Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Posible task forces

Proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Desperate Housewives, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#ER, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Law & Order, have all passed the threshold for work groups. Would the members of this project be interested in taking them on? John Carter (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Gimme a day or two to set up the project banner, then. John Carter (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The task force pages aren't set up yet, but the banner is at User:John Carter/Television and it can be seen in use at User talk:John Carter/Television. I'll create all the categories and what not when I create the task force pages. Does the new banner look acceptable? It should also be noted that the pages for all three, and for The Amazing Race as well, have now been created. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The pictures are so small that the subjects are unidentifiable. Other than that, they look good. I am unsure if the task forces need "task force" at the end of their page names, compare Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting the existing pages and changing the images are certainly options. For what it's worth, I couldn't find any free images on ER or The Amazing Race. The apple from the userbox of Desperate Housewifes and the handcuffs from the Law & Order userbox have been substituted. So, of the five new task forces, counting Test cards, whose banner has been deprecated, ER and The Amazing Race are the two which could still bear a better image. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking for quote from Arthur Hailey's "Wheels," 1978 TV mini series...

Actor Rock Hudson, playing character Adam Trenton, is asked to be logical and replies something like: "There's nothing logical about a 115-pound blond spending $2's worth of gas to drive a two-ton automobile 15 (?) miles to save 5 cents on a can of peas..." or something along those lines. Would appreciate the exact quote or suggestions where to ask. Thank you, Shir-El too 17:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lost Our Lisa on Peer Review

Lost Our Lisa on Peer Review. Your comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lost Our Lisa/archive1. Cirt (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to hulu?

(Similar post at WT:FILMS) I've been wasting plenty of time at http://www.hulu.com recently, and I'm wondering: should a link be placed to a) full-length episodes that are on the site in articles on that particular episode, and/or b) the link to the official landing page of a TV series for those shows whose official sites do not currently stream full-length episodes (for example, http://www.hulu.com/the-riches)? I imagine it would certainly be a useful resource. Perhaps a template like "Name_of_show at Hulu" could be developed? BuddingJournalist 22:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Template Issues (With Needs Infobox)

Your Template {{{WikiProject Television}} causes issues when ever there is needs-infobox=yes. It can been seen on these pages Talk:Brothers and Sisters (1979 TV series) & Talk:Kraft Television Theatre and possibly any other pages within the Television articles without infoboxes category. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 12:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, thanks for the heads up! Looks like some of the new code broke the template. For now I've removed the new changes, which has fixed it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Flag in Infobox

A discussion has been started at Template talk:Infobox Television as to whether the flag icons belong in Television infoboxes and if they should be stripped. Since that is a relatively low traffic page, I thought a heads up here would be good before a decision is made by only a handful of people. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Episode List help

Anyone want to tackle cleaning up List of 2point4 children episodes and List of One Foot in the Grave episodes. I've tagged both needing expert attention including formatting to follow more standard episode list format (such as using episode list template, wikifying dates, etc), for needing a better lead (only one sentence), and needing references. They already has episode summaries, so I think if someone were willing to tackle that, they could be a potential featured list candidate relatively quickly. However, I've had previous dealings with the lists' primary editor, which were unpleasant to say the least. I'd rather not deal with him again, hence my asking someone else to volunteer. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll tackle 2.4. I preferred watching that to OFitG. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :) Good luck with the Degrassi FT BTW! AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Note that you won't see any changes on the page immediately, as I tend to do big pieces of work in my Sandbox and copy it over. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation

List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, and each season of the show has been nominated for Featured Topic. If anyone wants to pop along to review and comment, the link is here: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation. Cheers! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor characters on Frasier

Should this be renamed, deleted, merged or what? I see it just being a list of just about everything that isn't an article already. I'm leaning towards merge and/or delete. However, isn't a catch-all list a bit trivial and not necessary? If anything, it needs a bit of cleanup. I somehow don't think every person listed has importance. Plus, the whole list of Dr. Crane show callers seems a bit trivial. Plus the article has poor sourcing. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say rename into List of characters in Fraiser, add links to the main characters, and keep the list as a possible merge target for the main characters since they don't establish notability. The list can also be trimmed for characters that aren't as important after all. (I have never watched Fraiser, so take these suggestions with a grain of salt.) – sgeureka ^t•c 09:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

-A; How do you source a television show from 10 years ago? Are you allowed to use Tv.com as a source? Apart from Wikipedia, that's the only reliable source of Frasier info.

-B; What counts as an important minor character?

Some characters appear once and have no importance to the series: the gay manager who appeared only in 1 episode is unimportant.

Roz' cousin who appears once is unimportant.

A newspaper critic appears once, unimportant.

Roz' mother is mentioned numerous times, but only seen in one episode. Is she important?

Or there are characters who appear once but have a role: the waiter who got Roz pregnant. Is he important? But if you include him, you have to include his 1-apperance parents, the Huge-Noses.

There is also a husband who appeared only once. While the husband is unimportant, I think his wife and son should count because they've reoccurring characters and been involved with at least 4 or 5 plots over a span of 3 seasons.

I would keep all of Daphne's relatives though. That section needs expanding. Practically every episode, Daphne starts rambling about how her grammy Moon blew her eyebrows off, or how brother Billy married his prison cellmate. Her nuclear family is seen only a few times, but they're mentioned a lot.

-C; I'm not sure about all the callers, but I personally find that list interesting. ~~

TV.com is just a television version of IMDb (which, incidently, also doesn't television shows). It's information is user submitted, just like IMDb, and Wikipedia. Therefore, it is not considered a reliable source of information. That doesn't mean that it can't give you good enough to try and find sources for. Meaning, you can often look on the page at the information and then go search for that specific stuff in a more reliable source.

As for the minor character bit, I'd go with a renaming of the page to "List of characters in Frasier", or just "Frasier characters" (I've seen both titles used). I've always been of the opinion that people that either appear in a single episode, or who's multiple episode appearances are generally just cameos and don't really move the storyline along, probably don't need to be listed. If they even need to be covered at all, they're probably being covered sufficiently somewhere else (like an LOE page or something similar). Someone mentioned "Daphne's relatives", but if you don't see all these relatives all the time (regardless of her constant complaining) then they only need a bit mention in Daphne's section (not a section of their own).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The page obviously needs to be cut down so I would not hesistate to remove one-time characters. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Classes

As a note, the project template can now properly handle FL class for featured lists, so please use FL instead of FA when a list passes through FLC. They also will be properly categorized in Category:FL-Class television articles. Additionally, a much needed fix was done to stop using the military history's class file, which resulted in all of our television articles also be categorized as being military history articles! Attention was called to the issue by their changing their class file, which broke our template. We now have our own class file so this shouldn't be a problem in the future. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes dispute

User:Robinepowell has been removing the series overview and DVD release information from the main Degrassi TNG episode list, and changing Canadian release dates on the various season pages, claiming that they are all wrong because TVShowsOnDVD.com says so. Three editors and I have all asked her to stop, we've tried discussing with her but she continues to basically say she's right "because she says so" and revert. The main list ended up being protected, though I felt she should have been blocked due to her violating 3RR. TVShowsOnDVD is great for American releases, but not always correct on Canadian. Still, she said the dates were wrong so we did check, as can be seen at Talk:List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes#Degrassi DVDs but she completely refuses to engage in discussion on the article talk page, only leaving barely civil messages on our user pages. Following the dispute resolution process, I'm leaving a message here for project input at the main talk page, and in the various season pages regarding her date changes and which source should be used, and if the series overview table should be removed (though silent consensus in our featured lists says it belongs). AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

FAR

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes

Hello, I was hoping that some people here, especially those with experience of having seen/helped get episode lists to featured list status, to check this article out and see if they have any suggestions. I put up a peer review, but without much response. The PR did help the article, but I came here in hopes of getting help from those working on other episode list articles. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the peer review still open? If not, where would you like people to place their comments? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the PR is still open here. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 23:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've got seven episodic featured lists under my belt, so I'll take a look and give it my thoughts. The Rambling Man also has a number of FLs to his name, none about episodes, so it's good that he reviewed. One thing, per WP:PR, don't use  Done and  Not done as it slows down the time it takes to load the page. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Station workings

Hey there,

I've been inactive for while on Wikipedia, but i'd like to get active again. One of the reasons is I have a new job, as the head of IT for Channel North Television, a new regional television station in Whangarei, New Zealand.

As part of my position, I have access to and knowledge about all the key components of a television station, for production as well as broadcast. We have a decent budget, so we have a reasonably high-tech system.

I'm wondering if you guys would be interested in any photos or information on it. I'm sure I could get a few interesting shots. We have full broadcast automation, a complete studio with control room, microwave systems, fibre network stuff, and our office area. It could probably spice up quite a few articles.

If anyone is interested in getting me to take some photos i'd be happy to, and if anyone wants any information or wants me to improve any articles i'd be happy to do so.

If I don't reply for a while then send me an email from my userpage, i'm very forgetful.

