Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 20


International ratings

Just wondering, what is our policy on including international ratings on the main article for television shows? I think it's a good idea to have international coverage, but when it gets out of hand, like at Heroes, what happens? I don't think that much of the information is all that important, and just leads to cruft and unsourced figures. So which countries do we choose to include? Honestly, I would just like to see most/all of it gone. 05:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for it, then great (a lot of shows that air overseas are hard to get ratings info for), but it should be presented in an organized and encyclopedic manner. In other words, I think if you're going to list it then use a table. If you are going to have sentences of information then write is true prose. Don't bullet paragraphs (as Heroes is doing). Secondly, I think the Heroes situation has a different problem. That section cannot decide if it wants to be a section about worldwide broadcasting, or worldwide ratings, or both. There are bulleted points that don't even talk about ratings.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I moved the section to "distribution" so it can be more about international broadcast and ratings. I agree some information is good, but details on Hong Kong and Germany etc. seem excessive to me. Would information on only English speaking countries be a good compromise? 06:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
In general, I think its unnecessary and excessively minute detail, beyond maybe 1-2 sentences noting it was distributed elsewhere. Unless such international versions have significant coverage, I see no reason to give them undue weight in the article, and usually just remove it all together unless it seems particularly note worthy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I think it gets to a point where it's just trivial, such as the airing dates in the Netherlands etc. Thanks for the input. :) 07:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We're trying to be an international encyclopedia, so I think foreign info (if cited) should be encouraged. Smart formatting may allow it to fit in a way that doesn't annoy. We devote a lot of text to the US situation, but we aren't the only country that watches it (apparently). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually got a little ahead of myself and deleted a lot of the info, only leaving the UK, Australia and Canada (see Heroes). It looks a lot better now, I think. All the details on Germany, France etc. were unnecessary IMO. (And luckily no one has to watch it anymore. I already lost enough brain cells from the second and third seasons.) 10:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it a remake or a continuation the Biker Mice from Mars (2006 TV series) situation?

I wish to resolve this dispute once and a for I am tempted to revert it back to saying its a remake. This has been discusseed to death on the respective pages. Does anyone agree or disagreeBiker Mice from Mars (2006 TV series) is a continuation of Biker Mice from Mars or a remake. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My little pony discussion

If anyone wishes to participate as many views would be welcome Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Little Pony (pilot episode) Dwanyewest (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Potential edit war that I want to avoid in the Market Kitchen article

Hello. A while back, a pretty new editor created a very raw article for the TV cookery show Market Kitchen. I did what I could with it, in terms of getting references, rewriting it to be more encyclopedic and applying the manual of style. That doesn't seem to have gone down to well with the original editor who initially simply blanked the page and is now just removing all of my changes and reverting to a version of their original article. So far, I've reverted them once, but I don't want this to turn into a war between me and this other editor - so I'd appreciate it if some other editors could add the article to their watchlists and help ensure that future changes improve it. Hopefully any reversions that are necessary will be less confrontational coming from someone other than me. Also, I'm sure it can be improved beyond what I managed to do with it. Many thanks. Maccy69 (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Formatted the refs, did a little wording clean up, and tagged for notability and need for more third-party sources. Will keep an eye on it for awhile. Also left editor a warning re WP:OWN issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Maccy69 (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC Re Noting Divorced Status Next to Ex-Spouse in Character Infobox

In a character's infobox template, if a character has a divorced spouse, should the spouse's name in the infobox have a notation next to their name indicating the divorced status? Or should such status not be in the infobox, but be discussed in the article? WCityMike 23:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My position: yes, a parenthetical note is appropriate. See five 'normal' articles (Allison Cameron, Perry Cox, Miranda Bailey, Addison Montgomery, Mary Richards, and Ross Geller), thirteen good articles (Adrian Monk, Alexander Mahone, Betty Williams, Chrissie Watts, Dimitri Marick, Ellen Harvelle, Erica Hahn, James Wilson, John Winchester, Maggie Horton, Ned Flanders, Smoking Man, and Todd Manning), and one front-page featured article (Troy McClure). WCityMike 23:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I could have sworn we removed the "spouse" parameter because it's completely in-universe and often has nothing to do with understanding the character (which is a criteria for character infoboxes per WP:WAF).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Ditto here, thought it was one of many in-universe details removed? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, it was suggested to be changed from "spouse" to "partner(s)" (see here), but I think it needs to be just be removed outright per the criteria at WP:WAF. Who someone is married to is not "essential to understanding the character". I cannot think of really any example where knowing who a character was "married to" (or dated) helped me to understand them. Knowing the Homer Simpson is married to Marge Simpson doesn't lend to my understanding of who/what Homer Simpson is. I'm wondering if some of those categories (spouse, significant other, children, etc..) were kept for the Soap Opera characters. Though I still don't think their "essential", I would assume that because of the intricate nature of the "families" on those shows knowing who is related to whom might be warranted (but I still think that without context those relationships have no meaning and context requires prose). As for most of those above mentioned characters, I cannot think of any one of them that would require the inclusion of a category that would include something essential to understanding them. I think it places too much in-universe weight on the infobox and starts to treat the characters like they are real.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree Bignole, and that is basically what my first argument was to remove ex or divorced from the infobox. I think it is too much in-universe, and I don't have a problem of it being mentioned in the article context, but more details can be mentioned there. Mike is saying that it is normally done in other articles, but Glee article don't have to follow what other articles do. CTJF83 pride 05:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama's revival

I am here to inform that WikiProject Futurama is getting a revival. If you like to join the project, please sign up here. GamerPro64 (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Television episode infoboxes at TFD

See the June 15, 2010 discussion. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Episode header colouring

See discussion here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

List of sections

I'd like to know if there is a specific policy stating that "List of" sections must have more content than just the link to the main article. For instance, the "Episode" section in the Mannix article was tagged by a user for having no content. I've no idea what else that section, along with other sections of that nature, should state aside from maybe a "click the main article link to see it" (yay, sarcasm). Granted, I've seen sections like that with a bit of an overview in some cases, but I'm unaware if all articles are suppose to be that way. I've seen plenty with just the link, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that. Pinkadelica 11:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You would need content in a section if you have a section. In this case, I'd just list the "List of" link in the infobox, as there is a section for it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
What about a section for characters? Pinkadelica 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I"m not sure what you're asking? Are you asking, "should there be a section for characers?" If so, then sure...if there is sourceable info for it. See Smallville#Cast. You can also have a link to the List of episodes page in the body, if say you have a section that summarizes the show (see Smallville#Series overview). If "Scenario" is supposed to be the overview of the series, then the header needs to be changed as it isn't the standard language used to identify common material found on the page (e.g., "Plot", "Series overview", "Overview", "Series summary", etc.)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind. I've worked it out. Thanks for the help :) Pinkadelica 09:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television)


What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? Taric25 (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: the essay created above and its attached RfC is a blatant attempt to get around the current consensus at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not‎ against having lists of channels in articles, and is basically a butchering of our existing WP:MOSTV with Taric25's preferences to also include his desire to have TV channel lists. Would be good if other project members would participate in the actual, valid discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not‎#NOTDIR include current channel listings. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do not assume bad faith and write things others do are “a blatant attempt to get around the current consensus”. Recall what User:Johnuniq’s wrote summarizing the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Summary.


I am complying with what User:Johnuniq wrote when that editor summarized the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#NOTDIR include current channel listings. Please continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the RfC tag as this is clearly where you do not want the discussion to occur. As already noted, the proper place for the RfC was the actual existing discussion at NOT. I appreciate your attempting to address my concern, but you need to settle on one place for the RfC tag, rather than now repeating it in various places, else it will just end up with dualing discussions and make it nearly impossible to ascertain consensus one way or another. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I’ve placed final warning at your talk page for continuing to assume bad faith for the fourth time, reverting/refactoring others’ comments. Please stop, and do not continue to revert or refactor the comments of other users on talk pages, including this one. Per Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Requests for comment, it is appropriate to use such templates to make others aware of the discussion. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding at The Green Hornet (TV series)

Hi, all. I'm in a minor spat with a user regarding the car used in the series. The Black Beauty was not a "Chrysler Imperial" as many people think but rather an "Imperial Crown." Imperial was a separate brand in 1966 as correctly illustrated at the article on Imperial (automobile). It was suggested at the wikiquette alert page that I post my concerns here and on the article's talk page. Hoping I can get another gearhead to step in and help. Thanks! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Recurring segments from Tosh.0

I need somebody to rate this article. It has been tagged for deletion. Sarujo (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is This Top 100 List Necessary?

After the usual spin down the Wikipedia rabbit hole, I came across The 100 Scariest Movie Moments. While it certainly sated my curiosity as to the list's contents, I afterwards wondered whether or not it fits Wikipedia's guidelines. Is the list notable? Is it a copyright violation to simply talk about the list? I thought about putting it up for AfD, but I wasn't sure if I would step on any toes, since I'm not exactly a frequent editor. I figured I'd bring it up at the proper WikiProject, since it doesn't look like the talk page gets any traffic. What's the proper thing to do here? Regards, Archaeo (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no, it is not notable, unless the special received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. It seems like a lot of channels do specials of this type, and most seem to gain little, if any, notice. As such, they generally fail WP:N which is what most TV related items fall under in terms of notability guidelines. I'd recommend doing a check via Google in Google News and Books to be sure, but if you haven't come across sources, don't be afraid to prod it (if it hasn't already been prodded before) or send it to AfD. No toe stepping to worry about :-) Meanwhile, you might consider adding {{Notability}} to the top of the article, to indicate that its notability is in question. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Infobox Character

I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox character#Cleaning house regarding which categories in the template are necessary, which ones are not, and which ones are specialities that are only relevant to certain types of characters. It would be good to have as many people there to talk about each category, and to propose new ones if necessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Should Day of the Dumpster be merged?

I have nominated Day of the Dumpster should be merged to List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers episodes I would value allow discussion and opinions? (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

First episode of a 1500 episode franchise is notable enough on its own, even if the references are currently subpar because frankly there's no amount of press for 17 year old children's television show episodes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it should. If there is no significant coverage of it in reliable sources, then it is not notable. Being the first episode of a series, no matter how long, does not make it notable by any actual Wikipedia standard. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I still believe this subject requires further discussion with a conclusive answer anyone wishing to voice thier opinion should go to

See "Day of the Dumpster merger proposal" (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Meridian Mississippi

Hi guys, I'm not a member here, but I have a request. If this is the wrong place, can someone redirect me to where I need to go? I have been working on the Meridian, Mississippi article for quite some time, and have nominated it for GA, but there are a few problems; one of them is the TV section. It and the other media sections are simply tables with channel information, which doesn't fly with GA or FA nominations. I just tried to add some prose to this section using sparse resources (and kind of modelled off of Kent, Ohio#Media), but I can't really do much more. I can't really find sources that would be relevant to this section. Can someone with more experience dealing with this type of thing – especially the jumbled mass of information given by FCC queries of the stations in the city – try to fashion up a paragraph or two? Help would be very appreciated. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention that articles about stations in the city (WTOK-TV, WMDN, WGBC, etc.) have absolutely no sourcing.. I don't know where the material is coming from. Can someone look into those as well? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I would eliminate the table, and leave the prose above it. I don't believe we have to list every channel Meridian broadcast, just the popular ones. The ones listed are sourced. The radio part, I'm not so sure. SL100 (100.3) doesn't reach Meridian? If not, then what's the "pop" channel, since one isn't listed? The article looks good though (from skimming over it; I don't regularly visit city articles but I would love to work on Hattiesburg one day to reach GA. That city I know more about.) , Mike Allen 04:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Mike. Note what I did for the GA/FA on Davenport, Iowa, Davenport,_IA#Media. Just 2 short paragraphs with very general basic info. That is sufficient, no one told me to expand it on either of the FA reviews. CTJF83 pride 04:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies.. Well I planned on taking out the tables, of course, but I at least wanted to get WMDN into the prose. When I query the FCC for the address of the station, it lists the owner in Austin, TX. I know the station comes out of Meridian for a fact (I live here), and the WMDN article says that it is headquartered in the same building as WGBC. Like I said before, though, none of these articles have any sourcing whatsoever, so I don't know how to include the info from these articles. I would like to include that WGBC is also the Fox affiliate, but I can't find a source.
About the radio, no, SL100 doesn't reach Meridian (well, it kind of does, but it's fuzzy, and if you go in a valley, it's completely lost.), and there isn't a pop station other than that. 93.5 and 95.1 are both "variety" style, so they play new stuff alongside 80s, 90s, and other music. It sucks haha.. I'm ready to move back to Hattiesburg where 104.5 is classic rock, 100.3 is pop, 103.7 is rock/alternative/just good music :P, and every single station isn't country haha. Is that where you live? I'm at USM now.. I'll be a junior in August. Sorry.. off topic. Send me a message at my talk page if you'd like to chat. If you think I'm lost with the TV section, I'm really lost with the radio section haha. Is there a WikiProject that I could ask about that section as well? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I just found a source from The Meridian Star that talks about the partnership between WGBC-TV and WMDN-TV as well as mentioning about the FOX affiliation. I converted the entire TV section to prose, but I still haven't gotten the radio section worked out though.. any help there? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
You could try... WT:RADIO. Also in the Media section, this first sentence of the third paragraph I don't understand: In television, the city is the principal city in the Meridian, Mississippi Designated Market Area (DMA), as designated by the Federal Communications Commission, which includes 72,180 households. Could you clarify that? Mike Allen 20:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I tried to clarify the sentence, but I think it's pretty clear. The Meridian DMA is a television market with 72,180 households in which there is at least one television set. Meridian is the principal city of this market.
On another note, I tried to convert the radio section to prose on my own using Arbitron ratings. Thanks for the help! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Are theme songs allowed in an article?

