Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Template thoughts

I have thought about creating templates for topics such as Template:Current ABC prime time schedule using http://epguides.com/grid/fall.shtml . Maybe we could also produce templates such as Template:2008-09 ABC prime time shows, which would include all shows that were part of the prime time schedule over the course of the year. The latter could be a substitute for the former and by having the current schedule and the cancelled shows, shows on hiatus, and future pilots. Additionally, we could have templates for Template:2008-09 United States Tuesday night prime time shows, which could also have the current regular schedule, cancelled shows, shows on hiatus and future shows.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Defensor page

The page Defensor (Transformers) is up for deletion, feel free to go voice your opinion on it and save the page. Mathewignash (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

TV Infobox color

I've been seeing a few infoboxes on the tv articles that don't have the purple banner (or whatever it is) in the box. In some instances, people are inserting their own color like in the Girlfriends article here (I changed it awhile back) and on The Game here (again, changed it). In other instances (ie Entourage & Sex and the City) the boxes have different colors than the template that can't be changed. Do different genre of shows get their own color, should they all be the same or does it even matter? Pinkadelica (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters, so long as it isn't distrating and the text can be read. So, I wouldn't allow some bright yellow to be there, but the pink for Girlfriends and whatever The Game had in those links is probably ok. The MOS for TV articles doesn't really talk about color of the infobox, becuase it really isn't a big deal.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Pinkadelica (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Lassie headaches

There has been mild drama over the various Lassie television articles of late, which are almost exclusively being edited by Lassie fan User:ItsLassieTime. The newest bone of contention deals with Timmy Martin (television character). ItsLassieTime has done tons of edits to the article, adding lots of plot stuff, and only a few references. To me, I find she shows a great deal of ownership over the articles, reverting almost anyone else's edits (valid or not) if she doesn't like them. We edit warred recently over the use of an image that was violating WP:NONFREE, and it took three editors removing it and a warning from an admin before she stopped putting it back. Tonight, I reformatted the article to follow the MoS, remove small tags she had placed around most of the references (apparently not liking their standard appearance), and do some rewording in some areas[1]. She immediately reverted, claiming that the MoS could be completely ignored because it says to do what works best for "you" (which is incorrect), and rejecting all of the edits.[2] I reverted, blah blah, and the article is now protected. Discussion efforts very quickly feel, as its one against one, so asking the project to take a look at both versions to see which it feels is the "best for the article" (per what the MoS actually says).

I firmly believe this article (as well as the series article could easily be FA with some work, so I'm finding it very frustrating dealing with this kind of thing. The show has a ton of sources, and yet both are start class, and I honestly feel it is because the whole thing is "controlled" by a single fan instead of experienced editors.

Anyway, thoughts on the two versions and which is "best practices", and anyone else want to task of going for the FA so I can get away from this area? Much as I love the show, I don't think I'll be the editor to take it there because of the discord with this other editor.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's very difficult to edit the Lassie articles. Collectonian apparently has them on her watchlist and zips to any article the moment someone touches it. I recently lost tons of information, sources, references, etc. when she entered the Timmy Martin article to "rearrange" it by applying the "Rules" from the MoS, thus creating an edit conflict for me and the loss of tons of material. She knew I was editing the article because her watchlist told her so. She never enters the Lassie articles unless I'm working on them. And then enters only to revert. She recently nominated for deletion two articles about two major characters from Lassie and was shot down by consensus. Her only support was from a teenage reformed WP vandal. Why she wants Paul and Ruth Martin deleted, and then tries to "upgrade" Timmy Martin by rearranging the article is something I cannot fathom. After the embarassing deletion debacle I should think she'd want nothing to do with Lassie. I've done a ton of work on the Lassie articles, and I'm proud of my work. But I cannot correct simple typos, add a line or two, rephrase for clarity, nor add new material while sweating over the fact that someone is prowling around behind me with her finger on a "revert" key. Collectonian is reverting simply for the sake of reverting. Per WP, she should be discussing on the talk page before slashing away like Attila the Hun. Anyway, it would be a good idea for someone else to take on these articles, my stomach lurches every day when logging into WP knowing Collectonian is waiting for me. I cannot make progress. On her talk page and archives I notice she antagonizes other editors with the same sort of thing. Good luck and love to all! ItsLassieTime (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are telling out right lies. YOU didn't lose tons of information, sources, or anything else when I rearranged the article. I removed a single damn line. At lesat tell the truth. Paul and Ruth are not notable characters IMHO, and there is nothing embarrassing about the deletion discussions except your attitude and attacks. And no, I do not have to start a discussion on the talk page to come in apply project standards nor enforce Wikipedia guidelines or policies (those things you rampantly ignore). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I note that both of you have ownership issues (not necessarily bad; I have them at times too)? As I am mostly unfamiliar with Lassie, I can't and don't want to comment on what representation works best. However - and this doesn't mean I am siding with anyone - Collectionian has FA experience and thus has much experience dealing with various issues that come up during editing (including MOS issues), while ItsLassieTime seemingly doesn't, so this is an opportunity for ItsLassieTime to watch and learn. If I remember correctly, Collectonian has also expressed an interest in Lassie articles at least half a year ago, and I doubt that this had anything to do with ItsLassieTime's interests. So ItsLassieTime, please assume good faith that Collectionian is not after you; she is just watching out/trying to prevent poor editing choices to article she cares about just as much as you do (again, experience tells you what is likely poor). And although bad decisions happen to be made by everyone at times, even by established editors (I recently nominated a list for deletion for my favorite fiction and was shot down there, then I improved the list to Featured List Candidate status), this doesn't mean their general judgment is always off. Edit conflicts happen to everyone, and the back-button in some/most browsers can restore the edit-conflict edit that got "lost". If my attempted advice here doesn't help you to get along, I'd suggest that both of you make a copy of said article in your userspaces to take off the imagined [WP:DEADLINE]] pressure. If one userspace version is close to GAN quality, I figure you'll get along much better with further proceedings. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit, I can be a little protective of articles when they are high quality (i.e. GAs, FAs, and FLs), or if they are being improved to such a point that they are headed that way. However, despite certain claims, I simply came behind to help clean up and tweak existing edits, but doing so apparently is insulting to ItsLassieTime, who disregards all existing guidelines and has reverted any other editor who tried to tell her the same. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly" does not seem to apply to her (though I felt my edits were certainly fair and appropriate. I tweaked the wording of the lead and one section (even ADDING information), fixed the MoS (both from TV MoS and the Wikipedia MoS which certainly frowns on trying to hide references with small tags), and removed a single redundant section. Earlier I removed a non-free image being used inappropriate, and unlike ItsLassieTime I had just AGFed that she didn't understand non-free image policies until she reverted its removal by myself and two other editors 5-6 times, stopping only when an admin warned her that her next revert would result in her being blocked and the article was temporarily locked. I admit, I have little patience when I'm being attacked personally at every turn by this editor (who has thus far accused me sockpuppetry, collusion, and now stalking and embarrassment). *sigh* This is why I walked away from those articles months ago, though if I had known she had done the same I could have been busy taking them to FA in the peace and quiet.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I walked away from the articles months ago because I simply got sick of being reverted, deleted, rephrased, and repositioned at every turn. The Lassie articles have lain in sad shape and untouched since I left and I returned thinking Collectonian had taken said articles off her watchlist or had found something else to hover over with "ownership" claws bared. A close examination of the history pages will reveal Collectonian has contributed little other than reverts, rephrasings, repositionings, and deletions -- all done to establish ownership over the Lassie articles. "Touch it if you dare!" What very little information she has contributed apparently is sourced from a slim souvenir booklet included with a Lassie DVD collection published by the Lassie trademark holder and (by her own admission) ineligible as a source. The information in the booklet is replicated elsewhere in reliable sources. Why someone whose interest is manga / anime has chosen to sit on an old black and white children's TV show scaring sincere and willing-to-reliably-source WP editors is difficult to fathom. Collectonian has provoked edit warring by conducting her business without discussion on the Talk Page FIRST. New information added to an article is deleted, reverted, repositioned or rephrased by Collectonian before discussion and usually within seconds of the material being entered. The attitude revealed is, "There's no sense discussing this. I'm an experienced editor, I have a gold star (you don't), I own this article, and your contribution is unwanted. Good-bye!" ZIP! The delete/revert key is hit without so much as reading the the contribution first. An examination of her user pages will reveal she has made enemies at WP with her rude and overbearing "I am royalty, you are not" 'tude. Don't encourage her. ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, you are misstating what I said. I never said the DVD booklet is not a valid source. I said it can not be used to establish notability of the characters or series because it is a primary work, not a secondary one. The rest I'm ignoring per the request of the administrator attempting to arbitrate this. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See how quickly Collectonian has responded to my post -- all of 5 minutes! My contributions to the Lassie articles are dealt with in the same swift manner -- only there my contributions are rephrased, repositioned, reverted, or deleted. Collectonian makes a big show of wanting to bring the Lassie articles up to FA status. The articles have lain dormant for months but she has done nothing to bring them up to FA status. I look askance at her sincerity. Of course, it's all my fault. She can't work the articles because of me. As noted, the articles have lain dormant for months, she has done nothing to bring any article to FA status, and the moment I return, she provokes an editing war by not discussing reverts, deletions, rephrasings, and repositionings on the TALK PAGE FIRST with the result that the article has been locked. ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I already said I left the articles before you did. Also, please stop misrepresenting facts. "The moment you return" is a false statement. Per your own contribs, you have been "back" for weeks, and I came back to the articles I'd given up on later without realizing you had returned until after doing so. I gave up trying to take the articles to FA months ago because of the constant disagreements between us and a seeming lack of project interest and removed them all from my watch list. Rephrasing and reorganizing are part of the editing and improving process and do not require anyone to get your permission first when those edits are in line with existing guidelines and policies. Your words are not sacred texts that are not open to editing. I did not even know you had left, so please stop claiming I was some monster waiting for you to return. Master of Puppets has asked that both of us stop with the personal attacks. I have done so. I'm waiting for you to do the same. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, of course, it's all MY FAULT you can't bring the articles to FA status. Of course, of course. I stay away from the articles for months after being scared off with your "ownership" fangs and when I return it's just a VERY. STRANGE. COINCIDENCE. that you decide to return at the same time. Of course. I think the most telling evidence of your WP character is your user page on which many WP editors express exasperation, frustration, and anger with your reverts, deletions, and other "editorials". While no one questions any editor correcting typos, spelling, etc. most editors question one person's "right" to make radical and undiscussed changes to ANY article without reaching a consensus first. In spite of your cited WP guidelines and "rules" that you believe permit experienced editors to run riot over the work of lesser mortals, it would be more than considerate to take your concerns to the article Talk Page first before smashing into the work of others. ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject for Television organisation?

We currently have rather a mess when it comes to describing the actual organisation of TV, who broadcasts it, what the commercial structures are, etc. Articles such as television network, television channel, and television station are confusing in their scope, and fail to give a clear view of how things actually fit together.

I think rather than (as has been proposed) looking at mergers between these articles, we need to have a fundamental look at how we treat these topics. What's needed is an article somewhere giving a co-ordinated explanation of the way TV is organised in different countries, and how they compare: the US model of networks, affiliates, syndication etc; the UK model of national TV channels with local opt-outs; etc.

From this, we will end up with various entities that need further explanation, and therefore their own articles; we can give these appropriate names, and link prominently to the overall explanation to guide readers to all the related terms in a kind of super-disambiguation.

Now, a WikiProject ought to be ideal for this, but this project seems to be mainly focussed on TV content, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations is US-only, despite the name, and too narrow in scope anyway. So before we can organise the content, it seems we need to organise the organisation a bit: we need a new project, or a new co-ordination page somewhere (I'm really not up on the bureaucracy of these things) where we can hash out what needs covering, how we're going to use terminology, etc.

Thoughts? - IMSoP (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I generally prefer new taskforces instead of new TV-related wikiprojects. I also think it makes more sense to change the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations than to create a new TF/WP for non-US structures. (I am currently working on limiting the ever-spreading TV fancruft under the scope of this wikiproject, and have only limited interest in organizing articles about TV structures, so can't really help you out.) – sgeureka ^t•c 11:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The Pirates of Dark Water

May I turn your attention to the article on The Pirates of Dark Water? I while ago another Wikipedian and I were in a pretty bad edit conflict. I let it rest since then and stumbled upon it just now, finding it is still, in my personal opinion, in a bad shape. Can anyone here please look at it? Thanks! Oh, I've also posted this at the Animation WikiProject. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 02:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

SCI FI article name

Approximately five months ago, this article was moved from Sci Fi Channel (United States) to SCI FI (United States) to SCI FI. I feel this name violates the naming conventions and have started a discussion to look at moving it back to the original name, or to a different name as the original move was done claiming that "Channel" has been dropped from its name. Please offer thoughts at" Talk:SCI FI#Article Name -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Template

Could somebody please find a way to fix {{TV network logos}} so that the title of the template isn't overlapping the template's "v - d - e" and "show/hide" links? As is, the template looks really poorly designed. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not overlapping for me, but you can change the width of the template with the first "width" parameter (currently 180px). – sgeureka ^t•c 15:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

South park episodes

Hello,

A user named Alaistaward(something like that) has gone on a crusade and eliminated every piece of trivia that he could from the SP episodes. Now, most of them are understandable- however, he takes out trivia relating to callback to other episodes and even super obvious, shot-by-shot parodies. Like I said, most of the stuff is fine that it is taken down- but some of it is not, but he often doesn't go to an episode's talk page beyond copying what he deletes. He ignores the discussion.

Example: Up The Down Steroid. This guy seems fine, but overzealous. Help? 70.232.166.37 (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:VERIFIABILITY, unsourced information can be removed by anyone anytime, and per WP:BURDEN, it is the job of those wanting to keep information, to source it. I.e. Alastairward is acting withing wikipedia policies and guidelines. (Are you aware that the article makes no claims of WP:NOTABILITY and thus doesn't have an automatic right of existance in the first place? Establishing notability is much more important than sourcing trivia...) – sgeureka ^t•c 07:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and as you read, I'm fine with the majority of the stuff he took out. However, if something is mentioned in the commentary/is a *direct* call back to an earlier episode, then isn't that enough? 70.232.166.37 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That still needs a a citation. Without a source to back it up, it might not be true.