Matt/TheFearow (Talk) 01:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I used to live in Whangarei, back in 1996/7. Until the station becomes "live", it might not be notable enough to have an article. Right now a Google and Yahoo search return 0 results. :( -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 01:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean for it's own article, I mean including photos and information from it into other articles. Since we have a lot of technology that we would be happy to photo and release into the public domain. (And it won't have any hits as our website is under construction). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) 02:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I understand. Then sure, take many photos. Wikipedia could always use more free-use images -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than taking random ones, are there any articles being worked on or things needing documenting that anyone knows of? If not i'll just take photos of various important things, but i'd rather do them for things being worked on actively. By the way, don't you mean Commons neees more free images? :-) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) 03:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Principal and the Pauper at WP:FAC

The Principal and the Pauper is up at WP:FAC, comments would be appreciated. FAC discussion page is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Principal and the Pauper. Cirt (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Highlander: The Series (season 1) is a FLC

Hello, Highlander: The Series (season 1) is currently a FLC. Please feel free to leave comments at Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Highlander:_The_Series_(season_1). Your input will be much appreciated. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

standards

Is it the general feeling here that any show which has actually aired on major network television is notable. for example Bram & Alice, which someone has prodded. I deprodded it for discussion. I 'm not really qualified to work on this one, so I'm notifying the people here. DGG (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that Wikipedia rules, policies and guidelines take precedence over anything at the Project. If it is WP:Notable, it will have been written about by WP:Reliable sources. If it isn't, it won't, so I'd have to agree with the prodder. The project should be given a chance to address the notability issues though, so thanks for bringing it to our attention. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick Yahoo search brought these beauties [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. Unfortunately I'm unable to add them to the article because we're supposed to be moving out of our apartment today, not editing Wikipedia. Apparently. So my wife tells me. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Television}} and non-existent category

Hi, are you aware that the {{WikiProject Television}} template puts articles into a non-existent category, "Category:Television articles with comments"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This only works when someone has left "Assessment comments" as a subpage in the infobox. I am not sure if a category is useful for that. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thought I'd highlight the issue. I'll leave it to you guys working on this WikiProject to decide what to do with it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Xena Episodes

The Xenophile sock is back and flooding Wikipedia with Xena articles and lists. The only good edits so far were to create season pages for Xena, which were desperately needed. However, they are in bad shape and need to be cleaned up, including proper formatting, lead expansion, image correction, referencing, and adjusting to transclude the episode lists into List of Xena: Warrior Princess episodes. They probably also need renaming. Could probably end up being 7 FLs and an FT if someone wants to tackle, and doesn't mind having to occasionally deal with the socks.

1. Xena: Warrior Princess Season 1
2. Xena: Warrior Princess Season 2
3. Xena: Warrior Princess Season 3
4. Xena: Warrior Princess Season 4
5. Xena: Warrior Princess Season 5
6. Xena: Warrior Princess Season 6

That's the list. When cleaned up, some of the redirected episode articles should probably be adjusted to redirect to the appropriate season pages. I have gone though and tagged all for their issues, removed the fan gushing (and believe me, it was gushing), and fixed the images. The cast sections needs to be converted from big tables to more useful prose, and the toher stuff still needs to be done. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already gone ahead and moved them to the more appropriate "(season X)" format, and adjusted the links in the LOE page. Here is the TV Guide episode listing, which should provide you with a reliable source for the episode airdates. The Production numbers should probably be removed unless a reliable source can be found (TV.com, which is where I assume the numbers were taken from) obviously isn't reliable in that regard.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made a Xena episode list hack, cleaned up the season 1 and 2 lists, and changed the main list to use a transclude. I've also removed its production numbers per above, and added a more proper season table to the main list. Any volunteers to tackle the leads of the various season articles and the main? They are currently so short, that the season infoboxes run into the episode list unless a ton of white space is added. The lists also need writer/directer info added, as is available. Also, I think the "Xenaverse" template could use a serious overhaul...its almost all Hercules rather than Xena.... AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignore the TV Guide link, it's listings are incomplete. MSN has a complete listing of all the episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As an update, season 3 & 4 have also now been reformatted and updated to have the episode lists transcluded into the main list from those season pages. Still having trouble from the xenophile socks, but no one else seems to be caring all that much. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of Flags in Television Infoboxes

We are trying to guage a final consensus as to whether flag icons should or should not be used in television infoboxes. If you have a view on this, please go HERE, and voice your support/opposition/neutrality. Thank you. _TalkIslander 14:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

An anon IP has made a proposal at Template talk:Episode list#Please add a new field called "ProductionNotes" trying to get a new field added called "ProductionNotes" for shoving trivia and other such things into the episode summary table. Personally opposed, but be good if more project people read his proposal and offered their own thoughts as well. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Schedule report on Disney Channel and Nick GAS

Nick GAS Although, the entire Nick GAS schedule has been look the same since Finders Keepers left in 2006. but the main situation was Get the Picture been played 4 times in the afternoon hours on both EST & CST zones while Nick Arcade played twice during the early morning hours and it been 1-2pm ET on weekdays since April 2004 and on weekends since December 2004 but it have'nt been back in the morning hours since the weekend of September 4th, 2004. it will excepted to be replaced with ethier 1 of show is airing (Nickelodeon GUTS, Nick Arcade or Double Dare 2000) or 1 of any shows is not airing (Wild and Crazy Kids, Finders Keepers, Family Double Dare, Double Dare or Global GUTS) at 1-2pm ET, 4-5pm ET and 3-4am ET. it will affect the lineup.

Disney Channel Starting May 17th, Disney Channel is changing the entire schedule, is this true that Disney Channel chaning the whole lineup, soon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.191.173 (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast Engineering and Technology Taskforce?

I seriously think that WP needs a task force [or section thereof] devoted to television technologies and related broadcast engineering/operations. I have read many an article about such that have so many issues that any single-user revision to correct would require such large deletion and time spent working that it would likely be marked as vandalism. Redoing the pages elsewhere then moving them in as part of a task force or just working in place, quickly, with research pre-compiled through a series of discussions could prove very useful. --tonsofpcs _(Talk) 03:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Arrested Development Taskforce

My, what a big WikiProject you have! I was interested in starting up a Arrested Development taskforce that would have this project as its parent (perhaps the Comedy WikiProject would be another parent?). I wasn't sure if I needed permission or anything before I start up a proposal etc. Thanks, Joelster (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that you need permission from us, but I also do not think that there are that many editors interested in cleaning up the articles on the best sitcom. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't permission. But I'd advice against creating a taskforce (WP:TASKFORCE) when you can't count on other editors joining you (a lot of people sign up but never seem to bother afterwards). Some excellent articles and even featured topics have been created for various TV shows, without any taskforce, just a single editor. But you can certainly start a proposal for a TF and see where it goes. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know that a proposal has been set up here. Add your name if you're interested! Joelster (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Another update: The taskforce has been set up here. Anyone is welcome to join. I would especially appreciate some help with the AD Taskforce template that I created. Thanks, Joelster (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

2 questions

Working mostly on and off (mostly off) on America's Test Kitchen. Couple questions...

1. I noticed that the WP is very broad in terms of what an article can contain. I understand shows are different, but they all certainly have at least a few elements in common. :-D —Rob (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Is there currently (or plans for) a public television WikiProject?

Thanks! —Rob (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The first one doesn't seem to be a question :P For the second, no. If anything, something like that would be a taskforce under this project, not a standalone project. The MoS and guidelines for the project are perfectly adaptable to public television series. They aren't that different from any other television series. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there's the request templates. Those are a great help. I was looking for something similar to Wikipedia:USRD#Structure (which is my "home WP"). —Rob (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs? :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Fancy something different?

Hi everybody, I've just written an article called Introduction to genetics, which tries to explain the important concepts in DNA, genes, and so on, in an absolutely non-technical way. I was wondering if any people with no background in science would have time to go through this article and find the pieces where it isn't quite clear enough or fails to explain things properly. Comments on its talkpage please. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Avatar Wikiproject

Is Wikproject Avatar a task force of Wikiproject Television, or is it it's own stand alone Wikiproject? The WP:TV page say were are, but the WP:AVATAR page does not. Some of us at Wikiproject Avatar would like this cleared up. Rau's Speak Page 17:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Avatar is a task force under the TV Wikiproject. The WP:AVATAR page should probably be updated to more clearly note this. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Well, it is appropriate, though, considering WP:AVATAR only covers a small scope of articles, and it fits nicely into WP:TV. I have one more question though, according to WP:TASKFORCE, it says task forces are usually sub-pages of the parent project, and that the task force template is merged into the parent template. Considering some other task forces of the main TV WikiProject are like this, should WP:AVATAR and WT:AVATAR be moved to a sub-page of this page? — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually they are, but some older ones were created before that became standard. If its possible, I personally think they should be moved, to make it clearer, but you have to make sure to move all the subpages as well and fix all links. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This will help you finding all pages, if you don't already know. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of those appear to be unused and can probably be CSDed (housekeeping) rather than bothering to move them. Like the IRC log page. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Everything is successful so far. I added the Avatar parameters to {{WikiProject Television}} and simply replaced the contents of {{WPAVATAR}} with

{{WikiProject Television|class={{{class|}}}|avatar=yes|avatar-importance={{{importance|}}}}}

, and then used AWB to substitute each transclusion of the template. I nominated at least five subpages for deletion (there are a lot of inactive subpages), and moved the rest. I also deleted some unnecessary redirects caused by the moves (like for the members page). In addition, I added the List, Category, and Template-Class categories for the project, etc. If anything is wrong, please tell me here or on my talk page. For now, everything is good, I hope. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's one of those things where it doesn't exactly matter what we call it, but thinking of it as a task force helps people to think of the project with a flow. For a lack of better words.. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock characters in comedy

Didn't see a place to put television-related AFDs, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock characters in comedy. Cheers. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Link's right on the project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Assistance requested at List of DuMont programs

The various lists of programs broadcast by NBC, ABC, and CBS are nearly complete and de-redded. However, the DuMont program list remains mostly red. I assume the age of these shows hinders development on associated articles. Help with countering systemic bias on Wikipedia is greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for review

Could anyone review the article It Feels Like Magic? (4Kids' edit of Winx Club's vert first episode)

I wonder if that article is worth to stay on the English Wikipedia.--JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 08:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't and has been redirected back to the episode list. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Celia (TV series)

Anyone want to adopt the article for Celia (TV series). The creator asked for an assessment from the project on April 28th, which I provided. I offered lots of additional help and advice to get the article in line with our style guidelines, etc. After I nominated some other articles the creator had made for deletion, however, he went all nuts on me (and got himself blocked for a day for making a crude insult). I don't want to deal with such an immature person anymore. However, some comments he made in the AfDs has me concerned that he will undo all of the fixing up done on the article out of spite, so I'd like to ask someone else to consider taking this one on to their watch list. For the most part, its in okay shape, except the episode summaries are all too long (though better than the huge things they were), the cast/characters needs to be merged into one section, and the episode airdates are only years. Could also use more referencing, but mostly would just like someone to keep an eye on it to keep it from being reverted back to its previous state. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Massive Ep List Clean up

List of Last of the Summer Wine episodes is in dire need of some clean up. The show spans nearly 30 series (seasons). The episode listings are all in odd formats, not using {{episode list}} and instead being tabled with the plot summary and "episode notes" beside the titles and air dates. The series overview box is in bad shape as well, and it could use some lead work. Anyone feel like tackling this large revamp? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Check out the current WP:FACs. There's a guy who has worked on Last of the Summer Wine and made it a WP:GA, and he's now nominated it for WP:FA. He might be willing. I'm still tackling 2.4 Children! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll shoot him a message :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, he's gonna work on it. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal over at Smallville pages

See Talk:Smallville (TV series)#Merge all character lists for discussion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Changes

There is a proposal to add a field to the infobox for "panelists" for panel type shows. Feel free to come weigh in. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for feedback: Cast lists in TV miniseries articles

I am currently on a GA improvement drive for Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial), which was a six-episode adaption of a novel, with quite a few important characters to build the story. This makes the article fall somewhere between the TV MOS and the film MOS and possibly a book MOS that I am not aware of. Having FA quality in mind, I have thought of three options to cover the characters:

• [10] where Plot and Characters/Actors are separate, linking to Pride and Prejudice#Main characters (the novel's article) for character descriptions
• [11] where Plot mentions the actors' names, but the Characters/Actors section stays like before
• [12] where the Characters/Actors section got merged in full into Plot (i.e. four more characters), the genealogy table was merged into the novel's article, and the Casting section links to Pride and Prejudice#Main characters.

