Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 14

Additional Viewpoints Requested
We could use some additional perspectives on whether it's legitimate to assume that a television character takes another character's surname upon being married here.

Category:Commercial-free television networks
There is an editor that is going crazy adding the cat above to every TV page out there pls see .Moxy (talk)

Skins North American move
Could we get more opinions on the Skins (North American TV series) move? It's already been moved, but I have stated my objection to it being called a "North American" version when RS calls it a "US adaptation", "US remake", etc. If you will voice your opinions here. — Mike  Allen   23:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How about just voicing opinion here. The show is made in Canada by 3 Canadian companies, a British company, and an American company. Two of those three Canadian companies are the Canadian broadcasters. The American company is also the American broadcaster. There are a billion American reliable sources which call the show American. Duh. Then pick out all of the sources that are based on those American sources. Then consider the comparably microscopic Canadian media. This is a classic case of American usurpation of something Canadian. Every tv show that is made in Canada by one of our few big-time production companies that is shown in the US starts out on Wikipedia as being an American show. Haven. Skins. Being Human. Rookie Blue. Flashpoint. The forthcoming and to be renamed Combat Hospital. Queer As Folk. I would have to check but maybe Whistler too. If a show is on a US channel and it is not an obvious British import (and in the case of Merlin even if it is an obvious British import) then American news media and broadcasters try to and often do get away with calling the shows American. Queer As Folk was made in Toronto by a local company for a local channel and was a joint production with the American Showtime. Take a look at that article and see how much of it avoids mention of Canada and calls it an American show even now. Rookie Blue is made in Canada, with Canadian cast and crew, by two Canadian companies, and for broadcast by one of the companies who also makes it. It was good enough ABC bough US broadcast rights to it. Somehow that instantly made it an American show because all of the reliable sources picked up on this new show coming to ABC. There was only the tiniest trickle of info to be had anywhere about it being Canadian. Many people love to throw out "The standard is verifiability, not truth." What so many fail to see is that in arguing verifiability at the expense of truth you justify creating a sourced article that is full of lies so long as it has sources. The standard is verifiable. Everything should be true. Being true isn't enough on its own; it needs to be verifiable in addition to being true. The moment you discard truth for the sake of anything else you have come to the point where you ought to leave. I read far more than i edit and the last thing i want is to be reading lies just because they have sources to support them. Check your sources. Are they fakes? Are the sources credible? Is there anything saying the source is incorrect? Richard Nixon said he is not a crook. Sourcing that is not hard. It is also so untrue words really are not available to convey my feeling on that. Even with checking the accuracy of a source you are still left with an absolutely overwhelming amount of coverage from US sources. There are probably a handful of people on Wikipedia who regularly edit Canadian tv shows. A couple of them might dare venture beyond an article to its talk page. Xeno has chimed in here and there but i don't think he is that into editing of tv articles. The point of this is that there is me against Wikipedia. A few people have surprisingly and most gratefully agreed with me even though some of them are Americans. Corner Gas was shown in the US in syndication but i don't think anyone dared claim it to be an American show. If broadcast alone is enough then the arguement is flawed as Doctor Who is an American-Canadian-British-German-Italian-French-Russian-etc show and House is an American-Canadian-British-etc show too. Some like to determine this based on target audience. That is a sneaky way of claiming shows are American or British or Australian at the expense of Canada, Ireland, and New Zealand respectively for each being the neighbour to a significantly more populated country. I don't go around claiming Desperate Housewives or  Coronation Street are Canadian simply for being broadcast by CTV and CBC respectively. I doubt any media outlet has the audacity to publish such a claim. The American reliable sources cited by MikeAllen and mentioned in passing by others do have Americans as their intended audience. Wikipedia is not just for or by Americans but the rest of the planet too. Flashpoint is a perfect example of catering to Americans in the ambiguity of the setting for the first season of the show being 'some major city'. Flashpoint is also the sole exception to this in that it is a bi-national production that needs no additional disambiguation in its name. If there should come a popular British show of the same name then Flashpoint with be the 4th "North American TV series". Just to make clear for anyone who might be wondering, i am aware of Smallville, Nikita, The L Word, Wonderfalls, and many other American shows which are filmed in Canada and i am not making claim to them being Canadian. But when major American news papers that aren't attacking 18 to Life for being about teen marriage claim the CBC show is American because it was on The CW then yes i am displeased. It just so happens that two weeks ago at 10pm ET two shows premiered simultaneously in Canada and the US which are both remakes made in Canada of British shows with intended target audience legitimately being both countries that require disambiguation of year or nationality and since the corresponding British series are ongoing it was set to nationality but for the duality of the nationality (some saying it generous to include the US) it was deferred to the only precedent - Queer as Folk (North American TV series). I brough this to the respective shows and some people get it and some people just look at an article in USA Today and say i am wrong. The one thing i will point out is that just by plain numbers consensus is easily had against me because i think those in agreement with me total 10 people out of how many millions. I should point out that there is already a discussion at Talk:Being Human (North American TV series) and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style in addition to the 3 at Talk:Skins (North American TV series). Since this is all my fault for knowing where to look for such information to add to articles i am found at all of them in great frequency and as you can see i rarely make short comments.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 01:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Flashpoint is listed as Canadian, both on the db page and the main.
 * Haven was started by an American company and Stephen King and then bought by Canadian CanWest Global who went insolvent and were incorporated into Canadian Shaw Media. The article does not mention its nationality. However the show was ordered by SyFy and so technically it should be listed as "a Canadian show produced for an American company?"
 * Rookie Blue is listed as a Canadian police drama.
 * Being Human (TV series) is correctly listed as British. That is the reason for the split. The North American version is listed as that because that is exactly what it is ! a version for the whole of North America, if you do not know your geography that is the US and Canada. It clearly states it is produced by a Canadian company.
 * Queer as folk - Another British show you North Americans stole lol (I believe it should be "Queer as folk (TV Series)" as it was the first, rather than "Queer as folk UK TV Series")
 * And that brings us neatly round to Skins - another British show which is stolen, like The Office, for the North American market. Please do not try and say it is anything but a British show which has been copied by North America which includes both Canada and the US.In the case of the Office it just looks like the British show is one amongst tens of others that appears to have been a generic global TV program.
 * PS, why can't you just watch a British show? why the hell do you have to "Americanise" (or in this case "Canadianise" / "North Americanise") it ? Thanks. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need to get personal about this. — Mike  Allen   01:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * With some chuckles i point out that rather than fight over nationality of Haven i simply removed that from the intro of the list of episodes article many months ago and noöne objected. A day before that someone removed it from the intro to the main article after it had flip-flop'd a bit between "American" and "Canadian".  As to Haven being produced for an American company that is not so true as it ignores that the Canadian company which produces the show is also the Canadian broadcaster of the show and surely they make the show for themselves as much as for Syfy if not more so. As for just watching the original British shows, that is what i do though not always legitimately. The British Office is available on DVD but the Queer as British Folk and Being British Human are not available to purchase in Canada from what i have not-seen. I further don't watch The American Office or The Quebec Office. The tables will shortly turn as there will soon come to tv Being American Erica as a remake of Being Canadian Erica even though the Canadian original is also shown in the US though many months delayed from its Canadian broadcast. Yes, i find it a little fun to put nationality in the middle of these shows' titles. They are remakes and as such inherently are Canadianised, Americanised, North Americanised, or Quebecised. Being flattered with the many imitations and proud of the originals is how i view the forthcoming remake of Being Erica. Cheers  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 09:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Television programs by season
See discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_5.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

