Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Television (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Television:

To do list:
Major discussions/events:

Guiding Light[edit]

Moved to Talk:Guiding Light § Episode count: Topic seems more appropriate at the article Talk page.


If interested, please share your opinion on the Rfc on Character Names in plot summaries. Jauerbackdude?/dude.

Articles for Deletion for Two Upcoming Episodes of the New Series Into the Dark[edit]

Thought I would make all who follow this page aware of the deletion discussion occurring over two upcoming episodes of the television series Into the Dark. The discussion is happening here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Body (Into the Dark).

CourtTV heads up[edit]

So, the American cable channel CourtTV, which has ultimately become TruTV, is set to relaunch in May 2019... as a "new" (old?!) cable channel, according to this article. So, IOW, TruTV will continue to exist, but CourtTV will now exist again as well!

Needless to say, this will be somewhat of a mess, necessitating a new article (eventually) at CourtTV (likely with a hatnote) rather than just the current redirect to TruTV.

Just posting this as a heads up to the denizens of WP:TV. --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Accolades for television programs and actors[edit]

Hi all, what are the guidelines for adding television programs and actors to articles? At Bepannah and Harshad Chopda, there have been numerous attempts to add SBS Telebration Awards and Asian Viewers Television Awards, neither of which have articles at Wikipedia. One of the editors who added it in good faith wrote in defense: "Telebrations is an award show to appreciate ITV talent. It is held by ABP News which is one of India's leading news channels. It has been held for around 10 years. More importantly, fans vote for it. Secondly, AVTA is an Asian Television award show in which the fans nominate and vote ... These aren't random award mills or weebly awards." There's nothing at MOS:TV that would clearly indicate what to do in a situation like this, so I'm curious what the prevailing community attitude would for something like this. Do we add them? I don't know if these awards are televised or anything. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I go with the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. If the award is notable for an article on Wikipedia, then its inclusion is relevant, but if it does not have an article, then it is probably not notable and should not be added. --Gonnym (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the threshold that film uses is if there is enough evidence that an award is cited in other articles, that's enough. It doesn't have to have an article on Wikipedia because that isn't a criteria for noteworthiness.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
That would make sense Bignole, but MOS:FILM actually does say that an award must have its own Wikipedia article to be included. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Can you provide a quote from MOS:FILM? I can't find the relevant passage. Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
it's written in WP:FILMCRITICLIST Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability. Because of the proliferation of film festivals and "award mills", festival awards should be added with discretion, with inclusion subject to consensus. Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not included..Sid95Q (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks; I can't see how I overlooked this. I suppose that's an answer to Cyphoidbomb's question then, unless there's a substantial difference between film awards and television awards, though I'm rather unsatisfied that this is a guideline (surely at the very least, the criterion should be that an award is notable, whether or not it currently has an article). Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Though I know that WikiProject Television often embraces guidelines found in MOS:FILM, it would be helpful to see some of those brought over to MOS:TV. I know that some people embrace WP:ANTAGONIST, but that's not in the TV MOS, and if something like FILMCRITICLIST is widely embraced for TV, then that should also be in the MOS, I think. I know that there is a general "rule" across various WikiProjects that when you add stuff to a list, those items should have articles first that demonstrate notability. Like List of former child actors from the United Kingdom doesn't have many redlinks, because otherwise everybody's grandmother would add their grandkid to the list--but I'm not sure if there's a community-wide guideline on that. Seems more just what people do. And Bilorv, to your point, I think the spirit of the attitude is that if an article is written and survives community scrutiny, it is presumably notable, where that might not be as easily established otherwise. Media outlets might publish the results of the SBS Telebrations award, but that doesn't necessarily mean the award is notable, because publishing results ≠ writing in depth about the award, its origins, its impact, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
No reliable sources were provided to prove the notability of the awards here when I removed the awards @MiaSays: reverted my edit by saying "Will Souirce it" but no sources were provided [1] and here primary source was used which is not enough to prove the notability. Sid95Q (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I would say (and this could be put in the MOS after some discussion) that one should only have to show that an award is noteworthy enough to be reference by multiple, reliable secondary sources. The fact that it may or may not have a page is irrelevant to me and I'm pretty sure we've operated in converse of that on film pages before if an award was shown to be noteworthy/notable but a page didn't exist. Specifically because notability doesn't dictate that a page exist, it is only the criteria that allows a page to remain in existence. A subject could be notable but not have enough information to warrant an entire page to it. I don't like saying, "it doesn't have a page" if you can at least show that multiple reliable secondary sources reference it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Notability for future TV series (cont.)[edit]