I don't feel strongly about either option, but I figure it can't hurt to get some input before I settle on one. Maybe someone already has experience with something like this so that I don't have to reinvent the wheel. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I would go with the plot mentioning characters' names, and then have a Cast section to discuss the cast and who they played. You do a {{main}}, {{see also}}, or {{further}} link to Pride and Prejudice#Main characters, but perhaps the characters in the TV series may have been portrayed slightly differently than they are portrayed in the book, so you might want to discuss that in this section, too. Definitely go with Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs, rather than the Book or Film MOS, as the series was neither. Also take a look at User:Bignole's Proposed TV MOS, which looks set to replace the aforementioned page in the next few days. Good luck! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just found Featured Articles about two old British miniseries (The Quatermass Experiment, Quatermass II) that pretty much do what you suggested, and I like their style better than my three options. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 09:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Greek (TV show)

Is the "Name of the Show" section really neccesary? I'd like some opinions. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it isn't. Also, just want to note that this article needs a LOT of help, if anyone wants to step in. Its basically a stub for a main article, with a episode list and character list branching off of it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

mass-changing of TV templates by new user

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#new_user_mass-editing_templates. If oyu can't find the thread, look at my diff --Enric Naval (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A question regarding categories "Films over X hours"

This note is being placed on the talk pages for both the film project and the television project as the discussion will overlap their articles. Also, I am posting this on these projects discussion pages as there are too many articles involved to list these on each separate shows talk page.

Recently User:24.129.100.84 began adding [[Category:Films over xx hours long]] to the pages of various television serials and miniseries. I have removed these based on the fact that these categories have usually been reserved for films that have had a theatrical release. I cannot find this listed as a specific criteria so this is the first point to which I would like both projects to come to a consensus. Should TV programs be considered films for these categories?

Some made for TV films may fit this category as long as it is the official runtime, sans commercials, that we are basing this on. But to list television miniseries and serials as films is a misnomer. They are usually broadcast over multiple nights and have breaks which include closing and opening credits between the episodes.

As one example this editor keeps adding Category:Films over three hours long to the Prime Suspect page. None of the episodes in the nine stories that made up the seven serials was ever more than two hours long. Even if one serial was broadcast on one day (as happened a few times on cable TV in the US) one still saw the closing credits of episode one, then a break which included other programing such as highlights of shows to come, and then the opening credits for episode two.

A look at this users contributions page [13] will show how many TV programs and miniseris have had these categories added to them. Should a consensus be reached that these categories might apply then we will need to set some criteria for what does and what does not fit the wording of the categories. My thanks to you for your attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 20:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If the work hasn't been released theatrically and was expressly created for television presentation, then the work should not be in a film category. (Whether or not WP Television wishes to create Category:Television programs over... or the like is their prerogative, of course.) Therefore, Berlin Alexanderplatz is okay, since it's seen theatrical release, but Prime Suspect would not since it hasn't (IIRC). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC) I have added this edit here so that members of the TV project can see the thoughts of one of the longest serving and respected members of the film project. MarnetteD | Talk 21:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

MOS

I've been working on a rewrite of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs in my sandbox (see User:Bignole/Television MOS), in the hopes that the television community can have an official style guideline similar to the guideline that the film community has. From what I've seen, the current page (which is not a guideline) has been rather inactive, and I know that when I edit articles I generally look to the film guideline as its pretty applicable in most cases. I feel that we need our own official guideline for MOS (you can see the initial discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs#Update).

I'm hoping to get some fresh eyes look over it, tighten prose, include links to relevant policies and guidelines that I may have missed, and question whatever is on the page that they disagree with. This will also help with the problems associated with WP:EPISODE. With this MOS, we can remove any style information from EPISODE and have it focus solely on being a notability guideline (if it continues to exist at all, but that's a different discussion). So please, share your thoughts on the sandbox talk page as it's easier to make changes to the information if the discussion is taking place on the same page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The new MOS has been created, and the proposal is under way. Please go to the MOS talk page to discuss any changes, or lend support to the current version.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

After a month, there was no objection to the page so it was made an official guideline. Please venture to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines for the details if you hare not already seen it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Anime TV series

There's some anime TV series, like Gungrave (anime) and Mononoke (anime), that disambiguate by adding "(anime)" instead "(TV series)" as recommended by WP:TV-NAME. I think they should be moved (i.e. Gungrave (TV series), Mononoke (TV series)), the same way Justice League (animated series) and Gargoyles (animated series) have been moved. What do you think?--Nohansen (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an on-going discusson on this at WT:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation, so please put replies there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing articles

In my gnome-ish way, I've been working through the lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of TV shows over the last several months. It's been a combination of removing articles from these lists that have infoboxes, redirecting redlinks where articles exist under different names, ensuring that the lists are correctly sorted between 'missing' and 'no infobox' - various tasks. When I started, the main project page showed that the effort was 16% complete, which wasn't accurate - by the time I'm through all the alphabetical lists, I suspect the true picture will reveal that this effort is more like 50% complete.

A couple of thoughts/questions, however. First, as I've been doing this, I've been following the instructions on the main project page to tag the talk pages for articles with the "needs television infobox" template where appropriate. It occurs to me that it might have been nice to come here when I started and post a note that I was doing this, as this category has now grown five-fold over the last few months - it's accurate, but it might come as a surprise to people engaged in WP:TV who focus on filling in the infobox gaps. So, apologies.

Second, it's also occurred to me today that it might actually have been better to have been tagging those talk pages with the "WP:Television" template and the needs infobox option, rather than just the template I was using. Before I keep going, or even think about going back to change the others when I'm done, I just wanted to check if the project thinks this would be valuable or if simply the "needs television infobox" template is enough. If you'd prefer the former, I'll proceed accordingly, and also change the instruction on the main project page.

Thanks, Mlaffs (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC on WP:FICT

A request for comment has been made to determine if the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) proposal has consensus. Since this project deals with many fictional topics, I am commenting here. Input on the proposal is welcome here. --Pixelface (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review on Last of the Summer Wine

I'd be grateful if some editors would be willing to give me some feedback on Last of the Summer Wine. I still feel it is almost at FA but the editors who tipped the balance to oppose in the last FAC refused to elaborate on what they thought was wrong with the article beyond some vague and cursory comments. I've opened a peer review request at Wikipedia:Peer review/Last of the Summer Wine/archive3‎ if anyone is willing to review the article. Thanks and cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Taskfore and Project template

I see that a taskforce for The X-Files has recently been created and was wondering if the WikiProject Television template could be updated to enable tagging the relevant articles. I would have left this message at the template talkpage, but wasn't sure if there had even been consensus for the creation of the taskforce. --BelovedFreak 19:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Beverly Hills, 90210 in need of major cleanup

The article is just a cluttered mess. I count at least three sections dedicated to trivia. Anyone want to help clean it up? RobJ1981 (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't watched that show since 1995 and don't remember many in-universe details, but I can/could do a quick cleanup. I removed the broadcast and syndication lists per WP:NOT#IINFO because BH was basically aired everywhere. I also removed the detailed character descriptions since they already appear in Characters of Beverly Hills, 90210. The cast table can the be (1) left like it is, (2) be replaced with something like Das_Boot#Cast (only very short descriptions), or (3) be turned into prose like LOST#Cast_and_characters. I can't decrufitfy the "Influences on popular culture" and "Trivia" sections for lack of knowledge, but they may have some worthwhile production and reception info. The main and most time-consuming task will be sourced expansion, but that's where only really dedicated editors ("fans") can help out. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a Wizard magazine...

Hey all. I have a rather specific request. Does anyone have a copy of Toons! The Animation Magazine #1? Toons was a short-lived Wizard spinoff from the late 1990s. The issue I'm looking for had a picture of Pikachu on the cover. I mainly want it because I think it might have some information on "Nazis on Tap", the "lost" Simpsons short. If anyone has a copy, or could let me know how to get one, I'd really appreciate it. Zagalejo^^^ 06:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Help! Vandalism of an image

This image has been vandalized: Image:Sleeping_Beauty.jpg. Can anyone put back the previous DVD cover image of the TV show and replace the image in the infobox for Sleeping Beauty (Faerie Tale Theatre episode)? Also, I think that article needs your project tag. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. –thedemonhog talk • edits 14:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLRC of List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes has been nominated for the removal of its Featured list status. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cast Listings

Note: This discussion should be merged with Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Style_guidelines#MOS_proposal for an advertised, centralized discussion on Television-related style guidelines

I am wondering how to avoid in-universe referencing within cast lists in a wikiproject, the members of which heartily endorse such.

The Doctor Who project within the past year altered its MOS in such a way that characters in episodic articles are listed within the infobox, and instead of alphabetical order use the BBC credit rolls as a guide.

While it has largely been accepted that each wikiproject is allowed a certain amount of leeway when it comes to defining its identity within the larger wikipedia project, that freedom of expression does not and should not include marked departure from how the rest of the community interprets related format.