TV show template links to series and season
I have reformated Template:TopUSTVShows, to include links to the relevant season as well as the series. Now that season articles are becoming common, I am wondering if other templates should include links for both the series and the season. E.G., should a template like Template:GoldenGlobeTVDrama 1990-2009, Template:EmmyAward DramaSeries 2001-2025 and Template:ScreenActorsGuildAwardsTVEnsembleDrama 1994-2009 include links to the series and the season.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Screen Actors Guild Award templates
Most of the new templates for 2010 have not been created yet. People just tacked on 2010 awards to the 1994-2009 templates for the most part. I have done Template:ScreenActorsGuildAwardsTVEnsembleDrama 2010-2029.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, when these templates were set up they were set up to be on the same 20 year cycle as many of the Golden Globe awards. The Emmys use a 25 year cycle and the BAFTA and Oscars use a 20 year cycle that is staggared by 10 years from the GGs and SAGs. See Category:Golden Globe Awards templates, Category:BAFTA Awards templates, and Category:Academy Award templates for further details.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Season article template
Has there been a consideration of having templates for TV show season articles. E.G. A 2010-11 TV season template that might include 30 Rock (season 5), The Simpsons (season 22), American Idol (season 10), etc. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What about a category or a list article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by "template". Are you meaning a special season article infobox, a navbox for all TV season articles, or something else entirely?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am trying to figure out what the best way is to coordinate the season articles. I am thinking that each season should have a category (A subcat of Category:Television seasons and Category:Television seasons by season) and either a list article or a navbox at the bottom of the page of all relevant articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Coordinate them, or organize them? I think if you're just trying to develop a centralized location for all of the season (pages?) articles then a category would probably be best. I think a nav box would just be a box of indiscriminate links unrelated to the pages in question specifically, while a category can encompass a generalized "list" of those pages. I mean, "see also" sections are really for linking related topics, and I think that related simply because it's a "season" of a another show is probably not really that related at all. That's just me.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Organize them. Do you think there should be a category Category:Television seasons by season with subcats such as Category:2010-11 Television seasons?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just guessing but is this 1999 in American television the kind of info that you are looking to supplement. There are also already existing cats like this one Category:1997 in British television. They are separated out by country for clarity. Just thought I would point them out before you did a whole batch of work that was redundant to them. My apologies if I have missed what it is that you are driving at. MarnetteD | Talk 19:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That article does not link to season articles like 30 Rock (season 5), The Simpsons (season 22), American Idol (season 10), etc.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the first thing you need to do is check to see how many season pages actually exist. Not a lot of shows get season pages created for them. I'm not sure how many there currently are and how many would need to be present for the category to be of use...at least if you're going to break it down via year.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We have over 1000 season pages that are in Category:Television seasons and its subcats. Not sure if all season pages are in these cats, but we have at least 1000.  Since the most popular show in television, American Idol does not have its shows in this category, we know a lot of other season articles exist.  There may be several thousand out there.  Also, season pages are becoming more and more common.  Let me ask this.  If I created cats like Category:2010-11 Television seasons would anyone have an objection? Where would you stand on a WP:CFD of such a category?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I just created Category:Television programs by season, Category:2010-11 Television program seasons, Category:2009-10 Television program seasons, and Category:2008-09 Television program seasons. I started populating 2010-11.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless there is objection, I will create a lot more of these cats tonight while I am watching TV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have an objection for creating cats, as mentioned above. I will do my part and add the season pages on my watchlist in the appropriate cats. — Mike   Allen   00:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have created this cat back to 90-91. I am going to make sure no cats are empty.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I added one more so it goes back to 89-90.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Should this article be for television programs' seasons or should an article like 1989–90 United States network television schedule have the category Category:1989-90 Television program seasons in it?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What cat(s) should be added to Nip/Tuck (season 5) that ran from 2007-2009 and the rest of the seasons that aired all in one year, like Nip/Tuck (season 4)? — Mike  Allen   04:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was originally aired over the course of two seasons add both cats. I just don't know where summer season shows like The Closer belong.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nip/Tuck (season 4) is like American Idol (season 10), which appears on only one of the calendar years of the TV season. Just put it in that season.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is all find a good for North American but it is a bit flawed should anyone create season articles on a show from Australia where the TV off-season is summer. That would be about now, which is February ratings sweeps in the US. I don't know of any season articles on Australian shows but these categories do not work that well should any such articles be written. North American summer shows are part of what precedes. It is a 52 week tv season but not many places these days acknowledge all 52 weeks. If you have gone in and added ratings info for a show from say 2006-7 that was burned off in July & August 2007 then you would likely notice the season-to-date program rankings on ABC Medianet do indeed continue past May and reset in usually the 3rd week of September. With The Closer you hit the most awkward seasons of a show spanning multiple broadcast seasons.
 * Season 1 - 2004-5
 * Season 2 - 2005-6 & 2006-7
 * Season 3 - 2006-7 & 2007-8
 * Season 4 - 2007-8 & 2008-9
 * Season 5 - 2008-9 & 2009-10
 * Season 6 - 2009-10 & 2010-11
 * Should they be broken up into seasons then you have the same sort of issue with Flashpoint and with Lie to me* just to name two instantly come to mind. Though broadcast in 2011 exclusively the tenth season of American Idol is part of the 2010-11 season. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 10:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From your response, I gather the convention is that the season runs from September to September rather than May to May. At some point, if a lot of Australian shows have season articles they may want to start using a Category:Australian television programs by season category or use both relevant Sept-Sept seasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs)
 * In the US the networks do very much boast of how many weeks in a row to start the season the won some demographic, especially CBS. So i picked a bit of a bad example in my previous post as there is no "season-to-date" at the end of August 2007 from ABC Medianet (i hate how they randomly skip weeks) but if you look at  you will see it is "For the week of August 20, 2007" and is subsequently called "WEEK 49" further in the press release. Just to toss out a complete inconvenience, in Canada the tv season begins with whatever week includes 1 September.   So what technically could be the end of 2009-10 in the US is week 2 of 2010-11 in Canada. What this means is that In the US Lie to me* season two (ending 13 September 2010) was part of the 2009-10 season but in Canada (which has simultaneous broadcast of the show) the second season of Lie to me* ended in week 3 of the 2010-11 season. When you say it doesn't matter because Lie to me* is not a Canadian show you are correct on the latter part of that statement. Rookie Blue is a Canadian show which also is broadcast on ABC in the US and its season finale was on 9 September 2010, which puts it in 2009-10 in the US but has it span both 2009-10 and 2010-11 in Canada. O no! The category that was created was not nationalised but rather is all encompassing. How to categorise the first season of Rookie Blue? And yes, there already is a season article for it, which is welcoming improvement.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 16:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (Just got a notification about this from TonyTheTiger) I'm not big of a fan of this, as MikeAllen and Deliriousandlost has already stated, there a bunch of shows that do not cover two years, but air in just one or even air over 3 or more years. This is not exclusive to non-U.S. shows, or is because they get canceled mid-season. Chuck (season 3), first two seasons of Eureka, Warehouse 13, first season of Castle, Boardwalk Empire, Dexter all aired in only one year, this is because they were either short seasons (≈12 episodes) or they were just scheduled that way. And of course for UK shows like Doctor Who and Hustle this is almost always the case. MarnetteD already brought op the "year in country television" which I believe is perfect for this. TonyTheTiger replied to this by giving examples that are not in these categories, here are several which are (at least one of the season articles is in one of these cats): Stargate Universe, Sanctuary, South Park, Doctor Who, Supernatural. I'm sure there are more, and I'm sure there are more examples which are not. But I feel that using the perfect U.S.-two-year TV season is not a good fit for a whole lot of shows, and going per year is a much better fit. The category is quite weirdly named, not sure why there's the "program" is in there, or why television is capitalized, (also should be an ndash rather than a regular dash for range) Category:2009 television seasons (and make it a subcat of Category:Television seasons) would seem a much better fit all around.  X  eworlebi (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why a show that airs in one calendar year, like Castle (TV series), is a controversy to be categorized in one television season or why a show, like Family Guy (season 3), that runs over two seasons is a controversy included in both. It would seem clear that it deserves mention in 2008–09 United States network television schedule and the corresponding category at issue here. We could change all the seasons to have the word North American in front of them to settle the Australia issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I probably should have waited, but I have added these cats to all shows that have seasons at WP:FT or are currently showing on Article alerts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. the name Category:Television programs by season included the word program just to fit nicely into two parent cats. However, without the word program it is ambiguous as to weather this is for programs or networks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I simply believe that going by year is a better option than going by arbitrary television season which is something that many show don't follows and that basically doesn't exists outside North America, such as Australia and the UK. Basically every show that's a midseason replacement would be inaccurate to place in one of these categories, as they are technically not part of the full television season. In my opinion building upon the "year in telvision" category system is both simpler and universal.  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be changed to calendar years, but it is odd to me why this is better. The majority of the most notable shows (those likely to have full season articles) coincide with the TV seasons.  I created the category for the 80% that fit as opposed to designing it for the 20% that don't.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, if it is agreed upon, I will move all the Category:YYYY-Y+1 Television program seasons categories to Category:YYYY Television program seasons format. This will give me something to do while watching the Super Bowl.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon further review, I think we should take this up with the experts at either WP:CFD or WP:RM, but I don't think you can move a category. Stay tuned, I will figure out where a formal discussion should be held.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Belated response to Xeworlebi : All of those shows you listed off do fit into a tv broadcast season (or two - i haven't checked all of their air dates). It completely misses my point though at the same time you are claiming to be agreeing with me. I utterly disagree with your position on this about going by year. Sure the tv seasons are divided differently in most every country. The one thing they are not is synchronised with any commonly used calendar. As to "technically not part of the full television season" OMFGROFLOL. Since when is a part not part of a whole? Seriously! My thought on what to do? Kill this whole concept and move on to something less redundant. How many season articles are there for shows from 1987? Is there even one? This is about the most poorly conceived categorisation i have seen this decade on WP. But Xeworlebi's ideas throw what organisation there is into utter chaos were they to be implemented. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 09:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My proposal is merely a further separation of (for example) Category:2010 in television, nothing more, it would create no further "chaos" as those categories already do. Same could be done for episodes, just a further separation. If that's what's wanted then I would prefer it like that, but as I already stated I believe the Category:2010 in television etc. categories are sufficient, and don't really see a need for this. While I can see the point of going by television seasons, there are a lot of instances were they can't be applied, simply because of what a television season (not season of a show, but 2009–2010 season for example) actually is. Sure, there are those that apply, but I can already see many cases were categorization would simply be wrong, directly and indirectly due to subcats.
 * The 2009–2010 television season runs from September 2009 through May 2010. Any show airing during the summer is not part of a television season, it airs "out of season". Television seasons are a concept rather than a time frame you can stick to everything. In fact the concept television season is something primarily for network TV, cable channels rarely follow it and they don't call there shows "XXXX–XXXX television season"-shows. The first season of Eureka is simply not part of the 2010–2011 television season, just because the back half aired during to the 2010–2011 television season does not make it part of it. And of course categorizing UK shows in any of these is entirely wrong, there simply is not such thing in the UK, airing during the same time does not make it part of the arbitrary creation of U.S. television networks. Just because you're on a horse during a race doesn't mean you are part of that race.
 * The way it is set-up now would categorize Dexter (season 5) in Category:2010-11 Television program seasons which would put it in both Category:2010 in television and Category:2011 in television, but it never aired in 2011, so this is utterly and completely false.  X  eworlebi (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "The 2009–2010 television season runs from September 2009 through May 2010." Wrong The 2009–2010 television season runs from September 2009 through September 2010 with the featured time being September through May. "Any show airing during the summer is not part of a television season, it airs "out of season"." Wrong Any show airing during the summer is part of a television season which according to you ended in the May that preceded it. "Television seasons are a concept rather than a time frame you can stick to everything." Wrong Broadcast television seasons are a time frame; show seasons are more of a construct. Family Guy has its seasons produced in one group, and most every production season is divided somewhere about the middle when considering its broadcast and DVD season. Just a little twisted / wonky that is. "The first season of Eureka is simply not part of the 2010–2011 television season, just because the back half aired during to the 2010–2011 television season does not make it part of it." Wrong It most certainly does. "there simply is not such thing in the UK" Right from what i can tell myself and asking some Brits i know. If you really believe in all of your points Xeworlebi then you need to go through and basically dismantle the entire YYYY-YY in television articles for every year, for every country for which an article exists. They are all constructed on the season model which has the May-August/September as part of the September-May that preceded it. You would also need to tell every tv network, cable and broadcast, that they have been doing it wrong since pretty much the beginning, because according to you seasons aren't quite real and the weeks of August are not weeks 49-52 of the tv season (this varies a bit between US & Canada). The way it is set-up now would categorise Dexter (season 5) in Category:2010-11 Television program seasons which is completely correct. Putting it in both Category:2010 in television and Category:2011 in television would be wrong. TV SHOW SEASONS do not always align with BROADCAST+CABLE SEASONS. That is why the 5th season of Nip/Tuck is in both the 2007-8 & 2008-9 broadcast seasons. The same thing happens with Rookie Blue season 1 when you lay it's broadcast history over the Canadian tv season time frame - it spans both 2009-10 & 2010-11 - but when you lay it over the US tv season it spans only the 2009-10 season. If you really want proof of the summer being part of the broadcast season i can probably score a few hundred references from i dare say each of the US broadcasters that makes their press releases available. "Just because you're on a horse during a race doesn't mean you are part of that race." Well, if that horse is running in the race then you are part of it even if you are not a legitimate contestant. Are you claiming shows like The Simple Life or White Collar or Rookie Blue or Flashpoint or Defying Gravity or Young Americans or Hot In Cleveland or 10 Things I Hate About You are illegitimate for being at least partially broadcast during the summer? This whole proposition flies straight in the face of the widely accepted convention and contradictory to the standards of that which it is categorising. All i meant to point out is that a few shows would have a single season in 2 categories due to when it was shown. If someone can't figure out that a cable show that ran from October through December 2006 is part of the 2006-7 tv (broadcast) season then i stand by saying they really should not be editing an article they do not understand. I most certainly was never advocating for anything close to annual categories and i most absolutely oppose creating annual categories for tv seasons.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 13:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All I can respond to this is, wrong, wrong, triple wrong. Categorizing a show that airs in, and only in 2009 in 2009–2010, which puts it in subsections of both 2009 and 2010 is just wrong. It didn't air in 2010 and thus should not be in the 2010 category. Why would I need to go trough every article? I'm against these cats, and the my proposal would be no different than the categories already in place, just a level lower, so yes someone would need to create those…? I'm not saying shows are illegitimate, where did you even get that from? Television seasons is something U.S. networks channels use, the rest don't use such arbitrary separations. As I already said, I'm against this, and believe the Category:2010 in television etc. categories are just fine as they are, and if people want to further split those they can go ahead with that, but categorizing a show as part of a U.S. network naming shame is not always accurate and the way current subcategories are setup is just plain wrong for shows that air in a single calendar year. Like Dexter, which would automatically end up in Category:2010 in television and Category:2011 in television, were it to be categorized in Category:2010-11 Television program seasons, which is just plain inaccurate. And when going by sept–sept, for the first season Eureka this would mean it would in 2005–2006 and 2006–2007, and thus be categorized in "2005"-, "2006"- and "2007 in television", although it only aired in 2006, that's just majorly wrong. Looks like you were able to bend my horse/race analogy to your view, so here's another attempt: Just because you live and work in Canada doesn't make you Canadian.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Xeworlebi : wrong, wrong, triple wrong. You clearly can not seem to understand a tv season is not the same as a broadcast season. So long as you think of them as the same then you will be wrong and you will see this needs correcting, not that there is anything to correct it to that is not more messed up that what you perceive this to be. As to Eureka, what can i say but eureka! you finally have it. Except you are saying it is "just majorly wrong". At that point you have gone wrong. If you don't like it that Dexter was shown in the 2010-11 season then talk to ABC, NBC, CBS, Showtime, ESPN, The CW, FBC, every other channel and network, Neilsen, BBM, and every media outlet and person who recognises the existence of tv seasons in North America and make them all change to your wishes. See if Showtime reports Dexter in a season or annual. I bet you will find that depending on the context they will use whichever is more appropriate or gives a better position to promote the show. Splitting these season categories into annual categories is the most gross distortion of accuracy that could be while still pretending to be helpful. I prefer hyphens but if someone wants them with dashes then fine, rename that much only. Eureka would be a show that has a season of the show span multiple broadcast seasons. Were the categories to be annualised then it would go into only 2006 but if the categories remain by broadcast season then that first season of Eureka would be in 2005-6 & 2006-7 categories. Before any of that the articles for each of the seasons of Eureka would need to be created. For tax purposes it does. You might not have all citisenship rights, you might even be here illegally. But you are still subject to Canadian income tax laws in addition to whatever you may be subject to in your country of citisenship or/and legal residence. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 18:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What would be useful for the current categories is if someone knows the dates of all the broadcast seasons. They could add a statement to the top of each category saying this category is for season containing episodes that originally aired in the United States between September 18, 20xx and September 17, 20xx+1 or in Canada between September 3, 20xx and September 2, 20xx+1.  That would eliminate a lot of confusion.  I just don't know what the proper dates are. Short of that detail, the categories are confusing.  I gave up on categorizing The Bad Girls Club (season 5) because I was confused about the category I created.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tony, in theory it wouldn't be too hard to do. I have the Canadian Top 20/30 Weekly Finals for most every week since the start of the 2003-4 season and even though the pdf are not all in the archive the charts listing the weeks of the seasons are there and if you know how to navigate through it you can get the last decade or so of 'start of season' in Canada right from the ratings company. Similar approach for US seasons - ABC medianet had their ratings data as images but the record of the press releases and their titles is still to be found on their site and @ archive.org. To go back further there are a few site that have scans of the weekly US ratings. I have never been so daring as to use them for ratings of episodes but they too do count weeks. If you need to go hard-copy then surely someone somewhere has old issues of The Hollywood Reporter and Variety (or maybe on microfilm). The Bad Girls Club season 5 would be 2009-10 & 2010-11.
 * "CBS Concludes the Television Year with Eight of the Week's Top 10 Scripted Programs" 21 September 2010.
 * "ABC Claims 4 of the Top 10 TV Shows During Premiere Week" 28 September 2010
 * You would just need to get that for each year and you can easily get the division of broadcast seasons. The twist is that for the tradition of summer being re-runs most places still do report season rankings and averages at the end of May. I had to add a note the info for season 2 of Lie to me is only for the first 10 episodes as the remainder was shown in the summer and i could't find a source that covered Sept 09 - Sept 10. Premiere week 2010 in Canada began on 30 August and the first network shows to premiere were on 1 September. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 19:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If the creator is even confused about the parameters of there own category, then this clearly isn't a good idea.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I perfectly understand that "a tv season is not the same as a broadcast season", it's not, and I never claimed it to be so. But it doesn't magically encompass every show in the world just because it airs on TV at the same time as shows that are part of the 2010–2011 U.S. network television season. You name several networks, which use television seasons, and then a cable channel, which doesn't. Showtime does not announce Dexter as part of the 2010–2011 television season, they announce it as season 5 coming in 2010. The shows for the 2010–2011 television season were announce by ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox, NBC and no-one else somewhere in May 2010. Additional to that the "television season" is different for every network.
 * The way it is currently setup with subsections in inaccurate. Point. If you believe that Dexter (season 5) should be categorized in a subsection of Category:2011 in television, or that the first season of Eureka should be in Category:2005 in television, Category:2006 in television and Category:2007 in television, then I won't even dignify this with another response. As this discussion has absolutely no purpose. You don't want it, I don't want it. All I did was give an alternative way that I would rather see over this one. Nothing more, nothing else. My idea is a counter proposal, I'm fine with the way it was, and don't see the need for any of these new categories.
 * And no, paying taxes does not make you a citizen of that country, and being subject to the countries laws does not make you a citizen either. Different stuff can happen at the same time, but that doesn't magically make them part of the same thing.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Xeworlebi, you are quite involved here and have not opined at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_5 or Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_6 where this is all being decided..--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Xeworlebi, i am just fed up. Read what i wrote. Your response to the Canadian example really shows how little you are paying attention to what you are claiming i wrote when you respond to it. At least then you wouldn't upset me with outrageous claims of things i didn't actually write. I found a loophole in the race example. I found a loophole in the Being Canadian example too. Just stop with the examples and i won't have loopholes to point out. Yes, i opppose these categories because there really isn't a need for them. The proposals, all of them, to refine the categories has even greater opposition from me because they make less sense than what now is. That does include me opposing your suggestion too. Personally, i want to counter the rename and divide with a proposal to delete all of these categories of season articles. For one thing they are top heavy to the last few years so even one category for "Television season articles" would be sufficient. Maybe that is already to be found somewhere in this mess. There are TWO other places! I think that itself is an evidence of this being a mess.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 20:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Deliriousandlost, I think merging these all into one category is kind of backwards. I estimate that there are 3-5 thousand of these articles and the count is growing exponentially.  Category:Television seasons exists with a thousand articles and hundreds more in subcats.  The majority of season articles are not even in this category.  We need a dated system to divide them up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You didn't find a loophole in either one, if you're riding a horse at the same time as race you are not by default a contestant of that race, you can be racing in another race or just riding your horse in the woods. Just like UK shows air at the same time as the U.S. television season they are simply not part of it. Paying taxes has literally nothing to do with that comparison, or with citizenship. This is an invention of U.S. network shows, cable networks, other countries etc. etc. simply do not follow this format.
 * You don't want them I don't want them, lets stop this stupid and pointless bickering. I have, as this is my last post on this, I'll give my opinion at the TfD discussions and be done with this.  X  eworlebi (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are riding a horse that is illegitimately running in the race then you are in the race. "Just because you live and work in Canada doesn't make you Canadian" For the purposes of collecting taxes it matters little if you are a citisen or legal resident or illegal resident - if you have an income and live in Canada then you have to pay income taxes. If you live and work here then in the eyes of the taxman you are Canadian. Really quite simple. A bit odd too. You refuse to acknowledge the loophole in either one, which is representative of the greater issue. Now there is a TfD too. O good, i wonder what that is about since i didn't know any templates were involved in this. Unless you nominated all of the templates which are for US broadcast tv seasons for deletion. Then yes, we shall pick this up at the TfD. If you meant CfD then blah. Ignorant majority wins again. I think i wrote there already ;) I would rather watch these shows than bicker about them but sometimes the ignorant proposals really get to me. I don't often support but i do oppose where called for. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 10:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Vol. photo'g needed in LA: Young Artist Awards, Sunday Feb 23
Hi all -- anyone in Los Angeles, and available Oscar night to photograph various child actors at a charity's awards ceremony? There's numerous that have Wikipedia articles, with my summary here. Anyone interested? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

First televised football game
The article 1939 Fordham vs. Waynesburg football game covers the first televised football game of all time. It would be great if members of your project could add additional information of interest!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

