Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 18

Unique naming case
Here's something I haven't seen before: How does one disambiguate an episode name ("Galentine's Day") when the same name is used by the same show, in a different season? Granted, recent episodes of Parks and Rec have not been getting their own articles, but I have been creating some episode title pages to redirect to their spot on the season page table. But in any event, I think the existing page should have some disambiguation once this upcoming episode airs, and don't know how to approach it. Would it be anything like Galentine's Day (season 2), Galentine's Day (Parks and Recreation season 2) or Galentine's Day (Parks and Recreation season 2 episode)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's a bit odd for naming. I think you could go with something like you proposed (any of them), or think of it like a film that is part of the same series but remade: "Galentine's Day (2012 TV episode)" and "Galentine's Day (2014 TV episode)" (making up the years, as I don't watch the show. Just a thought.) I'm not sure and I think we're be entering either uncharted, or rarely charted territory.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I did a double take when I saw the naming (and it's sourced fine, so no question there). Those are some good options too Bignole. I hope others comment, because I'd like their ideas on this as well. And it will probably only apply to the first episode anyways because, as I said, individual articles for recent episodes have not been created. (The new one would be a redirect, if anything.) Maybe "Galentine's Day (2010 Parks and Recreation episode)" and "Galentine's Day (2014 Parks and Recreation episode)". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind chiming in on this? I'd like to get other's opinions on what to do when this becomes an issue in a few weeks. Others are more than welcome to chime in too. At the moment, I'm leaning towards Bignole's options or my most recent ones in the post above this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I see where Bignole is coming from with "Galentine's Day (2012 TV episode)", as years are how we dismabiguate films but, in the TV world we normally favour seasons over years as years irrelevant to treating fiction always in the present. Unfortunately that results in a rather chunky "Galentine's Day (Parks and Recreation season 2)" but I think we should live with that until something better comes along. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, with no criticism intended toward Bignole's pitch, I think Aussie's suggestion is (unfortunately for its verbosity) more precise in its focus. Meanwhile, let's roll up on Parks & Rec and pimpslap those tools! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, my thinking is based also on how we deal with TV shows of the same name. We separate by year, then we separate by country.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate all of your inputs. It is such a unique situation, and I still have a few weeks to decide what to do. I see both Bignole's and Aussie's points. Maybe there's a happy medium? Thanks again all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless an article is created for the 2014 episode there's no need to move the existing article, so nothing really needs to be done. However, redirects can be created at Galentine's Day (201x TV episode) and Galentine's Day (Parks and Recreation season x), and a hatnote can be added to Galentine's Day -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is probably what I will end up doing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

List of ... broadcasters
Does anyone have any thoughts about List of Sam & Cat broadcasters and List of Sanjay and Craig broadcasters as it pertains to MOS:TV? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My immediate question is why do these articles exist? Get rid of the non-English broadcasts per the MOS, convert what's left back in to prose and merge it back to the main series articles. Scratch that. The content is already in the articles. Neither of these articles should exist at all. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Tables for one should not be used, and second, they should not be including non-English broadcasts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The creator of these articles and other similar ones for other shows was converting WP:TVINTL conformant prose into tables in the main articles - I objected and it appears this is the outlet for adding this info to the project. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm playing devil's advocate here: If we object to the inclusion of international broadcast in articles, does a "List of broadcasters" address our concerns, while allowing the information (if sourced properly) to exist? I've certainly seen more mindless lists (List of film accents considered the worst comes to mind.) And it's not like we have a ban on international information. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (Oops, didn't notice that Sanjay was a circular redirect. Good catch, Aussie.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm slow. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it addresses our concerns, because it will still fail WP:TVINTL. That lays it out pretty clearly. You're essentially saying, "let's make a TV Guide-style list for all the broadcasters."- Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) MOS:TV doesn't just apply to the main series article. The "List of broadcasters" article doesn't comply with MOS:TV#Broadcast so it shouldn't exist. If we allow articles to get around the MOS like this, we may as well get rid of the MOS. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Discouraged does not mean prohibited. Furthermore the MOS:TV says that it's only a guide. Wikipedia should, actually requires a worldwide view. Although we could follow what South Park does on season lists. They have sections for international countries that show the premiere dates and ratings. I think that would work. Call me Keenan (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We discussed this late last year (around October/November IIRC) and the agreement was that we should list only English language broadcasts in prose form. Since then, there has been a concerted effort by multiple editors to this end. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that lists of international channels are fine. As long as they have reliable sources. Such as what Dog with a Blog had. Get rid of the unsourced crap that is fan cruft. The listings need to have a date though. They are useless without a date, or even a channel. The Adventure Time articles imply says the show airs in country 1 and country 2. Call me Keenan (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As explained in MOS:TV#Broadcast, Wikipedia is not a TV guide. We don't list all the channels for good reason. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Aussie on all his points. But, Keenan202, if a non-English broadcast is notable for some reason, this guideline states it is acceptable to include it, provided an RS is added and it is generally notable (examples given in the guideline). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