The DH project's implementation of this MOS quirk raises issues of in-universe writing and greater repetition than is necessary in an episodic television article. The infobox is the most condensed version of the article present on the page. As such, it is vital to maintain an objective, real-world view of the contents. By listing the actors and their characters in the infobox, the DH Wikiproject allows for fictional characters to be given the same level of real-world consideration as the actors that portray them. A certain amount of this is understandable, as every wikiproject has as its most active members devoted, interested fans at its core. Understandable, but not acceptable.

As well, the current episode articles use the BBC credit roll at the end of the episode to determine which the order in which the characters and their actors are listed. Because it seems intuitive to list the actors (only) in alphabetical order, it has been argued in the DH wikiproject (as well as the episodic articles) that the importance with which BBC places on the characters in the episode is more important than organization. This would appear to be a largely speculative method of notability determination, as there is no citation to noting the importance of the cast listing, and requires, quixotically, the reader to "buy into" what BBC is not saying. It is also considerably unencyclopedic, as virtually every other article that lists casts (or involved parties) do so alphabetically. This is done so as to maintain objective neutrality. The body of the text of an article is to supply evidence as to importance, not uncited in the infobox.

Listing the characters in the cast alongside he actors that portray them is a sgnificant departure from the more accepted format of listing only the actors in the infobox and noting within the article the surnames of the actors in parentheses ater the first mentioning of the character they portray. This is the method by which virtually all film articles use and most television series (the ones that do not use this method are condensed/merged even further, such as Alias and Farscape, wherein notability has declined over time). Lost is an exceptionally good example of the larger consensus of how these sorts of articles are arranged. This pattern is not specific to American series, but cross The Pond; articles of British origin that utilize the same format as Lost include Red Dwarf, Space: 1999, Jekyll, as well as the proposed Doctor Who spinoff series K-9 and Company. All list the actors in the infobox, and their surnames next to the characters they portray in the body of the article.

The larger issues of encyclopedic uniformity and the consensus overwhelmingly indicated by the usage of the same format across an enormous number of unrelated and often disparate programs serve to outnumber a somewhat rebellious change by one wikiproject.

I welcome some input on this issue, as I certainly feel like the only one raising it within the Doctor Who wikiproject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The MOS for TV articles that I wrote addresses cast listings to a degree. It may help you out. It's still in the proposed phase (but with basically no dissention, so it'll probably be declared official here soon...it's been up for awhile). Anyway, it's modeled a lot after the FILM MOS guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any "wide consensus" was to what order the actor's should be listed in when they reside in the infobox, or in a cast list in the body of the article. If the consensus on that particular article is to make them alphabetical, then that should be the way they are presented. If it is to place them in the order they appear in the credits then that they way it should be done. What should not be done is to list the character names they portray in the infobox. That simply bloats the infobox more than is necessary, or even relevant. The infobox should be succinct. Hell, if there is a large number of actors in the show then it's probably best to forego using the infobox to list the cast altogether, and just provide a link to the body of the article. What one has to be careful of when ordering the actors is recentism. If it's in the body of the article, the actors should not be constently reordered so "keep up" with the current list the show delivers. It's saying that the "current" order is more important than the original version. For example, I wouldn't move Michael Rosenbaum to the bottom of the Smallville listings just because he left the show this past season. That doesn't change the fact that his character was essentially the second male lead for 7 seasons, and that the show was about him just as much as it was about Clark. I always prefer the "first come, first serve" method of listing them in the order that they first appear.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point, but consider that the idea of tailoring the cast listings in the infobox to follow what a tv show decides (without citation) removes some uniformity from the listings that using a simple alphabetization easily provides? Considering that some studios play games with the credit rolls (especially during contract renegotiation), isn't it best for us to sidestep all the crazy and simply advocate an alphabetical order? We use it for practically everything under the sun here in Wikipedia; why not extend it to cast lists, and avoid not only favoritism but recentism as well. As Rosenbaum (and others) have departed the series, the alphabetical listing would retain them in alphabetical order, right after 'q' but right before 's', and not drop them down to the bottom because they have left the series. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)`

I would also point out that when everyone agrees (whether tacitly or through long discussion) to use essentially the same format, it creates a consensus of opinion that serves as a guide for the whole. For example, almost everyone uses successive numbers of colons to indent conversations in discussions, but there is no rule or guideline that insists that we must use it. It is a general consensus to do so that serves as a consensus that that is the way it should be done, and those who refuse or fail to follow such are usually encouraged to post uniformly. Just a side thought. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If you start requiring people to following specific structures on pages then you begin to bleed into WP:CREEP. It's one thing to say, "to avoid constant change and favortism, listing in alphabetical order would be best, but if consensus for the page is to list them in a different order then follow consensus" -- and another thing to say, "All lists MUST be in alphabetical order to avoid favortism and recentism." Film articles don't follow that rule. Generally, the lead actor is first on any list that contains the cast.

As for the talk page analogy, we actually do have a formatting guideline for talk pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. To put Arcayne's comments into perspective, he came in about two weeks ago and started to change the formating of a few recent Doctor Who episode, moving the cast list out of the infobox. He was reverted several time, and when asked about is actions, the rationale he gave is essentially what he writes above. In a nutshell: "It doesn't look like other TV shows". The Dcotor Who project has been using this format for over a year now, deviating form the more traditional cast listing in a Cast section. This was purely done for design reasons, and to organize the infomation in a more concise way to resuce duplicate information. Nowhere in the guidelines is it discouraged to have character names in the episode infobox. But Arcayne keeps citing the "bigger consensus" that we should adhere to, and I have been unsuccesfull in explaining that consensus only exists between the editors of a specific artcle or project.

Now, to see what we're talking about, have a look for instance at Partners in Crime (Doctor Who); like any other DW episode, it lists the cast in the infobox. There are no concerns about being too "in-universe" or recentism, this is objective information; "that actor played that role", just as "that person wrote the episode", nothing more. The order is done at them most objective way; using the on-screen credits. I can see no problem with this format, and the linked article is even a featured article. Now, is there really a problem with this format? I'd like to know. So far, Arvayne's only concern is that it doesn't match "most other TV projects". — Edokter • Talk • 14:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For a single episode article, recentism isn't that much of an issue, because it's a single episode. If you were using that format on the main page for the show, then you would have an issue with recentism. My general feelings about cast lists in general has always been that they are useless. If the particular character is important to the episode then they will be mentioned in the plot description. That being the cast, it's as simple as putting the actor's name in parantheses in the plot area. This saves the duplication of said list anywhere else in the article - whether in another section or in the infobox. Why are we listing "Taxi driver" if he obviously wasn't important enough to need mentioning in the plot of the episode? IMDb keeps a comprehensive list of the cast from each episode already. If they aren't important enough to warrant mentioning in the plot, they probably aren't important enough to warrant mentioning anywhere else - so let IMDb handle the generic list of the actors who appeared in the episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was a fairly interesting misrepresentation of my viewpoints and actions by Edokter (considering htat it was he who suggested I post my query here), but I will avoid addressing the relative bad faith associated with that, and simply address the incorrect points.

My points, as made in both the article-specific discussions, wikiproject and here extend a bit beyond "it doesn't look like other tv shows". Noting both the uniformity issues that are vital to the presentation of an encyclopedia and the unspoken agreement to follow a certain pattern in furtherance of that uniformity are important to both credibility and ease of use. As Edokter admits that the change from this uniformity was for essentially to 'purty up' the design - i.e., adding bells and whistles to distinguish it from the rest of the community - I question whether such an intent is necessarily encyclopedic or simply a need to be different. Maybe its a fan thing.

As we can limitedly cite Imdb in terms of the cast, I suggest that we follow the order presented there. That certainly has to be better than following the whim of a BBC editor doing the credit roll. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"uniformity issues that are vital to the presentation of an encyclopedia and the unspoken agreement to follow a certain pattern"... In short; it doesn't look like other projects. Please do not interpret my comments as bad faith, I am merely stating it how I see it. You keep going on about this "unspoken agreement" and "bigger consensus", which I am trying to dispell. It is basically the "silent majority" argument. That is my biggest problem. I will say this one last time, and I would love to hear from other contributors what their thougth are: There is nothing wrong with a cast list in the infobox in episode pages. Admitteldy, in some case they can be trimmed, but there is no basis to abolish such a format until the community as a whole actually makes an objection. — Edokter • Talk • 17:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Break

(←denting, for sanity's sake), Actualy, in short, you - as a fan - want to prettify your wikiproject, and I totally understand that, but that sort of mentality is better suited to a clever little fan page that is not actually situated in Wikipedia. As for bad faith, stating that it cannot be bad faith because you are calling it how you see it is essentially your complaint as to my interpretation of of encyclopedia-ness and synthesis. Maybe you would find me (and likely folk in general) a lot less willing to dismiss you as some rabid fan if you were perhaps a bit more polite and willing to consider other points of view.

I guess what I find most disheartening about the viewpoint expressed by Edokter is that he doesn't think the entire community should be able to determine what content they have, but requires that that same 'community as a whole' must be assembled to tell him what is as plain as the nose on his face (and my utter apologies if Edoketer or anyone else reading this happens to not - via some injury or accident to not actually have a nose). His view of infoboxes is clearly in the minority everywhere outside the Doctor Who Wikiproject, and though I am sorry that Edokter feels this basic truth needs 'dispelling'; to the contrary, he might want to consider that it is in fact a reality and not something to be wished away like an unpleasant dream.

