Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

Articles for every episode

I think it's time we stop making articles for every episode of popular shows. Some examples include The Mandalorian, The Walking Dead and The Simpsons. There's no reason to have an article for every episode, and some of them just plain out fail WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe work should be done to create an actual article out of Wikipedia:Notability (television), instead of it redirecting to Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Programming. A standalone article could cover pilots/series articles (ideally once it is confirmed filming on the actual season has started similarly to WP:NFF), season articles, episode articles, and other articles related to television and are covered by this project and MOS. Wikipedia:Notability (film) could be a good template to follow if we want to undertake this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd say only about 1% of episode articles are actually done right. Amaury • 18:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fully in favor of reworking WP:TVSHOW (the "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." line is massively misunderstood to mean "airs nationally = always notable!!", which has become a real problem, esp. for (non-notable) TV movies) as suggested, but that would be a big project. Maybe the best approach would be for somebody to just volunteer ("NOT IT!!") to write up a draft of that, and then have the rest of us comment on it and make suggestions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

From the episode articles of the shows mentioned I've seen (like The Simpsons) the majority do meet WP:GNG. As long as GNG is meet I have no problem with editors creating these articles if that is what the editors want to work on. The Simpsons is one of the few shows that have a standalone WikiProject and does quite well. They have 344 GA articles with most being episode articles. I don't feel that there is a need to create stronger notability guidelines that would cause a lot of them to be subject to AFD. If someone wants to take on the task of reading each episode article and evaluating it against GNG then be my guest. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 18:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe true for that, probably true for Seinfeld. But should there be an episode article for every episode of "South Park"?! What about SpongeBob SquarePants?! Because that's pretty much the situation we have now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Checking List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, most episodes actually don't have an article. South Park episodes do though. El Millo (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) South Park is in similar vein of The Simpsons in that every episode generally gets reviewed at this point with topical events covered in the episodes sometimes becoming noteworthy like Band in China which caused the show to be banned in China. I don't read the South Park episode articles much myself but the ones I have seen do meet GNG. Do we need an article for every episode of SpongeBob SquarePants? No we do not and there isn't enough reception to cause the majority of the series episodes to meet GNG. I do agree with you about the bit you quoted IJBall that is taken out of context where people think "aired nationally = Wikipedia article". That needs to be rewritten and clarified because other users could think shows like Keeping Up with the Kardashians or The Only Way Is Essex should have articles for each episode when in fact they do not. Individual episode articles should be treated as any other article in my opinion, evaluated on their own merits not because it is one of the handful of shows that has an article for each episode. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 18:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The standard should not be "gets reviewed by some sites on the web" – the standard should be (as per, for example, WP:NFO: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." (emphasis mine)). Game of Thrones likely easily passes this standard with many of its episodes. I doubt South Park does to the level of pretty much every episode getting its own standalone article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It likely would be worthwhile to identify those critics or at least examples of them for English-based television (likely meaning the US set, Canadian set, UK set and Aussie set will be different). --Masem (t) 19:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Multiple episodes from Seinfeld and South Park are WP:PLOTONLY. The Burning (Seinfeld) and Season Finale (South Park) are good examples of why every episode should not have an article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

OK looking at those two articles and evaluating them against WP:GNG The Burning (Seinfeld) would fail WP:GNG and is a clear example of WP:PLOTONLY. In its current form it most likely wouldn't survive an AFD. However before nominating it the best thing to do would be to check the almighty Google or the evil Bing to see if the episode does have reliable, significant coverage from secondary sources that can improve the article. Season Finale (South Park) in its current form is mostly WP:PLOTONLY however it has two reliable, secondary sources providing some reception about the episode. The reception does demonstrate the episode was covered. The episode article in this case (given it aired in 2019) could be improved upon by adding viewership information (which most likely is available) and checking other secondary, reliable general places outside of IGN and The A.V. Club for more coverage that often write about South Park episodes. If by chance IGN & The A.V. Club are the only secondary sources and viewership information is unavailable then it would be a candidate for AFD or redirect to the season article. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

FTR, The Burning (Seinfeld) should just be converted to a redirect right now. It's been tagged for 3 years! It's had its chance: nuke it to a redirect! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Alucard 16, after doing some WP:BEFORE for The Burning, I nominated it. --Slashme (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

If episode articles only contain just a plot and/or reception, generally they fail WP:GNG. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• @YoungForever: Thank you! This is what I was trying to say. A plot and two reviews do not grant an article notability. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think broad questions like "Do we need an article for every episode of X" will be answered according to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We should have articles on episodes that are discussed in reliable sources. If there is significant coverage of the episode, then it is acceptable to have an article for that episode. Some Dude From North Carolina has nominated three large batches of articles for nomination today, for Simpsons episodes, Game of Thrones episodes and Walking Dead episodes. I expect that they will all be kept, because of the individual variations between coverage of each episode. If you want to clean out the non-notable episodes, that should be considered on an individual basis. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually I agree in this case the general question "Should each episode of a popular TV series have its own article?" falls exactly within WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If every episode of a series happens to meet GNG (even barely) there shouldn't be an issue as long as GNG is meet. It seems some forget about the episode coverage task force. Looking at the batch AFD for The Simpson episodes all of these episode articles pass WP:GNG otherwise they wouldn't have escaped the purview of WP:NPP which requires new page patrol reviewers to check the article against WP:GNG and any other associated nobility guidelines we have at en~Wiki. The only article I would take any issue over is I, Carumbus because 4 of the sources out of 10 are Tweets from Al Jean which makes them primary sources. However I would just slap a more sources needed tag on it. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Given current discussions at WT:N there are two ways that the goal I'm seeing here can be achieved. First, to set the stage it would seem that if you look at our subject specific notability guidelines, we have three functions these do 1) set what are criteria for presumed notability for a standalone article 2) set conditions where it is not appropriate to make an article even if the GNG is met, and 3) set what types of sources are good or poor for notability in that area. For this, you are talking a two pronged approach: you can set (1) for episodes to require two reviews from well-established critics (which you should define; eg it sounds like you want your Rolling Stone or NYTimes which do not routine review shows but only focus on critical darlings (Better Call Saul and Watchmen I know personally) but not your IGN or AV Club (which touch everything) as the quality here) as a presumption for notability, which is good. You can also spell out (2) that while you could have a whole host of reviews from weaker sites (The IGNs and AVclubs), that if there is nothing more than those reviews and ratings, that while for any other topic those may be fine for the GNG, there would need to be more coverage in terms of development or legacy to have the episode article to keep the standalone or otherwise these would be merged back to episode lists.