While we are on this topic, should it be specified which countries exactly we are talking about? I know I personally only think (when it is a US show) of inclusion for UK, Canada and Australia. But I've seen India and South Africa included as well, and I would not gravitate to adding those. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The MOS could definitely be updated to clarify this point, as English is spoken globally. So the intention is likely, "nations whose official national language is English, and also the United States" or something to that effect. (I say this, because the US doesn't have a declared official language, much to the consternation of those who don't want "Mexican" or "Islam" (sic) to become the official mother tongue.) So if South Africa lists English among its national languages, it should be included. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Australia doesn't have an official language either, so we could be creating a difficult situation by specifying official languages. While Australia is obviously the most important country in the world (we have a whole continent to ourselves and the boat people just love us!) South Africa's population is more than twice that of Australia and one of the eleven official languages is English, so I don't see a problem with its inclusion. The MOS specifies "English-speaking countries" and I don't really see an issue with that as even though English is spoken globally, as are most languages these days, it's fairly clear which are English speaking just by referring to the source used to add the entry. If it's in English it can be added, if it's not then it shouldn't be added. I can't see a situation where a non-English source would be used to cite an English language broadcast. If there's an English language broadcast there should be an English source. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Merger RfC
A request has been presented to merge Disney Channel Vietnam into Disney Channel (Asia). You are invited to discuss here. Thanks. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Episode summaries
I'm coming across episode summaries (usually in lists of TV episodes by season) which are copied word for word from an official source. These are almost always phrased in a promotional / "teaser" manner which is in my opinion inappropriate for an encyclopaedia but more than that I would think that copying the text directly - even if it is only a couple of sentences - would amount to copyright infringement or at the very least the introduction of non-free text into the encyclopaedia. I was wondering if there was some kind of exception for this kind of short summary as the issue seems to be quite widespread. Guest9999 (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There isn't any exception I'm aware of. Anything copied and pasted should be removed or replaced with a summary in our own words. Do you have any examples to start off with?  Gloss •  talk  22:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) I know exactly what you are talking about and you are 100% correct and I hate those edit summaries too. Here is the problem however. We are outnumbered. There are far too many inexperienced and somewhat lazy editors out there who create 1000s of episode summaries each year. How do we keep up? Even if we come across this problem, who has the time to deal with every single one? We just carry on the best we can. Now if you see an inappropriate edit summery then you have my support to fix it. I do sometimes, but it's just too big of a job. JOJ  Hutton  22:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, we recently had this conversation, but I can't remember where we had it. I think my brain is fried! The general attitude seemed to be: If a show hasn't aired yet, you can copy/paste a one-sentence logline, and only as long as it is sourced. When the show airs, the logline needs to be rewritten, which of course places the burden onto the community to remember to replace it. Those fancy synopses that you see for shows like M.I. High where they ask rhetorical questions like, "Can the team make it out alive?" and use exclamation marks, are not to be included because they are unencyclopedic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I found the discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The key word in that discussion is "quote". If you copy/paste a one sentence description, it needs to be in quotation marks and include a source to clearly show that it has been quoted. However, no editors seem to do this, so copying and pasting is usually a copyright violation. If it is, it should be removed, as with any copyright violation. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Or quotation marks should be added, no? I find this such a sketchy and iffy practice, because if the majority of the prose content in a "List of" comes from properly "quoted" references, that can still constitute a copyright violation I would suspect, or plagiarism, or possibly both. Causal editors, and especially the kids aren't going to care about coming back to flesh out the stolen content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen plenty of copyvios in articles years after episodes have aired, which is why deletion is, in my opinion, a far better option to one sentence quotes. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The one sentence quote (with quote marks and sourcing) is fine as its very hard to paraphrase one sentence to a new sentence without having seen the episode yet. But when you get the 3-4 sentence version (the "tv guide" style) or once the episode airs, all quoted synopsis should be replaced with an editor's summary to completely remove the copyright issue (if one might have existed to start with) --M ASEM  (t) 02:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do we allow them at all? We are neither TV Guide nor are we a breaking news source. There is a pervasive attitude that editors need to "get the scoop" on others, even if it means submitting rumors, hastily-written, copy/pasted, and/or poorly referenced data. If a synopsis can't be written from scratch from the beginning, I don't see why they should be included at all if there are no guarantees that the content will be improved. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a particular problem on British series where the Radio Times is often copypasted Merlin series 4 is a good example and discussion to no avail took place on the talkpage and series 5 talkpage. The annoying thing is and a big clue to copypaste is when the summary contains a question which is unencyclopedic as it should answer questions.REVUpminster (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Top Gear is another example of that. Editors at Top Gear (series 21) just don't want to add quote marks or citations at all. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

BBC Yearbooks
Americanradiohistory.com has a collection of BBC Yearbooks available for download that may be of use for referencing in some early television related material. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-standard references at Clarence (2014 TV series)
Hey all, could I get some eyes at Clarence (2014 TV series)? The references are formatted in a way that I've not seen in an article about television. I don't think the template is being used properly and was going to convert them to standard inline citations, but thought I'd run 'em past the peeps. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I formated them like that, will change them back if it's too much of nuisance. Whisternefet (t &#183; c &#183; l) 23:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Now changed back. Whisternefet (t &#183; c &#183; l) 00:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, no disrespect or public criticism was intended. I happened by the article because of some questionable unsourced content submitted elsewhere, and it appeared, superficially, that the improperly sourced content was being obscured at the main article by a complicated reference system. Clicking the inline reference led to a footnote, and then clicking the footnote led to a reference. Seemed to be one step more than we needed. I appreciate the self-revert. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've adopted sfn as I think it helps avoid citation overkill and, personally, looks more sightly and organized. I promise not to retroactively apply it, even to articles I've substantially expanded (which is where I applied it). My bad. Whisternefet (t &#183; c &#183; l) 01:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've noted, I think it inadvertently creates a second hidey-spot for poorly sourced stuff, as vandals could just start tossing the template around carte blanche. While I realize that's a slippery-slope argument (and thus logically invalid) this is the first case of this that I've encountered, and it's also the first example I've encountered vandalism protected by this arrangement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're very right in that it can be used in bad faith, but footnotes also require an anchor linking itself to a full citation; it would be pretty easy to weed out false footnotes by checking to see if a respective citation doesn't exist. Vandals have also backlinked to full references sans footnotes before, which is arguably more sneaky, since that requires checking the citation URL to see what has been stated is false. Whisternefet (t &#183; c &#183; l) 03:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.
 * 1) List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
 * 2) Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at /FAQ regarding Son of the Bronx
Started discussion, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/FAQ. Whisternefet (t &#183; c &#183; l) 02:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard discussion
I have created a new thread about the site at the reliable sources noticeboard; if you're interested, see Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Whisternefet (t &#183; c &#183; l) 04:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Enemies Foreign
Dear television experts: This draft was created, but never submitted to be in the encyclopedia. It looks well developed to me, but I seldom read television pages, so I would like an opinion. Is this a not able topic, and is the article suitable for mainspace? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks really good to me. In my opinion, it belongs in the mainspace. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have accepted it. Thanks for taking the time to check it out. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Win, Lose or Draw
What should be done about the various forms of this show? There was the "regular" version, a "teen" version, and a new revival on the Disney Channel. Since they are all essentially the same show, should they all be merged into one article? Note that "Disney's Win Lose or Draw" redirects to the main page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All merged, yes. Would be tempted to even suggest the UK version merge as well, since it is unsourced and merely a showcase of who appeared on it. Gameshow articles need results and sources before any branches should be made. External links do not count. —  Wylie pedia  08:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC).

Randy Cunningham: 9th Grade Ninja
May I please request some extra eyes briefly at Randy Cunningham: 9th Grade Ninja? It appears I'm about to become engaged in an edit war with a child with civility problems, and I'd prefer to avoid that. I originally removed some unnecessary wikilinks, and the kid has apparently taken offense to my re-removal, as well as the other edits I made to bring the article a little closer to MOS:TV. Some of my edits included adding a Main characters and recurring characters section, removing cast list as actors are mentioned in characters section, adding Tone cleanup templates since the prose is not written very well, etc. Much of that has been removed so that the IP could make their POV edits. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've asked the editor in question on their talkpage to not engage in edit wars, which appears to recur. This could lead to a block/page protection. —  Wylie pedia  08:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I appreciate that. I've opened an obligatory discussion on the talk page. If anyone could take a look at the edits I made and compare them to the huffy POV edits the user has made, I would appreciate that as well. I think I have a decent case for outright reversion, but I don't mind waiting for a few more eyes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) characters
I may have mentioned this before, but extra eyes at List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) characters (and related pages) would be appreciated. The character list is (in my estimation) extraordinarily bloated. It toes the line of "derivative work" because it essentially processes and stuffs lengthy episode synopses into character descriptions, it continues to get longer with little community input to help shape the content, and I have a personal bias against a contributor whose ability to comprehend and adhere to existing guidelines/policies, whose ability to separate noteworthy content from trivia, whose grammar and spelling fundamentals and whose general judgment I question. I would prefer if the community could weigh in here. If you get a few minutes, I wholeheartedly thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The Series "Prequel" ENDEAVOR - of the young Inspector Morse - in the episode "Home", who is the singer on stage at the nightclub?
I have searched the credits at the end of the episode, but can find no mention of the terrific singer on stage at the nightclub. I actually thought it might have been Adele, but I've looked through all Adele's appearances, and there is no mention of her ever doing a cameo on a TV episode. WHO IS SHE??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.186.155 (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You might get an answer here but this talk page isn't really for questions like this. I would suggest that you move your post to Reference desk/Entertainment. There are many more editors who have that page on their watchlist and they are quite good at finding info like this. MarnetteD | Talk 22:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm canvassing
Please feel free to weigh in here if you've got the time. m.o.p 03:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox television episode
Infobox Rome episode has been nominated for deletion as it is used in only 22 articles. The nomination says that it is redundant to Infobox television episode but this isn't true as Infobox Rome episode has three fields not included in Infobox television episode. I solved this by adding three custom fields to Infobox television episode and successfully converted all Rome episode articles but this has received opposition from three editors. Input from TV project editors would be welcome at either or both discussions, which may be found at the following locations: Thanks for reading. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * TfD nomination
 * Template discussion