Allow me to crystallize the issue here, and cut away the dross:

Simply put, this is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias collect and organize information. One of the (many) ways that they do so is by uniformity. Another way is via alphabetization. My noting of the fact that the DW wikiproject does not wish to do this - conform to the encyclopedia in the basic way that every other project does - is not a personal attack on Edokter nor the other admitted fans of Doctor Who. It is a statement of unbiased fact. We all do it this way, so as to be more uniform. You are advocating that your smaller wikiproject does not have to do so. That is the problem at its crux. Maybe move away from the WP:DRAMA editor-editor attacks and focus your attentions at hand, please. They are not inextricable.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Arcayne. WikiProjects by their very nature are decentralized and rely on decentralized decision making. This means that the appearance of uniformity tends to emerge from the bottom, not the top. Look at the efforts of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Members of that team implemented many of their strategies through their individual leadership in separate WikiProjects. Some were more successful than others, and while their recommendations were never mandatory or required, other projects followed the most successful strategies, using the models that worked best for them, but expanding or limiting their scope in many of the same areas. The decentralized nature of Wikipedia shows emergent properties at the level of the WikiProject, which might appear as uniformity to the disinterested observer. That is to say, if an infobox strategy is more successful than another, it is highly likely that the vast majority of projects will adopt it, but there is really nothing mandating this uniformity or requiring it. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas. This is a discussion regarding the desires of wikiprojects to distinguish themselves via admitted deviations from the norm (read: uniform consensus) versus the overriding need for uniformity of the Project. While Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, it is still an encyclopedia, and as such, needs to follow certain organizational criteria. There are numerous issues with the noted issue within the DW wikiproject's MOS in regards to sourcing infobox usage and synthesis tolerances, and this conversation is an attempt to address them.

In the larger sense, you are correct; uniformity does indeed arrive from the bottom up, as does consensus. Once arrived at, though, there is no need to reinvent the wheel just so someone can add a playing card to the spokes (to get that cool motorcycle-ish sound on the Schwinn or Huffy). You are also correct in that there is nothing mandating the recognition of 'the wheels', but as they tend to go 'round and 'round, moving the encyclopedia forward, the clunker of a wheel that is more pear-shaped doesn't really assist that effort. I submit that the consensus that naturally arises from this uniformity, built from the bottom up should be respected, unless significant reasons exist or arise to discard it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I still find your interpretation of community consensus flawed. You think that once theis "wider" consensus is reached, it should be forced back down to individual projects. The process that Viriditas describes though is a continuous process, and there is no "once arrived" point. Projects keep changing, deviating and evolving. You however seem determined to force the wider consensus back down onto the projects from which it evolved from in the first place. WP:MOS is not a policy but a guideline. Once again, we follow WP:MOS and deviate without breaking it. I am interested to see how the new WP:MOS is working out; I'll be presenting my views there as well. — Edokter • Talk • 17:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really aware of project-wide infobox standardization. Does anyone have any examples? If they exist, then Arcayne could use it to bolster his argument. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My argument doesn't really need bolstering, but thanks anyway. Let's try the WikiProject Lost for example, though I am sure other examples exist, like WikiProjects Red Dwarf, and that for Film. that should serve as examples enough to start. Please feel free to add more. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me try clarify what you are saying so we are on the same page. Are you saying that as descendents of this parent project, the above projects have standardized the infobox such that usage is uniform in each case? Also, how many other descendant projects do not use similar standards? If what you are saying is true, you should simply be able to point to a standard template in use through whatlinkshere. If you can do that, your argument would be supported. But, I'm guessing the reason this hasn't been done is because there isn't a standard in use. If you are proposing such a standard, then just make it formal and invite the community to discuss it. From what I can tell, centralized discussion has already been initiated by Bignole, and the community has been invited to discuss it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Style_guidelines#MOS_proposal. There is no need to duplicate discussion. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

break 2

I boldly offered this edit to the infobox part of the project page:
old:

The general infobox for an actor is {{Infobox actor}}. For voice actors use {{Infobox actor voice}}.

new:

The general infobox for an actor is {{Infobox actor}}. For voice actors use {{Infobox actor voice}}. In general, it is best to list actors (and not the characters they portray) in a semblance of encyclopedic order, such as alphabetical.

This addresses the need to remove in-universe writing within the infobox as well as addressing the need for a less whimsical ordering of actors listed in the infobox. It is not a command, but a recognition of how it has generally been done throughout other projects. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Edokter and Collectonian have requested consensus on this matter before inclusion. WP:BRD is used to avoid edit wars, not start them. You made a bold edit, and it was reverted, three times. The way BRD works is, after the first bold edit, you discuss--you do not continue reverting to your preferred version after you have been reverted. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely intervention and revert, then. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

First, that section only provides links to usefull infoboxes for individual actors. In it's current form, it is way too summary to include any usage guidelines relating to all the different TV and episode ifnboxes currently in use. Besides, with the new MoS being proposed, over half this page will become decrapated anyway. — Edokter • Talk • 22:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least my heart was in the right place. Things will fix themselves after all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What is considered notable?

What is considered notable enough for Wikipedia? Is it:

1. Any television series that has appeared on TV in an English speaking country
2. Any television show that has appeared on TV in an English speaking country (one-off dramas and such that the BBC and ITV produce)
3. Both
4. A television series from a non-English speaking country (for example, a series from Uzbekistan perhaps)
5. A television series from a non-English speaking country when the only references and sources are in that country's language
6. Something else I haven't covered

Thanks. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If we have references for its existence, and it has been aired by a major (or simply notable) network (regardless of language) then I would say it's notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 07:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't have to be in English. Just because this is the English language wikipedia refers to the language it's written in, not the language of the subject material. There's loads of foreign language books and films on here, why should TV be any different? If it's notable, it's fine. Ged UK (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much what Ned said. Any television series that has aired on a national cable or broadcast network whose existance can be reliably sourced is notable. For local television shows airing in just a single city or small region, it must have significant coverage in multiple sources, not just local newspapers. That said, I think we could do with a little tightening of those criteria, as even films has tighter criteria than we do, which sometimes leads to conflicts over made for TV movies. SciFi's bevy of B films and "made just for network X" type films, for example, often do not meet Film notability guidelines and are regularly deleted, however, they technically meet our guidelines and could be argued to be kept. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Need help

Can anyone check all Pages that link to the article Winx Club and if the link was added on some pages in the manner of vandalism or something, please remove it.--JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 07:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a go. Should be finished by tomorrow. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 2894 articles assigned to this project, or 29.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes

Hey all. There's a bit of an edit war going on at the Degrassi episodes. Seems like the pages for all the seasons have come under battle, but the main discussion is going on at Talk:List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes#Disagreement over episode numbers. The conflict is whether or not hour-long episodes should be considered as one or two episodes, given that they may have run that way in syndication. I'm only giving a third opinion on the page, but perhaps someone from this project could go over and add to the consensus. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition episodes needs help

This list is in seriously bad shape. Only one episode is using {{episode}}, resulting in the pilot episode actually appearing at the bottom of the page. Guessing there is something messed up in the code. Its missing airdates, citations, and a lead. Summaries themselves seem okay, except the formatting, so could possibly be cleaned up fairly quick and put into good shape if someone wants to give it a whirl. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 11:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This reason this has not be done more is because someone revert the attempts by me to add the rest of the epsiode because it was in discussion but i agree with you, when i added it as a test to see how other would feel i made a error so i fixed it but someoen revert the my attemts to fix it.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Story arc/multiparter consistency

This is a continuation of Wikipedia talk:Television episodes/Archive 4#Multiple episodes/story arcs and how to deal with them. Seeing as the point I made there is the same point I want to make now:

We need a process for articles on episodes with multiple parts. So far, we have four types of these articles, with examples:

***	One article	Multiple articles
Episodes with the same name	Exodus (Lost)	Imaginationland Imaginationland Episode II Imaginationland Episode III
Differently-named episodes in a distinct story arc.	Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story	The Eye of Jupiter (Battlestar Galactica) Rapture (Battlestar Galactica)

As you can see, there is a level of inconsistency here, thus there are two questions to be asked:

1. Do episodes with similar titles that air in succession warrant their own articles, or a summary article?
2. Do episodes in a distinct story arc warrant their own articles or a summary article, if the arc has a common name? [such as An Unearthly Child or Stewie Griffin]

1. If the arc does not have a common name, should there be a summary article or seperate articles?

*For example, An Unearthly Child is the common name for the first four episodes of Doctor Who.

Thoughts to the original two questions? The previous discussion whimpered out with no result, so I've brought it here for a wider audience. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that it should be up to whoever is working on it, i.e. I do not think that we need to have consistency across WP:TV for this matter. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Documentary template?

I was looking around, but could not find a template appropriate for usage in television documentary articles. Anyone know where I can find one? - Hexhand (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

COPS (TV series) and Meerkat Manor (the only TV documentaries I could think of) both use the general {{Infobox Television}} template, so that should work for your article(s) as well. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. My sole concern is that those are both ongoing series, whereas a single documentary might not need all the extra stuff. The article I am working on (and sprucing up somewhat) is located here. Feel free to take a look. Again, thanks for the nudge. - Hexhand (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 9/11 and Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins are documentary films (big screen and television), and they use {{Infobox Film}}. This may also work, but you are the better judge. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast Engineering and Technology Taskforce

(see previous discussion for background information)

I have created the Broadcast Engineering and Technology Taskforce under WikiProject: Television. If you are interested, please join and begin discussion of technical issues. --tonsofpcs _(Talk) 18:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone help me fix the image summary?

I recently uploaded three images for use in the documentary article, The Gunpowder Plot: Exploding The Legend::

• 1,
• 2,
• 3

I would like to make sure the image rationale/summary is durable. Could someone with experience in this area take a look and offer some feedback? - Hexhand (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

They look good to me. You could probably get away with larger versions of the last two, even. -- Ned Scott 07:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? How much larger? I had originally considered creating a vertical montage of the explosion, not unlike a roll of film, but I saw nothing in FA that would provide a precedent for its usage. - Hexhand (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, no side should be more than 400px, and you should strive for image sizes under 100kB (that's the vibe I got in FACs and NFC discussions). There was also talk of an allowable size of 1 megapixel(?), but I always forget that refers to. Anyway, up to that, rarely anyone will make a fuzz. You can also see what's missing in your rationales by using {{Non-free media rationale}}. The FUR in Image:Carnivale Season 1 Cast Promo.jpg can give you some ideas to make your rationales even more deletion-proof. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For these specific images I would go about twice as big (about 400px, like sgeureka suggested for a max). Large enough to see the detail a bit better. You can tell what's going on in the pictures, but not all that well with them this small. -- Ned Scott 07:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Film and television terminology

Hello, I've initiated discussion at WT:FILM#Renaming of filming terms about renaming articles about film terminology to be properly disambiguated. I noticed that WP:TV disambiguates with (television), while WP:FILM can't quite do that with (film), since it is reserved for individual film articles. At this point, it seems likely that we will move to (film terminology), but I wanted to make sure that we avoided any possible issues. In this case, there may be some overlap between film and television in the terminology like Split screen (film). Do editors at WP:TV have any suggestions on how to address this kind of overlap? We'll keep it separate if possible, but with exceptions like the aforementioned example, we should have an alternative solution. (Note: Looks like WP:TV has Category:Television terminology; WP:FILM may try to make a similar category in Category:Film terminology, so we can mention both categories in any kind of overlap.) Please comment at the discussion link! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would put the article under the name that it is more prevalent in or originated from and make the alternate name simply redirect. If wanted, you could always use the format-ignorant motion picture. --tonsofpcs _(Talk) 13:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Building better plot summaries

I've worked up a potential guideline on how to write plot summaries at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. I welcome input from members of this project as I try to move the page to guideline status. Thanks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jason Beghe up for Peer review

Comments appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jason Beghe/archive1. Cirt (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Help!