Also, per WP:TRIVIA such sections should be incorporated troughout the article. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 10:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

But going by that very logic, couldn't one delete the *entire* plot summary because it may not be true?70.131.211.219 (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, because the episode itself acts as the source (so long as the plot summary does not contain any subjective information - i.e. information that is open to interpretation). Putting a physical citation next to the plot section is just redudant, and not necessary. Observing something in the plot and then trying to tie it to something else, without a source to prove such a thing, would be original research. Observing something that isn't subjective, but not sourcing it and providing context for the information, makes it nothing more than trivial mentioning it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

New Ep List Template

It has been a long time coming, but there is now a generic template, Template:Episode list/sublist, which can be used for season episode pages so that the lists can easily be transcluded into the main episode list. This will drastically reduce the need to make new subtemplates for each series that has been broken down into multiple lists and transcluded. For example, instead of using the single series Template:Episode list/Lassie, all of the List of Lassie episodes lists can be updated to use List of Lassie episodes to achieve the same effect, but with a single template. Hope I explained that in a way that makes sense, and thanks to User:Dinoguy1000 for solving the mystery of how to do it and sharing :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Great work to both of you. It took me a long time to figure out how to apply transclusion to a single series' episode list so making a universal template is particularly impressive to me.--Opark 77 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, on South park episodes

Hi everybody, I dropped by because I saw a discussion going awry at Talk:The China Probrem. A couple of users are against Alastairward's removal of trivial information. Maybe someone here can give support, cause this is getting ridiculious. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 13:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:HANBAR

I'm working on WP:HANBAR in my sandbox, if anyone at all wants to help before the WikiProject is officially released. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 12:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Casting and fansites

Recently, Veronica Mars was taken to FAC, and one of the main issues was sourcing, particulary with the casting section. I know about verifiability and reliable sources, but are interviews with fansites accepted? Casting is never talked about, and the actors rarely give interviews. These interviews with the fansites are the best ones out there. Is there anything I can do to keep the sources for the next FAC, or they do have to be removed? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If the fansite conducted the interview, then that is a primary source and it is reliable. If they are paraphrasing an interview the actor gave somewhere else, then you cannot use them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That's great, but the reviewers at the FAC were not as happy to include the refs. Is there anything I can point to or say that will persuade the reviewers to keep them? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I mean, you can point to WP:PSTS and say, "it says primary sources are reliable, and include interviews as part of their definition, which means that an interview conducted by the fansite is no less 'unreliable' than an interview conducted by someone from TV Guide, as the transcript of the Q&A is presented in the source". I would point to the fact that WP:NOR is policy, while WP:RS is a guideline, and that RS is a guideline because what is "reliable" can be subjective from source to source depending on what is being presented. I would point to the fact that there is no guideline or policy directly discussing "fansites" (as far as I can tell), and that although they fall under WP:V#Self-published sources the information that they would be presenting is not the same as is defined by the policy. The policy discusses self-published sources that are claiming expertise in a subject, whereas the fansite is a self-published source that is merely publishing an interview they held with said person, thus giving them primary source status because they are reporting information "straight from the horses mouth".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks so much. I will (happily) report this to some of the other editors working on the page. :-) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I had the same problem in one of my FACs, and the only way for me to solve it was to contact the producer by email and ask whether he did do the interview (I provided his reply in the FAC then). The only way that fansite interviews get blanket acceptance would be (I think) when the websites are notable enough to have wikipedia articles themselves - e.g. GateWorld. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that either of those sites warrant their own page, and contacting those who were interviewed is practically impossible (for me). Is Bignole's explanantion good enough for FAC, or do I need more than that? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't, and shouldn't be accepting sources based on the fact that they have a page here. Futon Critic doesn't have a page anymore, but we accept that source. I think one could argue that it always comes down to the fact that it was a personally conducted interview, thus making it a primary source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I know how hard it is to find TV-Guide-scale ("reliable") interviews for TV shows in the first place, so I am (usually) perfectly fine with interviews from nonnotable fansites (hey, what are the chances that someone would make up these interviews or screw with them?). However, it is not me who will voice concerns about these interviews, and the only two ways that I know to have satisfied FAC reviewers are the two I mentioned. Maybe you'll get lucky with reviewers, and won't have any source-related problems in the first place... – sgeureka ^t•c 20:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the catch will be arguing that you aren't just pulling some random information from a website, but information collected first hand from the actual person's mouth.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Brothers Flub

Is anyone here good at writing about cartoons? The Brothers Flub needs more information on plot summary, history, critical reception, etc. Although I liked the cartoon, writing about fiction isn't really my area of expertise, and I'd appreciate if someone would help. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Task forces using redirect-class

So I've hit kind of a snag while checking this project for redirects still being tagged as articles. There's close to eight hundred redirects tagged with some variation of {{WikiProject Television}}. Normally I would go through and remove the banners from all those talk pages, but there's a twist. Specifically, articles in Category:Redirect-Class Avatar: The Last Airbender articles (or any other variation I haven't seen) show up in Category:Unassessed television articles. Normally I leave redirect-class articles alone but now I'm at an impasse.

So I guess the question is, should I go ahead and knock out the 200-some banners tagged as redirect-class, or do you guys want to get the project banner working with Redirect-class, so I can reassess all the other articles instead of just removing the banner? Nifboy (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of classifying (former) articles as Redirect-class, and this wikiproject and its taskforces have so many problems with notability that once everything got (theoretically) cleaned up and redirected articles would be classified as Redirects, Redirect-class articles would easily outnumber legitimate articles. Hence, my recommendation is to get rid of Redirect-class. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. For those interested, I've posted the list of all the pages that I'll be going through after class today. Nifboy (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Season pages

At the WP:FLC discussion of The Office (US TV series) season 4 the format and layout was commented on by User:Bignole, who said that the table of episodes should appear first since it is a page about the episodes of the season, and also that there is no need to mention the main characters in each season page. I don't want to paraphrase, so either go to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Office (US TV series) season 4), or maybe Bignole will say it again here.

As a writer of 7 FLs for seasons, I'm interested in finding out the thoughts of the community at this time. WP:MOSTV#"List of ..." structure, WP:EPISODE and WP:LOE don't go into detail about season pages, but they do link to many FLs as good examples, and they all have the tables at the end, and all contain main cast and crew info. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:MOSTV covers season pages in the first section, not the second. What it doesn't do is say, "season articles could also be season lists". It treats the season pages like they should all be striving to be articles, and I guess it probably should recognize that most are not written that way.

As for the structure and information contained within. MOSTV gives a basic implication on the structure of the page by laying it all out when it explains what to write about in each section. If you look, the order is: Lead, Plot, Production, Crew, Cast, Themes, Reception - which is the order of most film and television pages. It does say, "The above three sections (plot, background, and cast) do not have a set order, and, as with every article on Wikipedia, the order should be set to what is best for the article." So, as I said, there is no policy against such a thing. My reasoning for suggesting that the plot comes first is because of context. When you talk about production information and awards for specific episodes, if the reader has yet to get to that episode's description, then they have no context to support this real world information they are reading about. If I see that they won an award for the script of Episode X, then it's not as beneficial to me to have to wait till I get to the bottom of the page just to find out what Episode X was about. Had I read the description before I got to the awards then I would have had a better understanding to start with. This is why film articles typically put the plot first, because you want the reader to have the context first instead of reading "blindly" until they get to the context.

As for the reuse of information. My thoughts are, when you're dealing with daughter articles, the chances of a reader jumping to season four of some TV show and not knowing anything about the characters or crew is extremely slim (if at all). Why are we fluffing up these season pages with duplication of information from each season page as well as the primary article on the topic? I see things like, "There were 11 directors that worked on this season, and here are their names", but the episode tables handles that already. People can count. I also see a listing of the cast members with descriptions of who they are for pages on later seasons. If they've always been on the show, we don't need to identify them in such detail all over again. Identify the primary actors in the lead, and if there are new people to the show then create a section (if the information is present) on the addition of the new actors. My problem with it is when the information is identical across pages. Pages should not mirror each other, otherwise it's saying that we could have easily put all the information on one page. See here:
Season 1 page:

Many characters portrayed by The Office cast are based on the British version of the show. While these characters normally have the same attitude and perceptions as their British counterparts, the roles have been redesigned to better fit the American show. The show is known for its generally large cast size, many of whom are known particularly for their improvisational work. Steve Carell stars as Michael Scott, Regional Manager of the Dunder Mifflin Scranton Branch.[8] Loosely based on David Brent, Gervais' character in the British version,[9] Scott is a dim-witted and lonely man, who attempts to win friends as the office comedian, usually making himself look bad in the process. Rainn Wilson portrays Dwight Schrute, who, based upon Gareth Keenan, is the Assistant to the Regional Manager, although the character frequently fails to include "to the" in his title.[10] John Krasinski portrays Jim Halpert, a sales representative and prankster, who is based upon Tim Canterbury, and is in love with Pam Beesly, the receptionist.[11] Pam, who is based on Dawn Tinsley, is shy, but is often a cohort with Jim in his pranks on Dwight.[12] B.J. Novak portrays Ryan Howard, who is a temporary worker.[13]
The show includes many minor characters playing roles of office workers, working in various positions around the office. Angela Martin, Oscar Martinez, and Kevin Malone are the office's accountants, and are portrayed by Angela Kinsey, Oscar Nuñez, and Brian Baumgartner, respectively. Schrute, Halpert, Phyllis Lapin (portrayed by Phyllis Smith), and Stanley Hudson (portrayed by Leslie David Baker), compose the sales division of Dunder Mifflin Scranton. Kate Flannery portrays Meredith Palmer, the promiscuous Supplier Relations Representative, writer-actress Mindy Kaling portrays Kelly Kapoor, the pop culture-obsessed Customer Service Representative, writer-actor Paul Lieberstein portrays Toby Flenderson, the sad-eyed Human Resources Representative, and Creed Bratton plays a fictionalized version of himself as the office's Quality Assurance Officer. Other characters include Roy Anderson, Pam's fiance played by David Denman, Warehouse Supervisor Darryl Philbin, played by Craig Robinson, and Jan Levinson, Michael's main love interest, who is portrayed by Melora Hardin.

Season 2 page:

The Office employs an ensemble cast. All of the main characters, and some minor ones, are based on characters from the British version of The Office. While these characters normally have the same attitudes and perceptions as their British counterparts, the roles have been redesigned to better fit the American show. The show is known for its large cast size, many of whom are known particularly for their improvisational work. Steve Carell stars as Michael Scott, Regional Manager of the Dunder Mifflin Scranton Branch.[16] Loosely based on David Brent, Gervais' character in the British version,[17] Scott is a dim-witted and lonely man, who attempts to win friends as the office comedian, usually making himself look bad in the process. Rainn Wilson portrays Dwight Schrute, who, based upon Gareth Keenan, is the Assistant to the Regional Manager, although the character frequently fails to include "to the" in his title.[18] John Krasinski portrays Jim Halpert, a sales representative and prankster, who is based upon Tim Canterbury, and is in love with Pam Beesly, the receptionist.[19] Pam, who is based on Dawn Tinsley, is shy, but is often a cohort with Jim in his pranks on Dwight.[20] B.J. Novak portrays Ryan Howard, who is a temporary worker.[21]
The show includes many minor characters playing roles of office workers, working in various positions around the office. Angela Martin, Oscar Martinez, and Kevin Malone are the office's accountants, and are portrayed by Angela Kinsey, Oscar Nuñez, and Brian Baumgartner, respectively. Schrute, Halpert, Phyllis Lapin (portrayed by Phyllis Smith), and Stanley Hudson (portrayed by Leslie David Baker) compose the sales division of Dunder Mifflin Scranton. Kate Flannery portrays Meredith Palmer, the promiscuous Supplier Relations Representative, writer-actress Mindy Kaling portrays Kelly Kapoor, the pop culture-obsessed Customer Service Representative, writer-actor Paul Lieberstein portrays Toby Flenderson, the sad-eyed Human Resources Representative, and Creed Bratton plays a fictionalized version of himself as the office's Quality Assurance Officer. Other characters include Roy Anderson, Pam's fiance played by David Denman, Warehouse Supervisor Darryl Philbin, played by Craig Robinson, and Jan Levinson, Michael's main love interest and Vice-President of Regional Sales, who is portrayed by Melora Hardin.

Apart from some minor differences in the first sentence, this is the same information duplicated across two pages (it's actually on three and four as well). That is too much duplication.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Advertisements

Do television advertisements such as Grim Reaper (advertisement) fall under the scope of this project? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Harmony Gold USA

I don't know how the lead paragraph ended up being all bolded. Couldn't find the culprit here. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. There was a set of ''' in front of the infobox code on the page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Some eyese needed at List of House episodes

There is an ongoing disagreement there about the inclusion of show/hide buttons for final diagnoses. It seems that a local consensus may be developing which seems to some to be at odds with WP:SPOILER. More editors involved in and contributing to the discussion at Talk:List of House episodes would be welcome. Jclemens (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Popstars

I have made a page for Popstars The Rivals because I noticed one didn't exist. I have put tables on the page similar to those on The X Factor. Feel free to fill in the tables with songs performed and the rest of the page with other referenced info. Thanks. Matcham of the Day (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone let me know and add to the page? Matcham of the Day (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.79.191 (talk)

Long standing question - episode notability

Hi. Has anyone come up with any guidelines for the notability of television episodes ? Going through new page patrol / uncategorised articles, I'm coming across a lot of articles for individual episodes of television series which contain nothing more than a list of guest stars, broadcast date, and a plot. I thought the consensus was that individual episodes were ok if they were notable in some fashion - major guest star, news coverage, real-world relationship etc. Has this been changed to allow all episodes to be de facto notable, or is it just a case of too many articles and not enough people checking them ? :-) Indidentally, the one that propmted me to write this was Shelter Island (How I Met Your Mother). CultureDrone (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There is WP:EPISODE, a content guideline, but it gets ignored all the time unfortunately. There are efforts since summer 2007 to merge/redirect episode articles that either don't establish common-sense notability (usually in the form of awards and controversy) or don't have much non-trivial real-world information (production and reception), but there aren't that many people interested in cleanup who are also willing to deal with hordes of unreasonable fans. The best (and safest) advice I can give is to tag bad episode articles (such as "Shelter Island") with dated {{notability}} and wait - nothing illustrates lack of improvement better than a time stamp. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :-) CultureDrone (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as Sgeureka pointed out, there is currently no active notability guideline specifically for television. That being said, it is just as simple to point to WP:NOTE and say, "you fail the general notability guideline". This concept of "giving them time to improve" is frankly stupid. It's one thing when the article is a mess and another when it fails notability. A messy article should have plenty of time to clean up, but notability must be establish at the creation of the topic. If you cannot assert notability then you need to redirect your topic - and browsing Google News and/or Google Scholar (Google web generally includes only fansites and unreliable sources, though, occassionally Google News can produce crappy sources as well) can determine if there truly is notability for an episode. What I mean by that is actually reading the sources, as I've seen editors try and pass off an article that has 200 hits on Google News as notable, but the majority of those hits are usually just scheduling announcements, the official write-up of an episode plot, or one source citing another source (e.g. 10 individual sources reporting on something that was presented by 1 source, thus giving the illusion that 10 people are reporting on the episode, when in fact 10 people are merely re-reporting the same information present in the original source).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

New WP:FICT

A new notability guideline has been proposed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I think it would be prudent for members of this project to review and comment, as it could greatly affect articles within our realm and our current consensus' regarding various fictional elements if instituted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Newsbank, anyone?