Are theme shows lyrics or narration intros permitted for inclusion in articles. I view as a violation of copyright is this a correct or incorrect stance because if it is a volatioon a great many articles relating to television have this problem. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Full or major sections of lyrics are completely not allowed, though quoting a line or two is ok. Inclusion of title narratives should be similarly handled - they're less a touchy issue compared to lyric copyrights, but, for example, I would not include the full text of the intro of "Quantum Leap" but would easily include "where no one has gone before" for Star Trek. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


It seems as though the assessment department is completely dead here.--Iankap99 (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Renaming episode number column headings

Please see Template talk:Episode list#Episode number column headings. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


The recently-created template {{Pretty Little Liars}} contains links to performer articles (and not much else) and is included in their articles. I believe in TV and film articles this isn't done for the obvious reason that otherwise actor pages would be cluttered with templates, but I'm not sure where the policy or discussion on the topic is, and I'd like to cite it if I attack the template LOL ;) — TAnthonyTalk 15:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers/Archive_3#Cast.2FCrew_in_navigation_boxes. BOVINEBOY2008 18:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!— TAnthonyTalk 23:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD for TV Episodes Considered The Greatest of All Time

This is a reasonably recent article that hasn't been added to your project yet. I've nominated it for deletion, any comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Episodes Considered The Greatest of All Time. Thanks. Maccy69 (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


FYI a bunch of TV articles were sent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 11. (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

AfDs related to the TV project are generally listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television‎. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing question...

Just wondering if the following are considered reliable by this project for cast/character list:

  • iMDB

I'm pretty sure iMDB isn't...

- J Greb (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

They are reliable as external links but probably not as sources. What do you have in mind? Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up a comics related list - Characters in Silver Surfer (TV series)‎ - that was created as a cut-and-paste back fill from the "In other media" sections of various Marvel characters. I'm doing a pass to remove the duplication and I'm noting a couple of references to those two sites.
It may be moot since the second sweep is going to be redirecting the "list" to Silver Surfer (TV series)#Cast since the info is there... Facepalm3.svg And I just noticed the iMDB ref in the header...
What a mess...
- J Greb (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say no, they are not good references for characters. In fact I am not really sure but I do believe you can edit on those sites as well. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, neither is a reliable source as they are both user edited. They can be useful as a starting point, but most of the time the cast/crew can be cited without inline cite to the work itself. A third-party source is only needed in uncredited roles, where the credits use another name, or where the credits are unavailable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks... that's what I thought. Anyway, I've got the clean up and redirect on this one done... or at least to the point that an assumption the information originally came from the original source. - J Greb (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Episode descriptions

I was just viewing an article's list of episodes (List of Metalocalypse episodes) and noticed that every description I checked is found verbatim at the show's official website. It's a Wiki so I don't know which came first but as their website is copyrighted, it's an issue. Usually, I would just rewrite the article or tag it for deletion but there's too much work me to do by myself and deleting the article would be a substantial loss of content. Does your project often run into this problem? What do we do from here? OlYellerTalktome 00:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

First thing we do is just remove all of the plot descriptions under the policy on copyright violations. We cannot copy and paste stuff like that so we remove that immediately. If the page is salvagable then I would leave a message on the article talk page (also make sure you leave an indication in the edit summary to get people to look at the talk page) describing why everything was removed (point them to the paged I linked) and just explain that someone will have to go through and paraphrase all of the episode summaries into their own words - which has to be more than just rearranging the statements or changing one word here or there.
As far as running into it often, I personally haven't. I know that plot descriptions are the easiest thing for this to happen to, because people want to take the short, easy route and just copy and paste what others have said. They typically are not intending to be malicious, they just don't know any better. That said, if you can locate the originator of the edits on our end, I would just leave them a message on their personal talk pages explaining the problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Think we should investigate which came first? If someone simply compied the text from WP and pasted at the Adult Swim website, it can just as easily happen again which would force us to rewrite ~45 descriptions again. OlYellerTalktome 01:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Quick investigation turns up this: Adult Swim posted their description of "Metalocalypse" on October 27, 2009. On November 9, 2009, Wikipedia did not even have a description up. Now, I didn't spend the time going through every episode, or trying to figure out when they finally got a description of that episode up because if it wasn't up before October 27 then it means it came afterward. And since it's exactly the same on both pages currently, I'd say someone just copy and pasted. Now, clearly they are not trying to plagarize, because they're including a link to the Adult Swim webpage next to each description. They just don't understand that one, in those cases you need quotation marks, and two regardless of quotation marks we cannot just copy and paste these types of things from one page to ours.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
It is a common problem, and they should be blanked. Don't worry too much about notifying people. Removing the copy vio is the most important part. If you want to hunt down the user who added it and tell them about our rules, that's fine to. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC) are using the episode summaries I wrote at List of 2point4 Children episodes on their website, with no credit to Wikipedia. I've had to point this out at at least 2 AfDs. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since is user edited same as us, but without the oversight, it is a common problem of people copy/pasting descriptions from one to the other. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 23:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


In the infobox, the cast is ordered in credit order how they are on the show aren't they? Not in alphabetical. Jayy008 (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no set rule. Its generally determined by whoever adds it first and local consensus on the article talk page. Either is a neutral way to do it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Jayy008 (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Degrassi The Next Generation renamed

According to CTV, Degrassi: The Next Generation is being renamed to "Degrassi" on Monday when season 10 begins. The article makes it clear that it is being renamed as of season 10, and is not retroactive. I believe we should move our Degrassi article to Degrassi franchise, in the same way that Law & Order handles it, repointing all links to Degrassi, and then moving Degrassi: The Next Generation to that page name. Because the new name is not being applied to old episodes, I think pages such as Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 3) should not be moved. The only other regular editor to Degrassi articles believes that all articles should stay as they are, because for 10 years it has been known with the TNG suffix. To avoid being Wiktators, we need more input from other uninvolved editors. Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the move of "Degrassi" to "Degrassi franchise", and "Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 10)" to "Degrassi (season 10)", but I think that "Degrassi (disambiguation)" should be moved to "Degrassi", because it has several meanings, and "Degrassi: The Next Generation" remain as a disambiguaty. When articles are written on Wikipedia about organizations that existed in the past, the longest used name, (and thus the common name), is used. If this series makes it into its eighteenth season (I hope it doesn't), then it can be renamed. 117Avenue (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Input here or somewhere else? My opinion is similar to yours Matt. I think that the new season should follow the new naming. If it isn't called that then we shouldn't call it what it isn't. I also agree that since this isn't some retroactive change that all previous page should stay as they are.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think Degrassi should remain the franchise page, as that is what the entire franchise is known as, not just the TNG season 10, and it is a far more reaching topic, with a hatnote link for the season 10 and to the disambig page. I also think that, for now at least, TNG should remain at the existing article, as it is the name the series is most known by. They are renaming it starting with one season, but will it run another ten seasons with the new name? Meerkat Manor was renamed in the last season, but the article was not moved because only one season had the new name, and over all the entire series is better known by the original name. Renaming the season 10 list, sounds fine though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


I have been working on Merlin (TV series) for the past two days. I was hoping that someone could possibly assess this so that other editors and I can work on improving it further. Also, any help, contributions, or comments on the talkpage are welcome. ChaosMasterChat 01:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability

I have nominated the majority of Category:Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability in the above AfD discussion. As editors of a related project, your input is appreciated. --erachima talk 06:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

FAC Help

I have nominated Pilot (Supernatural) for featured article here. There has been little response, so would anyone mind taking a look? Thanks. Ωphois 03:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy ?

I was wondering why Grey's Anatomy wasn't a show-specific project of task force. I would like to nominate it to be. Is there a specific reason it is not a show-specific project or task force? Please let me know if you would consider it for nomination. Amandaxpandax14 (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say a task force is okay, a Wikiproject is not. Here's my standard response at WP:WPPRO:

"A brand-new Wikiproject for a TV show can often end up making its own rules, style guidelines, etc etc, which makes the end result of the articles that fall under its banner to look inconsistent with other articles related to TV shows, and really they should all be consistent. Sometimes it doesn't happen, such as with the articles under the Wikiprojects for Buffy, Degrassi, and 24 to name a few of the popular ones. But they all formed before or around the same time as WP:TV, and before Taskforces were popular. Those created more recently are all taskforces, and a Grey's taskforce of WP:TV would be a better option, as the taskforce can use the well-established WP:MOSTV and other guidelines already laid down for writing articles about TV shows, episodes, science fiction, etc. An independent WikiProject with a handful of members for such a small scope is not really sustainable. In the future, if the number of members increases and it looks like they can go out into the big bad world on their own, a decision to spin it out into an independent project can be made. A taskforce at this stage provides an opportunity to prove the worth of such a project, attract more members and a reasonable compromise."

Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Digital Spy a reliable source?

Hi all. What is the current attitude towards Digital Spy in peer reviews and assessments? Is current consensus that it is a reliable source, or would an aticle be denied GA status if it referenced it? The JPStalk to me 11:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess it would depend on what you're referencing. I know I've used it when they have reviewed TV shows. What is its use?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems to meet WP:RS in that it is quoted/referred to by quite a few other reliable sources[2], but as Bignole notes, I'd also consider how it is being used. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting! At the moment, this article says that Matt Smith had auditioned for the title role in Sherlock. (It's borderline trivia, but relevant because of the shared creative team.) The JPStalk to me 13:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
In general, I try and look at even how NY Times is using information. In this case, I think it's ok. It' clearly attributing the information to a reliable source. It's quoting that source directly (so they aren't trying to "claim" something they "heard" via some anonymous source). Plus, the site has a 10 year history and it's not user that puts points in its favor. I say you can use it, but with all web-based sources use it wisely and sparinly. Always make sure it's attributing information to real people and not just "sources" and quotes are always nice because it takes subjectivity out of what that source has said.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the stuff they do is reliable, some isn't. As Bignole said, some news articles they produce are just reiterating what's been reported elsewhere, but at least they tell you that. You can always go to the real source, then. Their interviews, reviews, etc are RS. Overall I think the site is a RS, as they are owned by Hachette Filipacchi Médias, an international magazine and website publisher with titles such as Elle, Car & Driver, Road & Track and Premiere under its umbrella, and they are considered RS. You should always be careful that a source is correct. Even the LA Times, Grauniad, NY Times and such print errors occasionally. You have to use some common sense, but an article shouldn't be denied GA status simply because it has DS is listed in the references. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Any precedent for writing one article about two episodes?

I have enough sources gathered together to write one decent article about "West End Girls (D:TNG episode)", "Going Down the Road, Part 1 (D:TNG episode)" and "Going Down the Road, Part 2 (D:TNG episode)". The three episodes are intrinsically linked and aired over the course of three weeks. I doubt I could write an article about "West End Girls" by itself and a second about "Going Down the Road", because there was more attention given to GDtR in the press and such.

  • Has an article been created before that joins more than one episode with different titles?
  • If not, would it be a problem if I did it?
  • What should I title the article (the three episodes were released on DVD titled Jay and Silent Bob do Degrassi, which could be an option

Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is an official name for all three together, I think it would probably be best to leave out the "West End Girls". The other two, though, I could certainly see covered under a single article since they are part 1/2, as just "Going Down the Road" (as an aside, why are those disambiguated when there are no other articles with those names?) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 19:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I think almost all episodes of the show had articles at one time and they were all disambiged that way before I even started editing the site. Now they all redirect to the specific section of the table in the relevant season articles, but none have been renamed. Since most episodes are titled after songs, this just happens to be one that was not. The only "official" title, if you could call it that, is Jay and Silent Bob do Degrassi, which is what the official FUNimation DVD release packaged them together as. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's an example All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural). If you want to do all three, that's fine in my opinion. Name the article after the two parter, and just include the other eps info and a redirect. No big deal. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Another example is The Best of Both Worlds (Star Trek: The Next Generation); it's also been done with The End of Time (Doctor Who). Note, though, in both cases the individual articles shared the same names. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I think "Jay and Silent Bob do Degrassi" would work if it is the official title used for the trilogy, and if you can give a reliable source for the term's use. Ωphois 04:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
You may not need an iron clad source on the name, if you can make a good argument that "Jay and Silent..." is what it's commonly known as, per WP:COMMON. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It would seem that if it's only known as that for the DVD, then it isn't the common usage. Especially since there are no Google news hits. I tried to do a Google Web search and restrict anything that would be simply selling the DVD to see if the episodes themselves were regularly mentioned as "JaSBdD", but even after almost 10 restrictions on websites the results were still coming up with ads for the DVD itself. Obviously there's no question that that is what the DVD is called, but I don't find much recourse that the episodes were commonly referred to as this by the public or professionals, just in packaging.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Most people don't know the names of TV episodes. I was barely aware they weren't just numbered till I started working on them here. The "Jay...." name is probably as recognizable to normal people as anything. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that is the case for Degrassi: The Next Generation, which displays the episode title on screen after the title sequence. 117Avenue (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll grant you that most people don't know episode names, but there's no way to tell what people assume the episodes are called. Just because a DVD is packaged a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that people automatically assume that was what the episodes were called....especially when they weren't officially called that. WP:COMMON doesn't dictate that retitle something completely different than it's original name. Now, if you're making an article on the DVD, that would be a different story. You could potentially make that article, and then just use all of the information you'd normally use for a film or a TV episode in the production and reception sections (indicate if they are reviewing the episodes or the DVD). Just make sure you indicate in the lead that "JaSBDD" is a DVD release of episodes blah blah blah....  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Have Jay and Silent Bob done any other appearances on the series? I seem to remember their having some involvement with it before? If so, perhaps an alternate approach might be a holistic article covering their work in the series (presuming there of course is plenty of coverage). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, they have appeared a number of times. Kevin Smith was due to appear in the pilot episode as a character, until prior engagements made it not happen. After the three appearances of himself with Jason Mewes in season 4, they returned for two episodes in season 5, and again in season 8 for a TV movie. It's an idea I will look into, thanks :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Bob the Builder episodes

This page directly has many issues. This page is the mail problem the others need work but can be done at another time. All of the episodes are not correct or confussing between the the US and UK titles. Also the page has two different formats going. it needs to be refreshed. The air dates I am not sure that they are correct. Something needs to be done about this article. This is all I can think of art this time but I am sure there is alot more wrong and need s to be fixed. Hope this helps so far and we can do something about the articleSaylaveer (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay...are you asking for help fixing it, help figuring out what needs fixing, or just bringing it to greater attention? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 22:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
i am just bringing this issue up and some help fixing it. I think I know what needs fixing Saylaveer (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment: italic article titles

An RfC is in progress questioning regarding the italicizing of article titles through DISPLAYTITLE. The guideline currently restricts the use of this feature to "special cases" per the previous RfC at Template talk:Italic title#RFC: Should this be used?. The current RfC questions whether WikiProjects have the right/ability to determine if it should be used on additional titles, and if it should be allowed to be used at all. Discuss is at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Request for comment: Use of italics in article names. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 23:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review of Smallville (season 2) and Smallville (season 9)

I'm having the articles Smallville (season 2) and Smallville (season 9) that mainly this user has been working on, but since I've started working on them-season 9 I have contributed more than the later-peer viewed. They haven't seen any reviews yet, so I thought anyone from the Television Project interested could pop in and review them? Season 9 can be found here and Season 2 can be found here. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. ChaosMasterChat 14:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Television Production Music Museum - Page Inclusion?


