you think that is not a reliable source... give me a reason to prove your words before re-reverting my edits... Kamyar Aflaki (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Kamyar Aflaki
Another thing is TV.coms sources are this is the most reliable source... trailer of the dishonor episode was in website when you removed it because it was from try to add source instead of removing it..... Kamyar Aflaki (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Kamyar Aflaki
First, not having as an external link in the episode table has nothing to do with reliability. We just are not supposed to put external links in the body of the article. If the link is relevant, then it goes in the EL section at the bottom of the page. As for the reliability of, that website often piggybacks from unreliable sources. I can point to countless times when it has taken information from fansites and presented them as facts - will even say they got it from a fansite. If is getting it's stuff from a reliable source like CBC, then go to the CBS source and use that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I just used links because its sources were from CBS.COM I used that because it going to be easy for users to get the information JUST from one website. why shouldn't we use External links in our article, if NOT using external links is a general rule in internet and wiki, then no website may use Wikipedia’s links in their articles... I didn't break any rule or law I just bended them... I’m 100% sure that those links that I’ve used was reliable and does not have any problems. By the way using this kind of external links is like using reference in article the only difference is that for reference you have to go to the end of page and click on the link but while you using external link you don't have to go to the end of page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamyar Aflaki (talkcontribs) 18:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much what Bignole said. It's frequently OK to put one link at the bottom to, but that's it. It's the same for all external links. External links don't have to be reliable, luckily, since isn't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Kamyar, the point is that Wikipedia is not in the business of sending readers to other websites. By putting a dozen ELs in the episode table for each title, you are basically saying "Go to this website instead of reading ours". That is why it is prohibited, and why we put ELs at the bottom of the page. ELs should be for extended reading, after you have read the Wiki page. They should not be used to detour people away from his as soon as they get on the page. Link to the episode listings at the bottom of the Wiki page. This way, they can just scroll through all of the episodes as their leisure.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
firs of all thank you for talking friendlly with me and sorry about inconvenience. we just want to help people with our knowledge. but first thing that an encyclopedia have to concider is to try to help people to reach to their aim as soon and easy as possible. we don't want to compete with other websites we just want to help our reader to get the answer of their questions, its not matter how they get. we know that first they come to wikipedia for the answer and this is enough.. why they don'y use google or msn or altavista???? why they come to wikipedia?? Kamyar Aflaki (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Kamyar Aflaki

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My assumption would be that they did use Google, MSN, or AltaVista, and Wikipedia was the first link available. In the case of CSI: Miami season 8, Wiki is actually the 4th link on the list. is the first link. Wikipedia should provide them with everything they need first, not direct them somewhere else first. How can we be sure that a reader isn't looking for something on our website, is redirected to as soon as they get to the page, only to find out that doesn't have what they want and they have to backtrack to Wikipedia just to find their answer. When, had they stayed on the page from the start they might have found it on the first try. It should be, "Please, read our page. If you have not found what you are looking for then please look through these links that we have at the bottom of the page to see if they will help." If you put the link up top, you're basically giving up on providing them with any information, and immediately sending them somewhere else. That would be like me walking into Wal-Mart and immediately seeing a sign for a sale at K-Mart. How do I konw that Wal-Mart doesn't have the same sale?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok no offence.... BUT do agree that is a reliable source or not??? --Kamyar Aflaki (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Kamyar Aflaki
No, is not a reliable source, except perhaps for news articles, which can always be sourced better. is primarily user edited, the same as Wikipedia and IMDB, and the edits made are not vested. IMDB is also not a reliable source, as an FYI to those working on that list, and those need replacing. Kamyar Aflaki, if you have not done so yet, I'd encourage reading over WP:RS which gives a good overview on identifying a reliable source. The most valid source for the episode writer/director details are generally the episode itself, or the official website, or the DVD sets (if its been released yet). Also, your note above is not quite correct. Wikipedia's aim is to provide verifiable, well-sourced overviews on notable topics. It is not here to be a system of links to point them to other sites. Most people likely do come to Wikipedia through a search engine, and if they didn't, and want more information, they can always then turn to a search engine. By having an encyclopedic overview, they can, however, now perform more exact searches. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
you can't just say that is not reliable....everything that i used from was correct. but i don't know why they reverted them... if somthing is correct it's reliable too.. if you found any false or wrong information in my edits you could say your source is not reliable,show me an example. at least i know that those information was correct and they have been reverted.I didn't want to get engaged in a edit conflict. --Kamyar Aflaki (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Kamyar Aflaki
Being correct has nothing to do with it., per community consensus, is NOT a reliable source per Wikipedia standards, not your personal standards. No user edited site is considered a reliable source. And if you do not want to be engaged in an edit conflict, I would recommend you stop trying to add these links that multiple editors have now informed you is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Degrassi: The Next Generation

I have nominated Degrassi: The Next Generation for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 117Avenue (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Television character inbox or comic book inbox

I have led to believe that characters such as He-man and Hordak don't use the correct character inbox so which one do I use as some of the Masters of the Universe characters. I used the the comic book inbox for the Snake Men (Masters of the Universe) since the began in comics but some characters first appearance was in television which one do I use. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd just use Template:Infobox character, rather than something more specific. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
No. They were removed from the infobox by consensus as excessive in-universe and generally minor detail. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the the excess details from Fearless Photog but the article was created by User:Dream Focus so expect an edit war just so you know. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Where was this consensus reached at? Were more than two or three people involved? Fearless Photog appeared only as a toy and a comic book character. This discussion should continue at the Wikiproject for comics. [19] And your personal attack is rather immature, both here, and on the talk page of Fearless Photog with your not a forum tag. Dream Focus 21:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
At the template's talk page, of course, and at least eight editors were involved. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well since neither of us are gonna agree I discussed it here which is neutral [20] Dwanyewest (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Parks and Recreation (season 1) FAC reviewers needed!!!