The only only other thing with that is that for shows that are reviewed in low quality sources, you can usually find a RT score, and thus I would try to find a way to include the per-episode RT score into episode lists when shows are merged back. That gives the reader a quick link to check the reviews that were given without us having to give the reviews. --Masem (t) 19:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I can try to dig it up if you want, but I think we've established on a past WPTV discussion (maybe WPFilm) that RT is only worth citing when it lists more than 20 reviews, otherwise there's too much random fluctuation, and if it has 20 reviews then enough of the 20 should be high-quality enough to justify a standalone article. — Bilorv (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: What would the process be if this project wanted to even consider creating a standalone notability article? Can it be started in the draft space? And where would there need to be notifications that this is being crafted/considered? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As its more a guideline than an article, it can go to WP space, tagging it with {{proposed}}. When you are happy with it (and to that I mean, the TV project is happy with it), then you can advertize getting to promoted to a full guideline via VPP, CENT, and other reasonable places through an RFC. You don't need to notify the whole of en.wiki as it is drafted, only the version you want to become a guideline. --Masem (t) 14:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this should come down to ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT. If an episode is to have its own article, it needs to stand on its own as a notable topic in terms of the WP:GNG, with everything that that entails: significant coverage, reliable secondary sources, independent sources, and not indiscriminate information. --Slashme (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Some Dude From North Carolina, Favre1fan93, Amaury, IJBall, Alucard 16, Masem, Young Forever, Toughpigs, and Bilorv: I've been reading the discussion and didn't find a place to jump in because you all seem to generally agree with each other and with my view that 1. not all episodes, even of very notable shows, should have an article, and 2. there are currently a lot of episode articles that do not pass N. A first step, rather than debate a guideline, could be to bring up all the episode articles (from "List of episodes of X" pages and categories like WP episode coverage) and !vote on which are suitable for their own article. That would probably make the criteria for a guideline clearer, and clean-up episode articles at the same time because then someone could take the no votes to AfD. Kingsif (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • My suggestion is to set the notability guideline for television episodes here first (getting global support for that), *then* come at the articles armed with that guideline which should have consensus. It will be a lot easier then to justify the merges of existing episode articles (eg you are doing up against attitudes against AFDs like this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triggerfinger (The Walking Dead) that a consensus-based notability guideline will easy help to get around. --Masem (t) 14:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I generally agree with this approach. But there are specific (flagrant) instances, right now, like The Burning (Seinfeld), that clearly fail WP:GNG, and should simply be boldly redirected back to the relevant season article or LoE article, or can be taken (individually) to WP:AfD in the meantime... But I do agree that Some Dude From North Carolina's "bulk delete" approach is unlikely to be fruitful, esp. in the absence of a strong and clear 'Notability for television' guideline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Do keep in mind that some will likely try to claim sources do exist (eg I found a review on that episode at AV Club but not much more) when just going off the GNG. That's fair to do, you're just going to get a lot of pushback if the project isn't behind it. --Masem (t) 15:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
        • To clarify my position, I do not object to every episode in a series having its own episode article. I object to the general notion that a series can't possibly have most or all the episodes as individual articles which is what the initial post was about. The OP did two small bundles and one massive bundle at AFD but didn't elaborate specifically how the episode articles in question failed the existing GNG guidelines OP just said "failed WP: GNG" which is not enough of a justification to nominate so many articles like the OP did in my opinion. I see no problem with every episode of a series having its own article as long as GNG guidelines are meet. I object to things like "must have at least three reviews and one of them being from Rolling Stone" or something like "reviews from IGN and The A.V. Club can't be used to establish significant coverage" because it would place an undue burden at NPP. (Like how can IGN be good for video games articles but not episodes of a television series?) Also before blindly merging or putting an episode article up for AFD the proposer should do a quick search to see if there are more sources available than currently in the article. Since a lot of articles are created as stubs with the intent to be expanded on later a bit of due diligence should be made. I have no objection for clarification of TV notability guidelines that would clarify something like three or more reviews (or something along those lines) are needed to establish significant coverage along with details about the production, viewership information, cultural impact and/or awards (if applicable). I wasn't able to find more sources on The Burning (Seinfeld) so be bold and merge it like IJBall suggested. Episode articles should be reviewed on a case by case basis just like any other article on Wikipedia not in batches simply because a single TV show shouldn't have episode articles for every episode. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 15:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to nominate GNG fails like IJBall's suggestion for AfD. Seinfeld has some landmark episodes that have been discussed a great deal, and many that haven't; 1990s sitcoms didn't get reviews for every single episode. Modern sci-fi/fantasy shows like The Mandalorian and Game of Thrones are much more likely to have every episode discussed at length, and I think the guidelines need to be clarified for those. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Talking about Seinfeld, could someone take a look at this AFD? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk)

• I would have to agree with Rhino131's keep reasoning as the user was able to find a review from The AV Club, an article from The Week that discuss the episode. They also found sources from Uproxx, two interviews (one from Rolling Stone), etc. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 15:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• I trimmed the plot description and used the links from the deletion discussion to add some meta-discussion. It's now at least an acceptable start-class article of borderline notability. --Slashme (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• For anyone interested, a similar discussion is taking place at Talk:The_Simpsons_(season_32)#Merging_Discussion. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Proposing that merge while this discussion and the AFD is happening is not the way to do this. Let this discussion and the AFD finish and then propose your next steps based on the consensus. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Working draft created

All, per Masem's suggestion, Wikipedia:Notability (television) is now a working draft proposal for a guideline. Please feel free to edit thoughts there, as well as continue discussion on that talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Still busy these days, but I will try and look at and comment, on this over the next several days. If we go with a separate WP:NTV guideline, I'll have several concerns/areas of interest: "refining" the "aired nationally" statement so it's clear that "aired nationally" doesn't automatically mean "notable!", TV pilots (so that we can hopefully avoid unfortunate AfD decisions like this one), TV episodes (not every episode of even the most popular TV series is going to justify a standalone article, and many series will have no epiosdes that qualify for an article!), TV movies (unlikely to be notable most of the time if released on a U.S. cable channel over the last 20 years), and as Masem suggests – what "level" of reviewing do we want to set as a benchmark (and, FTR, AV Club should be under what ever reviewing level benchmark we come up with!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, just as a general concept – how do you know any TV-related topic qualifies for an article? – When there is enough sourcing to properly justify a 'Reception' and a 'Production' section. Too many editors also take the approach that "reviews = notable!!", but if a TV project isn't also getting WP:RS coverage on the 'Production' end, I'm going to suggest that, as a general concept, that topic is probably not robust enough to justify a standalone article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally not a fan of ever having YANG (yet another notability guideline). It's almost always better to work down the list of articles that you think fail today's guidelines and either improve them or remove them. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It's actually useful for exactly the reason Masem suggests – there is less likely to be confusion over "what a notable TV program" is, if it's clearly spelled out somewhere how the "WP:GNG test" gets applied to the specific "subject" (TV shows, in this case). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I find it a bit shocking at how prominent/active (in my opinion) the TV project is, that a standalone guideline page didn't exist since at the moment, all of the project's notability guidelines are contained to a single section at the general media notability article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Just to note that the finalised SNG will need a full RFC as it affects 1000s of articles, including quite old ones ( Bewitched has 100+ episode articles, or it did the last time I looked), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• This is an absurd attempt to undermine community consensus (see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS or the explicit consensus at Talk:The Mandalorian) that these episodes are in fact notable. A group of editors here cannot suddenly decide the GNG is no longer good enough for tv episodes. Remember per WP:PROPOSALS: “Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.” If you think certain episodes don’t meet the GNG, fine, but you cannot make a more difficult threshold to pass because you don’t like the existing consensus and feel there “shouldn’t” be such articles. -- Calidum 20:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree, the stipulations are far too prescriptive and detailed as if it is a manual of style for a featured article. Obviously a production section is preferred but is it really essential? When the article is a fleshed out start class with multiple reliable sources secondary coverage such as national reviews is the absence of a production section really the breaker.The Film Project has defined reviews by national critics as reviews with a large national audience not the reputation of the individual reviewer. There is also the problem that production details often do not come from reliable sources as defined by independence - for example an autobiography of the writer, producer or director, or a source affiliated with the production company. There are GAs that use the dvd documentaries of the film or tv show extensively for the production sections. Overall the qualifications for a episode article as proposed are too onerous in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (television) is a working draft so you are welcome to edits or adjust anything there. Nothing's been finalized yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 says that edits are welcome, so I took them up on the offer. :) I edited the "Television episodes" section to say that episode-specific reviews contribute to notability.

In the first paragraph, the text said that having reviews "is common to the vast majority of television episodes." This is not true; there are thousands of television episodes that have never been specifically reviewed, especially pre-internet. It also said, "an article composed of just these elements is most likely redundant to the main article." This is also untrue: the main show article does not contain reviews for individual episodes.

I also changed "While having a significant number of reviews is a step towards considering a television episode notable" to "Having a significant number of reviews contributes to considering a television episode notable", and made it more clear that coverage of production aspects is a suggestion for creating a higher-quality article.

