Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Total DramaRama double-episodes

Wanting to get some input here about what should be done regarding double-length episode of Total DramaRama. Both the first season and second season have had at least one double-length (30 min.) episode, being "Camping is In Tents" (currently listed as S1 E41) and most recently, "Dissing Cousins" (currently listed as S2 E16). Sources being used such as Futon Critic and Zap2it both list both of these episodes as one double-length episode, not two separate normal-length episodes (Futon Critic giving "Camping is In Tents" production code 'V141' and "Dissing Cousins" 'V216-30'). Viewership-wise, Showbuzz Daily gives the viewership for both episodes as one 30-minute episode (Here Archived 2019-05-29 at the Wayback Machine for "Camping", here Archived 2020-06-03 at the Wayback Machine for "Dissing").

There's recently been an IP over on the talk page discussing and giving sources that seem to point towards the episodes in question being listed as two separate episodes. I don't want to put too much info here, but you can see the sources they've provided on that talk page. There are also some other points to make towards this, such as Cartoon Network listing "Dissing Cousins" by their two separate parts on their website (Part 1, part 2). However, two things to point out from that- being that A. the credits for both parts of "Dissing Cousins" are the same (Written by: Miles Smith, Directed by: Keith Oliver & George Elliot) and that B. only "Dissing Cousins" is listed by the two separate parts, "Camping is In Tents" is listed as one full-length episode on the Cartoon Network website.

With all these different sources in mind (again, see the Total DramaRama talk page discussion for the sources suggesting they should be separate as two parts/episodes), what would be the best way to go about this? I remember seeing a discussion in the past about a double-length/two separate episodes, and found it again tonight, regarding Blood & Treasure, maybe that discussion could help a bit here? I dunno.

Finally, wanting to note that I am entirely open to splitting these episodes up and listing them as two parts in the episode tables. Just not entirely sure when there's quite a few sources supporting both sides of this... Any help is appreciated, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Diriliş: Ertuğrul again

We could use more opinions on this [1] content, discussion on talk at Talk:Diriliş:_Ertuğrul#Controversial_statements. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm also sceptical that TRT Ertugrul Ghazi by PTV merits a separate article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

And yet another discussion about sources in the plot section

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#MOS:PLOTSOURCE and WP:PRIMARY. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Doom Patrol (TV series)#HBO Max

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Doom Patrol (TV series)#HBO Max. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox reality talent competition

Template:Infobox reality talent competition has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox reality competition season. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Guidelines about the narrator

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Guidelines about the narrator. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: The Haunting of Hill House

After the success of this limited series, a second season was ordered for an entirely different story with new characters (The Haunting of Bly Manor). In view of this development, an RfC is underway to determine the structure of the original article (now first season) and additional season @ Talk:The Haunting of Hill House (TV series)#RFC. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

List of Man with a Plan episodes

I need some pairs of eyes on this. An IP address has repeatedly adding an episode summary to a yet to air episode. Last time I checked this is still considered be WP:OR and falls under WP:NOTCRYSTAL. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

MCU characters name change

There is discussion on whether the new article Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe should be name changed. Feel free to discuss on talk page. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

TV programs article

I'm planning to revamp TV programs on "List of programs broadcast by [TV channel]" articles such as List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga&oldid=927392783, because I noticed series without own articles are listed even if they're not notable. I also want to add that a secondary source should be used for non-article series.CuteDolphin712 (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Africa (series)

Is Africa (series) a TV series or a film? The article text and categories left me confused. --Gonnym (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

2020–21 United States network television schedule

Someone has proposed that the 2020–21 United States network television schedule article be removed. True, it's not encyclopedic content in the traditional sense. But that's no reason to delete the article. As the WikiProject indicates, the article provides information about television in a more modern way rather than a traditional encyclopedia in which it would never be included. I personally find the article very helpful information. The person proposing deletion claims it's not neutral because it only includes the five major non-cable networks. There's absolutely no bias in the content itself and the fact that only those five networks are included doesn't make it unfair.

I feel the person proposing deletion is more or less disgruntled for no good reason about an article that hurts absolutely no one but would upset people like me if it's deleted.

PLEASE KEEP THE ARTICLE POSTED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig21208 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about – there's no WP:AfD announcement banner, and there's nothing at the Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

OTOH, the 2021–22 United States network television schedule should be moved to Draftspace – that's a clear WP:CRYSTALBALL violation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, should move to draft space, way too early. QueerFilmNerd^talk 08:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:AfD announcement banner is on 2020–21 United States network television schedule today. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

!Voted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: The AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 United States network television schedule has been WP:SNOW closed. And based on that discussion, I have moved the 2021–22 article to Draft:2021–22 United States network television schedule. I would advise that some of us watchlist 2021–22 United States network television schedule as that article should not be recreated for months... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: Perhaps you should request the page to be WP:SALTed under the notion it is highly possible to be recreated until such a time it has to move out of the draft space. An edit notice template might help too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably premature. If it gets recreated, I'm inclined to convert it to a redirect to 2021 in American television, with a {{R with possibilities}} tag. Salt'ing seems extreme. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Introductory TV episode

I'm updating an old reality TV show which had 10 proper episodes, 2 compilation episodes which consisted of the best bits from those 10 episodes, and 1 introductory episode which introduced you to the people who were going to be on the show.

So how many episodes should I say it has, and how should I write it in the number of episodes section of the infobox?

• Pilot + 10 episodes + 2 bonus episodes
• Pilot + 12 episodes
• 13 episodes
• 10 episodes + 3 bonus episodes

etc

Danstarr69 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It would be really helpful if you told us which show. It usually results in editors researching it and giving you a far more comprehensive answer. - X201 (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, knowing which article you are talking about would help. But based on what you said, I would not count the compilation episodes as they do not present "new" content for the series, so I would state it as 11 episodes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

X201 Favre1fan93 This is the article I was talking about Scream Team. I've only just finished revamping the entire article, as it had no references at all. It's hard work trying to find references for a channel which technically doesn't exist anymore, and is now known as Sky Witness. I've listed the introductory episode as a "Pilot," but I'm not sure if that's the correct terminology for the 30 minute preview episode, and I've said there's 13 total episodes, although technically there's 10 with the pilot and the compilations increasing it to 13.

Danstarr69 (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Squirm nominated at FAC

If anyone is interested, the article for Squirm is nominated for Featured Article. While its relation to television is kind of flimsy, I hope to get more eyes onto the nomination, which would be much appreciated. The nomination can be found here. GamerPro64 01:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Sesame Street episodes list

Input requested at this list article, which presumably would cover 4,500+ episodes. (Ack.) Not sure if there is a way this could be presented productively. The author has submitted for review but continues to add to the draft which is quite incomplete at present. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and moved this draft to its correct title: Draft:List of Sesame Street episodes. Beyond that, I don't think it should be submitted to WP:AfC until it is actually fleshed out. And without episode summaries, I'm not sure its a particularly useful resource. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is at AFC. It seems that the best action at this point is to decline it and allow it to be discussed and expanded more. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't encourage someone to put together a complete list of 4500 episodes unless we're pretty confident of a format that would be accepted! Please engage with the draft author to avoid huge wasted effort.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

OMG! Imagine how many pages that would require in order to not break the post expand include size limit! --AussieLegend (✉) 12:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The Series overview table might be useful, but probably as a collapsible table in the main article rather than a standalone. The only way I see to conceivably list 4500 episodes of anything is a series of articles, as in List of Sesame Street episodes (seasons 1–4) or something. HOWEVER, my biggest issue is that it is unsourced. I'm not sure we'd be able to find sources for all 4500 airdates. If there's some book out there that covers this, we should be referring people to that book, not regurgitating it here.— TAnthony^Talk 13:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that this revision of the draft broke the template include size limit and placed if in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded with only some of the season 5 episodes listed. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Love Life (American TV series)#About the narrator

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Love Life (American TV series)#About the narrator. This discussion is about where and how to include the narrator in the particular TV series. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

what should be done?

Months ago i merge List of programs broadcast by Star Jalsha with Star Jalsha. The main article (Star Jalsha) isn't big enough & there is no reason for a separate page. However it was reverted by User:Noobie anonymous. Is it necessary to split a page when main article is almost empty? Please advice. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: You're going to need to start a formal WP:MERGE discussion at Talk:Star Jalsha. If no one objects to a merge after several weeks (better if there's actually some support for a merge demonstrated...), then I would go ahead and re-merge the articles, and if anyone tries to undo the merge again, you can revert it and point to the Talk page discussion. FWIW, I agree that there is no reason not to merge List of programs broadcast by Star Jalsha back to Star Jalsha. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Lenox Hill (TV series)#Yet to release episode with reliable source

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lenox Hill (TV series)#Yet to release episode with reliable source. Since when did including episode titles, release dates, and etc. on episode table when it is reliably sourced is considered to be WP:CRYSTAL? Editors are needed to weigh in on this. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 in American television

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 in American television. Wikipedical (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC).

FX on Hulu

With the increase of series being moved and appearing on FX on Hulu, I'm wonder how this should be handled in the respective series articles so we can form consistency and clarity. If you're unaware of what FX on Hulu is, the official description is: "FX on Hulu is a dedicated hub on Hulu where you can access acclaimed and award-winning FX Networks series, as well as new FX Original Series (after episodes air on FX and FXX) and FX Originals that stream exclusively on Hulu." It's essentially FX-produced series that are being distributed by Hulu instead of airing on their own network. So, do we simply refer to the "network" as being Hulu, or do use FX on Hulu? If you look at Devs (a FX on Hulu series), we're using the phrase "Hulu (via FX on Hulu)"; is this too clunky? Because I feel simply referring to it as just Hulu is wrong because it makes no distinction between 100% Hulu originals like The Handmaid's Tale.

Other things to consider and take note of:

• All FX on Hulu series should be placed in both Category:FX Networks original programming and Category:Hulu original programming; or do we create a new category?
• Should Template:Hulu make a distinction between Hulu originals vs. FX on Hulu originals?
• Other FX on Hulu originals include: Mrs. America (miniseries), and the upcoming series' Y: The Last Man (TV series), American Horror Stories (no article yet), The Old Man (TV series), and A Teacher (miniseries).

Thoughts on this? Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I think for now I would go with "FX on Hulu" as the "network of record". I would also seriously consider spinning off FX on Hulu as its own article at this point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: I concur with IJBall because FX on Hulu is it's own network, please see Official website. Are there significant amount of FX on Hulu original series right now? If not, I recommend starting a Draft for "List of FX on Hulu original programming" before a mainspace article. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

To answer all the questions brought up, starting with Drovethrughosts's: For series explicitly debuting on FX on Hulu (like Devs and Mrs. America), I would have the network be "FX on Hulu"; I think we should create a new category called Category:FX on Hulu original programming, and that can be a sub cat of the Hulu original programming cat, and Category:FX Networks (but not the FX original programming one); I would include that in the template, as group4, below "Upcoming", and it could have its own subgroups of "Current", "Ended", and "Upcoming"; IJBall, I agree that FX on Hulu could potentially get its own article; @YoungForever: I don't think there's enough original content yet to warrant its own list, but a table could definitely be included at a split off main article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I would also add that a section could be made specifically for the FX on Hulu series at List of original programs distributed by Hulu. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: If that is the case, a section of "List of FX on Hulu original programming" on the the main article should be sufficient for now when there only a small amount of original content. When it becomes a long list later, then it can be move to a separate article. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever: when you say main article, which are you referring to? The potential new FX on Hulu article (not yet created) or List of original programs distributed by Hulu? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: List of original programs distributed by Hulu for now and the FX on Hulu article later when it has been created. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever: Cool, just wanted to clarify what you meant (I assumed that's what it was). Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Then, eventually, break off to List of FX on Hulu original programming from FX on Hulu article. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts, IJBall, and YoungForever: Is anyone opposed to making the infobox, category, and Hulu template changes at this time? I feel like the page might be a task that would eventually happen, but the three things I mentioned could happen now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed. I've already made the infobox and lede changes to all the FX on Hulu series. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Category has been created, and I'm adjusting the Hulu template now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No opposition here. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC on including disambiguators in category names

Please see Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#RFC on including disambiguators in category names. – Fayenatic London 09:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Increased acceptance/usage of DVR viewership for US-based shows

Not sure if this conversation has been had before, but I believe it's a necessary one given we're now in 2020 and I feel our standard way of listing television ratings in articles is becoming outdated. Given that advertising for US shows is based on C3 and C7 viewership (viewers who watched commercials on DVR for a show up to 3 or 7 days after original air date) and many networks have switched to only referring/basing stuff on DVR viewership (I believe Fox switched to only looking at L+7 a few years ago and ABC now only reports L+3 data in its ratings press releases on WDTV Press), I'm wondering whether (if sources are available of course) we should consider:

• instead of using L+SD data in episode tables (e.g., the U.S. viewers column in Template:Episode table), we switch that to the L+7 DVR total. For some shows, the DVR viewership is more than double what the L+SD is. I feel we're doing a disservice to readers by not showing the full picture.

• For many years, the average viewership and 18-49 ratings columns in Template:Television season ratings have been based on L+7 data that a source (Deadline, Variety, THR, etc.) reports. However, the premiere and finale ratings only show the L+SD. This is the case on many articles and it confuses readers by implying that the premieres and finales of shows are lower than what the season averaged. I believe we should switch to using the L+7 DVR numbers in the premiere and finale columns as it aligns with the average numbers released at the end of the TV season.