 Our museum website is referenced a number of times in Wikipedia,

Television Production Music Museum

Can we add a page regarding the museum and it's television music preservation efforts?

We are non-profit and would appreciate the opportunity to be included in Wikipedia.

The museum does not have a brick and mortar location. We have found that we can serve many more people with their research and our resources can extend farther without the obvious expense associated with physical kiosk locations.

Opening up the existence of the museum in Wikipedia would better inform the world of our preservation efforts and ultimately guide more people/production companies to donate material for preservation. We don't make money doing this. It is a labor of love.

Are these things sufficient to be included in Wikipedia?

I would sincerely appreciate your support with our inclusion in Wikipedia. This inclusion would open so many doors, that are currently closed, to our preservation efforts.


Terry Wilkie Tvpmm (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Television Production Music Museum

No, per the answer already left on the user's talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 04:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Family Guy episode

There is currently a discussion for deletion of the Family Guy article Road to... (Family Guy) located here. Comments on the matter are welcomed. Ωphois 23:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural Featured Topic Candidate

Supernatural (season 1) is up for Featured Topic nomination here. Would anyone mind please reviewing it? Thanks. Ωphois 15:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review of Glee (season 1)

Comments would be appreciated at the peer review page. Thanks! CycloneGU (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Accessing newspaper archives

I have been trying to improve articles such as Beauty and the Beast (TV series), Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Murphy Brown so that it has reliable third person information especially for television shows from 1970's to 1990's period. I feel too many seem to rely on first person info. Although its being easy getting information from archives of the New York Times. How are myself and others supposed to get any usable info by accessing the newspaper articles because others like the Washington Post you have to pay for it has anyone got suggestions.Dwanyewest (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your local library may pay for online access to newspaper archives for its members. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
And the WP:RESOURCE Exchange may be able to help. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information this is useful in terms for British shows I am sure I not sure so sure for some American shows since I am based in the UK. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

These really need sorting out in terms of merging!

I really do think these articles below are long overdue in terms of whether they should be merged or not.

List of The Shield episodes, Human Weapon, My Little Pony (TV series) Dwanyewest (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

FAR for Cheers

I have nominated Cheers 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritzpoll (talkcontribs) 08:12, March 10, 2009

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:45, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Charmed mergers

see Talk:List of Charmed episodes#Charmed (season_5)_and_Charmed_(season_6). -- User:Docu

Notability and fiction

List of Desperate Housewives episodes nominated at FLRC

I have nominated List of Desperate Housewives episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Episode template

Just came across Template:Degrassi episodes. Is this the current practice? I'm not completely sure how it works, but I think it updates the episode number automatically. I've never seen it in use anywhere else. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that is current practice for anyone beyond Degrassi editors. At least, this is the first I've ever seen it. I don't really understand the need for it. It isn't hard or type consuming to manually put in an episode number when you add a new one to the table.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that's what I thought too. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The number of episodes is written on three pages, and I didn't want to fill up the edit history with such minor changes. It is a time saving template, and updates without anyone having to log in at the correct time every day. I would be honoured if my idea spread to other sub-projects of WP:TV. 117Avenue (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the servers could handle it. Alternatively, do what other articles about Soap operas do, and update the count at the end of the week. I'm concerned about correct attribution per Creative Commons. The articles the template is transcluded in are changed daily, but there is no attribution in the page history to show that a change has been made. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Plus there is an issue with special episodes. I don't know how the template works, but what happens when you have two episodes combined into a single episode, but they are still considered two separate episodes by series count?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
In response to Matthewedwards, I was planing to only update it once a week. But we both know how overzealous the Degrassi fans are, and the one doing it wouldn't read the note saying update the prose. In response to Bignole, it is coded for the episode count on the list of episode page, and will be updated whenever there's news on future dates. I have asked about counting the special episodes (here) as one episode, but was told use the current count of half hours, which is how the series airs in syndication. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense that we would disregard how the makers see an episode and write it up in favor of our condensed coding techniques. That would require editors to arbitrarily determine where an episode should be split, and when you have extended episodes like that you cannot guarantee that you picked the spot where the makers originally intended to split it (as some episodes are 42 mins, some are 45 mins, and even some hour long series have 38 minute episodes in some cases).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The production numbers come from the producers themselves. One even tweeted the fans to tell them the August 5 episode was number 200,[3] and its his count, not ours, because the number 200 was written into the dialog three times that episode, which would have to have been done before we extended that table that far. 117Avenue (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume that's for Degrassi, but I'm referring more to this in a general sense. I'm not sure this is something that should be applied across the board, and if it isn't then it probably shouldn't be at Degrassi either since we have been moving away from specialized templates (deleting many series infoboxes and character boxes in favor of the general infobox/character boxes). For example, there is much confusion over Smallville's 200th episode. The writers and producers are claiming episode 4 of the upcoming season will be the 200th episode, and as far as they are concerned that will be the episode they write as the 200th episode. Unfortunately, the studio contradicts that and indicated that the season prior only aired 21 (as opposed to 22) episodes, classifying Absolute Justice as a single broadcast of two produced episodes that were merged into a single entity. As such, we treat it based on the most logical sense (i.e. if a DVD box set is saying "21 episodes" then for us to say "22 episodes" would just look ridiculous) and the table itself contains two production numbers, and the season ten page will have to contain a special note explaining how episode 199 is also technically episode 200. Obviously, this specific situation where it affects a major milestone does not always occur, but there are plent of situations where shows do extended episodes, or they merge two separately produced episodes and it can screw things up when doing basic episode counts. Sometimes you have to put two figures into a single cell of the table.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC - Talk:Prisoner_(TV_series)#Multiple_Roles

Could we please have some input at Talk:Prisoner_(TV_series)#Multiple_Roles regarding very crufty lists that creep up on this article? The JPStalk to me 18:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


Glee (season 1) has been nominated as a Featured list at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Glee (season 1)/archive1. During my review, I've brought up a point that could ultimately result in it not being passed. My feeling is that the season page is a summary of Glee (TV series), whereas it should be the other way around. Either that, or the season page just shouldn't exist because the series is only one season long so far. A lot of work has gone into both articles and it would be a shame for it to go to waste. If anybody here can help or advise the editors on what steps to take, or even tell them I'm wrong, I'm sure they would appreciate it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw your comments and I feel like that is a common issue for just about all season list pages, especially the first season for shows. By default, the list pages don't contain a lot of what I call true production info because they'd fall into a void where they probably contained enough info to be more than a list but not enough to pass an FAC as comprehensive article status. I think that's why list pages contain basic info and their episode pages get the more descriptive stuff.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Currently, Frickative has copied the entirety of Glee (TV series) to a Sandbox to work on whittling as much of the season-specific info out and work it into the main Glee (season 1) article. The only issue with this is, as has been noted, that it might be crossing the line between "list" and "article" and not be able to be clearly defined as either, causing it to be wasted. To date, she's worked information out but, I think, not put that information anywhere. Most of the episode list articles for a show season show much less info than what is contained in Glee (season 1); for instance, 24 (season 1) shows plot, subplots, and twists, and a full list of characters (I like this for using in the candidate article, I may incorporate this setup myself) (changed mind, not FL itself), but then lists the episodes, a tiny blurb on the DVD, and sayonara. Lost (season 1) has the same type of setup (though not as pretty) listing Crew, Cast, Episodes, DVD. Glee takes an approach to include information on the music included as that is an integral part of each show; perhaps this should be limited to the episode articles and Glee Cast discography or such, but there is still more info that the other two examples do not use in their articles. So clearly, we can cut information since the episode articles (all 22 have one) list everything in any case, but is that the right way to go? CycloneGU (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent] It appears on the FLC page and elsewhere that this has been addressed now. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to help decide whether this should be a FL, you are welcome to pop over. =) CycloneGU (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the standard for a TV character to have an article?

What is the accepted standard for having a fictional television character to have an article because I am trying to find and add third person person for under sourced popular 80s and 90s shows with mixed results. But one thing that troubles me is the number of character articles which seem to rely on primary evidence and have no third person info and don't seem to demonstrate notability. I think some of the examples I have displayed below for example should be deleted or merged. What are other peoples opinions? Dwanyewest (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Power Rangers Katherine Hillard Adam Park possible merge

Golden Girls Blanche Devereaux Stanley Zbornak I think they should be deleted

Different strokes Phillip Drummond (character) deleted

I don't know about the power rangers one, but you must have not watched TV in the 80s, because I'm sure there exists enough sources for the other two. [4][5][6][7] These were major characters on long running very high profile sitcoms. I guess if you put them up for AfD, someone will be forced to add a couple sources, or you could do it yourself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Peregrine. The character of Blanche almost surely deserves its own article, probably the Diffrent Strokes one too. I never watched either show, but they were main characters of extremely popular TV shows. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Notability is not inherent reliable third person info has to shown the subeject is notable. See WP:INHERENT I managed to supply third person info for Tommy Oliver Dwanyewest (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm well aware of that, thank you. What I meant, what I thought was clear that I meant, was that these are main characters of highly popular shows, both critically and publicly, and so I doubt that there simply is no critical commentary and other third-party coverage on the characters. Now, it may not be online. It might be necessary to pay a visit to a large library and pour through old newspaper articles and borrow books, but I'm almost sure the sources exists if someone could be bothered to look. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I imagine some of these articles were written before some wikipedia got went mainstream but surely until someone either finds online or via reliable books, newspaper archives etc there is isn't much point keep articles for the sake of them otherwise keeping them. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, but it's all in good faith. Anyways, why don't you work on redrecting the thousands of articles that really don't have sources. Those two just happen to be some of the few where sources exist. How did you pick them, by the way? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I have no interest or desire in redirecting hundreds if not thousands of one note TV character articles. If Wikipedia's guidelines are that articles should demonstrate notability and have it supported by third persons evidence. Why do some some articles exist if they meet that criteria. My problem with your assertion Peregrine Fisher that articles without sourcing shouldn't be deleted because they are written in good faith is bad articles TV characters or not are kept because of reasons like of reasons like other crap exists or its its interesting and it exists. I feel to many TV character articles are merely vehicle for a overdetailed plot summary. In response to your question Peregrine Fisher I was recently adding third person info to articles such as The Golden Girls, Tommy Oliver and Justin Stewart I chose the examples I did because they were related to some of my most recent edits. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I meant our disagreement was in good faith (in that I respect your opinion on wanting to improve the wiki), not that the articles were created in good faith (although they were, and probably quite a while ago). I see you that you know about Power Ranger stuff, so you'd be the best judge of the first article (I've never heard of the character). Anyways, I'm not saying other stuff exists, I'm saying you happen to have picked a couple of the most prominent (like top 50) of eighties characters. So, keep up the good work, but those just happen to be crazy notable characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
To answer the original question, the standard is that multiple, independent, non-trivial mentions in reliable sources exist. Not that such references are currently included in the article, mind you. Herein lies much of the confusion--some see articles where it's obvious that the article doesn't reference sufficient sources and assume that the topic doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion. The current state of an article is almost always inferior to its ideal state--even our best FAs have room for improvement. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential Changes to WAF

There is currently a discussion over at WP:BIO with regard to how we present fictional characters' names in the lead paragraph of their articles (i.e. whether they should be listing commonly used names, or any full variation that is reliably sourced as they do for real people). It would be good for the WAF guideline to be an accurate reflection of the community consensus on this issue so that we can identify it as such in the actual guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be really good of more people came over to the discussion. Right now it has become largely stagnent, and only about 20 people have provided their opinions. We'd really appreciate a wider sample size. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinions requested at MOSTV

Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Vampire Diaries

Just letting people know that The Vampire Diaries season 1 (Incubator) and The Vampire Diaries season 2 (Incubator) exist. They need a lot of work and I'll be doing a lot myself. But the great amount of people that view this page, any help would be greatly appreciated! Jayy008 (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone will probably beat me to it but related to your project, I'm planning on fixing up the Characters article for Vampire diaries. It's all in universe plot summary stuff instead of casting, character portrayal, actor interviews, etc., like it should be. So if you happen to stumble on any sources in your efforts that pertain to that sort of thing, let me know (or just dump them on the Characters talk page). I'll try to help with your project if I can but I'm distracted by two massive things I want to tackle at the moment. Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep. I'm happy to help! The same goes for you if you find any good casting info, that would be great for season 1. In the character page are the regulars still going to be headered once you've completed it? Jayy008 (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
That's the idea. I'll have to do some comparing to other similar articles around WP:TV (if I remember right the Buffy characters page looks pretty good) to make sure I'm getting it right. But I'm attempting to do the same to True Blood (which is in much worse shape) so I'll probably be a while. For now I dropped an "in universe" tag on it so that other people who do that sort of thing more regularly than me can tackle it if it takes me forever and a day to get there. I figure I should go outside and stop thinking about vampire shows sometime this week.  :D Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to see stuff done correctly, look at the Simpsons pages. Not every one is good, but I'd say look at Homer to see a really good character article, and look at the first season to see good episode and season pages. They also have a mildly active project with people who can answer questions. The Lost project used to be good, but I think they've died down since it ended. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip but these are both "list of" articles. I thought of going to Buffy for that because I know that while it does have articles for many of the individual characters that are in great shape, there is also a list article. Or am I remembering that wrong? In any case, I definitely poke my head in there for active members if I need some help. I've gotten a slow start on the Lafayette character on True Blood; deleted all of the plot summary out and added a wee bit of info about the cast and character depiction. Only a small start but I was hoping that if I set the example some others might jump in. I figure, left to my own devices, I'll probably be done about 10 years after the show goes off the air. Heh. Millahnna (mouse)talk 05:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to say look at The_Simpsons_(season_1) or List_of_The_Simpsons_episodes. Or for characters, look at Homer Jay Simpson. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Got it. Don't know what's wrong with me today. My reading comprehensions is borked. Millahnna (mouse)talk 06:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No prob. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Remember with the Buffy pages that the regulars have their own articles, which is why there's only a small piece of info to each. No characters in "TVD" do. Jayy008 (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural FAC

I have put No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural) up for FAC here. Would anyone mind reviewing? Thanks. Ωphois 21:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

New code for Infobox television episode

New code for Template:Infobox television episode using Template:Infobox is now ready to be implemented. It'll allow for easy customization and tweaking, perhaps it will also aid in creating consistency across episode articles. Have a look at these test cases. If no objections are made, I see no reason for this to remain in the sandbox.–FunkyVoltron talk 15:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Now proposed at Template talk:Infobox television episode#Code Updates. Please comment there. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion nominations of Transformers

There is a mass nomination of Transformer related articles such as Buzzsaw (Transformers), Alice (Transformers) and a few others. My concern is some article use websites such as [8] and [9] as third person sources. Surely these websites aren't considered reliable or independent sources of information are or they not is the question. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Series Overview

This issue, in my opinon, should be resolved. Why include a table listing EXACTLY everything that is listed a few inches below? All you need to do is scroll down. It is incredibly redundant. I was pointed here by User:Begoon because of a disagreement on List of V (2009 TV series) episodes. The user suggested that whatever format is used, should be used on all episode lists. I agree with this also. My main issue, first and foremost, is with neatness. The difference between Law & Order, "V", the X-Files, and Smallville is purely neatness. Smallville, being the "most neat", doesn't have a series overview. X files then gets into a whole buch of "-"s, "V" gets messed up with the table of contents and the overview, while Law and Order is honestly the only "neat" one with the overview (but then again, there is still quite a few "n/a"s). The second problem is: isn't the overview a total redundancy with the lead and table of contents? The lead is supposed to give an overview of the whole series's episodes with the table of contents allowing you to click on different sections (whether its ratings or season 5) and give you a more elaborate explination of what was "overviewed" in the lead. If an "overview" is added, this defeats the purpose of both. The lead is basically the series overview in prose format. Also, I noticed that 90% of episode lists on wikipedia are inconsistant with the MOS of the date. Instead of listing two full years 2001-2002, it should be presented as 2001-02 (unless it is 1999-2000). Firthermore, half the articles list each season as "Season 1 (2001-02)", when in fact it would be less confusing to list that as "Season 1: 2001-02". ChaosMasterChat 22:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on the date issue only, the MOS used to recommend full closing dates (2001-2002), so that is likely why that's the trend. And the MOS section in questions says that though ending dates are usually abbreviated to 2 digits, the full date is acceptable.— TAnthonyTalk 22:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the Smallville episodes list article is also a featured article, shouldn't all and future TV series episode lists follow its precedents, such as the exclusion of overview sections? (I'm not actually sure if featured status does affect precedent, actually). Overview tables look like they would be more appropriate for the TV series' articles themselves if not for the episode list articles. Additionally, does anyone have any ideas how a TV series with individual named seasons, like Power Rangers, deal with this issue in episode lists? I introduced a series overview table to it recently, but now it looks overly space-consuming and doesn't seem to belong on its respective series article either. In addition, it seems redundant to make individual episode list articles for each individual season when each season has its own article. --Rebel shadow (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Smallville is featured, and there are other featured lists that do include the overview table. I'm a proponent against it for redundancy reasons. As for Power Rangers. I think it looks a bit much simply because of how many seasons the show has had. Once you get to the point that you have to scroll through the overview table, I think you've reached the point where it itself is no longer as useful as it is claimed to be. One way to de-clutter the table, which won't actually make it shorter but actually thinner, would be to remove the Network, Children's Block, and DVD release sections. The first two are irrelvant, and the DVD section is empty. No need to have something that doesn't actually exist.
What do you mean about "individual episode list articles for each individual season"? P.S. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (television)#Updates to the MOS regarding overview tables and many more changes proposed for the TV MOS.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OECC

I invite participants in this WikiProject to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OECC.—Wavelength (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oz (TV series)

Oz (TV series) has a lot of small character articles that need to be merged into an overall list of characters. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Character Discussion

I am writing to discuss what should be done with the Buster Baxter article. I am not sure as to whether it should get its own article due to notability and sourcing issues - the entire article is almost a plot summary. We are currently having a discussion on the talk page of Talk:List of Arthur characters. Please feel free to voice your opinion, here. Thanks! --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD discussion page - The Most Hated Family in America

There is an AFD for The Most Hated Family in America, which is a television documentary film that was written and presented by the BBC's Louis Theroux about the family at the core of the Westboro Baptist Church (info from lede of article).

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC for Hercules: The Legendary Journeys episode articles

See Talk:Hercules: The Legendary Journeys#Should individual episodes have their own articles? for discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

All Grown Up (comedy)

I created the above article in December 2008 (when I was a newish editor) and used as a reference source.

Another editor today has queried whether this is acceptable as a source.

My question here is two-fold:

  1. Is 'The Futon Critic' a reliable source? (the only discussion I can find didn't conclusively state one way or another - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Futon_Critic)
  2. Can anyone provide reliable sources if it is not (or as well as!)

Any advice would be much appreciated - if the consensus is that it is not a reliable source (or that the article should not exist) - then I will delete the article (I don't even know why I created it - it's not a programme I would have expected to have heard about, being in the UK, so why I created an article is beyond me!)

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

To at least answer your first question, it depends on what you are using The Futon Critic for. If they are conducting their own interviews, then they are fine. If they are providing a review of a show, and it is by a staff writer and not some independent fan who submitted something to them, then you should be fine. If they can at least cite the specific source they acquired the information from (e.g., The Trades, The Times, or a specific person and not some anonymous "crew member") and you cannot access the original source material then they should be fine. Any other use is probably not that reliable and shouldn't be used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, here are the 6 references I used, to help people judge!
  1. "CHICAGO ( -- The latest development news, culled from various wire reports each morning: ALL GROWN UP (CBS) - Mike McDonald ("Mad TV") has signed on as one of the three male leads in comedy project. He'll play Russell, an acerbic single guy whose two best friends have recently become parents. CBS had signed McDonald to a talent holding deal earlier this year."
  2. "CHICAGO ( -- Audiences Unlimited, a company devoted to distributing free studio audience tickets, has announced the filming dates for the various sitcom pilots in development at the major networks (all times pacific): ...ALL GROWN UP (CBS) Wednesday, April 23 - 5:00PM Group of long-time friends deal with the fact that two of them are about to become parents. Starring Charles Esten (Whose Line, On The Spot), Jay Lacopo and Michael McDonald. Prod. by Ben Affleck/Matt Damon. Min. Age 18 (CBS Studio Center)"
  3. "CHICAGO ( -- An addendum to this morning's development news, culled from various wire reports: ALL GROWN UP (CBS) - "Spin City" alumnus Alexander Chaplin has been added to the ensemble cast of the CBS comedy pilot "All Grown Up," about childhood friends who adjust to two of them becoming parents."
  4. "CHICAGO ( -- The latest development news, culled from various wire reports each morning: ALL GROWN UP (CBS) - Amanda Detmer ("A.U.S.A.") has joined the Warner Bros. TV pilot."
  5. "CHICAGO ( -- The latest development news, culled from various wire reports each morning: ALL GROWN UP (CBS) - Charles Esten and stage actress Laura Bell Bundy ("Hairspray") have been added to the cast of the comedy pilot from from Warner Bros. TV."
  6. "CHICAGO ( -- The latest development news, culled from various wire reports each morning: ALL GROWN UP (CBS) - Jay Lacopo has been added to the cast of the Eye comedy pilot."
I'd still appreciate any other RS sourcing (offline, probably, as I can't find anything else online) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirection of House episodes

Seems I've started a content dispute over my redirection of short, unsourced articles of House (TV series) episodes. See Talk:Here Kitty for a discussion. A couple editors are just ramming through and undoing my redirects because it seems they disagree with WP:EPISODE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox ordering