LineColor
An editor first suggested to change the default color of LineColor, then completely eliminate it citing WP:Deviations. Please contribute to the discussion at Template talk:Episode list. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Television programs by season
The WP:CFD for all the subcats at Category:Television programs by season has ended. I am going to be spending a lot of time adding cats to a lot of articles. Feel free to help out. I believe that there are in the neighborhood of 4-5 thousand articles out there and I only have got 2226 articles in cats so far.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Game Day (The Wire) - guest stars list.
Seems a bit long to me. I'm assuming all the The Wire episodes have complete guest list on them... but is that needed/standard. Seems more like someone trying to justify/make the articles more than snubs. Important guests I get, or recurring characters... but copying the credits into the article doesn't been right to me. 124.187.94.238 (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Rose Catherine Pinkney
I have created an article for a friend (Rose Catherine Pinkney) and am not sure I have been objective. Feedback welcome. I admit on the international encyclopedic importance scale, she is of marginal WP:N, but I think she passes. If you disagree let me know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have pondered this article for a bit and am pretty sure it passes WP:N even though it is unusual for us as a project to have articles about business executives who only presided over business units. I still hope I am being neutral.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ratings
Smallville has all it's early ratings from ABC Media Net. So, I added them to the early One Tree Hill pages too, however after Smallville's mid-season hiatus in season 3, it came back one week later than OTH, so I left one week of OTH blank as I don't know to navigate the website. I only copy the links from the Smallville pages. Does anybody know how to navigate ABC media net? Jayy008 (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about basic ratings (weekly)? You can use TV By the Numbers (go to the Smallville season 10 page and you'll find the links to those pages there). ABC Media Net has apparently stopped covering anything not on a major network anyway. I cannot find weekly ratings that include The CW anymore...that's why we use TV By the Numbers now.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about 2003-04, TVBTN didn't report back then. ABC Media Net has the information, I just don't know how to navigate their archives. Jayy008 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Source improvement for Television articles
In particular, fictional characters. The Television project has a big problem with a large number of non-notable fictional characters with articles. As such, the Fictional character WikiProject has proposed creating a search engine for reliable sources relating to television. It can be discussed here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Television episodes by director
What do those in this project think about the categorization scheme being created for directors by episode. For example, Category:Television episodes by Alan Alda and on up to Category:Television episodes by director. I know "by performer" categories don't exist, but there is Category:Films by director. On the other hand, television series are hardly considered the "director's medium" that films are. At the very least, the naming for individual directors needs to change to Category:Television episodes directed by Alan Alda, etc. That's a lot of categories to put up for CFR, though. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a discussion should be opened to rename all as suggested.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Camelot (TV series)
The page for Camelot (TV series) is rated stub-class on the discussion page. Could someone take a look and reassess it? I've put in a lot of work during the last few days and think it's definitely moved away from "stub" category. Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to Bignole for the *speedy* reassessment! :) NearTheZoo (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fairly Legal show on USA
Please correct the following: The beginning of the article states that Kate decides to change her career after the death of her father. That's incorrect based on the premier episode that aired on USA. In the premier episode, her father had just died a week ago, they were still deciding what to do with his ashes and hadn't even had the reading of the will yet. She was already a mediator, no longer working as a lawyer. Thank you. 76.0.229.0 (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - There was no edit link available yet on my original post. To be specific, it was the "List of Fairly Legal episodes" page where the error about the plot shows up twice. Once in the overview and again when summarizing the pilot episode, as follows:

The series follows Kate Reed a successful lawyer who, after the death of her father, decides to change her career and become a mediator.

After her father passes away, Kate Reed decides to make a change and switches her career from lawyer to mediator.

Thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.229.0 (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not having seen the show, I don't know what you want to have fixed, and I also don't see anything wrong with that page. You can always fix it yourself by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of that page (WP:SOFIXIT). – sgeureka t•c 15:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

FAC nomination needs editors...FAST
The FAC nomination for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is in desperate need of editors voicing opinions, supports, or opposes. Now, I know that this is the project for the Television articles, but a lot of editors here also edit some film pages and regardless you're all qualified to review any page on Wikipedia for quality. This is the fifth nomination and again it's being ignored by reviewers in general. Previous attempts have failed because of inactivity and not enough people supporting or opposing the article. It's one thing for everyone to say "this is wrong and it needs to be fixed" and another when they don't even bother to show up for support period. User:TaerkastUA has put a lot of work into this article and it's only fair that we band together and do what we can to either support its promotion, or point out any issues that need to be addressed. Please visit Featured article candidates/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/archive5 and help save this FAC from being closed because of inactivity.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding seasons to award winners
Above is an example of a change I think we should make now that the Category:Television seasons by year is starting to get populated. However, I need some feedback on whether the television awards for the Golden Globe Awards, Primetime Emmy Awards and Screen Actors Guild Awards are for the calendar year. I.e., above should season 1 also be linked. I have already made this change stylistic conversion to Template:TopUSTVShows. Below are the templates I propose changing.


 * Template:GoldenGlobeTVComedy 1990–2009
 * Template:GoldenGlobeTVDrama 1990-2009
 * Template:EmmyAward ComedySeries 1976–2000
 * Template:EmmyAward ComedySeries 2001-2025
 * Template:EmmyAward DramaSeries 1976-2000
 * Template:EmmyAward DramaSeries 2001-2025
 * Template:ScreenActorsGuildAwardsTVEnsembleComedy 1994–2009
 * Template:ScreenActorsGuildAwardsTVEnsembleComedy 2010-2029
 * Template:ScreenActorsGuildAwardsTVEnsembleDrama 1994-2009

I would also change the following if a season article existed:
 * Template:GoldenGlobeTVDrama 2010-2029
 * Template:ScreenActorsGuildAwardsTVEnsembleDrama 2010-2029

Anyone with knowledge of the calendar of eligibility would be very appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am also considering making this change for the following templates:
 * Template:GoldenGlobeTVDrama
 * Template:GoldenGlobeTVComedy
 * Template:EmmyAward DramaSeries
 * Template:EmmyAward ComedySeries--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As to the multiple season linkage/listing it is somewhat misleading as it implies the latter half of glee season 2 in part earned the award when it didn't - hell, it is still not yet scripted let alone filmed or broadcast so how can it have won an award! For awards based on calendar year just year & show is sufficient and accurate. delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the season should be linked because, while a show may have won for a particular season award, it is still the show that one. And in the case for the Golden Globes, the awards are in January and covers parts of two seasons for most shows and it would be confusing to have links to both seasons. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What if instead of Glee (2010, S2) it were formatted as 2010: Glee (S1/S2). Would that be confusing?
 * Are you sure a season that is not yet complete won an award? Looking at it and all of the years previous methinks it be the show not any particular season that wins the award. As such i am not in favour of this for the Golden Globes. The Emmys do work based on the broadcast season. I have this habit of collecting the Emmy "For Your Consideration" screener DVDs of my favourite tv shows and every single one of them is promoting a specific season of a show. If you want the un-extended pilot of Veronica Mars then you would need to get this. Being in Canada i have never had the pleasure of seeing the SAG Awards on tv but looking at the article on the SAG Awards it is really clear that they are based on the calendar year not the broadcast season. As such i am not in favour of this proposal for the SAG Awards.
 * Apparently you missed my preceding comment. As a result, I have reformatted the template above in response to the first comment. I am trying to help the reader. I imagine that the Golden Globes are for episodes over a period of time. For example, it might be that the awards are for the performances in a given series between November 1 and October 31.  Since Hawaii Five-0 had some nominees, we know that part of the 2010-11 season is included. Now that season articles are common, it would be helpful.  It would be easier to see how helpful this could be if you consider something like Seinfeld.  If you say that it won in 1993 it helps the reader more if you could show 1993: Seinfeld (S4/S5), IMO.  What do you think about this format.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I have seen in their recent respective rulebooks, most of the awards you mention do not go by the TV season and instead go by the full calendar year: Therefore, I oppose adding these modifications to both the Golden Globes and the SAG templates. In addition, something like "Glee (S1/S2)" would also be confusing since it seems to imply that the eligibility period was two TV seasons in their entirety instead of just the calendar year. As for the Emmy templates, I'm going to oppose for them too for the sake of consistency, both with the other award templates; and also because some of these Emmy-winning shows like The Danny Thomas Show and Playhouse 90 do not currently have individual season articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Golden Globes - "Only programs aired for a minimum of six original segments during the calendar year on access television during prime time are eligible"
 * Screen Actors Guild - "Motion pictures and television and cable programs exhibited or broadcast during the 2010 calendar year shall be eligible for nomination."
 * Primetime Emmys - "Eligibility period - June 1, 2010 - May 31, 2011"
 * Also, you have some shows like, for example, The Sopranos', whose seasons might have not ended before the usual May 31 deadline. So again, strictly linking to a particular season article may be confusing. IMO, it's better to just follow the official Emmy records and just list the calendar year when the show was awarded. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, broadcast season has the summer part of what precedes while the Emmys have the summer as part of what follows. And that pesky 5th season of Nip/Tuck spans 3 calendar years and did win awards. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 13:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have undone the proposed change to the GG template above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"Continuity"
I notice many episode articles related to How I Met Your Mother have "continuity" sections. These seem a combination of both WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. Lacking a wikiproject devoted to that specific show (at least, not a project banner on the episode talk page I looked at), can anyone offer up a rationale for such sections? This just a case of the articles being edited mostly by fans shirking a few content guidelines, or are there instances/series where such sections actually develop into something meaningful? --EEMIV (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The rationale of adding such sections was very likely fan-enthusiam. The content either belongs in the plot summary, or (more likely) is so trivial that it doesn't belong anywhere. The only time I can imagine that it can still be useful is when a production section is added, where the writers' intent to refer to other eps is described with a source. But looking at the poor state of many of the HIMYM ep articles, I don't see anyone finding and adding such refs, so these sections can be removed (without prejudice) at large. – sgeureka t•c 10:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've raised the question now at the franchise article's talk page to prompt revision/inform about pending removal. --EEMIV (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Television episodes by Justus Addiss
Category:Television episodes by Justus Addiss, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. 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. This is an umbrella nomination that includes all categories named using the "Television episodes by XXXX" convention. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. peer review requested
I have been working on this article for several months and would like some outside opinions on how to improve it. Please contribute some comments at the peer review page for The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.

Thanks!Astrocog (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

3rd Opinion Request
Additional opinions requested here regarding sourcing. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning topic Roseanne
Hello, I was looking at the list of actors who appeared on Roseanne shows over the years, and I did not see Ed Asner on the list. I saw an episode of him in a small part a couple days ago, though I don't know the name or number of the episode, but I know Roseanne and Dan have a fight over his eating habits after heart attack, and she leaves him a couple days to stay with her sister Jackie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.223.116.200 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to IMDb the episode he's in is named "Call Waiting" and it aired in 1996. Doniago (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete
I think Born This Way (Glee) should be deleted. Have already created the page here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanavb (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Episode List of Fanboy and Chum Chum

 * Hi, I'm trying to establish consensus as to what data should appear at the Episode List of Fanboy and Chum Chum. Please comment on the discussion page: Talk:List of Fanboy and Chum Chum episodes.  Thanks!  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Request review, approval of C-SPAN proposed draft
I posted here on occasion back in the fall, when I was working on a handful of articles about the American public affairs network C-SPAN. As I seem to recall, I didn't get much response to requests for input, but I've just completed a substantial rewrite of the flagship article, C-SPAN, and as it most certainly falls under WP:TV, I figured now was a good time to ask again. I'm not comfortable immediately moving the article into place, simply because I work with C-SPAN's communications team. The downside to this possible COI is that I've had an easy time researching the subject and writing what I believe is a very complete version of the article. If you wouldn't mind taking a moment to review it, the proposed draft is here and the Talk page edit request is here. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Lyoko
Lyoko needs cleanup, can someone merge it to Code Lyoko? (redirect it when a small merge is done) 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Bob's Burgers
I'm pretty certain edit warring is going to continue at Bob's Burgers. Various editors, both registered and unregistered, continue to add a section on the opening gags despite lack of sources, notability, and the content being trivia. A talk page discussion was created to avoid the edit warring, but it's clear that the champion of maintaining the section does not grasp the policies at hand, or intentionally continues to forge ahead despite them. Feel free to weigh in at Talk:Bob's Burgers.Luminum (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Character infoboxes
Are for individual character articles only, yes? Not for List of ____ Character articles? I know that is what I was told about the List of True Blood Characters article but I can't seem to find a note of it in the MOS or on the template itself. I'm about to wipe the infoboxes from the List of Being Human characters article and based on the misconceptions people have on the talk page I'm fairly certain the edit is going to be challenged. I'd like to have something to link to. Millahnna (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There should generally just be 1 infobox per article, otherwise it defeats the purpose of it which is to provide a very generic summary of data that you're likely to find in the body of the article anyway. I cannot imagine that these character sections are so large that they require separate infoboxes for each individual section. If they are that large (and don't need plot trimming) then they are candidates to be split into their own articles....again assuming they are more than just plot info.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bignole. The articles are, as per usual, plagued with excessive plot and very little real world info.  There is some talk on the U.K. version's page of splitting some of the characters into their own articles.  But as of right now the only reason those characters are so long is because of, again, ridiculous amounts of plot summary. Millahnna (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Plus, hasn't the UK show been on for a few years? The US version is only 10 episodes in, I doubt any character has reached any real form of notability. Especially when the show airs on the SyFy channel.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah the U.K. version is on its fourth season (or series if you prefer). Which is probably why the info for the three main characters is sooooo long; it really is just entirely plot.  But there are some misconceptions happening on the article's talk page at the moment (spoiler tags and the like) and that's what drew my attention to the infoboxes to begin with.  I somehow hadn't even noticed them before.  Millahnna (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Help Please
I found these while working WP:URA, where I am working on the oldest group of unreferenced articles. There are 6 articles at the top of Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006 about network TV schedules, Some of the articles in the series (1961–1962 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)) where sourced with Source: The TV Schedule Book, Castleman & Podrazik, McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, 1984., which is a bit early for some of the remaining articles. There was a previous AfD on the whole group which passed No consensus, I am not sure how an AfD would turn out now, and really don't want to find out. I looked around for references and don't have an idea if they can be made to pass WP:N or not. I am hopping someone here has something available to put at least some kind of reference on these so we can at least move to refimprove — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talk • contribs) 01:47, 23 February 2011


 * 1981–1982 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * 1983–1984 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * 1984–1985 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * 1987–1988 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * 1988–1989 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * 1989–1990 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)


 * There appears to be no interest in this project for improving or maintaining these articles. Per WP:DIRECTORY " electronic program guide" are fail WP:NOT unless they are of historically significance. There is no indication of significance or notability. Does anyone have a good reason I should not take these to AfD? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Burn 'em. I'll throw my support behind their deletion as they're both unreferenced for so very long, as well as show no prospect of meeting the notability guideline.  —   Fourthords  | =/\= | 14:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * AfD started Articles for deletion/1981–1982 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) Jeepday (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Mfd notice of WikiProject Blackadder
I have listed WikiProject Blackadder for deletion. Please join the disscuion here. Thank for your time. JJ98 (Talk)  23:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Comedy Awards
Hi! I've created an article at The Comedy Awards for the upcoming awards, and any help in improving it would be much appreciated. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Cartoon Network and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon Network
Portal:Cartoon Network and WikiProject Cartoon Network is up for deletion at WP:MFD. Please comment here and here for any concerns. Thank you for time, regards. JJ98 (Talk)  02:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Fictional fictional character
Fictional fictional character has been nominated for deletion. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Listing episodes in an infobox vs. a navbox
A user recently nominated Template:Infobox Simpsons season episode list for deletion. He says that including the season episode list in the infobox is not the "standard for wikipedia", and that the list should be moved to a navbox at the end of the page. (For comparitive purposes, here is a page listing the episodes in the infobox; here is one with an episode list as a separate template).