Hey all. I've nominated Parks and Recreation (season 1) for featured article, but more than two weeks have gone by and its received very little attention. This article has passed at GA, gone through two peer reviews, and is the flagship article for a GT. It's well sourced and comprehensive, and failed its first FA because of prose issues which have now been resolved. But I'm concerned it will fail at the current FA simply due to lack of participation in the FAC. If any of you can spare some time, would you be willing to review it? Thanks in advance! — Hunter Kahn 18:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

International Broadcasts

Hello. I've been keeping an eye on The Pacific (miniseries) and Lie to Me recently, and noticed they had large tables/lists identifying practically every tv channel they were broadcast on, even non-English broadcasts. So I'd a look at the style guidelines and they state "make sure that Wikipedia is not seen as the American Wikipedia, it would be beneficial to the article to have any international broadcasters listed". While I'm all for Wikipedia not being the American Wikipedia (I'm from Europe!), I think the distinction should be made that it is the english-language Wikipedia, and so propose ammending the guideline to say " would be beneficial to the article to have any English-language international broadcasters listed" (without the emphasis). Off the top of my head, this includes the US, Canada, Ireland, UK, Hong Kong (might be mistaken on this?), Australia and New Zealand. Any thoughts? Thanks! Fin© 11:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

While something needs to be done about these indiscriminant lists of international broadcasters, I don't think this is the way to go. Although this is an English-language encyclopedia, that doesn't mean we favor English-speaking country, we merely present information in the English-language. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
If the information is reliably sourced, then it should be presented in prose and based on the country not the channel. In other words, it should say something like: "Lie to Me also sees release in Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, ....". It should not, on the other hand, be presented as a list of channels it appears on. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide or a TV listing directory.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
This. The big lists need to go, and simple prose summary of international airings is all that is needed (with reliable sources, of course). Could you imagine what Meerkat Manor would look like if we tried to do every channel it aired on, even just limiting it to English? :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
This certainly seems like the best idea alright - I'd forgotten lists should be avoided! Thanks! Fin© 11:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Announcement: ALT text no longer required for FAs

Hi. I just wanted to make an announcement in case you're like me and miss important changes. Per this discussion ALT text is no longer required for Featured Articles. Just a heads for future FAR. :-) —Mike Allen 18:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio for episode plot summaries?

Are we not allowed to copy plot summaries (even when the are a couple of sentences) from, etc for episodes? Someone keeps removing some of the plot summaries from Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 11), citing copyvio. I flat out told them that TVguide doesn't own those sentences. Do they really? I know it would look better by adding a longer encyclopedic summary.. I just haven't done it yet. Couldn't the borrowed summary from that site stay until I (or miraculously another user) re writes it? They also keep adding as a source.. sigh. —Mike Allen 10:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to reword them. Wikipedia is not a mirror, so we cannot simply copy and paste everything from our sources--even if we put it in quotation marks. TV Guide summarized the official write-up themselves, so to simply copy and paste what TV Guide has done would basically be like copying and pasting their own words. The best course of action is to simply summarize/reword what they have said if you are using them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely NOT! That is a complete violation of WP:COPYVIO. TVGuide does own those sentences the same as they own everything else in their magazines. Even if they were using just the official throw outs from the publisher, those are still copyrighted summarizes, with permission given to specific parties for reprint. Wikipedia is not a place for stealing people's content and work. So no, a "borrowed" summary cannot stay. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being stupid. Should have been a no brainer. Ever since I've been here I have seen people copy (or any other site) episode summaries for future episodes. That's what I did, but I kind of left it there after the show aired. The problem has been solved.. I hope. —Mike Allen 21:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK the user is back removing two episode summaries that is set to air within the next two weeks. I have them sourced by the Futon Critic, and I summarized the given summary of "Bedtime" by NBC, in my words. The other episode see below. Yet this person is still citing a copyright violation AND Crystal. How is Wikipedia predicting the future when it's in reliable sources? I don't get this...

"When a journalist is found dead in her bed with an "X" carved into her cheek, Capt. Cragen recalls a similar case thirty years earlier that occurred in the Bronx by the "Bedtime Butcher". The mission soon leads Benson to go undercover to uncover the truth." Source

I had this one the same as the first sentence of The Futon page:

"The detectives must determine a murder victim's identity after the presumed victim turns up alive." Source

I just re worded it to "After a presumed murder victim turns up alive, the detectives must figure out their identity." I mean how many ways can you reword this?