 * A year ago, (see below) there was a proposal to add a "coordinates" parameter to Infobox television episode, which was never resolved. As this is likely to be as problematic as the "location" parameter in Infobox television, input on this would also be appreciated. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Trying to follow this, my thought: Infobox Rome episodes should not exist and I would support your attempt at creating custom fields if it would better suit a specific series. But as for the extra parameters added to the Rome infobox, why are they even needed there? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know why the parameters are there. I didn't want to make a judgement call on what I think should be in the infobox when I've never watched the series. I did have a look at the articles and, based on my understanding, I didn't see any justification in removing them without discussion. Unfortunately, a lot of TfD discussions do go that way, often to the detriment of articles. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why a template with only 22 usages is a problem, considering there are probably navboxes with fewer uses.
 * That said, I cannot see the harm is avoiding the nearly-full recreation of the infobox template code to achieve custom fields when this can be done by providing custom fields in the core episode infobox, and then having a new show-specific template that is effectively a template call to the episode template to standardize the custom fields for that show. That is infobox Rome episode should be a call to infobox television episode with the various custom fields called out to achieve uniformity across the series.  --M ASEM  (t) 02:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That would also make sure that if the core infobox template is changed (say if a field on viewership was added), that change will be propagated to the show-specific episode templates - a reason to avoid the recreation of the core one. --M ASEM (t) 03:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I considered turning the infobox into a wrapper as you suggested but the series has ended and no more episode need to be added. In the past the TV project has opposed creation of wrappers and other forks. Some time ago a number of forks of Episode list were deleted and a number of forks of Infobox television season were merged into that template. With only 22 transclusions it seemed far better to subst the infobox, replacing it with Infobox television episode completely. This decision was reinforced by the fact that the articles used Rome episode (a lazy editor had moved the infobox but not changed the articles) and the infoboxes were all formatted incorrectly and/or "messily". The result was a much neater infobox. That eliminated the need for any changes to Infobox television episode to take care not to break Infobox Rome episode, as has happened in the past with other wrappers. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And that's still a good reason for the main infobox television episode template to have 3-5 custom fields available for shows where it should be easy to maintain consistency. The new wrapper template doesn't harm anything though I can understand that it should only be for long running shows where maintaining consistency could be harder. --M ASEM  (t) 06:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of forks, wrappers, et al., why not create modules like those used in Biography infoboxes? That way, the basic ITE structure is there for those, like me, who like things simple and either remove or leave empty the unused portions? The problem with using series specific templates, in my TV-article-editing experience, is that the more you change, the more you have to fix. Inexperienced editors may not know of the series episode-specific templates and those who choose to use it must go behind and fix it. If a module format could be adopted, an editor's note could be added to point them to the proper insertion. All that said, I don't think the current ITE format is broken/needs updating. Fancy ≠ proper formula. —  Wylie  pedia  09:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Modules would make sense if we were talking general broad categories that Biography boxes could use, but here we're talking show specific parameters and you'd need a module for each show where one would want customization. I agree we should avoid a show-specific template that directly copies the core infobox episode template to get what they want, for exactly the reasons you state, but by adding some custom fields to core infobox episode template (Which should not touch any existing use of the template) customization can be achieved via a couple different methods without too much effort. --M ASEM (t) 15:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been opposed by the TV project in the past, but it would certainly be useful. I would have preferred this when merging all the forks of Infobox television season. What we don't want though is a million of these full of cruft for every show. We could probably require nominations for new wrappers and create them as subtemplates at Template:Infobox television episode/ to keep them under control. We already do something similar at Episode list/sublist. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the proposal for a coordinates parameter, I was slightly wrong above. It was actually suggested in 2008 but there were no responses to the proposal so the editor "bumped" the discussion in 2010. Again there was no response, not until a year ago when one editor supported it. The editor who made the original proposal is now claiming consensus to add the parameter, and has done so, so input is required. Do we really need this? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There has been no further discussion on this in the past week. From those who have participated there is support for the addition of the custom fields but no preference stated on how we should implement templates. If nobody has anything further to add, is there any opposition to me restoring the fields and implementing my suggestion to include new templates as subtemplates of Infobox television episode? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Related discussion
An editor has today added parameters to the infobox without any real discussion and I have proposed they be removed. I did revert their addition but they were restored by the editor. The proposal is at Template_talk:Infobox television episode. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The mechanics of these templates are baffling to me, so I can't speak about any of that stuff. Superficially, I don't understand the value of a location parameter, particularly since it seems to conflict with the Infobox television location parameter. One describes the filming location, the other the setting location. Anecdotally speaking: nobody reads the template instructions. Seems like a recipe for disaster. Further, I've always understood that the infobox is supposed to represent a concise summary of article content, not simply be a repository for various data. We already have problems with lazy editors using the infobox to present facts instead of via article prose. Though I am receptive to contrary opinions, I currently don't see the value in adding this information, as it doesn't seem to have tremendous potential to improve our understanding of the episode any more than a Wikilink to Bangkok in the prose would. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Although the mechanics of the template may be baffling to you, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. Don't be afraid to put forward your opinion at the template discussion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought that's what I was doing here! (Copy/pasting now...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 28/03
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ralph Leonard. Inventor of the dipole antenna? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"with stereo audio at 128 kbit/s" shouldn't that b kb/s ?
Shouldn't "with stereo audio at 128 kbit/s" be kb/s, that is kilobytes not kilobits? At the moment it appears subtitles take up more bandwidth than audio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.106.250 (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Pan-Latin-American channel in Brazil
I think there should be a rule on whether a Brazilian version of the pan-Latin-American television channel can have a separate article or not.
 * 1) Has audio feeds for both Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese, no separate regional feeds, no separate schedule: No.
 * 2) Similar to 1. and still no separate schedule, but has region/country-specific feeds for advertisements: No.
 * 3) There is a separate feed for Brazil with separate schedule, but is broadcast from the same country as the Spanish American version: Can't decide yet.
 * 4) A separate Brazilian version is broadcast from Brazil: Yes.