As far as I was aware, there was no set standard and it varies from project to project. The method used in Simpsons articles (and quite a few other shows) has been in place for quite a while (at least 5 years) and if there is a "standard", it's news to me. Personally, I find the method of listing episodes in the infobox far more useful, as it's more noticeable for users unfamiliar with wikipedia. -- Scorpion 0422  20:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

More opinions please
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rosie O'Donnell. Jnast1 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC) (Using )

Ratings tables
Are ratings charts allowed in articles? Like this Jayy008 (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a visual image that charts the progress (or decline) of the show's overall viewership. I think that's perfectly acceptable. I have turned it into a thumb size and left a caption. The only problem with it would be if it is determined that certain figures are inaccurate later and need to be changed then someone would have to recreate the chart if the person that made it originally was not actively editing.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay. Thank you for the info. Jayy008 (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

file:Jeopardy.PNG
image:Jeopardy.PNG has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

America's Next Great Restaurant
If there is an administrator around. Could I get a block on America's Next Great Restaurant article for non-registered user. As I have an IP user repeatedly removing sources and creating edit conflicts that would have made the article up to date. --Spshu (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your best bet is to post a request at Requests for page protection. Your note here may not be seen by an admin for some time so thiat page will get you a quicker response. MarnetteD | Talk 22:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Spshu (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

NCIS TV Show, Leroy Jethro Gibbs Bio
It mentions on the page that he never gives up his coffee, only to Abby 3 times. I believe he gives Jenny Shepard his coffee in MTAC in the episode thta Tony and Ziva are undercover as assassins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.78.128 (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hayley Smith
The usage of Hayley Smith is under discussion, see Talk:Hayley Smith (American Dad!). This is a character in "American Dad" and "Home and Away" (see Hayley Smith (Home and Away)). 65.93.12.8 (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Morning After (web series)
I have started an article that falls under the purview of WikiProject Television. Hulu has produced its own in-house recap show, which is significant because they're typically just a distributor or production partner. I was hoping to get some feedback on the article and its sources. Thanks! Composer Dude (TALKIE) 04:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Concern about "Top X" lists and their copyright status
I edited The 100 Scariest Movie Moments in 2010 and was reverted by ClueBot []. I'm interested in this WikiProject's opinion on lists like these, as I think it would be trivial to dig up several more, like 30 Even Scarier Movie Moments. Do these constitute a copyright violation? I'm willing to go in and do a bit of work on articles like these if I could be pointed in the right direction. Cheers, Archaeo (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyrights do not protect ideas, just the specific wording used on shows and in articles. The content you removed did not violate the copyright of the BravoTV.com article provided as a reference.  I don't know whether the content violated the copyright of the show, since I haven't seen that show.  If you think that the content was copied from the show and thus should be removed, I think that your talk page will have a ClueBot message saying how to report a "false positive" and that would be the way to proceed with the removal.
 * As far as "Top X" list articles in general, I think that the top priority would be to ensure that such articles have reliable, secondary sources. The article on The 100 Scariest Movie Moments does not contain any.  If no such sources can be found can be found for an article, the article might be deleted because the topic is not notable.  I suspect that some or even most of these "Top X" lists are not notable, but each such list would have to be checked to be sure. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I would think there's a compelling argument that reprinting a list in this format constitutes a violation of the show's copyright, but IANAL and, as you say, the WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY issues are important enough on their own. The incident with the ClueBot was very old, and I did report it, so no big deal there.
 * I think I'll get involved with this sometime this weekend. It seems like the show itself constitutes a reliable source for the films named in the list, but I don't know that the article itself is notable enough. Regardless, thanks again. Archaeo (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, there was a recent discussion on this on WT:NFC that including the Foundation's legal council input. If the list is compiled from factual data (say, the top 10 most-watched programs), data can't be copyrighted, and reconstructing the list here on WP is not a violation.  However, if it is a list created from creative insight, as the examples above give, wholesale recreation of the list is considered to be beyond fair use and considered improper.  Elements that appear on the list can discuss their placement appropriately in their own articles, and notable discussion of placements on a list can be discussed on a list article, but we cannot replicate the entire list. --M ASEM  (t) 22:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume, then, that this would be a good candidate for deletion? I would be happy to nominate it myself and add the information contained within into the film articles themselves, especially as I seemed to have botched it the last time I tried. Archaeo (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I stand corrected. I see that the guideline WP:NFC has been updated with the legal counsel input mentioned by Masem.  If a "Top X" list article is to be nominated for deletion, it would be best to refer to the guideline itself, rather than the guideline's talk page, in the AfD discussion.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to make sure something's clear. On WP, for articles that are about these lists, you have two issues: is the list notable, and should the list be fully published. You may still have the article about the list itself but not include the list if the list is notable (as would often be the case of the AFI 100 Years... lists). If the article about the list is little more than the wholescale copy of the list, and deleting that (per my note) leaves but a stub with no hope of expansion, deletion is then, and only then appropriate. -M ASEM  (t) 05:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I was waiting to see what others did or wanted to do about the article deletion -vs- list section removal issue. Since nothing has happened, I will go ahead and use the less invasive approach: removing the list section from the The 100 Scariest Movie Moments article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1)
Hey all. I've nominated Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1) for featured article, but so far it's gotten few comments except for the pictures and sources. I really don't want the nom to fail for lack of attention, so was hoping some you guys could take a look at it and leave some feedback. Would be much appreciated. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  14:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Year added to template title
I have added year ranges to many award template titles. Please comment at the centralized location if there are issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding a title card image to a tv show
Hi, it's been some time since I uploaded an image and never for a tv show. Can someone direct me to the template to be used? Thank you Dollvalley (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

guest stars
Are guest stars allowed in the episode summary. For example, I see a lot of (guest star name) like that. Just wandering if it's allowed as I've been using it. Jayy008 (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Technically, I think we should be identifying any guest actor that isn't identified in some way already in the article. We identify every character's actor in the plot summary of a film (well, not every time, but usually). I think that needs to be a common practice for our episode tables (and individual articles for that matter). And, IMO, the listing of the guest actor's name should not be counted as part of the word limit for plot summaries.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "We identify every character's actor in the plot summary of a film" - I don't think there's actually consensus to do this though, and in some cases the actors' names have been removed on the grounds that the information is available in the Cast section and removing the names cut back on bloat. Granted that's more applicable to film articles than television, but my point is that while it is often done, it's not considered policy or such to the best of my knowledge. Doniago (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I said, when it's being performed we do all of the actors. I didn't say we do it every time, and I never claimed it was policy or guideline. In the case of TV, I think it is good to list the guest actors because they are typically not listed anywhere else. Given that we are not IMDb, we shouldn't have a simple list of all the guest stars in an article in the first place. So, it's nice to have them in a location relevant to them.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So when they're in the casting section, we don't include them in episode summaries? (Just a final clarification). Jayy008 (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If they are just being listed in the casting section that's probably inappropriate for the article because we're not IMDb. If they are being selectively listed in the casting section because they are a "major" actor, then that's probably inappropriate as well because it's favortism. My opinion, and we really haven't covered this at WP:MOSTV (so it's just that, my opinion), is that all guests should be listed in the episode summaries. If the character is important enough to be mentioned in the plot, then the actor that played them should be listed as well. Now, if there is significance to the casting of said actor/character, then that should be included in the "Casting" section obviously, but if the section is really just sentences of "John J appeared as Character Y in 2 episodes", then it's probably not appropriate. It just looks like fluff, to me at least, as there is no real substance that statement.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

American Dad new format
Please go to Talk:List_of_American_Dad!_episodes for a discussion on the changes Fox.com made to the episodes numbering. There are now 7 past seasons as opposed to 6. Shawnc (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of sources at The Crimson Petal and the White (TV miniseries)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:The Crimson Petal and the White (TV miniseries) regarding a review that a new editor keeps adding. Basically, the editor is removing part of a review from The Daily Telegraph that discusses the music negatively, and adding a review from a blog that is positive about the music. It has pretty much become an edit war and I would really appreciate it if other editors would weigh in on the talkpage or just keep an eye on it. I am involved and obviously biased, but I think it's a pretty clear case of a source which should not be used. If anyone has any opinions on either side though, it'd be appreciated. The editor has also indicated that he/she does not wish negative reviews of the music to be included, out of concern for someone's career. I'm trying to explain policy, but I"m not sure I'm getting things across. -- Beloved Freak  15:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured topic candidates/Spooks (series 7)/archive1
Hello, I have the link on the header for Good topic candidate for about a month and it received only a handful of feedback (3 suports, 1 oppose) I received a post saying it is going to need some more comments before it is to be promoted (or failed, which hopefully won't happen). I am writting this hoping that a few editors would post their comments. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 15:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Blackarachnia deletion review
There is a Television related deletion review under way here Deletion review/Log/2011 May 18, which you may want to add your input on. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Staff list
Should a staff list exist similar to Minsan Lang Kita Iibigin. All of them are non-notable people. I cannot seem to find anything regarding this in the existing guidelines. I think they should not be included because they are not really relevant to the article. What say you? Moray An Par (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:MOSTV briefly covers this. Basically, unless they did something worth noting (which would mean there would be some commentary on what was happening and not simply identifying their position) then a list is inappropriate. IMDB already keeps a list of everyone that works on a TV series. We don't need to be a mirror of IMDB.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Moray An Par (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeking input at image deletion discussions
A number of deletion nominations have been raised recently for television episode infobox screenshot images, and I was hoping people from this WikiProject might take a look and weigh in with their opinion. These discussions include, , , , , , and. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  01:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

2011–12 United States network television schedule
Looking at 2011–12 United States network television schedule, I see many shows listed as new series in the sections for the various networks that are not on the schedule. As a result, many are redlinked. What gives?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hamil family
Please help the hamil family, i am sure you have seen your facebook page! They lost the home and 2 boys. Please help them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.187.16 (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Dating Guy
Hi folks, I'm posting about a tiny article that is a big thorn in my side right now. Over on The Dating Guy we currently have a meatpuppet invasion and allegations of plagiarism without a shred of reliable sources to back it up. I'm nearly at my breaking point with dealing with the talk page. If anyone else would like to jump in and watchlist the page to add a voice of reason, I'd appreciate it. The vandalism has been held in check by a semi-protection on the article, so it's really just a question of fielding absurd requests at the talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

TV networks on Filmography tables
Is there a way we can educate the editors from excluding the TV networks on the filmography table? Is there a way we can prevent them from adding these networks to the table? There is currently a network war in the Philippines and Wikipedia is not a part of them. I really hate seeing the names of TV stations in the actors filmography. I tried, a lot of times, to clean them up and make them according to the WikiProject Actors and Filmmakersproject style recommendations. There is only one of me and there is a large number of zealous fanatics. I understand that this would require the collaboration of WP:Film, WP:Television and WP:Tambayan Philippines. Carl Francis (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an illustration: Other articles have: For other examples you can check the tables in these biographies: Wu Chun, Iya Villania, Diva Montelaba, Song Seung-heon and Won Bin. See how crowded the table looks. Carl Francis (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Band of Brothers episodes
There is a small dispute over the format of the first sentence of this article.

I would be very grateful if other editors could offer opinions, here;

Talk:List of Band of Brothers episodes

Many thanks,  Chzz  ► 17:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tv.com person
Template:Tv.com person has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Active Banana    (bananaphone  15:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Britain's Got Talent
why does every conversation the judges have backstage have to be written down?????92.237.216.204 (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thunderbirds
The usage of is under discussion, see Talk:Thunderbirds (TV series) and WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_27, for the two discussions underway. 184.144.166.87 (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

DVD extras
If there is some question as to whether a character is dead is an interview with the actor on a DVD extra stating that that character is dead a reliable source? 203.35.82.133 (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, so long as it's clear that said actor has stated that the character is dead.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think so - he says it was a diginified death sort of like he asked for intercut with footage of his final scene (which is considered ambiguous by some), but have been told on the discussion page that DVD extras are unverifiable and unreliable sources. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not true. They are considered Primary sources, but they are perfectly acceptable. They can be verified by anyone who has the DVD and they are reliable because they are basically coming straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As such am making changes to Spooks & Lucas North. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems it's still not enough. Anyone want to check the discussion out on Spooks and weigh in (either side, I don't care). 203.35.135.133 (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Co-stars
For "List of characters..." pages, can co-stars be included? Example: Susan Walters is never credited on The Vampire Diaries but she plays the mother of a series regular, has had major interaction with all the main cast and has been a part of the series since it began. Jayy008 (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Recurring guest?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * She's not credited as a "guest stars" she comes up at the end of the episode where they usually put "waiters" and extras etc. Jayy008 (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Then I would just go by how many episodes she appears in. If it's quite a few, then she is technically a "recurring guest" even if they don't officially give her that title. Sometimes, show's only worry about crediting the actual stars of the show and everyone else is second fiddle (exception sometimes going to those "special guests", which she wouldn't qualify as).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you! Jayy008 (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Filmation animated series.
I have a little problem with the consistancy in the articles:
 * The New Adventures of Superman: The 2 Superman stories from The New Adventures of Superman (season 1), season 2: The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure, season 3: The Batman/Superman Hour and repeats shown again as The New Adventures of Superman. Episode List.
 * The New Adventures of Superboy: The 1 Superboy story shown between the above Superman stories. Episode List.
 * The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure: Season 2 of the above - mostly an article about Aquaman (and wider DC cartoons) and a link to TAoSuperman & TAoSuperboy (season 2) on the TAoS pages. Episode List for Aquaman/Other DC
 * The Adventures of Batman: Animated series, one double episode and one single episode story. Episode List.
 * The Batman/Superman Hour: Season 3 of Superman series above, Season 1 of Batman above.