I asked this before about how the infobox should be ordered for cast, but I didn't bring it up for discussion. There seems to be two ways of doing it; Alphabetically and Credit order followed by order they joined the show. To me, alphabetical has no purpose. How does everyone think it should be? Jayy008 (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm participating in this discussion here. I'm questioning whether cast should be listed in the infobox even if they are no longer "starring" on the show, and if old stars are listed, shouldn't there be parentheticals as to when they were on the show? My preference is to list the current stars first, then the prior stars by season. I have no idea what's "right."--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
We shouldn't give preference to the stars of the currently airing season. That becomes meaningless as soon as the show is ended, and certainly doesn't make "previous stars" any less notable than "current stars". I have no idea how the ordering should go, other than no special emphasis should be put on the real-time chronological appearance of characters on a show. BOVINEBOY2008 18:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, when the show ends it will have all of them anyway. That seems a standing consensus, judging by many other users edits and TV show pages. The only thing that gets disputed is the order. Jayy008 (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
2-ish¢ with a question or two...
What is the criteria for inclusion of a cast member in the infobox? Is it recurring cast drawn from secondary sources? listed in the opening credits? Something else?
If it's coming from a secondary source, it's unlikely that we should be truncating it. If it's based on the opening credits, we should stick with all the actors that have been listed throughout the series.
After that ordering the actors should be easy - either alphabetically or in the order in the credits. I'd think that the latter would be preferable unless:
  • The list is coming from a secondary source and includes actors that were never listed n the opening credits.
  • The cast list from the opening credits stayed the same over the course of the show, but the order shifted over time.
  • The contents of the cast list changed over time and it isn't possible to line the different sets up to give a coherent set. Usually due to a subtle order shift.
Regardless of that, if there have been drops or adds over time, then adding the year notes to all the actors would be a good idea.
- J Greb (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Inclusion is series regulars. No source, just drawn from the opening credits of episode 1. Then usually new series regulars in the order they joined. Unless it's ordered alphabetically, either way ALL series regulars are included in the infobox. A date thing has been tried before but it looks extremely messy when you can just go down to "characters" on the same page and it has ALL of that information. There is a third option I didn't mention which was this: Smallville (TV series) has a link in the infobox to move further down the page. It's only used in some and I personally disagree but it could be a good compramise. Jayy008 (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem listing all the stars, but it still makes sense to indicate which seasons the actor starred in. See, for example Weeds (TV series), which lists seasons, although I acknowledge there doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency. See, for example Two and a Half Men, which doesn't seem to make any sense when you look in the body and you see the current, former, and recurring stars, compared to the infobox. Another example, Entourage (TV series), seems to do more what I think Jay wants to do, which is list all the cast and no season identification - then, it goes into incredible detail in the body. In any event, in the absence of consistency, it would seem that you can do whatever makes sense, unless there's a consensus for that particular series to do otherwise. (I don't like the way Smallville does it - you might as well not include the parameter at all in the infobox.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I dislike the way Smallville does it too for that exact reason. And the only reason I object to that information in in the infobox is because there's no need to dublicate information already included further down in the article. Jayy008 (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
To some extent, there's always going to be some duplication in the infobox as most of what's in it will also be in the body. Generally, the purpose of the infobox is to see a summary of things at a glance. The issue then becomes how much detail in the infobox is the right amount. If you use my idea of identifying each star by season(s) (he says becoming salesy again), then you could even list the stars alphabetically (which is easier to maintain) because you don't have to worry who starred first or who is currently starring.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── From experience, you order based on order in opening credits. You don't rearrange when someone is removed from the show because when the show finally ends there will be no "current" cast. To remove/reorder based on that would be subjecting the page to recentism and not really what is preferred. The reason Smallville just has a link in the infobox (which is suggested at WP:MOSTV) is because Smallville is a 10 season long show and to list everyone who has been/is a regular cast member would be extremely long. Given that the series already has a lot of executive producers to its credit, the infobox would be unnecessarily long. Since casts are usually discussed in-depth later and exec. producers are not, that is why the box just links to the appropriate section of the article. This should really only be done when you have a lot of cast members (ala Lost, as they should do this given how many characters are "regular cast" on that show).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The concern I would have with "adding to the bottom" as seasons go on is that it give more weight to the initial season, the reverse of recentism. If the production has a "tiered" credits, the order can be affected by actors leaving the show, actors joining, and/or actors being "promoted" or "demoted" in tiers. Without tier shifting it should be within bounds to merge season to season credit lists. With tier shifting either we skew to one season or aim for a neutral sort.
I agree though, once you hit a long ensemble due to a show's longevity, pointing to the main section is preferable to trying to pick and arbitrary "short list".
And taking a second thought, notating comings and goings may not be proper for the infobox. It may be over detailed in this case.
- J Greb (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere in WP:MOSTV where it discusses stars in the infobox (maybe I missed it), including the Smallville link. I see other things related to the infobox and a lot related to the body. I don't see how one can be accused of "recentism" if one lists all the stars and identifies which seasons they starred in. As for length, that would be an issue no matter how you ordered it if you're going to list all of the stars for a series in the box. If you list the stars pursuant to the opening credits, then you have to grapple with listing first the stars that are currently starring and then some order for past stars, which to me sounds like a lot of work for very little gain.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Last sentence in the first paragraph of "Infobox": "If the cast list gets too large you might consider linking to a section of the article instead." - Unless you know where to look, you have to read the whole thing to see it. As for ordering. If you include the season they starred, regardless of order, you're simply creating unnecessary wordage in the infobox. Look at a series like E.R., which has an extremely long list of actors that have come and gone. Including a season range for each one would force the infobox to probably go all the way down the page. You couldn't do a range header, because not all have the same set of ranges. Recentism would only apply if you give favortism to the newest "cast" over the historical cast, because eventually the series will end and there won't be a "newest" cast. The same goes for ordering. It's always best to be a neutral as possible, and being neutral in this instance is just keeping them in the order in which the show lists them, and in which they joined the show. This doesn't favor the older cast over the newer cast, it simply keeps it objective.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not a lot of work as the only show I can think of that has it listed alphabetically is Lost. Others are credit order so there's no work to do, just see who joins as a regular next season and add it onto the end. I believe the recentism comment was about only including current cast members, well, that's what I got from it anyway. Jayy008 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Bignole, thanks for showing me the sentence. I even did a find and didn't see it. Sigh. I don't agree it's unnecessary wordage to show seasons (I really prefer the clarity), but at least with respect to the 90210 infobox, I'll concede as long as Jay doesn't think it's much work and doesn't mind doing the not much work. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
You may like the extra clarify, but a similar issue was brought up over at WP:FILM with regard to writing credits and how to attribute story, original characters, and screenplay. One of the options was to include something similar to what you mention next to each's name. The general consensus was that it simply cluttered up the infobox when test examples were created. It actually becomes more distracting to look at, especially when considering that the info presented is already jammed together into a tight little box. Even for shows with say only 10 characters over the course of 5 seasons. The infobox is supposed to be neat and concise, and to me adding additional clarifiers next to each character (as you'd have to do it next to each one even if it was identical to the previous one) becomes more of a nuissance (personal opinion). If a reader sees a cast list in the infobox, all they need to know at that point is that this is a list of everyone who was a regular character on the show. When they get to the cast section of the article, that is where clarification should take place that Character X left the show in Season Y, while Character Z was brought on board to replace them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the extra information, but a "general consensus" in one discussion doesn't mean there's a general consensus, uh, generally. I think the inconsistency in the articles bears that out. If I had my way (which I rarely have), I would list ONLY those actors who are currently starring, and when the show is over, I would add the former stars to the list. In my view, if I look at an infobox of a current show, "starring" implies starring now. If I look at an infobox of an old show, "starring" implies those people who starred on the show when it was on the air (let's not even get into syndication). Maybe I'm in a minority (won't be the first time), maybe not.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── BigNole has managed to describe it much better than I did. I'll just go with what that user said to avoid confusions with my explanations. PS. Bbb23, I used to agree about the "starring now" thing but since it has individual articles for each season, since it's for the TV show 90210 season 1-3 all information, it should include, all information. For the moment, it seems the consensus is to keep all regulars in the infobox (I will still await more opinions). However, there isn't a consensus about the order. I say to avoid a lot of hard work, if it's already in credit order, maintain it as it's easy. BUT for example with Lost, it would be extremely hard to change it now, so keep it alphabetical. What does everyone think about that, order wise? Jayy008 (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to keep all the actors in the infobox, then whether it's ordered by current/credit/appearance or alphabetically, it doesn't much matter to me. The only problem see by starting off with the non-alphabetical is that someone in the future may have to make a judgment call as to when to switch to alphabetical (because it's too long a la Lost), and you might get some flak at the switch.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's not really "starting off" as the only shows I can find in alphabetical is Lost and Heroes, so it's more like sticking to the current. For a show like One Tree Hill, on it's eighth season, it's infobox has been credit order for as long as I can recall, so it's very long, but it's managable. But I see what you mean about others, I couldn't even attempt Lost, that would be too difficult. Jayy008 (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
To Bbb, does Lost, 90210, The Simpsons, or any other main article for a series say "this is the article about the current season"? It just says this is an article about the show. The infobox itself doesn't say "As of Date X" either. So, if I said, "Is Tabitha Wilson a regular character?" - the only answer can be "yes". You can clarify after the fact that she isn't a regular after season one, but if I'm viewing season one for the first time she'll always be a series regular. You cannot negate the existence of something because it no longer applies. In this case, it's almost misleading to the reader to suggest that the actors that appear in season 3 are the only stars of the show. Yes, I see your point that people might assume that Jessica Walter is still on the show ever 3 seasons. If say Blair Redford becomes a regular for season three, someone could assume just as easily that Blair has been a starr of the show since it began.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Until they take the time to read the article and see otherwise. Jayy008 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Bignole, I think we're probably beating a dead character to death, but I can see your point that a user's perspective can change how the user interprets the information. Unfortunately, we have to somehow decide who is the typical user looking at the infobox, and that's not easy to do. Maybe we should change the template to have two parameters, one "currently starring" and the other "formerly starring".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Please make a new section if you want to do that, I only made this to discuss the order. Nobody's had the issue about who goes in there before (to my knowlage). Jayy008 (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, well, one can't necessarily control the comments once one opens up a discussion, but I was just making an offhand comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I know. I'm only saying to keep it in it's scope because if we go into something else people will begin commenting on that and not what I wanted a consensus on. This ammount is obviously fine, but I would like some more opinions because then things can be set in stone. Jayy008 (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
IMO, order should be based on screen crediting and when they arrived on the show so as not to place undue weight on any one character or time period.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
A much better way to explain it, thanks. So what happens with Lost though? Jayy008 (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, we wait here to see if everyone else agrees/disagrees. Then we move this discussion to WP:MOSTV as a proposed amendment to the appropriate section. After that, we go through articles as we see them and just adjust. Personally for Lost, I think they'd benefit more from the Smallville approach. They have 35 actors listed in the starring section, that's kind of a lot to try and digest when you're just trying to do a brief skim of the material there. It's like looking at IMDb. I don't know the series, so I don't know who came first and what the opening credits look like (some shows don't list names till after the title card sequence when the episode has officially started). Lost seems to have a lot of other problems, so it would probably be best to leave that one till last anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Got it. Smallville appraoch would be best. Jayy008 (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about application of Wikipedia:Notability (films)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(films)#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FThe_Most_Hated_Family_in_America. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Television articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Television articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Spartacus: Gods of the Arena

Spartacus: Blood and Sand fans (or eager WikiProject Television members), feel free to assist with the expansion of the prequel mini-series Spartacus: Gods of the Arena. Details are somewhat limited at the moment, but the six-part series is scheduled to air on Starz starting in January. Assistance with expanding the article to Good or even Featured status would be much appreciated, and many more details should be emerging in the near future since the premiere is not too far away. Just spreading the word since the article was just started today. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Glee task force

A Glee task force has been started by Frickative, and already has four members. Any users interested in contributing, please feel free to do sol the page is located at WP:GLEE! :) Also, question: I have added the task force to the main page; is there anything else that needs to be done? I know the task force needs to be added to the WP:TV template. Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinion sought

The new category Category:Climbing Great Buildings has been nominated for deletion. I'm trying to canvass as wide a body of opinion as possible. Please comment at the category's entry on the deletions page. Thanks. Folks at 137 (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Foreign broadcasters of American shows

What is Wikiepedia's policy on foreign broadcasters of US programs because I see alot of channels attributed but no sources on things like Thundercats, Rugrats should they be removed or kept unless sourced. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This was/is talked about at WP:MOSTV (see talk page for long discussion that's technically still active), but overall the idea is that listing channels is just indisciminate information (exception being the channel of origin, who typically own the show, and if the show breaks some kind of record on a specific foreign channel). Other than that, you really should only list the countries that might air the series. Even then, really only noteworthy countries and you need sources regardless of country or channel.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There are Emmy Awards, and there are Emmy Awards..

Usually, we introduce award winning BLPs with phrases like " an Emmy Award winning.." or something similar. I recently came upon such an introduction, and after some research found out that the person did win indeed an Emmy Award: a Pacific Southwest Emmy Award, to be precise. Which let me to the realization that there are more than a dozen of local Emmy Award chapters out there, and they each hand out dozens of awards each year (cumulating to more than 1000 awards handed out each year). And, as it seems, all these awards are officially called "Emmy Award". What do we do about that? It's technically correct to say that every winner of every Emmy Award out there is "an Emmy Award winning" something. But, IMHO, it would be highly misleading to leave it at that. I'm not an expert on the subject (obviously), but to my mind "Emmy Award" means Primetime Emmy Award, and nothing else, I wasn't even aware of the local chapters until recently. Are these local awards even noteworthy? And if so, how should they be mentioned on the BLP's that have won them? --Conti| 20:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

An Emmy is an Emmy, even if it's for Daytime or a local award. As far as I know there are no WP standards establishing which awards may be more "important" than others except that some lesser-known ones may not be notable (like the Seesaw County Theatrical Awards or something). But I was under the impression that BLPs were actually not supposed to have "award-winning" descriptors in the introduction.— TAnthonyTalk 23:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it's not supposed to be like that, but I know that it's done on lots of articles out there. Either way, It'd feel rather odd to me if we would put all those Emmy Awards on the same level, considering that one is covered by the media every year in great detail, and all the others are, well, not. --Conti| 07:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
BLP's shouldn't have this detail. Please see WP:ACTOR#On-going_projects.2Fto_do_lists. And honestly, no articles should have it. BOVINEBOY2008 08:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, that sidesteps the issue quite neatly. Thanks! --Conti| 08:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
If its just a matter of inclusion, those with third party coverage should be included. If you find an external article not related to the award or the individual that covers the award, then I can't see why that wouldn't be notable. BOVINEBOY2008 13:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Viewing figures

It has always been the convention, at least for me, to round the viewing figures for shows in episode tables to two digits after the decimal point. Until yesterday, I had never seen the numbers not rounded (left at three). Every episode page I've seen whether I have edited it or not has always been to two. Even featured articles like List of Smallville episodes only have two. After an editor reformated a page [10], he changed the two digits to three. An edit war then broke out between him and a user/ip (same person) [11] on both episode lists for The Mentalist over two or three decimal places. Other editors have reverted this user/ip's edits, presumably thinking it was vandalism. The three of us began a discussion and decided to come here. Is there a guideline for rounding these figures? My thought was that it was just unnecessary precision and looked more natural with two. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And that was my point, to make it look more natural because i had never seen it listed as three to the right before. So I'm preferring the numbers be rounded off. Gino Harmon 15:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests

Hi, I've nominated Mother and Child Reunion at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for October 14, 2010, the anniversary date of the episode's initial airdate. Please visit the page and say whether you would like to see it on the Main page on that date. Thank you. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

C-SPAN improvement project

Because the TV channel C-SPAN falls under the scope of this WikiProject, I want to make an announcement, a disclosure and a request for assistance.

The announcement is that I am interested in updating and improving several articles and some non-article pages (such as categories) related to C-SPAN, its shows and related subjects.

The disclosure is that I work with C-SPAN's communications team, so I have a potential conflict of interest with the subject, and I've already posted a similar notice on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard discussion page. Also: this is not my primary account, but one I plan to use for potential COI topics; I've posted a thorough explanation of this account's creation on my user page.

The request is for your assistance. I intend for any edits I make to be constructive, although with the exception of non-controversial edits, that can be in the eye of the beholder. I've found in my early outreach / requests for help only silence, so I am hoping to find someone willing to look over my shoulder, and provide a non-conflicted perspective. I'll watchlist this page, but also feel free to leave a comment on my Talk page.