Any ideas? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 15:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

TWOP closing soon, danger of losing links
NBC is going to close down Television Without Pity within the next week or so, and shutter the site (they say forums will be open until May 31, but nothing on the content). Nearly 500 mainspace pages use TWOP links (I didn't check if these were for reviews or not, just whether they just exist. While archive.org has the front page of most per-2014 reviews up, it only contains the first page of the multipage links. The question is if we need to save these via a better archiving system (like webcitation.org) The matter is complicated by the fact that most of the links are the paginated recaps that do not have a simple way to grab the whole recap at once (that I'm aware of). I know that a reasonable bot request would be do this automatically but it would need to handle the pagination factor. --M ASEM  (t) 21:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that I've tossed a bot request inquiry over here if you can help figure out the scheme to make this simple for a possible bot. --M ASEM  (t) 21:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to archive the first dozen or so on the list, but really all that needs to be done (for reviews that cite a letter grade at least) is to capture the series' index (like here). A lot of their URLs are malformed on articles, so I'd imagine a bot isn't going to help a lot, unfortunately. Whi ste  rne fet  00:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's okay if we're just sourcing the grade, but if there's a quote from the TWOP reviewer, that's a problem. --M ASEM (t) 00:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I proceeded to archive all the recap indexes using WebCite. I created a log of all these here. Obviously not perfect for the already existing articles, but each provides a succinct summary of each recap and its grade. Whi ste  rne fet  03:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * TWOP just tweeted (mind you, 4/1 here) that they're keeping the archives up. It still might be worthwhile to still webcite any that quote directly or say more than just "Reviewer gave this a grade of (X).", but the rush to save these is much much lower. --M ASEM (t) 01:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

TV series: Plots vs. Premise
Hi! I would like to reach a consensus on the summary of television series. I have found that with some television articles on Wikipedia (such as The Andy Griffith Show), when describing the plot, tend to focus on the premise, saying who the show revolves around and what the typical plot of individual episodes is. However, some other television articles here (such as The Wonder Years, or Friends), when describing the plot, go into great detail, sometimes going season by season in telling what happens. Is this necessary? The reason why I am asking is that there seems to be a lack of consistency. I propose having the plot focus mainly on the premise, rather than on divulging a bunch of spoilers. Do you support or oppose this? Thanks! Twyfan714 (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Poll
 * Just so you know, spoilers are perfectly acceptable per WP:SPOILER if that is what you are trying to avoid on these pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Arguably things like sit-coms and works where there might be loose plot elements but no strong progression from episode to epsidoe, these would have a premise. More serial nature shows, like say Lost really don't have premise but a series-long plot, so I would use that word for those. --M ASEM (t) 05:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, that makes sense. With that in mind, should serial TV shows have the plot summarized on a season-by-season level, or just a general summary? I'm asking because I've seen some where the seasons are split into individual sections (Friends), and others where they aren't (Lost), and I think we need consistency. Twyfan714 (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kamlesh Pandey
Dear television experts: This old Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable person, and should the draft be kept and improved instead? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Full character names vs just "nicknames"
What, if any, is the policy of referring to characters on the main show page? The show in question is Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and questioning if in the character section, it should have the listing of Philip "Phil" Coulson, versus Phil Coulson. Does WP:COMMONNAME apply in this instance? While that is the full character name, they are always referred to as Phil in the show, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, and doesn't seem like an instance of Hugo "Hurley" Reyes from Lost (TV series). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be common name. Fictional characters are not real. We get into this all the time with Michael Myers, where people want to add Aubrey to the middle name because it's seen in one film. It's not the common name that the show refers, or that audiences know them as. I wouldn't call Freddy Krueger "Frederick Krueger" (although that is a constant battle on that page). At the end of the day, how is the actor credited on the show. If it's "Phil Coulson" (and it was in all of the films), then that is the name. I don't mean how is the fictional universe created on their website crediting him, but the actual credit.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. Thanks for the insight Bignole. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Even though WP:COMMONNAME applies to article naming, we aim to be consistent throughout Wikipedia (not that it always works!) so applying the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME to characters seems entirely appropriate. We are supposed to write articles so that they are understandable by all readers, not just fans of a specific series, so using the name commonly used in episodes is the best way to refer to them. After all, that's what casual watchers will be looking for. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about "List of X episodes" articles
I've recently noticed that episodes lists such as List of SpongeBob Squarepants episodes don't exist for reality shows such as The Amazing Race, Big Brother, The Bachelor, Survivor, etc. Is there a reason for this? Is there a consensus to not make episode lists for reality shows like those?  Gloss •  talk  23:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Most reality TV shows (specifically those competition-based like those you list) have a per-season/cycle page, where details of what happens relative to the whole season is done. This is because single episodes typically don't mean as much as to fiction/story-based works where an individual episode may stand out and thus the need for the episode list there. --M ASEM (t) 00:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Production Code
This discussion has been moved from the Helpdesk to this page. User: Dk113040 has been adding "production code" to a whole bunch of pages on televiskion series. Does anyone see any value in this? I for one don't. I doubt that a significant number of readers/ users know what a production code is and to anyone who does, it really adds no value whatsoever to the page. If we are going to retain it, could we at least link it to Production code number in the column heading? Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand the long-term value of production codes, even assuming that the information could be properly sourced, which it almost never is. Sometimes sites like Futon Critic get it right, sometimes the information is pulled from TiVo, but oft-times this information is pulled out of editors' asses, and I don't know how most of the existing data can be deemed reliable, or even verifiable. In my personal experience, I've noticed production codes being added well after episodes air, to coincide with whatever the season/episode line-up is in the relevant article. So S1E3 becomes 103 by default, S4E15 becomes 415 by default, even if we have no idea in what order the episodes were actually produced. I am of the opinion we should do away with them unless they come with a seriously reliable source, preferably a printed source. I don't think Futon Critic has been especially accurate on this, and it's likely because the networks aren't reporting the data consistently or correctly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Pulling from pages I work on, The Big Bang Theory episodes each have production codes (ex. 4X5301) where as Parks and Recreation just has 40x, where the first number is the season, and the last two, the episode number. So in a case where ones exist and are sourced like The Big Bang Theory, they can be included, because sometime production sequences result in out of order airing (ie 4X5301 might be episode 2, while 4x5302 is episode 1, airing-wise). But if it is just the season number with the episode number tacked on, they should not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Favre, so what does this information add to the article? Does it make a difference if you want to find it? No. it does not. Does it make a difference in any other way? No it does not. I bet that if a film director released the information about how the scenes were shot, in whcih sequence, and at the last minute the director changed his/ her mind and the film was put together different from originally intended, someone would want to put that in the article. But that is a besides the scene process, it has no bearing whatsoever. If the studios had not released production codes, we would not even know the right sequence. When you go to a restaurant and for some reason the chef decided to do things in a different order, UNLESS you have that information, you wouldn't even know there was anything different about it. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Where are we as a WikiProject on this issue? Should production codes be included? Excluded? Included only if sourced? Cut if not? Is it possible to get any movement on adding previous consensus decisions of these sorts of matters to MOS:TV? I've noticed a reluctance to add to the MOS. It's somewhat frustrating. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally, nothing should be added without a source, especially something as hard to find as the production code (the actual code). My general feeling is that, if the show filmed and aired them in the right order, then it isn't necessary. It becomes a code that has no value. If they filmed and aired them out of order, it can be useful, but we should strive to find out why they were aired out of order so that there is some prose that goes along with it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards
Please see the RfC at Category talk:Filmographies. Comments are welcome there. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 14:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested template for series overview at Wikipedia:Requested templates
I have created a request for a template to be made for series overviews, which are frequently seen on television episode lists. You can see the discussion here: Requested templates. Whisternefet (t &middot; c) 22:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Need list organization help
I'm having some major trouble with List of programs broadcast by Toonami. I've done a major reorganization of the list so that the programs listed are placed first, followed by previous lists of programs that have been broadcast on the channel, organized by block. However, an anonymous IP user insists on restoring the old version which has 200+ sections and details every single schedule lineup since the channel's conception (90% of which is unsourced). HERE The old version violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE in all sorts of manners, but he is threatening edit warring. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ask for a third opinion on the talk page? If it is found to violate those policies (which it looks to be) and the IP reverts it again, you could possibly bring it up on the administrators' noticeboard. Whisternefet (t &middot; c) 16:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