 * I can see why choices were made, but it does make things a bit of a mess. Splitting off a Aquaman page may even things up, but would the other DC heroes stories go here or a lot of messy snubs?  Plus, what would be left of the Superman/Aquaman page?
 * Another thing is each segment is called an episode, which makes sense from a naming point of view... but doesn't reflect the reality of the position (where half hour sets of 3 eps were always shown together). Any thoughts of fixes or tidying? Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

First Warning
Just for information, I have tagged this article as a part of WP Television and have also flagged it as needing attention from an expert. The article seems to suffer from either original research or general lack of referencing, and I see it as somewhat dubious as to its overall coverage of the subject. For one I doubt that First Warning in and of itself is notable, but the general class of product (of which I am sure there are more products than just First Warning) that it describes has enough claim to notability that I wouldn't nominate/support deletion...also I'm sure that First Warning isn't exclusively used in the Oklahoma City metro area. Any attention that this article can get would be appreciated. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 00:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Chopped episodes - Episode-specific comments or footnotes?
User:Drmargi is doing a great job of cleaning up List of Chopped episodes and reformatting it to tables. However, an issue that should be taken to the article's talk page rather than our user talk pages is where to put episode-specific comments. I think the notes should go with the specific episode, especially those that were previously at the start of an episode's entry. I find it it particularly annoying to have to go to the footnotes and then back to the main part of the article when trying to read about the episode. (I had started this, but it's not possible to see by going back in the edit history because the template has been change). However, Drmargi suggests including them as footnotes, a la List of Iron Chef America episodes. To me, the notes are akin to an "episode summary lite", and is a format common to many "list of (tv show)" articles. I appreciate her concern of too many blank "notes" fields, but it must be possible to format a table to omit a field if it's blank. It would be helpful for other editors to weigh in on this. Something else I have been pondering is whether the "notes" (as I had formatted them) might better serve as an episode summary.Agent 86 (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Make It or Break It
The table here is a mess - can anyone fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.70.18 (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Peer review
I have filed a peer review on the Wheel of Fortune (US game show) article because I would like to know what could make the article better. Please add feedback here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Input needed re: individual articles for each episode/sketch
Help is needed at Articles for deletion/Undertakers sketch in an RfC discussing notability of an indivdual Monty Python sketch. A proposal has come up that suggests creating a "List of sketches.." article (vs a dedicated article for each sketch). This kind of issue must have arisen many times in the past in regard to other TV shows. Can someone who knows the conventional way WP treats that issue please provide input at the RfC? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: 30 Rock
I've nominated the following articles for deletion as non-notable, plot-only articles that should be deleted or merged into the List of 30 Rock characters. Feel free to have your say: Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Frank Rossitano
 * Articles for deletion/Cerie
 * Articles for deletion/Toofer Spurlock
 * Articles for deletion/Pete Hornberger
 * Articles for deletion/Danny Baker (character)
 * Articles for deletion/Josh Girard
 * Articles for deletion/Leo Spaceman
 * Articles for deletion/J. D. Lutz

Paul DelVecchio
I'm not sure exactly where to post this. I've taken the article from a redirect and expanded it. However, I would welcome the help if someone would like to expand it to the point where it meets the DYK criteria. Thanks. the_undertow  talk  07:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion related to this wikiproject
There is currently a discussion regarding the potential removal of the "Status" parameter from Template:Infobox television. If you would like to participate in this discussion, it is located here: Template talk:Infobox television.  Chickenmonkey  19:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What to do with tense of show article that has been canceled?
It has been suggested that once a show has been canceled, the entire tense of the show article should be changed to the past tense. But I seem to remember reading somewhere on Wiki that the tense of a show article (even if the show is no longer broadcast) should remain in the present tense since the show is still available on DVDs, reruns, etc. So, what do we do with the tense of a new show that will no longer be broadcast? --RedEyedCajun (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be present tense. The only thing that should be put into past tense would be anything detailing the actual production of the show. For instance, you wouldn't say "Show X is filmed in Country Y" after a show is off the air because it's inaccurate. But "Show X" will always be a television show, so you wouldn't say "Show X was...", because that insinuates it no longer is. The only way for that to be true would be if the show was deleted off the face of the Earth.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  07:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct. Creative works will always exist. the_undertow   talk  07:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought I had read somewhere. I guess it's okay that I copy and paste this discussion onto the talk page of Sports Show with Norm Macdonald? If anyone objects, just let me know and I'll delete my paste.  Thanks for helping before major edits were made to the article. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

tagging
Should articles tagged with a country specific banner with task force (such as WP:Australia's Australian TV TF) also be tagged with WPTV? I notice that WPTV's banner doesn't activate country specific task forces. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Homicide: Life on the Street (season 2)
I've nominated Homicide: Life on the Street (season 2) for FA, and would love to get more voices in at the FA if anyone could spare the time. (Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1) has already previously passed as an FA.) —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Crew of Breaking Bad
I created this article yesterday and it was promptly nominated for deletion. I would appreciate input from members of the wikiproject at the articles for deletion entry.--Opark 77 (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Deletion discussion is here. Doniago (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Doniago.--Opark 77 (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All part of the service. :) Doniago (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Bruckheimer template format
I don't know what people think about this template format. I could reorganize the movies strickly by decades, which might be more conventional. Take a look at Jerry Bruckheimer and let me know if it is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good but in my experience you're right that the convention is decades for templates with a filmography. I'm sure its OK as it stands.--Opark 77 (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Episode numbers
The CW season usually has 22 episodes. For all their returning shows, episode numbers haven't been released, only "full season". When there's a source for full season, can "22" be added to the infobox or does a source need to specifically say "22"? Jayy008 (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We typically don't add "22" until the season is over, because anything can happen to prevent all episodes from airing. The figure is usually adjusted each week when a new episode finally airs. As the infobox is meant to represent what is currently going on, and not necessarily what might happen.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of TV Ark
A new user, User:Rafmarham, is keen to add lots of information for idents and branding of UK TV stations. The user shows promise to become a good editor, so I don't want to deter him/her from WP. However, I'm concerned that the user is overusing TV Ark, a website that I'm not sure meets our RS criteria. Could someone else take a look at Special:Contributions/Rafmarham, please? He's more likely to become upset if he's adding lots of things that will have to be removed. The JPS talk to me  21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing on episode titles & plot
I just looked at a couple TV articles that had lists of episodes and I've got a couple questions. Are you supposed to have a reference for episode titles? Or are those one of those okay to simply list unless they are controversial (in which case you'd need to reference them). And the same question for plot synopsis. Cloveapple (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The episode is verification for the plot summary, so long as there is no interpretation going on. Basically, you're allowed to just state the basic facts and not "assumed" facts based on personal observations and conclusions that you draw. As for titles, they are usually verified by the source that should be used to verify the air date for the episode. That's usually something like "TV Guide".com or MSN.com.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on episode article infobox screenshots
I invite comment on putting better language towards the use of episode screenshots as infobox images within WP's non-free content policy -WT:NFC. --M ASEM (t) 17:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Powerpuff Girls (reviews needed)
Is there a place to look other than google for additional reviews for the series? Currently the article has only two and another editor suggested to ask here about a possible Newsbank or a similar database to search. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Scott Rudin
I have created Scott Rudin. I have never seen a movie producer who also does plays or at least, I don't recall seeing templates indicating such. However, his theatre work has been so successful, I wanted to make sure it is not a problem to have included it. So that discussion from members of all four projects that I am notifying is all in one place on this topic, comment at Template talk:Scott Rudin if you have any commentary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Plot summaries
Is this too long? I want clarification before I revert. Thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO it is too long. Watching the episode would go more quickly than reading through that plot section. But this is just one editors opinion so you may want to get input from a few more before making a final decision. MarnetteD | Talk 19:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, agreed. OK, I will do. Thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Dates for shows airing in the midnight hour
I'm trying to get back in the editing groove after some time away, and working to ease into it and re-acclimate myself to Wikipedia. I have gotten myself into a minor article dispute, though, and was wondering if there is some existing precedent or guideline which can settle it. Shoesquashfan5000 and I have a disagreement over what days and dates should be listed for NTSF:SD:SUV:: listings. Both it and Childrens Hospital air in the midnight hour, but for marketing purposes Adult Swim states that they air during Thursday night, whereas I feel that the article list the dates based on the fact that they technically air on Friday. Both of our arguments can also be seen in the discussion thread I started. Dancter (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Limitations in "Availability" section for a TV channel?
I was just trying to add a couple of countries to the "Satellite" area of the "Availability" section of the Al Jazeera English infobox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_English). I discovered that both pieces of information I was going to add are actually already there, but they aren't displaying on the page. It appears that everything after #30 in the satellite listings (and #20 in the cable listings) is not being displayed. Is there a way to extend the length of the infobox so that all the entries are shown? Or is this an intentional limitation in the infobox to keep it from getting unwieldy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayguy42 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Renaming to Aqua Teen Hunger Force to Aqua Unit Patrol Squad 1
Please comment here for the requested move for discussion of renaming to Aqua Teen Hunger Force to Aqua Unit Patrol Squad 1. Thank you for your time. Regards, JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  08:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Parks and Recreation characters merge discussion
There has still been little input at a proposed merge discussion on Parks and Recreation-related articles, so if anybody else could weigh in, it would be appreciated.. A user has recently proposed that many of those articles (specifically Mark Brendanawicz, Ben Wyatt, April Ludgate, Andy Dwyer, Ann Perkins and Tom Haverford) be merged into Characters of Parks and Recreation. I've started a centralized thread on the Characters of Parks and Recreation talk page to discuss this, so an input would be appreciated! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  02:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Avengers: EMH
There is a discussion occuring involving the episode order of this TV series and the inclusion of a 'micro-series' here. Input would be greatly appreciated. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

House of Cards
I just created a page for the upcoming show House of Cards that will be airing at the end of next year. It will be the first original show that Netflix airs which should make it, pretty groundbreaking. I'd say it is just above stub-class so I would love to get some feedback on it. There isn't too much information out there yet on it, but there was enough to create an article, so please help me out by adding to it/fixing any errors. Mikist4 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Mid season reality TV
Why does a show like American Idol not run for a full 24 week season from September to May rather than an abbreviated Jan to May schedule?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Returning series status
Infobox television has a status parameter. In the show White Collar, someone put the phrase "returning series" in the parameter. I reverted it because I don't see how a continuing series can be classified as "returning" just because it's off the air, as most series are, during certain times of the year. Another editor put it back, apparently believing it is correct. Honestly, I've never seen anyone use this phrase, although I can imagine that if a series is off the air for a year or more and then comes back, it would be accurate and useful.

Comments would be welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I support your interpretation. If a consensus is reached here it should be added to the template documentation.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  00:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be helpful to document these sorts of issues in the templates. One problem with this particular parameter is it doesn't have limited choices - you can use whatever language you want. That makes it harder to document.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If y'all want the parameter to be removed from the system entirely, just voice your opinion at Template talk:Infobox television. MegastarLV (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer to that discussion, but for the moment, the status parameter still exists, and you're the editor who restored the "returning series" phrase to White Collar. Could you address my (and Fourthords's) interpretation?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well to start off, I didn't come up with the term. It's used on nearly all television articles & it does sound appropriate as the meaning in this case is that the series "returns the next day" for a new episode. MegastarLV (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one fighting to keep the term, and I see no evidence that it's used in "nearly all television articles". I looked at a few, and it's all over the place - one series used it, another used nothing, another used "airing". I don't feel like looking at more. In any event, you've made your point, which is all I asked you to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The worst reason to do something is because everyone does it. I agree with Bbb23 -- the term returning, versus continuing, doesn't make sense.  I think it's been used largely out of habit, and because no one has either thought about it or challenged it.  Return implies the series leaves, which is not the case.  It simply continues on its broadcast cycle.  Drmargi (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Reality TV awards
Although reality TV does not involve acting (theoretically), what types of awards are reality shows eligible for. What kinds of things have they won or been nominated for? Does the Emmys have a primetime host category. I know Tom Bergeron has won for best host, but it was Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Game Show Host. It seems like they should have best Comedy, Drama and Reality show awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Spanish television series
I have expanded the list of Spanish television series a lot and I also have decided to reduce the scope of the list. Although apparently in English television series is synonymous with television program, in Spanish serie de televisión refers to the serials of fiction such as Friends, The Simpsons and the like. I prefer this distintion because I don`t think having a list of all Spanish programs is neither possible nor useful. This is also more intuitive and, in any case, you cold also create a List of Spanish television films, List of Spanish reality shows, etc. Also, I would appreciate it if you could check the English.--85.55.133.140 (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Site reliability as a source
Was there ever a consensus regarding ToonZone as a reliable source? Either full yes or no or "for some things"?

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Freezing
I noticed that we have two TV shows called "Freezing" Freezing (manga) and Freezing (TV series), but one of the subsidiary articles, List of Freezing episodes does not indicate what Freezing it is about in its title. Shouldn't this be called List of Freezing (manga) episodes ? 70.24.246.151 (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Rafmarham
Would an experienced user please help talk to User talk:Rafmarham regarding references. The user is adding content in good faith, but is often failing to support additions with citations. This is spoiling some developed articles, and creating work for others who have to sift through his edits. The JPS <sup style="color:purple;">talk to me  09:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Avengers: EMH
A discussion is taking place on the micro-series and episode order of the Avengers:EMH show. I invite you to leave your thoughts here. Input would be greatly appreciated. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Status=Under Production
Why isn't there a parameter to not that a show is now Under Production in Template:Infobox television? I want to adjust the infobox at The Firm (2012 TV series).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see Template talk:Infobox television. 117Avenue (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot about that. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Glee episode articles
I find it hard to believe that every episode of Glee is notable enough to have it's own article. Can someone help me out? <b style="font-family:sans-serif;font-variant:small-caps;"> chris †  ian rocker 90 </b> 01:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Most likely all are not, but it's going to be a matter of forcing discussion about the issue on the relevant talk page (either a parent page, or a WikiProject/taskfoce devoted to Glee). Getting episode articles under control has been a tedious and often stressful event in the past, as a lot of shows have such a strongly opinionated fanbase that edits the articles that you cannot avoid basically being drowned out by 10 times the number of opinions that differ from yours simply because they like they show and not because the pages meet criteria for existence. If you're lucky, a discussion will prompt activity to actually source significant coverage for each episode. If not, then you'll end up having to take it to a higher authority for a bigger discussion.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Information: Radio Times website redesign
This information at WP:WHO might also affect a sizeable number of articles in the scope of this WikiProject. Regards  So Why  22:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC regarding The Dating Guy
I have opened an RfC regarding The Dating Guy at Talk:The Dating Guy. Your input would be appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

General Question: Timing
Hey guys, I typically work on WP:Film articles, but I've been thinking about expanding my editing to some television work. As a general rule with films, the majority of editing tends to take place in the month leading up the release of the film and the month following the release. We also see a lot of editing around awards time as we are trying to improve articles before a ton of traffic flows towards the articles. I have found that these times tend to be the best for editors to have constructive feedback sessions. In terms of Television articles, I was wondering if there was a similar timing. After browsing through a few articles, it seems like a bunch of editing tends to happen towards the middle to end of a series airing (For example, Bob's Burgers received a bunch of edits around March, two months after it originally aired). Is this accurate? I want to try to get involved with some television articles, but I want to hop in at a good time. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Like you, I work on more film articles than TV. But I keep a bunch of TV articles in my watchlist (makes it easier to keep updated on my shows, heh) and poke my head in from time to time to fix a bad edit or rephrase a bit of problem text.  In my experience, you can expect a lot of edits right before  a new season premieres and after each episode.  Episode list articles seem to get heavy edits perpetually during the season (constant addition and removal of episode summaries) as do character articles (list of characters in particular from what I've seen).  The more popular the show, the earlier the season editing cycle seems to start and the longer it goes after the season is over, generally speaking.  "Genre" shows also seem to get an early start unless they keep a tight lid on their spoilers. I feel like (but can't confirm) the timing fluctuates a little bit if the show is aimed at younger viewers, as well.  This is all purely guesswork on my part, so grain of salt and all of that. Millahnna (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you had any experience with new shows versus returning shows? I was also curious how frequently new shows get updated versus something that is in it's second or third season.  I was looking at the article for Pan Am (new series that starts this fall), and it seems like the editing has been pretty light.  When do new shows typically start seeing the bulk of edits? --TravisBernard (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've only caught a handful from the beginning. THey seemed heavy at first as initial casting news came in (film when firs tin production) and then were fairly light after until right before they actually aired (a week or two prior at most). I did notice some fluctuation in the ones based on other works (like remakes and and book series) but I've caught so few that early that I'm not sure if that's the norm or not.  Those had more spoilers out earlier than other shows, it seemed, so that may be why.  It occurs to me that you could check a relatively newer show that's only been on a season or two and just go all the way back to the beginning of its history to see if you can eyeball any patterns.  Popular actors seem to draw attention to articles simply because they are in a show.  I know Ricci's work but the rest of the cast I didn't recognize by name.  If any of them came from really popular shows prior to this, that might cause a spike. Millahnna (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Emmerdale character articles; invitation to discussion
I've begun a discussion regarding the atrocious state of character articles within the Emmerdale universe. These articles stand to be deleted unless corrective action is taken. Please join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Emmerdale. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Squeeze (The X-Files) at peer review
The episode article Squeeze (The X-Files) is currently undergoing a peer review here, with the aim of helping it reach FAC in the future. Any comments that could be added to the discussion would be greatly welcome. Thanks in advance. GRAPPLE  X  03:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Question
Let's Fish is a stand-alone pilot, which was intended to be a series, but wasn't picked up. Let's Fish is also an English-language American comedy, which features a strong mixture of live action and animation.