First things first, the articles Q&A (talk show) and Q & A (C-SPAN) are about the exact same C-SPAN series. I've proposed a merger on the former's Talk page, and while I suppose it's as unobjectionable an edit as can be, demonstrating good faith is important to me as I get started. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Metalocalypse episodes

Another editor and I are working on this article which is part of your project (I think) and we do not agree on what is and is not a copyright violation on the page. Much of the text can be find on other websites and what is and isn't a copyright violation isn't always clear. In my opinion, it's starting to look like we're not going to come to a conclusion so I'd like to ask editors here to contribute to the page and/or the conversation regarding the text. Any help with the article would be greatly appreciated. OlYellerTalktome 05:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Q&A replacement suggestion

I posted a request here recently (see above) regarding improvements to the Wikipedia article about the C-SPAN TV show Q&A. That has since been resolved, and my second wish is now to replace that article’s text with a better one of my drafting, available in my subspace here. This article is currently a stub and I have written an expanded version to include just a bit more information, with reliable sources (online and offline) to verify the material. I followed the MOS for TV series in re-organizing the page, and have added an infobox. As stated before, I have a potential COI with this subject, so I would appreciate any feedback from a non-conflicted point of view. If you like the replacement, please feel free to move it. If you have any questions, I’ll be watching this page and my Talk page. And since I don’t think this update is at all controversial, if there are no objections within a reasonable time period, I may just move it myself. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It reads completely neutral to me. – sgeureka tc 17:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, glad to hear it. I'll move it over shortly, then. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Soap character infoboxes

A recent merge discussion for {{Infobox soap character}} and {{Infobox soap character 2}} was opposed because of concern over the differences between many of the template fields. My primary objection to Version 2 is its multiplication of relationship fields by subdividing them by gender and other qualifications; for example, while V. 1 has "Children," V.2 has "Sons," "Daughters," "Adoptive sons," "Adoptive daughters," "Stepsons," and "Stepdaughters." {{Infobox soap character}} was created and adapted from discussion at WP:SOAPS, has received input from WP:TV and implemented some WP:TV changes like the removal of age parameters from fictional character templates. As noted in the failed deletion discussion of V. 2, {{Infobox soap character 2}} itself is a merge of two series-specific character templates. However, it seems like V. 2 and its expansion have gone unnoticed by the community at large (at least someone had the sense to remove "Great great grandchildren" LOL). I was hoping to get some input from this Project on V. 2 to get a broader assessment of its parameters; I opposed this merge but do think one is in order for the future if there is real consensus on the disparate fields.— TAnthonyTalk 06:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Tomorrow People

I'm curious. Not having worked a lot with tv series, I am wondering whether a tv show needs two infobox templates in the same article. I think the differentiation is occurring because the show was revived after a 22-year gap. For a lot of other shows, I know that there'd be a separate article (Battlestar Galactica is the example I am using here). However, this is program with a smaller scope (and smaller budget). I think that splitting them wouldn't be helpful, but I am not sure of the wisdom of using two templates here. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In general, I would say no simply because one infobox is long enough and two of them would probably stretch the length of the page. Is it possible to include everything in a single box and indicated which generation they appeared? Maybe also limit the cast listings to a simple "See here" link that goes to a section in the article to save space?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you aware of a couple working examples of this in the Wiki? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, not a lot of examples because every example I can think of they typically have a separate article. The only one that I have come across that would match your example would be Doctor Who, which has been a recurring program for like 40 years.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I have to wonder if putting both Tomorrow People shows together makes much sense. Do they have anything in common in their infoboxes besides the name? Similar actors or production crew/company?. If not, then I'd say make seperate infoboxes, just because they really are seperate productions. Mathewignash (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If they're that different, then one would have to argue that they aren't actually the same show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


Is IMDB a reliable source for the ammount of episodes a season will consist of? Jayy008 (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Will? No, because that's a future prediction that can change. They also are not a reliable source to identify names and airdates of future episodes either, because that information is often not based on reliable information itself as they have been caught with info that was clearly rumors or fan speculation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Also Starring

There are many shows that will bill some actors as "Also Starring", as apposed to the actors who are just starring. Some such shows are Oz, The Office (US), 30 Rock, and The X-Files. In most cases, they are listed as "Starring". Would it be better if we created an "Also Starring" category in the infobox instead? J52y (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that bring up notability issues? If somebody isn't listed on the credits as simply "starring" they're obviously not that important, I don't think they should be included in the infobox, it would become very long. Jayy008 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If someone is billed as "Also Starring", it's usually because they're important, but just not as important. Look at The Office (US). Most of the characters who are billed as also starring are in every episode.Same with Oz. I'm hard pressed to think of a case where someone who was billed as also starring wasn't important. Also, if lengths are concerned, perhaps look at the infoboxes for Lost and The Wire. Those are pretty long, and I'm not sure any infoboxes using the billing "also starring" would be any longer, except Oz, which wouldn't be much longer. J52y (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
"Also starring" still means they are a series regular, otherwise they would be "Special Guest Star" or just "Guest Star". For the longest time, House listed Olivia Wilde and Kal Penn as just "Also Starring" because they refused to update their opening title card. As such, Jesse Spencer and the other chick still appeared even when they weren't on the show for more than a couple of episodes (what has since been rectified). So, "Also starring" just means that they didn't put them in the opening titles (probably because they haven't changed the opening titles) but they are still receiving "series regular" status. Thus, no new category needs to be added.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

TV series list of character pages

Okay, let's say you have a wikipedia page for a TV series. Then you also have a page that is "List of characters" from that series. Do you need to cite third party sources for the characters list page or can primary or secondary sources (like the show credits, the TV series web site, a book on the series, etc.)? Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a rule regarding this. However, if you look at show pages characters usually aren't sourced. There's only some sources in the lead and casting section and usually there's no restriction of which sources. Jayy008 (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you talking about citing whether or not an actor appeared on the show, or citing other information? As far as citing an actor on the show, you can either use the shows credits (using the Template:Cite video format), or any other source that confirms it. Obviously, if they are a series regular then it kind of cites itself, but for guest stars or recurring guests, then either the credits or any other reliable source you can find.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The actors need to be sourced? I haven't seen that before. Only for limited guest roles/special guests. Jayy008 (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The reason I was asking is because there are currently a lot of pages for fictional TV characters being deleted because of nominations for a "lack of notability". I had hoped they would then change these pages into redirects to the lists of characters pages for the TV shows they were in. Sadly several people voting and deciding end up just deleting the pages rather than redirecting because, they say, the character list page would also be unnotable and lack third party sources. I had always figured that if the TV show itself had a page that was notable enough to keep on Wikipedia, then the list of cast of that show would be a given, or at least you could use simple sources like the show credits, books on the show, etc, to prove that information. I rarely see third party sources for cast list pages, but then again many pages on Wikipedia are unfinished, so that's not concrete proof they don't NEED the sources. Mathewignash (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Lack of notability is different. Those character pages need to have a great character development section and reception section w/reliable sources. See: Lucas Scott for exactly what a character page needs to be like for it to be allowed to stay. I use those sources you've just described and they've never been challenged. Jayy008 (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mathewignash what you fail to realise is notable isn't WP:INHERITED just because the show exists doesn't every minor aspect of the show is notable. Its no use squealing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or that WP:ITEXISTS its about demostrating notablity. Its not like the articles deleted were well sourced or had strong claims of notability otherwise they wouldn't have got nominated for deletion.Dwanyewest (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mathew, in the cast of individual character articles being deleted instead of redirecting you can always request that an admin reopen the page long enough for you (or someone else) to grab the historical information and transport it to a character list page. Character list pages don't necessarily end up having third-party sources in them (though that is ideal), but they also shouldn't simply be plot summaries for each character either. There should be real world content there. These pages are merely housing grounds for characters that have some notable information about them, but as a whole are not notable enough to warrant an entire page to themselves (see Characters of Smallville as an example).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Dwaynewest, I don't beleieve I was "squeeling", I was asking politely because I didn't know the answer. I admitted in my post that I saw other pages do it one way, but that's not proof that that's the right way to do it. I am asking about the proper way to write and source character list for a TV show, so there is no problem when I get a chance to write one. Thanks for the information. Mathewignash (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability for list of character pages

When does such a page meet notability requirements or how many sources are enough?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In the case of articles on individual characters: Have two or three paragraphs of non-trivial real-world information, either sourced to reliable third-party sources (e.g. reception) or to (non-)independent production sources. Then you have a very strong stand against deletion, and a pretty good stand against a merge proposal. In the case of character lists: It's still being discussed if fiction-related lists need to demonstrate notability. But if the TV show runs for at least a full season (better two), and/or there is more non-trivial non-plot things to say about the characters/actors (or there are more regular characters) than fits in the main article, then having lists is widely accepted even if no sources are present in the list. – sgeureka tc 15:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I would be very careful with the idea that no sources are necessary. That goes against Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Not entirely Sgeureka. There must be sources if there is real world content, and a list that is nothing but plot summaries would have a hard time dealing with WP:PLOT and WP:WAF - especially when we have pages for seasons and episodes that already explain the plot of what happens and Wikias that provide extensive plot based biographies of characters. So, simply existing isn't all that needs to be done. That said, most editors don't contest a lot of character list pages simply because it beats having to contest 20 individual character pages that shouldn't exist because they have no real world information in them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, most of the character pages related to shows on my watchlist are nothing but lists of characters and their plot summaries; it drives me crazy. I have a to do list a mile long that consists of adding real world info to some of these pages. Pesky real life keeps getting in my way so for now I just have bookmarks of links to casting and character depiction info. Millahnna (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

categorization question

Should articles be categorized just under the [Year][country] categories of television series debuts and endings or also in the parent category by [year]? For example, should an article be just in Category:2002 Japanese television series endings or also in Category:2002 television series endings? Cattus talk 17:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If 2002 Japenese television series endings exists within the 2002 television series endings (as it should), then you'd only list the former. As you can get to the latter when you go to the 2002 Japanese television series ending category.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Cattus talk 18:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

We have a serious flagicon issue....

As some of you know, I got involved with an IP named (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from the Telefónica de España network on Thursday, which was adding false credit information relating to film articles. This situation led to me and the IP being blocked for 24 hours and I started a discussion here. However, another IP named (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from the same network has suddenly appeared and readded the flagicons back into the Wubbzy article, but also the Yin Yang Yo! articles after I have removed it per WP:MOSFLAGICON. I tried to explain to the IP on his talk page, but the IP swiftly reverted my edits. The current reversion done by the IP can be found here and here. Also, Yin Yang Yo! was only produced only in Canada and the United States according to this source, so the United Kingdom is not relevant to this article. Also, I issued him a last warning regarding the flagicons ([12]), but the IP dismissed it and he immediately readded the flagicons to the Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! and Yin Yang Yo! articles again ([13], [14]). I would suggest watchlisting the Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! and Yin Yang Yo! for these changes. Rather than getting involved in further edit warring and being blocked as what I had done last time, I am posting the discussion to see if other project members can voice their opinions on this matter. I understand that edit warring with that the IP or violating the 3RR can lead myself being blocked again. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Lemme help you out. Watchlisted and IP user warned for the last time. Yves (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The IP has been blocked for 24 hours by Cirt. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Forty-eight, actually. Yves (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Another IP from the same network, (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making the same flagicon additions to the articles again. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Viewing figures

I know final ratings are always used when they can be. But in the case where finals aren't available from a reliable source... Overnight ratings are thrown in. So, my question is... It's the average of the two overnight half hours used, right? Not just the ratings from one of the half hours simply because ones higher, that would be incorrect? The average is better. Jayy008 (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance re: C-SPAN's Booknotes

Last week I posted a request here for someone to review my proposed article for the C-SPAN program Q&A (U.S. talk show) (it's a COI subject for me) and recieved a timely response then. Now I've prepared a replacement for the article about the long-running Booknotes program. For reference:

  • Booknotes—current version is a long stub lacking references
  • User:WWB_Too/Booknotes—proposed replacement is more substantial, carefully sourced primarily to newspaper articles

Rather than be bold and simply move it into place myself now, I'd like at least one other editor without any connection to C-SPAN to give it a read, offer any thoughts if further work is necessary, or just let me know that you think it's appropriate to move, or move it as you like. Looking forward to your input. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of non-free images from season articles

I'm having a content issue with another editor but since this has wider issues, especially for this project, I thought I'd raise the matter here seeking some advice/comments.

At List of Hannah Montana main characters an editor added a number of character images that were later removed by another editor, leaving a single image. I restored one of them, citing justification under WP:NFCC#8 for its retention. During the subsequent discussion a third editor removed the image. Subsequent to this, that editor removed a cast photo from Hannah Montana (season 2), claiming that non-free images are not allowed in sub-articles.[15] I've questioned him on this, on his talk page, but he seems adamant that non-free images can't be used, this despite the fact that neither WP:NFCC, WP:NFC or WP:NFLISTS seems to support him. He again removed the image today, again claiming that non-free images are not allowed in sub-articles.[16] As it stands now, there are no cast photos in Hannah Montana, as their purpose there was purely decorative and there are individual season cast photos in each season article, where casts are discussed. The season 2 cast photo, which best represents the cast of all four seasons, is also used in List of Hannah Montana main characters as per WP:NFLISTS' stated preference that "if another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, either referring to its other use or, more preferably, repeating its use on the list are strongly preferred over including a new, separate, non-free image." I don't see this as a real issue but concede I may be wrong (nobody is perfect). Given that the policies don't seem to say that we can't use non-free images in season articles and that I've lost count of the number of season articles I've checked that have a DVD or poster image and/or a cast image in them, I was wondering if anybody here could shed some light. Is this an issue that has been gone over before? Do we have some policy or consensus one way or the other? --AussieLegend (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Per my reasoning, non-free cast photos should only appear in character lists and/or the main article, since that's where the characters are introduced and/or discussed. They would be purely decorative in season articles, as (and that's also the current situation) you can {{main}}-link to either the character list or the main article from there. The only non-free images that I would and do expect in season articles is one for the infobox (where DVD covers sometimes show the cast), and in very few cases one in the body of the season article if it illustrates an important real-world thing that is described nowhere else on wikipedia (like Smallville (season_1)#Effects, although I'd argue it's also not strictly needed there). The important point user:Seraphimblade tries to make (I think) is that it's advisable to have one cast shot in one article and refer there all the time, instead of displaying it in every single season article. – sgeureka tc 12:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from but in Hannah Montana the cast is just listed, there's no discussion at all, so use of the images there doesn't seem appropriate as it's more decorative than encyclopaedic. Using four images, which Seraphimblade doesn't seem to have an issue with, in the main article doesn't seem to make as much sense as using the individual images in the season to which they're relevant. As to referring to the image in the character article, WP:NFLISTS does say that it's preferable to repeat the image in the article. The image in the character article includes one character who isn't in the first season, and another who isn't in the fourth, so referring to it from either of those seasons could get messy. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Not every character/actor needs to be illustrated when you talk about the cast and characters (I came to that conclusion after working on Characters of Carnivàle and List of Stargate SG-1 characters). I'd go with repeating an image if the season article was about the characters, but there's just a minor section on it. Editing the cast section of Hannah Montana will make an image appropriate there if need be, but I don't think that's the main discussion here. – sgeureka tc 13:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You're correct that this issue of the images in Hannah Montana isn't the main discussion, although I don't see why four images there would be appropriate. That you'd consider repeating the image in certain circumstances though is a relevant issue, as it lends credence to my argument that "non-free images are not allowed in sub-articles" is not a blanket claim supported by policy. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course non-free images are allowed in sub-articles, or there wouldn't be an image in Homer Simpson, which is a subarticle of The Simpsons >> List of characters in The Simpsons >> Simpson family. WP:NFCC does not disallow non-free images per se, but the rationale of NFCC is more important than the actual policy or guideline parts. So are cast shots in season articles really necessary? If we go by what the folks at WP:FAC would say, that would be a no. My view on the matter. – sgeureka tc 07:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It would be just as easy to argue that film posters in the film infobox are not necessary either. Almost all images are unnecessary. Infobox images (or images that would be in the place for where the infobox would be when they don't have an infobox) are almost always allowed as an overall "image" of the topic when it comes to fiction. I'm not saying there isn't dissention over it, and I'm not arguing as to whether those images are "necessary", but that is the way it is (since there is clearly an image in "Characters of Carnivale" and other character list FAs). That said, there shouldn't be an image for every character in a list page. If they are not notable enough for their own picture then it's likely they are not relevant enough to require an image to show what they look like. Unless there are design features that need to be illustrated, I would say just use a free image of the actor if you need something to break up the text. (P.S. Sgeureka, how dare you challenge my Smallville image. I would argue that it's very hard to visualize exactly what the special effects people did with Tom Welling's hand to show kryptonite poisoning. ;D Just teasing....well, about the first part of my statement).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC on Hell's Kitchen (U.S.)