I'd be interested to know what other people think about these changes. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

That all looks good to me. (On my end, I'm not taking a look at this until probably next week...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I just created the page to start making edits. It is by no means "closed" or restrictive to anyone for editing. I hope any of my comments regarding that page have not come off that way. Yes, I myself have started making edits there, but I want others to edit this, so it isn't just me, and all can then discuss. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

"A group of editors here cannot suddenly decide the GNG is no longer good enough for tv episodes." - what part of the proposal as it stands at the moment is more restrictive than the GNG? --Slashme (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The advice I'm seeing in the draft is the same type of advice that is at WP:NFF for future films - which is where even if good sourcing exists that could potentially meet the GNG, articles on yet-produced films should not be made. Per the current discussion at WT:N on what functions an SNG can do, this appropriate is fully within practice for the proposed TV SNG. (If/when this becomes a guideline, it will be a wholly separate matter of how we'd go about handling the hundreds of episodes that might run afoul of that). --Masem (t) 18:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Some editors in the above discussion and the one regarding The Mandolorian seem to suggest that reviews alone -- no matter who publishes them or how many reviews there are -- should not establish notability. WP:N suggests no such thing. It's also remember what WP:SNG says about subject notability guidelines. "[Subject notability guidelines] are considered shortcuts to meeting the general notability guideline" and "A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article." -- Calidum 19:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've added some language that explains that we need to show that to rise beyond IINFO, an article about an episode needs to find sources that discuss the episode at a meta level, not just recount the plot, and need to show that it's had an impact beyond that that any ROTM episode would have. --Slashme (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  What is a "meta level"? — Toughpigs (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• As far as reviews go, I do say that reviews grant notability since an outlet is extremely unlikely to review every episode that airs. It's the same premise as with film reviews: there will always be far, far more episodes of any given show than there will be outlets that can or will review them. What I would argue is that rather than argue that reviews shouldn't give notability, the number of reviews needed to establish notability should be raised to say, 3-4. That will eliminate a great many episodes as far as notability goes. Length and in-depth qualities of a review would be harder to concretely nail down, as a good writer can nail down a review in 1-2 paragraphs as long as they're concise and clear.

As far as making the critic nationally known, that's a bit harder to nail down since the criteria is so loose when you consider the reach of the Internet. An article of any type posted on the internet can be seen on a global scale and a review from a well-known, major newspaper that isn't posted online could be seen as non-national. The reason I mention this is that there are multiple countries where Internet coverage is a little harder to gain. South Africa is kind of notorious for this, to the point where one of the keynote speakers at the 2015 WikiConference USA actually went into some detail about how difficult it was for some SA topics to meet notability guidelines because of the lack of web presence of many news outlets. I feel that the best way to establish whether a source is usable is to determine if it's reliable and if the source is in-depth, as otherwise this could have a severe negative impact on non-English or Western media. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem is the opposite – anyone in the First World can get a group of friends together and put out a website where they "review" TV episodes. This is rather the current problem – anyone can review U.S. or UK TV shows. This is why the metric needs to be higher than "I found 3 reviews on the internet = notable!!". The issue is that some editors want to define any coverage as "significant coverage" (as per GNG), but the standard should be higher than that. That is why I like WP:NFO's "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" standard, because that at least makes it clear you can't just take any old "review" website you find on the web and use that to try to get "by" GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Last month, Some Dude From North Carolina nominated seven Game of Thrones episodes and an astonishing eighty-nine Walking Dead episodes for deletion, saying that they failed GNG. I looked at a random episode in each bunch, and found that "Kill the Boy" (Game of Thrones) had reviews from The Atlantic, IGN and Vanity Fair, while "Coda" (Walking Dead) had reviews from the Daily Beast, Entertainment Weekly and iO9. I don't think that the Atlantic, Vanity Fair and Entertainment Weekly are run by a group of friends. IJBall, do you have an example of an AfD discussion that ended as Keep because someone in the First World got a group of friends together? — Toughpigs (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• We also need to remember that Wikipedia is meant to cover more than just First World countries, which is why so many of the notability guidelines seem to be so light and easy to pass. Most are written that way because they aren't meant to apply solely to US and other Western-centric topics. They're also meant to help make it easier to have coverage on topics concerning non-First World countries, where coverage may be available but much more difficult to come by. Re-tooling the notability guidelines with First World countries specifically in mind will only have a severely detrimental impact on Wikipedia's coverage of other countries. There's also the issue of coverage of women, minorities, and subcultures that tend to have a dearth of coverage in very mainstream sources. Here are some examples:

• A South African episode doesn't have South African media coverage that Wikipedia editors can easily discover, however they do have coverage by way of reviews in Western media websites such as iO9 and SlashFilm. The episode was a major release in its area, but the majority of coverage isn't online because the media outlets don't have a major web presence or won't come up in a Western Google search. Google search has a history of not properly crawling the websites of non-Western countries.
• A director creates an episode for a TV series that touches upon issues that they personally experienced as a transgender individual. The mainstream public generally doesn't cover LGBT shows and episodes the same way they would for say, Game of Thrones, so the coverage is predominantly reviews in places like PinkNews, AfterEllen, and Queerty.
• An episode of a horror show gets light coverage but gains reviews in places like Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, and the Rue Morgue website. The websites are not well known outside of the horror community but are major within the horror fandom.

If we argue that reviews shouldn't count towards notability that will severely impact Wikipedia's ability to cover non-Western and mainstream topics as a whole, as some episodes of shows that are non-Western and/or deal with specific subcultures or marginalized groups may not gain substantial coverage outside of reviews. As a horror fan I can say that shows like TWD and AHS are definitely outliers and do not represent typical coverage for the average horror themed show. The average horror TV show (as well as film and other media) is unlikely to gain substantial coverage, let alone coverage in places Wikipedia sees as reliable.

Now when it comes to the argument of nationally known critics, this is also an area that can negatively impact coverage on Wikipedia. What do we consider nationally known? It can be argued that if something is online it has the potential for global impact, as long as it is discoverable. We can't judge websites targeted towards subcultures and marginalized groups the same way that we would a website targeted towards the mainstream public. While a horror fan would see Bloody Disgusting or Rue Morgue as obviously major media outlets within the horror community, others may dismiss them as too minor when comparing them to even predominantly online outlets like the Hollywood Reporter or Deadline. The same could be argued for coverage in other countries where the newspaper may not be known to Western readers but be considered a big deal in its country - but just not have an online presence or much of one.

Where this concerns me is that while this deals with specific episodes, this argument has been applied to film articles and could also be very easily applied to articles for entire series. By severely limiting what can make an individual episode notable it makes it very easy to similarly limit what makes an entire series notable as there are many series that rely heavily on review/reception coverage to establish notability and its impact on media. While this may seem like a stretch to some, this would also impact coverage on the creative professionals involved in the production of said media, as there have been arguments that if a person's work doesn't have an article that they are by extension not notable either.

Wikipedia has already been severely criticized when it comes to its coverage of marginalized groups and non-Western countries, to the point where academic and scholarly articles have broached the topic. This is also a frequent topic of conversation at Wikipedia conferences as well. My concern here is that many of the arguments for this are looking at very mainstream media like Game of Thrones, South Park, and The Mandalorian, shows that are already household names and aren't considering that tailoring a guideline to restrict episode articles for those shows will in turn have an impact on articles for non-mainstream, non-Western media. I know that this isn't the intent of the guideline by any stretch, but I think that extreme caution needs to be applied when it comes to reducing or removing the impact of reviews towards notability and limiting what can be seen as a reliable source as it impacts more than just these mainstream media. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• I also want to note that I have actually seen cases where people have argued that horror outlets like Bloody Disgusting and Dread Central are minor and shouldn't count towards notability. It's honestly relatively common, particularly when you have a major outlet that is well respected in the horror community (and has been cited as RS by academic and scholarly sources) but lacks an article on Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Toughpigs: What does Some Dude From North Carolina AfD activities have to do with the point I was trying to make? Some Dude From North Carolina's actions seemed tied to my point as a way to denigrate it. I'm not defending his actions at all, though I agree with his general view that there are far too many "episode" articles on Wikipedia, and that a lot of them obviously fail WP:GNG and WP:ALLPLOT outright (though I don't agree with him that GoT or TWD were likely to be examples of this!)... As to your question, I can't think of a specific AfD where that has been an issue, but I believe I have seen some WP:AfCs that were probably swayed by what I would consider to be "lesser" (i.e. probably not good enough) use of "sourcing". And I can definitely think of instances where articles weren't taken to AfD because the author had strategically placed just enough (what I consider to be crappy) "sourcing" that no one would want to bother with the fight over it at AfD. I would like our standards to be higher than "Well, I'm not going to bother to take this article to AfD because there's just enough crummy sourcing that I'm going to get too much pushback at AfD to make this worth my time to nominate".