Would it properly fit into the following categories, even though it ended up just being a pilot and not a full "series"?

Category:English-language television series, Category:American comedy television series, Category:Television series with live action and animation

The Ed Sullivan Show Performance query
Is there any way to tell what song(s) Ray Charles performed on his 3 December 1967 appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show?

The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. GAC
I have humbly nominated this article for GA status. I've worked very hard on it over the past year and would appreciate someone starting the review.AstroCog (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Dexter at GAN
Hi, I have nominated Dexter for GAN myself, which is a most popular article on Wikipedia. I going to start a Dexter task force of WP:TV myself. Thank you for your time, regards JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  04:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

ZOOM (1972 TV series) - 1974 cast 2's Danny
Danny McGrath did not appear on three straight ZOOM casts; the Danny on the 1974 cast 2 was another Danny, last name unknown. Mynameisphil (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Cable network series navboxes
I see TNTShows, USANetwork Shows, E!, AMC Shows, and Starz Shows. Yet, I see no such templates for most other cable networks including Category:HBO network shows, Category:Showtime (TV network) original programs, Category:TBS (TV channel) network shows, and Category:FX network shows. Do we want to have such templates or have these templates been created without a proper purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Twin Peaks episode titles
There's a section over at the article List of Twin Peaks episodes which explains the nature of the episode titles. However, reading it, I'm not sure which of the two options would be best for naming any articles about specific episodes. I was planning on working on some of the first season episodes, probably starting with Episode 2/Zen, or the Skill to Catch a Killer (just to be disorganised). My own thought would be to titled the article Episode 2 (Twin Peaks) with Zen, or the Skill to Catch a Killer redirecting to it (it currently points at the list article). However, I could be persuaded otherwise if it was thought that the alternate titles would be better for the article name. What are the thoughts on this? GRAPPLE  X  23:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that you're intended titling is the appropriate one. Originally, they had no titles. So, just because Germany titled them, and then later CBS adopted those titles on their website (but apparently not for the DVD releases) doesn't change the fact that they were officially known as merely "Episode X". So, I would use the adapted titles as redirects and just have titles of "Episode X (Twin Peaks)".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming
I recently moved "Pilot (Ringer)" to "Pilot (Ringer episode)" as I thought that was the standard format used. It has been moved again, so I just wanted to confirm here what the actual rule is. Jayy008 (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "Pilot (Ringer)" is the standard. The "episode" bit is a further disambiguator needed for cases such as "Deep Throat (The X-Files episode)" (an episode) and "Deep Throat (The X-Files)" (a character). Unless another element in "Ringer" is called "Pilot", then just the one disambiguator should be needed. GRAPPLE   X  14:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you! Jayy008 (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Major Templating issue.
There now exist network show templates for the following networks:

Several of these networks have extensive syndicated programming that is included in the source list article and thus on the template. This content seems to be considered encyclopedic, but there is some controversy as to whether templates such as FXNetwork Shows or TBSNetwork Shows (Syndicated) should be included in the articles of the syndicated shows. Including them would be a new direction for WP, but I think it would be a step forward. At User talk:Ckatz we have had some one-on-one discussion of the issue. His major concern is what might happen to a highly syndicated show like The Simpsons. My belief is that very few shows have been syndicated on enough U.S. networks to have problems with this system of templating. International syndication could be an issue if all countries start to make these types of templates. Maybe we could have a policy of only country of origin syndication templates on the pages. Then shows that are highly syndicated could present that information about similar shows in a way that does not require one to navigate away from the page. The purpose for country of origin syndication would be that since readers may want to read about articles of shows advertised on another show regardless of whether they are original or syndicated, we are helping the reader find information quickly. A show like The Simpsons, NYPD Blue or Law & Order could add a dimension to their template content by presenting the variety of domestic syndication networks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, this isn't really the kind of information that would warrant navigation templates, in my opinion. I know I don't give much of a toss about what series are also syndicated by the same network that syndicates the series I'm reading about, and I don't think that's a unique view. However, the information is still relevant, but should just be added in prose under a relevant "Broadcast" heading. Series such as The Simpons, Miami Vice or The X-Files are shown on multiple networks here in Ireland alone, let alone in the US or worldwide, so these templates would soon grow unwieldy if they're exhaustive, and serve little actual purpose if they're not. GRAPPLE   X  03:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a few problems beyond the pretentiously tenuous nature of the connection of the articles.
 * Using the navigation templates to propagate redlinks. (Really worrying with OWN since the header article doesn't exist.)
 * Inclusion of non-linked series articles, including the unneeded dates. Both this and the redlinks are contrary to the purpose of of the boxes to navigate among existing articles.
 * The number of these templates that are so densely packed that they aren't navigable in and of themselves.
 * - J Greb (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we delink or remove programs that don't yet have articles?
 * I admit that I really was not thinking about international syndication. I guess removing syndication makes more sense to me now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed syndicated from TBS and FX. I will get around to USA, which I think is in some articles later.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * With the redlinks it isn't a case of just delinking, they should be removed, period. Same with the unlinked text. - J Greb (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * These templates are a bad idea. The Simpsons is currently broadcast in 90 countries. I have no clue how many channels per country broadcast the show on average, but it could easily end up being over 500 channels in total. That is too many even with a collapsable box.--Maitch (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea. Probably no sindication, as mentioned. Just original country and channel. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Higgins
I've been doing a bit of work on this article, since it appeared at AfD. If anyone wants to do some tag teaming, please jump in. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Situation Magnusson


The article Situation Magnusson has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails to meet General notability guideline

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"Storylines" in character articles
I am discussing the issue of referencing for "Storylines" sections in character articles. Please comment here. Axl ¤  [Talk]  17:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Replacement of individual episodes with redirects to season pages
User JDDJS (talk) has recently converted the vast majority of CSI episode articles for season four and five to redirects (example) with the comment "(#REDIRECT CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (season x) not a notable episode)". He is also doing the same to Family Guy and The Cleveland Show. In many cases I would probably agree with him, but he seems to be redirecting at the rate of two or three a minute and not transfering any references to the main article. I have complained on his talk page, but from other comments on there I believe he will continue and I don't really want to be the clean up squad. As a project, I'm sure you have run into problems like this before with articles on the edge of notability, so is there a project guide for when an episode is notable enough to warrant an individual article or for what information should go into the season guide if there is no episode article? Thanks. Scillystuff (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirecting does not require one to transfer any material from the original article to where it is being redirected. (It would be different if it were a merge with deletion as the end result). Since a redirect's history is still available, you're free to move anything you believe is helpful, but the user creating the redirect - as long as its not disruptive - is not required to.
 * As to when an episode is notable, it falls under the standard notability guideline - significant coverage by secondary sources. That normally means reviews (not just recaps) of the episode by critics. --M ASEM (t) 13:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing about episode articles is that pretty much any episode from a major network is notable, because you can always dig something up on it using old newspaper archives. The problem is that it takes a lot of work to do that, so for most shows the episode articles just include a plot and an air date. I believe that we should only allow episode articles if they do have some kind of out-of-universe information or if they have an active WikiProject behind them. So in that case I support his actions. --Maitch (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And this is why leaving a redirect is fine - we've not lost past contributions to the article, and if someone wants to make the effort with additional sourcing, they can do so without admin intervention. --M ASEM (t) 14:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. You two have just explained my opinion for me. It's upsetting that I wasn't informed about this conversation, since it is about me. Now User:Spidey104 is saying that per this project the episodes shouldn't be redirected, despite the fact that most people here agree with me so far. JDDJS (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)b
 * Obviously I don't agree with you, as I raised the issue :) And JDDS, it's not about you, it's about a project guide. Over the past 12 months many of the same episodes you redirected were redirected and reverted. In order to avoid this kind of back and forth, I asked for advice. You say nothing is lost, but just out of curiosity, how would an average user know that there used to be individual articles? How can you find the history, when even the individual (but now circular) episode wikilinks have been removed from the season guide? I was going to check a few of them for useful referenced information and if I found any transfer it to the season guide, but the only source of the redirected episode history I can find is contib:JDDJS. Am I lacking in wiki-fu? Scillystuff (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And guess what? drmargi has just reverted my one reference addition to the season guide from a now redirected episode. It lasted 90 minutes. :( Scillystuff (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In defense of my edit, I didn't make a connection to this group of edits, which I agree need some discussion at this point. I just didn't see what was so significant about an episode set in Jackpot being filmed in Fawnskin, given the overwhelming majority of desert exteriors which we are to see as in and around Las Vegas are actually shot in the Santa Clarita area. That said, I want to review the various edits discussed above, and then will weigh in. I will note that It's fine to be bold, but a group of edits as sweeping as these were should have been proposed on the main article's talk page first, and the community given time to comment before the editor went ahead. Common sense says it prevents conflicts such as we have here, and prevents possible edit wars. Drmargi (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but these pages were complete garbage. Most of them were just plot summaries, that weren't even completed. There was either very little or no sourced information on the pages. If they at least had more out of universe information I would have discussed it first. If there were some articles in good shape, I wouldn't have redirected them. However, they all were in horrible state showing that very few editors care enough about CSI articles to make them into useful articles. JDDJS (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Jim Henson's Construction Site
Please let me know if this is the wrong place for this comment and I will move it. I've started trying to improve the Construction Site stub but I'm wondering where it belongs. The article states it's part of the stub for American TV series/children's television series produced in the United States. Neither of which are completely true. It was produced in Camden and Elstree, London and originally aired in the UK. All2humanuk (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If it was produced in the UK and aired there, then that is where it belongs as far as country of origins go.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Twitter
The last I remember, Twitter wasn't allowed. I haven't paid much attention to rule updates recently for general Wiki information, so can somebody tell me if verified Twitter accounts are allowed if their revealing factual information? Jayy008 (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think they meet our WP:RS requirements. I imagine there are people against its use regardless, though.  What are the specifics? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They do not necessarily meet WP:RS; they are WP:SPS - self-published sources. They are reliable for claims about the party in question, same as a self-published blog or official website. Not reliable for other information such as claims about third parties. Elizium23 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Self-published sources aren't allowed. But I say that if a show runner is releasing information, it can be used. Twitter has become the new medium for news releases. 117Avenue (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @PeregrineFisher, the specifics are basically if a cast members has something to say, can I source Twitter and use it for a quote? Jayy008 (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ratings Mistake in top Show at End of Year Chart
American Idol may or may not have been top rated show, however the article cites to a deadline.com article that references ratings in the 18-49 demographic and not all demo viewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.226.229 (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Journalists
There's currently a discussion under way about whether to include advice on journalist biographies in out notability guidelines (particularly relating to broadcast journalism). Please feel free to add your thoughts to the discussion. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

2012 in television & 2012 in American television
A new user has created these articles and it looks as though they intended to build them in mainspace. I'm not sure how you guys handle these articles but it seems like WP:CRYSTAL may apply. Regardless, the articles will be created within a few months so overall, I'm not too worried about them but I thought you guys might want to take a look.  Ol Yeller Talktome 21:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is some information in the US television article, and as you say they'll be created soon anyway, so it's probably ok. I've created a British television article for the following year as early as July, though that is yet to be created this year. The disambiguation page is all right too as that will be expanded over time. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

telenovelas
I have seen more than one telenovela entry flagged for including too many cast members included and too long plot summaries. Wikipedia has to realize that these things go on for months and months or longer, and so they have many cast members and very long plots and subplots. I think Wikipedia has to have different criteria for them. Karen Anne (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you provide some examples?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