I wanted to gain some consensus on this as it would affect many articles. We don't have to go back and redo everything, but if the source exists, and the TV show debuts like in fall 2020 or something, we start doing so. I think this is something we should seriously consider. I believe the UK uses DVR data too, and even online viewership (Outlets here don't really report that but I'm saying other countries' TV show articles have also moved away from simple live viewership). Numeris in Canada has also only reported Live+7 data since 2014-ish. Heartfox (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I say we need to figure out when this switch applies too. Pre-2010, and I think the standard should be L+SD (and 10 years before that, probably Live only). But somewhere between 2010 and now, L+SD became an anachronism, and L+7 should become the standard. The thing is, I don't know if that happened around 2015, before, or after. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: The other thing is we need a consistent and reliable source reporting L+7 ratings. We primarily use Showbuzz Daily for ratings, but they currently only report L+SD (example Archived 2020-07-03 at the Wayback Machine). If/When they start reporting L+7, either as an addition to the L+SD or with L+7 only, then we could in theory start using L+7 ratings only for our articles. The only other thing then is that some series will see a mix, because they were series that premiered before this hypothetical change. In that case, we would need to make it clear that starting with X episode, we are using L+7 ratings. Amaury • 21:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

TV by the Numbers posted L+7 and L+3 DVR ratings from pretty much its inception until the end of 2019. Variety has also posted DVR ratings, though they haven't seem to have done so since the end of April 2020. Currently, the most reliable outlet is Programming Insider which posts Live+3 and Live+7.

For many shows, the ratings tables have Live+SD and L+7 DVR listed, however, the episode table only lists the Live+SD viewership. I think this switching to make the episode table list the total viewership (including DVR) could be easy for many articles.

Per basic research on Google, I'm seeing that:

• CBS began using Live+7 in 2014-15 TV season
• Fox began only reporting Live+3 in press releases beginning November 2015 Archived 2020-07-03 at the Wayback Machine.

Just as an example, the ratings table for NCIS (season 9) has DVR ratings, which was in 2011-12. Heartfox (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If any sort of change happens (of which I'm not necessarily opposed too), how are we going to clarify information for the reader which data is shown in the episode table? For example, since you mentioned NCIS, if up until season 9 they are Live+SD ratings, and then season 9 onwards makes the change to Live+7, what would the headers look like? And if one looks at List of NCIS episodes (seasons 1–15) to get an overview of the series, they will have two vastly different numbers for viewership data at the season switch. That isn't necessarily bad, we just would need a clear way to note this information. And as IJBall said, when exactly should this switch be considered for older series? Another point to consider, since L+7 info comes out about a week or so after a particular episode airs, what gets added to the episode table in the mean time? Do we use Live+SD ratings until the +7 ones come out? And what could be particularly confusing in that instance, if you have the L+7 ratings for the past episodes, but using the SD ratings for the most recent airing, that potentially is a giant ratings drop. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I assume the "viewers_type" parameter in Template:Episode table could be set to "DVR millions)" or something like that and/or the template itself could be edited in some way. I think the column could be left blank until L+7 is released, but the L+SD numbers can still be listed in the ratings table (for season articles). Heartfox (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Parivaar Awards

The article on the Star Parivaar Awards has been nominated for deletion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Request to Update Irish Channels Share of Viewing

Hi all, I posted this on the Virgin Media One Talk page but I feel it might get more of a response here. I am looking to update the viewing share for the Irish channels (Virgin Media One, Virgin Media Two, Virgin Media Three, RTÈ One, RTÈ 2, TG4 and EirSport 1) using TAM Nielsen data from 2019. However, I have a Conflict of Interest. I made some slight amends to Virgin Media Television and Virgin Media One (apologies, I should have raised a Conflict of Interest on those too). Seeing as I want to do it across all channels, I'm hoping to get a consensus to go ahead.DarkerDai (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought I would give more insight into my reasoning for this. As a disclosure:I am employed by a television broadcaster but I am not being paid to amend these. I recently joined Wikipedia and have been looking for ways to contribute. As I have experience in this, I felt I could help out. My proposal is to use TAM Nielsen Ireland's data from 2019. The source I will cite is https://medialive.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1057:television-market-overview-2019&catid=42&Itemid=427 as it references Nielsen data and is a neutral source. My reasons for using 2019 is that the data is fully consolidated and irons out any "special" programming (such as sport) which would have a significant impact if we were to use a singular month. The TG4 page does have an updated share but it states it's from 2020. Clicking on the link doesn't provide the source of the figure but it is most likely a round up of the 2019 figure. There are other channels from the UK that do receive a Nielsen share but I would say these pages should use BARB data as that would be their primary market. Finally, would it be preferential to use just the main channel or combine it with the +1 were applicable? UK channels on BARB do cover this through "Stagger" but Irish Channels do not, they have to be combined manually. If anyone would like to update it instead of me, please do as it may resolve my conflict of interest. Thank you. DarkerDai (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't get confused, this is not the right spot to ask for a edit request. {{3125A|talk}} 14:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

CAT:NN

Hello. CAT:NN now has a backlog of almost 12 years. There is a backlog of over 1000 just on Television, see [2]. We are desperate for anyone with knowledge and interest on this topic to help reduce the backlog. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Inspired by parameter

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Inspired by parameter. This is a proposal to add a parameter to the Infoxbox television template. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Update: Since no one seemed to object the inclusion of |inspired_by= , it is now an optional parameter on the Template:Infobox television. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson Tonight and Blake Neff

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight which may interest followers of this project, concerning whether or not to include information about Carlson's head writer in the article. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal for two articles regarding a recently defunct TV network

I am asking for a third opinion regarding the merger discussion happening in this article Talk:List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN#Merger proposal (July 2020). TheHotwiki (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

A note on script websites as references

I asked about subslikescript.com at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, and the opinion of Moneytrees, an administrator who works extensively with copyright issues, is that the links should be removed. I wanted to let WikiProject Television know, as you're perhaps more likely than most editors to see it or similar script websites in articles you're working on. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Emy Teledrama

Looking at the article Emy Teledrama I think the title of the program is just "Emy" and "Teledrama" is just disambiguation. If that's correct it should be moved to have parenthetical disambiguation, but I'm unfamiliar with the naming conventions in this area so I don't know what disambiguator would be correct. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with Emy (TV series) for this – 55 episodes is too many for "miniseries" or "serial" to apply IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I've moved it to that title, thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Diriliş: Ertuğrul

Talk:Diriliş:_Ertuğrul#Article_contains_irrelevant/unsourced_information For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Starring in lede

In an article's lede, how do you normally indicate that the starring lineup has changed? Example: Aladdin - Naam Toh Suna Hoga. The show originally starred Siddharth Nigam and Avneet Kaur. Kaur was replaced by Ashi Singh. Current language reads:

It premiered on 21 August 2018 and stars Siddharth Nigam and Avneet Kaur/Ashi Singh as Aladdin and Princess Yasmine respectively.

Does that change to:

1. It premiered on 21 August 2018 and stars Siddharth Nigam and Ashi Singh as Aladdin and Princess Yasmine respectively. [Representing the new line-up, ignoring the replaced actor]
2. It premiered on 21 August 2018 and originally starred Siddharth Nigam and Avneet Kaur as Aladdin and Princess Yasmine respectively. In 2020 Singh was replaced by Ashi Singh.
3. Something else entirely?

Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Something else entirely – something like: "It premiered on 21 August 2018, starring Siddharth Nigam and Avneet Kaur as Aladdin and Princess Yasmine, respectively... In 2020 Ashi Singh took over the role of Princess Yasmine." Something along these lines. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd go with something else entirely. See below:

Aladdin – Naam Toh Suna Hoga is an Indian fantasy television series based on the Arabian Nights character Aladdin. Aladdin is a young man who falls in love with Princess Yasmine. His life changes after he finds a magical lamp which has a genie inside. Siddharth Nigam stars as Aladdin, while Avneet Kaur stars as Princess Yasmine for the first three seasons. Kaur was replaced by Ashi Singh starting with the fourth season. Aladdin – Naam Toh Suna Hoga premiered on 21 August 2018 on SAB TV.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd go with this as well. - Brojam (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks to all involved. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Central Park

I need some pairs of eyes on this article. An editor has been repeatedly adding a Twitter post and Youtube link from unverified accounts. Per WP:RSP, they are not reliable sources if they are posted from unverified accounts (that is without the verification badge). — YoungForever^(talk) 21:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism, very likely

This person has made a number of pointless edits and a smaller number of destructive edits, mostly to articles related to British and American TV shows. There are also some other edits. Knowing very little about TV, I don't want to evaluate the worth of these edits (mere speculation? complete fiction). Over to you. (I'm not watching this talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like hoaxing. The user will be reported to AIV. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Stale to-do items

The "X creation list" articles (seasons, episodes, characters) at the end of the to-do list are not being used for clean-up. Aside from one edit in March 2018, none of them have been updated since 2017. Should they be cleared, or should I just take them to MfD? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: On determining series end dates

You are invited to an RfC about determining when a television series has ended. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television#RfC:_On_determining_series_end_dates. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

TV by the Numbers

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but I did just now: TV by the Numbers has now vanished from the web... tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com now redirects to tvlistings.zap2it.com. Time to find all those Wayback Machine links if they haven't already been added lol! Heartfox (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I've been waiting for this to happen. Why these sites don't just archive their old stuff (and that applies to TV listings as well), I don't understand. But it's par for the course. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

As to remind editors, generally, behind the scenes, any time you add a ref with a URL, bots and other software will try to make sure that URL is archived either at archvie.org or elsewhere within a day or so. As such User:InternetArchiveBot should then be able to find those archives and add all the necessary archive links. --Masem (t) 05:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Leave a request at WP:URLREQ for archiving. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Determining end dates for television series when cancellation is unannounced

I attempted to do this as an RfC, but other users objected to it as premature, non-neutral, and too long. There was previous discussion at Template talk:Infobox television, but I decided that venue was too narrow because this discussion also applies to categorization. Thus, I am re-attempting this discussion here to build proposals for another RfC.

Normally, when a series is cancelled or ended, we list the end date as when the final episode was aired/released. But sometimes, a show is taken off the air with no word about its fate. (This is common in children's television.) Under current practices, we presume a series to have ended if no new episodes have aired in over a year and it has not been officially renewed (the same criteria used by The Futon Critic). The end date is listed in the infobox and the page is added to the appropriate subcategory of Category:Television series endings by year, but we do not list it on a (YEAR) in (COUNTRY) television page. (This convention is not currently mentioned at MOS:TV.)

Said decision was made at Infobox television's talk in July 2014. The consensus was to adopt The Futon Critic's criteria to avoid questionable listings of programs as currently in production, but there were unaddressed concerns that it is impossible to make any judgment without violating WP:OR. In particular, one participant noted that it contradicts previous consensus.

Unfortunately, the convention has led to controversy; the previous discussion mentions such a dispute at Secret Mountain Fort Awesome, which was cancelled quietly in 2012. In a more recent case, The Amazing World of Gumball last aired a new episode on June 24, 2019 and has not been renewed, so it satisfies the "presumed ending" criteria. (The spinoff miniseries, Darwin's Yearbook, aired later, but it doesn't count.) However, various users (including myself) have objected to this because like SMFA, the series has also not been confirmed to be canceled. It didn't help that the matter was already controversial from the day the possible finale was announced. Arguments over Gumball's status and end date (see the page history) is the main reason why the show's article was protected recently.

That's why I'm calling to reassess this rule (and incorporate it in MOS). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: Corrected fact, made minor revisions. Pinging participants of the previous discussion: @Cyphoidbomb, @Bignole, @Geraldo Perez. 04:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Split season overviews

Heads up, there's an anon editor who's going around convering templated {{Series overview}} tables to raw wikicode, so that they can split seasons up into what they perceive as separate parts of a season. 51.171.113.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their edits can be seen here, here, here. Keep an eye out? Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Game of Thrones peer review

Hello all, just a notice that there is an open peer review for Game of Thrones, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Game of Thrones/archive4. All feedback and comments are welcome to improve the article. Thank you! -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Article name for two-part episodes with different titles

This is a little bit of a hypothetical question, but I've been having the following thought. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has just announced its series finale will be two episodes (press release text at the top of the preceding episode's release stating such, and the episode titles/listing in question), but they do not have the same name with a Part 1/2 situation. The first episode is titled "The End is at Hand", while the second is "What We’re Fighting For". I'm anticipating the articles for these episodes and I have a feeling there's the potential for info released about them to simply group the two episodes together, which in my eyes would necessitate one article for both episodes. If that is the case, what would said article be called? I've had experience a bit in the past with Inhumans premiere (which was the IMAX presentation of the first two broadcast episodes, with separate names), so I was thinking Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. series finale could be a possibility. But taking a wider approach where multiple episodes in any instance do not occur at the beginning or end of seasons/series where "premiere"/"finale" wording could be use, what would title options be? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe we generally treat them as two separate episodes. See House's Head and Wilson's Heart. Calidum 16:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but in some instances as I mentioned, sources can group the info for the two (be it production info or reception) together, at which point, it could be beneficial to have one larger article to cover both episodes together. So that's the question, of what is that article title? And I said this is a bit of a hypothetical, but I still think it's something worth discussing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

If you did it as a single episode, I would think Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (series finale) would be the appropriate title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Bignole that Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (series finale) is an appropriate title. "The End is at Hand" and What We're Fighting For" are more appropriate for the Infobox television episode title. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Would "series finale" need to be a dab in the parenthesis as you both suggested, or would as I mentioned Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. series finale without the parenthesis work? Again, I don't know if this route will be taken, just anticipating. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly support Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. series finale, as "series finale" is not a disambiguator; we're not disambiguating between a TV series called Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and a series finale called Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. There's no real precident on the case, and we do indeed have Inhumans premiere, but then we also have Whoami and Hello, Elliot (which was moved from Mr. Robot finale after a lack of support for the latter title). -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Personally,I think either would be fine. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That would go against naming conventions. The title isn't "series finale", hence why it would be disambiguated. If you don't do that, you're insinuating that "series finale" is somehow part of the name. It isn't. You are merging the final two episodes, which are separated series finale episodes into a single article. The Inhumans premiere, should also be "Inhumans (premiere)", because again it isn't about disambiguating from another page of the same name, it's about disambiguating the fact that the article is a representation of the "premiere" episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Except that goes against disambiguation conventions, as it is exactly about disambiguation. "Inhumans (premiere)" would indicate that the topic of the article is titled "Inhumans", and it is disambiguating it from the separate article about the TV series at "Inhumans (TV series)". Disambiguation is for separating similarly-titled articles. Except that the premiere of "Inhumans" is not titled "Inhumans", so its article should not be titled "Inhumans (disambiguator)". Same goes with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Anything outside of a disambiguator is a title