As the opener of a RFC on the series regarding a way to develop a style guideline for a section of the season pages I invite editors to stop by and provide feedback on the issue to help develop a policy. Thanks, Hasteur (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


Is this really necessary? I mean, it makes the page look messy and hardly seems notable. Cameo's aren't part of the story or even the show. Jayy008 (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That page has got way more issues than just a list of "cameos"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL, I was actually just referring to Cameo's in general. But what are the issues for that particular page? Post them on the discussion page of that season and I'll fix it. Jayy008 (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
In general, I would say steer clear of just listing cameos. If a cameo is somehow notable (ex. Teri Hatcher will appear as Ella Lane, Lois Lane's mother, in an episode of Smallville. This is notable (which can be verified by sources) because she played Lois Lane on Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. The point being, such noteworthy cameos should probably be accompanied by prose so that it's clear why these are so "noteworthy" and not simply random single episode guest stars.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Got it, thank you for the help. Jayy008 (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Our Gang's FAR

I have nominated Our Gang 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Season information in the infobox

I'm having a content issue with another editor and would appreciate opinions from others on the matter. Season information has been added to the infobox at The Big Bang Theory for actresses Sara Gilbert and Melissa Rauch. Sara Gilbert was a recurring character during seasons 1-3 but credited in a starring role for the first half of season 2. Melissa Rauch was a recurring character in season 3, but is credited in a starring role during season 4. The infobox now says:

Sara Gilbert (Season 2)
Melissa Rauch (Season 4, 2 episodes)

My issue with this is that generally (obviously there are exceptions), actors credited in starring roles are in those roles for the entire period that they appear on a program and because of this, there can be a misconception by the casual reader when presented with this sort of unexplained information, that the actor was only involved with the program for the period stated. The above also suffers from being inconsistent as it doesn't specify how many episodes Sara Gilbert was credited, although I don't believe this should be mentioned at all. I believe that in this case, this sort of information is better dealt with in the cast information section in the prose. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I think extraneous details like that are better left for prose. It just clutters up an infobox when you have to start attaching "(16 episodes)" or "(season 2 - 3)", especially if the actor has a long name and the extra info is forced to the next line. Then it just looks unsightly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
This was discussed above. Wasn't it decided just to have the actors in credit order followed by order they joined the show with no extra information? After the discussion I added it to the infobox template. I'd suggest showing the other user that. Jayy008 (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. This seems clear now. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


FYI, Interlace has been requested to be renamed. This is related to NTSC interlacing, deinterlacing of DVDs, 1080i ... (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participation!


As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across these Wikiprojects to engage you, the community, to work to build Wikipedia by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Visit the Contribution project page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. Keegan, Wikimedia Fundraiser 2010 (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot summaries

Does WP:TV have any guidelines regarding length of plot summaries for 30 minute or hour long television episodes? I know WP:FILMPLOT suggests between 400 and 700 words for feature length films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

MOS:TV says from two hundred to five hundred words. Yves (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Is that for half hour or hour episodes?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, MOS:TV#Plot section specifies 200-500 words for individual episode articles. For season articles it only recommends 100-200 words for each episode with "upwards of 350 words" for complex storylines. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Good Topic Nomination

There is a good topic nomination at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Characters of Smallville/archive1, all opinions are welcome and encouraged. Please stop by.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at If you will go to that page, you will see a series of articles in the left-hand column all containing the phrase United States network television schedule (Saturday morning). If you click on any of them, you may note that none have any sources attached to them. Is it possible that some among you can add the required sources lest the articles be proposed for deletion? Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System for deletion

Ambox warning pn.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, which is relevant to the subject of this WikiProject, should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Threatened with deletion . . .

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at Several articles that include the phrase United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) have been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. You can see the list by clicking above. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Washington Journal

I've written a new version of the Wikipedia article about Washington Journal, the morning call-in program on C-SPAN, which is currently available for review in my user subspace, here. As I have posted on this discussion page before, I work with C-SPAN and therefore recognize that I have a potential conflict with related subjects. I've worked on a few articles in this subject area recently, about the programs Q&A and Booknotes, each time obtaining consensus to replace the (poorly cited) existing version with my (developed, well sourced) versions. This time, I'll simply request that someone review these changes if they are so inclined. Having demonstrated my respect for and capacity with proper citations and neutral point of view previously, I am inclined to be a little more bold in editing directly. But I do not wish to circumvent normal processes, so I'll give this post some time for others to respond before I move forward. If you have any questions, especially about specific changes or additions that I have proposed, just let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no objection over the past 24 hours, nor since last week any response on either the Washington Journal Talk page or that of an editor previously active on C-SPAN subjects and, considering there have been fewer than 10 edits to the article in all of 2010, I'm going to be bold and make the update now. Anyone reading this later who wishes to follow up my work, here is the last version of the article before the update, and if you click through in just a few minutes, the new Washington Journal article is highly likely to be that new version. Please let me know if you have any questions. WWB Too (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I've reviewed it and it looks pretty good. I think you've done a good job at separating topics, building a true structure for the article and most importantly citing the information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I really appreciate that. I'd gotten used to not having anyone reply when posting here, so wasn't sure if anyone would again. There are just a few more C-SPAN articles that I'm looking to improve in the next few weeks, and I'll be sure to run those by WP:TV again. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Seasons episode lists

Mhiji (talk · contribs) has moved a large number of season episode lists. Since there has been no consensus building discussions about the naming of these episode lists, I have started a discussion at WT:NC-TV. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 03:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

More eyes please

Would any members of this project that wish to please take a look at this article created today Braniff Productions. It would seem to be a candidate for AFD. It is one sentence and I am pretty sure that it is inaccurate. My understanding is that they used the Braniff logo as a joke and that their production company was never called BP. Unfortunately my time online time is limited tonight and I can't get to doing all of the steps necessary for AFD. If on the other hand you feel that this article is legit and can be improved please disregard this notice and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


How would I go about finding all the pages related to the TV show South Of Nowhere ie. episode pages Season pages and whatnot.--King High 01:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

They most likely contain a link to the main page, so you can click "What links here" on the left side toolbox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thank you I will try that.--King High 03:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Episode status issue

Someone has changed the program's status on the Yin Yang Yo! article from "Ended" to "on hiatus". Also there are rumours that a third season is airing in November/December 2010, but I can't find any reliable third-party sources. The same situation applies to Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!, and some other television articles that have a series finale as "cancelled" when it was clearly not in it. Does anyone have a source for the articles? Thanks, Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


FYI, {{Fringe}} has been requested to be renamed. (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Kampung Boy (TV series) at FAC

Hi, Kampung Boy (TV series) is now at Featured Article Candidates (FAC). The animated series, which won an Annecy Award, is about a young ethnic Malay boy's life in a kampung (village). I invite members of this project to read the article and assess if it complies with the criteria to be an FA, or if it requires further improvements. Your comments and decisions are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kampung Boy (TV series)/archive1. Jappalang (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Dog Whisperer

Is it appropriate to list in an article's intro the name of the companies that sponsor a television show; this seems to be like blatant promotionalism? 842U (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That sponsor it or produce it? If they are merely a sponsor, then I would say no.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

AFD notice for Smart Talk with Raisin

I have listed Smart Talk with Raisin for Articles for deletion. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Talk with Raisin. Do not remove the {{afd}} tag until the consensus may be reached. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk) 01:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

MST3K task force

Hey all. WP:TASKFORCE says the first step to starting a task force is to seep WP:CONSENSUS, so I'd like to ask here about the possibility of starting a Mystery Science Theater 3000 task force. Granted, this show has been canceled for some time, but it still has an extremely strong cult following, and there are a wide range of MST3K-related articles here at Wikipedia. I don't believe there's a lot of active work being done on them (I've gotten The Brute Man to GA and am working on Laserblast) but that's just what I'm hoping the formation of a task force would lead to. I believe that articles that could be tagged by such a task force include articles related to the show itself (like Mystery Science Theater 3000, List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes, etc.), the people involved with it (Joel Hodgson, Michael J. Nelson, etc.), fictional aspects of the show (Tom Servo, Satellite of Love, etc.), the films featured in MST3K episode (Manos: The Hands of Fate, Mitchell, etc.) and post-MST3K stuff (RiffTrax, Cinematic Titanic, etc.). Thoughts? — Hunter Kahn 02:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

IFC Commercial Policy Has Changed

It was on December 6 2010 that I noticed several commercial interruptions during an airing of "Letters From Iwo Jima". I found this article today (December 7, 2010) which appears to confirm the change in format/policy at IFC: ["IFC Adds Commercials and Cult Comedies, Exits the Art House", Advertising Age, By Andrew Hampp, Published December 07, 2010]

- Scott Stites (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)07 December, 2010

IFC Commercial Policy Has Changed

It was on December 6 2010 that I noticed several commercial interruptions during an airing of "Letters From Iwo Jima". I found this article today (December 7, 2010) which appears to confirm the change in format/policy at IFC: ["IFC Adds Commercials and Cult Comedies, Exits the Art House", Advertising Age, By Andrew Hampp, Published December 07, 2010]

- Scott Stites (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)07 December, 2010

Template:Current sport-related

The template Template:Current sport-related is/was (it's now being removed) used on television articles to point readers to the current season of the show. But the template is for sports articles only. Can a similar template to be used on television articles be made?

This is what the current sport related template looks like being used on TV articles. —Mike Allen 07:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ping? —Mike Allen 01:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that the list of episodes link directs readers to what is current. 117Avenue (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, with two clicks. The template is apparently for quick access to the current season. —Mike Allen 01:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Parks and Recreation GANs

Hey all. I've nominated two Parks and Recreation episode articles, "The Master Plan" and "Freddy Spaghetti", for GAN. All of the other second season episode articles (and the season article itself) are already good articles, so one (and if) these two are passed I can pursue a GT, which I'd ideally like to do before the third season starts up next week. If anyone is interested in reviewing those articles, I'd appreciate it! (Incidentally, I am not seeking a quick-pass, but rather a legitimate review. Thanks!) — Hunter Kahn 01:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Something strange on the Upcoming TV Series Category page

On under the header W a show called The Rippling Blossom is listed. Should appear under R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

For some strange reason it was categorized under the name Winter Of Flying Fish. 117Avenue (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
If you tell me how you found and corrected the problem, I'll clean up the T section. (The Killing, etc.) (If non-administrators can make these changes.) Obviously some shows are listed by the T of The Showname, rather than Showname, The. Isn't there some way to deal with this automatically on the software level? By the way, what's the aproach for numbers? Categorize under 99, The or Ninetynine, The? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Two solutions: (1) Insert {{DEFAULTSORT:Rippling Blosson, The}} before the Categories. (2) Write [[Category:Upcoming television series|Rippling Blossom, The]]. Sort numbers like what seems reasonable to you. – sgeureka tc 18:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. What would be the best way to get this issue fixed, so that Wikipedia automatically sorts categories correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Network navigation boxes

Could we get some opinions on the arrangement and coloring of Template:Disney Channel Original Series and Template:SNICK/TEENick? I believe that these navboxes do not need the colors as they are not necessary formatting for the article. Also, I believe that the actual series should be in the order that they first aired. They were previously overly formatted with color and contained a partition for "currently airing" series. See This compared to that for SNICK/TEENick and this compared to that. BOVINEBOY2008 20:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The use of color is pretty subjective, but I'd prefer my bikeshed unpainted. --Mepolypse (talk)
Regarding the colors of the templates, I agree that they are completely unnecessary, but there is a lot of unnecessary use of color in TV. Some more obnoxious than others. This is just the tip of the iceberg. About the ordering of the series within the template, I actually prefer the "currently airing" section. Just my humble opinion, I have no strong feelings about it and can go either way. ;) --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Logical Fuzz (talk · contribs). Per WP:NAVBOX, colors are unnecessary just like Template:Family Guy and Template:Nickelodeon. I think the color for navbox template for example like Template:The Simpsons are okay, but the Template:Disney Channel Original Series and Template:SNICK/TEENick are not. I have a feeling that this user 744cody (talk · contribs) is kinda has a little disruptive edit. JJ98 (Talk) 23:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
How are you okay with yellow for the Simpsons, but not orange for Nickelodeon? I am in Canada, and don't get Disney Channel, so I don't know if there is a colour associated with it, I am indifferent on that one. 117Avenue (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think having the template headers color coded improves accessibility (actually it probably degrades it). Like, we don't need The Simpsons template colored yellow just because they are yellow, or the Nickelodeon one being orange just because they have an orange blob in their logo (correction: apparently they just use orange font now). This all just seems aesthetic and pointless it an encyclopedia. —Mike Allen 01:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that is should be in color especially the nickelodeon one since most things associated with nick are orange.I think it is much better when the templates have the currently airing section beacuse I think it serves a better purpose that way. 744cody (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess that a possibility is to leave out the color from the template but still leave the currently airing section. 744cody (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be okay with keeping the currently airing section. Even though it puts emphasis on recent happenings, it seems that it would be useful. BOVINEBOY2008 06:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Book TV proposed replacement draft

In the last few weeks I have researched and drafted a new version of an article with which I propose to replace the current version of Book TV. Having previously posted here and received assistance with articles such as Washington Journal and Booknotes, I'd like to solicit input once again in reviewing a new version of the article, which can be found in my user space, here: User:WWB_Too/Book TV.