Could anyone with access to US newspaper articles in Newsbank, or similar databases, spare the time to access old reviews for the pilot episode of Friends and either incoporate them into that article's reception section or add them to the article talkpage? I'm willing to give a shiny, albeit imaginary, penny to anyone who can do this. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have Newsbank, but I can't access it at the moment. Unless somebody beats me to it, I'll take a look tonight. Using Google news, you can find small previews of articles that can be accessed through Newsbank. So, if you could take a look through that and let me know of any that you think might be useful, it would help. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Crew section in Survivor: Borneo

Resolved

As you can see, in the Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1) article (and all other seasons) there is a crew section. The article is a Featured list. In Survivor: Borneo, the largely expanded crew section was removed per this project's MOS. It says that IMDb lists the crew, but we aren't IMDb. Why can't the expanded crew section stay in this article. It's the only thing holding it back from DYK right now. iMatthew 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess the problem is not so much the section itself, but the mention of basically everyone who is associated with producing the show (it's a boring WP:NOT#DIRECTORY in prose). It would be better to only mention the major people, which I think stops after "David Cutler was an assistant editor.[23]". Every reader who wants to learn more will find the info on IMDb. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, then can I re-add at least that much? iMatthew 19:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the DYK rules, but I'd think so. The other option is to move/leave this information for the lead, but you know the article better than I. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A Production section in film and TV-related articles is generally justified, explaining the more useful and important details of how it was produced (such as how long filming took, where it was filmed, etc.). Listing all the crew members, however, or even one or two main crew members, is not really justified, unless those crew members are known for their work and covered in third-party sources (in which case you could say, "So-and-so, famous for working on X, was the sound technician for this film" or something like that). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've written up a production section. Thank you! iMatthew 00:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Graysons

The Graysons page has been nominated for deletion. More editor opinion is greatly appreciated.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Curtis

The Article Michael Curtis needs help, It is a stub and it needs a quality and importance assesment. Can you please help, --RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    18:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Citing IMDB

As television articles could be affected by this, the project may be interested in knowing that there is a lengthy on-going discussion(s) regarding a proposal about citing IMDB, particularly whether it should be a citable source or all, and if so, what parts. Discussions are at Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Two-part episode merge

Your input is requested at a two-part episode merge proposal here. Neelix (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Episode articles

I see that almost every episode of South Park has it's own article. I was wondering why it's considered notable, for each individual episode. If it's ok, I'd like to do the same for every episode of Survivor (U.S. TV series) ayematthew ✡ 00:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of them aren't. The fact that they choose to ignore the notability guideline doesn't make it ok.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto what Bignole said. There are several shows that have individual episode articles. They are not notable and shouldn't exist, people are just choosing to ignore the guidelines and creating them anyway in hopes they won't be noticed. If you go back through the AfD archives, you'll see that when they are discovered most end up deleted or merged back to the episode list, so far better not to waste the time or effort. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I think that reality shows are extremely hard to show notability for, even more so than scripted programs. There typically isn't any real world information on it. TV Critics don't "review" episodes so much as they recap events and they talk about how sneaky, conniving, or stupid someone was in a competition.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

List class

The template {{WikiProject Television|class=List}} fails to add the the part with List with it's purple background to the template when adding the addition of |class=List it just has the three question marks instead. I noticed when I went to rate the article Talk:List of The Outer Limits episodes as a List class. Govvy (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Amazing Race seasons

The season articles are located at The Amazing Race 1, The Amazing Race 2, etc. To be consistent with other television season articles, would anyone object to moving these to The Amazing Race (season 1), The Amazing Race (season 2), etc.? ayematthew ✡ 23:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't, because I don't recall the show being advertised as "The Amazing Race 1", "The Amazing Race 2", but just simply "The Amazing Race".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So you wouldn't move the pages. Your comment is confusing... ayematthew ✡ 15:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a show shot in "seasons" (for example, there's two cycles of it this year, but some years only have one). Going by naming conventions that suggest using the most common name, which, for fans, is "The Amazing Race 1", etc. (even for the Family Edition and All-Stars), the current scheme is correct. --MASEM 15:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Then why not use "The Amazing Race (series 1)". The UK doesn't have "seasons" either, hence why they use the term "series". It seems more applicable here than just attributing numbers to the "seasons" when they show wasn't called, advertised, or even noted as such. I'm not sure where the "fans call it" comes from, because I've not hear it used as such.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither have I. ayematthew ✡ 15:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of CBS itself using "The Amazing Race 12": [3]. Now, mind you, the DVDs seem to use "season" (but there's only 2 examples to go after). --MASEM 15:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Then leave it like it is. I don't trust DVD boxes, because I've seen them list things as "volume 1", just because they're idiots and that was how they listed the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Pocoyo credit

I just moved some of "Credit" section in the Pocoyo article into the infobox there and made the entire section hidden. It should merged into the infobox there. Help me! (Oh. It is located under the "DVD Releases" section.) - JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 14:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Wait a second. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, still don't see the problem. Can you explain what doesn't work like you want it to? – sgeureka ^t•c 15:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he's asking for help moving the relevant information from the hidden credit section up into the infobox. (which is now done) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC on WP:WAF

An RfC has been started at WP:WAF by User:Pixelface requesting comments on whether the guideline should be demoted and on his requested removal of the "Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles." As this project deals heavily with fictional topics, members may be interested in this topic. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Demotion from guideline. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Help me with these test articles.

• User:JSH-alive/Sandbox/TS! characters
• User:JSH-alive/Sandbox/WC characters

Modelled after List of Naruto characters, the above articles are need help with contents. (I'll do my best with the layout but it may need your help also.)

• User:JSH-alive/Sandbox/CN main article

A proposal to make a main article for Cartoon Network as a generic brand. Also need your help with contents. -- JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 14:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction for Winx Club

If you have any accounts of IMDB, TV.com, BCDB and Voice Chasers, can you correct pages below?

• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0421482/
• http://www.tv.com/show/26195/summary.html
• http://www.bcdb.com/cartoons/Other_Studios/F/4_Kids_Entertainment/Winx_Club/index.html
• http://voicechasers.com/database/showprod.php?prodid=838

Things you should correct:

• It is produced by Rainbow S.p.A. in Italy. (NOT Italy-US co-production and 4Kids production)
• Add Italian voices and voices of Cinelume's English dub (So-called the UK dub and RAI dub).
• Replace the 4Kids' episode titles by that in the Cinelume's English dub.

-- JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 15:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[YEAR in television] links removed?

What is the project (both Wikipedia and WikiProject TV) current advice re: linking dates in articles about TV items to the [YEAR in television] article? I know that just linking years [1977] is discouraged as overlinking, but what about [1977 in television|1977]? When is such linking appropriate and when is it also considered overlinking? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The [1977 in television|1977] version is almost always discouraged because it doesn't make it clear for the reader where the link links, but I think it may make sense in some tables. There is currently a related Request for Comment at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Date_Linking_RFC#How_and_when_to_use_.22Year_in_Field.22_links, but I haven't really been keeping up with the discussion. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Too many show WikiProjects

I agree with the fact that these should be avoided and most of these should be taskforces, however not many people seem to bother with this. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals is a very rarely viewed page and advice there is often not heeded. e.g. recently WikiProject Prison Break has been created despite much opposition. Would people be against me boldly moving some of the more recent Projects to taskforces within WP:TV. I won't be moving any of the much particpated in ones (like WP:Simpsons or WP:LOST) but think that many of the others should be taskforcified! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not see the Survivor task for be moved... ayematthew ✡ 18:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Survivor taskforce wouldn't be moved. As it is a taskforce of WP:TV and is already in the correct place. I think you misunderstood my proposal. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the said taskforcifying. However, taking into consideration the possible opposition that might be received doing such a move boldly, it would be pleasant to see the projects dissolving themselves into WP:TV. Of course, if there is still lack of understanding in terms working of this project by creating unnecessary Wikiprojects despite opposition, I think it is perfectly alright to take these straight to MfD. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with what Sleaves said. Plus, there are also some older wikiprojects where the shows have been cancelled and fandom moved on, so the wikiprojects are pretty much inactive now. The video game project (WP:VG) benefitted greatly from taskforcifying, but it won't work if there is fan opposition. If you want to coordinate something major, maybe all TV wikiprojects should be notified of this discussion. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not really see what the difference between a WikiProject and a task force is in practice, but I support this proposal. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe it will be easier to collaborate on assessment etc. I realise that some WikiProjects treat WP:TV as a parent project but not all do, and as such some stand alone show WikiProject shows can go unnoticed and become inactive. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(reply to thedemonhog) I know that for the older TV wiki(sub)projects like WP:STARGATE, each one had their own show-specific versions of WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:MOSTV etc instead of the standardized versions (because those hadn't been created yet). It was a mess of a walled garden, and a hell of bureaucracy. This isn't really the case anymore with more recent wikiprojects, where I agree that the difference is nearly nonexistent. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As well as this Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV shows lists some show WikiProjects that go rather unnoticed under WP:TV. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have officially proposed a move for WP:Prison Break. This is an example of a project not listed on the WP:TV page, and could go unnoticed as a decendent of WP:TV. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Fictional character merge proposal

Your input is requested at a fictional character merge proposal here. Neelix (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Veronica Mars task force

This is simply an announcement that the proposed Veronica Mars task force has been created. I don't know the standard protocol from this point out, but I thought it prudent to inform the main project of this creation. hornoir (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would you create a task force when you only have three members? –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As long is it's not a wikiproject, and as long as it has more than one serious editor, it's all good. Good luck. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

To thedemonhog: As sgeureka points out, task forces don't require the five dedicated members that a true WikiProject does prior to creation. This, at least, was the understanding I was working under by creating it. If this was erroneous then my apologies. hornoir (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

General Query: Who would I inquire with about adding the task force page to the show-specific projects and taskforces lists? The task force, obviously, would benefit from the exposure. Thanks. hornoir (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not that it is not allowed; I just would not have created it with so little support, especially when the show has been cancelled for over a year now. There is no need to ask about adding the task force to the list and I have done so, in addition to correcting the spacing of "task force". It is nice to see that Cornucopia has jump-started you with three excellent articles. Good luck! –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, thedemonhog. The task force is really the baby of jclemens and cornucopia... I'm mainly providing the design help they required. Thanks again. hornoir (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Momma's Boys

Could someone please take a look at Momma's Boys and its talk page? A couple of IP editors are intent on identifying all the contestants by race or ethnicity despite my requests on the talk page not to do so, and they have not provided any justification for doing so. I have noted that similar racial coding is not used on other articles about dating/reality shows such as The Bachelor. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Size of Infobox tvseason images

Hello, there. At this current FLC, an editor commented that they felt the image in the infobox section was a little big. The image in question is 200px wide, which is within the norm for episodes list as far as I understand. The editor added, "This in a way goes against WIAFL Cr 6, Visual appeal. because the image is very distracting. I would consult with the respective project(s) to discuss reducing the default size for the images in the infobox." It seems to me that the consensus about infobox image width in episodes lists goes against the FLC criteria. Your input is welcomed. Rosenknospe (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The standard for television infoboxes is 200 to 250 pixels wide and any smaller than default thumbnail size makes the image hard to see, which is even more distracting ("The second season of the international fantasy series—what is that thing on the side supposed to be?"). –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the matter is resolved now. Thank you for commenting, and have a nice Christmas holiday ! Rosenknospe (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Headers on episode lists

Recently, an issue about using section headers for individual episodes on a list of episode originally started on my talk page. I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu‎ for wider discussion, since that was the WikiProject being affected. But I would also like to see input from WP:TV on this matter as well. --Farix (Talk) 23:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

New task force (for Cartoon Network): Adult Swim

I've created a task force for the Adult Swim block, and I was wondering if anyone may be interested in Adult Swim, feel free to participate. And if you could also help me build it up (not very good at the technical stuff and all), that'd be great too. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Final comments on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

The current proposal for a notability guideline for fiction is nearing completion, and we'd like to get a final round of comments on it to make sure it fully reflects community consensus inasmuch as it exists on this issue. Any comments you can provide at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) are much appreciated. Thanks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Present or past tense in lead?

This may seem like a really minor point, but it's something there has apparently been edit-warring over: when a television show has ceased production, should it be referred to in the present or past tense in the first sentence? ('X is a television series...' vs 'X was a television series...') We seem to use the present tense more often here (see e.g. the opening sentences of Friends, The West Wing, The Sopranos), and that's what makes more sense to me: all of those may have stopped running, but they still are television shows. I just changed this on the lead of Sex and the City (diff), but I've noticed that some other articles, such as Charmed and Angel (TV series) use the past tense as well. So: is there any standard style here? If not, should there be? Terraxos (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly from some discussions on that over in one of the CE type areas, for television series, it should be present tense since the episodes still exist, same as a film still exists even if its DVD goes out of print. So they should all be X is a television series. For defunct ones, the lead should be sure to note, X is a television series that aired from X to Y within the first two sentences. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there is confusion over this even in high profile article, I'll just 100% endorse Collectonian's summary. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur. TV shows are TV shows in perpetuity regardless of whether they are airing new episodes. We say is NOT was with regard to TV series.--Opark 77 (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep that seems to be the conclusion reached here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Bill Characters

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Bill about what to do with the character articles. Please feel free to add your input. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 12:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review

I'd appreciate it if any members of this project could spend a bit of time and participate in the peer review of Survivors (2008). Thanks, Deadly∀ssassin 23:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Popotan episodes

I was told to specifically to ask outside WP:ANIME for someone to come and review the list for grammar mistakes as that is all that is keeping it from being an WP:FLC at this time. This seemed like the most appropriate place to ask, but I did not see a way to request a peer review on the main page (only list of current ones).じんない 20:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

Hey there. Before I leave (for my holiday), I just wanted to check if any knows of any websites/articles that can help source the ratings section of the Friends article. Most of the newer seasons are reffed, but I have been unable to find any for the first four seasons. Also, I have nominated the article for GA; would asking for a semi-protection disqualify it from passing? (I have seen this happen in the past.) The page is regularly edited by IP's, and most are not constructive. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not know about seasonal numbers, but (someone within) WP:SIMPSONS seems to have an archive of Associated Press news articles that include ratings for individual episodes from the nineties. –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried NewsBank? —TheLeftorium 09:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried NewsBank, but I don't think there's anything there. Maybe I missed something? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You have to log in here to use NewsBank. Anyway, I added a few references to the ratings section. I was unable to find any for the season one and three viewers, though. —TheLeftorium 15:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE redux * 1 million

The dust has barely dried on the newest discussion about whether Wikipedia:Television episodes should be demoted from a guideline (with consensus saying wait till WP:FICT is actually done and back to guideline status), when another editor has started an extremely length attack against the article and basically threatening to demote it himself. Right now, only three other editors are involved, and I got tired of answering because of his lengthy replies and constant personal attacks against responders and overall snarky attitude (IMHO). Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#Laws are like sausages is the discussion and additional eyes/opinions could be used, particularly since we are the project the guideline most directly affects. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Need help on Variety Television Network

Somebody has changed the Variety Television Network page, saying the network has ceased broadcasting. They didn't add a reference though, can anyone confirm if this exciting news is true? Retro Agnostic (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

James T. Kirk - is it A-Class?