I was referred to this page to find a few other editors who can help. We need help improving The Partridge Family article. Much of it is pretty well written, but it currently lacks in-line citations and could use more sources to verify it's content. We do NOT need editors who want to do drive-by tagging and commit forms of sabatoge. Lord knows we have had our share of smarty-pants who just want to be bossy and tell you whats wrong with the article without actually doing any of the work. So if you have a heart and want to work WITH other people with a cooperative spirit to improve an article about this wonderful TV show, which I personally hold close to my heart PLEASE drop by the discussion page and say Hi. We want to make this article perfect! Thank you! ShirleyPartridge (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK it's been a week, and so far... no responses. Anybody have any friends who'd like to help perhaps? ShirleyPartridge (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Shirley...you will find that not a lot of people will respond to requests for help relating to old material. Even the newer series 24 has one person who is doing a lot of the work. One thing that would help, next time, use a more descriptive section heading. Simply saying help does not tell anyone with what you need help. I wish I could be of service, however, I know nothing of the subject. - LA (T) 05:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to find competent and devoted editors for any kind of television/fiction articles (at least those that I have worked on). Editors are usually either competent and "tell you what's wrong with the article", or they're devoted and just care about adding WP:FANCRUFT. The best you can do is to hope for someone to miraculously show up, but please don't take it personally if no-one does [show up]. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you'll also find most of the competent and devoted editors, like me, were put off by such a rude "help" request that shows that such efforts wouldn't be appreciated. Rephrased, you've basically asked someone else to come in and do the major work of referencing supposedly accurate info (which, if it were, would already be referenced), but not to dare actually point out major issues in the article. You insulted any editor who might actually want to TEACH you how to be a better editor and actually improve the article. You claim to hold the series dear to your heart, but you seem to only want someone to help who won't point out that the article is, quite frankly, in absolutely horrible shape. It isn't well-written at all, it has serious issues with format (WP:MOSTV is your friend), the lead sucks, its bloated with trivia, and had a fansite listed as a reference! It is missing almost all of the basic information of any television series, while being bloated with a huge trivia section. If you actually want REAL help, not just a handout, I'd suggest you consider reprasing your request to accept all help offered, not just what you think it needs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian...you were new once, and those taggers are so overzealous. I say if one has time to tag an article, one has time to fix an article. So, for every tag a person puts on an article, they should have to fix as many problems. Also, I have seen worse trivial sections. I fixed a few. - LA (T) 07:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, "we taggers" are not overzealours nor do we always have time to fix an article. Tagging can be done quickly. Its easy to skim and article, spot major problems, and tag it for issues. Fixing such issues, especially referencing issues, can take hours, if not days, especially for a series like that which is likely to have TONS of available information. I have a ton of other articles in my queue that I'm already working on that needs just as much work. Sometimes I will tag then come back later and fix, but unless its an article I actually want to work on, I'll tag to get it in the list of stuff needing fix for editors who like to do just that to find. Sorry, but no, we should not have to fix as many problems as we fix. Now, if I tag an article for issues and someone has questions about the tags, or needs guidance on fixing the issues, I'm happy to provide it. But to claim that if I tag I have to fix is just plain lazy to me. So, only the person willing to point out that the article has problems should fix it? Uh, no. Think what you like, but pointing out article problems is an important part of article editing, even if one can't fix it right then and there. And yes, I was new once too. I asked people HOW to do stuff or to TEACH me what to do. I didn't run around begging other people to do it all for me nor was I arrogant enough to claim that said helper shouldn't point point out any other issue while they are helping. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, I came here with a very sincere, and very specific request for help. I explained the kind of editing that would not be helpful, the history of drive-by "taggers". Yet you proceeded to show up on the article, do some drive by tagging, make tangential out-of-touch edits without even attempting to act cooperatively. Further you called my request "rude" but your reasons really don't seem to make sense. I certainly didn't intend any rudeness, and genuinely was trying to get some help with areas that I am not particularly good at. You made no attempt to do this in a co-operative way, didn't even try to join the discussion page, or proceed in a cooperative or helpful way, yet you feel entitled to follow me to the article and do exactly what we asked you not to do. Your writing style, syntax and rabid approach are remarkably familiar however. This was almost as offensive to me as the mean-spirited response (above). I hope that other editors take note of this. Vengeful editing like this is very concerning, and even if you can't help with the article, I hope that fellow editors will work to stop this type of nasty behavior on Wikipedia. ShirleyPartridge (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict - original post was changed during writing of this reply) Guess what...it isn't your article. You call attention to it, it will likely get tagged. In fact, others have already tried to tag the article for issues and you keep removing them. Your request was rude. You didn't ask for help, you asked for someone to fix up the refs while making it clear that you don't want anyone to point out the actual flaws in the article. Referencing is not its only major issue. If you don't want people to point out the serious flaws in the article, don't ask for help. You yourself made it clear you don't actually want cooperative help, you want someone to just do what you want rather than actually fix the article. I didn't bother joining the talk page discussion because you were already attacking one editor who dared to point out issues with the article. It isn't nasty behavior, its called telling you the truth (perhaps brutally, but I don't believe in sugarcoating just to sugarcoat). I suppose you'd rather we all just keep ignoring your request so you wonder why rather than being honest and telling you straight out why we aren't bothering. The reality is, you either want real help, including people tagging, pointing out the article's many flaws, and possibly making very bold/big edits to fix them, and see if the article can at least be brought up a C or B class (and really, that show should have more than enough sourcable material to be able to be taken to FA class with work), or want someone to pretend everything is great but the referencing. Most experienced editors will do the first, when they know the resident editors are going to help and are open and willing to learning how to do the same. Most experienced editors will not, however, do the later. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your characterization of my request and contributions to the article are wholeheartedly inaccurate and your conduct here was offensive to me. ShirleyPartridge (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Shirley...one more thing, use edit summaries! Please?! - LA (T) 07:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Asking for an assesment from experienced WP:TV editor.

I Love Money was assesed as High Importance and Start Quality. I don't have a problem with Start quality, just the importance. Also an editor changed it to Good Article and Top, but I reverted. Please provide an assesment :). <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 02:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re rated it for you, although wikiproject television doesn't use the c class the article is c classed and it more mid importance than high just now.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :D. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 02:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment at Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

There is a request for comment at Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), regarding the inclusion of the characters surname in the lead sentence. More opinions are needed. Please read the most recent discussion, Talk:Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)#Name Redux, to understand why each side is opposing/supporting the inclusion of the name in the lead. Thank you. 11:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Taglines

Recently I've noticed lists of taglines popping up on TV articles, just below the intro; see Nip/Tuck for what I'm talking about. Was this format conceived by WikiProject Television, and if so, where was that discussion held? If not, I would highly recommend they be removed on sight. It looks odd and isn't very encyclopedic to have them thrown in below the intro. - auburnpilot talk 01:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Answered my own question: WP:MOSFILMS clearly states taglines should not be added. It seems most of them were added by Youngandrestless (talk · contribs), who was asked to stop and has since stopped editing all together. - auburnpilot talk 01:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I never thought about TV taglines, because they aren't as common as they are in film. Maybe we should add that to the "Things to avoid" at WP:MOSTV.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and support the addition. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I could understand if there's just one or two of them, and it's highly associated with the show, but situations like the Nip/Tuck example should definitely be avoided. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The way the film articles are handled, and the way I think it should be handled here, is that you have to show that it is important to the show and not just list them. You basically should have a section (or paragraph in a relevant section) devoted to explaining how the taglines became such a huge part of the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Will it make any benefit...

...when {{Infobox TV channel}}, {{Infobox Radio station}}, {{Infobox Broadcast}} and {{Infobox Broadcasting network}} merges into one?--JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 12:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a Request For Opinion

Project Runway (season 5)

I am looking for someone to offer opinions in a minor table color dispute between me and another editor. Any comment is helpful. And sorry if this is wrong place. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Billi Bruno

I recently made a post at Talk:Billi Bruno that I would like someone to see. Hallpriest9 (Talk) 14:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My Family

Hello. I've recently had a problem at My Family after an IP address added a section called "Summary". I removed this as unnecessary, as its largely a repeat of information at List of My Family episodes, and any useful information is unsourced (when sourced would belong in the "Characters" section). After having problems with it being re-added back in, I contacted Collectonian, who removed it but was reverted soon after (see a discussion at her talk). Any help in this would be appreciated, as I'm getting no where!--UpDown (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The O.C. task force

I have added The O.C. task force under the umbrella of WikiProject Television. If anyone is interested in helping, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sesame Street FAR

I have listed Sesame Street at Featured article review as I feel that is no longer Featured Article-class. You can leave your comments here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Longest Running Shows.