It's exactly the same as how NCTV's interpretation of disambiguation is incorrect for articles such as "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1)"; the season isn't titled "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.", so it shouldn't be disambiguated as "(season 1)", but that's a discussion for another time. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not true. "Inhumans (premiere)" just means that the episode is about the "Inhumans". Once you click it you'll realize that it's not the official name. Where at WP:NCTV do you see your example of "Inhumans premiere" actually get used as an example? The point of it is, "Inhumans premiere" isn't the title either, which is what you are suggesting. That would be like linking to Bart the Genius. That is the title of that episode. When you don't disambiguate with "(premiere" or "(series finale)" you are insinuating that it is the actual title of the episode. That is why you see "(season 1)" and so forth. There isn't a season name. So, we default to what the show is, "Agents of Shield", and then disambiguate it from the parent article by pointing out that it is "(season 1)" of that show. Hence, because we are merging 2 episode articles into 1 article, and there is not a single name for those 2 articles, we then resort to a base name "Agents of Shield" or "Inhumans" and then disambiguate it with "(series finale)"/"(premiere)".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

To paraphrase: where at WP:NCTV do you see your example of "Inhumans (premiere)" actually get used as an example? You don't; NCTV is only a guideline, and there will always be outside cases. Disambiguators are for identically titled articles to separate them, it's that simple. Is the premiere titled "Inhumans" (and thus needing disambiguation as "premiere" from "TV series"), or the finale titled "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." (and thus needing disambiguation as "series finale" from "TV series")? No? Then they aren't titled and disambiguated as such. You should "realize" it's not the official name as soon as you see the title; if it is titled "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. series finale", then the article is, quite obviously, about the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. series finale. Yes: direct from the title - nothing in the title states that it is the name of the episode. When you do disambiguate with "(premiere)" or "(series finale)", that is when you are actually insinuating that it is the actual title of the episode, as you are disambiguating it from other (as mentioned before) identically titled articles.

Unfortunately, everything you stated from That is why you see "(season 1)" is actually a complete misinterpretation of disambiguation, but. Continuing on from the previous paragraph and using another example, with The Flash (2014 TV series) and The Flash (season 1), the current setup implies that these are two separate media entities: a 2014 TV series titled The Flash, and a Season 1 titled The Flash. That is not the case. However, that is not what this discussion is about, and should be taken to NCTV. We digress. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Image for main articles of television series

I need some pairs of eyes on Close Enough, Search Party (TV series), and Doom Patrol (TV series). An editor have been repeatedly changing the main articles of television series images to promo posters of the current seasons. Per MOS:TVIMAGE, the title card is preferred and more appropriate for the main articles of television series. Season promo posters are meant for season articles. It is also common practice to use title cards or logos for main articles of television series, especially TV series that have multiple seasons. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I added comments to their talk page. --Masem (t) 23:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Thank you for giving your input and provided a long explanation why their promo posters may not be appropriate to use due to may not meeting certain WP:NFCCP criteria. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted – both MOS:TV and Masem's Talk page message are clear here, and WP:BRD would apply regardless. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Somebody will need to go through this editor's edit history, because their addition of over-sized promotional posters extends beyond just these three articles. I've reverted them at Legendary (TV series) as well, but it looks like there are several more TV series articles that will have to be cleaned up here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: Wait, the editor did massive edits on multiple articles? I didn't even realized that. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, for example, they also added a poster image to Love Life (American TV series) which I assume is too large. When I glanced at their edit history, it looks like they were doing this at other articles as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The files absolutely violate WP:IMAGERES. These are the editor's uploaded files, and their addition to articles have all been reverted now, I took the liberty of reverting the rest myself. Note that their user page informs us that they are a paid contributor from HBO; this is definitely, then, a WP:COI violation. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The editor continues doing the same thing despite violating WP:IMAGERES and WP:CONFLICT. In addition, the editor had also created a HBO Max television article Selena + Chef. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Television splitting into individual episode articles

Recently, I came across The Umbrella Academy (TV series) has been split into individual episode articles. Per Wikipedia:Article splitting (television) WP:SPLIT, WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPINOUT, WP:LENGTH Wikipedia:Article splitting (television) still applies to individual episode pages. Can editors who are familiar with television article splitting, specifically on individual episode articles give an input on this? I looked over the individual episode articles, none of them consist of enough information to warrant their own articles, except for the pilot episode. The rest just contain a plot, production about the names of writer(s) and director(s), and reception from one critic. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• None of the guidelines and essays you linked to is relevant to your question about episode articles. The question is, are the episodes themselves notable? Is there content other than plot and cast and viewing figures? --Gonnym (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  FYI, Wikipedia:Article splitting (television) does applies if you look at the bottom half of the section where it talks about individual episode articles. I don't think the episodes are notable enough, except for the pilot episode. There is notability for tv series itself and the pilot episode only, not each episode. The rest just contain a plot, production about the names of writer(s) and director(s), and reception from one critic. No viewing figures for each episode at all. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I believe we had a discussion similar to this around May 2017, essentially saying if an article is just plot with perhaps 1 or 2 reviews and the viewer figures, it shouldn't exist. I know, per that discussion, it applied to a lot of How I Met Your Mother episode articles. One in particular I adjusted as a redirect was The Broath, and I simply said "WP:PLOTONLY article" as the reason for the redirect. I'm going to search for this past discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yup, here it is: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 8#Which episodes get standalone articles? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  All the standalone episodes articles of The Umbrella Academy (TV series) only contain a plot, production about the names of writer(s) and director(s), and reception from one critic, except the pilot episode. The pilot episode is only one the meets the guidelines of a standalone episode article.— YoungForever^(talk) 14:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The Episode #1 article looks legit. The others do not. They are new so convert to redirects, remove the links from the episode list, and post to the main TV series Talk page explaining what you've done and why. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The entire production section of the episode 1 article is copied from the main article so not even sure if that one should remain either. - Brojam (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Brojam: I didn't even realized that until you mentioned it. That shouldn't even been copied and pasted from the main article as it applies to the whole season 1 rather than just episode 1. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

There aren't exactly any real world content to accompany the standalone episode articles. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Note: The user involved, Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs), also created articles for the episodes of Freelancers and some episodes of The Amazing World of Gumball and Darwin's Yearbook. The user has been warned about this misconduct and it is recommended that they be closely monitored; continued violations of GNG should be reported to WP:ANI. The following AfD's are relevant here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The News (The Amazing World of Gumball) (concerning a specific episode of Gumball, before the other articles were discovered by me)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video Production Company (for Freelancers)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Routine (The Amazing World of Gumball) (bundle of the remaining Gumball and DY episodes)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/iGoodbye. This is an AFD for a similar situation as the discussion above and the AFDs from two weeks ago. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC) -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The editor, Some Dude From North Carolina has continued to restore the first episode's article, We Only See Each Other at Weddings and Funerals, despite there clearly not being a consensus for its existance. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_creating_non-notable_episode_articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, while your recent edit at Supergirl (season 5) is acceptable, it has transformed Back From the Future – Part Two into a broken redirect. Any way to fix this? Same applies for The Last Temptation of Barry Allen, Pt. 2. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of the edit. Two sequential episodes with almost the same name but different episode numbers, directors, writers, air dates, prod codes and viewers. The only common thing is the episode name, although FutonCritic shows that the episode names were different, so it would seem more appropriate to leave them listed as two episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. - Brojam (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is in the middle of another discussion, but... per their titles, they are parted-episodes, irrelevant of credits. This is already a common practice, merging parted episodes; I'm not sure what the issue here is. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

They may be two parts of a story but they are two individual episodes, even to the episode names according to the Futon Critic. As such they should be listed as two separate episodes. I'm not sure combining episodes like this is a common practice. When two episodes air consecutively on the same night they are often combined but not in cases like this. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

They are separate episodes, hence the dashed episode number, I never said otherwise. It's common practice from what I've seen, I'm not phased either way, the other examples still exist elsewhere without issue. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the redirect of We Only See Each Other at Weddings and Funerals. It was redirected per this discussion, but I see multiple editors commenting above that the premiere episode of The Umbrella Academy, which is that episode, actually does meet notability guidelines. I don't see a consensus against that episode having a standalone article here. Would advise taking it to AfD to gain a broader consensus for deletion/redirection – or, even better, finding additional sources for and improving the article! -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I have removed the copy-pasted production section per above:

• The entire production section of the episode 1 article is copied from the main article so not even sure if that one should remain either.
• I didn't even realized that until you mentioned it. That shouldn't even been copied and pasted from the main article as it applies to the whole season 1 rather than just episode 1.

And now we are back to an article with only a plot summary and only one critical reception entry. And now Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 8#Which episodes get standalone articles? once more applies. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox RfC

I've started an RfC to analyze a potential split (and partial merger) of {{Infobox broadcasting network}}. You can find the RfC, information, and discussion at Template talk:Infobox broadcasting network#Proposed split into new templates. Raymie (t • c) 21:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Years or seasons in the infobox

You are invited to a discussion at Talk:Brooklyn Nine-Nine#Years vs seasons regarding use of years vs seasons in the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

eyes on the Jameela Jamil article

We could use some more eyes on the Jameela Jamil article. An editor has been keen to insert weasel-wording to make sourced statements seem somehow dubious. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Joeyconnick has been reverting paragraphs from the section about the subjects personal life without explanation. He is clearly biased towards the subject and won't accept any sources that don't show her in an entirely positive light. This is a violation of WP:NPOV and is bad faith editing. He refuses to engage on the talk page to discuss his reasons for reverting correctly-sourced material.Uakari (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The status quo has been restored in order for a proper discussion to take place at the article's talk page. El Millo (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Crossings TV vs KBTV-CD

It's a great day, and I was motivated to work on the WP:NPP backlog. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to research this network issue, but at first glance it appears that a merge of the 2 titled articles may be needed. Thanks in advance... ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so – the former appears to be a small "television network" (in the true sense, not in the uselessly generic sense), while the latter appears to be an individual TV station. IOW, the latter appears to be an "affiliate" of the former. So they're separate topics. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Preliminary ratings on TV articles

Can I get some advice please? Favre1fan93 keeps adding the Preliminary ratings to the Agents of Shield season finale article here [3] because he thinks ShowBuzz Daily & Programming Insider are combining the numbers. He seems to think that each episode should have a separate rating despite these being the numbers reported by Nielsen. Is he wrong to do this? I've already been reverted by him a few times after rewriting the section to add the finals and explain that they were averaged out.

Nowhere on Wikipedia are Preliminary numbers used on television pages and he's already been reverted on the season article by another editor. Would be appreciated if people could weigh in on this issue. 81.97.84.42 (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be brought to the project. This matter can, and should, be handled on the article talk page. I suggest you move this discussion there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No, because the episode page has a very limited activity base and other editors with more experience on television ratings should be able to weigh into the discussion. I've already explained I'm seeking the thoughts of other editors if Preliminary ratings can be used on television articles like you seem to think. 81.97.84.42 (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It very much could have been handled simply by discussion on the talk page first, and then brought to the project if no consensus was reached. The "finals" sites, Showbuzz and Programming Insider, are providing numbers only for the combined viewing, which is not wrong to have and were included. But we have reliable sources (Deadline) presenting rating shares and viewers for each individual hour, thought initial, which I believe has benefit to include, particularly the text that the first hour had a season-high share. Now if we preface that with "initial" that's fine, but I've also indicated that it's possible once the DVR numbers are out, Programming Insider would provide them per episode, not combined, in which case, the sourcing should be switched over to that. At this point, I'm waiting for that, but I think at least for the episode article, having the initial numbers is helpful given the first hour was much higher than the second. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not unusual for Nielsen to average out a two hour timeslot for the final ratings, this has been done plenty of times for shows in the past. That doesn't mean Preliminary ratings should be used on a television page. I don't believe ShowBuzz Daily or Programming Insider have any control over what Nielsen provides to them and wouldn't average out a two hour timeslot just because they can. They're reporting what has been given to them. 81.97.84.42 (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a problem with including both but stating clearly that the first ones are preliminary? We have the freedom to do that on the episode article. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Disagreement with TVBuff90 over Ratings and Viewership Figures

Recently, I've been having a disagreement with TVBuff90. On the post-1997 U.S. broadcast TV schedules, the number of viewers (in millions) used to be shown, while on the the pre-1997 schedules, household ratings are shown. But a few years ago, TVBuff90 started changing the ratings info on the post-1997 schedules from viewers to household ratings. In mid-2015, I once reverted TrapKing1997 on the 1997-98 schedule (specifically, he had the viewership figures of NBC's Thursday lineup (with the final season of Seinfeld) changed to households), but I eventually backed away because I didn't want to get into an edit war with him.