Can someone re-assess James T. Kirk? I am unsure how to generate the template for review at the article level - there appears to be some conflicting info (and I would genuinely like to know how to do it if someone can take the time to show me how), and I don't want a mistake on my part to slow down the process and movement to GA and FA. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Characters of Lost

I tried some time ago to clean up the list of characters which was made in tables which had a lot of minor characters, it counted the episode appearance of each characters. I tried to change most of that to prose, but there were several complains that said they liked more the tables. Before ending the discussion one user reverted the list to tables, saying I was the minority that said that version was better[4]. That was not my main comment. I mentioned that the tables added 10 kylobites to the articles and that it made impossible to use links for certain. Im leaving on holidays, so could anybody take a look? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

ghost

Hi all, I am sprucing up ghost and was musing on a short list of the most notable depictions of ghosts on TV in the Ghost#Film_and_television section. All suggestions welcome. Also, if someone has a reference discussiing the use of shosts on television overall that would be much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiny Toon Adventures

Hiya, toonsters! Any chance that any of you could help me with List of Tiny Toon Adventures episodes? Each episode needs a summary. I've been able to do the first 35 episodes based off the DVD, but I could really use help from a fan of the show. I'm actually quite new to this series, and any help with the Tiny Toon Adventures articles in general would be greatly appreciated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sin Senos no hay Paraiso

Requesting comments about / suggestions for this article from you folks. I made a few changes over the weekend, another editor reverted some of them, and I don't want to re-do them unless they're appropriate. I won't ask you to concentrate on any specific details; if a problem doesn't jump out at you, I'll assume it isn't a real problem. Thanks! Townlake (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits seem fine to me and I've restored them, though really, the whole page needs a complete redo. Its in pretty bad shape. May want to look at WP:MOSTV to do additional improvements. I'd suggest cutting down that cast list, fixing headers, etc. I'm going to go do some of those now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

My project for today is to make the Notes / References complete; the chopped up site names listed are just placeholders, the section didn't exist prior to the weekend. I'll stay away from the rest of the article today and just focus on that. Thanks! Townlake (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Thanks for doing the ref strip (among your many other improvements this morning) - I'll wait to look at those again til after the bot has run through it. Townlake (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and formatted the refs after doing all of the clean up of everything else. Most were dead links so I removed them until archive copies or corrected URLs can be added. It should be in a better starting shape, anyway, and I think I addressed the adverty issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

it'sme who adds so much information about Catherine Siachoque novelas please dlete all my edits from everywhwre is it possible and delete my accopunt ooo please I'm not going to edit anything more. I've worked on this pages and info since 2007 and now I'm already fainted when I saw everything deleted so please delete my edits everything info I brought here and my account too.

See help populating Category on shows with Missing episodes

Hey, I need help populating Category:Television series with missing episodes, well, you probably can figure out how to get to the category, which is really incomplete. I'm no expert on non-DuMont television series, any help adding this category to more shows with missing episodes would be great. Thanks in advance. Retro Agnostic (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this even an appropriate category given that TV episodes must pass the notability guideline? It almost suggests that if they are placed there then they don't have to (which is misleading).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's for series, not the episodes themselves. Gee, next time you should visit a category before to criticize it. Retro Agnostic (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't criticize, I merely pointed out an issue based on the title of the category. At no time was I hostile. Next time, try assuming a little better faith. Maybe the title should be, "TV series with lost episodes", as the current title is more suggesting that they are missing from Wikipedia and not that they are missing from publication. Since most TV episodes that never get aired and never get published are considered "lost episodes", it seems a more fitting title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

But this category wasn't created for that type of "lost episode". It's for television series, for which entire episodes are no longer extant in any archive or private collection. See Wiping for more info. Retro Agnostic (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dexter task force

For any Wikipedians interested in joining a Dexter task force, please feel free to sign up here. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 01:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

TV.com a reliable source?

Asking here on the part of the video game project, since it's being considered usable as a source for voice acting credits in articles. It's owned by CBS which seems to give it a lot of credibility, just seeing if anyone here has really delved into them or not in terms of being a reliable source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They get a lot of their information from registered users. I have seen countless things attributed to Kryptonsite for the Smallville pages at TV.com, which leads me to believe that users are submitting that to TV.com as a "reliable source". If we don't accept fansites by themselves, then we wouldn't accept someone quoting a fansite. Plus, it's on their "about us" page: "A digital water cooler, TV.com is home to millions of television fans contributing and connecting via their favorite shows. From program ratings and episode reviews to forum posts and blogs, the fans provide almost all of the site's content—we simply give them a fun, easy way to interact with every show and the folks who love them." -- Unless they are conducting a personal interview, then chances are their information is from scooper reports (not reliable) or fans who are using scooper reports or other fansites as their sources. If something is official, then chances are the studio will have had it published somewhere more reliable. If you're looking for reliable episode guide listings, then MSN or TV Guide are your best choices. If you're looking for reviews...that's a bit more tricky.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In my experience TV.com is not normally considered a reliable source. The only things I can immediately find to back this statement up are a couple of Wikipedians comments at Featured List Candidacies (here and in Matthew's resolved comments here). Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys. I was after credits info for a voice actor in a game (which they oddly list), so I'll try look for another source instead.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(for future record and all :-) ) TV.com is basically seen as similar to IMDB, and is there for not a particularly reliable source. Its been given some leeway as a last resort on episode air dates, but that's about it (and really, that seems to be moving away as well). For voice actors, though, usually the media itself is a viable/reliable source if its in the credits (or at least, it used to be?) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Future episodes where only an air date is known

Following up Talk:List of Fringe episodes#Episode 15 - April 7, 2009, I came to the article this morning to see that the next episode did not have an line item. Research revealed it wouldn't air until April 7, 2009 and that was all I could find, so I added an entry to the list of episodes filling in the unknowns with "TBA". There is some disagreement about this; my position is that some (sourced) information is better than no information. Thoughts? –xeno (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see where both parties are coming from, and I admit to be torn. But it's only a temporary issue, and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Even if an editor believes to be right or to have the better arguments, sometimes it's better for everyone's stress level to stand back and leave the wrong version up until time solves the issue on its own. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think if the info is sourced then it should be in the article. Powergate92Talk 20:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We reached a compromise which I hope will hold - note the hiatus in the opening prose and comment out the line item for the episode until we have more details. –xeno (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming of award lists

See this discussion. --JD554 (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Citing a TV plot for synopsis.

Am I correct in assuming that a TV episode is its own cite for the plot synopsis. I.e. watch it for the plot, no secondary sources needed? I thought I had seen that somewhere else on wikipedia, but I can't think where. Alastairward (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For the plot summary in an episode list or, where its notable enough, an episode article, you are correct. No inline citation is needed as the episode itself is the citation, so long as it is pure plot summary. If the summary includes interpretative statements, those statements need sourcing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Citing Burn Notice (season 1)

Hi there. I could use some help citing the viewer count for Burn Notice (season 1). Nielson's Cable archives don't go that far, at least from what I could see on "tvbythenumbers.com" . I found what I could, but I still need help for it. If some could help; that would be excellent. Once I have that, finishing List of Burn Notice episodes and getting it to Featured List status would be simple. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Confused

Several shows mention that they don't feature a 'studio audience laugh-track'. However, as far as I was concerned, studio audiences cannot produce canned laughter. Unless the audience consists of robots.... Retro Agnostic (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Cite episode TfD

{{Cite episode}} has been nominated for deletion. Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 16#Template:Cite episode if you'd like to offer your views.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox TV ratings

This template has been nominated for deletion. Your views welcome at its deletion discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

NCIS

I request (either permission to do or have one of the bosses here do) that some of the articles Related to NCIS be linked to some pages at our own wiki. Not all must, since we are still a work in progress, but some of our articles are of a good quality. General Grham ^{Talk to Me NCIS wiki} 17:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. That fails WP:EL. Generally wikia links are not appropriate for Wikipedia articles with a few very rare exceptions, which this is not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant like in the external links area, such as Wookiee on Wookieepedia, an external wiki. Should the case be the same, then that is perfectly okay. General Grham ^{Talk to Me NCIS wiki} 14:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that generally, the Wiki has to show that it is an active Wikia for it to be allowed (active beyond just a couple of editors).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You were clear, and again, it does not meet WP:EL's exception for Wikias and should not be included in the EL section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well. Thank you for answering my questions. General Grham ^{Talk to Me NCIS wiki} 21:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do we add links to TV.com again?

I am wondering why we add links to TV.com on television series pages. From what I can tell it is as user based as Wikipedia is except that Wikipedia has higher standards than TV.com does. TV.com can not be used as a source, if I am remembering correctly. What does TV.com offer that can not be found here? LA (T) @ 10:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If there was a wikipoll how to deal with tv.com links in fiction articles, I'd support to discourage them almost anywhere. IMDb already does a good job with cast info and other trivial production info, and there is no lack of wikipedians to expand plot summaries. I.e. links to tv.com are useless in my eyes. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's just become standard practice, just like adding a link to IMDb. The irony is that we don't accept either as a reliable source for an article. lol. I think you might have a hard time getting their removal, but I'd support it if we attempted to. We don't need 2 unreliable sources that state the same information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd go the other way. I'd drop IMDB on television articles as I find it less "useful" than TV.com as its more movie focused, but I do agree...why do we link to either? Both seem to fail WP:EL if we look at it closely enough. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick request for comment

Looking for some input on the MOS guidelines for listing 'international broadcasts' of channels. Any comments would be much appreciated. DP76764 (Talk) 16:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice for bot request

Hi. I have a current request for bot approval open, requesting authorisation to migrate {{needs television infobox}} to a parameter in {{WikiProject Television}}. A couple of questions...

Firstly, would it be useful for the bot to simultaneously fill in the class= field in {{WikiProject Television}}, copying it from other such fields on the page?

Secondly, the bot will attempt to detect the presence of an infobox on the corresponding article page. If it does find an existing infobox, should it delete {{needs television infobox}} or list the page for review?

Thanks for your help!

[[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 11:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, NOTHING is notable to Wiki-Bureacrats!

It's bad enough there has been a mass-deletion of episode articles, character articles, and the images attached to them. Now an entire character list has been tagged as non-notable and is threatened with deletion! This kind of destruction is really getting out of hand! ----DanTD (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Link? Alastairward (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd tell you, but I'm afraid it's going to make it easier to delete, and start an TTN-style rampage of deleting similar pages. ----DanTD (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you mean that the consensus of the community is for delete....? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How often has consensus really determined that much in the past. ----DanTD (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

One "wrongly" tagged list in over two million articles is hardly destruction getting out of hand. Just as everyone can unburaucratically tag everything he wants with whatever he wants, tags can be removed again unburaucratically when they don't apply. One of the last notability RfCs showed vague support that notability guidelines don't necessarily apply to lists. Plus, most character lists easily survive current AfDs. As long as you're careful not to engage in edit-warring, most people wouldn't hold it against you if you simply removed the notability tag from the list again (with an explanatory edit summary). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI to the OP, if you're paranoid that posting specifics in a relevant Wikiproject talk page will attract more opponents than supporters... why bother? Seriously. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not like it was that hard to find anyway. Presuming its List of characters from iCarly, due to the notability tag, for those curious. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I was, thanks.  ;^) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability is an issue, which is greatly debated these days, but I can tell you this. It is not verifiable. I have looked on the net and I can't find any reliable secondary sources, which could be used for that article. If the article is just synthesized from watching the episodes, then how can we trust that the information is correct. --Maitch (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

To Jclemens, my paranoia is due to past experience with TV-related articles, which have been wiped out. And I just checked and found it's not the only one. ----DanTD (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"I'd tell you, but I'm afraid it's going to make it easier to delete, and start an TTN-style rampage of deleting similar pages". TTN, I'm familiar with the user name, in relation to another TV show notability issue, I'll assume then that all's well and there's nothing to be concerned about. Alastairward (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Another" TV show notability issue? He has done more than one. Ironically, he actually taught me to make sandboxes. ----DanTD (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you come up with a different title? Wikipedia:Bureaucrats had nothing to do with this tagging. –xeno (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of IMDb and TV.com links from television infobox proposal

I would like to propose that the links to IMDb and TV.com be removed from the infobox and placed into an external links section. I think films is already doing this, and while we do not have to follow film's lead, it would add a form of consistency. The only external link that would be included in the infobox is the official site of the television series. LA (T) @ 18:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm for this, and I think it was proposed awhile back on the TV infobox page. I think the consensus was to remove the links, but only when we could secure a bot that would go through and remove them and at the same time place them in an EL section if they were not already there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Also agreed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed --Maitch (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed (as I already did in the last "poll"). – sgeureka ^t•c 21:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I am for this idea. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC

I also agree. Powergate92Talk 21:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As it seems that we are agreed with this proposal, I would like to further ask if this WikiProject would have any objection to me creating two hidden categories, Category:Television articles with an IMDb link in the infobox and Category:Television articles with a TV.com link in the infobox. The categories would be populated by the infobox. It may be a slow process until a bot is secured, but this would allow us to know just how much work would need to be done. I am not sure that a bot could do this. I am willing to do some of this manually for those series in which I am interested (it is quite a long list, so don't think I can do them all in one sitting). If you approve, I can add the hidden categories quickly with little fuss. LA (T) @ 21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: A note could be added to the documentation stating that the IMDb and TV.com links are to go into the External links section from here on out using the appropriate templates. LA (T) @ 21:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're willing to, then I say go ahead. This way, we can at least start to manually remove them from the box and place them in the El section (if not already there). I think we should probably amend WP:MOSTV to touch on this issue, and link to this (as well as the discussion over at Inbobox TV) to show where it was talked about and decided.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You can do the MOS while I do the infobox. LA (T) @ 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply take the IMDb parameter out of the template code so that it isn't displayed anymore? Granted, it would leave some parameter junk in each old article, but the display "problem" is solved instantly. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is to allow the links to still be in the articles until they are moved to external links. It is also a way for us to see which articles still have them in the infobox when we are not using the above two categories to find those articles. LA (T) @ 15:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lady. If we remove the code then people won't understand where they went. If we remove them ourselves and point to the discussions they have a better understanding of the situation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bravo for this decision! I have never understood how these two sites, which rely on fan submissions and thereby epitomize lack of reliability, were accorded any space in the Wikipedia at all. At least moving them to links lessens their importance significantly. Drmargi (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