"If we argue that reviews shouldn't count towards notability..." @ReaderofthePack: No one is arguing that "reviews shouldn't count towards notability". What some of us are saying is that we'd like to see more than just reviews to consider a TV topic truly notable (in most cases). Add: Also, I think my point is that not all "reviews" are equal (weight/significance) – I don't have a problem with Dread Central, but I might have more a problem with AV Club or TV Tropes. I don't know if TV programs receive coverage of production aspects in a country like South Africa, but I've got to think there's at least some coverage like that even there (though, perhaps mostly in "trade" magazines?...). Certainly at the U.S./UK/Canada/Australia-level, I think a lot of us would like to see reviews+production info, not just reviews, esp. for TV episode articles, which tend to succumb to WP:ALLPLOT without this balance. And that's true for both TV and film. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that not all reviews are the same, and that the LA Times and Entertainment Weekly are better than random blogs. But you said, "anyone in the First World can get a group of friends together and put out a website where they "review" TV episodes. This is rather the current problem – anyone can review U.S. or UK TV shows." If you don't know of any examples where the "group of friends" level of review was used to meet notability, then no, this is not "the current problem." — Toughpigs (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

What else would you call something like A.V. Club? This is the kind of site I'm thinking of. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

might have more a problem with AV Club or TV Tropes - but TV Tropes doesn't publish reviews, or anything. I now consider it to basically be a fan wiki, a world away from A.V. Club (or any other actual publication). Kingsif (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

What you're saying is that reviews shouldn't be enough, however that will effectively end up equating to people not seeing reviews as a source of notability. This could in turn weaken other non-review sources. If say, twenty reviews in all of the major newspapers or subculture websites aren't enough to establish notability then someone could argue that a handful of other types of coverage wouldn't be enough either, particularly if they aren't multiple pages long.

Perhaps what could be a good alternative is to make a guide that would help others learn how to use review type articles more effectively. There are many review articles that discuss elements such as production, themes, and other things that fall outside of the realm of "my opinion is X" (for example, delving into comparisons on the director or writer's work to past works or episodes to comment on character growth). I don't think that many people realize that they can use this information to make an article more than just a review and plot synopsis, not just for film and TV articles, but for most media in general. Not only that, but also help show them what sources in general can be used and which shouldn't. I know that there are some guides out on this, but few that are very user friendly or easily discovered by newbies. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments I agree there are far too many non-notable episode coverages on Wikipedia. Not convinced on a bright line of "20 reviews". One editor seems to think the project may produce "rubbish" and has no authority (no effect) but a large consensus does. The vast majority of episode coverage I have seen fail GNG with no significant coverage, are FANCRUFT with mainly all plot, and I comment those looking into this. Otr500 (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

speaking of items, will there be a tv version of {{film draft notice}}? Starzoner (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Starzoner: If this notability guideline materializes, there will in theory be a "NFF" equivalent that a template could be made to state. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Episode notability suggestions

While WP:NTV is still being worked out, and given the ever-increasing discussions as more and more episode articles are created, I have some suggestions for criteria. I don't intend this as an RfC, but to see if the ideas have general support before an RfC on adding them to the guidelines.

1. Principle: an episode should demonstrate notability on its own; that is, the article would pass GNG regardless of the series. Therefore, it should include:
   1. Reliable sources* documenting its production, with more than a passing mention, and
   2. Reliable sources* documenting its reception, with more than a passing mention
   3. If an episode meets GNG, but not all of the NTV criteria, it may still get an article if...
2. An episode article should normally have both production and reception sections to be considered notable, in line with MOS:TVPRODUCTION and MOS:TVRECEPTION, unless it was unreleased (see 4 & 5)
3. If the episode belongs to a commissioned series, the show will normally have an article for any of its episodes to be considered notable. The episode is not considered notable enough for its own article if:
   1. It will only duplicate information that is sufficiently DUE at the series article or a relevant season article or a relevant episode list; or
   2. There is no season article or episode list covering the relevant span due to lack of coverage. Extremely notable individual episodes may be exceptions
4. If the episode does not belong to a commissioned series, i.e. an orphaned pilot or unproduced pilot, it should demonstrate sufficient production coverage and lasting impact in reliable sources*
5. If the episode belongs to a commissioned series but was unaired, or not completed, it should demonstrate sufficient notability for unproduced works as if it did not belong to any series. This includes production coverage and lasting impact in reliable sources*
6. An episode that may not meet all of the individual criteria can be deemed notable if it is part of a season of television that is extensively studied and of significant historic notability; that is, the season is the subject of lasting academic criticism and extensive lasting popular culture coverage of sufficient depth. In these cases, a majority of the season's episodes must also meet independent notability criteria (see discussion)
7. Plot, release and cast list are considered trivial and non-notable coverage, as they are all evident and able to be confirmed through an episode's mere existence; however, they should be included in episode articles that are otherwise notable
8. Being nominated for or winning awards, even Emmys and BAFTAs, does not automatically denote episode notability; these can be covered at a season or series article (see discussion)
9. Some variation upon saying episodes released as part of a streaming block, with the exception of anthology series, (probably) may not get enough coverage to be independently notable

*Reliable sources refers to those relevant to the TV WikiProject, and independent to the production of the episode. These do not have to be in English.

Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this. On the specific topic of TV pilots, I really think we need to clamp down on this area especially, and we should be clear that "significant coverage" actually means more than short-term coverage (and/or sourcing demonstrating a "lasting impact"), so we avoid outcomes like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Times (TV pilot) where the "keep" outcome at AfD was truly a travesty. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Changed "popular impact" to "lasting impact" above Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, you want to avoid words like "must". A guideline will instead generally say something like, "Notable television series and series episodes will generally receive significant coverage on both their production aspects and their critical response and/or cultural impact." I'm not saying the wording will be exactly this – but it shouldn't use words like "must", as there will always be exceptions. That's actually why I have a problem with the current first sentence of WP:TVSHOW – saying "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." just isn't clear enough that there are definitely exceptions to this, and "airing nationally" on its own isn't enough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm hoping this will be prose-ified before becoming a guideline, as well. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The wording An episode article should normally have both production and reception sections to be considered notable" reads as more to do with article quality than notability. Notability on those points are things like an overly long production period e.g. took three times as long to shoot as a normal episode, had 12 directors, was scheduled for series 3 but didn't surface until series 5 etc, and reception is, it was universally praised/trashed. I don't think notability should be dictated by having a section, that would invite padding. - X201 (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@X201: There's a discussion below about what qualifies as suitable production/reception sections. Perhaps if the wording explains that it should have such sections that meet the TV MOS? Kingsif (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thanks for all these suggestions. I just want to point out (at least in my view), the text currently being drafted at WP:NTV in regards to television pilots/unaired pilots, and television episodes is more or less "accepted" for what it is, and probably should be used as a basis to expand upon with anything else discussed here. I'm not saying what's at Wikipedia:Notability (television)#Television pilots, future series or seasons, and unreleased series and Wikipedia:Notability (television)#Television episodes are the be all end all, just that there's a good foundation there and that text shouldn't be disregarded when considering any further changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh also, anything that is seemingly agreed upon can just be added right to the proposed NTV because it's just in a drafting stage. Based on how it was described to me, once this project/concerned editors agree on something as drafted, then we should have RfCs to get wider input. We aren't there yet, so as I said, we can just make changes right to the proposal. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there currently anything agreed upon that could be implemented on the working draft Wikipedia:Notability (television)? — YoungForever^(talk) 00:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Season crit

There needs to be some version of criteria 5 from WP:BOOKCRIT: The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. Some TV shows or franchises are so notable that their entire history is studied. On the other hand, we don't want this to be a license to having every episode of a long-running, studied-in-academic-circles soap opera have individual articles "because WP:TVEPISODECRIT." To prevent "runaway article creation" I would recommend that the criteria be limited to episodes that are part of a season or series in which over half of the members already qualify for and already have articles (not redirects). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 21:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, so the TV season is so historically significant that any of its episode can be considered notable? How about a variation on (added as #6):

1. An episode that may not meet all of the individual criteria can be deemed notable if it is part of a season of television that is extensively studied and of significant historic notability; that is, the season is the subject of lasting academic criticism and extensive lasting popular culture coverage of sufficient depth. In these cases, a majority of the season's episodes must also meet independent notability criteria.