• List of longest running U.S. syndicated television series
• List of television programs by episode count
• List of longest running U.S. television series
• List of longest running U.S. primetime television series
• List of longest running U.S. broadcast network television series
• List of longest running U.S. cable television series
• List of longest running U.K. television series
• Longest running TV shows by category
• List of longest running Australian television series

For a start I think these pages need to fall under this project. However, I'm thinking that they also need some overview work. There are multiple formats and I think a little standardising needs to be done (Obviously they can't all be the same, but some should be). Some combining needs to be done. I can't see the need for Syndication/primetime/etc but I'll accept that that's happened for reasons over time. I think that the "by episode count" page need only to be a column on the other pages. I think that there needs to be an international version of each list and where necessary a national version and a broadcast type version after that (if needed). The "by category" list I'm not happy with. I sort of get the point, but in reality it's a little "trivial". These are the lists I can find from the longest category, but there could be others, and the "see also" lists are fairly hap-hazard, I think they need some standardising too. Or perhaps a template or something. Finally, I think that a determination needs to be made about which page about how complete it is. Almost complete lists are fine, but others, ones that are obviously incomplete need a tag placed. Any thoughts/comments? Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Television participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on those media franchises which are multimedia as not to step on the toes of this one. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help us get back on solid footing. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. Thank you. - LA (T) 21:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Masters of Horror Help Needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – List of Masters of Horror episodes has been deleted and the article returned to its pre-cleaned up state

Last night I stumbled on Masters of Horror after someone created an episode article for it using WP:COPYVIO material from IMDB. I redirected it to the episode list, only to discover one didn't exist. So, I spent a few hours creating an appropriate episode list, adding in the missing airdates and writers from a semi-list that had been in the main article. I then checked all of the other episode articles. All of them were simply plot summaries, some 800-900 words in length, and a few more copyvioed from IMDB. They all failed WP:EPISODE, WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, and WP:MOSTV. As such, I redirected them all to the episode list. I also spent over an hour adding some actual real content to the main series page, though it isn't a series I'd ever heard of nor would ever watch myself (not a horror fan). I planned to spend some more time working on expanding the other sections, like reception, et al, as there are tons of references out there for this series.

Alas, another editor who hasn't done much editing in the last year, has suddenly jumped back online and began undoing many of the episode redirects. When I left a polite question on his talk page asking why, he when on a spreed of personal attacks on his talk page, an AfD for one episode, my talk page, and in his edit summaries. He has now began canvassing people to help "save" the episode articles[14][15][16] and started a discussion suggesting that the new List of Masters of Horror episodes be merged back into Masters of Horror under the premise that its split out somehow "harms" the article. Some addition a project eyes are needed, as well as additional opinions on the proposed merge Talk:Masters of Horror#Merge in episode list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, and you complain about canvasing when I drop a note to a fellow editor? I believe the articles are entirely savable, and should be saved - I've written a little about it here, FWIW. Artw (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Notifying the project about a merge is appropiate. Notifying only editors who are "fans" of the show is not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea if Emperor is a "fan" or not - what he is is an editor who has previously done very good work bringing pop cultural articles into shape, and who has helped avert some mass deletion of articles by doing so in the past, which is, I beleive, exactly what needs to happen here. I'd do it myself if I had the resources to bring to bear on it, I do not, so I've let someone who does know. Artw (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has decided he agrees with Artw that the episode list should remain is a bad format in the main article instead of in the cleaned up format in a separate episode list per the WP:MOSTV. If no one else chimes in, this article will return to a crappy, useless state that has nothing but an episode list and DVD details because of their reverting. Please weigh in on the discussions going on. The article is now under full page protection because of the edit warring. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Colonel Warden has declared the episode list to be "a content fork which does not respect the contributions made under the GFDL by the editors who first started the list in the main article" (never mind it uses the summaries from the original list in the main article, it just fixed the format, added writer and airdate info, and a lead) and claims he is going to AfD it. Call me nuts, but when are episode lists suddenly BAD for TV articles? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I missed this... Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

2 articles from this Wikiproject are up for deletion

They are Timeline of the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike and Reaction by actors to the 2007-08 Writers Guild of America strike, just to let you know. Dalejenkins | 13:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Show for peer review

I've listed The Daily Show for peer review because I'm really interested in bringing the article up to FA-quality. It was recently listed as a good article, thanks in large part to the fantastic feedback we got through the last PR, and I'd be delighted if anybody was able to offer some comments/critiques/suggestions on how it might be improved further. Thanks! -Shoemoney2night (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

TV Series with episodes in the public domain

I created a category for TV series with episodes in the public domain in their country of origin. Anybody wanna help? Retro Agnostic (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the link? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

it's at Category:TV series with episodes in the public domain Retro Agnostic (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Television participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Pilot (House)

Pilot (House) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

The A-Team

Howdy folks, would some of you mind looking at the The A-Team page and give some pointers/comments? Kusonaga (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for a Peer Review

If anyone is free, I'd be grateful if they could carry out a Peer Review on Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation). It was passed as a Good Article today and I'd like to take it to FAC. I am a little concerned about the Plot section though. WP:MOSTV says "As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words. Complicated plots may take more space to present than simpler plots." This is an article about two episodes so the plot has been split into two parts. The word count for Part 1 is 653, and the count for Part 2 is 453, making a total of 1106. If anyone has any suggestions of how to lower the word count, especially for Part 1, while still making it understandable, that'd be great. Wikipedia:Peer review/Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation)/archive1. Thank you, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Rating discrepancy on Kid Nation

There appears to be a discrepancy between two WikiProject Television templates on Kid Nation. The talk page has a template with no rating or assigned level of importance. The article itself does. Thanks. Barte (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No idea why the mainspace page had the header, I just removed it (listed as A-class to? very doubtful...) --MASEM 18:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox kdrama

Template:Infobox kdrama has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 03:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposing a new WP:NFC guideline with largest impact on TV episodes

Based on several FACs, there seems to be support for a new NFC guideline which will primary effect episode pages, specifically: Non-free images used in infoboxes should be limited to those that "officially" represent the topic's material, such as front covers of books, albums, and video games, movie posters, and television show title cards.

The point here is that the infobox is meant to capture the critical, unquestionable details of the show, and thus only official imagery be used. For most articles, this doesn't affect it but does affect television episodes because the current practice of placing a screenshot from somewhere in the episode in the title box would need to be changed. Basically, as it is now, there are two problems with this approach:

• Selecting the right screenshot for what we are considering to be the most unbiased snapshot of an episode (the infobox) is a matter of POV guided by what the article's content provides. But it is still POV and what may represent the episode well for one person may not do the same for another.
• In nearly all cases, the screenshot is being separated from where it is being talked about in the text by being in the infobox. There needs to be better harmony between where the image is shown and the text it is meant to augment.

That said, this is not a witch hunt to get all show images off episode articles; what will simply happen is that the image moves from the infobox to the text body in a location appropriate to match where it is talked about. I know some episodes actually have official promotional material (like the Simpsons) so these can stay.

I can think of no other project that would be as dramatically affected by this change, so I seek any input to make sure this is acceptable. --MASEM 13:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that we claim to choose an unbiased snapshot of an episode. Secondly, I do not think that that is an issue. The vast majority of readers do not care if a picture could be slightly more relevant to the plot; they just care that there is a picture there for their eyes to feast on and help them to identify the episode. In this case, point of view is not a bad thing. For example, sometimes I think that it is better to use passive voice or active voice in an article and maybe someone else disagrees. Maybe I am biased because I prefer one voice to the other, but it does not really matter; what does matter is that there is a sentence there for others to read. And if the choice of an image is really an issue, I am sure that users can discuss their options and possibly decide to change or remove it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really feelin' it. Sometimes the "official" image really sucks, and by sucks I mean doesn't give any real valuable information. -- Ned Scott 04:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for several reasons:

1. This would go further then NFC demands, and that should never have to be the case.
2. The image is chosen through consensus, not POV. The same NFC rules apply to the infobox image as they do for every other image in Wikipedia.
3. Where an image is placed is purely an aesthatic decision, making this purely a MOS issue, and certainly not an NFC issue. Screenshots are no less "official" then promotional material or title cards.

So, I see no reason to add a rule to NFC. — Edokter • Talk • 21:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ned that "official" images sometimes/often suck, and I agree with Edoktor that the question of "where" is a MOS issue, not a an NFC one. However, (I have already replied at WP:NFC and thought about this since), I now think that there should be an effort to rely more on official images where possible, without making it a necessity. Having more than one screenshot per episode article should IMO also be strongly discouraged now - a screenshot may appear in the infobox or the plot section, but not both. If these changes are accepted and adopted, we can discuss this again in half a year and think about making it more stringent if this brings us closer to wikipedia's free mission. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a side comment - images in the plot section should be discouraged unless critical commentary can be found for them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge suggestion for broadcast infoboxes

The merge of {{Infobox TV channel}}, {{Infobox Radio station}}, {{Infobox Broadcast}} and {{Infobox Broadcasting network}} is suggested. Click here to discuss. -- JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 12:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

CfR needs more opinions

There is currently a CfR discussion taking place regarding the names of four categories here that needs some fresh eyes. Category names are not explicitly covered by the television naming convention, so your ideas are welcomed. LA (T) @ 01:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on changes to WP:APPRENTICE

There is currently a discussion on whether WP:APPRENTICE should be expnded from being UK-focused to worldwide-focused. If anyone wants to join the WikiProject they can, and you can join in on the discussion here. Dalejenkins | 13:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Homer Simpson

Hello, I've recently been working on Homer's article and I would like some feed back on it. At the moment, I'm not worried about copyediting, but any input relating to anything (especially stuff that could be added) is more than welcome. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Very comprehensive; I particularly enjoyed reading the Voice section. If there is something to criticize, it would be redundance and overuse of examples in the Personality section. The Analysis section shares many traits with the Personality section and general Reception and could be merged there - or maybe create a Personality & Characterization section? And yes, copyediting is still necessary if you aim for FAC. I can't find anything else to improve, so good job otherwise. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it. I'll work on trimming the personality section down a little. As for analysis, I would prefer to keep it seperate from personality, because personality is basically stating what the show tells us about him. Analysis is about telling you how others have analyzed the character. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not take any offense if you completely ignored my input and ran in the opposite direction. :-) But by making that distinction between Personality and Analysis, aren't you essentially making a distinction between synthesised analysis based on primary sources, and proper third-party analysis? (I am asking because I just sent off a character article to GAN where I on purpose did not make that distinction). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (U.S. game show) GAR

I have nominated Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (U.S. game show) for good article reassessment as I feel that it no longer meets the good article criteria. Feel free to leave comments on the talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hulu.com

There's an ongoing discussion regarding use of Hulu.com as external link in TV related articles. Those interested are requested to contribute their thoughts on the issue. LeaveSleaves (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Pilot notability