These links were never intended to be "reliable", as they are not used as sources. Why do people keep pushing that mistaken assumption? And isn't Wikipedia based on "fan suybmissions" as well? Not to bash anyone, but I am slightly peeved with editors seemingly claiming superiority over other sites with user-submitted information. — Edokter • Talk • 23:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned because there are people who ALSO mention in similar discussions that IMDb IS reliable. I think your choice of words "claiming superiority" is exactly on, except in the sense that these discussions have generally been that by leaving IMDb and TV.com in the infobox we are claiming that they are superior to some other database of information. We shouldn't be claiming anyone is superior to anyone else, they should all be treated equally.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Those claiming those links are reliable are plain wrong, so those arguments shouldn't even be considered. Yet they are used by both sides for inclusion and exclusion from the infobox. That's what peeves me. — Edokter • Talk • 00:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, regardless of their reliability, to me all ELs should be in the EL section. We should not give preference to one over the other, even if we use it just as a stepping stone to find more information. The Academy Awards are probably the most prestigious awards we have for film, maybe even bigger than BAFTAs (though I'm sure that there are plenty who might disagree with that), but we don't give them preferential treatment (or we're not supposed to, according to WP:MOSFILMS) in the lead sentence of an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoa whoa...apparently User:Lady Aleena misunderstood this discussion and believe it meant that she should new template. She has now been going through dozens of articles and using this new, inappropriate template, replacing any existing EL templates without any discussion nor consensus as to whether one template a good idea. I have TfDed the template (and revert the use of it), for those reasons, and I feel this template is inappropriate and encourages less discriminate in the selection of ELs links, has very bad formatting, etc. Comments at the TfD appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove the links. The whole thing has been discussed Ad Nauseum before, and this little section does not represent a consensust. Take it to CENT if you want a real consesus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Do not remove which links? The ones from the infobox (which LA was doing while implementing the template) or this new template?? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I created an all-in-one template that was intended to be placed at the tail end of the external links of the articles. The template allows for either bullets or indents depending on the article. It is smaller in the edit window taking up only one line instead of several. If the article title is disambiguated, the title only needs to be used ONCE instead of over and over and over ad nauseum in several templates. It is far easier to use than several. Now, over 50 articles have been shoved back into the two above categories that we are supposed to be emptying by removing the links from the infoboxes and placing into External links. What is wrong with a merged template? Did anyone actually get to see the template in action to see how much neater it is? Consensus appears to be to remove IMDb and TV.com links from the infobox, so I was doing that with a template that made it easy to do. I do not see how it is inappropriate to merge templates.

Instead of having...

*{{amg title|314758}}

*{{IMDb title|0389564}}

*{{Tv.com show|23350}}

It would be this...

{{Movie title external links|amg=314758|imdb=0389564|tvcom=23350}}

The name was chosen to show that the general motion picture external link templates were included in this one.LA (T) @ 06:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As I already said on my talk page, you did not bother to discuss it nor get consensus. By your own admission, you created it because you couldn't remember TWO simple templates, so you made one make it "easier" on yourself. Nor does your creation of the template gain any validation by claiming it has anything to do with the removal of links from the infobox. There already ARE templates for those two links and it is no easier to do it with your bulky template than it is with the two simple ones that already exist. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with:

*{{IMDb title|0389564}}

*{{Tv.com show|23350}}

Except apparently to you. The individual links are far clearer, cleaner, and easier to identify and arrange. FYI, your claim that the template is smaller is incorrect, size wise, as even with just the two links, it is larger in size byte wise. Nor is it smaller in the edit window. With every attribute included, it spans 2-3 lines, while the others only span barely 1/4 of the edit window. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree here, the new template is somewhat convulted and potentiall confusing to editors. External links all all occupy one line, including in the edit window. — Edokter • Talk • 15:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've spoken with Anomie, and he's in the process of taking care of a bot that will wrangle all these pages for us (see User talk:Anomie#EL bot for film articles for the discussion).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

BRFA filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 25. Anomie⚔ 02:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you tell the bot to add those links to the already existing External Links section rather than create a new one? See: Before & After _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I just didn't anticipate all the multitude of ways people could ignore MOS:APPENDIX, or that people would stick random comments on the same line as the heading. Why not post a friendly note to my or the bot's talk page? Someone else did that, which got a much faster response. Anomie⚔ 00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I figured since the discussion was active here, I'd post it here. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Superman X

I don't get it. Is his alter ego "Kell-El" or "Kel-El"? Various sources are using different names. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Attention Admins: IP block request

Hi if there's any admins here, a frequent vandal with the IP address 72.92.4.244 has been vandalising List of DirecTV channels repeatedly. They have been warned multiple times. Please block them permanently.TomCat4680 (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV is where this needs to go. This isn't an administrator noticeboard, just a project board. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Its already there, they won't respond.TomCat4680 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Responses aren't always instant. An admin will response after investigating. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Criminal Minds Infobox Discussion

Criminal Minds's talkpage currently has a discussion regarding which stars to include in the infobox. I believe that it should only include current stars, but you can read my detailed explanation on the talkpage. I was hoping to get some other editors besides me that have knowledge of the infobox to give their inputs. I was also hoping regardless of the decision on Criminal Minds that we could come up with some guidelines regarding the infoboxes, as I believe they should only include current information. Discussion here [5] Thanks --DJS24 21:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinions, please

Hello! I recently started a section for moving the page List of minor characters of Scrubs to List of Scrubs characters, as well as removing many very minor characters from the list and merging in character pages (though the latter would be handled more separately and with consensus on each page) on the discussion page. It's been a few days, and no one has replied, and with a subject such as this, I'd like to get opinions from others. So, would anyone mind replying on Talk:List of minor characters of Scrubs#Move, remove, and merge? Thank you! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal of Merging Toon Disney into Disney XD

A merge of Toon Disney into Disney XD has been proposed. Please see This discussion page for comments. Thank You. --Gman124 ^talk 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

BBC Young Musician of the Year

User:Diaa abdelmoneim has nominated BBC Young Musician of the Year for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing problem with Dan Conner.

I don't edit TV articles much, so I'm having problems finding sources for the awards. Help? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are four ways to find good sources:

• Go to the homepage of each award body. You find the that link easily in the External links section of the respective wikipedia article. You can also look for FL award lists on wikipedia and look up the major awards sources in their References section.
• Google each award with the actor's name, and you may find some additional Variety or Hollywood Reporter articles.
• http://theenvelope.latimes.com/extras/lostmind/ has a list of many award bodies. It takes some time to figure out how to find the right award in the right year though (and I am not sure whether they give you just the winners or also the nominations).
• Lastly, there is IMDb, where most (all?) shows and most award bodies have an awards page. IMDb should only be used as a last resort though.

I could source every of the major awards this way, but I admit that my TV shows weren't as old as Roseanne. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There is currently a discussion taking place over at the List of South Park episodes concerning the notability of the majority of the South Park articles, and the possibility of merging any non-notable articles into newly recreated season pages (with the possibility of being recreated regardless of the episode merge given the length of the "List of" page...see Talk:List of South Park episodes#Reformatting pages for the discussion on simply reformatting the "List of" page). More opinions are wanted and needed at the talk page so that we can get a better idea of the consensus. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about character spoofs/satires and non-studio portrayals

Characters notable enough for stand-alone articles sometimes also are subject of SNL et al. spoofs. Is it appropriate to list such spoof/satirical portrayals in a character infobox's list of "portrayals"? Is a spoof of a character the same thing as portraying the character itself? Does this content go in a "portrayal"s section or "reaction/commentary" section?

On a related note, should an infobox/the article include coverage of an amateur (i.e. fan) production if that coverage includes commentary on the actor's performance of that character?

These questions derive from a conversation about James T. Kirk, and the extent to which we include coverage of a fan production's performance (with commentary from a reliable source) and John Belushi's spoof. --EEMIV (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd reserve the "portrayal" field to the (voice) actors who portrayed the character in officially licended works, i.e. no spoofs. Official portrayals and spoofs are completely different beasts because one will always recognized as "the character" and the other one as "spoof of the character". Whether spoofs originate on SNL or a fan project is immaterial. Spoofs can be mentioned in a section called "Cultural impact" or "Influence and legacy". My opinion. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Sgeureka, and don't need to say much more as I responded similarily on the Film talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd point out that the fan-produced webisodes are not spoofs but serious treatments of the characters in the given example of Cawley for Kirk. If there is citation for the performance (which really is the linchpin for any argument for inclusion), and the performance serves to enhance the understanding of the subject (and not the interpretation of a actor's portrayal - every other spoof example is one wherein someone is spoofing Shatner's portrayal), it should be included. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The key is "fan made", which makes it unofficial. You can not it through reliable secondary sources in the "Cultural Impact", because that is what it is, but it is not an official appearance of the character. Fan films are an indication of a fictional elements impact on the culture, hence why it should be mentioned there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is stating that it should not be in a cultural impact section (well, actually, there are folk trying to reinvent the wheel there, but mention of the characterization in the article isn't disputed in and of itself). Thr serious treatment of the character has received recognition and non-fan-related media treatment (aka, citations) discussing the characterization. You are focusing on fan-made, and missing that there are only three serious treatments of the character, of which Cawley is one. As well, the actor's fan-series isn't some low-rent YouTube redo of Jedi Kid or some testosterone-filled Sith battle; it is notable in and of itself. While the latter isn't specific to this discussion, it is germane to the arguments against marginalization. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of us are on the same page as to what specifically we are referring to. I'll try and lay out my thoughts as to what I believe the discussion to be about and anyone is free to do the same about their own thoughts (as well as critique my stance).

1. As far as the infobox goes, it is my opinion that that should be reserved for official portrayals (i.e. licensed works).
2. An "Appearances" section (e.g., like you would find here) should be reserved, again, for officially licensed appearances.
3. Any fan made, whether notable itself, or notable as a whole (i.e. a specific work being notable, or just the fact that they exist as a whole) should be present in a "Cultural Impact" or similar section.
4. Since Arcayne brought up a new point that I had not thought about, which is the discussion of characterization by a non-licensed portrayal. If reliable, secondary sources discuss this aspect of a character from the POV of the non-licensed portrayal, I'm fine with it in that section. But, to me, those secondary sources have to be beyond specialized sites (e.g. Halloweenmovies.com interviewing the creator of a fan film about his characterization of Michael Myers. Interesting to read, but the coverage is a little bias). It should also be clear that you are talking about an unofficial version of the character that has become notable in its own right, because it should not read as if this was the creator's decisions.

That's my assessment of the issue, take it as you all like.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for enumerating your points of stance, Big. Most fan-film depictions don't deserve mention outside a cultural impact section/subsection. I think that these particular fan-films are different in that they are the only ones being done with purist intent, not for yuks. And there are some non-biased citations from mainstream media. Most of the resistance I am encountering is from those who pooh-pooh any fan-film portrayal on principle. I am guessing most of them haven't even seen the portrayal they are opposing, which is less than intellignet, in my book. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is that this isn't an appearance of the character, but really someone's portrayal of something they care about. Yes, it's serious and not intended to be some spoof, but when it boils down it is still an unauthorized (technically illegal "appearance" of the character). Does it deserve mentioning somewhere, yes because the sources clearly show so. Is it of equal status as the TV and Film appearances....not in my assessment, which is based solely on the fact that it is not an authorized version of the character, and not because it may or may not be well made.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, the discussion is not whether it belongs in the article body - no one is arguing against that. The snag here is that you are seeing only authorized portrayals as being allowed in the infobox, and I am not seeing a prohibitive caveat about that anywhere. For me, the idea on point is that the infobox is sort of an 'index card' of the article. Serious portrayals - ie, those that develop the character, and not focusing on those mimicking the actor portraying the character - are specific to the subject of the article. We don't work for Paramount (and if we do, I want my paycheck immediately), so they do not determine the notability of our content. I see this move to exclude by others as a thinly-disguised canonicity argument, and canonicity has no place in the wiki. The equality of status is inconsequential here, as determining such is - by definition - non-neutral. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have seen all of these films and my personal feelings on whether they should be included is the same, regardless of which ones I felt were good or bad. Your suggestion that the resistance is because people want to "pooh-pooh" fan fiction is false. The bottom line for me is that fan fiction is irrelevant when it comes to the primary biography of any fictional character. Today it's Captain Kirk because you feel that New Voyages/ Phase II holds more value than other fan-produced works of derivative fiction. Who will it be tomorrow, based on the precedent you want to set? Let's set this aside for a moment and I want you to think something: what happens if at some point in the future there is a New Voyages episode where "Captain Kirk" is overtaken by aliens who make him think he's Elvis Presley? Would that self-satisfying bit of "burning love" from the Elvis Kirk be enough for you to say, "Gee... maybe these people don't belong in the primary bios?" Now I'm sure you're going to point out how ridiculous that is, but to die hard Trekis out there, all of the time travel, alternate universes, and mixed cast episodes that New Voyages have produced are just as ridiculous. There are great pieces of fan fiction out there (some you will love and hate), but IMHO nobody here can pick and chose which portrayal goes into the primary biographies if those works are unlicensed and not part of an official studio production. Fan fiction cannot and should not be given the same weight as studio produced works, good or bad. It is a slippery slope that could lead to a big problem for any fictional character with a cult following. So we either need to draw a line in the sand and include only serious studio sanctioned portrayals or take a tack from imdb.com and include every single actor to ever portray the character (including spoofs). That's the heart of the issue for me, so please don't misunderstand my intentions as they are quite good and not spurred by my feelings regarding fan films. Erikeltic (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am curious if you are going to cross post most of your posts to one forum or another. This particular post has already been posted, responded to and dismissed in another article discussion. Make a new argument or none at all, as this would appear to be forum-shopping, Erikeltic. It's disingenuous. It grows ever more suspicious when you are socking at the same time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, take a look at Doctor (Doctor Who)'s info box. Only the 11 studio actors who have played The Doctor on film or television are listed in the "portrayed by" (the 11th has yet to appear on-screen). None of the voice actors that played The Doctor only' on stage or in the audio dramas are listed in the info box. Instead, there is a wiki List_of_actors_who_have_played_the_Doctor which includes studio actors, spoofs, stage, audio, and even has a nod to a fan film called "The Millennium Trap." Erikeltic (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, what was your point here? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, anyone could argue that any "fan produced film" is a "serious" portrayal. They are fans, why would they not be serious about it? The fact that this particular series is notable by itself doesn't change the fact that it's still not a licensed portrayal. Should we include anyone who is impersonating Kirk at local conventions where Shatner cannot appear, as well? That's serious portrayal. The idea of what is "serious" is subjective. Wikipedia is neutral, and to be neutral we need to be objective. Saying "license portrayals only" is rather objective.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Notabilities for Television and the Related