As mentioned in my earlier requests, as a point of disclosure, I have been working with the C-SPAN communications team to improve articles related to the network, and I hope this article likewise is met with approval. As per previous articles, this draft is reliably sourced, neutrally worded and includes only material that I believe is encyclopedic. While I don't think there is anything controversial about this topic and would be inclined to make these edits directly, due to my potential COI, I would like to give another editor the opportunity to look over the draft and offer any comments. A similar note has been added to the Book TV talk page, also asking for comments on the draft. If there are none, I’ll wait at least 24 hours and then go ahead and post it. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

With no objection here or at the article's Talk page, I've gone ahead and moved the new draft into place. Please let me know if you have any questions about the article itself. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


{{Fringe}} has been requested to be renamed to match Fringe (TV series). (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding Episode task force to Template:WikiProject Television?

Is there any way to add the WikiProject Television's episode task force to the Template:WikiProject Television box? Is there a method to go about proposing that, or is it something you would just do? It would be helpful to the task force if we had a list of the assessments for those episode articles... — Hunter Kahn 18:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

New article: Larry Detwiler

New article, created, at Larry Detwiler. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

South Park (season 13)

Hello all. South Park (season 13) has currently been nominated for featured article. However, there have been disputes recently regarding the use of the infobox image. The article itself has been well-reviewed, and literally no other actionable concerns have been addressed about it, but unfortunately the image issue has largely overtaken the FAC discussion. I very badly need people to review the entire FA criteria of the episode, not simply the image. At the suggestion of the FA delegate, I've come here to seek help in this regard. Could anyone take some time and weigh in? Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 02:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

We've got a sticky situation here.... (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who claims to be from Canada, has been adding unsourced information to The Busy World of Richard Scarry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), such as it playing on Playhouse Disney in Japan and a PBS Kids show. There is also an edit war going on that article between that IP and another one since December 8. I fixed up the issues, but the IP swiftly reverted my edits, and I reverted his edits (second revert on the article for today). After my third revert on this page, I issued an edit war notice on the IP's talk page, but he ignored it and [swiftly reverted my edit yet again], violating the three-revert rule. Rather than getting involved in that edit war again, or potentially violating 3RR (since I have reverted three times on this article today), I am asking to see if this issue can be resolved here. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions)

Since there is no response yet, a discussion has been opened up for opinions here. Comments from this project regarding this matter should be very much appreciated. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Lacking documentation on infobox

Hi. I'm a complete outsider to this WikiProject, just trying to look up what infoboxes should be used for television topics. I find the documentation on this quite lacking. I found {{Infobox television}}, which contains no information at all about when it should be used, only documentation on the individual fields. I went to this WikiProject and found the section WP:TV#Infoboxes which does not mention that infobox at all. I'm guessing from context that {{Infobox television}} should be used for television shows. That may seem entirely obvious to people involved in this WikiProject, but I'll point out that it's not entirely clear from the name of the template, so all the more reason to mention it in the documentation of the template. The reason I started looking into this is that I found an article about a pair of television characters that uses {{Infobox television}} and wanted to confirm my gut instinct that this is an inappropriate use of that infobox. Could someone who knows their way around this stuff please confirm what content {{Infobox television}} is suitable/not suitable for, and add this to the documentation of the template and the WikiProject. Thanks. --Mepolypse (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ping. --Mepolypse (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
There are infoboxes for just about everything. Characters should be using Template:Infobox character, TV episodes should be using Template:Infobox Television episode. The main "Infobox Television" is typically used for parent articles that chronicle the entire series of a show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Would you mind documenting these facts in the relevant places? Assuming that's not the full extent of your knowledge about the infoboxes, I think you know more than me. --Mepolypse (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I've added all the ones I know of. 117Avenue (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --Mepolypse (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I also changed "television series" to the broader "television show", as {{Infobox television}} seems to be used for shows such as talkshows as well. --Mepolypse (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that is a better term. 117Avenue (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the allowance of cover images per NFC

I've opened an RFC to determine what the current consensus is on the use of non-free cover images on articles of copyrighted works per current treated of the non-free content criteria policy. The RFC can be found at WT:NFC#Appropriateness of cover images per NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Big Love Characters

A friend was recently browsing Wikipedia and pointed out that several of the Big Love characters have articles that simply seem to be in-universe descriptions of the plot for each character. Just prodded Margene Heffman as a notice for editors more familiar with the material to make it more encyclopedic as currently, it fails WP:PLOT and WP:RS. Since I'm hoping you might have a fan on the project, I thought I'd toss a notice over here. Not planning on returning here but feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you'd like to continue the discussion. Happy New Year!--GnoworTC 04:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of Disruptive Editing - Son of Stan (American Dad)

Your input here would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a bump here...been a few days and nobody else has spoken up. The editor I'm in dispute with has indicated a willingness to assume consensus supports them and add in what I consider to be material with no demonstrable notability. Thanks for your help. Doniago (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I noticed, somewhat appalled, that every character from Mystery Science Theater 3000 is given a separate, distinct article here. None are significant in an encyclopedic sense, and there already exists List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 characters which can easily house a description of each character. These articles appear to be under the purview of no one, which is equally troubling (there are no WikiProject banners on any of the talk pages). I want to create space for a possible merge discussion here, including which articles to merge (maybe a case can be made for the two main bots to have separate articles. Maybe) and how much content to merge. There's an awful lot of meaningless in-universe schlock on these pages (not to mention almost no third-party sources). Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I had attempted to start an MST3K task force, but got little input one way or the other. I personally believe there are enough reliable sources that there could be separate articles for many, but no means all, of the MST3k character articles. I'd be happy to work on a few to demonstrate this. Is there one you feel is of particular need of attention that I could give a try to? — Hunter Kahn 17:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Current sources don't really attest to the notability of any of them (nothing third-party). I have a very hard time believing a character from the show's first (and least well-known) season or a nameless disembodied voice are notable for inclusion in a general-interest encyclopedia. They're the most glaring. Having separate articles for the "characters" played by the hosts is also a bit silly. What's the purpose of separating Mike Nelson (character) from Michael J. Nelson other than to crufttactularly detail every cotton picking thing he ever did on the show? (hyperbole) Whatever articles are to be kept separate need major help. Nearly all sources present in these articles are either the MST3K show itself or a book they put out or their official website, which do not establish WP:N. I notice most of them have had precious little editing attention for about the last 2-3 years as well, and were first written back in 2004 (meaning the original authors may not have minded policy or even had it to mind should they have wanted to). We do have that concern, now. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 03:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:TVSeriesTalk

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:TVSeriesTalk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:TVEpisodeTalk

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:TVEpisodeTalk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC at The Busy World of Richard Scarry

An RfC has been filed here. There has been a conflict between IPs and users regarding the addition of dubious unsourced content. Input from project participants are appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

TV Episode Task Force assessment

Hey all. Just wanted to let you all know about the new new assessment table in the Episode Cover Task Force site. The task force is now included in the Template:Television so that we can rank the importance of television episode articles. I think this will help the task force identify what episode-related articles are strong, which ones need work, and which ones might need to be merged/deleted altogether. I've made a request to have the task force template added to all the articles in this category list I've identified, and have been asked to make sure there is a consensus here for the autoassessment of articles and in the category list. Does anyone object to this bot request going forward? — Hunter Kahn 17:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to assume consensus and run this task now, since there's been no reply in several days. - EdoDodo talk 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - EdoDodo talk 15:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet another issue...

At The Busy World of Richard Scarry, this page was protected for three weeks until January 7 due to a content dispute after I filed a report at WP:AN/EW. Despite a more recent RfC filing, which can be found at Talk:The Busy World of Richard Scarry#RfC on flagicons and unsourced information, (talk · contribs · WHOIS), an IP who is involved in that dispute, has continued to added unsourced material to several Disney-related articles ([17], [18], [19]). I then issued a final warning to the IP after reverting the edits made by that user, but the IP has dismissed the warning and continued to revert edits to the articles ([20], [21]). Rather than getting involved in further edit warring, or violating 3RR for that matter (as I have reached my limit of 3 reverts at Playhouse Disney Channel Asia and will not revert any further), as well as gaming the system, I am bringing this issue up to this page to see if others can voice their opinion on this matter or if others can get involved in the RfC and discuss there about that issue. See also my note on the Playhouse Disney Channel Asia discussion page. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind about the IP issue with the Disney-related pages. I have reverted the most recent edits that the IP made to the page and he/she has been already warned for the last time. However, he has continued to revert my edits yet again, violating 3RR ([22], [23]). As such, the IP has been blocked for 1 week. I hope this is not excessive. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new articles related to C-SPAN

I've posted notes here before about articles I've worked on related to C-SPAN and my WP:COI, mostly without any response, but to stay on the up-and-up I'll continue to note them here (unless, I suppose, someone tells me to stop). To that end, I have researched and drafted three additional proposed articles: After Words, a well-developed and sourced replacement for the subpar version that currently exists; all-new StudentCam, about an annual student filmmaking competition run by the network; all-new C-SPAN Video Library, about its widely-noted website offering more than two decades of archives. For the latter two articles, I have also posted requests for input on relevant project pages: WikiProject Education and WikiProject Websites, respectively. I will likely post these up within a day or so if there are no objections, but I am happy to talk about getting these right, if anyone has an opinion about the content or presentation. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note; these articles have all been updated, with feedback from uninvolved editors on C-SPAN Video Library (which made DYK) and StudentCam. Do let me know if you have any suggestions about any of the three. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Iain Harrison is not 18 years old and he is from England

Listing the contestants Iain Harrison has 18 in the age category and Sherwood Oregon as his hometown.

He was a commander in British Special Forces and appears to be in his early forties. He is from England but I don't know his hometown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

TV series: List of characters...

Could somebody please tell me the notability for a character to be included? Extras aren't allowed right? Things like "High School Guy," and "teacher." I think are extremely pointless and make the page long. I brought this up before, I can't find the discussion, but I need it now. A page has been blocked because the user keeps adding characters like that, I edit-warred, hence the page block. So yes, notability. Jayy008 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Article names: series v. programme

I've just spotted this page move. I don't edit many TV articles so am not sure if this is correct, I've only ever seen "series" used. Can someone revert if it's wrong? Thanks. —Half Price 13:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Having has a look at WP:NCTV it seems the edit was correct, as Click is a factual programme and thus not episodic. —Half Price 13:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sanctuary (season 1)

Hello, I have recently nominated Sanctuary (season 1) for featured article. I just want to post this to see if some users would mind chiming in and review it, give thoughts, suggestions, etc, that would be very much appreciated. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 19:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mergers proposals for Frasier seasons

There is a list of merger proposals at Frasier (season 1), Frasier (season 2), Frasier (season 6), Frasier (season 7), Frasier (season 10), Frasier (season 11). Dwanyewest (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


I created Template:TopUSTVShows. I am not sure whether it should be at CSI (franchise) and Survivor (U.S. TV series). Also, I am not sure why shows not on the template show up at Category:Nielsen Ratings winners.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some discrepancy as to what the definition of the number one show is. I have gotten feedback that Home Improvement (TV series) was once number one according to this non-RS and this. These numbers do not mesh with season articles such as 1993–94 United States network television schedule that I used to create the template above. I am not an expert on ratings and need some advice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The 1993–94 season article uses this reference ([24]), which is the only reliable source I've seen so far. It says Home Improvement was #2. Unless someone has another reliable source which says Home Improvement was #1, we can just go ahead and use #2 as the ranking. It would be a good idea to put that reference into the Home Improvement article in case this comes up again. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 50#Characters/actors images replacement

A discussion is going on at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 50#Characters/actors images replacement, about the use of non-free images of characters over free images of the actors. Feel free to put in your input on it. JDDJS (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Character names in bold type


Is it standard to put the character names in bold as in 'Allo_'Allo!#Characters

The MoS says that bold should not really be used too often 'Allo_'Allo!#Characters. If it is standard then I need to change some things in some articles I have edited, as well as someone changing the MoS!

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This was an issue with the film Project as well. Basically, they shouldn't be bolded per WP:MOSBOLD. There is only a limited number of reasons to bold in an article and just identifying character names isn't one of them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Bignole is correct about this. Be aware that as WikiP is now ten years old you and you will come across numerous articles that where bolding was used and at least some of these will have been written before there was any MoS guidance about its use. Please feel free to remove it and if another editor has any questions you can direct them to the link that Bignole has provided. MarnetteD | Talk 19:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Cheers guys - I was a bit worried as I had deboldened half of an article in the GOCE drive and thought I had better check - I went to the 'Allo 'Allo page and imagine my surprise when I discovered they were in bold as well lol!
Thanks for your help :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Non Free Content Discussion

There is a discussion Here about the use of screens shots in character articles, we need more views, to see what the consensus is.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 15:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Character order

Is there a precedent for determining character order for series on a List of characters article? On the List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters, there has been some quibbling about what order the main characters should be listed. Extra opinions would be appreciated here. BOVINEBOY2008 18:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSTV and WP:RECENT, it's best to leave them in the order of first appearance. When the show ends then you'd have to explain from a historical standpoint where certain characters that were not introduced until later were for some reason placed first in the list. Since we don't restructure pages each year to be the most "up-to-date" order, it's best to just leave it as "first appearance". The average reader should not get confused if the appropriate prose content states that said character is no longer on the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC of interest to this project

Although it's specifically framed in terms of books and films, the question in this RfC will naturally be of interest to those writing articles about material which is adapted from one medium to another. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)