I really agree on that last point; I know a season that would theoretically qualify but I don't think any of its episodes are really notable enough and wouldn't like to see the exception be used to have them created and kept. Kingsif (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, let's break down the process: in terms of articles, it's TV series -> LoE -> season -> episode(s) in order (sometimes the LoE step is skipped). Why do I bring this up? Because some TV series will not qualify for separate "season" articles, and just because a "season" article exists/is justified doesn't mean that individual TV episode articles are justified. So I would be leery of the idea that having a well-studied TV "season" necessarily implies that individual episodes will qualify for standalone articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

If most of the episodes are notable, and the season is notable, does that make all of the other episodes to some level notable as default? When David mentioned it, I looked from the reader's perspective; that if a season seems so significant, and I find an article for most of its episodes, I want to read about the rest of them and would find it strange that some seemed randomly excluded. On the other hand, if a series is that well-studied and most of its episodes notable, then episodes that can't procure enough independent notability may very well be not significant at all or it would have at least some coverage. Kingsif (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Let the coverage dictate it. First, this hypothetical episode will still be covered – in the season article. But I would have a problem with creating an article for an episode like The Burning (Seinfeld) just because "all the other episodes in that season have articles", because "The Burning" doesn't have the requisite production or even "review" level coverage... So, I think I have a problem with the idea that a "well-studied" season in which most of the episodes have standalone articles should "require" the other episodes to get articles even when the coverage doesn't justify it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I would avoid this. Take, for example, most of the streaming services original programming which release new seasons of a show in one block. Because of that model, the season is clearly notable (eg Stranger Things (season 3)) but none of the individual episodes would be. --Masem (t) 21:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, you've reminded me of streaming blocks. Are episodes released all at once non-notable by default? I feel like that's the case and it would take some good sources to show otherwise. Kingsif (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Most of the time, yes, since all the media before and after release focus on the season. You may get individual episode reviews but rarely a single episode in a bloc gets the development or production-type details that a normal broadcast episode may get (comparing how Stranger Things was reported on to how Watchmen or Westworld had been handled). So I'd definitely make sure to account for this. I agree that in a normal case, if 50%+ of a season's episodes are notable, the rest likely are, so given that rarely a streaming bloc episode is notable, this may not be an issue. --Masem (t) 22:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It probably doesn't need to be noted, then. Unless we want a whole section on streaming at the eventual guideline. Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In regards to this and #9 above, I think the tone of the statement should be lessened, or that number removed all together. We just need to state something like "episodes released in a block may not get the individual coverage to warrant individual articles" because it is still possible for a singular episode in a block (perhaps the first or last) to get significant coverage. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Mirror (series 3 to 5) is an exception but anthologies are more likely to receive individual episode attention. — Bilorv (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify My original suggestion was NOT to say "you can create a [non-list-article] page about a season" (or "series" for things like the new Doctor Who) but rather "if the series/season qualified under general notability guidelines, whether it had an article or not, and where half or more of the episodes in the series/season already qualify for an article outside of this special "it's part of a notable season/season" exemption, then in order to "complete the set" all other episodes in that season will be "given a pass" on notability, much as otherwise-non-notable works by famous authors do not have to show they are notable in and of themselves." In other words, as with the books by famous authors, and for that matter songs and albums by famous musicians, sometimes "notability IS inherited" WP:NOTINHERITED notwithstanding. As for shows without distinct "seasons" things like "identifiable story arcs or other definable large contiguous sequences of episodes" or "the whole run of the show" can be used to substitute for "season/series." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 22:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we understood what you meant, but are not sure if we actually want to "complete the set" or not: from a reader perspective, we surely would, but episodes of a single season (or series) are much more closely connected than books by the same author (some of which may be much older and/or more obscure), so we can reasonably expect that if most of the episodes meet GNG, all of them will, and those that don't are exceptionally not-notable. Kingsif (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Awards

For those already part of the discussion @IJBall, Masem, and Davidwr:, I've now added #8, about awards. I think this seems an obvious point of notability, but that it might be controversial. Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. But also on the flip side, depending on the type of award nomination, by getting such it in theory could be believed that there's enough coverage out there to make an article. But an article shouldn't be created solely because of such nominations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing ideas

So these ideas are just supposed to be standalone distinct ideas we could either get consensus for or against? Mentioned in discussion above (and with precedents at WP:NFO and WP:NBOOK) would be variations upon "X reviews", such as: (a) at least two reviews in reliable (inter-)national sources; (b) at least two reviews in reliable (inter-)national sources excluding those known for an extremely large number of reviews (IGN, A.V. Club have been given as examples); (c) at least five reviews in reliable (inter-)national sources. I would also add a possibility "winning an award can count towards this threshold" or just an option "winning a major award" that automatically qualifies as notability (in direct contradiction to criterion #8). Also maybe I'm missing it but I'd like a way for supporters of the following claim to have the potential for it to become consensus: "if a season/program has received extremely detailed coverage and the majority of episodes in the season/program are notable then the episode is considered notable" (targeted at people who think it would be an undesirable outcome to have 21 articles and 3 redirects for a season of a show). — Bilorv (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

To the first point, I didn't want to detail what a decent reception section would be. I think we all agree a reception section is needed, but what constitutes a notable reception section is debated. Perhaps a fixed number of reception articles (not necessarily reviews), with an award (that has a Wikipedia article for it/awarding body) counting towards that number, is the way to go. Should that be hashed out before RfC?

And please continue discussing the merits of the extremely detailed coverage part, more than three views on the matter would be great.

Kingsif (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I can tell you what doesn't constitute a "proper" 'Response' section – one that only cites Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic! I would actually like to see it written in the guideline that a "proper" 'Response' section must (and here I would use "must"!) have more than just Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and must include proper individual reviews, and that sections consisting of just Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can be removed from the article. I come across this fairly often. Right now, MOS:TV doesn't specifically speak to this, but it should. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, what constitutes a "proper" production section should probably also be worked out, but these are more likely needed at MOS:TV, which you mention. And then linked from the notability criteria. I.e. NTV should say we expect "proper" production and reception sections, and see the MOS for what that means. Kingsif (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a much higher bar for notability than is currently being used in AfD discussions. How are you planning on establishing a wider consensus for that meaningful change, outside of a few people talking and drafting on this page? — Toughpigs (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

That's good. AfDs are being closed as keep with reasons like "they said they're looking for sources and it exists so that's good enough for now", but it isn't good enough; there's a lower bar for notability of films than books and even then that's higher than the current acceptable level of TV episodes. There has to be a good reason to not just give the episode routine coverage at a season/show article to justify an individual article - because the more individual articles exist the more it prompts people to create them for every episode ever - but editors who have caught the creation bug want to give that routine coverage in a stubby episode article. The TV project can decide on TV notability criteria, then start an RfC for guideline inclusion (as I mentioned in the first sentence). But even if this discussion is just something referenced in AfDs as the intention of editors who are focusing on TV articles, it's something of a win. Kingsif (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said in the previous discussion: RT/Metacritic are only worth citing when they list more than 20 reviews, otherwise there's too much random fluctuation, and if it has 20 reviews then enough of the 20 should be high-quality enough to justify a standalone article. If you see a "Reception" that just cites RT and/or Metacritic then replace them with the set of reviews cited that are reliable/good for Wikipedia's purpose. If there are then not enough for notability then it's time for WP:BEFORE and if that fails then AfD or redirect (and for consistency it's best to look at all episode articles for that show/season as well if you can). — Bilorv (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

My problem with using RT/Metacritic as a metric is that lots of non-American shows are not included, or get much less coverage. I think saying that only RT/Metacritic is not a suitable reception section is fine, but we shouldn't say an episode needs X amount on either, because some will never reach that no matter their notability. Kingsif (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you've misunderstood. I don't support any requirement that RT or Metacritic pages even exist for an episode to be notable. My comment above is intended to imply that RT/Metacritic are unrelated to notability—it is only the reviews that they list that could be useful in assessing this. — Bilorv (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Good idea. Should that be at the MOS? (MOS:TVRECEPTION) Kingsif (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Be explicit that if WP:GNG or any other applicable notability criteria is met, it is considered notable even if it fails this criteria due to things like missing production information or missing audience information from its initial airing. This can easily happen if old, previously obscure/forgotten episodes are "re-discovered" and heavily commented on by journalists. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Started a line at 1.3 to this effect Kingsif (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Be explicit that Wikipedia is not obligated to have an article about a TV episode that meets this or any other notability criteria IF there is an existing consensus against it or if the standard practice for that particular TV show is to not have stand-alone episode articles (see also: WP:SPLIT).