Is this a copyright violation?? —Mike Allen 19:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a technical copyright violation, but it is too close a paraphrase. I would suggest just not trying to put in summaries for future episodes. It isn't really necessary, as we aren't a TV Guide, and waiting until the episode itself can be summarized means it should be more likely to be correct (sometimes the TV Guides and like do really bad teaser summaries). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess that'll save the trouble and any future edit waring. Also, I just noticed that when I linked crystal, I accidentally used Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:CB). LOL —Mike Allen 19:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Kurdish television channels

Another editor has removed several listings from List of Kurdish television channels and tagged articles relating to Kurdish television stations such as Gali Kurdistan, Kurdsat TV, Kurd1, Kurd Channel for speedy deletion. I don't want to get into an edit war, but could someone who is familiar with lists of stations and channels consider reverting the list to the last complete one? If you have access to sources that might establish notability for individual stations, please consider restoring or recreating articles on those stations. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 20:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I tagged some stubs considered not-notable or copyright violations, most of them recent creations by a banned sockpuppet, and I cleaned up the list by removing redlinks, commercial links, and non-links, and reverted the edits of a banned sockpuppet. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Referencing Release Dates Spam?

An editor has started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Multiple use of commercial links regarding whether the use of multiple commercial links, such as official sites and, to reference air dates and release dates for media works is "spam". Said discussion stems from a second editor claiming it was and stripping all such references out of several FA and FL articles, and attacking another editor as a "spammer" for referencing several more lists in a similar fashion. Additional views would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Multi-part episodes

There's an ongoing edit war at List of Castle episodes over how to present multi-part stories where "Part x" is not part of the episode title. The current war relates to two episodes, "Tick, Tick, Tick..." and "Boom". "Boom" is the second part of the story commenced in "Tick, Tick, Tick..." but neither episode has "Part 1" or "Part 2" as part of its title. One editor opposes putting "(Part 1)" in the title box of {{Episode list}} and insists that "{Part 1)" should be in the "|ShortSummary=" field. There's a more detailed explanation of the problem at Talk:List of Castle episodes#Edit-warring over episode part placement.[21] I've looked but can't find any consensus on how part numbers should be presented in cases such as this so my question is obviously, is there any consensus regarding this? --AussieLegend (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There isn't. Unless the title of the episode is actually "Part 1", it isn't our place to say such things. They may be continuing stories, but they are not continuing titles. If the titles are different, then the titles are different. Just noting that the storyline is continued is enough.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Episode listing for Degrassi: TNG

I am new to editing TV episode lists. What is the practice for counting series episodes in a series that normally has half hour episodes? In List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes a production code represents one half hour, but some episodes (from beginning credits to end credits) were an hour or two hours long. I tried to remedy this error by naming the number of episodes per season "Half-hours", only to be undone[22]. I then tried to recount the episodes per season by actual number of episodes (credits to credits), to be undone again[23]. Any suggestions to remedy this edit war? And if number of actual episodes are to be used, should the 22 November 2009 episode be series #168 not series #179? 117Avenue (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me that the episode list is going by what reliable sources say - namely the makers of the series in its DVD sets - which I would expect trumps any counting preference any one editor may prefer. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
But more than one production code can represent a single episode. iCarly is a great example. 117Avenue (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
But you are talking about a separate series. Production codes are not universally done nor follow any real standard. The production code also does not determine/control the episode numbers. The producers of the series state that season X has Y episodes. That is generally what we will go by unless there is some very compelling reason, backed up by a lot of reliable sources, to say otherwise. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that the title sequence only running 20 times in season 2 is a compelling reason. I am only suggesting a change in series #, not production code. 117Avenue (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
If the producers count it as one episode or two, that should be what is used, not the number of times you see the title screen. The series number should just be a totaling of the the episode numbers. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The production code might say that two episodes were filmed (by listing two prod. codes together), but that does not necessarily mean that they are two separate episodes. Sometimes, episodes are filmed separately and only later are they joined together into a single episode. Thus, there may be 2 prod. codes, but only a single episode number.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the best way to organise lists of characters?

The reason I ask this is because List of Masters of the Universe characters I believe needs reorganising because the characters are arranged according to year the toy was released without verification. Is the accepted format if not then what is? Incidently I have proposed a merger of Masters of the Universe characters because too many exist with minimal verification to assert notability to discuss it go to Talk:List of Masters of the Universe characters Dwanyewest (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The usual method is to group by antagonist/protagonist/supporting, then order by appearance in the series. With that particular one, it may be more difficult to deal with because of the toy line. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sopranos characters - getting serious about in-universe problems

Hey folks,

In line with the gradual trend towards making sure that we treat articles about fictional subjects from a neutral, real-world perspective, I finally created a new in-universe tag for articles related to The Sopranos which approach the topic from the perspective of the series itself. Our articles on The Sopranos are notorious for this - even the most prominent characters have articles devoid of references which contain nothing but plot material. The tag is {{in-universe/Sopranos}} - it adds pages to the new cleanup category Sopranos articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. Please tag any further examples and help clean them up. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The state of List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent episodes

I've recently returned to Wikipedia after a short absence, and visited List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent episodes, which I happened to take to WP:FLC a year ago. I found the page to be a complete mess.[24] I've spent the morning redoing the page, and left a message on the talk page. I suspect the members of the project are more up to date with current practices, MOS guidelines for lists, episode lists, article structure, etc etc. All comments are welcome. Thank you, Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Easter egg linking to television in the United States