Your input on the notability of the Fringe (TV Series) pilot would be welcome in this AFD. Are all pilots notable or are there specific requirements to establish a pilot's notability? Dreadstar † 06:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement over link on Fringe Pilot article

Can we get some more views over at Talk:Pilot (Fringe)#External Links regarding the inclusion of a link to the Massive Dynamic game in the episode article. Two editors feel it does not belong in the episode article and adds no value, while a third feels it should be included because it enhances the viewing experience. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* And we now have a disagreement over the inclusion of a promotional image at Fringe (TV series), that was already removed from the pilot article. See Talk:Fringe (TV series)#Maybe slow down just a little bit. As Hexhand is displaying serious ownership issues and making lengthy personal attacks anytime I do anything on this article, I'm requesting that someone else from the project weight in and maybe volunteer to watch over this page. Its one of the few series pages to actually start in decent shape and I'd hoped to keep it and its related articles that way, but I'm tired of the nastiness he insists on throwing my way and am close to losing my temper with him. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, "about to lose your temper"? I'd say its been in the Lost and Found for a few days now, Collectonian. There's ownership, and there's doing the article correctly. As C has been trying exceptionally hard to have the pilot article deleted, I find it a bit hard to muster lots of faith that he's loving the article. Adding to that is having every single one of my edits reverted, simplty because they are mine. Current example: I add a promo image used to market the series, and note in edit summary that I would add citations and text to support it in short order. C reverts the image less than 8 minutes later, noting it is uncited and a bad image, despite the image's fair use uses almost precisly the same as those FA article promotional images.

I would prefer to have Collectonian calm the hell down and have a cup of tea. The accusations presented here and elsewhere of ownership and nastiness and wikiquette alerts all point to somoen displaying phenomenally bad faith. I have agreed and apologized for my own initial poor response to C's behavior (every instance either ignored, deleted or snarked at), but she seems happy to continue raging, and its becoming boring. I certainly didn't come to Wikipedia to deal with drama, and that is all I am getting from her. I thought we were supposed to discuss and find compromise. With Collectonian, it seems that the choices are her way, or her way.

I welcome a more receptive presence in the article. - Hexhand (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Television

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of non-fiction television

Hi. This may have been discussed (repeatedly !) before, but... are there any guidelines on notability criteria for non-fiction television - either individual programmes or series ? WP:FICT won't apply, so is it just the usual third-party/independent coverage per WP:N ? CultureDrone (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:NOTABILITY pretty much serves as the main notability guideline for television shows (fiction and non-fiction). Anyway, the only kind of television programme articles that I have seen getting deleted were 5 minute cartoons or short-run infotainment shows.– sgeureka ^t•c 10:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge soundtrack articles into parent media?

A discussion has been started on the WikiProject Media franchises talk page regarding this topic. Please come over and give your input. Thanks! LA (T) @ 07:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The West Wing FAR

The West Wing has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Manchester United TV → MUTV

Could someone take a look at this and weigh in from a television perspective instead of the biased perspectives of both sides?
Talk:Manchester_United_TV#Requested_move
Thanks, Krocheck (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Red Green Show characters section

Hi everyone. Could I ask for some comments on an issue that seems to be a recurring theme in The Red Green Show - namely, which set of secondary/minor characters to include on the main article page? I've tried a couple of times to start discussion on things like this in Talk:The Red Green Show, but it seems there are so few people watching that article that nobody's really interested in discussing things there.

The current question I have is: Since the show is defined almost entirely by its characters, it seems appropriate to have at least the main characters described on the page. At one point, we had an attempt to list them all - at first on the main page, then splitting out the minor and unseen characters into their own article. (That was later deleted via AfD.) Recently, an anonymous user added a good description of Buzz Sherwood to the Secondary Characters section. Buzz only appeared in about the first six seasons of the show and was never part of any main plot segments (to my knowledge), so I reverted, reasoning that Buzz is a minor character and not a secondary. But it's a fuzzy line there, since other characters that ARE in that section (like Hap Shaughnessy) could also be considered minor. There's no real formula that works for this.

I'm afraid that if we start listing all the characters that might be considered secondary and/or minor, we'll end up back where we started, with a character-heavy article that needs splitting out and then deleting for lack of notability. I'm leaning more towards removing the secondary characters section entirely, but like I said, the show has almost all of its substance in its characters (like many comedy shows).

Would anyone care to comment, either here or on the article talk? Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How many characters are there? If it's just what's on the page, then leave it (it could use clean up though). If it's a lot more, than I'd think about creating a Characters of The Red Green Show, and listing them ALL (including main characters) there. I would then drop all secondary characters from the main article. But that's more if you have a lot more characters. Another thought, you could create a list of all the actors and their roles, and limit the IU information to nothing (or just a sentence describing them). I would certainly do a Google search ("Google News" provides the most reliable sources) for OOU information on the characters of the show, regardless. I think you're right, it does create an awkward line as you're forced to split them off (which creates the possibility of them being deleted for lack of notability). Though, at the moment, the article really isn't large enough to worry about having "too many" listed, though I would worry about having too much plot information for each character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just listing off the ones I know about from memory, I counted 23 characters that have appeared on the show more than once (including one guest star), plus six characters that are frequently mentioned but never seen, and there have been a variety of one-shot guest stars on the show as well. Of all of those, only five stand out as main characters. As I mentioned, we did at one point have a "Characters" article that got deleted by AfD because, at the time, only secondary, minor and unseen characters were listed there and they ALL failed WP:N. If we are going to investigate another Characters article, how can we still fit within the notability policies? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A main list for characters of live-action television shows is pretty much accepted on wikipedia now, but I agree with Bignole that if you want to be on the safe side, you need to move the main characters there also, and add a few reliable refs (five or ten from google or DVD extras should do, if you find some). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Do you think a split discussion is necessary, or should I just go ahead with a split? I'm thinking I could just do the split non-controversially since hardly anyone discusses anything there. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe work the page up in a sandbox first, and then when it's ready move it over. This way, you won't have to fight the notability game from the start, as you'll already have the page well put together. Characters of Smallville is one that I created not too long ago, mainly for some of the same reasons you talked about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I went ahead and started it (just a framework at the moment) at User:KieferSkunk/Red Green characters. As I was putting that list together, I realized there were even more characters and sub-characters than in my original count. Each character I could name and that has played an actual part on the show has a section. A couple of characters have sub-sections under their "main" characters (Dalton's wife, Dougie's brother, etc.). There were a few characters whose names I couldn't remember, listed in a separate section. And then all of the unseen characters are listed in their own section. There's no real content on this page at the moment, but it'll get there eventually. :) If you're interested in helping, I'd certainly welcome it! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good start. I don't know how much help I could personally be, as I have never heard of the show. I'm not sure how much this will help, but here a few search results: Google News and Google web. Be wary of the web search. Places like IMDb, TV.com, and other similar sites are not considered reliable. Whenever you find a web source, read their "about us" section and try and find out how they come across their facts and if they have any editorial oversight.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

NCIS task force?

Hi there, I was just wondering if there was some interest in creating a taskforce for NCIS. I know many people like the show but its articles here need some work and I don't have the time to do it at the moment (I have enough time to check on things and such but I don't have multiple hours at a time to really concentrate on an article). So I thought I'd ask here if some people were willing to help, maybe even creating a new task force for it. Anyone interested? :-) SoWhy 12:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't really see the need for a task force for any single television series. You have a main article, an episode list (maybe with season episode lists) and a character list. Maybe one or two character articles, but I doubt more than that for notability reasons. That doesn't really need a whole task force, just one or two dedicated editors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but maybe a task force could create more content. But that's why I asked here. I'd be happy with some more help there, no matter in what form it happens. Regards SoWhy 18:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What kind of "more content" though? The frame works should be in place, I'd think, just need cleaning, referencing, etc (and maybe project support to help if you encounter issues with the fanbase). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, with enough help I think most episodes could merit an article of their own (with production details and such like) and most major characters' articles can be created or vastly improved. But cleaning, referencing and such like is much work as well and I'd appreciate any help (I've been almost alone on those articles for most of the time, with some IPs adding stuff sometimes). I am currently in much real life stress and so I think more interested editors would be nice. Regards SoWhy 14:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with asking for volunteers for collaboration, but can I just say that if you haven't met any interested editors there and are low on time yourself, that creating even more new articles is possibly the worst idea? Summarizing plot and dumping it on wikipedia is quick, but cleaning up that mess from Stub/Start-class to C-class (and higher) will keep you busy enough, so why not devote some time into improving the main article, the character list and the episode list first? – sgeureka ^t•c 15:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on when a TV show warrants a project of its own

I've done some looking around and not seen this specific topic addressed. I figured I'd start the snowball rolling into hell.

I see many requests to start the NameOfShow project. It might be interesting to see some basic ideas as to why a show might support a project of its own. I can't really support a project because it has some arbitrary number of pages on it already. I think with just a little effort I could come up with 45 pages related to Manimal and I really don't think we'll get many people agreeing that this really isn't warranted.

So my question is... What would warrant a television show to have a wikiproject of its own? Some ideas would involve

• specific number of seasons (sufficient material)
• sufficient ties to additional programs (Star Trek Voyager might not warrant a project but it is part of the Star Trek project)
• ties to additional media (books, cartoons, etc)

General question. open for comments. Lordandrei (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. As you hinted at in your example, the key with Projects is the size of them. A WikiProject on "Simpsons season 8" would probably be too small. A Wikiproject on "The Simpsons" wouldn't (hence why we have one already), as there are dozens of articles attached to that topic, not all limited to just television. So, it really depends on the particular topic you're thinking about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, size is pretty much the only indicator. But for the sake of argument, taskforces can also do a superb job (see the video game wikiproject at WP:VG), and a whole bunch of Good and Featured fiction Topics were created without any show-specific wikiproject for back-up. My experience with show-specific wikiprojects is that they can do great work with a few dedicated and experienced editors, but if they lack the guidance, they tend to produce (and vehemently defend) an elaborate mess, which can only really be cleaned up after the wikiproject has become inactive because fandom has moved on. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that with the Buffyverse WikiProject...unfortunately. I think taskforces are much better ideas if you're looking for some assistance on a set of articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)