'The Walking Dead' screenshots (possible copyright violation)
Hi, an editor named Hutto1419 recently posted some screenshots (See, , , , , , ) to some articles about 'The Walking Dead' episodes. All of the images you added have been tagged for speedy deletion from Wikimedia Commons due to possible copyright violations. I am assuming these were just added in good faith by someone unfamiliar with Wikipolicy since these are the only contributions made by this editor. Since I'm fairly new myself and not really sure if these images satisfy WP:FAIRUSE, I did not revert. Perhaps somebody more familiar with this kind of thing can take a look and edit the articles as needed? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Another editor (AussieLegend) has deleted the aforementioned screenshots so this matter has been resolved. Thanks. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Eyes at The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series)
Hey, could someone please keep an eye on The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series). IP user from Brazil keeps adding Latin American broadcast info. I've reverted twice, so I'm at my limit. I dropped him a note on his talk page re WP:TVINTL but he apparently ignored my note. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What makes a co-production?
Hey, so I was looking at this edit. Started wondering what, to the WikiProject's satisfaction, qualifies as a co-production? Many companies like Nickelodeon own a property, but use foreign studios (let's use South Korea as an example) to animate because it's cheaper. That doesn't automatically qualify as an American/South Korean co-production does it? On the other hand, a show like The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) appears to be a co-production because this article describes it as being produced in conjunction with a Canadian company. Anyone have any at-a-glance guidelines on this? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of a guideline on it, but I would view "co-production" more as "co-financing" and "co-ownership". People working on a project don't make that project part of their respective countries. For example, I wouldn't call any of the CW shows "Canadian" just because they choose to film in Canada and use Canadian actors. It's for cost saving reasons.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How about Orphan Black? The Wikipedia page only lists it as Canadian, even though it's produced in association with BBC America.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Kayro Productions
Shouldn't Kayro Productions be redirected to Universal Television. If so, maybe there should be a separate chapter on the company. -User:DanTD (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hi! I requested a peer review of the article on "The Wonder Years" because I find it to be of poor quality and would like suggestions as to how to improve it. The peer review can be found here. Twyfan714 (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion for improvements to Wonder Years article
Okay, so I got the peer review I needed for The Wonder Years and it is clear that it needs a lot of improvement. Unfortunately, I have a lot of work coming up, and therefore, won't have the time to be bold and change it all myself. I have started a discussion on ways to improve the article and would appreciate any suggestions you all have for improvement! Thanks! Twyfan714 (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request for China, IL
I have also requested a peer review of China, IL, so that I may be able to improve it to Good Article status. The review can be found at: Peer review/China, IL/archive1. Thanks, Whisternefet (t &middot; c) 04:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory template instructions
I've started a discussion about contradictory instructions at Infobox television. The discussion is here. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

List of The Amazing World of Gumball episodes
Hi, could I get a few extra eyes at List of The Amazing World of Gumball episodes. Users (mostly IPs) keep adding a May 27, 2014 premiere date for S3 and the only source that has been provided is a forum post at ToonZone. The IPs are prolific and I'm doing too much reverting. Alt, if someone could dig up a reliable source for this info, that'd be nice. I'm having trouble finding one. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you tried resolving the dispute on the article's talk page? If not, I would try and do that first, redirecting those users to the talk page for discussion if they persist. If you have already done this, and the dispute continues, consider seeking dispute resolution. Cheers! Twyfan714 (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

AfD: Nominated for deletion: Disney XD nation article versions
The following articles have been nominated for deletion:

I am also nominating the following related pages because content forking:
 * (redirect)
 * (redirect)
 * (redirect)
 * (redirect)
 * (redirect)
 * (redirect)

Join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Disney XD (Australia). Spshu (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

TFD?
Why is Template:Buffy and Angel cast any better than adding the cast names to Template:Buffynav and Template:Angelnav?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Per a discussion a long time ago, cast and crew names should not be added to navboxes so Buffy and Angel cast is completely redundant and should be deleted. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nominated at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_2.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

USA Network summer stuff
"UNIVERSAL CITY, Calif. -- April 23, 2014 -- USA Network, the #1 network in all of cable for eight years running, will serve up its hottest summer ever with four returning series and two new dramas. Once again, the network that defined summer television with its signature dramas is rolling out all-new episodes of its critically acclaimed original series in June, with ROYAL PAINS (June 10), SUITS (June 11), GRACELAND (June 11) and COVERT AFFAIRS (June 24).  July 17 will see the launch of the two newest dramas, RUSH, featuring renegade, bad-boy physician Dr. William P. Rush (Tom Ellis, “Miranda) at 9/8c, followed by SATISFACTION at 10/9c starring Matt Passmore (“The Glades”) and Stephanie Szostak (“The Devil Wears Prada”)." http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/networks/usanetwork/pressreleases?pr=contents/press-releases/2014/04/23/usaannouncespow1590029.xml