And what makes TVBuff90 think that these "Tied with..." columns he keeps adding to TV shows' articles are necessary? It's easier to tie in household ratings than viewers. I even saw that he wiped the total-viewership data off the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation article, but luckily not from the articles of the CSI spin-offs (Miami, NY, and Cyber). The articles of the NCIS, Hawaii Five-0 (2010), and Grey's Anatomy have both household-rating and viewership figures listed. I talked to TVBuff90 about this in early April, and the responses he gave ("30 is all you get from Tim Brooks", and "That's just the way it is") weren't very helpful. I did tell him that household ratings were "meaningless" after 1997 because of the rise of cable channels, and the #1 series on U.S. broadcast-TV can barely get a "rating" of 10.0. Those post-1997 ratings are from "The Complete Directory of Primetime TV Shows", and it's unknown how the authors of those books got access to that household-ratings info. TVBuff90 acts like these primetime directories are the only source for TV ratings/viewership, but the viewership averages he's been wiping-out for post-1997 broadcast-TV shows may have sources themselves. I came to this page to request a Third Opinion on this matter, because I need better answers than what TVBuff90 gave instead of just arguing with him endlessly.--Jim856796 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my answers weren't to your satisfaction, but it's just the way I feel about TV ratings. And I realize it's better to get into TV shows based on your own feelings than others'. TVBuff90 (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, as a general principle, I agree with Jim856796 that we should show "Total Viewers" figures as much as possible, and not use "Household ratings" (which is really an "inside baseball" Nielsen ratings thing). So if TVBuff90 is changing figures that were previously Total Viewers, and then fighting being reverted, I'd say that is indeed disruptive... Can you both give more specific details on this conflict? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: I want to start off by asking this: How was consensus reached in the first place that pre-1997 ratings figures would be in households, and post-1997 ratings figures would be in viewers (on the U.S. broadcast TV schedules and elsewhere)? Jim856796 (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jim856796: I actually know nothing about that – hopefully somebody else around here knows... But assuming such a consensus was reached, my guess it was based on a change in Nielsen's own reporting of its ratings figures – my guess is that "Total Viewers" ratings may not have been widely available (on a daily/weekly basis) prior to 1997 (and the reason for that may even have been technological limitations (but I don't know))... All that said, I'll reiterate what I said above – IMO, "Total Viewers" figures should be used preferentially in any case where "Total Viewers" figures are available; we should only use "Household" ratings figures when "Total Viewers" figures are unavailable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: I think it's going to take some time to go through and scrutinize all of TVBuff90's contributions (and those under his previous usernames, DrunkenPeter99, StewieBaby05) just to see how many disruptive edits he's made (specifically those that involve removing viewership figures and replacing them with household ratings). I did, however, see an edit on the The King of Queens article on October 20, 2017 in which TVBuff90 removed that program's annual viewership figures and left only the household ratings. The problem is, The King of Queens is a program that debuted after 1997. I haven't seen TVBuff90 get into or incite any edit wars, though.

I have one solution to this: On the U.S. broadcast-TV schedules and the series-overview tables on TV shows' articles, only the pre-1997 seasons and schedules can have household-ratings figures, while the post-1997 seasons and schedules can have total-viewers figures. For example, on the article for the original Law & Order series, underneath the "Rating" column in its series overview table, the ratings figures for season 1-7 are in households, while the ratings figures for seasons 8-20 are in viewers. Because of these Top-30 limits that TVBuff90 had been enforcing, there'd be a whole bunch of "N/A"'s on these ratings columns of the series overview tables. Jim856796 (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this is fine as at least a temporary solution. My preference is still to purge "Household" ratings in favor of "Total Viewers" whenever possible, but if "Total Viewers" figures are difficult to come by (at least on a weekly basis) prior to 1997, then we are probably stuck with using "Household" ratings prior to 1997. I do agree that ratings that are currently reported (or have been for a long time – e.g. any post-1997 TV show or season) as "Total Viewers" should not be changed to "Household", and I think any move to do say should be reverted, and then reported back here if there is any pushback. There has certainly been no consensus demonstrated here in favor of switching to "Household" ratings. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: Would you, TVBuff90, or anyone else mind if this issue were taken to the Manual of Style talkpage or some other forum, to see what any higher-ups think about this? Also, one last thing I want to ask: What if TVBuff90 were asked to remove the "Tied with" columns at the "Seres Overview" tables and replace them with simpler footnotes under them? I would hate to have to post at TVBuff90's talk page and receive another vague, one-sentence reply from him. Jim856796 (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, though I think even fewer editors follow WT:MOSTV than follow here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've been quite active in the TV ratings side of Wikipedia and I just wanted to pop in here to see if I could help clarify anything or answer any questions. For the article List of most watched television broadcasts in the United States (which I'm currently in the process of updating/improving), I've done extensive research on Gale, Newspapers.com, etc. and the oldest TV season ranking based on viewers (not household ratings) that I (or anyone else on Wikipedia) has found is the 1997 one by the Los Angeles Times for the 1996-97 TV season. It's not based on consensus it's just that there's no info prior to 1997.

Beginning in September 1987 (as the people meter measuring individual viewers was introduced), USA Today (apparently no other newspaper did, from what I've seen) began posting viewership for every primetime show in their weekly "Nielsen ratings" sections, though they never reported a season ranking based on viewership. However, household ratings remained commonplace up until around 2000 when viewership became more commonly reported in the media. Starting in at least May 2000, viewership rankings per week became available online on Zap2it. You can find weekly viewership stuff on List of most watched United States television broadcasts of 2000, 2001, etc.

Household ratings are pretty much irrelevant in 2020 and have been for a long time as they're rarely reported in the media except for Super Bowls, for example, which is mostly for historical comparisons. I would agree that viewership rankings should be used for post 1996-97 TV season rankings. However, I would caution using those numbers in the same column as the household rating as they're completely separate and that would confuse readers. Perhaps it should be added in another column.]

But yeah, for post 2000-shows like CSI and Grey's Anatomy, there's really no reason to be using household ratings as they were so irrelevant only Tim Brooks was reporting them! Heartfox (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Thanks for your input. Jim856796 (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: and @Heartfox: I want to inform both of you that the viewership averages for the CSI spinoffs (Miami and NY) were removed from their respective articles yesterday (July 22), but the edits were not done by TVBuff90 this time. The removals were perpetrated by Alex21. I was going to end this discussion with my previous comment, but in light of this change, I have decided that I'm not going to just yet. Jim856796 (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Jim856796 It appears that the edits were in good faith and only for transclusion purposes, not that the editor wanted to use a certain figure. I don't expect your edits to be reverted. For most articles, the series overview template is transcluded from the episode list (if there is one). I'd recommend changing the column title to "Avg. viewers (millions)", for clarity. Thanks for converting it to viewership numbers. The average reader doesn't know what in the world "Rating" means, especially when there's no wikilink or source provided for those figures. They shouldn't have to read the entire Nielsen ratings article to understand what the column means lol. Using average viewership is much more understandable for the average reader to compare the seasons' popularity, and again, I would say should always be used when the figures are available. Regards, Heartfox (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Heartfox: and @IJBall:: I have just one more question: What if the sources on the earliest U.S. broadcast TV viewership rankings go dead over time and are not kept/made available at the Internet Archive? For example, the 1999-2000 viewership rankings source (at the Variety website) kept re-directing to an article about Index Holdings setting up an office in China (from 2007). I had to go to a German-language source (Quotenmeter.de) for viewership info for that season instead (it was cited at the article for The King of Queens). I think such external links going dead could lead to edit wars on those pages. Jim856796 (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

For something like Variety, even if a webpage goes dead, it is likely/probable that the cite still exists in the print edition – so you'd possibly have to go hunt down the print version and update the source for that... Beyond that, there is a guideline (I can't find it now), that now-"dead" links are still considered to be valid sources under WP:V – sort of "if valid at one time, always valid". That doesn't mean updating to non-dead versions isn't a good idea – it just means that 'dead links' don't have to be removed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I also believe dead links are still valid, but you can find an archived version of the Variety ref at this url with the correct article. You can set the url-status to usurped as well. Heartfox (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: and @Heartfox:: One more thing: I'm not sure about having separate columns for household rating figures and viewership figures on the series overview tables. A possible reason for them being in the same column is to save overall space on the article. And to be fair, I'm one of those people who thought these pre-1997 "rating" figures were millions of viewers while such figures were actually the percentage of households who tunes into a particular program. For example: M*A*S*H's epic series finale had 60.3 million viewers; Dallas's fourth season, in 1980-81, averaged 27.6 million viewers, etc.. Jim856796 (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) § Season naming convention (continued)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) § Season naming convention (continued). -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Infobox television channel?

I've been working on other revamps lately, but I'm starting to take note of some issues with {{Infobox television channel}} and would be curious to hear some thoughts:

• High error rate: I just added a tracking template for unknown parameters this week. The number of page using unknown parameters was 2,702 of a total of 5,657. That's a dreadful error rate nearing 48 percent.
• Potential to merge any parameters from {{Infobox broadcasting network}}: A significant proportion of uses of that template really call for this one, and I'd like to figure out what parameters would have to be brought over (besides those simply having different parameter names).
• Too many services: The infobox supports lots and lots and lots of cable channels, and the norm for this template has caused calls to raise the field beyond 30 satellite channels (see the TPER from earlier this year). But as it is, there are articles with comically long infoboxes, like BabyTV. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE to me suggests we should have a cap that is much lower than the present one, maybe terrestrial coverage and 10 cable/satellite channel positions total, and if there are too many notable providers, perhaps it's best left for a summary in the article body or in the encyclopedia.

I'm not ready for an RfC on this quite yet, but I would like to hear some thoughts on potential improvements and other changes, and this is more open-ended than an RfC. Gonna ping some high-volume contributors to this field and a couple of relevant projects. Raymie (t • c) 03:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Just one point – TV channels and TV networks are not the same thing (at least in the U.S., and I think Canada). Simply: CBS is a broadcast TV network, KPIX-TV is a TV channel (and an affiliate of the former). As such, I doubt it's a good idea to merge the infoboxes. Now, it's possible some articles are using {{Infobox television channel}} when they should be using {{Infobox broadcasting network}} (it's also possible that the latter should be "evolved" to {{Infobox television network}}, and should cover both broadcast and cable TV networks) – I don't know about that. But TV channels and TV networks are definitely not the same thing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: {{Infobox television station}}, which KPIX-TV uses, is not going to be affected (I just gave it a major overhaul). This template really is the one that should become {{Infobox television network}}, especially in light of the policy in WP:NCBC that sets out the definition of "network" for titling purposes to include cable networks (and to which there are quite a few articles still not titled to match!). A significant proportion of uses of {{Infobox broadcasting network}} really belong here. This particular template is used for the following...

• Pay television networks around the world (CNN, Disney Junior (British and Irish TV channel))
• National or regional channels on digital television multiplexes in Europe (BBC Four, Nueve (Spanish TV channel))

A broadcast television network—say, CBS or Solar News Channel—is more similar to a pay network than an individual station, in my opinion, at least in terms of the parameters that make sense for it. Given the high error rate in the television channel template and the fact that I saw quite a few attempts to call television channel template parameter names in {{Infobox broadcasting network}}, it may be that editors are expecting one template to cover all sort of television services (broadcast and pay networks) except individual local stations. Raymie (t • c) 05:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, in that case, the instances where something like {{Infobox television channel}} would be appropriate (basically, like "Channel 12" on the UHF spectrum) is probably too small to justify an infobox template, and it should probably be replaced and deleted. Beyond that, I would advise to going with (a "merged"?) {{Infobox television network}} for both broadcast and cable networks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

An article on a standalone TV station (say, just one transmitter on channel 12) would use {{Infobox television station}}. You're starting to see the point of the activity on these two: to create consistent "radio network" and "television network" infoboxes and remove some of the multiple invitations to error or improper template use. Raymie (t • c) 07:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The Equalizer#See also

I can understand the Callan tv show connection, but is the rest really needed? Govvy (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I think all of them (except Callan) should be removed as there is not actual connection at all, and it looks most like a promotion of the other shows. Edit: I removed them as they were irrelevant. — MrE (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Classification of Regular/significant programming in TV schedules

Greetings....

For the past few weeks, while editing the 2019-20 United States network television schedule, my fellow editor MrE and I felt that there is quite a lot of confusion regarding which programming was significant enough to be included in the schedule and which wasn't. In a few instances filler programming that aired on tv for barely two weeks was included in the schedule, which unnecessarily bulked up the page and made it harder to navigate through. To put an end to this disorder, I opened a discussion on the schedule talk page and proposed that in order to prevent this issue from arising in the future, a criteria/guideline could be included in the schedule which clearly states that in order for a programme to added to the schedule it must air for a minimum of three weeks at a particular slot in the case of fresh episodes and four weeks in the case of encore repeats. The discussion was a successful one and consensus was gained among the five most frequent editors of the page that including this requirement in the schedule was a step in the right direction and was in fact long overdue. Details on this topic and the reason this minimum was decided on are explained at the schedule's talk page under the discussion with a similar title as this one.

Now, getting to the reasons for opening this discussion over here:

• Firstly, to put this proposal on record within a section of WP:TV.
• Secondly, to gain consensus from the wider WikiTV community and to address any concerns regarding this proposal/change.

We feel that this change, like the one which renamed the sections within a schedule from 'Mid-season' and 'Follow-up' to proper seasons like 'Fall', 'Winter' etc will help significantly in improving the quality of these schedules.