Is that really a notability issue? Or just a "don't make an article that we've agreed not to make" issue? Kingsif (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It's the latter but I've seen enough arguments over things like this over the years that it's worth putting in any special notability guideline, even if it's just in an appendix-type section that doesn't carry the "weight" of a policy or guideline near the bottom. The controlling guidelines/policies are probably those that address WP:CONSENSUS and other behavioral guidelines, along with a dash of WP:BOLD and WP:BRD for cases where there is no firm consensus against per-episode articles but some indication of a standard practice of not having them for this series/season despite notable examples being available. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Implementation

@Kingsif: Do you want to synthesis what was discussed here an add it into the working draft of the guideline? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I could try. Kingsif (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

U.S. TV ratings sources

With the hiatus of Showbuzz Daily, I have seen some articles cite SpoilerTV. I don't know how they have finals but apparently they do. I believe this is an unreliable source though, and it is odd to cite an article with "DarkUFO" as the author...

The only reliable sources that give final ratings are the Associated Press, which does a weekly top 20 viewers, and the Los Angeles Times, which is more a highlights of viewers than details for everything. None give 18–49 ratings. Should we resort to using preliminaries from Deadline, TVLine, etc. for shows that do not have their final numbers reported, and add a note or something? At this point I think something is better than nothing. With ratings so low nowadays it's not like there's that much difference between preliminaries and finals for most shows anyways. But for any cable show ratings, RIP. Heartfox (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

SpoilerTV is not a reliable source because the website is fan-operated as it stated on the About page of the website and anyone could submit a scoop on there. We could use Programming Insider, although they take a long time to release info on final ratings. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you think about using preliminaries if even PI doesn't report? Heartfox (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I am against preliminary ratings as they are subject to change and give viewers the wrong information. Yes, there are some differences between preliminary ratings and final ratings, sometimes a lot more and other times not much. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There's really no reason why TVSeriesfinale can't be used for final ratings sourcing for shows until a better source becomes available. It's used as sourcing for ratings graphs on list of episodes pages for a great many shows. I don't know their update schedule but I think they have the finals within a few days to a week of each show airing. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I never understood why it is cited in those graphs anyways; it's redundant to the episodic citations and not really a proper source. TVSeriesFinale doesn't actually get ratings from Nielsen, they just copy from other sources. Right now that's most likely SpoilerTV, which itself is not an actual source either. But honestly at this point I think it's better to have something than nothing, so it might be better to just use it and then add a Template:Better source needed tag, so someone will replace the citation if/when better one becomes available. Heartfox (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

When TV By the Numbers became defunct, ShowBuzz Daily and Programming Insider became the only primary reliable sources for Nielsen ratings. Now, it is just Programming Insider as ShowBuzz Daily is still having technical difficulties. I do want to point out that Associated Press is a reliable source. TV Series Finale is definitely a questionable source because sometimes they claimed a TV series is canceled when it is not canceled yet and sometimes they claimed a TV series is renewed when it is not renew yet based on hearsays of "likely canceled or likely renewed". — YoungForever^(talk) 20:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The source has been used for TV ratings graphs on countless pages for many years. If the source is good enough for graphs and accepted by other editors for that purpose there's no reason why it can't be used as a placeholder. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

What I am saying is that, if/when better one becomes available, the better source should replaced TV Series Finale source. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm also having issues with another editor on the Superman & Lois page when adding this source. For the record I only reverted him twice on the page. I don't know why I was tagged as "reverting" when initially adding the TVSeriesfinale ratings as a source to that page as I didn't revert anyone. But editting as an IP has its downsides I guess. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Why? I agree that TVSeriesFinale should never be used as a source. In fact, I'd say nearly all WP:TV regulars are likely to agree on this score. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

If this is the stance, when is the mass takedown of ratings graphs on TV pages going to begin? They are sourced solely by TVseriesfinale. I couldn't do this myself as I'd get accused of vandalism. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

TV Series Finale is a questionable source even though it supposedly have a staff. Spoiler TV is definitely not a reliable source as it is completely fan-operated as it even stated on the About page. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if TVseriesfinale are Nielsen subscribers(Or who they source from) but they have always had accurate Nielsen ratings. I think a website that has had accurate Nielsen ratings since its inception is reliable. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yowza. Looks like Showbuzz Daily is officially over now. Magitroopa (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Saw that coming a mile away... But this gets back to the question as to whether (U.S.) viewership ratings are even relevant anymore. (FTR, I argue they aren't, and probably haven't been since at least 2015.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

They won't be in a few years. TV shows post double digit percentage declines every year and can only do so for a little while longer before networks are forced to factor other viewing methods into the mix. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The Showbuzz Daily website and its past ratings pages are still working for now. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there a bot request that can add the archive urls? I think one did for TVBTN. Heartfox (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests. That sounds like a pretty standard request. Somebody probably just needs to put in the request. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think WP:URLREQ have bots specifically adding archive urls. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sad to see the website go and think its a huge loss for the TV project pages. They offered readily digestable ratings quickly and freely. The only issue now is that we'll likely see an increase of folk posting preliminary ratings on pages until another source steps up to offer the "finals" in a quick manner. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem with these sites though, outside of TVBTN (backed by Tribune), USA Today's weekly chart, Marc Berman, and the trade dailies, is that we've never been able to understand how these other sites do get their numbers. Some numbers I've removed in the past because they were literally sourced to comments sections by Disqus randos, and a few IPs persisted in adding comments-sourced numbers even into recent years for things like that time Destination America carried TNA and the numbers were hilariously low and below a margin of error, while CNBC primetime (which at least gets into the low 000s) got unreportable 'scratches'. I've never trusted TVSF or SitcomsOnline because I've had to clean up spyware from their cookies in the past. And also in 2021 when everything is literally on-demand and networks have said out loud despite a couple sites keeping up with the 'primetime horserace' that 'we don't bother with fast nationals the morning after', that those first-air ratings are completely unimportant. And since we've had dealings with Nielsen and their DMA definitions in the past, I've always been an editor leery of anything but reliable-posted numbers in fear of their lawyers hitting us yet again. Nate • (chatter) 02:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The trades are part of the problem. Networks have considered the fast nationals irrelevant for so long yet that's the only thing they report. That's also a good argument as to why preliminary numbers should be avoided in articles as they're misleading/not even taken seriously by network people. But the problem is the Associated Press weekly top 20 and Marc Berman/PI is all we have for finals now, and pretty much nothing for cable shows. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter stopped posting Live+7 DVR since the end of 2020 for whatever reason; all we have is Marc Berman/PI despite it being essential and without it articles make shows seem way less popular than they actually are. I have literally emailed multiple outlets about posting finals or something. Broadcasting & Cable and THR gave no response, and TVLine said they didn't have time... honestly some of these places deserve to shut down they are so useless. A lot of people give way too much credit to random sites as if they get the numbers themselves. An exception might be SpoilerTV as they posted a screenshot a few days ago of some of the numbers they received, so it looks like they actually get something, but it's not really a reliable source. I think Nielsen is introducing "cross-platform" ratings in a few years, so maybe coverage will get better then :/ Heartfox (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Did anyone ever put in a bot request for the archive URLs?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've put one in. You can follow the bot request status here. — Starforce¹³ 19:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought these thoughts from Bill Gorman(TV Grim Reaper) were interesting. [1] & [2] He seems to believe that these days no one actually pays for Nielsen ratings, he thinks they come from unauthorized sources. Do we actually have any evidence that SpoilerTV pay for access? The way ShowbuzzDaily abruptly poofed away would back up Bill Gormans thoughts. I mean, he did run the largest television ratings website in the world and would know all about the technical side of things. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we should keep using SpoilerTV for now. What exactly made Showbuzz more of an RS than SpoilerTV? Is it considered unreliable because it's "fan-created"? If so, that's ridiculous. We should stick a "better source needed" next to ratings from SpoilerTV for now until we find a better source or find that SpoilerTV is just as reliable. wizzito | say hello! 21:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Fan sites aren't reliable sources, it's as simple as that. Why would not using a fan site be ridiculous? -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