Just premiere dates and things like that that should be edited into these articles. I don't know the protocol.96.246.145.92 (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The Real Housewives task force proposal
Numerous articles related to The Real Housewives franchise are in poor condition and could benefit from some specialized attention. With seven separate installments, the potential creation of 34 season-specific articles (maybe even episode-specific articles), and numerous cast members that have found fame from the series, The Real Housewives is certainly a highly-influential part of reality television and has the potential of becoming a well-developed group of articles. I believe that giving the franchise its own separate task force within WikiProject Television will more effectively gather interested editors and will promote the improvement of these several articles. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Streaming Availability Indicators?
Could each TV series have a section at the bottom that points to where it can be streamed online (if online streaming is available?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.38.14 (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not content that should appear in the external links section, per WP:ELNO. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know how/if that content would benefit an encyclopedia. It's inherently ephemeral, since works appear and disappear from streaming services all the time. It's data that would require constant updating, and less popular shows would wind up being inaccurate from lack of attention. Also, Wikipedia is not a directory. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Television At Wikimania 2014
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project? We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply. For more information, click the link below. Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox dating for The Vampire Diaries
There is a slow edit war going on with several of the characters from this series. For example, Stefan Salvatore as to when he became a vampire or a doppleganger. The switching is between in-universe and real world dating. My understanding is that real world takes precedence. But in trying to find comparisons, I don't find such dating in infoboxes for other similar fictional characters at all. The vampires from Buffy the Vampire Slayer are like that. Any help that y'all can provide would be appreciated. :) -- ‖  Ebyabe  talk -   Welfare State   ‖ 13:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hey! I have a quick question here, is TV Guide, TV.com and SideReel are all reliable sources or sufficient enough of a reliable source? Thanks! FairyTailRocks 11:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi according to the WikiProject Television/FAQ, TVGuide.com is considered a reliable source, although I've personally seen them drop the ball a few times on accuracy or consistency with other sources.  At least one thing TVGuide has going for it, is that for decades it was the source.   TV.com is not considered reliable, because a lot of their content is user-contributed and if you've ever read some of the plot synopses for kids shows, you'd understand why it sucks.  I was unaware of SideReel before you mentioned it.  I checked a couple of kids' series (my benchmark for crappy content) and found at least one show lacked an entire season of data.  I don't know where they get their data, and there's no obvious editorial policy.  It looks like another site that mirrors the date found at other unremarkable sites.  On the up-side, they look fun!  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding, I'm checking if the airdates of Sword Art Online episodes are true. Can Hulu be a replacement? FairyTailRocks 23:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Dating seasons
This is a minor issue that has spiraled into a big dispute involving lots of talk page comments, an SPI and a case at WP:AIV. It concerns List of Person of Interest episodes and whether a header that says Season 4 can be changed to Season 4 (2014-2015). In March, CBS announced that the series had been renewed for a fourth season and in May it released the Fall 2014 line-up that indicated that the series would continue in its 10 pm Tuesday night timeslot.

The dispute is that some editors believe that this edit has to wait until an exact date is announced for the first episode of the series or after that first episode airs to say that the fourth season of this show is actually going to be broadcast, and that it will air in 2014. While I admit that something eventful might happen, like a writer's strike or a cast member's death, that would prevent a series with solid ratings from being broadcast according to CBS' fall schedule, it seems almost certain that these events won't happen. I also see Season X (2014-2015) appearing on the pages of some television series that were renewed so this seems to be the practice elsewhere.

So, is there a consensus about this or a policy? I'm familiar with WP:CRYSTAL but I think that CBS has issued official statements that make this statement not a prediction but a fact. Liz Read! Talk! 19:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I'm not familiar with what's going on in this situation and I'd like to defer to some of the folk more knowledgeable about consensus issues (like AussieLegend and Bignole), but here's my superficial response: though it's easy to establish that a new season will begin airing in 2014, it's speculative to assert that the season will end in 2015. As you've pointed out, there are innumerable factors that could affect the accuracy of that. WP:CRYSTAL would be applicable in this regard. But that also leaves us with Season 4 (2014-) or Season 4 (2014) which will inevitably precipitate arguments about aesthetics. I think a lot of users get caught up trying to "scoop" everybody else, that they forget we are not a breaking news site, and that we don't have to propagate every field or add every variable if the information isn't available yet. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, Cyphoidbomb, but an officially released Fall 2014 TV schedule where a TV series that gets good ratings continues to air in its timeslot doesn't seem like a scoop. It's a business plan, it's what they tell advertisers who buy media time. I realize that there could be another 9/11 or a natural disaster that would interrupt the beginning of the fall season. But we still have pages for the National electoral calendar 2016 and 2016 Summer Olympics, don't we? And they are more than 4 months away. And I don't have any problems with Season 4 (2014) or Season 4 (2014-), I don't think the editors arguing for a date to be included would either. Liz  Read! Talk! 19:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. So this really has escalated farther than I think it should have. I'll try to keep this brief. If you want the full run down, just go look at the talk page for List of Person of Interest episodes. Myself, Aussie and Drmargi are not denying that these shows are returning in September. What we are saying, is that at these upfront events, they are giving proposed schedule, with no hard dates of actual premiering. Aussie has given many valid examples where shows intending to air in a given television season have not, or they have and then are cancelled before completing their given episode order. Also, by using (Year–) implies the show is currently airing, so that should not be used. After dealing with this the past few days, the most acceptable way to go about this is to either: not have sections for info that could possibly just stay in the lead; or not include the year in the heading, and in the prose, along with the show being renewed, include "with the intention of premiering in the XXXX-XX television season". That second option satisfies the want to have the year in the heading, but stating that it is not a definite. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 19:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Favre and Cyphoid, WP: CRYSTALBALL applies here. Even films that are not released are to say "upcoming" rather than the year of release. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 20:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I know your point of view, Favre1fan93. There are an equal number of editors disagreeing with you on the POI talk page. I posted this question here because I was interested in the consensus view. This issue of dating seasons impacts hundreds of TV shows so I was wanted to know what the consensus on this is because the practice differs on different TV show articles. Liz  Read! Talk!</b> 13:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Only Baseball Bugs, Wikipedical and you seem to be disagreeing with Favre1fan93. You can't include Desk Ref and the disruptive IPs that Baseball Bugs think are trying to get him in trouble, and who others think are sockpuppets. Remember, consensus is not a straight vote. The strength of the arguments are what count. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Only Baseball, Liz, and I have commented here (which is where I saw the discussion yesterday) or at the POI talk page, but if you look at the majority of List of ___ episodes pages with upcoming seasons as Liz pointed out, the status quo is to include parentheticals with years. So don't imply you have a consensus to start making changes.  