What do folks here think about this discussion? There or here, fine either place. --John (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably the same thing WP:FILM thought when [[Cinema of the United States|American]] was being linked in every film's lead sentence. It's irrational and goes against WP:EGG and should be cooked on sight (preferably scrambled).  :-) —Mike Allen 07:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. If you link to "Television in the United States", but pipe it as "United States", the average reader is probably going to assume you just linked to the article on the United States. As such, they probably don't want to read about the United States if they are coming to a South Park page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Old merge proposal

Hello there, I'm working through Category:Articles to be merged from November 2007 and I've got to List of Six Feet Under episodes and List of Six Feet Under deaths. Could someone take a look and see if this is worth carrying though (the first one or two series have been done)? Thanks. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Season list

I'm not sure what the policy is for wedging a list of episodes into the episode infobox, but those interested in this practice may wish to comment here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal for The Art of the Sucker Punch into Home Movies (TV series) and Lawn Gnome Beach Party of Terror into Phineas and Ferb

I have started merge discussions for the above proposals at Talk:Home Movies (TV series)#The Art of the Sucker Punch and Talk:Phineas and Ferb#Lawn Gnome Beach Party of Terror as I believe that neither episode meets the notability guidelines. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Good Article question

I've recently poured a lot of time, thought, and effort into an article about Code of Vengeance. It was featured as part of DYK just yesterday but I think it could also qualify as a Good Article. (Heck, if a guy can dream, maybe a Featured one.) But even though I've been here for quite a while, have over 80 DYK credits, created countless articles, and done a ton of editing, I've never actually put an article up for Good Article review. Any thoughts, guidance, or assistance would be gratefully accepted. - Dravecky (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And if that works, next up would be Human Target (1992 TV series). I have a major weakness for short-lived action shows. - Dravecky (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm not a certified GA reviewer, but I've been through it a few times. At a quick glance, I noticed that the lead is a little too short, maybe add an extra paragraph? There was a dab link, Rambo, I went ahead and redirected it to the correct article. Check links didn't show any dead links. That's just going on the basics of a GA. You can nominate it at WP:GAC, but it may be a while before someone there has a look at it. Good luck. :-) —Mike Allen 20:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I have just nominated it and crossed my fingers. Thanks for spotting the "Rambo" link. - Dravecky (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Doh, you arleady nom but was going to say for first time GA-nominators, I usually recommend doing a peer review first, noting specifically you are aiming for GA, to get feedback. Other than that, just make sure to study the WP:GAC and WP:MOSTV and adjust the article as needed it to fit both, and you'll usually be fine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but he could probably go ahead and get a peer review while he's waiting for the GA? It could be a month or longer before it gets reviewed. —Mike Allen 20:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! I've just listed it for peer review as well. - Dravecky (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm pleased to report that this article was promoted to GA status this afternoon. Thanks to everybody for your advice and assistance. - Dravecky (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

tv series / web series

Is there a difference in notabilty between tv-broadcasted- and web-series' ? --Wistula (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Masters of the Universe character discussion mass merger discussion

I have proposed that Mekaneck,Evilseed, Two-Bad, Screeech, Man-E-Faces, Mer-Man, Crita should be merged into List of Masters of the Universe characters anyone with opinions please discuss at Talk:List of Masters of the Universe characters Dwanyewest (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Menowin Fröhlich of DSDS

I'm wondering if an article about Menowin Fröhlich is justified considering he is a runner-up on a reality tv show. Kingjeff (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking for group support / International Television Expert Group

Dear fellows, I have prepared an article covering the International Television Expert Group (see User:Mentalmoses/ITEG), but I'm afraid it might need some tidying up. So I would kindly as for the support of a more experienced group member to look it over before putting it into the mainspace. Many thanks for your support! Mentalmoses (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


Need help verifying NBA broadcasts

At WT:NBA#Possible widespread errors, I reported a bunch of unsourced edits by a single IP address about radio/TV broadcasts (examples). Nobody there seems to know how to verify them either, but one person suggested asking here so I'll wait a little longer before I start undoing the edits. I considered posting at WT:TVS, but it doesn't seem to be very active. Thanks. —LOL T/C 12:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot...Yet Again...

Yet again, User:Camelbinky is arguing for removing all plot summaries from all media articles unless the plot is sourced to a third-party source, not the work itself, claiming that they are "unencyclopedic" and that it is only a "vocal minority" who favor them. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Perhaps revisit this "perennial proposal" in light of new comment by Jimbo -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Interactive Television vs Interactive Television Standards

The article Interactive television is redirected from Interactive Television Standards but then again there is an existing article called Interactive television standards?! Similar conflict between this article (Interactive television) and Interactive Television!

And none of these articles mention the two major ongoing industry projects: Hybrid Broadcast Broadband TV and Project Canvas. I hope somebody would be ready to fix all this?

We may also consider, if Interactive television & Co should not rather be a television project article?

Any thoughts? Mentalmoses (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I have now fixed all issues mentioned above. Mentalmoses (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Are television pilots (shows in development) notable?

