Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/The Bill task force

Welcome to the discussion page for WikiProject The Bill. Please always sign your messages with four tildas (~~~~), which adds your username and the date/time to the post. This helps to keep track of conversations. To indent your post, put a colon (:), or multiple colons to indent it multiple times.

Discussion

So, who's going to help me improve the articles of The Bill then? ( Just The Q ) 19:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a page for how radio communications go through Sun Hill and there also should be a page where it lists ALL the departments of ANY police force in the UK that The Bill uses

Regards Desk Sergeant Daniel Coelho Alais The Bill1996 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I am in the process of adding new projects to the project directory, including this one. Based on the project page, I have no clear idea what The Bill is, and so I have no idea how to classify the project. I think other people coming to the project page might have similar concerns. You might want to insert a link to whatever it is this project is about on the project page, to clarify this issue. Also, I would suggest possibly consulting the Project Guide for some assistance in how to create a viable and successful project. I also may try to offer any help I can give your project if asked. My first concern right now, though, is finding out how to categorize this project. Please respond on my talk page, as I'll probably see your response first there. Thanks, and good luck with the project. Badbilltucker 18:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode guide

I'm not sure Wikipedia is the right place for an entire episode guide for The Bill - there are nearly 2,500 episodes spanning 23 years and I think we'd be fighting a running battle for several years to keep individual episode articles from being deleted. I'm inclined to think this level of detail (episode/character guides) is more suited to Wikia than Wikipedia.

A while ago I did start a Bill wiki on Wikia: http://thebill.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page, I haven't had much time to work on it, but your efforts and contributions to create a reference space for The Bill would absolutely be welcomed there and would be in no danger of deletion. I hope I can convince you that is the better place to document and improve information about the show.

--Canley 06:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Hmm - I don't see why we can't. Other programmes (see Doctor Who for example) have very extensive episode guides that are full articles. Now I know there are less episodes there, but that doesn't mean that we can't do it for The Bill. I'll bear your comments in mind, and if anyone has any other advice (agree or disagree) I'll listen and then we'll see. For the time being though I'll carry on. Thanks ( Just The Q ) 13:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what is Wikia? Does it work the same way as on here exactly? ( Just The Q ) 14:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: On reflection, I've had a look and it does seem like a good idea. If you could give me administrator powers then that would be good, seeing as I'm going to do a lot, and I'd like to transform it into a great informative resource. ( Just The Q ) 15:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill Wiki

For those of you who are interested and want to join in, I am now working on The Bill Wiki, a separate The Bill-only Wiki Encyclopedia, run along the same lines as Wikipedia. It's located at [1] - come take a look! :)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all character articles

I propose we move all articles from their present state to articles which are titled with just the character's names and not their title.--NeilEvans 19:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, It's been a month and nobody has commented either way, so I'll go ahead and move or redirect the articles.--NeilEvans 19:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill

We need to find some consensus about how the characters are displayed on this page. There has previously been a lot of edit warring over the issue and it is currently being formatted to be in tabular form. I personally feel that the previous format of listing the characters in alphabetical order was sufficient and is the most aesthically pleasing. Can people voice their own opinions as to which format looks best and hopefully we can finally ends the constant warring.--NeilEvans 20:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought more about it and I've reverted the table to the list as adding a tabel should have been discussed, either on the article's talk page or here so that people can argue their point of view and then come to a consensus. I've placed a message of the talk page of the person who added the table, asking them to open some dialogue either on the article's talk page or here, hopefully they will put across their reasons for putting the table in the first place.--NeilEvans 23:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character pages

Hey all, we need to change all pages to the literary present. Also only the character's name, and not their title should be given in the lead in paragraph. The character's title should be discussed in the body of the article. With this programme, it is likely that a character can be promoted and demoted several times during their time on the show, because of this only the name should be given and any promotion or demotion should be noted in the text.--NeilEvans 13:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill page

Hey guys please help me out. PC Sally keeps adding information to The Bill page and changing the character list around. Specifically this user keeps moving Billy Rowan and Sally Armstrong from upcoming character changes to the main character list, even though they have not yet appeared in the programme. This person also keeps changing Billy Rowan's details to say that he is leaving in July 2007 after being killed, as the character has not even appeared on screen, I feel this info should be left until he has at least appeared on the programme. This user also keeps adding future information about the Billy Rowan character that has yet to happen. I urge all Wikiproject members to be vigilant and revert edits where necessary without breaking the three revert rule, thanks.--NeilEvans 20:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character pages