Please let me know how to put an article about TV and its relationship into Wikipedia. Thanks a lot. If searching a TV programme produced by the National Television Network by Google and its hit is over 50,000, then should we create a new article about it in Wikipedia English or local Wikipedia. User:Es.ntp - 58.186.244.92 (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

In order to create an article on wikipedia, you need to have an account that is several days old and with which you have made several edits before. The main (but not only) inclusion standard on wikipedia is WP:Notability: If a TV programme has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, then it likely deserves an article. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode notability

Project members might be interested in two discussions on-going. One, started at WP:N is a straw poll asking that there be a "policy change" to state that "Any television series that has at least a million viewers, may have an article for every single episode of it." Wikipedia talk:Notability#Voting time. Any television series that has at least a million viewers, may have an article for every episode. Over at WP:EPISODE, it has once again been tagged disputed and a discussion started there Wikipedia talk:Television episodes# Disputed. Both apparently being spurred by the South Park episode merging discussions noted above (which could also use more views). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Pretender (TV series) DVD Release dispute

Further views needed at Talk:The Pretender (TV series)#DVD Releases Dispute. This a series article I've more recently started cleaning up and trying to get in better shape. For background, on the 21st, User:HeMan5 visited the article and redid the existing DVD release table into a "more detailed format" that included breakdowns of the features and what not.[6] From his contribution history, this is something he is apparently doing on many series articles. I reverted this change, noting that the amount of detail was excessive for a main series article, and then replaced the old table with a more appropriate prose summary[7] having finally finished reformatting the episode list just this weekend (only reason I hadn't done it weeks ago).[8] He, however, reverted the next day claiming I gave no "logical" reason for this change. Reverted again and gave a fuller explanation. Today, same thing, only now he's reverted twice. I attempted to discuss this with him, explain why it wasn't proper, pointed him to the MoS, pointed him to FA series articles, etc. He responded with some mild personal attacks and then finally just saying "I'm done talking with you" after I pointed him to the FAs he demanded to see. For now, the reverting has stopped and a discussion started above. As this is basically a 1 against 1, additional project views would be appreciated regarding whether either DVD table is appropriate or if the prose version is best. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to FL criteria WRT length and content forking

See Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Revised criteria III. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessments

Want to help the project in a fairly un-time consuming way? Why not go by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment#Requesting an assessment and assess some articles. There are currently 14 unfulfilled request, some from February 08! It doesn't take tons of time, just a decent familiarity with the project's quality scale and WP:MOSTV. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Character lists

Today, if we see one article about a character that is not supported by multiple third party reliable sources, we merge it into a character list. I have followed that policy, but recently I have come to question that logic. We say article A is not notable, so then we merge it together with a bunch of other unnotable characters and suddenly that character list is notable. For me that doesn't make any sense.

Basically, we must admit that no matter how important and notable a show is, we can't get multiple third party reliable sources for every character. Usually, you can find stuff on the main characters, such as the concept of the character and casting, but when it comes to recurring characters, you can usually only find a source saying which actor portrays the character. Therefore a character list would mostly consist of in-universe stuff. If we look at Characters of Carnivàle, which is the character list that has made to FA status, it mostly consists of in-universe stuff.

So where am I going with this? I want to know what it takes to make a good character list, because right it is a dumping ground for articles some people don't like. I would like this project to come up with a guideline specific to how to deal with character lists. Right now, all WP:MOSTV says is "For a good character list example, see Characters of Kingdom Hearts, although it is not a television-related article". The first thing that should be mentioned in that guideline is that it is okay to write it from an in-universe perspective, although you should do your best to include out-of-universe stuff.

Also, if anyone could come up with a solution regarding extremely long-running shows, I would appreciate it. I am thinking of soaps operas and The Simpsons. Merging is not always the best choice. The Simpsons has 8 different character lists. One of which is currently 124,689 bytes long. Merging everything would put it well beyond 200 KB.--Maitch (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, it isn't okay to write them from an in-universe perspective at all. See WP:WAF. The lists should be written from an out-of-universe perspective, and primarily provide an overview of the character's role in the story, not be a repeat of a ton of plot summary and the minute details. They should also cover only the actual major characters of the series, not one episode characters. For being a list of unnotable characters, that's correct. It is one of the definitions of a list: "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles." Another, and to me a better, exactly of an ideal character list to use as a model is List of Naruto characters for a pure character list. The two examples given are character articles rather than lists, and frankly I don't see how Carnivale pasted considered the sourcing issues it had at the time it did (and still seems to have) and ditto Kingdom Hearts. They both passed nearly two years ago, and are not good examples. I doubt either would pass now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So explain to me why List of Naruto characters is so much better. I would estimate that 80% of the references comes from in-universe primary sources. Lets take a random sample:

Yamato (ヤマト ?) is introduced during Part II of the series as a temporary replacement for Kakashi Hatake as the leader of Team 7.[12] After Kakashi's return, he stays on the team in an additional leadership position. Though "Yamato" is a codename assigned to him for the purposes of joining Team 7, he prefers it over his real name, Tenzo (テンゾウ ,Tenzō?).[74] During his infancy, Yamato was abducted by Orochimaru and experimented upon in an attempt to replicate the First Hokage's unique abilities. Orochimaru was forced to flee Konohagakure before he could complete his testing, and thus never knew that Yamato had successfully obtained the First's Mokuton techniques.[134] When using Mokuton techniques, Yamato can form anything out of wood at will, and is not above using this ability for making creature comforts like two-story houses to "camp out" in.[131] Mokuton also allows Yamato to suppress a tailed beast's influence over its host. This is the primary reason he is assigned to Team 7, as he can stop Naruto Uzumaki if the nine-tailed demon fox within him gets out of control.[134] In the Naruto: Shippūden anime, Yamato's seiyū is Rikiya Koyama.

Everything is in-universe. --Maitch (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between using primary sources and in universe writing. The entire list is not in-universe, and note that its a very brief summary of the role, not excessive, blow-by-blow plot summary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

... And that is exactly what I'm arguing. It is simply not possible to make comprehensive list, without have some characters being descriped from an entirely in-universe POV. We need to have guidelines as to how much exactly are allowed?

IU POV is not allowed period. Plot is allowed to an extent, but not an IU POV. The easiest way to rectify that is to adjust each point to say something to the effect of, "In episode 'X', character Y reveals blah blah blah". IU is when you present something as fact (i.e. it really happened), which should never be done. Now how much plot information is used should depend on the amount of real world coverage. Plot information is supposed to provide context for the real world information, and should generally not outweigh the real world information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i agree, but that was not what I meant. I talk about entirely using primary sources for one character. --Maitch (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So, does other people think List of Naruto characters is the way to go? --Maitch (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of "how can this be notable". I don't think anyone has argued (or they shouldn't have) that a list of characters is somehow notable if it consists of nothing but plot information. I think it's been "here's a compromise, Wiki cannot have plot only articles on every character, even major ones, but instead of fighting you to the death how about we concede and let you create a list of characters page in the vain of the lists of episode page". You might want to check out Characters of Smallville (MOSTV was written before that list, hence why pointed to the video game at the time, because that was one of the few FA character lists), as it probably fits what you are looking for more closely. CoS actually has real world information (primarily consists of real world information actually). WP:MOSTV needs to be updated with a better example, and maybe some more detail regarding how to handle characters in general (especially lists)...I think it only points to CoKH because of the lead paragraphs. I proposed an addition (though I didn't write anything up) on characters lits at the MOS talk page. I think the issue with multiple lists like The Simpsons have that people are including every character under the Sun, instead of just major characters (i.e. they're treating everyone as if they are major). The philosophy I took with the Smallville character list was, "if there was no real world info then they don't need a section for plot summary, they can be presented in a list at the bottom of the page".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So how much real world stuff would you argue would be needed in order for character to get a summary on the Smallville list? --Maitch (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, I'm not fighting. I don't have any end goal other than trying to reach some kind of consensus that can be written down in some form of a guideline, which could be used to create good articles. Most of the time people don't know what to do with their character list (including me). I am trying to help them. --Maitch (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I know you're just trying to find some for of concrete answer :D. As for "how much". I don't know really. If mean, as long as it wasn't something trivial, or one line, then I'm usually fine. There were a couple of "Recurring characters" that I cut and put into the list format because the only thing I could find on them was like a single point of real world coverage, and it wasn't enough to justify a whole section devoted to them. Case in point, Jor-El. No one could argue that he isn't a pretty large presence on the show from the end of season 2 through 7 (he's been largely absent in season 8). You want to know what I could find on him? "The filmmakers wanted to keep Terence Stamp's credit a secret until the end of the episode to surprise the audience". That's it, for a character that has 4 seasons of episodes (off and on). I kept that section on him for as long as I could postpone it, but eventually I had to admit that there just wasn't that much on him the character. Thinking right now, I could probably scrape together something on the visual effects (as he isn't allowed to be seen on the show, per the film division's rules at Warner Bros.), but I'd probably have to trim back some of his plot information to do that - as I cut him originally because he had one line and the page was getting really large. I don't like saying "there should be like a 20/40 split of plot/real world", because that borders on WP:CREEP, but I think we should be making suggestions, based on WP:WAF on the appropriate amount of plot info to be used. One reason I cut him originally, and some of the others, is because we have season articles (or some shows have episode articles) that already cover his plot information within each episode in most cases.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I am not sure why Characters of Carnivàle is considered to mostly consist of in-universe stuff. Almost every character section consists to 50% of planned backstory that never made it into the show (i.e. not plot, and introductions à la "His original biography gave his background as ..." does not present an in-universe perspective), another 3 paragraphs of show backstory that never made it into the show, and 22 paragraphs of 100% real-world information. The show creators are entirely reliable sources for real-world information, and it doesn't matter whether they said so in an interview with the New York Times, a DVD feature or in a blog post, as long as it's relevant to the article topic. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Television colour

I don't know how many people know of this in the first place, but it's possible to give the infoboxes of TV shows a certain color throughout wikipedia by noting the preferred color at Template:Television colour (this template is called by {{Infobox Television episode}}). The TV shows and their colors there are currently

| Angel                    = #5678AC
| Buffy the Vampire Slayer = #5678AC
| Entourage                = #FBBC87
| Firefly                  = #fc9
| Home and Away            = #F9BA5B
| Mad Men                  = #F52B13
| The 4400                 = #B9D0E8
| The O.C.                 = #FFAA44
| The Simpsons             = #FADA00
| The Sopranos             = #CDCCCC
| Veronica Mars            = #C0D883
| Sex and the City         = #EAADEA

Stargate SG-1 was included there as well once, but got removed because of standardization/cleanup attempts in 2008. Now, there is a request at the template's talkpage to include

| Star Wars = #FFD700 
| Battlestar Galactica = #B22222 

I wonder if TV shows should really get their own color because they can, or if we should keep all TV article infoboxes color-standardized to lightblue and attempt to standardize the rest as well. (In my opinion, the only show where a separate color makes some sense would be The Simpsons because they have a very active project with a huge output of quality articles, and the connection to yellow is obvious, but I'd welcome a standardization on a voluntary basis of the respective wikiproject as well.) So, yes or no to standardization? If yes, for all TV shows or just some (and which and why)? – sgeureka ^t•c 15:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Please read the top of Template talk:Television colour as well. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with either a standardization, or everyone gets their own. I'm not cool with selecting one show and letting them be different just because they're so popular. It's not very neutral on our part, and will definitely cause an uproar with shows with devoted fanbased editors who want to put their show's "colors" in their box as well. I say, it's all or none (fine with either. I just use the default color myself).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that practice should end. The infoboxes should be standardized, without non-neutral preferential treatment being given to a handful of shows. Are any other media areas doing such customization? I know anime/manga doesn't and I'm pretty sure films don't have that option either. Novels/books are colorized by type (i.e. novel, non-fiction, etc). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with standardizing but if you are going to do it, it will require some careful work. For example {{Television colour}} does the "Title" & "Episode chronology" in {{Infobox Television episode}}, but I notice The Simpsons has it's own episode navboxes to to standardise colours in them, so {{Infobox Simpsons season 1 episode list header}} – {{Infobox Simpsons season 20 episode list header}} would need changing too. Are there maybe other shows that do similar things to this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The template was introduced for the exact reasons i listed at the top of the talk page there. Simpsons is a clear case. A color that is deeply associated with the topic. And as such, there is nothing wrong with using that. BSG has no clear associated color in my opinion. Firefly however is clearly coupled to that brownish orange. This should be judged on a case by case basis. (And some weeding needs to occur in the existing list). For instance, i'm quite sure the template still has some colors that I added to prevent edit warring when we did the Infobox Television episode unification drive. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, i note that the bgcolor and textcolor options of {{Infobox Television}} still have not been eradicated. Someone should try to get that fixed. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is something wrong, because we're playing favorites. I could easily argue that red and blue are "deeply associated" with Smallville, or that red and white are "deeply associated" with Monk. Playing favorites is just going to piss people off.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is as much "playing favourites", as that we consider some topics notable, and others not. The idea is to make the encyclopedia visually appealing, without being a kaleidoscope. I don't care how its done, but personally, i would find it weird to stip the yellow color from the simpsons topics. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole, you can't have one rule for your favourite TV show, and one rule for the others. Either every notable TV show should be entitled to have a colour associated with it, or none should. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

First, considering some topics notable and others not, doesn't appear to be as black and white as one might assume, especially given the biased arguments by people who are a fan of th programming. Second, there is a difference between deciding if you warrant an article, and deciding if your page should be "flashy". You're basically saying, "Sorry kid, you're just not cool enough to escape the pale blue of the default color". One thing is establised by significant coverage from reliable sources, and the other is going to be done by popularity vote?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said. I would find it "weird". Primarily I'm providing historical perspective, I don't give a flying-!@*#%$ about what actually happens next, as I'm no longer interested in this project. But you'd better inform the respective wikiprojects if you are gonna change something, and you'd probably better start with bgcolor and textcolor first, since that was contentious enough back then. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to know if I should start an official removal proposal for Sex and the City, The 4400 and Veronica Mars from the list because their episode articles are in the process of getting merged (or already were merged), or if this template is a thing of the past and should be dealt with in one sweep. If the vibe here turns significantly supportive or repudiative soon, I'll know the next step. If not, I'll just leave this template be. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