I came across an article for the television pilot Mr. Sunshine (2010 TV series). I was going to do some expanding/fixes and add some sources. The article itself is incorrect because this is just a pilot, not a series as it states, and it has not yet been picked up by the network. I am worried I will be wasting my time if someone deems this not a notable article. Are stand alone TV pilots considered notable? (BTW, I must admit I don't think every pilot/show in development needs a page, but I was willing to work on this one.) Are there any guidelines on this?

Also, is there a category for pilots? Or series under development? The article is currently categorized as "2010s American television series" and "2010 television series debuts", which are technically wrong. I'd appreciate any feedback. I just hate to waste my time on it. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the sources (see WP:NOTE). Aquaman (TV program) is an FA, but it has about 50 sources. Look at the bottom of that article for categories. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to Aquaman. It only had one useful cat, but it led me to others. I just couldn't seem to find anything on my own without having an unaired pilot in mind. Much appreciated. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Cast billing

In some shows, certain actors will receive the "with" or "and" billing, whether it be a series regular or guest actor, and this is then translated onto Wikipedia for cast lists, where it'll say "and actor name" (V as an example), is this allowed or not? I've seen instances where people will remove this information, while some articles have it. I've been reverting some edits where an anon user is adding this into cast lists, and I just want to know if I'm correct or not. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't put "and" or "with" or anything else like that in the infobox. The infobox should just list the names with a break line between each of them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thirteen (House)'s GAR

The link can be found here. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD - Everybody Draw Mohammad Day

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

December Bride (Roseanne) and Don't Ask, Don't Tell (Roseanne)

I'm having difficulty making edits to this article. User:Otto4711 has been attempting to prevent me from making major edits, such as removing a trivial image with a poor fair use rationale. I feel that Otto has been been making clear violations of WP:OWN, considering the editor suggested that I had less right to edit the articles because I had not made any edits prior. But first and foremost, I would just like to get some assistance so Otto cannot simply ignore any arguments and blindly revert any edits to the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're talking about the images of Mariel Hemingway in the article? Those have to go (I removed them). They blatantly fail WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE, not to mention the fact that you cannot even make out her face (which isn't a reason to keep them even if you could). I would direct Otto to this page for a centralized discussion since this involves more than one Roaseanne article. ~I'm not sure what the other problems with the page are, I just removed the non-free images because those are supposed to be removed on the spot because they are copyright violations when they fail the guidelines we set forth.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
And Otto reverted them back in.
And you're right:
  • It does not provide any clear visual information.
  • It is used to identify an actor which can, and should, be done with the link to the article on the actor.
  • It does not provide information that hinders the reader's understanding of the plot point (WP:NFCC#8).
  • It doesn't have a FUR provided, period, for December Bride (Roseanne) (NFCC#10c).
  • Sourcing on it for the FUR provided is sketchy, at best. OK, it's from the episode, but state is explicitly since the image may not be used in the episode article. Also, where did the file come from? (NFCC#10a).
  • And NFCC#3 also comes up.
  • And the Enforcement section does lead to the image being removed until, at the very least, the FUR is updated. I believe though that practice has been that, like WP:BLP, an editor re-adding it has to show that it is necessary for the article. Generally through consensus provided on the article talk page.
- J Greb (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the image should be deleted. And we shouldn't forgot that we have a free image of Hemingway that can be used instead: File:Mariel Hemingway Farm Gala 2006 2.jpg. Theleftorium 19:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
While we can use the free images as often as we like, and in any way, the question of "Is it needed in the article?" still has to be asked. For a very short cameo in one episode of a show that had a long run? Even if it's a free image, it isn't needed. - J Greb (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
An image of Mariel Hemmingway could be good for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell article, just on the virtue that we never see her face in the image. Then again, it would come off as cosmetic. Too bad there's no reception for her role, or production information related to her role in the episode. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For clarification, though, the only real issue was the images; the other stuff was not stuff supported by any guideline or policy necessarily, so I can't exactly argue that it has to be the way I had it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked over both of those articles, and neither supports a non-free image right now. Not for any reason. Maybe a free one of Hemingway, if a valid reason to have it could be found. There are other problems with those pages though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that every single edit I've made to both articles has been reverted, including an edit to remove Sandra Bernhard as a guest star, an actress who has been on the show since 1991 and has been in 33 episodes. So yeah, it's pretty hard to improve them at this juncture. ~.~ - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
About the image of "Sharon and Roseanne at Leon and Scott's wedding". This is all that is needed: "Mariel Hemingway reprised her role as Sharon in the 1995 episode "December Bride", in which long-time character Leon (Martin Mull) marries his boyfriend Scott (Fred Willard). Roseanne's husband Dan (John Goodman) is distressed at seeing two men kiss and Roseanne chastises him for making a fuss about two people of the same sex kissing. Sharon then sits down behind Roseanne and says hi. Her cameo serves as a callback to this episode and the controversy it engendered." An image is not needed to verify it. The "December Bride" article can go, IMO. I'm sure it wasn't the first gay wedding shown on television. I'm tired of seeing episodes having articles for no reason other than "it's notable because it's a TV show". Mike Allen 20:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I think deleting the article would be going too far. It does have some real world information, and admittedly needs more, but I don't think it's so poor that deletion is the answer. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Paramount Television Network at Featured Article Candidates