Anyway, it'd be best to continue the conversation in one place, so I'd suggest replying at Talk:List of Person of Interest episodes instead of here.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you look at the whole discussion at Talk:List of Person of Interest episodes. started the discussion and,  and I have all commented at length. As for who has commented here, you've ignored Cyphoidbomb and Darkwarriorblake. None of these editors support inclusion of years. That, on a pure count only, is 6:3 against. It's the end of the TV season so there is an abnormally high number of articles with years in the headings, added there usually by inexperienced editors. This happens every year around this time and every year we progressively clean up the articles so that by July or so the headings are sans years. That is if the sections still exist. Typically these are single sentence sections. Season renewals are significant issues and so should be mentioned in the lead but when that happens it makes the single sentence sections that don't expand on the lead, redundant. Removal of the redundant sections make the years question moot. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In the vain of progressively cleaning up, I just looked at many series LoEs, and not only were years in the heading (which, I mean we're discussing here) but many had –15 in them, which, like how? We have absolutely no indication that these shows are airing in 2015! Based on the proposed sentence over at Person of Interest talk, I strongly suggest that we get this resolution in the MOS. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 14:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've noticed some resistance in the past to proposed changes to the MOS, so I just want to say that I support any change that clarifies expectations and that better describes real-world practice and existing consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I have already notified the users who have participated here, but if anyone would like to comment on this, options on what to do, to eventually add to the MOS, have been presented at Talk:List of Person of Interest episodes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Any changes to the MOS require the discussion to take place at the MOS. I saw the options, and again I would go back to the fact that if the episode doesn't air then it shouldn't be in the header. It's just like we don't categorize films as "Released in 2014" (etc.) until they are actually released.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Once we have consensus from these options, I will open a discussion at the MOS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Social television
This article was very badly written and almost entirely made up of content that didn't meet Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. I've cleaned it up and added information sourced from noteworthy publications. --Vcwatcher (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Jareau
I noticed some new (for me) reference style for episode's references in this article. Is it ok (to make such references)? -- Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 07:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To which style are you referring? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think he's referring to the footnotes that look like this: . They're scattered through the article; looks to fail MOS and accessibility, since they link to nowhere. – 23W (talk &middot; contribs) 20:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. Silly me, I was looking at the actual references in the article. Most, if not all of those were added way back on 4 November 2009 by an editor with whom I am well acquainted. I suspect he copied the content from this revision of Criminal Minds without copying the actual citations. I've now fixed this. To answer the original question, "no, it's not". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Need some consensus at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) season 2
Hoping a few of you could pitch in to offer some voices. At Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) season 2 there is an ongoing dispute about ep 213/214, primarily between two users. The episode is listed at Nick.com, TVGuide.com and Zap2It.com as "Wormquake!", but the title card that appears in the episode on the Nick site (at approx 03:00) reads "The Manhattan Project", which is also the title card that appeared when the episode aired in the United States. Surely the primary source can be used as its own reference for something as non-controversial as a title? (My guess is that the Wormquake title was released when it was in fact still a working title.) Currently the article calls the ep "The Manhattan Project", which makes sense to me, and it includes a note that explains that the ep was promoted as Wormquake. There was a similar eff-up a few months ago when Nick ran commercials calling the S1 finale a "Booyaka-Showdown", which of course all the kids jumped on and submitted en masse, when the 2-part episode was actually titled "Showdown". If we could get a couple of extra voices to weigh in, it would be helpful. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The really stupid thing about the argument is that it is easily resolved. There are reliable sources listing both names so just list both, one using AltTitle and RAltTitle. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Showrunner Field
How about adding showrunner as an Infobox field?195.240.199.250 (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Showrunners are typically EPs. Seems that it should be obvious in the article prose who the showrunner is without having to duplicate the content in the infobox. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The creator, the composer, never mind the cast are usually listed in the prose as well as the Infobox. As for the EP credit, you probably know it is exactly because EP credits are coverall and slapped on people as perks that the term showrunner arose. Showrunners are about as significant in TV production as it gets, and they merit recognition. 195.240.199.250 (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To quote: "a showrunner is a person who is responsible for the day-to-day operation of a television series—although such persons are credited as executive producers." - The term "showrunner" is not an actual credit, thus we are not going to create a field in the infobox for a role that is not actually credited on the shows (as they are credited as "executive producers"). As for just slapping people with perks, you're thinking of co-executive producer.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Infobox is exclusively for credits? 195.240.199.250 (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge it is. I don't know of any position that isn't an actual credit (whether that's opening credit or final credits). With the exception of reading it in an interview as a colloquial term used to describe who is making the decisions on the show, I've never seen an actual credit of "Showrunner".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I do understand why credits are the litmus for the Infobox, but when credits do not identify a meaningful and noteworthy position with significant public awareness it appears to me a shortcoming in the credits which needn't be replicated. 195.240.199.250 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The credits do identify showrunner, but call it "executive producer", which is a far more meaningful term to the average viewer. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, IP, can you identify where a person is "credited" as a showrunner, but not given a credit anywhere else in production (even more specifically, not an "executive producer" credit)?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  10:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Showrunner is not a union credit but a common honorific to identify the chief (creative) executive from the other executive producers on any show. 195.240.199.250 (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Television program creator
Is "Television program creator" the correct term? Should it have an article? Your opinion wanted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Television program creator... Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving content of Disney Junior (Southeast Asia) to Disney Junior (Asia)
Well, I believe this channel is for all of Asia, but having used move requests, it won't work because too much edits from Disney Junior (Asia). So I decided to put request here.-- John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT television programming may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Married names in the lead of fictional character articles
Opinions are needed on this matter; the WP:Permalink is here, and the plain link to the discussion is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Snow Business (company) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Snow Business (company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Snow Business (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - Gorthian (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