Continuing on from the above discussion, I have taken WP:NFF and copy-edited it to fit television series (see below). Should it be listed at WP:NFTV (Notability for Future Television Series), or added onto WP:TVSHOW? Perhaps added onto the end of it as a subsection, and WP:NFTV redirects to that subsection?

Rewording of NFTV
Future series, incomplete series, and undistributed series

Television series that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended seriesing date. The assumption should also not be made that because a series is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the series might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun.

In the case of animated series, reliable sources must confirm that the series is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced.[1]

Additionally, series that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released, should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, series produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.


  1. ^ Common steps in the animated film pre-production process are usually geared towards pitching the idea of the film by previewing the final product (for instance, storyboards, scratch voice-over tracks, and rough animations also known as "reels"), and such events do not fulfill the requirements of this guideline. Instead, this guideline attempts to ensure that the film has been green-lighted and is currently in production, as evidenced by activities analogous to live-action filming, such as recording of final voice-over tracks by credited voice actors, recording of final music and foley sound effects, and drawing/rendering of final animation frames.

If you've any changes to the above collapse suggestion, I recommend editing it directly, rather than having multiple copies of it. -- AlexTW 07:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it is also important to include that pilots that have begun principal photography, but have not been given a "series order", should not have their own articles either. - Brojam (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
More pages for shows that haven't aired? This is getting ridiculous. WP already has pages for series that never aired. What's next, pages for actors who appeared in pilots not picked up & had no other credits? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Such as? Can you link to them? If you're talking about WP:TVSHOW, it does not mention any such topic of series that have not aired, or more conforming to consensus, series that have not yet begun filming. -- AlexTW 08:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
What Brojam says is absolutely crucial – that absolutely needs to be in there: TV pilots that have not been ordered to series (yet) almost certainly do not qualify for articles in mainspace. But the fact is that WP:TVSHOW needs a more significant rewrite than even this, because it also needs to make even clearer that "airing nationally" (or being released "nationally" by something like Netflix) does not guarantee notability, esp. these days, and what actually determines TV show "notability" is whether it has received significant independent coverage, as per WP:GNG – plenty of TV shows on lower-rung cable channels and many TV movies do not meet this benchmark, especially in this day and age. --IJBall (contribstalk) 13:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with both you and Brojam, and I'm sure that the Project looks forward to your proposals. We can have as many discussions as we want, but nothing will go anywhere unless someone actually puts together a proposed edit. -- AlexTW 13:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose User:IJBall's proposed change(s). We absolutely should have looser notability standards for TV shows, because Wikipedia:Systemic bias is already bad enough and this is one area where allowing more articles would not likely risk getting a bunch of garbage into the encyclopedia – just about any TV show airing on a "national" network involves huge teams of people, so it could pretty much never fall under WP:1DAY. And more importantly, readers expect to find an article on each and every TV show for which one can reasonably be written (i.e. that isn't completely lost or something) – remember, we are editing for the readers, not to satisfy some non-existent objective standard of notability. Modernponderer (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
That's absolutely not the purpose of this encyclopedia. You're basically making an "It WP:EXISTS" argument. By design, we only cover topics that have received significant independent coverage. That's WP:GNG. We literally are not "allowed" to come up with any notability standard that is "looser" than that. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@User:IJBall: Actually, we come up with "looser" standards than GNG all the time – WP:SNG is an entire category of them. For example, some of those subject-specific guidelines only require the confirmed existence of a single major award for the subject of the article, as opposed to GNG's substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Quite a big difference there.
And WP:EXISTS is essentially a corollary of WP:1DAY – which I already explained does not really apply to TV shows (certainly not the ones on major networks). So no, I am not making that argument at all. Modernponderer (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, WP:SNG applies specifically to lists, not to "topic" articles. So that's not relevant... Bottom line: You can dress it up any way you want, but you're basically saying we should ignore WP:GNG when it comes to TV shows. Why? What makes TV shows so "special" that we should ignore our notability standards, as opposed to everything else?! --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
User:IJBall, you are completely incorrect on the SNG. Please have another look at that link – it has absolutely nothing to do with lists. (In fact the entirety of WP:NMEDIA, including WP:TVSHOW, is essentially SNG, but not categorized as such because it isn't even policy! Which by the way really makes me wonder what the point of changing it would be, since nobody would be obliged to follow it...)
And I literally just explained exactly why TV shows should have a lower bar – two very specific and important reasons. Please re-read my original post here. Modernponderer (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, WP:SNGs should never have "lower standards" than WP:GNG. If they do, they're wrong. Indeed, there's been a fair amount of push-back on this when it comes to sports athletes, because they don't meet GNG. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are our baselines. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