This article is currently at FAC, and could use some FAC reviews. Please take a moment to review the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

An editor has expressed the need for a copyedit on the article by an editor unfamiliar with the subject. The article is here and the FAC is here. If someone could give the article a thorough going-over, it would be greatly appreciated, and I would reciprocate with an article of your choice. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Dispute at List of Forever Knight episodes

User:Headbomb restored this list from its being redirected to the main article in June 2009 as it had been primarily copyvio and nothing but titles after all that was removed. I initially disagreed with his restoration, but as he added air dates I let it stand and proceeded to properly format the list using the {{episode list}} template, adding a basic lead, adding the basic ELs. He is continuing to restore "his" version for the simple sake of adding back a "reference" to IMDB. I have attempted to discuss it with him on his talk page,[25] but he continues reverting during the discussion claiming his format is preferred by "featured lists" (obviously, not) and as he has now done four reverts I left him a 3RR warning. Additional views in this issue would be useful. I have started a discussion at Talk:List of Forever Knight episodes#Dispute Over Format. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

After I posted this note, he reverted again and has been reported, however additional opinions would still be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The same editor has now created a category and template for the series, which has three articles total. Both have been nominated for deletion.

Category:Forever Knight CfD
{{Forever Knight}} TfD

As same editor is continuing to be extremely uncivil and abusive, some neutral intervention, views would be most useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really neutral since headbomb showed me the list and asked me for my opinion & help with it. The way i see it headbomb was trying to expand the group of articles and AnmaFinotera was a bit quick to jump in and undo because the episode list had been a redirect due to copyvio. Yes, he could have used a tag for work-in-progress, and she could have left him to work on it sooner than she did once it was clear that he was not done. Most people seem to build via little edits; i tend to make one big edit and then end up fixing a typo or something i missed. A little patience all around would have been nice. Sadly i think this may have turned headbomb off from further expanding the content, which would be a shame since based on the template he has ideas for additional expansion of content. I have now put in a proper list with the correct writers and directors but it needs episode summaries (i haven't watched the show in forever) and the air dates - i have a feeling they are a mix of Canadian & America. If anyone can help please do. Group hug? delirious & lost~нuɢѕ~ 05:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You aren't neutral at all, as I see you turned around and reverted for him, undoing the clean up he supposedly gave me "permission" to do, which really didn't help matters at all (though it at least explains why he didn't revert, he already knew you would). I don't see that you added anything (though may have been losted in your revert), only completely undid the clean up I did. Sorry, but no group hug and you can help him since you didn't feel any need to discuss it anymore than he did until after the fact (though at least you are civil about it). Happy editing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You're upset because i put in the correct writers and directors? You object to my leading off with a declaration of my preëxisting involvement? You had reorganised the headbomb's info which he was not so sure of. The creators only wrote the the tv movie and the subsequent re-shoot of the movie as the first two episodes. Hence the info presented was just wrong. So, yes some things went and new things came in. I was working on that for hours to make sure i had things right before i saved them. It uses {{episode list}} and for now there are no season articles so it is not substitution transclusion enabled, though that would be simply pasting a bit of text once the list is split into its own seasons. As to the not reverting me, the reason is simple - i discussed it with him first. Calling my edit "for him" is a bit rude. It is for the readers such as myself that i put in correct info. Even to look at the simple nature of your edits you had the series numbering under the season column and visa versa. I hardly call it undoing your clean up, but rather consider it another step along the way to a proper article on the subject. delirious & lost~нuɢѕ~ 08:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I applied to the template to his content, so if he had the data wrong, don't put it on me. You threw in another unreliable source, and the DVDs as sources for what? Their existence? You readded the unnecessary "series overview" table which has long fallen out of style, you readded the extremely pointless "movie" season, and you restored the ugly colors. I don't give a damn if you correct his screw up, I'm annoyed because you DID revert my entire clean up, restore his version, and just corrected his data errors. And yet somehow his putting wrong data was more "productive" than my making sure it was organized correctly. And then adding those inappropriate and ugly DVD boxes to the main article? Those don't belong there either! Nor do the track lists for the CDs. But whatever, at this point I'll leave it to you to continue making the pages just as bad as they were before the last clean up. Maybe you'll even go back to the past version which had tons of content, who cares if it was fanfic and illegal copyrighted material either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Powder blue is not the standard colour for the episode lists; one has to make that table and thus can assign any colour within the hexcode. Featured List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, List