Cheers!! TheRedDomitor (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me – one- and two-time "TV specials" should not be put in the TV season schedule grid. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Like I stated in the original discussion, a minimum requirement of three weeks (fresh eps) and four weeks (encores) is completely reasonable for a schedule that spans twelve months. This is a great idea which will make the tv schedules much more easy to both edit and understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshine1191 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. Plus, I think the creation of an article that contains all the previously established guidelines from the schedules should be created to express such things as: the colors assigned to each type of programming, the sub-division of the seasons, and the classification into renewed/cancelled. These kind of guidelines could be applied to every schedule, not only the American ones. On a last note, I think that adding a table at the end of each schedule with the full list of 18-49 ratings and viewership of all the shows (to the US schedules) could be nice to show the actual impact that each show had over the season. Thoughts? — MrE (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Though maybe be careful applying it to TV in other countries, which (again) aren't as standard. Kingsif (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This wiki only have schedules from Brazil, Canada and the U.S. Of course each country should have its own different guidelines, but I think that all of them could be put in the same section in order to standardize the articles. — MrE (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry to bother again, but was thinking maybe to achieve a better range of consensus (or not) a draft should be made with all the guidelines to bring an actual proposal to the project. According to WP:PROPOSAL, it needs various steps to become a proper guideline, but I guess that as it may compromise many articles, it could be included under a new section into the Manual of Style/Television. Any thoughts? — MrE (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Television episodes in multiple parts has been nominated for deletion

Category:Television episodes in multiple parts, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, along with 2 of its sub-categories.
.A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge - Batman TAS and The New Batman Adventures

See WT:COMICS#Batman: The Animated Series and The New Batman Adventures. Darkknight2149 15:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

V-Chip and how it relates to the dawn of satellite progression

Hello all!

I was hoping to add a section with the reference of how technology was used in the 70s and 80s excluding the 90s.

Specifically, how satellites or other advanced technologies were driving consumer-grade technologies.

I am aware of the regions the V-Chips were used so my insight is the United States.

I believe it could be an interesting article because of how knowledge was progressed through this age in public schools.

I think this section is warranted or for the sake of argument a paragraph touching these real years and how we no longer use V-Chips.

Thank you,

SPiZlE — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPiZlE (talk • contribs) 19:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Alternatives to WP:TVPLOT

I'm asking this question on behalf of Arunya Sakthi, who twice, in good-faith, has attempted to add bulky plot content to Baal Veer, like here. While WP:TVPLOT wants to limit Plot section summaries to 500 words, Indian TV series don't have traditional western "seasons" and sometimes just everything is considered Season 1, and other times the network will just arbitrarily call something S2, S3, etc. There is no standard NN episodes = 1 season system. This is evident if we notice that the Baal Veer article claims that show has 2 seasons, but 1280 episodes.

Now if someone wanted to sit down and assemble a list of episodes, and write summaries of each of those 1280 eps, that would be fine within community guidelines. Assuming that nobody's going to do that, and assuming that the point of an encyclopedia is to communicate key aspects of the plot to readers, what else could Arunya do here? I notice that One Life to Live storylines (1990–1999) and similar articles briefly summarise key aspects of important arcs. Is this something the user could attempt? Is this something the community would oppose? If it's fine, should that be done in the main article, or should it be forked? What other options are there? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

If there are no traditional seasons then can they be approximated based on years, i.e. a summary for the main plot points in a given year that is the same length as a season summary would be? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Potentially, but it might get a bit floppy if arcs start in one year and end in another. I don't know anything about the series, so I don't know how tidy or amorphous the arcs are. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

What I would suggest, and what I think Adamstom was suggesting, is that, given that seasons are normally released one year each, the series gets 500 words for every year it aired. In this case, since "season one" aired from 2012 to 2016, that would be equivalent to four seasons, i.e. 2000 words, while "season two" aired from 2019 to 2020, equivalent to two seasons, i.e. 1000 words. El Millo (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

500 words for about 15 hours of run time (45m x 20 episodes), or ~33 words per hour ? Just extend that arbitrarily. We already allow plot summaries for 20m episode content in the 100-200 word realm (which TBH is somewhat obscene). --Izno (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have to add that outside of the US, there are basically no standard 'season' lengths, so asking for special treatment for India is strange. They can have a really long season... but the UK, for example, has a 'genre' called continuing drama which is basically exactly that: continuing. Seasons are arbitrary lengths for how many weeks they want it to run, sometimes being one hour-long episode every week plus a few specials and running summer to the Christmas after (that's a particularly extreme example, but lasting 40+ episodes is not uncommon). Nobody writing for those articles seems to have had a problem yet. And plot length restrictions are for page size, so unless there's a really good reason it shouldn't be extended. Kingsif (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not exactly clear on what your recommendation might be. Also the plot keeps getting longer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

My "recommendation"? India isn't special, just stick to PLOT. Kingsif (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Masked Singer (American TV series)/archive2

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Masked Singer (American TV series)/archive2. Heartfox (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/2020 Infobox television channel redesign proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/2020 Infobox television channel redesign proposal. Raymie (t • c) 07:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Fast N' Loud episodes#Split

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Fast N' Loud episodes#Split. starship.paint (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Lovecraft Country (TV series) § Production codes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lovecraft Country (TV series) § Production codes. This discussion is about production codes from end credits. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Editors are still needed. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Live PD: Roll Call § RFC on tables in the article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Live PD: Roll Call § RFC on tables in the article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Warrior Nun (TV series) § Positive reviews

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Warrior Nun (TV series) § Positive reviews. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TVPLOT with regards to a crossover

Hi, just wondering where a TV crossover article (covering 5 episodes or something) would fit in to MOS:TVPLOT. Would it be classified as a series article or an episode article? I'm wondering how the 840-word plot (in prose) in Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse) fits the MOS. Heartfox (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Netflix top 10 daily charts

I would like to ask if Netflix's daily top 10 chart per country can be used on pages? I'm not sure if the same standers are applied to TV series charts, but per Wikipedia:Record charts, "Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used", meaning you can't add Amazon, Spotify, and iTunes charts. So I'm not sure if this applied to TV series and Netflix's daily top 10 charts. For example, saying XXX series trended as #1-10 in xyz country for # days. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably not, because it changes daily and we can't keep up on a daily basis. I don't think there are reliable sources that actually keep track of that. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Main vs. Starring cast

Hi there, so a question for you all. In an article where we're trying to identify the main cast members, if the show's credits only list the singular "star" of the series, what do we do then? Context: This edit made in good faith, lists Rupali Ganguly as Main, because she plays the title role. I can't check the Hindi credits, but I believe Noobie anonymous suggested on my talk page that only the star is credited. What would you recommend in this case? It seems very hard to fathom that a narrative series could only have one main cast member, unless it's a monologue. Should we omit the Main/Recurring labels? Only have one person in Main? Something else? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a special case. With most TV shows, there's an "ensemble cast" that is credited in the show's front credits, which clearly establishes them as "main" cast. It seems like in the case of the show like this, there's only one "front-credited" cast member. In a case like this, I would advise using "Lead" (note: "lead roles" are generally titular roles, as seems to be the case here) rather than "Main", and putting the rest under either a "Main" or "Supporting" subheading rather than "Recurring". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, to say clearly the practice of crediting the main casts is not seen in the Indian television series currently as evident by this reference [4]. The credits displayed only consist of the writers, composers, directors, producers, production house, network, etc in all current Indian series. The stars of the series are considered as main based on the main lead theme as like in Anupamaa which is the story of a homemaker Anupamaa who tries to carve an identity for her; Love story of Dhruv and Sonam in Lockdown Ki Love Story where they both are considered in the main cast. Noobie anonymous (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Some shows do not have "front credits". In those cases, it is entirely appropriate to base these decisions on the 'end credits'. If the 'end credits' don't really make any distinctions (an example of this in the U.S. was I Am Frankie), then either everybody is 'Main' cast (i.e. no 'Lead' distinction), or at least those who are credited for the vast majority of the episodes are. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Melodrama

Is there a better word for one? do we classify TV shows as a melodrama, i.e., is a 2017 Philippine melodrama? See also [[Category:Philippine melodrama television series]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.40.241 (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

There's also telenovela, but it depends on what secondary sources classify it as. Kingsif (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Soap opera? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

as I've checked, these shows are indeed soap operas. main contributors, creators or fans of these shows, insist on using the term melodrama, similar to how korean tv shows are classified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.40.241 (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

One Plus One (TV Program)

I notice the recent creation of One Plus One (TV Program). I'm pretty sure "TV Program" (with a capital 'P') isn't the right disambiguator, but I wasn't sure what the right disambiguator is: is it "TV program", "TV programme", "TV series" or "TV show"? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NCTV, it would be "programme" with a lowercase p, per Australian English (for an Australian series). -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Thanks. I've moved the article to One Plus One (TV programme). DH85868993 (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that's wrong – there was a long discussion about this, but it was concluded that "program" is correct in Australian English. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

OK. I've moved it to One Plus One (TV program). I'm guessing this is the "long discussion". Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting... As an Australian myself, I would have said programme. But if that's what the RFC says, then by all means. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:I Can See Your Voice (American TV series) § Merger discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:I Can See Your Voice (American TV series) § Merger discussion. Heartfox (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Episode list format.

I would appreciate opinions about the format of Draft:The Ellen DeGeneres Show (season 18), specifically comparing this layout to this layout. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The second is terrible, and almost surely violates MOS:ACCESS. So it should be the first one...

All that said, I'm a firm believer that Talk Shows should not have episode listings like this, and if anyone ever wants to start a campaign to delete episode listings for Talk Shows please make me aware!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Definitely the first one. I seen other talk shows, that is the usual format or (common practice format) for talk shows. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree, the first one is much better. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Baywatch Season 9 episode table issue

While editing the filmography in the George Lazenby article, he was in a season season 9 episode of Baywatch. So I went to list of episodes and seen the season 9 table is messed up. I was able to fix the header, but I've been racking my brain trying to figure out how to fix the rest of the table. I don't know what to do. If anybody can figure out the issue, that would be greatly appreciated. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I found the edit that caused the problem. In fact, a specific editor had been making a series of unnecessary edits to the article (adding "parenthetical cast" to the episode summaries, but this is completely extraneous, as that is what the 'Cast' section, etc. is for) for approximately the last month, so I ended up just rolling back List of Baywatch episodes to its August 9 version. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

In general, I would say the suite of Baywatch articles has a lot of low-quality editing going on, so it would probably be good if more editors would start watching these (and start trying to clean them up...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: Another issue is a lot of summaries for season 9 are way too long. I wouldn't be the best one to fix that. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

And pretty much immediately after I edited the article, it was hit with apparent date vandalism. Again, I suspect this kind of thing has been going on for a long time at the Baywatch articles. Definitely could use more eyes here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: It would be good to get the articles protected due to persistent vandalism. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Fishhead2100, already requested. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: With all the vandalism happening on the Baywatch articles, I can't see why they wouldn't. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It took over 24 hours for an admin to page protect List of Baywatch episodes after Alex 21 requested to be page protected. I wondered why it took that long. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Kuruluş: Osman

I know WP is very stingy about fair use. Is the use of the 2 season posters at this article ok? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

No. Fails WP:NFCC#3a. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica

What's our thoughts on how Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series) and Galactica 1980 are laid out, with their episodes being listed at List of Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series) and Galactica 1980 episodes? Should they be split and merged into the parent articles, as separate series, or kept as is? -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to mostly leave these articles where they are (though they both need to be (re-)sectioned to better follow MOS:TV), though I would advise moving the LoE article to List of Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series) with a redirect from List of Galactica 1980 episodes to the former... But this is a weird case where the two are sort of "separate series" and "two seasons of the same series" at the same time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I've reformatted the article, because it was definitely an absolute mess. I could support the move, I'll see what others have to say about it. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems both LoE can be moved to their parent article. --Gonnym (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Coding mishap?

Hey all, could I please impose upon someone to look at this well-meaning edit by Ahecht and try to suss out what the intention was? The result was that the table is malformed and I'm not exactly sure how to fix it. (Also, Ahecht hasn't been active in a few days.) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, fixed! Ahecht made a number of edits and episode table subtemplates back in July that ended up being deleted; I cleared all of those away today, but apparently a few were missed. Just perform the same edit I did to the article, and it'll fix it. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 16:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Alchemiya notable?

Alchemiya is a website that has been called "Netflix for Muslims". Here is some coverage The National, Arab News, The Guardian, Dawn, Irish Tech News, BBC News, Saudi Gazette over a period of 2014-2018. Is the topic notable enough to merit an article? VR _talk 19:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say so (and I'm kind of a deletionist). Those articles demonstrate non-trivial coverage, so I think you have enough to meet WP:GNG. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mikeblas, I'm now starting a Draft:Alchemiya. I'll probably ping you for feedback when I have something decent ready.VR _talk 04:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

mySimon and CBS template

Is this really that notable? Or should the article be merged somewhere else with a redirect? Maybe one of the other articles in the template? Also, this template is rather large!!

On another note; the Template:CBS is somewhat strange with that logo to the right there. Govvy (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

mySimon doesn't look notable to me – probably merits a sentence at the CBS article, and nothing more... Templates are mostly out of my bailiwick. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hollywood Reporter ratings articles

FYI, The Hollywood Reporter is now changing how it reports ratings numbers based on changes Nielsen has made. I know THR is rarely used to report final ratings, but sometimes there are small blurbs in their reports that discuss how an episode did in relation to past episodes. Still figured it was worth mention for members of the project who may not have seen this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 Wonderful news! This means we can always use something other than SBD or Programming Insider in case their reliability (being run by 2 people each, or if one of the sites goes down) changes. I'm surprised Porter didn't make the switch earlier... he was at TV by the Numbers before moving to THR so he knows the fast nationals articles in the morning are useless anyways lol... I agree this will also be useful for analysis/prose in articles as SBD just gives straight numbers most of the time. Heartfox (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:I Can See Your Voice (German game show) § Merger proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:I Can See Your Voice (German game show) § Merger proposal. Rfl0216 (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ratched (TV series) § Production codes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ratched (TV series) § Production codes. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Adams and Eve

Ida Lupino and her husband, actor Howard Duff, starred together in the late 1950s sitcom called Mr. Adams and Eve. The played a movie star couple as more comedic situations spun around them.

I find it a little baffling that this series does not have its own page here on Wikipedia. I realize that it may not have been a big hit, but it pivotal in Lupino and Duff's career, and most especially their marriage. It was often thought of as a way of keeping the feuding real-life couple from divorcing.