User:IJBall, while I respect your opinion the existence of the SNGs I mentioned – as actual guidelines with community consensus – means that it is your view that is out of line with "the purpose of this encyclopedia", and not mine. Modernponderer (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, uh, no it's not – go over to, say, WP:VPP, and propose the idea that it's "OK" for SNGs to have lower threshholds than GNG. I think you'll find the response to that proposal illuminating... Suffice it to say, any SNGs that have "lower standards" than GNG arose much earlier in the history of this project. That they've stuck around doesn't demonstrate that there is "community consensus support" for that – it's rather that either nobody has bothered to try to change them, or that there isn't "consensus for their updating" (which is not the same thing as saying there is "consensus support" for their current wording). But these SNGs that don't meet GNG is a classic example of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. And we in WP:TV should not attempt to play that game. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@User:IJBall: So your argument now is simply that VPP wouldn't like it? Sorry, I can't exactly debate hypotheticals like that. I prefer to stick with the established guidelines – and just to be clear, if there is no consensus to change them that IS a consensus to keep them the same (if only an implied one).
And no, LOCALCONSENSUS does not apply here – both the GNG and SNGs are guidelines, and one does not override the other unless explicitly stated. (In fact, they work together for notability, in the sense that an article that satisfies either of them is likely to be kept.)
Also, you still haven't addressed the elephant in the room here – the fact that WP:NMEDIA/WP:TVSHOW is neither a policy nor a guideline, and as such editors (such as myself) are completely free to ignore it (and changes to it) altogether. Modernponderer (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Strongly support IJBall's statement per reasons stated within. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3) Unless I'm mistaken, IJBall is not proposing changes which would affect anything much more than local television or programmes on very obscure channels. In my experience, the larger systemic bias issue on television articles is not that we have too strict a notability criterion, but that no-one has actually bothered to write an article yet. For instance, I was recently surprised to see that BBC Four's There She Goes (a show about a disabled girl) didn't have an article, but now it does. Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
No, that's actually not what I'm saying. Local programming is sometimes notable, and is sometimes not. I haven't even touched on that. What I am saying is that many TV programs (and TV movies), that "air nationally", are in fact not notable under WP:GNG. Thus we need to get rid of that statement in WP:TVSHOW. It was pretty much true back in the "three network universe" through the 1980s that "any original TV program that aired" would get significant coverage, and would thus be "notable". But in especially the last 1 to 2 decades, there are plenty of "original" unscripted, and even some scripted, TV shows, that effectively receive little-to-no (significant) independent coverage. You find them on the lower-rung cable channels. The same is even more true of TV movies – how many of the flood of "Christmas" TV movies that we're getting this year are actually notable? (None of the ones on ION TV, I'd bet! for example...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Well I've no idea what ION is or what its viewing figures are like but it sounds like what I'd class as "programmes on very obscure channels", if their television movies are genuinely not getting any critical reviews. I suppose it depends what your definition of "little" independent coverage is. If it gets two or three ("multiple") reviews ("independent" / "reliable sources") which are at least a few paragraphs long ("significant coverage"), then I would say it meets WP:GNG. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with that. But, these days, a lot of TV movies will only get a "one to two sentence capsule summary" in scheduling guides... Again, I think TVSHOW needs to be updated for the "Peak TV" universe – the assumption that a TV show is notable "because it airs nationally" is no longer the case. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree; routine scheduling coverage isn't enough. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I like where this is heading, but agree there has to be something in there about pilots, which shouldn't have articles until they are actually picked up by a network. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I somewhat agree that any unsold pilots should've have articles unless they are actually picked up by a network. But they are pilots that have been aired and such, like the Amazon pilot The After which was previously ordered a eight episode season 1, but it was canceled without shooting another episode beyond the pilot. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Bumping, in case anyone wants to do anything related to this. I've noticed most discussions here fizzle out and never conclude, which is why we don't have any solid rules and just rely on unwritten "standard practices". -- /Alex/21 04:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I personally share many of the above concerns about systemic bias against shows in countries with media coverage that is harder to parse without native language abilities, less readily available online, or for shows whose existence predates widespread internet coverage. Sometimes, we can rely on the original language's wikipedia for sources or links -- and that's great if we can; however, sometimes an article doesn't exist in those languages: not for reasons of notability (necessarily), but simply because the size of the English wikipedia is so much larger. matt91486 (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (TV show)#Requested move 16 December 2018[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (TV show)#Requested move 16 December 2018. --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Neil Degrasse Tyson[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion that may be of interest to the members of this board at Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Text_proposals. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