All character pages URGENTLY need to be updated to comply with WP:FICTION, WP:V and WP:RS and justify each character having an individual page. Listing thebillbios.co.uk or another wiki is not sufficient for verifiability. 59.167.45.168 (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest most of the characters are not going to be notable in and of themselves. Certain characters like June Ackland, Bob Cryer, Don Beech will be because of either their longevity or they become iconic. Many (most?) of the other characters will not meet the above criteria and won't be notable. --Deadly∀ssassin 11:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE A-Z character pages - I'm having (or going to have) a try at bringing the a-z character pages into line with Wiki policy. Changed the first paragraph for example. Re character bios (working or the earlier departures first), changing tense to past for all departed characters. Removing supposition-type comments. Looks like a long term job, though. Taffy Edwards the only change so far. And that didn't require long, though I need to flesh out the bio. A bit of a test, as he wasn't one of my favourites. Tiptruck (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Succession boxes on Character Pages

One of the current tasks is to remove succession boxes from character pages, why is this? Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 03:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject The Bill 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 multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject The Bill 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) @ 22:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Bill Departments

I would like to inform you that I have proposed a deletion of List of The Bill Departments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now a redirect to List of The Bill characters. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 02:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of The Bill Characters

Given that the various Bill Character articles are plastered with warning tags, and although there was consensus in the deletion discussion in April not to delete anything, can I suggest that we merge the articles? There is prescedent for this as the Casualty project has done this with success - see Characters of Casualty. If the gets too long then it could be split into a number of sections, e.g. A-M, N-Z. I've made a start in my namespace to include the articles that were included in the deletion discussion which you can see here - User:DeadlyAssassin/BillTest3. Comments and thoughts? --Deadly∀ssassin 09:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking/thinking about this today and trying to think the best way to do this but I'm trying to aim for a way to keep List of The Bill characters how it is now (a overview list) and then a have a separate one for the characters that don't have enough for a full article page. But I noticed some of the character pages would be fine as they are now but just need some tidy up and some more information added to them. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 10:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't replace the list of the bill characters. That continues to exist because it will include characters that noone has written detailed information about. This is what Casualty do. For those articles that are complete, fully referenced, no written in-universe etc, etc, then they can still exist, and would be linked to from both the List of The Bill Characters and the Bill Characters pages. Hope that makes sense. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but we need some sort of logical name for Article of the list which we create that contains the characters that we merge into a single article. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 12:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with the Casualty thing where you have a list as seen in User:DeadlyAssassin/BillTest3, but I am not sure about about the best thing for existing page, and character articles. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Existing character pages that don't need a separate article (for the reasons above) should be redirected to the new page we are discussing. I'm not sure what you mean about "the existing page" though, could you explain more? --Deadly∀ssassin 19:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, I've had all the deleted character pages I could find restored on the assumption that they will be included in this list User talk:Rjd0060#Please restore these articles. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page naming suggestions

Please add your ideas for what to name the page below and we can make a choice. --Deadly∀ssassin 19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Bill character biographies
Characters of The Bill
Biographies of The Bill characters
The Bill character biographies

Continuing Discussions

Note: These discussions are copied from User talk:DeadlyAssassin so that more editors can participate.

Hi.

Can you please undo all the dting you've done to the biographies to the characters from 'The Bill'. Because the way you have it presented now is really confusing!