From my point of view, I have worked a bit with The O.C. articles. It currently uses orange (due to it being Orange County) for its episodes, but I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference if an episode's infobox (e.g. here) were to suddenly lose its orange colour and become the standard blue. The only thing I would object to is if this standardisation was not being made across the board. (i.e. I wouldn't welcome arguments like "The Simpsons should stay yellow because it has been like that for ages".) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the very existence of this template can be problematic in unrelated but identically-named articles; because Angel (TV series) has an assigned colour, the code seeps through into the Angel (1960 TV series) infobox. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Angel seems to be able to merge with Buffy. I see no difference in color, and besides, the series is simply a spin-off. Now, what EXACTLY qualifies as needing a color? What shows are so popular they deserve it? I know that half the ones their do, but some shows don't really seem it. I know nothing of "Mad Men," but it has only 25 episodes and deserves it. It's clear that Josh Weadon shows deserve colors, though as stated above Angel should not be treated separate from Buffy, especially since the colors are the same. As well as this, Star Trek shows only work for the first two, and some series (like LOST) are using custom colors not specified here. It's quite clear some changes are needed. —Excelsior, The Flash - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 19:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting, there seemed to be a general opinion that it would be okay to do away with the colours. Shall we make this happen, and if so does anyone have a strategy to do so? Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Simpsons is the only major show that uses colors at present and where the Wikiproject is still active to the point that I forsee opposition to standardization attempts. So there are several options for a change - take {{Television colour}} to TfD now and see if enough editors prefer standardization (i.e. antagonize otherwise good editors of the Simpsons wikiproject for not-so-important standardization), ask the Simpsons WikiProject if they would give up their color voluntarily and then go to TfD (probably not going to happen), or we allow non-standard colors but recommend using the |bgcolour= parameter or creating separate infoboxes like {{Template:Simpsons Infobox Television episode}} (the Simpsons wikiproject already uses {{Simpsons character}} instead of the widely used {{Infobox character}}). That last option may sound reasonable, but it's opening another can of worms since non-standard episode- and character infoboxes often already get deleted at TfD in favor of standard infoboxes. I originally thought that Bignole had a point when he said we shouldn't play favorites and should either allow colors for all shows or none, but the fact is we're already deleting non-standard templates for minor shows all the time. I honestly don't know the best course of action now. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am speaking as a Simpsons editor, who was pretty much responsible for standardizing the colors on all the Simpsons templates. Personally, I don't mind giving up the yellow color for the main article. I do however find the current blue color boring, because it is used all over Wikipedia. I think we should be more creative. We use {{Simpsons character}} instead for {{Infobox character}}) because of 1) our template predates {{Infobox character}}) 2) among other issues, we have had numerous edit wars over the parameter "Age", which has led to that we don't allow age to be mentioned in the infobox. Btw if you want to standardize fictional characters then there is a lot of work ahead of you, see Category:Fictional character infobox templates. We already do have {{Infobox Simpsons episode}}, which compared to {{Infobox Television episode}} is more advanced. --Maitch (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Small side question...

I had posted the following to a Buffy-related template and, in following up followed the links to here. I'm not sure if it'll get any attention here or not, and I may need to re-poste to that Project, but it is some thing to keep in mind with the above.

The Buffy background color is in conflict with WP:COLOR and WP:ACCESS. The contrast between the background and the 3 default text colors is so low that even with good eye sight it's hard to read. That one at least needs a re-think.

Doing a quick look at the rest using the switch, only Mad Men is close to a problem.

- J Greb (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Jericho episodes - episode summaries

Hey there. I've been trying to get List of Jericho episodes to FL status for around the past month and a half.[9] To do this, I undertook a project to rewrite all of the episode summaries. At first, this started going pretty well; the summaries stayed around 4 lines or so. But as I went further into the series, the episode became more and more complex, until the season two reached 7-8 lines of episode summary (To be fair, it was at least a half-season scrunched into 7 episodes). The problem, as I see it, is that the earlier episodes are just much less complicated and have less intricacies than the latter ones. I just wanted to ask what the project thought of all of this. Should I attempt to shorten each episode summary, or just leave it as is? The former would risk losing information; the latter would make it seem like the episode lengths are unbalanced. What do you all think: shorten or keep? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I checked the first episode of the season two set and it was only 174 words. That's well within the guidelines, which allow for "100-200 words; upwards of 350 words for complex storylines"; so I think its fine. About the only one I'd try to work down a little is the one for ep 29, since it really shouldn't be two paragraphs. I'd also remove that last line, which isn't summary, and put it somewhere in the lead or the main article. Hope that helps.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

100-200 words, with upwards of 350? That really ought to be changed to 200 maximum; any more is definitely urging unintentional fancruft. Thanks for your help though. Perhaps you can help out at a peer review :) NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The limits were crafted using Films as an example, and current ep FLs. 350 should only be for very complex storylines and really has to be defended before considered okay on a list :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen Jericho, but I faced similar problems when I improved List of Carnivàle episodes to FA (in late 2007, so some rules may have changed). I would not have done the list a favor if I'd had to expand the plot summary of episodes where literally nothing happened, or if I'd had to cram the pay-off episodes into 200 words, so I left the summaries just as long or short as the plot needed. Some people believe that pilots and finales automatically deserve articles (I don't agree), so only few people will hold it against you if you prefer a couple of lines extra for the finale as a tradeoff between extended coverage and the wish to not have a crappy spinout article. That's my view. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How should this be listed in the infobox

How should the number of episodes of a ongoing tv show be listed in the infobox? Me and Mythdon think it should be listed by the number of episodes that aired and then the date of that episode. But Ryulong think it should be listed as ongoing. What do you think? Powergate92Talk 03:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Usually, its a current count, though for a show that airs new eps daily, might be easier on editors to do weekly. The "as of date" should be in comments, though, not shown in the box. This is what is done on most of the series I've worked on that are on-going. On-going is a status, not a count, so I'd disagree with that methodology. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian's assessment, but in reality there is no guideline for such a thing. It's really a matter of preference by the primary editors of the article. If they want to update weekly, there is no rule that says they cannot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for reference, the dispute took place here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And now Ryulong has started a discussion on my talk page about this. Powergate92Talk 05:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me, unfortunately. Though an admin, he has often display some serious ownership issues regarding the tokusatsu sphere of articles, and has basically made wholescale decisions for them based on his personal preferences. When TV project folks have attempted to clean up the tokusatsu series articles per the MoS, he reverts based on his own preferences, basically claiming the project is not a "child" project and has its own "guidelines" (i.e. his own preferences) so it can do whatever it want. Quite honestly, unless something is done to deal with that, I don't think this argument will get anywhere. See the HUGE issue that occurred when anime project folks started cleaning up the episode formats: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu/Archive 2#Headers on episode lists that after all that just lead to him dismissing the obvious consensus against his changes. I don't think he'd care if every last member of this project said "no, you're wrong" he'd still disregard it as being not applicable. Personally, I think its extremely inappropriate for someone who has administrative powers, as I've noticed he will edit war and basically just keep hammering until he chases any dissenters away, but nothing has been done to stop it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu/Archive 2#Headers on episode lists - Correct link. Could you modify your link of the discussion, Collectionian?. Also, as you may know, there is a request for arbitration on the admin in question going on right now, see here. Just linking it to you, in case you're interested. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Woops, don't know how I messed that up. And no, I wasn't aware of that...good to know though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian as Ryulong just reply to a message i left his talk page in that reply he says "WP:TOKU can decide as a group what we want the formatting to be" Powergate92Talk 20:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) A discussion has been started at WT:TOKU, meaning the discussion has been more or less moved there. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong is saying there has been no agreement here about this. Has there been no agreement here about this? Powergate92Talk 00:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The agreement should be for the primary editors of that article. MOSTV (no guideline for that matter) does not say there must be a specific way. If editors want to update a number every week, then let them is my opinion. If there is community wide (in this case the Tokusatsu community) agreement that is must be one way, then that's the way it should be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Its been 7 days and there has been on reply at WT:TOKU. As its been 7 days i left a message on Ryulong talk page and he said "there is no deadline." and "There was no agreement anywhere." Powergate92Talk 00:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture" in Bob Ross

For some background, the article on Bob Ross had a "trivia and in popular culture" section that contained a laundry list of unsourced claims of "Bob Ross" appearances and references in various shows, films, etc. It was removed in October 2007 (yes, 07) as WP:OR and unsourced trivia during an effort to clean up the article a bit.[10] Now an editor, User:Proxy User wants to put it back in, but without being able to actually provide sources, proof of significant coverage, etc. He canvassed a bunch of people who at one time or another said "oh, I liked that section" and is now claiming that because one came back to say "bring it back again" that there will soon "be consensus" to add a new "Bob Ross in Popular Culture" section. Discussion is at Talk:Bob Ross#Cultural Influence. Additional, out-side views heavily needed. I also posted asking about the validity of the section at the Biography project, but no one has said anything, and as Ross is primarily known for his TV personality status, I thought it would be good to mention here as well.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Law & Order characters

Want a challenge? Take a look at this list. It is...beyond words. I'm thinking it should probably be split between the three series that lasted, and the other three can just have their characters in their main articles. Also, of course, needs a ridiculous amount of character article merging, as articles have been made for just about every last minor one to appear. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks unprofessional and out of style. Somebody really needs to take care of it. I think the minor characters (one time appearances) should be removed and included only in episode summaries. —Mythdon (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...I've boldly removed quite a few of them...let's see how long it lasts. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't last too long, the owner of the list reverted, was reverted by someone else, and then restored again. He has left a lengthy list of "justifications" for his list at: Talk:List of Law & Order characters#Wholesale edits of article if anyone would also like to leave views there (though I also pointed to this discussion here. Would like to work on getting the list reorganized by less in-universe (and rather inaccurate) sections in prep for a split into series if it can be done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Per experience, I'd also favor one list for every TV show instead of one list for the whole franchise (makes it easier for people who only watch one show). One-time characters rarely if ever need mentioning outside the ep summary in the ep list. Merging recurring (not main) characters is always a good idea when the articles consist of pure plot, but then it should be reconsidered to replace the tables with character-sections or bullet point summaries, which are often easier to read (although this may also be a matter of preference). But my knowledge about the L&O franchise is almost nonexistent, so I can't help with sensible merging. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done some very bold splitting where the other series didn't already have lists, either in article or standalone, and redid the lead of the first. Unfortunately, none of the main series articles are in awesome shape either, so not much to pull from. ~wonders if we could spur some new project interest in the whole thing, as I'd think L&O could easily be FA level articles and a nice featured topic with some combined effort~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Hendrix is a fairly minor character of the SVU series, so I nominated it for AfD. It seems pretty clear the AfD will close as a delete, however User:A Nobody merged the article to List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters (sans redirect of course). I reverted this, feeling she was far too minor a character to include in the series character list. He disagrees and would like the character added back to the list. Additional views on this issue at Talk:List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters#Merge? would be useful as it seems clear we can not come to an agreement. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

South Park Featured topic drive

WikiProject South Park participants have started a page at WP:SOUTHPARK/TOPIC to organize featured topic drive collaborations. The primary goal is to improve the quality of articles about South Park episodes, with the ultimate end goal of getting sets of episodes by season to Good Topic or even Featured Topic status. We are starting off by focusing on Season 1, to get it to Good Topic status, see Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive/season 1. Any help is appreciated, and feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

tvimage template

The WikiProject Television page asks editors to tag articles needing images with {{tvimage}}, which adds the article to Category:Wikipedia requested television images. Can we make this instead {{reqphoto|television programs}}? I am on a mission to reduce and consolidate redundant photo request templates! Tim Pierce (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Battlestar Galactica (reimagining)#Merge same topic, regarding the merger of Battlestar Galactica (reimagining) and Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) back into one article given that they are two separate articles covering the same topic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

All in the Family

I have a user refusing to remove a trivial mention of a naming difference. Could someone review this situation? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Standard format for fictional characters

I've been working a bit on Castiel (Supernatural), and I'm not totally satisfied with putting the in-universe info in a section titled "Character background". I looked atWikipedia:Good_articles#Fictional_characters_and_technologies for ideas, and there seems to be about as many ways to name sections as there are articles. Does anyone know of a standarized naming scheme? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSTV#Role in "SHOW NAME" touches on it vaguely, but even that isn't followed to a "T". When I was working on the articles for the Smallville characters, before I had other media that they appeared in, I was simply listing the information under a section titled "Smallville" (it's currently under "Television" because I have various mediums they appear in). It's simple, straight forward, and doesn't invoke any IU connotations. So, you could try to do just the "Supernatural" header, to indicate this is the section devoted to his appearance in that show. Just one possibility. I think it's the Troy McClure article that has (or had) the "Role in The Simpsons" header.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The one consistent thing I saw was "Role in The Simpsons" for the various Simpsons characters. I may go with that, or just "Supernatural", but they aren't super satisfactory. The Simpsons characters don't change from ep to ep, so that's different, and if they're only on TV, the Smallville solution isn't perfect either. Another semi-common option is "Fictional character history" and "Fictionaly character biography" (which is what comics articles use), but those are problematic because the article doesn't talk about their whole "life", but just what's been explained in the episodes they appear in (i.e. not much backstory is provided). It's not going to derail the GA process or anything, but it would be nice if we could come up with something standardized. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to like the format being used by the anime/manga project:

1. Creation and conception
2. Character outline (with a subsection on personality)
3. Plot overview (makes it clear what it is)
4. Appearances in other media
5. Reception

I'm not a fan of the "Role in X" as it seems very redundant. From the lead the reader knows what the show is the character is from and the entire article is about their role in that show, IMHO, except generally one section that might note other appearances. And then you have characters John Munch whose been in some 10 different shows, including two starring roles, where "Role in" would just get crazy and cluttered looking IMHO. I'd also agree to not liking "background" as its too similar to implying "biography" rather than clearly noting "summary of major plot notes".-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally hate "biography" or "history" because it leaves the door open for inexperienced editors to (in good faith) want to add every minute detail about a character from a show. If it's a recurring character, you should use something like "Supernatural storyarc" (or just simply "Storyarc"), "Television appearance", "Supernatural appearance"...Unfortunately we don't set a specific header on the MOS page partly because we don't want to CREEP. At the same time, there are certain headers that generally shouldn't be used "History" or "Biography", because it implies that they are real or that we need every tiny detail about their lives (negating of course those headers like "Publication History", that imply OOU tone).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I use Arc, Personality, Development, Reception. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