I'm not thrilled to what Pigsonthewing has been doing to the infoboxes, like he tried to merge Template:Infobox television season and Template:Infobox television episode into Template:Infobox television. That's unacceptable and a lot of users oppose this for the right reasons. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

If there is no WP:CONSENSUS for this, edits should be reverted and a proper discussion should take place to gain not just consensus, but overwhelming consensus. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing has every right to initiate such merges, but I think something of this magnitude needed prior discussion to comment on their concerns before going straight to the merge discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Anyone who has seen the TfD might have noticed my attitude. This is because I've been involved in very similar TfDs before. He has been told previously that he should discuss any perceived issues before TfD but he believes TfD is the appropriate venue, which we all accept is not the case. --AussieLegend () 06:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • BattleshipMan is referring to this TfD in a rather misleading way. Pigsonthewing merely suggested a merge, rather than messing about with the templates themselves as I think the above implies. Anyone of course has the right to start such a TfD and we need to comment on content, not on the contributor. BattleshipMan, threatening messages like this violate NPA. Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Look, that merge is unnecessary and you disagreed with it also. Pigsonthewing has a history of doing merges without prior discussions beforehand and that proposed merge is met with opposition for the right reasons. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
There's a difference between opposing a proposal and denying someone the right to start it. Drop the aggressive attitude. Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no need for the hostility towards them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I think there needs to be some sort of rule not to name and shame editors that appear to be working in good faith but may not have the general support for their changes. It's frankly shocking to put someones username in the discussion title and then rant about them, what happened to neutrality? They could have just made a post highlighting their thoughts in a respectful manner to get the discussion going. Esuka323 (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I clearly oppose the proposal but to give him credit, he has identified some issues that need resolving. He has been the subject of Arbcom sanctions in the past and I don't really think he has learned from them but anyone has the right to start a TfD. --AussieLegend () 06:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Yet another similar attempt by Pigsonthewing to change templates without discussion first, despite a identical previous request that can be seen at Template talk:Series overview/Archive 1#Requested move 27 July 2015. Please contribute to Template talk:Series overview‎#Requested move 18 December 2018. -- AlexTW 11:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Would this fall under WP:DIS? The edits show signs per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, Andy really should slow down here and address the fact that he is leaving editors bewildered. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The nominations do not fall under disruptive, nor is he required to discuss any such future request with any editor or project beforehand. Any other incident is a different issue. --Gonnym (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
No he isn't required to, but this whole thing could have been possibly avoided by placing notices on Wiki-projects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The move should NEVER have been listed as an uncontroversial technical request since it is clearly controversial and Andy should know this as he was the nominator at the previous, failed, RM discussion. --AussieLegend () 18:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Like I mentioned over at the current discussion this was WP:TOOSOON as a previous TfD was just closed with the consensus to merge WP:BIGBRO infoboxes into the module {{Infobox reality competition season}} that is part of {{Infobox television season}}. There are over 300+ Big Brother and non-Big Brother articles that have to be moved to this module so that {{Big Brother housemates}}, {{Big Brother endgame}} and {{Big Brother endgame2}} can be deleted. I also mentioned other areas of opportunity for potential merging and consolation that should be considered before even touching the three main infoboxes that are currently proposed. I'm not opposed to the idea in general but it seems like there are some issues that need to be addressed between the three infoboxes before a merge discussion should have taken place. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 21:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
His behavior over all this is generating concern of some of us. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blossom, Bubbles and Buttercup[edit]