Displaying their biographies on an a-z form is not a good idea mate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LightSpirit06 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a discussion of this on the bill project page - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Bill#Page naming suggestions. When I came to do this work >50% of the character articles had already been deleted for over 8 months, and it was clear that a large proportion of the remainder were in trouble. Most of the character pages do not justify their own articles mainly because they are in-complete, written with an in-universe perspective, and un-referenced. These issues have been pointed out over a number of months but none of the articles have been improved sufficiently that not so well meaning editors may put them up for deletion. In my opinion the work that I've done has saved the content, and provided a spring-board for editors who want to take on the work of improving the content to justify their own article again, so I won't be reverting my changes. --Deadly∀ssassin 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with me, but I noticed this on my Watchlist. But my opinion is that you have saved The Bill articles, and it has helped. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's very nice of you to say, thank you. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this My Decision discussed? if not why not, this charicter profile page really doesnt work well. Alexsau1991 (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the link to the discussion above, a fact which you haven't borne in mind before taking it on yourself to begin rolling back the changes wholesale. Again, a large number of these articles were deleted in April 2008 which people weren't concerned with as you can see from the list of articles I had to have restored. There were attempts to discuss this at the time on the project talk page, which noone took up. Was having more than half of the character profiles deleted working better for you then? --Deadly∀ssassin 10:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ive taken a look at the discussion and as far as i can see there nothing was decided, you and one other person talked about it, and one other said he didnt think it was a good idea, this sort of thing should be put to vote before you unilaterally change it your self, I have reverted all the currant charictors in the program back to there original pages, rather than the revert, if you feel this change should happen, you should discuiss it fully and not change it after less than 12 hours discussion. Alexsau1991 (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also if this change is going to happen, it should only happen to charictors who are no longer in it now, because I have also noticed alot of some of the charicters information has been removed, as well as the templates used.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsau1991 (talk • contribs)

Templates support article, articles aren't there to support templates. The only reason why any character should have a separate article is because they deserve it. The article deserves it if it meets the guidelines in WP:FICTION and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, which include full references, not written in an in-universe style and reflecting on their nature as a character rather than a real person. Just because a character is still in a series is irrelevant to this benchmark. Prior to the consolidation, a grand total of, count them, ZERO articles met these guidelines. If you want to improve an entry and make them worthy of a separate article, be my guest - I encourage you to do so. I don't encourage you to revert changes without understanding the issues. --Deadly∀ssassin 11:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do understand the issues, but wether i did or not, the decission about merging all of them has to be disscussed, and not just done, and the discussion ive seen is hardly enought to have come up with a decision. Alexsau1991 (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is fine, let's have the discussion - reverting all the changes is inflamatory and isn't going to help. I don't want to get into an edit war over this. Please respond to my substantive comments about the quality of the articles as the stood, and the fact that you were ok with so many of them having been deleted. --Deadly∀ssassin 11:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am copying this discussion to the project talk page so that it is visible to more users who may wish to participate in the discussion. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Bill#Merge of The Bill Characters --Deadly∀ssassin 11:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At the moment, unless any of them clearly meet WP:NOTE (until we get FICT up and running this is what we have), then they should all be merged into a character list article. Second, do not call it "Biographies of...", as we do not write any article from the perspective of the fiction itself (see WP:WAF), which includes the title of the page. Call it either Characters of... or List of characters in... BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge them all - As noted by DeadlyAssassin and Bignole, none of these characters are showing any real world notability at all. They fail WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF], and would fail WP:FICT if it were finalized today. None would be likely to survive an AfD. They should be merged to List of The Bill characters, with excessive plot and in-universe information removed and condensed, and sourcing adding. Minor characters kept to minor mentions (if at all - single/two episode characters should be left to the episode summaries). Discussions as to whether to leave the list name as is or rename to Characters of the Bill can take place after that is done, though the current name is appropriate, accurate, and within naming conventions. Eventually, the same discussion is really needed on those claimed "notable storylines" (aka episode articles) and some other in-universe elements. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / pro-merge I'll echo Bignole's and Collectonian's comments. Only characters that either undoubtly meet WP:N or somewhat-meet the WP:FICT proposal, should have an article at this time - or they risk getting deleted (a merger is much weaker). A merger does also not prevent a character from ever having an article again - rewrite the character information to meet FICT, and a standalone article is good to go. "Biographies" shouldn't be used in the list titles, but I can see that several character lists are necessary for such a long-running series. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I named the article 'Biographies of ...' because that's what they, in fact, are, however I take the point that it's not what they should be. I also wanted a name that would differentiate it from the already existant List of The Bill characters, however I have no issue with merging the two as suggested by Collectonian. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Sun Hill police station

Hi everyone - I'm new to this WikiProject, so apologies if I post in the wrong place! In regards to Sun Hill#Location_of_Sun_Hill_police_station, there was a 'confusion' marker on this section due to its lack of readability. I have re-written this section with a few book references, I hope this reads better than the previous edit, and hope this is a satisfactory first contribution to the Project! Cheers! BNC85 (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M.I.T.: Murder Investigation Team