of House episodes, and featured List of Smallville episodes all base colours on the DVD releases. The headbomb used the colours from List of The O.C. episodes. I got those colours from mid-res press release images of the cover art for region 1. Smallville is a bit too large to have a modest sized overview while the other three linked here do. The movie is not pointless. It exists, uses the same characters, the same story as the first two episodes of the series, was written by the series creators, and is colloquially considered like an unaired pilot (that happened to be aired) of any other show. Mentioning it in the list of episodes (as it is a tv movie) hardly seems out of place. As to that wrong data, it would be wise to check it first since you are fixing things and if you are so experienced then you should know the probability of the same person writing almost every episode of a show is negligible. As to the episode numbering, his columns had headings that corresponded to the data while yours did not. I didn't restore anyone's version. I pasted my own version which contained elements of versions from both of you and as well as my own contribution. Assuming i, and the headbomb (as stated in the post below), will add in all sorts of copyvio clearly shows your hostility and negative attitude toward us despite our edit histories indicating no basis for those assumptions. delirious & lost~нuɢѕ~ 20:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The blue is the standard used on many of the episode lists. Why do you both only point out the ones that support your view and not any of the others? Forever Knight only lasted three seasons, that is way too small for any kind of overview table either. And the film was already properly mentioned in the lead. It does not need to be put in a table, its silly. And sorry, you are correct, it was stupid of me to presume in good faith that he was at least was adding valid data and wasn't just throwing in random stuff because he is an experienced editor. And many of the series I work with have a single writer or two for many episodes, so it is not unlikely nor improbable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought this is what his userspace is for? If he is going to make a "big edit" he should have least added it to his userspace and made sure it was within guidelines/policy and all that good stuff, before pushing it out to the mainspace. "Sadly i think this may have turned headbomb off from further expanding the content" ...And? He should learn to work with others. Also using BRIGHT and WILD colors is discouraged per WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Why not use hot pink next time? Mike Allen 06:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The article on the titular character is in the headbomb's user space. The colours are based on the DVD releases, which is what is done with lists once the colour is known. Attacking my signature is really mature. delirious & lost~нuɢѕ~ 08:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
All those different bright colors are still against WP:ACCESSIBILITY. I'm not sure how the TV pages get a 'free pass' at getting to use just about any shade of color. I just used hot pink as an example. Probably a poor choice to use, but seriously, I wasn't "attacking" anything. I'm not even sure if accessibility applies to signatures. Mike Allen 08:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The article on the titular character was deleted in AfD, as noted in the ANI on this, but I presume he will ignore that and just reinstate it anyway. And most lists do NOT use the "DVD release colors" only a few due (and as I have all three DVD releases, I can assure you those colors are wrong, they are no where near so garish and blinding). Most lists use the standard blue for the headers or, if seasonal colors are really needed, basic, standard colors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Just to put in my few pennies worth of thoughts. I have to say, it is common practice to color tables based on DVD box set colors. That said, I am not claiming it is the majority approach or the minority approach, just that is is common. The Simpsons episode list does the same thing, and it's been around for a long time. If the community of editors like the use of color in the tables, then it should stay. If the community of editors editing the page do not...then remove it. There's no rule one way or the other on that subject.
Moving on...there has been discussion about the overview table in general. Personally, I don't like the idea of having DVD release information being the first thing on the page. It's not the first thing in reality, so why does it get preferential treatment in being placed first. A part from these overview tables, and maybe (and that's a maybe) some season list pages, no one else puts DVD info first like that--not film pages and not any other TV related page (e.g., episode page, main page, etc.). So, that's always bothered me. Secondly, I've never felt the need for an overview table given that the section headers should indicate the years of broadcast for easy navigation, and the tables themselves list the number of episodes in each season. It seems too "holding the hands of the reader" to regurgitate the same information twice like that, when it's so close to each other.
Lastly, I agree that the table for the TV movie is kind of needless. It's a single item. I don't see why there couldn't be a bit of prose somewhere (maybe just below "Episode list") that indicates there was a TV movie that aired years before hand. If there was more than one TV movie then I would see a point, but for a single item like that I find it a bit useless to have such a big identifier for one object.
Those are my thoughts, take them as you like them...or don't.
P.S. I'm basically the only one that writes the Smallville episode summaries for each season page, and have been doing so since about Season Five (so 4 years now).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Some assistance at this featured list would be very helpful, since it appears, superficially at least, to have serious copyright problems.