V (original and remake)
Can anyone assist in ripping out the fancruft? I've begun working on some articles to make it an out of universe thing. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Cast order
I remember sometime ago their was a discussion I brought up about the order of cast. I don't remember if it was just the infobox or the article too, but the article cast should be ordered in the same way as the infobox, right? Jayy008 (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would imagine so. Newer additions to a show's cast are added in chronological order, but beyond that I'm not sure if it's by billing or alphabetically for those who began at the same time. GRAPPLE   X  17:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought so to. Thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. It's the best way to stay objective.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, could you and anybody please voice that here as the user seems to think it's "editorial judgement" Jayy008 (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Seasons of 30 Rock's FTRC
The Seasons of 30 Rock's Featured Topic has been nominated for FTRC here. Please comment on if it should remain a Featured Topic or be removed. GamerPro64 01:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Episode boxes
Is there a way to shorten episode table fields? Like here to close the gap between sections. Jayy008 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the gap you're referring to? Is there any page that closes this gap so that I could see a cross comparison?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the infobox is taller than the length of the text beside it, there's some white space before the table starts. Unfortunately the only way to fix that is just to add more text to the preceding sections, really. GRAPPLE   X  00:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It only looks like that because of your browser. Someone on a widescreen monitor sees the gap (I do anyway).  When I shrunk the size of my browser window to mimic a non-widescreen monitor, there is no gap.  Millahnna (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys. And Bignole, no there isn't, I was simply curious if it was possible. Jayy008 (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What about removing the table entirely as only four episodes have aired? Jayy008 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Need more opinions at Dexter Morgan character article
The nutshell; there's a list of Dexter's victims on the page that was "this close" to being edit warred over. One camp thinks it's OR and/or fancruft, another camp thinks that primary source is fine and is ignoring the fancruft angle entirely. Some folks are trying to have a discussion about it on the talk page (it's a little spread out in multiple sections) but I don't think we're getting any closer to a consensus. Anyone want to drop by for more opinions? I wasn't involved in editing the page so I offered a third opinion but I am a regular watcher of the page so I may have a bias. Thanks in advance. Dexter Morgan. Millahnna (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Episode Articles?
Where is the policy that allows for articles on TV Show Episodes? Not saying they aren't useful, but I'm wondering where the line is, between different shows, characters, ect. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:N is the policy. Provided that enough secondary sources are used within an article to demonstrate that it fulfils notability, then it can stay - that's the line. GRAPPLE   X  05:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's WP:NOTE now. There used to be a few others, like WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE.  Back in 2007, I would say there was maybe 5 to 10 times as many editors working on episode pages.  Half were trying to delete them, and half trying to keep them.  A small amount were actually trying to reference them (those are now WP:GAs now).  Anyways, we use NOTE now, but some people love episode articles, and others think they are destroying WP. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically almost every prime time show on a major network can have an article for every episode, but they have to be written well. Most shows don't have enough editors dedicated to working on the episode articles, so they usually are just redirects. However, some shows like Glee (TV series) have enough dedicated editors that every episode has its own article. JDDJS (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that they "can" have an article, like being on primetime somehow provides some parental allowance for them to have articles. It's that being on primetime typically allows for most episodes to receive the significant coverage from reliable third party sources that is necessary for an episode to have its own article. It's about there being sources, not about the number of editors dedicated to the show.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bignole's correct. For example, the CSI franchise pages get a fair bit of editor traffic, but because there's not been any secondary sourcing given to episode articles, they're mostly non-existent (though there's no doubt sources available). On the other hand, work on The X-Files is pretty much a one-man task, but there's still been enough sourcing found to promote a lot of episodes to Good Article status. Many hands help, but one person at a time can still source everything that's needed. GRAPPLE   X  19:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Requesting opinions at MOSTV
Requesting opinions at WT:MOSTV.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hart of Dixie
I recently created List of Hart of Dixie episodes, but I'm not sure how to make the title turn to italic. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Jayy008 (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Danish television programme Jersild Live
Please, help me with the article about the Danish television programme Jersild Live. The problems is written in the article Jersild Live and on the talk page Talk:Jersild Live. JAL78 (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Marvel Animated Universe?
Ultimately, I think that this article should be removed. As far as I know, there has been no official confirmation of a shared continuity between these series. In fact, it has been brought to my attention that the official Marvel handbooks list them as being in separate continuities (X-Men in Earth-92131; Iron Man in Earth-569386; Fantastic Four in Earth-534834; Spider-Man in Earth-194111; Incredible Hulk in Earth-400285; Silver Surfer in Earth-634962). Also, there are no citations throughout the article that confirm that there is a shared universe (plenty that state several crossovers, but that doesn't mean anything- there are heaps of crossovers in Marvel shows) --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Seeing input at The Playboy Club
Hey all. There is a bit of a debate going on right now over the use of an image of Gloria Steinem in the "Protests" section of the TV series article The Playboy Club. The editors discussing it have hit a bit of a standstill so anybody who could chime in their opinion at Talk:The Playboy Club, we'd appreciate it. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  17:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Listing and cast info
Hey all, I know that listing things with just a source isn't enough for certain things. For example "International Broadcast" listing every channel with the channels own source. I know it comes under WP:Notability and WP:THIRDPARTY, but is there any other things I can link to when removing? Thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, is there anything wrong with saying "Rachel Bilson portrays Zoe Hart" when writing a cast section in prose. A user and I are having a disagreement about the wording to use. "Rachel Bilson as Zoe Hart" I feel is fine when it's a bull-pointed list, but when writing a paragraph it doesn't make sense to me. I have based my edits around Smallville which is a good article as also uses the "portrays" terminology. Jayy008 (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In prose it's always a good idea to keep the vocabulary varied. Use "plays", "portrays", and anything else appropriate, so as to avoid sounding repetitive. GRAPPLE   X  18:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is good to vary words, but I would avoid the use of "plays". It comes across as less professional. It's a term more used with children to describe the idea of "acting", because "to play" does not typically mean "to act". For example, "John plays basketball". If you want to switch up the words, I would suggest switching up the structure of the sentence. Instead of "John as Character", you can write it out more like "Smith appears as the character John Doe".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, to your first point about broadcasting listings you could also point to WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTGUIDE, and WP:MOSTV.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was told on my user-page that the "Not" guide is for articles as a whole, not sections. Is there anything other than WP:MOSTV that's specific to sections and not articles? Jayy008 (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * AussieLegend said that WP:N applies to whole articles, that's "notability". WP:NOT applies to any content within articles. Elizium23 (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Top Gear
I've recently been editing the Criticism of Top Gear article. I think I could use some more eyes on that page though, so since it seems to fall under your WikiProject I thought I'd pass it along. --cc 14:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sons of Anarchy articles turning into fansite
There seems to be a real danger of the various articles in Category:Sons of Anarchy turning into something more resembling a fan site than an encyclopaedia. There is already a very good Sons of Anarchy fan wiki setup at SAMCROpedia on Wikia, which we shouldn't be trying to duplicate here. A good example is the recent edits to Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club, where a well meaning, but IMO misguided contributor just did a massive synopsis of the first few episodes of the first series - hinting that there was much more to come. My contention is that the only place to summarise happenings on a TV show is within the individual episode summaries, and that all other articles should remain factual and focused on encyclopaedic content not original research. There is a real danger of popular TV series attracting masses of fan-cruft, and Wikia was setup for just that sort of content.

I would appreciate input from the editors of this project (I'm only interested in the show because of the motorcycles so don't contribute much to TV-related articles) on a) whether I'm completely in the wrong or b) if I'm right then keeping a watching eye or actively working to remove the cruft from the current articles would be very welcome. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What does "appeared" mean
Still at Talk:The Playboy Club, we have an editor who believes that an actor who has filmed an episode that has not aired, has "appeared" in an episode. My argument is that if the episode hasn't aired, then the actor hasn't appeared. While the definition of "appeared", the past tense of appear, would seem to be obvious, the editor has specifically asked "And please provide either proof in regard to your statement, "The aren't considered to have appeared unless the episode has aired." along with either Wikipedia precedence or policy to back your statement up" so I'd appreciate the opinions of others. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just re-read WP:CRYSTAL to make sure. I am fairly sure that standard practice is that if production has been completed on the film or episode then we can use wording such as "He is slated/scheduled to appear on [date] in [episode]." We certainly can't use "appeared" in past tense as if it already happened. And given the unpredictability of Hollywood we need to be able to verify the production phase. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In this particular case, taping of 7 episodes has been completed, the actor/singer was contracted to appear in the series, at least one source states he was contracted to appear in episode #4 (only the first three were aired). I maintain that whether a television audience has seen the episode is neither here nor there - he still has appeared in an episode where production has completed.  Lhb1239 (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, he wouldn't have "appeared" in an episode if it never aired. "Appearing" suggests that people saw it somehow. Since it didn't air, then no one saw it and he didn't "appear" in the show. He filmed a role for the show, but that role ultimately didn't get shown. Now, if they release the show on DVD (which seems unlikely considering how quickly they cancelled the show) and that episode is there then you can say that. But, since you cannot verify that he actually does appear (his parts could easily be cut from the episode, since we don't know the extent of the role) the best you can really do is state that he was contracted to appear on the show before it was cancelled.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're guessing all over the place in your comments and I have to say: guessing, supposing, and projecting is not helpful in this discussion at all. In fact, when is it ever helpful in a Wikipedia talk page discussion on article content? Lhb1239 (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And what policy, manual of style, or current practice can you point to where we use past tense for future events? Elizium23 (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The same one that says we don't refer to television shows that are no longer aired as "was a television show" but as "is a television show". Whether or not the episode is ever aired that a performer guest stars in, that performer still appeared in the episode because the episode still exists. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing at what exactly? Was the show not cancelled? I believe it was. Are there episodes that did not air? I believe there are. Can you say an actor appeared in a show that never aired? No you can't. You can say he filmed an episode. You can say he was slated to appear. What you cannot say is that he actually did some appearing, because that is a grossly inaccurate representation of what happened. I haven't done any actual guessing. I'm telling you like it is. If the show didn't air, then the actor didn't appear. Simple as that. People don't have to agree on everything in Wikipedia, but to blatantly dismiss my comments as "unhelpful" and "just guessing" is not only uncouthe, but it's downright rude. For someone who claims to assume good faith all the time, you're quick to insult people that try and hold a civilized discussion.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, please. You guessed at a number of things in your original response and it was obvious from that same response that you haven't looked at anything that's been discussed, the other points presented, or anything that's happening at the article and article talk page. Or, I could be wrong - maybe you did all that. Thing is, from what you wrote, I can't tell you did. Regardless, it doesn't matter what you all think here if you're not going to weigh in at the talk page. Wikipedia project pages are just project pages. Policy and editing standards are not decided here, they're just bandied around and discussed. If you want to make a difference to the article and the discussion that's happening on the article's talk page about this, go over there. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that you are going to declare independence from a group of editors concerning ourselves with the best practices for a category of articles, and go off and do whatever you want, despite consensus being formed here in a public forum for a directly involved WikiProject, then you are going to find yourself roundly shouted down wherever you go. You didn't get your way at Talk:Pan Am (TV series) and now you're pulling more of the same. I'm really not impressed. Elizium23 (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So, basically you cannot tell me exactly what I apparently "guessed" at, and to show me that you're saying we have to go to a talk page to re-discuss this? Hmmm....interesting how you perceive things. A discussion is a discussion no matter where it takes place. We're not talking about policy or guideline changes here, we're talking about the simple word choice in one article. Since there isn't an original discussion on that article about whether an article "appeared" or "is slated to appear" (unless you count the bits riddled throughout the endless and repetative image discussions that are on the talk page), this would be just as a fine as any place to discuss something so trivial. Have a good evening. Cheers.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Bigmole: It's not a matter of "cannot", it's a matter of not taking the bait you're dangling.
 * Elizium: "...declare independence from a group of editors..." Huh? Of course I am independent from you - I'm not part of this project clique, so that would make me independent of this project clique.  As far as consensus being formed here rather than on a talk page concerning a specific article...your understanding of consensus is skewed.  Consensus is more of a formal process, no one's said anything about forming a consensus, and it doesn't happen regarding specific articles on pages separate from those articles.  Again, a project page for a genre of articles doesn't determine policy.
 * "...you are going to find yourself roundly shouted down wherever you go." From that statement, you seem to have the impression that belonging to WikiProject Television gives you some kind of power above editors who don't belong to WikiProject Television. That, of course, is not the case at all.  The attitude that I will be "shouted down" is decidedly anti-Wikipedia policy from pretty much any civility and collegial editing policy standpoint you can find.  Again, belonging to WPT is not a license to tromp over editors who are not part of your "group" nor is it a cabal that has more privilege and/or power in Wikipedia.  If you want to directly effect the article in question, go there and take part in the discussion.  Hiding over here were you seemingly believe you can dictate how television articles can be written is not only ineffective, it's seriously misguided.
 * "You didn't get your way at Talk:Pan Am (TV series) and now you're pulling more of the same." Excuse me?  My argument for a specific cast order at that article had NOTHING to do with me wanting or getting my way -- and this situation isn't like that, either.  In situation you are referring to, I was involved in consensus-building exercise for the betterment of the article.  Apparently, you were involved in an us vs. them exercise.  That kind of thing is not productive and it surely doesn't foster the feelings of collegial and cooperative editing needed in a group effort such as Wikipedia.
 * "I'm really not impressed." That breaks my heart. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Word it to say the actor in question was cast in an unaired episode. Avoids all of this infantile nonsense and is in no way incorrect. Then, should the episode air on a different channel, or be released to home media, then it can be expanded upon in a more informed manner. A solution almost as simple as some of those arguing here. GRAPPLE  X  15:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Already done last night in the caption of the photos being discussed. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem solved, thread over. GRAPPLE   X  15:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Editor unjustly tagging images for deletion
Hi, all. I was wondering if any of you would be willing to comment here or at User talk:Gh87 about this. It is my belief that User:Gh87 does not understand what he or she is doing in deletion debates about fictional characters. My comments were backed up by others, including by an administrator who commented here. And now Gh87's editing has extended to the topic of fair-use images, which I also feel he or she lacks understanding of. For example: Take a look at, where Gh87 asked, "Did the author of the website permit you to upload this photo?" Like I said to Gh87, the author of the website does not have to give permission for us to use any of their photos. These images have been released to the public. They don't even belong to that website. The same goes for It does not belong to AOL, AOL has no say on whether we can use it or not, contrary to what  Gh87 believed! And it is a screenshot, for goodness sakes.

For one case, Gh87 said, "The source's main domain (http://www.takeitishamcmyway.com/) says on the bottom: 'All Rights Reserved Do Not Copy, Re-Print or Distribute  without permission of Author.' Does it mean anything to you?" I told Gh87, "It doesn't mean anything to me because these images do not belong to that site or the author. They belong to ABC." The user also made these edits. In that first link, that image could be a screenshot that the uploader made. In cases such as those, there is no external link to link to because it was not a website the editor got the image from. And if the source were to say "Fox Broadcasting Company," it would be correct because that image belongs to Fox. In the second link, that is exactly what it says: "FOX.com, owned by FOX." But Gh87 tagged it as having no source and with the wrong type of tag. That tag does not apply to screenshots.

We really need people clearing things up about all this. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Scripts
Can a photo of a script be used to source a episode title? Only the front cover. E.G. Sophia Bush official Twitter posting an image of the front of it with the title, director and writer listed. Jayy008 (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, images cannot serve as verification for anything. Especially when you're dealing with Twitter, which cycles its posts so often that it'll probably be deleted before long. Is there no other reliable source, or is this for an episode way in the future?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The ones I've seen are for January and one set to air in April. No other sources are available yet. So I guess I will just have to wait. Jayy008 (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Advertising money
There's a reliable source for every 30-second ad spots on network TV for this season. I am going to add some to The CW pages individual seasons, which section would it go under? Jayy008 (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Depends. It could go under a marketing section (if one exists), a broadcasting section, a development section. Just depends on how much info there is and what sections the page already has. If there's enough info, then create a section if it doesn't have an appropriate one. I'm not for 1 or 2 sentence sections though.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's none of those sections under the pages I've made. Could I change a production section to developement and use that? Or just simply put the info under production. Example: Gossip Girl (season 5) Jayy008 (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Create a "Release" section discussing the changes in timeslot for that season. Then you can add the marketing info in there, and add subsections for critical response and ratings. A show like that, which is early in its new season will have those sections filled out by the end of the season.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bignole, that's a big help. Jayy008 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Characters
Are there guidelines other than common sense for guest stars/recurring characters. I'm having a disagreement (after over a year over disagreeing), I want to clarify. The current disagreement is about "Andie Star" on The Vampire Diaries, she appeared in total of five episodes, she was killed off and didn't have any major storylines. She was a love-interest, albeit a small one, for about 3 of those episodes. Could she be included in "recurring"? Jayy008 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no defined criteria that Wikipedia has for "recurring" and "guest stars". Personally, I've always treated "guest stars" as people that only really appear in maybe 1 or 2 episodes, 3 tops. After that, they're recurring. Unless they had a 5 episode stint that was back-to-back, in which case they really weren't "recurring", as I also see "recurring" as something that takes place across a season(s). This website gives a basic definition, but it's not like they are any type of authority on the subject. So, I wouldn't use it as the basis for my argument. Though, it does give you an idea of what other people outside of Wikipedia think.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They are back-to-back, with one missing I think. That source is perfect, thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Marvel Animated Universe
Template:Marvel Animated Universe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Episode article
Just to let the project know, (apparently) a German wikipedist has created Derrick: Waldweg. You guys know better whether it's common practice to allow single episode articles on en.wiki. Pitke (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pan Am (TV series)#Nancy Hult Ganis
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pan Am (TV series). Elizium23 (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationality of a program - needed and what basis
At My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, there's a small edit war going on regarding the nature of the show. It's produced by Hasbro (US) but the animation and effectively everyone but the writing are done at a Vancouver BC animation studio. As, at least to me, the show is being paid for by Hasbro to be made, it is an American show, but there are editors that want it to be a Canadian show ("American shows suck") and right now the argument has been made to simply pull the nationality of the show since it seems difficult to produce.