USLateNightTelevision vs Late night

{{USLateNightTelevision}} has been proposed for deletion:

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_3#Template:USLateNightTelevision

as a redundant alternative to {{Late night}} (included in most of the same articles). Only the proposer (yours truly) and the creator of USLateNightTelevision have contributed to the discussion so far. WP:TV member comments are welcome. 67.100.127.102 (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

List of episodes

Can we please try and get better style guidelines for List of episodes articles? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:MOSTV.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Need Additional Opinions at Aftershock: Earthquake in New York

I decided to revisit some of the first film articles I ever worked on to see if I could apply what I've learned in the last two years to making them better. One of those articles is Aftershock: Earthquake in New York (B-movie goodness). Doing some clean ups for it, I removed some unsourced statements and one statement that was "sourced" to a copyvio link. Said statement said "In order to play the role of Diane Agostini, Jennifer Garner had to have her ears pierced especially for the very first time in her life, but then let them heal up again after filming was completed." Another editor, User:Sandi saraya reverted, claiming it was properly sourced. I reverted, pointed to WP:COPYRIGHT. She removed the link and reverted again as she feels its "notability is that it was done SPECIFICALLY for this film." I attempted to discuss with her on her talk page, but she firmly believes it is a notable fact, while I firmly believe its pointless trivia.[11] A discussion is now at Talk:Aftershock: Earthquake in New York#Jennifer Garner where she spells out her reasons for feeling its notable, and I spell out mine for it not being. Now need additional views. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Glitch with Life with Derek episode list

Okay, what the hell is wrong with the List of Life with Derek episodes? I can't add the template to the bottom of the list without the thing blending in, as you can see by this edit. Even if I tried to make a separate chapter for the template it still doesn't work. ----DanTD (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. You forgot to close the table, so the template got transcluded within the table. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

proposed: replace tvimage template with reqphoto

I did not get any feedback when I posted this suggestion last week, so here it is again under a more explicit title:

I am proposing to replace the {{tvimage}} template with {{reqphoto|television programs}}. That would implicitly rename Category:Wikipedia requested television images to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of television programs. It would also make it possible to write more specific requests for images, e.g. {{reqphoto|television programs|of=the "Cheers" logo}} or {{reqphoto|television programs|of=the actual Tom's Restaurant in Manhattan}}.

I'm interested in hearing opinions one way or the other. If I don't hear any feedback at all in the next week or so, I will assume no one else cares much, and will instruct PhotoCatBot to start replacing the templates. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If it makes the code more efficient, and you know how to take care of it, then I say "go ahead".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this. Instead of logos and intertitle images, you want photos of buildings? What if there is no chance for a photo, for example if the series is filmed entirely on a studio lot? Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought he was replacing the request for image template with one where you could be more specific, and the Cheers one was just an example.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like it would streamline coding (by using one template instead of two project wide) and add functionality to the existing process by allowing the users to specify the type of image they would like. I imagine the of= will see limited use as awareness will remain fairly low but its better to have it and not use it widely than not have it at all. I'm all for this change, thanks for suggesting it.--Opark 77 (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bignole and Opark are correct. I'm only suggesting the use of a different template for greater flexibility in what gets specified, and so that the photo requests can be bot-analyzed more easily. I'm not sure I understand where the "photos of buildings" bit came from. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Matthew might have misread the "Cheers logo" or "Tom's Restraurant" requests to be "Cheers logo" becomes "Tom's Restaurant". Like you were suggesting that we replace the logo requests with request for live places.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, those were just completely arbitrary examples. I was trying to think of the kind of TV images someone might ask for. They're not related to each other at all. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible changes to the LOE structure

I've noticed some things about the LOE pages, and I wanted to propose one change as well as bring up a new issue that I've been seeing on a select few of the LOE pages. The proposed change I would like to implement would be the moving of the DVD information (ex. List of Meerkat Manor episodes#Series) to a more professional header, and appropriate location. I would suggest the standard "Home video release" or "DVD release", and that it be placed under the episodes. My feelings are that these are lists of episodes articles, not lists of DVD releases. It does not seem right to introduce the body of the article by telling people they can buy the DVD. This isn't done on the main pages of TV articles, it doesn't make sense to promote the selling of a show before you've even listed what the show contains. The WP:MOSTV doesn't tackle this little formatting structure, and there is generally more traffic on this page than on that one, hence why the discussion is here. The proposed changed would look more like this setup, where the page's sections are ordered via their importance to the topic.

The issue that I saw was the apparent increase in images in the LOE pages in the past year. Now, before that all of the images were removed from LOE pages following that snafu regarding non-free images. They seem to be making their way back through FLs (currently, I think 8 of our LOE FLs have some form of image...one of them has 2 images).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have no clear preference. The only point that could count against moving the tables to the bottom of the list is that these tables sometimes also serve as a series overview - which would be lost at the end of the list. On the other hand, the lead already serves a similar purpose although with less structure. Since you're bringing up MOSTV, I'd like to use the opportunity to ask about consensus if season section headers should be named "Season 1" or "Season 1 (2005–2006) - this could solve the overview problems in the table of contents. Also, I'd like to know the general opinion about episode tables with vs. without short plot summaries when season articles exist. I encountered resistance when removing the plot summaries from List of Stargate SG-1 episodes last year, but I want to know if plot-less LoEs have become common enough by now for me to try again. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• • But they don't really provide an "overview". Listing the premiere and finale isn't an overview of the season, nor detrimental to understanding the topic that it needs to be listed first. I cannot see a reason why someone would come to an LOE page just to find out when a season aired and not care about the actual title, airdate, writers, directors, possibly plot depending on the size of the article. I think adding the years aired to the section headers could be a fair compromise on that. As for the plot stuff...I could swear that WP:MOSTV briefly talks about it. The general opinion (from my experience) has been that if the page has gotten so long that season lists (not articles, but lists) have now been created for it (like we just did for the South Park series), then the plot summaries are generally cut from the LOE page and put on the season pages for size reasons. If the show only has 2 seasons and was cancelled, then I would leave them because there really isn't a reason to have season lists for a show like that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • No preference here either, but they frequently link to season pages if they exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Are you referring to the season identifies in the DVD tables? If so, we also have season links (or we should) at the start of each season section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Those are the ones. I use them myself, but most people probably don't realize where the lead. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
          • I didn't even realize that. I used to personally always link to them to their respective sections of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I would prefer the home video info at the bottom. I read LOEs for the episode info not the DVDs. This seems to be the general purpose. And the List of Meerkat Manor episodes has DVD info in sections at the top and bottom of the article, when it should all be together. The lead and TOC should be able to handle the series overview, especially as I prefer the season section headers to include the year(s) of broadcast. The season links in the DVD tables are usually too ambiguous. Is it linking to the season section within the same article, or to a separate season article? I've see both occurrences, and it seems that the above comments attest to that. As well, I never understood why the List of Stargate SG-1 episodes included the same season tables as the season articles. It sort of defeats the purpose of having separate season articles if the master list is going to remain bloated. Sarilox (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion has somewhat convinced me to Bignole's point on view; it does seem more appropriate for the "series overview" to go below the episodes. On the other hand, if a list of episodes article does not include season subpages, episode summaries are often listed on that. I don't want to bloat the article so that the quickfacts (season start dates, DVD releases) are blocked by a massive amount of text on each episode. So, I'm rather undecided for now, like Sgeureka. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Well, DVD releases shouldn't be the first thing anyway. I understand the argument about season starts, and I think Sgeureka had a good point in that we should make all of the season section headers include the years of airing. I mean, the lead paragraphs should already include the two more important dates, the series premiere and the series finale (assuming of course the series isn't still on-going). Everything else in the middle is just additive.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd supporting having the years in the headers and the series overview tables being moved down; that makes sense to me, as it keeps most of the important information for navigation and also makes the important stuff more accessible. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
      • If a lead is done correctly, you should have the important dates (month, day, year) listed, the basic premise of the show, whether it has been released on DVD at all (and if it's in more than one region...just no exact dates), and other things about the series (some have ratings, some don't).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that in a list of episodes page it makes sense to begin with the episodes and not the series DVD releases. However, I think considering these sections solely as a collation of DVD related information is a falsehood. I believe they were intended as a series overview that introduces each season and the number of episodes it contains, when it aired, and sometimes what the average viewing figures were before the reader is taken to the meat of the article and the episodes themselves. I take the point that a well written lead will duplicate much of this information. However, a list should be easy to navigate and I feel a season by season overview near the top of the list makes it easier to find specific episodes and improves the flow of the article. I'd favour a separate DVD section at the bottom of the list but retaining the key information in a series overview at the top i.e. a small table listing the seasons, when they aired and how many episodes they each contained. The DVD release dates and specific information regarding special features, regional releases, sound and picture formatting should be collated at the bottom of the article.--Opark 77 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but you have to remember that it repeated information already present in the lead (or should be present in the lead for it to be an FL), and introduced reception information before it should have been. How does a "season by season" overview at the top make it easier to find specific episodes? You cannot link to an episode title when it's in a table. Are you suggesting a prose summary of the season plots? I'm not entirely clear on your suggestion, because even the portion of those "Overview" tables that are not DVD info don't really lend any actual understanding to the reader. They see a season had 22 episodes, but that doesn't really mean a lot by itself. I just don't really understand the point of having a table list the number of episodes a season has when the season list will list the number of episodes that it has. If most readers are just coming to find out the number of episodes a season has...why have the LOE page to begin with. You could put that on the main page and provide a link to the individual season pages (if they exist). It all just seems unnecessarily redundant.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You say that the table introduces reception information "before it should have been." I'm not understanding your point here. Where do you think reception information should be in an episode list article? I think season specific ratings are ideally placed in a season by season series overview. Episode specific ratings are well placed with individual episodes.

You asked "How does a "season by season" overview at the top make it easier to find specific episodes?"

I find it helps by allowing you to work out where the episode you're looking for might lie in the list - it tells you when a season started and ended and how many episodes there were in each season in a small space. You might come to the article knowing that you want to know more about an episode that aired in 2002 or that you think was roughly the 50th episode of the series - the series overview helps to put this in the context of a specific season. The episode list itself contains far more information and often take a while to scroll through. This information is usefully summarised by a series overview. It works like a contents page but is more useful than a standard wikipedia table of contents. It does contain factual information that is presented to the reader.

I don't think that "most readers are just coming to find out the number of episodes a season has" - I think that some use episode lists as an introduction to a series but that the majority of readers will be using them as a reference to get information about specific episodes. I find the series overview boxes useful when I do this. I think moving (or removing) them would make the articles less functional and detract from their usefulness.

I'm certainly not suggesting prose summaries of each season plot. I'm proposing that we keep things roughly as they are in terms of the layout of these articles as I like having a series overview table at the top. I'm not against separating out DVD related information to a more appropriate place (but it doesn't take up much room if its just release dates so I'm also happy to leave it where it is). I don't want to lose the whole series overview table as a result of moving DVD related info which I think might be the outcome of your suggestion.

--Opark 77 (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What I'm referring to is listing each of the season averages (if you have them) before you've even listed the seasons. The lead should already be summarizing the whole article, why does a second summary need to be placed there?

A section header that says "Season (Year-Year)" will tell a reader where to look for a specific episode. The exact dates are negligiable. Given that the episode tables should have their episode numbers listed, it isn't "extra work" to have to grab the scroll bar and pull it down till you find the area you're looking for. It's a needlessly redundant table. We already have a "contents page", it's called the Table of Contents, which usually sits directly above, or directly beside the table you want. Redundancy.

How less functional could they be? The TOC has a link to each section. If we mandate year of airing in all of the section headers then readers will know exactly where they should be looking for an episode. There is no need for a table that virtually duplicates the TOC. You're basically proposing that we keep redundancies (even the DVD info which would have been stated on the page 2 to 3 times...depending on if it has a more developed section at the bottom).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that we keep redundancies. I'm responding to a proposal that you made. My response is that I'd prefer things to be left as they are in this case. If things are to be changed then I think its paramount that no information is lost in the removal of these tables i.e. that the editor who deletes the table takes responsibility for incorporating all information that will not be retained in a DVD releases section into the article - particularly the season viewing stats. I'm not 100% opposed to removal/moving of the tables I just want their removal/moving to be recognised as more than just a rearrangement of DVD specific information. In articles where the table information is all duplication of content then I would be for the removal of the table. I hope that clarifies my position.--Opark 77 (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No relevant information is lost. The premiere and finale of the show are in the lead, which is directly above the table currently being used. The fact that the show was released on DVD is in the lead, directly above the table currently being used. The fact that the show ran X amount of seasons, for X amount of episodes is in the lead, directly above the table currently being used. As was proposed by Sgeureka, if we mandate the year of broadcast in the season section headers, then we've eliminated the issue of "finding an episode" one was looking for. That makes the table redundant and obsolete on all accounts, especially when there is a DVD release section below the episode listing. By keeping it we'd have two summaries back to back for the whole page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 14:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Birthdates on fictional characters

I have caught two articles of fictional characters where it seems evident that the birth/death dates are based soley on the actor they player:

• I have removed such dates on Maude Findlay, because it said Maude's death was April 25, 2009, the same day Beatrice Arthur, the actor who played the character died.
• I also did this for Archie Bunker, because the article on Carroll O'Connor states that Connor's birth year is 1924, which was also mentioned as the birth year of Archie's article prior to my removal.

I will be looking for such cases trough at least this week, and whatever case I find will be resolved, mentioned here, and discussed. All participants are free to discuss this right here. —Mythdon t/c 06:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Birthdates should not be there regardless. They are fictional, so they don't have birthdays, or "deathdates"....technically not even in soaps because they've even brought people back from the death in them as well. Fictional characters should not be treated as if they are real (see WP:WAF and WP:MOSTV).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, the articles shouldn't have names either. After all, only real people have names, not unreal fictional characters. Birth dates, death dates and ages ought to be used if it is a major aspect of the character (e.g. Adrian Mole), but should be omited if they constantly change or are only mentioned in a throwaway line (like the Friends characters). Bradley0110 (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Fictional characters do not have names, they don't have "birthdays" because they were never "born". They were "named" however. If anything the "birthday" would be considered the day the character was first created, but you wouldn't call it a "birthday" anyway. How is Adrian Mole's fictionaly birthday important to the character? It's not. What is relevant is the timeframe in which the character appears. There is a difference between writing a page so that it looks like it's a real person, and writing a page where you acknowledge that the character is set in a specific time period. Fictional characters are not "born", nor do they "die". And the consensus has been that way for awhile, just look at the FA character articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

merge of Tuner (electronics) and Tuner (radio)

join in the fun at Talk:Tuner_(electronics)#Merger_proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)