CIreland (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see a section on the LOE page about this. What seems to be copyright violations? The plots? Do you have anything that suggests that it is?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Air Dates

There's a little problem in The Secret Saturdays about whether the air date should say "October 3, 2008 - Present" or "October 3, 2008 - January 30, 2010". The reason for this difficulty is because Cartoon Network did not actually cancel the show, but according to the series' creator, no new episodes have been ordered. What would be the proper course of action in this "hiatus" situation?--Twilight Helryx 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The later. If no new eps have been ordered and it is "on hiatus" is it pretty much ended unless/until it is renewed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Review of my personal project for TV.

Hi, I am not sure if this is the correct place to put this, but I am giving it a try.

I have started a personal project goal of creating navboxes for channels such as History, ect. This way, it will be easier to find a list of non-one shot special programs, and navagate from the main History Channel Page, or between shows on their respective pages. I believe I have finally finished it, and I was hoping to get a review from you guys, since you are more skilled in this area than I am.

The template can be found here: Template:History Shows

Thanks, --Mooshykris (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no value at all in having such a template. We generally do not do navigational templates for television channels, and it seems like it will only encourage the creation of more unnotable programs from specialty channels. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I have specifically made it exclusive to shows that already have articles, which would in turn, meet the notability guidelines. --Mooshykris (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Having an article does not mean they meet the notability guidelines. We have many articles on unnotable topics that have just not been found or questioned yet. I suspect few shows from the History channel or any other specialty channel are actually notable per WP:N. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
If that is the case, such shows should be removed from the list and Wikipedia. I myself am already working on cleaning up the articles for the History Channel. Being a History enthusiast, I am trying to fix the issues on the articles as well. --Mooshykris (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Don'y worry about notability. If something is deleted, it can be removed from the template (I won't comment on the redlinks). It's a pretty good template, except that it's really full. Is there any way you can link to lists or something, and make it less full? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I will have to work that out, but possibly. I will figure out a way, I'll try anyway. --Mooshykris (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmbabies is back

I suspect our old friend Mmbabies is back vandalizing TV station articles, primarily in Houston, fictionalizing their channel numbers. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

FAC help

I have nominated Fresh Blood (Supernatural) for FA here. There has been little response, so would anyone mind taking a look? Thanks. Ωphois 14:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

AFD for List of fictional archenemies

This list article which is tagged as an Wikiproject Television article is nominated for deletion. Please nominate here for consensus on this article. Thank you. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You Can't Do That on Television

Anyone want to help clean up the mess that is You Can't Do That on Television and its subarticles? Apparently some fans have been running around, spamming a well-known fansite that offers illegal copies of the series, and filling the articles with WP:OR, as well as making articles for various unnotable cast members. I just did a massive gutting of the main article to remove some of the worse bits and tagging it for the remaining issues, but it still needs a ton of work.[26] I also boldly redirected the episode list back to the main article, as it was a variety show which we generally don't do episode lists for. Happy to also work with someone or several someone's on cleaning this up (particularly source hunting) as I did rather love the show as a kid, but its a large project for just one person to work on, and I'd rather not really commit to tackling this clean up without some support. I think this is a series that we could easily get to GA level with some work, as the series was greatly talked about in its heyday. So...anyone? Bueller? I don't know? *splat* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Is reliable for characters?

I have suggested that Minty (My Little Pony) be merged into List of My Little Pony characters but has been suggested that this website be used as a source for a character is IMDB a reliable source. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source for anything, including characters. It is still user edited. Nor can it establish notability as it is a catch all that lists all films, television, and all characters users bother adding. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Concur. IMDb rarely, if ever, attributes any of their information to a reliable source. Thus, it makes all of their information suspect. When they do attribute it to a reliable source (e.g., they do have some news articles), it's best to use the original source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
IMDB does have reliable parts, where the CSA submits cast lists, but it isn't going to help establish notability for anything. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the only thing IMDb may be reliable on is it's list of highest grossing films but even then that list doesn't concur with Box Office Mojo's list. Making an list of high grossing movies debatable in some parts. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
True Peregrine, but even the New York Times has cast lists for movies and television shows...and that would probably be more reliable of a source to use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I invite anyone to discuss the merger of Rainbow Dash,Star Catcher to List of My Little Pony characters I feel the issue needs to resolved. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care much either way, but if these are articles on Ponys that aren't from the original generation, then I doubt they're notable, and I support redirection. If some of them are originals, and one of the 5-10 or so original Ponys in the TV show, then I don't suppport redirection, because I think info exists, even if it takes a lexis nexis account. Feel free to link to this comment, or whatever you want. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the site is more reliable for characters even if it is not completed. It is not user submitted info. Only three individuals have access to add content and they only add content that is obtained from show credits, dvds, and the like. Maybe this could be used as a substitute for IMDB. Granted they have a lot of content still to add but it seems whatever is added is pretty darn reliable. Optimussolo (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There have been recent issues with this site being added to multiple articles; it is also important to note that you have a conflict of interest as you are an administrator on the site. --Ckatzchatspy 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Templates at TFD

See the discussions for Infobox Chuck character and Chuck episodes. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Song infobox at Living Lohan

There is a dispute going on about "Living Lohan" involving the song infobox for "All the Way Around" being placed there. I'm not so sure if this applies in this case, but does this fall under the guidelines for articles for TV shows, since it was focused around the song? Thanks. (talk) 3:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a discussion, but the basic principle applies in TV and Film and every other article. Infoboxes are intended to be quick lists of important info for an entire article. They are not designed to be used for a single section, which should itself already contain any of importance. You're basically listing it all twice right next to itself. In addition, the image in said infobox is a failure of WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
That's because a discussion has barely begun and there's more to this than is being presented. A consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All the Way Around was to merge the content to Living Lohan. That was over a year ago. Evidently it took User:Robert_Moore that long to realize he didn't like the content being there and attempted to remove it twice - he was reverted by User:Kww. Kww began a discussion on the matter to which Robert_Moore conceded but began complaining about the infobox being included. Since that conversation took place today, I'm the only person who has had a chance to comment. As I advised Robert_Moore earlier, if he wants to change the consensus opening an RfC would be best - especially if he's going to make roundabout accusations about people who disagree with him being fans of some teeny bopper. Pinkadelica 05:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Pinkadelica, I just said I'm dropping the idea of changing the article and I'm keeping the song infobox just in case it needs to be expanded in the future or they decide to bring the series back. Don't drag it out any further. For one I am not making roundabout accusations but even after I apologized to you its still becoming a issue that I want bring up something that was decided a while back. If the merge was already made, okay. End of discussion. (talk) 9:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)