So two questions: first is if the nationality of the show is necessary to include in describing a show? Pinging a sample of other TV show articles, it seems to be consistently yes. But if not, then that's the easiest solution.

The second question involves the determining the nationality if it is not obvious. Were I to take the position that some are saying this is a Canadian show that a major portion of the work is done in Canada, I could argue that for a large number of other live-action shows (such as Fringe) which is filmed primarily in Vancouver, but clearly because its being produced and made by the FOX network, no one doubts it as an American show. To me, it comes down to the end copyright owner: even if they outsourced every aspect of the show to non-American studios to complete, if it is paid for by the American company, it is an American show. --M ASEM (t) 13:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would go by the nationality of the television channel, the show is produced for. As you said, a lot of shows like The X-Files, Smallville and Fringe are filmed in Vancouver, but for American television. I wouldn't call The Simpsons an American/South Korean show either? --Maitch (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

C-SPAN video + External links project invite
I'd like to invite anyone involved with this project to help out with a project I have been working on related to C-SPAN. The C-SPAN Video Library has thousands of landing pages about specific individuals who have appeared on the network, and Wikipedia editors have recognized the value of including these in External links by creating Template:C-SPAN and adding a relevant parameter in Template:CongLinks.

Unsurprisingly, however, the C-SPAN Video Library link is missing from many articles, including a few that may surprise: George H.W. Bush for one, and Edward Kennedy for another. I work with C-SPAN's media team (I helped bring their main article up to GA status earlier this year) and I suggested that I find as many gaps as possible and then seek to invite other editors to help fill them. They agreed. To this end I have started a project page in my own user space to identify pages where it is missing and make available the specific markup text necessary to include that link, and keeping whatever relevant markup was there before. You can see the first few I have located here, and more will be posted soon: User:WWB_Too/C-SPAN_ELs

I'm posting this here because the main C-SPAN page is included in this WikiProject, and I figure I stand the best chance of finding interested collaborators here. Please let me know if you'd like to help, or if you have any other questions. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

TVbytheNumbers and more
In a GA review, the article I nominated was failed. One of the reasons was TVbytheNumbers based on this this discussion. Is there a newer one to say it's reliable? It's the only source that posts finals. Also, to try an avoid getting into an edit-war, is it true that only regular character bio summaries have to be short and recurring characters can be long? Jayy008 (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * With regard to TVbtN, I've been using it simply because it's only purpose is to publish data provided by the Neilsen Ratings. Being a self-published source doesn't make it automatically unreliable. But, if you can show that other "reliable" news outlets are using it as a means of providing data then you could argue that it's reliable enough for inclusion. A new debate at noticeboard might need to take place.


 * To the character question, typically if a regular character is notable enough then they have their own page. Thus, a section in a character list would typically be smaller simply because the other page contained the information already. If the character is not notable enough, then they should be about the same, assuming of course the regular isn't new and the recurring character older. Thus, with more screen time the recurring might have more info to cover than a new series regular. That said, there shouldn't be a lot of "bio" stuff for either because character lists are not supposed to be a new location just to throw plot info.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

AFD Discussion
There is a article, Aubrey Wentworth listed at AFD, that needs a more thorough discussion, the entry can be found here. Rain the One  BAM 11:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

American Dad Seasons
We should change the season labelling for American Dad!

See: http://www.fox.com/americandad/recaps/season-8/episode-4 and: http://www.tv.com/shows/american-dad/episodes/

Greets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascals99 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fox's website has the episodes mixed up, TV.com is user generated. This press release clearly states that the current season is season 7. Pancake (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So Fox.com the maker of this show is wrong ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascals99 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fox the website is wrong, yes. They used to have the Family Guy seasons all wrong too, but they've fixed it. Pancake (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

and what about the biggest movie database http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0397306/ are they wrong too ?
 * IMDb is also unreliable. Pancake (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

is http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com reliable, some crappy tv website ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascals99 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it's reliable, but it's still a press release by Fox and not an article written by the site. Pancake (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So one press release from FOX (who maybe made the seventh season typo-mistake because they looked at this Wikipedia-page?) is more significant then the site owned by FOX, which gets updated every single week? I don't think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascals99 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you really think Fox would check Wikipedia before writing a press release on their own show? And do you really think they would make a typo for a press release that they sent out to newspapers and websites? Fox.com used to call the current season of Family Guy season 11, but now they have changed it to season 10. It's the same with American Dad. Just accept it.Pancake (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Family Guy is another story they changed the seasons into volumes on the fox.com website because the strange splits in 2002-2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascals99 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Mail From Fox.com

From: Ask Fox Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 8:30 PM To: 'Pascal' Subject: RE: American Dad! Seasons

With Animation, it is very hard to tell - and usually EVERYONE is correct.

The way it works is we order what we call a CYCLE of episodes (production companies call this SEASON - but we at the network reserve the word SEASON for the Air Season - the year a show airs in). So let's say we order 22 episodes in the first CYCLE.

With animation, it takes anywhere from 9 months to 1.5 years to produce just ONE episode. Shows have about 7 production teams that oversee about 3 eps each - each in different stages of production - one in the writing stage, one in the recording stage and one in the post-production/animation-overseas stage - all speard out over the 9 months to 1.5 years. That is how the show is able to deliver us close to the full 22 eps in one Air Season. But alot of times, they cannot deliver all the eps - and fall behind and we then only air, say 16-19 eps in an Air Season - leaving anywhere from 3-6 holdover episodes from Cycle 1 to air in Air Season 2 - and this is where all the confusion on numbering of "seasons" starts to take over.

With AMERICAN DAD, the 2010-11 Season last year was the show's 7TH AIR SEASON - and consisted of 19 episodes - 13 from the 5TH CYCLE and 6 from the 6TH CYCLE This year - the 2011-12 Season - the show's 8TH AIR SEASON - we plan to air 18 eps - 16 from the 6TH CYCLE and 2 from the 7TH CYCLE Next year - the 2012-13 Season - the show's 9TH AIR SEASON - we plan to air 20 eps - all from the 7TH CYCLE

So next year you might see in one place that the show is in its "7th Season" and other places that it is in its "9th Season" - both are basically correct - we would prefer if the world would call the production order a cycle and say it was in its 7th Cycle - but it is hard to change the world about something so trivial.

So there you have an explanation on how animation works on Network TV

FYI: This year - the 2011-12 Season - is FAMILY GUY's 11TH AIR SEASON - and will consist of 3 eps from the 8TH CYCLE and 19 eps from the 9TH CYCLE

ASKFOX

Pascals99 (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell where the email ends and where your comments begin. Anyhow, an email can't be used as a source for this because it's WP:OR. Listen, Fox.com's site for American Dad! is purely for promotion, Fox Flash is Fox's press site; it's more accurate and it clearly confirms that the 2011-12 TV season is American Dad's seventh season. Fox usually has everything messed up because of broadcast vs. production seasons. Fox Flash, TV listing sites like The Futon Critic and TV Guide and even the official press release call the current season the seventh. This issue has been discussed before. Pancake (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In The Simpsons articles, we use the two terms "season" and "production season". "Season" is used for all the episodes that airs between autumn and spring as with live action series. We usually don't use the term "production season" very often even though the producers use it frequently when discussing the episodes. I think most readers would expect the "one season = one year between autumn and spring", so I would recommend that people used that. Only if they start releasing DVDs in another order should we use the "production season". --Maitch (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Got a bit of a situation here...
has been going on a rampage by restoring false information that Dragon Tales is going to air in 2012, from which Google search came up with nothing and so I removed it. A quick spot checking shows suspicions WP:CRYSTAL type and WP:NOR type material. Unfortunately, has swiftly reintroduced the same incorrect information to the page. Can someone please look into this mess? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Socking or meatpuppetry might be going on here. Both of the above editors only edit PBS-related and automotive-related articles. Elizium23 (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we open a sockpuppet investigation on this matter? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

TVLine reliable?
Please voice your opinions here. I believe I've covered the basics. An article of mine was failed and one of the reasons was because TV Line was deemed unreliable. I brought it up for discussion as I believe it is. Jayy008 (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Balkans
I have created this article today following the channels launch and I will try to find out more information to expand it - but I would apreciate any improvements other editors could make to the article. Thanks Uvghifds (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Standardized color palette?
Is there a standardized color palette from which to pick Season and Episode list/articles colors, for use in infobox and table header backgrounds? If not, why not? I just noticed Frasier (season 7), which uses #CC2200, a rather dark blood red on PCs(LCD and CRT), with black text. I generally prefer black text, so I'm not advocating making the text white to compensate. I am suggesting a "minimum gamut distance" color guideline, to avoid legibility color issues for the long term. --Lexein (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The infobox for seasons defaults to a standard color. Generally, unless there is a color scheme for that show (or season), it should be kept the standard color. Some people want color to separate it out on the episode list page though, as long as they are not distracting colors it should be fine.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Can editors offer their opinions in this dispute?
An editorial dispute over a TV show's influence is taking place here. Can editors who read this participate and offer their opinions? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Murdoch Mysteries
When are new episodes on and what channel in Vancouver B.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.181.138 (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Portal deletion discussion
Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Television in Australia. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Muppets - portal for deletion discussion
Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Muppets. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition of TV Line to the list in WP:TVRECEPTION.
There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television to add TV Line to the list of prominent sources for reviews found in WP:TVRECEPTION, a section of MOS:TV. Feedback on the proposal is appreciated. Thanks. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for the project members to comment at Pan Am (TV Series)
Hello, there is a discussion currently taking place which could do with more comments -  Rain the One  BAM 22:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

TVbytheNumbers
New discussion here to make it a reliable source. Jayy008 (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was gonna get in on the discussion of TVBTN but couldn't find it in the 50+ that were listed. Deleted/moved?  I use the source mainly for ratings composites for my episode articles. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Deadline as a reliable source
I've noticed the increasing use of the website Deadline as a "reliable source" for television news. While at times they have re-reported accurate TV news, and have the occasional scoop, I also find they trade heavily in gossip. Case in point: their current reportage that Prime Suspect (US) has supposedly shut down production as of its 13th episode. More than one editor who does not question sources or read carefully has subsequently added the statement that NBC "officially" cancelled the show to the show's articles as well as to a variety of TV related articles, such as the article on the 2011-12 season, based on the Deadline article alone. Meanwhile the major TV media, such as Hollywood Reporter, Variety and TV Guide have been silent on the matter, which is telling in itself. This situation and a couple others like it over time have gotten me thinking about the viability of Deadline as a reliable source. I'd like to invite comment on this question and see whether we should take a closer look at the reliability of the site. Drmargi (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * All sources, even Entertainment Weekly or Variety, should be scrutinized. I never use any source that does not identify where they are getting their information. If it's "someone close to production" then it's "someone I don't trust". People releasing real information will identify themselves in some shape or form. Even reliable sources with editorial oversight can publish bogus information.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the source itself, why would the information even be added if it's a rumour? I've never had a problem with using Deadline when it's for information that can be added. Jayy008 (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it generates traffic on the website, which in turn generates revenue. Rumors get posted all the time, especially on websites because it's easier to correct or delete if/when it turns out to be false. Printed media has a harder time for that, and usually doesn't post "potential" truths as easily as an internet based source. That doesn't mean that Deadline is unreliable, but if they are saying things like "according to a source", then it means that even their source isn't that reliable. Being unreliable doesn't mean it's not true, just that we cannot trust it like we could if it was reliable. No news source can make an unreliable person more reliable simply because they are publishing it. I mean, if they interviewed that guy that cleans the toilets and he said, "I heard that the budget was $2 million for this episode," then stated "someone close to production said...." that doesn't make him a reliable witness.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I made myself clear. The statement was regarding Wikipedia. Why would we post something like that. "Prime Suspect has apparently..." If it's something they're certain of "Prime Suspect has definitely..." I don't see a problem with this source as they're always first with non-scoop information such as scheduling moves, schedule announcements etc. Jayy008 (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * People try and post rumors on here all the time. Remember, "we" are simply editors, and we tend to put stuff on pages at times that probably shouldn't be there. If Deadline is saying "Prime Suspect has definitely..." and it's followed with "according to the producers of the show", or someone we can identify, then yes it's fine to us. If it's "According to someone close to production, Prime Suspects has definitely been cancelled." then I would say no. If it's "definite" then we're going to be getting an official word, and not just simply a scooper reporting it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

All of which is interesting enough and largely commonsense, but only peripherally germane to the question I asked, which is about the reliability of a specific source. Bringing the discussion back to topic, the website Deadline, mixes rumor and speculation with fact, making the two hard to separate at times, thus making it difficult to discern which is which at time, necessitating verification from another source, and I believe, calling its reliability as a source into question. I would appreciate it if other editors' comments and thoughts on this issue. Drmargi (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You asked about the reliability of Deadline as a source. It has editorial oversight, thus that meets basic reliability criteria. But, that doesn't mean we should blanket use it no matter what, simply because of what you pointed out: It has the tendency to include speculation with fact. So, in a general sense it is reliable but everything should be scrutinized. I'm sorry if you're looking for some black and white answer of it should or should not be used, but there never is a black and white answer with these things.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You just gotta love how in one section it is pro-TVLine as a source and in the next section is a nay-Deadline as a source query. That would be like saying the File namespace in Wikipedia is possibly bad but the User space is almost certainly acceptable. One is targetted at Josephine Johnson while the other is targetted at Dick Wolf. If you can't read an article on any of those sites and understand if something is confirmed or likely or possible or uncertain then perhaps you really shouldn't follow up that reading by writing over here. If you find it difficult to discern what is being reported then perhaps leave it for someone else who does understand. Deadline does operate on a very 'in-the-moment instantaneous latest-word-is' premise. If you feel the need to get another source and it just so happens that everything traces back to a Deadline article then how much of a bind are you in? NBC hasn't announced the cancellation of the show. They probably learnt from the cancellation of Chase that you can really look like an idiot when you cancel a show and then broadcast a handful of episodes months later in-season. But noting that reports of the shutting down of production on the series abound would be more appropriate. As for things definite... the second series of the British drama The Jury came about 9 years after the first series. It is definitely possible that itv will commission a third series which could be shown in 2012 or 2019. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 09:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Bignole, what I was hoping for was a reasonably considered response that reflects some thought about issues surrounding Deadline's reliability as a source, not a rambling philosophical discussion of the handling of rumors, a black-and-white response or an incoherent mess trying to disguise a cheap shot at me. Aside from one sentence in your latest post, that seems to be too much to ask this group, it appears.  Everyone seems very capable of leaping to assumptions about what I do or don't need to know about handling rumors, which was never the point, but simply offering views on the issues of reliability surrounding this particular source is clearly too much to ask of the community.  It's been an interesting and instructive, if pointless, exercise.  Drmargi (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, what I find is that you come to this page a lot looking for answers and then when you don't get what you want you instead insult people by criticizing their responses. It seems more like you're a help-rejecting complainer. As I've told you before, if you don't like that answers you're getting, then don't come looking for them. You asked if Deadline was reliable to use. You were told that it can be reliable to use in some instances, and that it cannot be reliable in others. It's a judgement call. That responses were straight forward enough for you, but you just don't like them. Remember that the next time you come to this page trying to find voices for your side of an argument.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)