SpoilerTV is entirely fan-operated and considered to be WP:USERG. The website do not have an editorial staff team. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Yet, people are adding those ratings from the site, I had to remove the ratings source from The Owl House episode "Separate Tides", because it is a SpoilerTV source. If people continue to add sources from SpoilerTV, I will make a disclaimer just in case. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Given it's our only option, Spoiler TV seems like a reliable source for ratings only, and I think we could make exception for, again, ratings only. Those are clearly coming from Nielsen, which is clearly reliable, just like with Showbuzz Daily, Programming Insider, etc. The data between Showbuzz Daily before the problems happened and Spoiler TV match exactly. However, Spoiler TV should absolutely not be used as a source for anything else, like renewals or cancellations. Amaury • 18:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Only if they give a source as to where they got the ratings from. If SpoilerTV just list the ratings and nothing to back it up, then definitely not. If we're not going to use if for anything else, there shouldn't be exceptions. I've often noticed that SpoilerTV actually gets almost all of its upcoming episode titles correct, but we still don't use it. SpoilerTV is unreliable behind the scenes, so it fails WP:V and WP:RS, no matter its content (titles, ratings, etc). -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It's right there at the bottom of each ratings post that the ratings are provided by Nielsen, just like Showbuzz Daily and Programming Insider. IMDb is used only for external links; otherwise, it's not used for anything else. This is no different. Amaury • 18:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I very much agree concerning IMDb. We don't use it as a reliable source, as it's user-generated. Same goes for SpoilerTV. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

You are intentionally missing the point, as always. While a lot of it is user generated content, the ratings are not. They come directly from Nielsen; this part is no different than Showbuzz Daily and Programming Insider. There is nothing that says that an entire website must be reliable in order to use it. It can be used if one section of it is reliable, but only for that section. So Spoiler TV should not be used at all to source something like cancellations or renewals, but absolutely can be used for ratings only. YouTube and Twitter are generally not reliable sources, but we have exceptions on when we can use them and use them to source stuff all the time. WP:ABOUTSELF, for one, if it comes from a verified account. Likewise, if there's an announcement for a new series, renewal, cancellation, series/season premiere date, or series/season end date. For this one, though, only if it comes from the verified account of the network or showrunner. Even if verified, we can't use cast members' statements since they don't speak for series. We can only use statements that apply directly to them only. This should be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS thing, anyway. Amaury • 17:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF is interesting, because after all of that, there's nothing about accounts being verified in it.

However, per WP:SOURCE, the "source" is not just the website (SpoilerTV) or the creator of the information (Neilsen), but also the publisher of it (the non-editorial fan-based team that runs SpoilerTV), and given their lack of reliablity, information from SpoilerTV cannot be considered a reliable source, no matter what it is. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

And now there are multiple users either ignoring this discussion, don't know this discussion exists, or are simply believing two people saying two different things means that SpoilerTV can be used as a source for ratings. :/ Magitroopa (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly on the fence about this one- but couldn't SpoilerTV possibly run under the same scenario as Rotten Tomatoes (particularly what it says at WP:USERG)?- "Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes) may be reliable, their audience ratings based on the reviews of their users are not." If the ratings are coming from Nielsen like other sources and past viewership/ratings have been compared and match up, wouldn't that be similar to how RT is used on Wikipedia? Or am I missing something?... Magitroopa (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

FTR, this is not an issue I care much about. But... My issue here is what the IP points out, up-thread – how is Spoiler TV getting their Nielsen ratings info?! If they are actually Nielsen subscribers, then the fact that the rest of their site is WP:NOTRS is probably irrelevant, as they are legitimate subscribers to Nielsen and Nielsen's data (and thus can legitimately republish that data?...). The issue here is that, AFAIK, we have no proof that this site is actually subscribing to Nielsen. If they're not, where are they getting the ratings info from?! And, if they aren't subscribers, doesn't their publishing of Nielsen data qualify as a WP:COPYVIO?!... Until we can get an answer to this info – "Are they actually subscribers to Nielsen?!" – I don't think we can use them as a source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

If you scroll down the Disqus section at this article of theirs, you can see the website owner/author published a screenshot of the ratings that they get. It does appear they have legitimate access themselves, and are not copying from another site. My qualms with SpoilerTV is that the rest of the site is unreliable, and it's a bit weird for someone reading the sources of an article to see someone named "DarkUFO" cited. Maybe it should cite their real name Andy Page. No one thinks they're posting fake numbers, and they do have legitimate access, so I would also support—reluctantly, if no other sources for a particular rating are available (e.g., via AP/PI)—citing SpoilerTV and tagging it with Template:BSN. Heartfox (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Their numbers may indeed be "accurate", but if they aren't the subscribers paying for the data, then it can't be used regardless, because it would be a WP:COPYVIO. Nothing on the page you linked to convinces me that we can be sure that Spoiler TV is actually paying for that data, and not obtaining that data "by other means". (OTOH, if they are getting the data the latter way, it's only a matter of time until Nielsen catches on and their lawyers send a "Cease & Desist" warning...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Where's your proof Mitch Metcalf/Showbuzz Daily paid for the data? Is there website a copyvio? Why is it not taken down? They said they lost access to the data. Maybe it's because he was a former TV executive and probably still had access to the ratings. You don't randomly lose access to something when you're paying for it. Do you want SpoilerTV to show receipts or something?? They didn't just photoshop a screenshot. Your standards are impossible to meet. Heartfox (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I've found another source that uses Nielsen Data called Ratings Ryan. My only problem with this site is that it's a blog site. Just putting this out since theirs no consensus about sourcing SpoilerTV. kpgamingz (rant me) 00:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

They get their sources from SpoilerTV FYI. At the bottom of the ratings, it says Source: Nielsen Media Research via SpoilerTV. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok can we please get some consensus about sourcing SpoilerTV. It's been over a month since we had a RS for ratings. kpgamingz (rant me) 00:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say the consensus is clear. There's too much contention on the use of the website, too many issues on reliability that cannot be agreed upon, and the fact that it's always been considered unreliable for any other content. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

There are RS for ratings. The AP does a weekly top 20 for broadcast (although they forgot this week...), LATimes lists the top show per network per week, and Programming Insider usually publishes DVR, with cable most of the time. If all of those were to go away, there is still broadcast preliminary ratings which at least provide some context/viewership level. Heartfox (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ugly Betty episode articles

If anyone is looking for stuff to do, a lot (most? all?) of the Ugly Betty episodes such as In the Stars sections don't follow WP:LAYOUT or MOS:TV. Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

At least the one you linked, doesn't really appear to need to be an article at all... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Most of them (and Desperate Housewives episodes, such as You Could Drive a Person Crazy) are like that, but I didn't really want to get 100s of red bells appearing when I log in... Gonnym (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This is why we need to establish some episode notability article guidelines. There are a lot of episode articles that just contain a plot and nothing more. Sometimes, just copied and pasted from the season articles and/or main articles. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Please tell me that WP:TV has some sort of guideline or suggestions at least for how we should handle {{Short description}}s at TV series articles? Mostly what I've seen from this are examples like "American television series" or "American television sitcom", which seems appropriate for this. Something like this is very non-standard, and even goes against policies at WP:NCTV. Further I've seen people attempt to do some really not "short descriptions" at some articles – stuff like, for example, "1984–1989 television comedy that aired on NBC" type of thing.