Hi, some time ago I left a comment on the "M.I.T." page but as there was no response I would like to raise the point here (again) ... The "M.I.T." article claims that the series "is similar to the American series CSI:, CSI: Miami and CSI: NY." I don't really see this similarity, as "Murder Investigation Team" (as the series' title suggests) is centred around a specialised homicide squad of the London Met, comprised of police officers, not around SOCOs (Scenes of Crime Officers), like the "CSI" franchise. Although occasionally using results and evidence produced by the forensic team, this is very much a classic police procedural-style crime drama - as, in fact, is ”The Bill”, its parent programme. I would therefore suggest to remove the reference to the CSI shows as it is hugely misleading; "CSI" might be one of the most successful crime show franchises, but that still doesn't mean that every crime drama is "similar" to it.Hanseat (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To do list

I notice that this project appears to be somewhat inactive. However, of late, I've set about improving various articles related to the series. The Bill is currently "on hold" for GA status and I am endeavouring to assist User:5 albert square in getting it promoted. However, there are many articles in dire need of attention, including many of the separate character articles and the list of characters- many of which are little more than essays about the character's life and probably fall foul of about half a dozen wiki-policies. I'll fix what I can but I'm not an expert so my effort will mainly be copyediting and I can only do so much at one time. At the minute, my focus will be getting The Bill to GA standard and copyediting Dale Smith (The Bill). I also want to move "List of The Bill characters" to "List of characters of The Bill" in due course but I have enough to be getting on with at the minute. Any comments or assistance would be gratefully received. HJMitchell You rang? 16:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Character Infoboxes

I know very little about infoboxes, but is it possible to adapt them so we can add a little more detail on character appearences. It seems to me that "Last Appearance" is the last time they appeared as a regular on the show, however, characters have often reappeared in guest roles which would be more actually the "last" appearance. Replacing the final regular appearance with a guess spot doesn't ring true, though, as it implies they were on the show the entire time. Secondly there are a number of characters who left and returned: an ability to note that would be worthwhile, too. (I'm talking about characters who resign, move to other stations/depts, etc, not just "on leave" like appears in e[isode list.) The easiest way (I guess) to fix the first point would be to make it "last regular appearance". Adding "Later/last guest appearences" may work. The second thing is harder. "First", "Left", "Return", "Last" may do it, but I'm not sure how easy/good that would be. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/The Bill task force/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/The Bill task force/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Series 4 on...

There's a note on the DVDs section of the main page that reads: "Note: Box art states 'Series 4-5' but only contains series four (48 episodes)."

This reminded me of something... once series 4 started the show was pretty much ongoing with no real "season breaks". It's become accepted to call each year (after series 3) a series but it's not technically true. The fact that it's an accepted naming scheme now means we can use it... but should it be discussed on one of the pages? Duggy 1138 (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DVDs...

It seems that the old DVD releases have been replaced by the new ones. Makes sense we can't list everything. However, video releases are still there... Duggy 1138 (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VHS's Australian releases

Can anyone find references for the following VHS's that were release in Australia saw this on this [website Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill Series

When Opportunity Knocks: 1. Beg, Borrow or Steal 2. Street Life 3. When Opportunity Knocks

Waiting for Frank: 1. Waiting for Frank 2. Cast No Shadow?

A Bunch of Fives: 1. A Bunch of Fives 2. Death of a Nobody

Gentleman Jim: 1. Saved 2. True to Life Player 3. Gentleman Jim

In on the Game: 1. In on the Game 2. Spill

The Burnside Specials

Volume One:

Burnside Knew My Father

Dinosaur

Information Received

Volume Two:

Scores

A Clean Division

If it Isn't Hurting

The Bill Featured Article

Does anyone thinks The Bill article is worthy of a feature article status, I do thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity of wikiproject

As it becomes obvious, that till now this wikiproject has no recognition of class or importance of the articles and there has been no update for a long time. I recommend that the members of the wikiproject should at least brought the status to 'semi-active'. I've recently removed from one article, Murder of Ben Kinsella. Other than the lack of maintenance of the wikiproject, the article was hardly even important. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turn this WikiProject into a Taskforce?

I invite editors to join the discussion at WP:WikiProject Television to convert many inactive WikiProjects into taskforces, including this one. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing inactive task forces

I invite editors to join the discussion at WP:WikiProject Television to close inactive task forces, including this one. Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]