You are invited to join the AFD on this related subject. Jhenderson 777 05:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Big Brother (American and British) move discussions[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother 1 (UK)#Requested move 22 December 2018 . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother 1 (U.S.)#Requested move 22 December 2018 . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

New WikiProject[edit]

I have suggested that a new WikiProject that may be of relevance to this one, be created. If you are interested in viewing the proposal or taking part in the discussion, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Fuller_House.  mrwoogi010  Talk 23:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:New Warriors (TV series)#The end of the year[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:New Warriors (TV series)#The end of the year. — Lbtocthtalk 04:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC on using US or U.S.[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC on using US or U.S.. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Need opinions on split[edit]

How do we currently stand on splitting out episode lists? Normally I'd support splitting the episodes from a series article with 15 seasons to a separate LoE page but this unexplained, unattributed split has turned Tanked into little more than a stub as the episode list was virtually the entire article. All that is left now is the lede and infobox. The episode list is incomplete, with many episode summaries missing, so I really don't see a problem in this case having all of the episodes in the main article. What is everyones' opinion for these articles? --AussieLegend () 10:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think it is OK in this case. I've seen a few similar articles where a long episode list has been split off. It would be better to attempt adding some more series info to the primary article, which should be possible given how many seasons have aired you would think. -- Whats new?(talk) 10:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, nobody has shown any interest in expanding the main series article. This is always an issue with the less popular reality type TV pgograms. Even episode tables suffer. I used to do it a lot but lost interest as it seemed pointless since nobody was looking at the articles. I should also note that the lede of List of Tanked episodes has been copied (unattributed) from Tanked. That means that if you remove content from Tanked that is now in List of Tanked episodes, the only unique content is the infobox. That alone should be justification to merge Tanked into List of Tanked episodes as you don't need an entire article just for an infobox. This is why I asked the question. --AussieLegend () 12:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
As it currently looks (looking at the pre-split version) it doesn't seem that long. I do agree with Whats new? that if any additional information to the article were to be added then the split would probably be a good option, however if no one is going to do the work, then there probably also isn't a rush for a split. Maybe HonorTheKing is working on that? --Gonnym (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Eh with this particular show I don't see the reason for the split unless someone is planning to expand the main article. The leads on both articles looks almost the same to me. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 14:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, I think the changes should be reverted if the editor isn't willing to put in the effort to expand the main article. There's enough information floating around for any reality show to pad an article out. It just takes someone willing and able to do the work to make such substantial contributions to the page. I think the question also needs to be asked, what benefit does the series having a "List of episodes" page really have? Because it's just empty tables with ratings information. Esuka323 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone. I've reverted the split for now, since there have been no further changes to the main article and only 1 to the LoE page, that being the replacement of an episode summary with a copyvio. If the main article is expanded we can look at a split then. --AussieLegend () 11:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion[edit]

There is a discussion at MOS:TV that would probably benefit from input by editors from this project. The title is Bulletizing episode summaries at Who Is America?. However it involves bulletising summaries in all articles. Please participate but note that an admin has imposed a time limit of one week. --AussieLegend () 19:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Who Is America?#Plot Summaries[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Who Is America?#Plot Summaries. – BoogerD (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Twin Peaks (2017 TV series)#Requested move 1 January 2019[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Twin Peaks (2017 TV series)#Requested move 1 January 2019. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

"Camera" infobox parameter[edit]