Can something be done to make a Mr. Adams and Eve page here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.189.161.163 (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The above message was on Talk:Ida Lupino. Don't know how you handle things like this, but I am posting this copy of the message here. — Maile (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Show likely would pass WP:TVSHOW, but for TV shows that old it's hard to find decent sourcing to irrefutably demonstrate notability – you'd almost be forced to hit the newspaper archives for something like this. (Though, in this case, it's likely the show would be covered in biographies for Lupino or Duff as well.) So, in short, making Wiki articles for old TV series like this is a non-trivial proposition. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Please come participate in discussion on V Wars

Please come participate in the discussion on the V Wars talk page regarding whether a review from the site WhatCulture should be used in the article. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Help with article about well-known television producer/writer

Hi. There are a series of omissions and a few mistakes in the article about television producer and writer Adam McKay, known for executive producing, directing and co-writing shows such as Succession (TV series) and Eastbound & Down. He also wrote and directed the films The Big Short (film) (2015), Vice (2018 film). And he directed and co-wrote Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004), Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006), Step Brothers (2008), The Other Guys (2010), and Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013), all of which he co-wrote with creative partner Will Ferrell. I have a conflict of interest as I work for McKay. I’ve written up proposals to improve the article as “Request Edits” here: Talk:Adam McKay#“Help with article updates/corrections” I’ve tried my best to abide by all Wikipedia policies - including NPOV and Verify but it needs an independent review to abide by Wikipedia policies. While I have added these to the Request Edit official queue, it appears that almost no one is answering this queue anymore -- requests have been sitting there since July. So if anyone here might like to review this article, highly relevant to this project, I would really appreciate it. Please feel free to reach out with questions. Thanks! Losangeles48 (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Franchise articles

What's the better (or more accepted) layout for a franchise article? Arrowverse (see the Series, Characters, Crossovers), or Criminal Minds (franchise) (see the Series, Characters, Crossovers). -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer the Arrowverse version of the Series and character tables. I don't like either Crossover tables. --Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. I wanted to check if there was a clear consensus to stick to the Arrowverse format before converting any article, especially given that the latter article (I've found at least a half-dozen that use this format) uses background colours that are highly very likely to be imcompatible WCAG-wise with the colours of a link. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No matter what, those colors have got to go. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently they're a common thing. The other similar articles I found were Law & Order (franchise), Chicago (franchise), Lenkov-verse, NCIS (franchise), CSI (franchise). -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

My eyes, the goggles do nothing! Most of those are hideous OVERCOLORED abominations, and should be reformatted for that alone. I also seriously doubt they comply with WP:WCAG. The Arrowverse article is restrained by comparison. (So awful, reminds me of MySpace and Geocities.) -- 109.76.142.189 (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

An unregistered user keeps adding uncited content to a page I'm editing

Hi to all! I recently made edits to this page (my edits can be found here), as it was listed on Cleanup listing for WikiProject Pakistan. This page is longer then it needs to be. There is a huge, unnecessary list of programmes aired/currently airing on this channel, and have no citations. I left a message on the article's talk page about the edits. No one replied and I went forward with it (WP:BOLD). Then, an unregistered user, edited the article and basically reverted it back to its original state. That IP pops up in the Edit History every now and then. How am I to proceed with this. Can this be treated as vandalism? The user is unregistered, so I can't ping them and talk directly. Need help. SuddenlyMangoes (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say if no one has objected on the Talk page, then you are justified in making the changes. If an IP undoes them without comment, it's Disruptive editing. If they persist, I would apply for page protection. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have reverted the edits. If they happen again, I shall apply for page protection. SuddenlyMangoes (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Numbers of episodes on an upcoming series

I've started a discussion here about whether the number of episodes in an upcoming miniseries (Zack Snyder's Justice League) should be present in its infobox. Sock (tock talk) 11:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Help figuring out potential article split names

There is currently a discussion for List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors to potentially split off content into two new articles and some additional input on what those article names should be would be appreciated. You can find the discussion here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Masked Singer (American TV series)/archive2

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Masked Singer (American TV series)/archive2. Heartfox (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The question about Fargo 3 main cast

Goran Bogdan (a henchman who dies early in the series), has a decidedly supporting role. However, I do not understand why in the article, for three years now the falsity that this is not the case has to pass. On this page you can see in detail the Main cast of Fargo 3 and the recurring cast (Bogdan considers that he is not even included in the recurring cast). If you wanted to change the section you could quote this note. On the contrary, what note would you quote to show that Bogdan is part of the Main cast?

Main cast

• Ewan McGregor as Emmit and Ray Stussy
• Carrie Coon as Gloria Burgle
• Michael Stuhlbarg as Sy Feltz
• Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Nikki Swango
• David Thewlis as V.M. Vargas​

Recurring cast

• Scoot McNairy as Maurice LeFay
• Jim Gaffigan as Donny Mashman
• Shea Whigham as Moe Dammick
• Karan Soni as Dr. Homer Gilruth
• Fred Melamed as Howard Zimmerman
• Thomas Mann as Thaddeus Mobley
• Hamish Linklater as Larue Dollars​

--Kasper2006 (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

See my response here. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Drovethrughosts and Radiphus are 100% correct here, and you are not – everything comes from crediting: that's all that matters. Trying to do anything else is pure WP:OR. The show's producers, not the "audience", gets to decide who is "main cast" (credited), and who is not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Afd

I would appreciate if someone give their input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cplustv (2nd nomination). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Category for appearances on specific show

Is it permissible to make a category for people who have appeared on Den 11. time? --Ysangkok (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Mango (Saturday Night Live) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mango (Saturday Night Live) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mango (Saturday Night Live) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Right cite (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Casey Calvert (actress) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Casey Calvert (actress) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Calvert (actress) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Notifying here, due to redlink turned to blue for pages:

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Film crew
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Film producers

Thank you, Right cite (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Production codes

There's been a bit of discussion across multiple articles about production codes lately, I think there needs to be some agreement on it. Are production codes needed if the production order is the same as the airing order? They provide no further information in that case, and are basically duplicate information. The unique "format" of the production code (like "1MBD01" or "T27.13951") really has zero importance to the reader. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

As I've sort of implied elsewhere, this is not something that should be in the MOS, IMO. Basically, local article consensus should dictate this. I do feel strongly that prod. codes need to either be secondarily sourced, or it needs to be clear that they're from the episodes' end credits (many, many articles fail on the latter score, and that is possibly a discussion worth having – whether we need to add some kind of 'note' to the articles of series that have prod. codes in the end credits)... But whether prod. codes should be included or not should be determined at the article level. While I personally think that prod. codes are superfluous for series in which every episode is broadcast in the production order (and, FTR, this is actually not that common), I also don't feel strongly enough about it that it should be "written into the MOS". In general, MOS's should not be used to "micromanage" issues like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

That's why I posted here at the WikiProject instead of the MoS, I agree that it doesn't need inclusion there, so we can get a WikiProject consensus instead of a MoS addition. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't have production codes listed, but that's just me. The unique "format" of the production code (like "1MBD01" or "T27.13951") really has zero importance to the reader. says it all. :^) --Izno (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This ignores why including production codes are often important – because they delineate the intended story development of TV series on the production/writing side. This order was often ignored when series were broadcast in the 1970s and 1980s which often frustrated the viewing audience, and led to questions like "What is the proper order of the episodes to watch this series?!" That's why the prod. codes have been included, and why they are often of actual encyclopedic interest to our readers. While it's true this has been much less of an issue over the past two decades, before this it was a real issue, and will be an issue even for some relatively recent TV series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

For which I would rather see a prose explanation where necessary. Adding a column to these tables just to attempt to indicate (badly) the One True Watch Order is essentially something for Fandom (Wikia). It's cruft for us. --Izno (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It's absolutely not "cruft". And a text explanation will often be inferior to just showing the prod. codes. Sometimes, the answer is "Show, don't tell." --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree when it's a lot of episodes aired out of production order. However, if it's a case like List of Arrow episodes, where the only episodes aired out of order in its 170-episode is run are two in Season 4 (episodes 4 and 5), I'd say prose is better, which it already is at Haunted (Arrow)#Production. Otherwise we're including unnecessary content for the other 168 episodes. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, but for the series that were aired in production order, the production codes serve no purpose. El Millo (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

And, as I said above, in those cases I personally don't think the prod. code column is needed. But neither would I insist that this "should" be the case. It's just that if I was asked on the question, I would agree with "Remove the prod. code column if all of the episodes of a TV series are aired in production order." The problem with that, of course, is that you won't know that until a series has finished production, so it's not a clear-cut issue for "currently running" TV series... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

If there's an indication that it is sourced from the episode itself or a secondary source, I don't see a problem with them, even if a series is aired in production order. It might be the only thing showing what order a series was filmed. Especially for unique ones that aren't just sequential numbers or have some letter combination, I think that's actually somewhat interesting and you can't find that info much elsewhere. Heartfox (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. The production codes are unique in their own ways. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

And what do they do for the reader? Yeah, they may ne unique and "interesting", but what does "1MBD01" or "T27.13951" mean for the average reader? -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

That they can use production codes to search episodes for certain TV series. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're referring to. Search for episodes from certain TV series? Why not just use the name of the episode for that? El Millo (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you show an example for this? As the comment above supports, for example, I'm not going to search for "T27.13951" when looking for an episode, I'm going to look for "Starling City episode Arrow". -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Readers can have the option to rearrange the episode order they preferred when they watch it even if they are aired/released in order. A reader can lookup "T27.13951" to check if it was aired in order or not. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If there is meant to be an alternate airing order, then the article can state so when supported by a source; for example, Supergirl (season 1), List of Futurama episodes and List of Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes. Until then, it's funcruft that serves just for the reader's watching pleasure, and remember, Wikipedia is not a television guide. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I also don't find the production codes useful. To be honest, until reading this discussion I didn't know that the reason we included them in the first place was so this field can be used to get the "intended" watching order, as it was used on so many articles, most of which had the same exact production and broadcast order. It is also used on episode infoboxes, which give no context at all to it, as you can't see the before or after numbers. If this is really the intention, then I'd say that the correct way to do this would be:

a) use only on list of episodes and remove from infoboxes;

b) use only on list of episodes where the orders are very different. Two episodes switching broadcast order should not warrant the addition of the list. A note should be added instead;

c) When used on list of episodes, a note should be added to the production code header explaining the column. This can even be generated automatically from the template.

--Gonnym (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Have to agree with Gonnym and Alex 21 here... they aren't useful and shouldn't be included unless there is a significant difference between production order and release/airing order (for example, season 1 of Instinct, in which case it was actually glaringly apparent watching the series that the episodes were airing out of order, so much so I wasn't sure why there wasn't more press coverage of it). A one-off switch like with Supergirl (TV series) is better handled with a note and if they simply ape the episode numbers, effectively, then they are just wasted space. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Netflix original ended series template split

I have proposed a template split for {{Netflix original ended series}} and the discussion can be found here. Since this template falls under this WikiProject and templates are not listed in Article Alerts, I am posting here. If anyone has an oppinion please discuss. Thanks Terasail^[Talk] 15:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Need example of series article with built-in episode list

Anybody have any examples of an article about a TV show that has a list of episodes incorporated into that article? All the shows I can think of have standalone episode list articles. I'm trying to find a decent example to point editors to, should they want to incorporate a LoE in an article. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

There's The Boys. El Millo (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As of right now Stranger Things is a great example, solid article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you both. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The season article of The House of Flowers (season 1) is GA and has a good one (The House of Flowers (season 2) is GA but the episode list is less detailed). Kingsif (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

web-television?

I think it is time to stop using that term to refer to streaming series... it just looks weird and it is not a common term used for these shows. Not a single reliable source refers to Netflix or Hulu or Disney Plus (etc.) shows as "web television" shows. It's better to just call them streaming shows or in this day and age is it even necessary to distinguish in that way from other cable shows? Spanneraol (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I would support this. As long as, by the same token, we also acknowledge that films released via streaming are effectively a subset if Direct-to-video/Video-on-demand movies. But "streaming television series" or "direct-to-streaming television series" would be preferable to "web television series" IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

That works.. does anyone have any objections to replacing "web television" with "streaming television"? Spanneraol (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

My only thing is in many instances where "web television" is used, it is linked to web television. We also have streaming media and streaming television, so if the change happens (which makes sense to me), what article do we link to? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I would go with streaming television. Also, I would advise that the web television article either undergo an overhaul, or (more likely) its content should be merged into streaming television. IOW, there used to be web series, and now there's streaming television, but there has never really been anything called "web television" – I agree with Spanneraol that this is almost entirely an invention of Wikipedia editors... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Generally I agree that web television shouldn't be used, I've never heard anyone talk about "web television" - where is this phrase commonly used? (Though I have heard of webisodes - but I'm totally unfamiliar with the phrase - which doesn't seem to be used accurately, looking at web television; surely something that is not eligible for a Webby Award is not web television!) I've tried removing it or replacing it with better terms a couple of times over the years, and typically an editor gets stubborn but provides no references that is indeed "web television", without providing any references of a given series being referred to this way. Also problematic is that some shows, such as Cosmos, stream and then are later aired as new content on mainstream networks in their country of origin. And in many cases, the episode airs in other markets on broadcast television - and is indistinguishable.