So is there any guidance on how we should {{Short description}}s going forward? It would be good it WP:TV has some sort of consistent formatting with these. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be common practice to be the first line on the lead where it describe the genre(s) of the TV series. For an example, Name of the TV series is American legal drama television series created by John Smith. American legal drama television series is the {{Short description}} or sometimes the year when it premiered is added in the front like this 2020 American legal drama television series. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm against even including years – {{Short description}} is supposed to be exactly that: "short". If we're going to do anymore than "American television series" or "British television series", it should be no more than 4–5 words total – I think "American drama television series" is actually preferable for this than "American legal drama television series" which is starting to get a lot less "short".... But, thanks – based on this, I will likely reword the one for Danger Force. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've seen way too many people whose main activity is adding short descriptions en masse but haven't read Wikipedia:Short description's nutshell no more than about 40 characters. I don't mind "[year] television series", and WP:SDDATES seems to like it too, but it seems no-one understands the purpose is to help a mobile user (and, in the planned design revamp, desktop users) identify which of multiple pages they are looking for in the search bar. Just "television series" can do this in any case where there is no TV series of the same name (in which case, the title probably includes the years as diambiguators, which is then enough information). — Bilorv (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I was never sure of the "limit", but I appreciate you finally quantifying the "40 character limit" thing – that does confirm what I was suspecting: even something like "American television drama series" is 32 characters, while "American legal drama television series" is 38 characters (right at the limit!), so the former is probably preferable as a short description, and 4 words maximum seems like a good general rule... As for years, that becomes more of a minefield for TV series than for films because you're pretty much obliged to need to do date ranges for TV series and something like "1984–1989 American television drama series" takes you over 40 characters (42, in this case). So, for TV series, I think years should be left out, unless explicitly needed to disambiguate from another series with the same title, and in that case you're probably stuck with just doing something like "1984–1989 American television series" (36 characters) as the absolute maximum that can be done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, "1980s American television series" will work if there's a reason it's confusing without the decade (and the other TV show wasn't also in the 1980s—which would surely be a very rare case), but leaving it without a year is not something I would object to or try to "fix", and 4 words max is a fine rule (except for hard cases that would make bad law). — Bilorv (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem with trying to use "decades" is that many TV shows "straddle" decades, so that doesn't really solve the problem. I'm still at we should generally leave years out of {{Short description}}s for TV show articles (we also try to avoid disambiguating by year under WP:NCTV as well), except in those cases where year(s) are needed to disambiguate from another show with the same title – and in the latter case, I would still advise going with a date range. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any wrong with no more than about 40 characters as it is for {{Short description}}. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Basic question

Should web series that don't get broadcast on any subscription or free-to-air channel be assigned this project? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I think so, as it as been discussed on here Archived 2013-07-31 at the Wayback Machine before. --Historyday01 (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Historyday01 (although that link doesn't seem to lead anywhere?). I wonder if the words "such as web series", or "including web series" could be added to that first sentence on the main panel ("This is to guide the structure and normalize the standard of articles dealing with the Television medium and television series or other forms of episodic programs."), just to spell it out and avert further questions on this page? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support that rewording. I've been assuming web series are in scope. — Bilorv (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd support that rewording as well. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I've implemented it, and let's see if anyone objects. — Bilorv (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Bilorv and Historyday01. Hopefully that will also be helpful to others in the future too. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force has been created

The Marvel Cinematic Universe task force, a joint task force between WikiProject Film and WikiProject Television, has just been created. Please join if you wish! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Help with draft article about YouTube Pride 2021

I have prepared a draft article about YouTube Pride 2021 celebrations User:Peony1432/sandbox. While on first look this appears to be a WP: Crystal Ball event, there are exceptions for well-publicized events that are newsworthy. I am hoping for input and advice from members of this project about how to improve this draft. I should disclose that I have a conflict of interest because I work for Google. Thanks Peony1432 (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

And the winner

for the longest ever article title goes too American Society of Cinematographers Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography in an Episode Episode of a One-Hour Television Series – Commercial !! Govvy (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

This RFC is worth a look. One possible outcome is the deletion of hundreds or thousands of contestant progress tables project-wide. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Scope, organization, and naming of pages related to Wide dynamic range

This is a notification to 6 relevant wikiprojects. Most of the talk page Talk:High dynamic range, though it seems like a long-running discussion, is only the last day or two since I discovered the renaming and other things going on there, much of which I reverted pending discussion. Please see and comment if this area interests you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:NMEDIA rewrite plans

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)/2021 rewrite. I know there's a move on to establish a separate WP:NTV and that section isn't being considered, but this is important enough for you know of (especially as some 20 people have contributed to those discussions in the last 6 months), and we'd appreciate feedback as we start the road of rewriting this for the purpose of seeking elevation to guideline status. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48

Netflix original upcoming series

Just a heads up that I've cleared out at ton of series at {{Netflix original upcoming series}} (comparison to previous version), per WP:NTV, draftifying series that have not yet commenced filming. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Contributions welcome

New discussion at Template Talk:RuPual's Drag Race. Contributions are all welcome. Thanks --78.148.25.46 (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Steven Universe: The Movie § Split soundtrack into its own article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Steven Universe: The Movie § Split soundtrack into its own article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

• 29 The Masked Singer (American season 5) 659,484 21,273 Stub Low
• 32 Girl from Nowhere 547,478 17,660 Stub Low
• 41 Doom at Your Service 451,882 14,576 Stub Low
• 94 The Mosquito Coast (TV series) 315,266 10,169 Stub Low
• 99 Innocent (TV series) 312,873 10,092 Stub Unknown
• 115 Girls5eva 293,264 9,460 Stub Low
• 185 Dark Side of the Ring 228,155 7,359 Stub Low
• 238 The Pursuit of Love (TV series) 197,566 6,373 Stub Low
• 255 Eurochannel 189,320 6,107 Stub Low
• 262 Chupke Chupke (TV series) 185,697 5,990 Stub Low

(Not to mention numerous unrated articles)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Tasks

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Tasks. This page is currently unused, but the project might find it useful (if it's used), in which case project participants may want to consider the case for deletion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48

Emmy Award winners

Would winning an Emmy Award meet (c) of item 4 of WP:CREATIVE? I'm not talking about a Regional Emmy Award, but one of the national ones. The reason I'm asking about this has to do with Draft:Todd Masters. There are lots of issues (possible COI, formatting, NPOV, etc.) associated with that draft, but Masters (if the draft is correct) has won multiple Emmys. There are some other things written in the draft that might indicate that he also meets items 1 and 3 of CREATIVE, but the main thing that stands out is the Emmy Awards. If Masters is unable to meet CREATIVE, it seems unlikely that he's going to meet GNG for his activities in other areas like his environmental work; so, I guess everything is riding on CREATIVE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Emmys and International Emmys would qualify as "significant critical attention" I feel. Kingsif (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Star original programming

I noticed that Star (Disney+) has a lot of exclusive international distribution of American TV series. Is appropriate to call the list of American TV series Star original programming on {{Star original programming}}? The primary networks are American TV networks, not Star as Star is a just a secondary network. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably not – "original programming" means they are producing it, not that they are picking up others' works and "distributing" it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. We don't call the List of Netflix exclusive international distribution programming as Netflix originals. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (television) close to a site-wide RfC

If you don't have Wikipedia:Notability (television) on your watchlist, and have been unaware, some recent additions have been made by Kingsif to get this notability guideline very close to a site-wide RfC to (finally) implement. Some more discussion is occurring on that talk page regarding some small additions and rearranging in this discussion, so please join to add any more, pre-RfC thoughts. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to look at this over the weekend. There are several things I would like to make sure get in there (like, for example, TV movies should not be presumed to be notable...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

User:Gonnym User:Alucard 16 please see the discussion for merging a page here [3] and please see the sources there is no spin off it’s continued in same season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.70.117 (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Vincenzo (TV series)

Can someone have a look at the cast, the list there seems overkill, I wasn't sure if it needed stripping down, how to handle it. Cheers, thanks. Govvy (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Q-Force (TV series)#Requested move 25 June 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Q-Force (TV series)#Requested move 25 June 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Lennart97 (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested split at Talk:Johnny Test#Split proposal

I have done a discussion about the Johnny Test article getting split, as the "seventh season" may actually a different, separate series, according to what Netflix says. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

del sort

I can see the alert list, but where is the simple del sort page? I have an AfD I wanted to add to the del sort. Govvy (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: Do you mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't know why I can't see that on the front project page. Govvy (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Featured article review

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