A recent discussion at Talk:Homecoming (TV series) determined that the "Camera" infobox field was inappropriately sourced to the TV show itself, which constitutes WP:OR. An editor pointed out that this parameter is widely used and usually unsourced, which means that it may need to be removed from a large number of articles if sourcing cannot be found. Posting here so that folks are aware of this consensus and the reason for these removals. –dlthewave 02:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This would seem to effect articles such as Doctor Who, The Wire, The Sopranos, and Lost. – BoogerD (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Make sure that you take the effort to either find a source first, as it is better to research and improve Wikipedia, or at least tag the content with {{citation needed}}, than to simply mass-delete from multitudes of articles. -- /Alex/21 03:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
It is so easy to cite most of these shows via quick Google searches. If you're taking the time to find articles with unsourced camera parameters, it would be helpful to also actively add references too. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Strongly agreed. Mass removal is a poor solution to an easy problem. -- /Alex/21 03:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Just so everyone is clear, I have no intention of editing any of those articles. Only meant to point out that this apparent issue, as it has been explained in that linked to discussion, affects articles such as the ones above. – BoogerD (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
For what its worth, I found that it wasn't as easy as suggested above to find reliable, secondary sources for which camera setup was used by the above mentioned series (save maybe Doctor Who). In my experience, articles announcing upcoming television series generally only specify camera setup when it comes to comedy series. For drama series, I suppose most entertainment journalists just assume that the setup is a given. Also worth noting, shows nominated for awards like the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Single-Camera Picture Editing for a Drama Series or the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Single-Camera Picture Editing for a Comedy Series and mention and source those nominations in the body of their respective articles would seem to be in the clear as far as this concerned. The Emmy Awards actually have numerous categories that specify single-camera and multi-camera. More food for thought. – BoogerD (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Season 6 removal and season 5 episodes[edit]

Hi,i'm here to dicuss that there isn't a season 6 yet.I also added some summaries for the 18 19 and 20th episodes of season 5--Tophat566 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you talking about an article? If so, this belongs on the talk page of that particular article. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 00:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This belongs in Talk:List of Wild Kratts episodes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Moved to that talk page at Talk:List of Wild Kratts episodes#Season 6 removal and season 5 episodes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials to be moved to List of Doctor Who specials. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. This move request covers the scope and intention of the article in question, and could do with some objective eyes from outside the Doctor Who project. Please do take a look if interested, and consider the draft changes at User:U-Mos/sandbox also. U-Mos (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

For anyone interested...[edit]

While dealing with an editor I happened across List of Skatoony episodes which is a bit of a mess. I have no idea what a Skatoony is and I'm still dealing with the death of my wife so I don't have time to fix the article. If anyone is interested in fixing this article, you're welcome to do so. --AussieLegend () 04:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Red Table Talk#Episodes list[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Red Table Talk#Episodes list. – BoogerD (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

TfD's that may interest you[edit]

You are invited to join the following discussions:

Thanks. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mireasă pentru fiul meu season 2 (Romania) . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Academy 9 (France) . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2018 in American television#Split proposal[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2018 in American television#Split proposal. Regarding a discussion to split one or more sections into standalone articles. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Gap in MOS:TVNOW[edit]

In the discussion around this edit to List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), it became clear that MOS:TVNOW is slightly lacking when it comes to fictional television series. Although the section is clear that "references to the show, and its characters and locations, should always be in the present tense", and that "some defunct non-fiction and live programs" may differ from this. This only implies how any participants in the production of a fiction programme (actors, writers, directors etc.) should be referred to, and also ignores previous participants in an ongoing non-fiction/live show (off the top of my head, Jeremy Clarkson's hosting of Top Gear). At the request for comment around this issue, Masem has quite justifiably advocated using the past tense when discussing the previous actors who have played the Doctor from a historical point of view. I believe these matters, that are not in any way unusual, should be covered in the guidelines to ensure consistency across the television WikiProject. U-Mos (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Discussion of two WP:BOLD edits at MOS:TVCAST[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Discussion of two WP:BOLD edits at MOS:TVCAST. U-Mos (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


If anyonw is interested, please participate in the discussion over here: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#ITV Sources

MiaSays (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#Initials[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#Initials. — YoungForever(talk) 14:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)