Also, we are frequently seeing the term "web television" used in the lead, "streaming television" also seems like overkill - unless we change all the leads for thousands of network shows to "broadcast television". Isn't "television" good enough until you get into broadcast information - particularly as more and more people stream everything over the web - and shows jump back and forth between streaming, cable, and network TV? Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Possibly... Another approach would be in the same way ledes say something like Gilligan's Island is a comedy television series that was broadcast on CBS from...", for the "streaming series" the ledes could be changed to say something like The Society is an American mystery teen drama television series created by Christopher Keyser, that was released via streaming on Netflix on May 10, 2019. The latter gets the same idea across, without saying "web television series", but while still including the term "streaming"... So this is an alternative approach. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I like this approach. Nfitz is correct that many shows originally released for streaming are later re-purposed for broadcast.. Star Trek Discovery and Swamp Thing are two recent examples... I just see no reason at all to use the made up web television term that makes it seem like these are all webisodes. It seems like sometime back someone used that and it became standard for some reason. Spanneraol (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I was gonna say... can't we just call them plain "television series"? And then explain how they were released/aired/what have you? If their format is either a 30-minute-esque or 60-minute-esque episodic chunk, they are effectively TV series as in the days of yore; they just reach people via different means. I guess that begs the question of whether we should continue making distinctions between "TV films" and "film films" but at least in the case of TV series it seems relatively non-controversial. I suppose Quibi's short-form "episodes" might confuse things slightly, but those seem to be the exception, not the rule. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I support this! Change and link to "streaming television" instead of "web" TV per above, or IJBall's phrasing. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

So can we start removing those web television links? I think we should use IJBall's language "an American..... television series that was released via streaming on Netflix". Spanneraol (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I would say yes, as no one here has objected to the idea. Start making changes – if there is any pushback, cite this WT:TV discussion as evidence that there is a consensus that "web television" is not a real "thing". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I have just revised The Society (TV series) thusly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I think if something has only been released on streaming (say like Orange is the New Black), we should just change "web television" to "streaming television". And in an example like Star Trek Discovery or Swamp Thing, that had life elsewhere on a broadcast network, then perhaps IJBall's wording should be used. But I also think, if I'm being honest, IJBall's wording is a bit clunky, when a simple solution is just the web to streaming change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I support the change. Starzoner (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the general point is that we don't refer to "broadcast television series" or "cable television series", so why should we refer specifically to just "streaming television series"? Most "regular" TV series ledes are worded along the lines of "...is a television series broadcast on [X] from [A] to [B]." The big difference with streaming is that seasons are usually released "all at once" which complicates the "...is a television series released via streaming by [X] from [A] to [B]." I don't necessarily have an answer for this, but I do think "streaming television series" is every bit as clunky as "web television series" even if streaming television is a "thing" and web television really isn't.
P.S. I stand by my earlier point that web television should be merged and redirected to the streaming television article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The big difference with streaming is that seasons are usually released "all at once" Hmm, maybe just Netflix. Most anime websites do not and I do not think Hulu/CBS All Access/Amazon do so. --Izno (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It depends on the show.. Netflix is the only one that consistently does that.. Amazon Prime has done it for some shows as has Hulu but both also have shows that stream weekly... and Disney Plus and Apple Plus both do weekly releases. Still I think i'm of the opinion that they should all just be tv series. Spanneraol (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely with the removal of "web television"; I've always found this odd and have personally stayed from using this phrasing myself. It should also be noted that there's several streaming shows that have been added to "web series" categories (Category:American comedy web series, as an example); these should also be removed. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Listing upcoming episodes

Hello there, I just need help to make sure if it's allowed to list, with reliable sources, titles, airdates and production staffs for upcoming episodes that have not yet been released in their respective table and if it's permissible for foreign series to use an unofficial provisionnal english title, literaly translated from the original one while waiting for the official english title from the licensed company to be known? Or should it stay blank until then? And same question for foreign series without any official licensing in english at all? Need a general opinion on that matter as it is rather treated inconsistently on some articles. Closesophy (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, Closesophy. I would say regarding the first question: yes, you can absolutely include titles, credits, airdates for upcoming TV episodes as long as reliable sources are included alongside the info via inline citations. The translated episode titles do need to be sourced as well, so editors should not be the ones translating, as that would fall under original research. I do think those titles should stay blank if there a reliable source cannot be provided yet. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that it is currently controversial to list "future" episodes when all you have is the episode title and the air date. In general, I would say that the WP:TV regulars want to see at least three pieces of (sourced) info (e.g. title, air date, and episode director) before adding future episodes to an episodes table. Also, specifically "inline" citations are not necessarily "required" if column source(s) in the table verify the requisite information. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input, do you know where I could find a sort of guidelines that would agree with the first point? Or has it never find the need to be pointed as is it would be considered common sense? As for the translated titles, after reading WP:ORIGINAL, I came across WP:TRANSCRIPTION and WP:NOENG which both state otherwise if I'm not mistaken: "Faithfully translating sourced material into English [...] is not considered original research.", "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations." So why a literral translation of the english titles would not be accepted if there is no translation published by reliable sources about a foreign article? What about a series that never got localized in any english speaking countries, or episodes that never aired outside of the country of origin for censorship reasons? Leaving the original title without any translation won't be pleasing to read for english readers in my opinion. Closesophy (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I've never seen this rule of three before, always a rule of two (director/writer, title/airdate, title/writer, etc). Hence a lot of tables using WGA as a source, which provides titles and writers, but not airdates. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

An episode title for a future episode without an airdate is a particularly silly situation – something like that should never be added to an episode table IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily. See American Gods (season 3), as an example. Ten-episode season, all titles and writers are available. There's no reason not to list it as a table. Or Star Trek: Discovery (season 3), where we knew there'd be a weekly episode between October 15 and January 7, but we didn't know the order of the episodes; same case recently at The Boys (2019 TV series). -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The American Gods example there should not be done IMO – hide the table for now, and put the episodes info in prose or something, over the short term. But two fields is not enough to justify an entire episode table IMO, esp. if there are no air dates. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Why do airdates define a table? They have no more or less important than the other credits listed in the table, and as far as I've alway seen, WP:TV has always used the rule of two for including a table or row. I'm interested in seeing the discussions or regular edits where it's apparently been controversial to do this? -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so you're just against using a table to show the info, not against showing the info per se. That makes more sense. In your opinion, how many complete fields should be available in order to warrant the info being in a table? El Millo (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with IJBall. Even though it is traditionally any two pieces that make a table, it also traditionally includes the airdate; the recent usage of the WGA info to put together episode tables with just episode names and writers, and then those stupid notes "listed in order on website of WGA"—so tiresome and such a violation of WP:NORUSH and WP:CRYSTAL. I think waiting for the airdates makes sense precisely because of that tiresome explanatory "episodes listed in order of the WGA website" note: the primary order of these tables is defined by airdate or episode number (i.e. sequence). Putting together a table before that sequence is known is overkill to the max. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Those notes aren't in use anymore, due to the fact that WGA now displays designated episode numbers. So, technically, the American Gods table actually has four cells of information available for each row. I'm still not sure on why airdates define a table, since again, they have no more or less important than the other credits listed in the table, especially since an episode table constitutes episodes, so airdates are really secondary information after the details of the episodes themselves. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: I think a "rule of three" is a good rule of thumb, esp. if one of the three fields is an air date. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm still curious as to what makes the airdate more important/held in higher value than the rest of the credits of an episode. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"Release" is generally the thing that makes it no longer "WP:CRYSTAL" – that's true of both television and film. Production starting is the thing that makes it "totally not WP:CRYSTAL", but release is the thing that pushes it out of being "WP:CRYSTAL" entirely. So, yeah, that's important. There are series that have had entire episodes produced, only to see that series (or season) never actually get released (we used to have an article for the U.S. series Waterfront which was an example of this). I doubt we'd ever do an episode table for a "TV series" with nothing but unreleased episodes, regardless of what production info we had for them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

But we would still be listing the content, just as prose vs. table, so the CRYSTAL issue still isn't resolved. Listing it in a table as opposed to prose doesn't mean that it's a violation, there's no difference between the two. How does the manner of display affect CRYSTAL?

As a point of interest, Star Trek: Phase II is a series with only unreleased episodes and an episode table of scripts. Here's another past example where episodes were listed though not aired, and it meets this new rule of three (title, director, writer). -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with Alex. Up until this point, I thought general consensus was if there were 2 pieces of information that could allow an episode to be added in sequential order, a table could be created. In that, if the table has full in on episodes 1 and 2, and a director and writer is known for ep 3, we could show that. And in the same case, 1 and 2 are fully added, but a title gets revealed for episode 6, that goes as prose below the table. I don't think there was any issue with using 2 pieces of info, and now trying to update that to having 3 pieces of info. To IJBall's point about creating a table for a series that never releases, if we somehow had a full season's worth of episodic info for an upcoming show (be it titles, directors, and/or writers) and that never releases, at that point I'm sure the table would probably be adjusted or converted, so it isn't like it would stay like that. I'm not seeing how that's a CRYSTAL issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Also agree with Alex and didn't think creating episode tables with two parameters was controversial at this point. This has nothing to do with CRYSTAL, which forbids unverified speculation. We're talking about information cited with reliable sources here. -- Wikipedical (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It is controversial – tables are supposed to be used to facilitate presenting lots of data to readers. If there's not "lots of data", tables should not be used. (I see this same issue all the time on the WP:FILMOGRAPHY end as well.) In addition, there are definitely WP:CRYSTAL issues involved here, and I'm not the only editor that thinks so. A smattering of "future", but sourceable, content belongs in prose, not in a table. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Both statements, "Lots of data" is a requirement for a table and future but sourceable content belongs in prose, are obviously not directly citing any policy or guideline. That CRYSTAL disallows mentioning information about upcoming episodes is a fundamental misreading of that policy. Yes, there's a chance that upcoming events do not happen, but it is entirely permissible to include information about upcoming TV episodes, presidential debates, etc. as long as the info is reliably sourced. Again, CRYSTAL forbids unverifiable speculation, which is not relevant here. In addition, I'm a longtime TV editor, and your "three pieces of (sourced) info" seemed to have come out of nowhere. Would appreciate if you could direct me to that discussion/consensus. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: That's not the scenario we're talking about. If an episode table has already been created with aired episodes (ep's 1 & 2 in your example), then adding episode #3 to the table if a title and airdate is known is probably OK. What we were talking about it a scenario like American Gods (season 3) – that, IMO, should not have a (visible) episodes table at this point, as there's not enough info to justify it. IOW, an episode table shouldn't be created (or visible, at least) if all of the episodes only have two pieces of info (and especially not if there's no air date info), IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not sure how a table vs. prose manages to get around this apparent CRYSTAL violation. The table at American Gods violates it, but if we present it as prose, that's fine? There's nothing important about the airdate that supports the conversion between prose and table, they're literally just different ways of displaying the same data. Where's this guideline that states that sourceable content belongs in prose, not in a table? -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TABLE, first paragraph. And without air dates, it is a WP:CRYSTAL issue, because there's always a chance those episodes never reach air (in which case, an episodes table is likely inappropriate). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a generic statement that just states that sometimes one way is best sometimes, another way is best othertimes, but does not relate directly to anything discussed here. Yes, there's always a chance those episodes never reach air, you are correct, and if they don't, then we update the format and article in question. Until then, the episode table has always been the go-to method, especially if it is reliably sourced, at the given time, that the content will air. Displaying content in an episode table has never been to say that they're absolutely going to air, thus it's never been a CRYSTAL violation. It's just the consensual way of listing episodes. In fact, assuming that it won't air would be a CRYSTAL violation. There's no reason to "fix" something that is already working.

I'm also still curious as to where this rule of three came from. I've always seen the rule of two from the WP:TV regulars. Whereabouts did it come from? -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Some how we got on to "a rule of three" in this discussion I believe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it's been referenced before, possibly from your MOS:TV discussions from a couple of years ago, because I certainly didn't "invent" it, though I find that I fairly strongly agree with it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I know that when I started a discussion on common practices almost two years ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 28#Standard practices, it was a rule of two. I'm just saying that I've never seen a rule of three, either being mentioned or in practice. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: I think my scenario still stands. In the case of American Gods (season 3), you have 10 episodes with titles, writers, and their episode order (1-10). That satisfies what we've always done, and the fact there isn't a date doesn't mean we shouldn't include the info. Same situation I said in my example for let's say a "broadcast show". If you have the first 9 or so episode that air in the fall, and then over the winter break, episodes 10-14 have titles and writers revealed, but we don't know when the show comes back, do we exclude that? No, we normally would add them to the table with TBD dates. I'm not seeing how this is any different. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Episode "order" without air dates is in fact speculative – broadcasters can (and do!) broadcast episodes "out of order". IOW, "production order" and "broadcast order" are not guaranteed to be the same thing. So, really, American Gods (season 3) really only has two fields "filled out" and verified. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You are being overly broad here. Yes, broadcasters can and do broadcast episodes out of order, but the Writers Guild is absolutely a reliable source, and that qualm makes it sound like you'd hopefully accept a footnote about production order rather than not presenting all the information outright. Airdates change too, but it's definitely acceptable to present information as sourced – Wikipedia also fully appropriately presents information about titles, credits, and release dates for upcoming films, which are also subject to change. That doesn't fail policy. As for your citing this MOS:TV discussion/consensus about a rule of threes, I can't find it. Can you provide that discussion? -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

If we have information for a bunch of episodes it should go in an episode table, it makes no sense to have a long list in prose when there is an established format that is far more readable. CRYSTAL is also no excuse for hiding known information. Readers are smart enough to know that the dates we add with reliable sources are the planned dates and could change in the future. CRYSTAL also often doesn't apply to other episode information since we generally don't learn those until after/during production. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, as I can see, these points are not fully clear, so why not defining at least in a guideline the parts we all agree on? Maybe next to MOS:TVUP, I'm not sure if it's the right place to talk about it though. In my case with foreign series, the sources are always providing at least the titles and the airdate so it wasn't where I wanted the discussion to be but anyway if it's helping reaching a consensus about it then I don't see a problem. Also about the translated episodes of foreign series with no english available, if someone knows where I could find answers or help, please redirect me. Thanks. Closesophy (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes reporting an outrageous number of reviews for a show's season

Thoughts are needed on the following matter: Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)#Rotten Tomatoes reports 305 reviews for season 10. What?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Frankie Howard move request

Relevant discussion at the link above. DrKay (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What category do web-based series fall under?

I was wondering if there is a category under Television that handles web-based series, if any. And if so, what infobox template would I use to create a new article about the series. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

How to relay reception in the lead regarding the most criticized episodes of Game of Throne's season 8

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Game of Thrones#Which season 8 episodes should we highlight in the lead as having especially received criticism?. A permalink for it is here.

If you are someone who hasn't watched the show (at all), or hasn't watched it to the end, and don't want to get spoiled on it, then I just suggest not looking at this matter and commenting on it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

List of creatures in Primeval nominated for deletion

List of creatures in Primeval has been nominated for deletion for a fourth time. All are invited to participate in the discussion, which may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creatures in Primeval (4th nomination). --AussieLegend (✉) 19:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a reminder that this AfD needs extra eyes and opinions. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Updating IMDb links in season articles

I've started to update IMDb links to season articles so it goes to each respective season page (if not specified, it just goes to the latest season). This is done by adding |season=[x] to the IMDb template. But, I'm wondering if this could be done by a bot or script, where it could just grab the season number from the article title and be done automatically. For members who are more familiar with bots/scripts, can you possibly comment on this? Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems like it should be possible, yeah – try WP:BOTREQ. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Dead ratings sources across the Wikipedia TV project pages

I noticed on a whole bunch of television pages that the TVbythenumbers source is dead. These are pages where the ratings source wasn't archived meaning the link is dead and the source is now useless. What can be done? Replace with Showbuzz Daily or TV series finale? 81.96.245.175 (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 32#TV by the Numbers. There are bots that can find archive urls. — YoungForever^(talk) 06:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

IP editors don't have access to bots. Meanwhile there's 1000s possibly 10000s of pages with broken links as tvbythenumbers as a website no longer works. It's more than a little counterproductive to revert someone who manually went through each showbuzzdaily link to repair the ratings on a page. Does the TV project want links repaired or not? If not I'll put my time to better use and leave the vast majority of pages which are now unsourced what with tvbythenumbers being dead alone. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Then file a bot request to do the archiving. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Not really up to me to do that. I just came on to point out that there's a ton of pages which are basically unsourced now for ratings. That and to ask if I can repair a few with alternate sources. Better to have working links than broken ones right? 81.96.245.175 (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, they do have sourcing, it's just that the sources now have dead URL links – that doesn't make prior sourcing "invalid" (see WP:DEADREF). I agree that adding archive links to these is a good idea, and somebody probably should file a bot report for Tvbythenumbers. But even in the absence of that, these are all still valid sources. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If the numbers were ever challenged or needed verifying having broken urls surely makes the source questionable? With Wikipedia being such a vast resource surely there's a need to have active links at all times? For example if an Ip editor made a ninja edit to an inactive page with broken urls how would someone know the sourcing says what they claim? 81.96.245.175 (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"Not really up to me to do that." But you are the one a) concerned and b) trying to fix it. Go to WP:URLREQ and file a request for the website and someone there will work it en masse with the right tools, which is InternetArchiveBot. --Izno (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Is the role of the TV Project not to ensure the smooth oversight of TV pages? Because IP editors shouldn't have to fix things project members should have done months ago. It's hardly acceptable for every unarchived tvbythenumbers final and dvr ratings source to be dead. There's like 10000s of them if not more. Before tvbythenumbers shut down it was the exclusive source for broadcast TV numbers. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The film project, like every other, is composed of volunteers, who may or may not share your priorities. I have pointed you to where you can ask people who specialize in the task can sort it out the best way we have available. Do you not agree that is the best place to sort out the problem? If you do agree, then you should take the step of using that option and move on from this waste of page space discussion that has seen you manage to get into a disagreement with just about every other editor. :) --Izno (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Are the sources the IP added not RS? If they are good I don't see what the issue is with someone adding working sources to pages which have dead links. --Gonnym (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

They are, I added over 100 replacement links and sourced from Showbuzzdaily. I did this because I saw that no one had taken any notice of the broken urls for the tvbythenumbers source for almost two months. From what I can tell tvbythenumbers as a website became defunct from the start of September. That's two months almost of anyone visiting a TV page where the urls weren't archived only to discover the links were broken. That's not good. 81.96.245.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: TV by the Numbers included the total shares (18–49) whereas Showbuzz Daily do not include the total shares (18–49), replacing them with Showbuzz Daily is considered to be WP:SYNTH. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I left the ratings tables alone because the links for the dvr numbers are all broken too. I don't think you particularly understand just how many dead links are on these TV pages. It's hardly constructive to revert someone fixing them. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

YoungForever, ok, that makes sense. But looking at an example from one of the contested pages, List of Lethal Weapon episodes, I don't see any changes to the share ref, only to the views. --Gonnym (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I am referring to the "Rating/share (18–49)" column. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

As explained Gonnym, when TVBythenumbers as a website was shutdown 1000s of unarchived urls suddenly became broken and no one involved in the television project seems the slightest bit interested in fixing. I'm questioning what exactly the point of this place is if no one is willing to step up to resolve problems. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Here is example of a TV by the Numbers url that was archived: [5] and here is another one [6]. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition, GreenC's bot GreenC bot added the TV by the Numbers archived urls for List of Lethal Weapon episodes as shown here earlier today. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

What part of dead links are still valid that you don't seem to understand? Using the archive urls, is a way to fix them and per WP:DEADREF is number 3 in the steps whereas replacing them is number 5. In addition, I am sure there are a bunch of dead urls on Wikipedia, but that's what archive urls are for. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

But I'm not talking about the archived urls, do keep up. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You are just choosing to ignore archive urls. Archive urls is prioritized before replacing them according to the steps, per WP:DEADREF. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

We're talking in circles here which is getting us nowhere. Is there no one here willing to step up and resolve a clear problem on the Wikipedia television pages? I'll give you all a week to think about it before opening a discussion on the administrator board. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Showbuzz Daily do not include the total shares (18–49), Programming Insider and TV by the Numbers are the ones that included total shares (18–49). Replacing the TV by the Numbers (which included the total shares (18–49)) with Showbuzz Daily is considered to be WP:SYNTH. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are you replacing dead refs with other ones? With this edit you replaced it with Showbuzz Daily despite there being 5 snapshots on the Internet Archive. I've personally had trouble with finding TV by the Numbers archived url for pre-2010 urls, but there's a lot more archived than you think, you just might have to look hard. The domain of the site has changed multiple times. In an unrelated example, I created this entire article using archived urls which have loooong been gone. Heartfox (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Update 1: I went ahead and requested at WP:URLREQ#TV by the Numbers. If anyone want to add to it, please feel free to. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Update 2: GreenC's bot GreenC bot is in the process of adding the archived urls of TV by the Numbers' dead urls. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for doing that. So going by what the bot operator has said there were 43,635 broken ratings urls on the TV pages. This adds validation to bringing up the issue here. And as this was fixed by a member of the television project as it should have been, all is well. I think this wraps up the discussion nicely. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI, editors of the WP:TV are not required to do certain tasks. Everything is volunteered, so your comment about editors of this project should fix the TV by the Numbers dead urls is wrong. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I'm not a member of a television project which was founded to provide oversight to television pages on Wikipedia. The issue I brought here falls under the projects(Inc members) remit and not mine. I would say my responsibility stopped when I reported the problem. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

As it states on the WP:TV, Technically speaking, anyone who edits / contributes to TV related articles is a participant, and there are no requirements other than that. Be bold and fix it yourself. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

IP, it is everyone's responsibility to make sure that the encyclopedia is in the best state it can be. If you think your responsibility ended at any point, then you are clearly not here to contribute in a collaborative manner. Thank you for your post here, but next time, I doubt you'll find many willing to help if you refuse to do so yourself. Happy editing! -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

November focus on women in behind-the-scenes occupations

This November, wp:Women in Red is focusing on women working behind the scenes in theatre and broadcasting. As TV is an important component here, we hope members of WP Television will be inspired to participate. You can find further details at Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast. The Women in Red invitation for November is copied below. Please feel free to send it to any potentially interested participants or projects.

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181 Online events: New: Textile arts | Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Ipigott (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Free use

Diriliş: Ertuğrul and Kuruluş: Osman has been decorated with some free-use posters (2 each), and I'm not sure if they're within WP-doctrine. If someone with knowledge wants to take a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

TV Tango

What is the reliability of TV Tango? According to their About Us page, they are run by two people. I have personally found the viewership/ratings in their episode lists reliable, and especially useful because it can be hard to find that old info elsewhere. Heartfox (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the source of their ratings info? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I've emailed them in the off-chance someone responds. Heartfox (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It'll probably be Showbuzz Daily. Most smaller websites draw from there as it's fairly expensive to be a Nielsen subscriber. A company like Nielsen doesn't offer data for free you have to pay like a thousand or so dollars a year for it. Which of course is small change to the likes of Deadline or Variety but for an indie site it's a lot. I'm guessing as far as ratings sourcing goes Wikipedia probably would prefer websites that are reputable and also Nielsen subscribers.81.96.245.175 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

In-house awards

I'm trying to get a community temperature reading for an award like Zee Rishtey Awards. From what I can tell, the Zee television network nominates people from its own network then I guess people can call in/text in and vote on their favourites. Some "awards" include "Best Jodi" (best pair) and "Best Social Swagger" (see Ishq Subhan Allah, for instance). I've previously asked about the Star Parivaar Awards, which was an entirely in-house award, the Zee Rishtey appears to be slightly different in that the public plays some part in the results. From my perspective, though, it reeks of self-aggrandisement and self-promotion.

Related to this, does WikiProject Television have a stance on whether or not to include awards where notability has not been established? Per WP:FILMCRITICLIST, awards without corresponding articles shouldn't be included, but there's nothing at MOS:TV about that. I know that some people get wiggy about writing anything down in the form of a MOS, but if there's nothing written down, then there's no way to pare down fluff from articles like Ishq Subhan Allah, or to educate editors on community preferences. I'm also a bit unclear on whether this is even under the purview of WikiProject Television, since award bloat typically appears in biographies. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Next (2020 TV series)

I need some pairs of eyes on the articles. Several IP addresses and not autoconfirmed or confirmed editors have disruptive editing by changing airdates against the reliable sources. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be solved by getting the page protected? If IPs are being disruptive you could request it. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I’ve already requested 30/500 (extended confirmed) protection as the disruption is caused by an autoconfirmed user. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 Update: It is semi-protected by an admin for two months. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

List of I, Claudius episodes

Should this be merged into I, Claudius (TV series)?... I really can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be. Comments? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. There's not enough episodes to split per MOS:TVSPLIT and Wikipedia:Article splitting (television). -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Definitely, 1 season consisted only 12 episodes is not enough to split at all. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Presentation of dead characters

Does the community have an opinion about how we present information when a character is depicted as dying in a series? I run into articles all the time like this, where in the overview you'll see:

• Bharat Tyagi(Bade, alive)/Shatrughan Tyagi(Chote, dead)

And in the cast section you'll see:

• Vikrant Massey as Bablu Pandit ... (Season 1, dead)
• Divyendu Sharma as Phoolchand Tripathi ... (Season 1-2, dead)

To me, including all these "dead"s feels a bit weird, as if we're treating fictional shows the way we treat Big Brother, by indicating everybody who's been evicted. And in Indian entertainment articles there is a hyper-fixation on labeling everything, so I might be over-sensitive to that. But if we track the entire path a character takes, I could see an argument for keeping them. In some cases though, like with the overview, it seems silly to indicate who died before we even get into the meat and potatoes of who the characters and cast are. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't seem appropriate, and neither does the seasonal part. That's up there with episode counts, which we say not to list. If it's relevant, it should be presented in prose content with context.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, when it comes to longer-running shows that have large revolving casts where actors may move from recurring to main or vice versa (The Walking Dead (TV series) being a key example) I see no issue with identifying the season's that person's been on, as long as there is some prefunctionary text to explain this to a degree. --Masem (t) 16:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree – listing what seasons various characters/actors appear in is totally relevant, encyclopedic information (and MOS:TVCAST even explicitly allows for it). Again, the reason episode counts are not to be included as per the MOS is because they are generally unverifiable, not because that information is not somehow "relevant"... As to the question at hand, I think including info about when/why a character leaves a TV series is relevant info, but it should not be presented as shown above. I generally think the appropriate way to handle something like that is along the lines of:

• Johnny Depp as Sheriff Bill MacGuffin (seasons 1–2): MacGuffin is Somewhereville's intrepid sheriff who investigates the kidnappings of several local children. He is killed in the second season finale, "The Great Reveal", when he discovers the kidnappers' lair and is shot in the ensuing melee.

Something like this – explaining why a character is no longer there, or no longer on a show, strikes me as a totally appropriate use of a character summary. If there is no proper prose character summary, but just a simple cast list, then it should simply be listed as something like Johnny Depp as Sheriff Bill MacGuffin (seasons 1–2). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe if a character's death is a driving factor for a show, that if you were trying to summary a show within a few hundred words would be essential to explain the show (eg Laura Palmer in Twin Peaks as her death is a show driver), but in a case like the Walking Dead where character death is very common, this could be omitted. --Masem (t) 18:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

In some contexts, it may make more sense to put the info in the episode summaries. But a "He dies in the third season finale." or "She leaves town in the fourth season finale." strikes me as relevant info in a character summary to explain why a character/actor is no longer on a show. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I concur as well. But want to add that it is also common practice to include the seasons of the characters have been on. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No, this should not be added. The tenure of a actor/character on a show is fair, but their fate is unnecessary. --Masem (t) 16:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)