SonOfTheBronx RSN
Started yet another discussion on WP:RSN about SonOfTheBronx. Really just want a concrete answer. Please check it out here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard EvergreenFir (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

plot summary length importance, unusual circumstances
Hello, I am attempting to get Napoleon Dynamite (TV series) up to FA status. The plot summaries for the article are short and someone commented that they should expanded with 200 words being the minimum. The problem is the sources I am using for "Scantronica Love" for example only contain 57 words and 59 words respectively, themselves. I am aware that plot summaries do not have to be sourced, but unfortunately the episodes aired in early 2012 and my memory of them is almost nil. How important is this to the article? Me5000 (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was the one who commented. It's not a pressing issue, I think, but as the only article on itself, it's best to squeeze out as much as you can. Your only option is to watch each episode, really. Never watched the show, but maybe someone here has. Only six were produced; it shouldn't be that hard to sit through them all. – 23W (talk &middot; contribs) 00:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sitting through the episodes would not be a problem, but alas I do not own copies of any of the episodes. Me5000 (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say the ones you have for the table are fine, as the larger summaries should be reserved for articles on the episodes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "200 words being the minimum" is incorrect. The MOS and Episode list instructions both say 100-200 words. Episode summaries are optional. They don't have to be in the table at all. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's true that it's not a requirement, but for a featured article it should have a little more than that. – 23W (talk &middot; contribs) 22:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would a featured article have to have different rules than every other television article in the project? If you want more detailed plot summaries, create articles for the episodes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it has to be paragraphs-long shit, just longer and more comprehensive than it is. Ten-ish words on average doesn't really convey a whole lot; "Napoleon discovers ligers are not the magical beings he had envisioned." is too teaser-like. But these comments are probably reserved for the review page. – 23W (talk &middot; contribs) 22:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The MOS says 100-200 words so that's what it should be, with the proviso that summaries are optional so don't need to exist at all. At any GA/FA review, if editors say the summary should be more than that, they're making suggestions that don't comply with the MOS and the article shouldn't be promoted on that basis. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Parental TV ratings at various kids' TV articles.
Heya, super quickly, I kept noticing that articles like List of programs broadcast by Toonami are chock-full of parental ratings, few, if any of these are sourced, there are daily updates to this data, and I'm aware of what MOS:TV says about them. My plan is to remove these ratings columns, not just from this article, but from other ones that I find--(List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network is another example). I just wanted to put this out there first in case any among you might think I'm being rash. My arguments are: 1) The data doesn't meet meet WP:V, a core Wikipedia policy. How can we verify that any of this data is accurate? Where is the central list that tells us which episode of One Piece was TV-14 DL? 2) WP:PRIMARY We can't use primary sources (i.e. the broadcast that you watched with your own eyes) for vast amounts of information, as we are doing here. 3) MOS:TV specifically instructs us to avoid indiscriminate parental ratings. Thanks all, lemme know what you think.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post. You are quite correct in these assertions. I would say proceed in their removal ASAP. MarnetteD | Talk 17:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,.
 * Done (also with List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim). – 23W (talk &middot; contribs) 22:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, I was kinda expecting some community input a la a mini-RFC, but I suppose it's already in MOS:TV. Well done, I need to learn to use regex-es. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: I did remove these ratings about a year and a half ago and got a lot of backlash from IPs and users. I agree with their removal, but be advised there might be backlash. I think there is certainly consensus and policy behind removing them however. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Appreciated, . I'm curious what counter-arguments to expect. One of my arguments was for WP:V, which is a Wikipedia policy. I don't believe local consensus can supercede policy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Cartoon Network does publicize its parental ratings (reliably sourced) but doesn't include all the episode specific variants, the latter of which is not reliably sourced or notable. Adult Swim/Toonami does not publicize parental ratings. Instead of bringing back line-for-line all the shows, because then you'd have to look up archives of every show ever broadcast, you can add a line of prose like: "The parental control ratings for current shows broadcast typically range from TV-Y to TV-PG" -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with this; because these shows are later repeated during the day with content edits, what might be a TV-PG-V later in the day might easily be bumped to a TV-G or TV-Y7. We can never source these properly, and when we have TV show fans editing articles to pieces, we should not be used to provide parental advice. Seriously the only ones who get annoyed by this are completionists who want us to know every factoid about their show, no matter how inane.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 17:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any encyclopedic value to including the TV-Y7 or TV-PG or whatever ratings, serves more to turn television articles into a ratings log. We should put the trust into the broadcaster and television program to relay these ratings and then it'd be up to the parents to decide upon that viewer discretion. Even video game articles whose box arts already show the E For Everyone's or T For Teen's or whatever ratings don't explicitly mention the ESRB ratings within their articles. They add nothing to the knowledge base apart from logging indiscriminate collections of data which only a tiny few would even bother to look for in an encyclopedia article without even knowing that information can much more conveniently be retrieved on a ratings system site of some sort. Content of this sort is also superfluous to the content that already makes mention of the target audience like the genre and format. I don't see any reason to include them apart from just pleasing the fanboys and fangirls who take the verbatim treating Wikipedia as a fansite. — Mythdon 19:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The other problem is though unlike the MPAA and ESRB, there is no central ratings authority doling out the ratings; it's the networks themselves. If Playboy TV wanted to make a laughable point they could easily rate their entire slate TV-G without anything but press blowback. Take for example Food Network; back about eight years ago when I first helped write the ratings article I could easily make the point that all their shows were TV-G because of their instructional value and that you'd probably never bump into anything parentally objectionable. These days? Their reality shows Mystery Diners, Restaurant Impossible and Restaurant Stakeout have multiple bleeps and confrontations, and few parents would let their children watch every single episode, yet all of them still are TV-G because whoever does parental ratings at Scripps pretty much seems to do it as an 'if I have time' side job. If there was any veritable authority behind these guidelines I might be able to make some case to keep parental ratings in, but I just can't when they're self-governing figures without any kind of force, whereas at least the MPAA and ESRB can deny purchase/admission, and other ratings boards are independently regulated.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Right and since they are self governed, the ratings for individual television series is based off of its ratings on that television network and may not reflect the universal or majority rating. Consequently the placement of any television ratings on a television series as a whole may be malformed seeing as how individual episodes may have different ratings but we'd be saying the television show is only this or that rating. Some networks even own or are owned by the company that owns the television series that broadcast on that network, thereby also causing neutrality issues right on its face. — Mythdon 20:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Note – as I had "warned" – the edit has already been undone at List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , true, that IP was being a pain and is clearly editing their own POV., could you re-run your regex on that? I'm reluctant to revert to your last version because there have been intermediate edits. I've added the article to my watchlist and will help to revert if this happens again. Thanks.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha, just saw this. Will do – could you possibly check out my revamp of List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network for me? I think a split is in order. – 23W (talk &middot; contribs) 04:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television "Company" parameter
Hey all, I've floated a question at Template talk:Infobox television about the intention of the Company parameter. Thoughts appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Television At Wikimania 2014 - updated version
Please note: This is an updated version to a previous post. Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Bring Back the TV Ratings
It has come to my attention that the TV ratings have been eliminated from the [adult swim] and Toonami pages, which I find to be purely nonsensical. This is a site informing the readers on what programs the networks have broadcasted, also providing other tidbits and facts. The TV ratings, I feel, are very important to the article. It isn't a matter of Wikipedia not being a TV Guide, as Zap2It does not list the TV ratings anymore, but rather being a resource for information on the programs broadcasted. Especially on an article like Adult Swim, where the keyword is 'adult'. It can provide information on the reader as to how 'adult' each program can get in content and the like, which I think is very informative and rather crucial in providing the reader with an informative article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.172.236 (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is not nonsensical. There are very valid, correct reasons why this info should not be in articles. Please see the discussion above regarding this, as well as MOS:TV. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose for all the reasons stated in the MoS. DonIago (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose again Cruft. It is unclear how this unsourced "but-trust-us-it's-super-accurate" content is proposed to be useful, such that we should ignore the following Wikipedia policies: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOTTVGUIDE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:PRIMARY. When Wikipedical removed the content circa January 2013, the arguments from the IPs were: "STOP CHANGING THIS. PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING HERE IS FACT. IF NOT, IT IS NO REASON REASON TO DELETE EVERYTHING. I WILL REPORT YOU IF YOU CHANGE IT" and "Even if it contains original research it is no reason to delete everything...This page has been like this for years with no problem. I don't see why it needs to change now." Further, MOS:TV has been in effect since June 2013. My brain doesn't even know how to process the argument "It can provide information on the reader as to how 'adult' each program can get in content and the like". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Opposed Ratings are not included on other articles, such as films, video games, and the TV series articles themselves, so why would a list of TV shows on a network need the rating? Also, as others stated, there are problems with verifiability and vandalism. You would literally need to cite every rating and that is not worth it given the trivializes of said information. One does not need the ratings to prove how 'adult'—for whatever that means—something on Adult Swim is. The fact that it is broadcast on Adult Swim is evidence that the show is being targeted to adults rather than young children. The ratings themselves are trivial and almost no one pays attention to them, much less cares about them. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Spliting season articles into two parts
The season list at Dance Moms (season 4)‎ has recently been split into two parts, and I was wondering what is the general opinion on doing this sort of thing. The article already contains a rather strange claim, "On April 15, the show went on hiatus for unknown reasons. However, a week after the hiatus, the show returned with 3 new specials, two reunions and a clip show". I removed that with the rationale that if it returned after a week, it wasn't really on hiatus. That was reverted by the editor who has now split the season. He is now trying to cite the hiatus claim with a source that only confirms the series was on hiatus on May 13. After a bit of to and fro-ing, he's now split the episode table on the basis that since the last episode aired on May 13 and the next is to air on July 29, it's on hiatus. In a way he's right, but is there really a necessity for this based on an 11 week hiatus? We didn't do it for series that were disrupted by up to four months by the 2007 WGA strike, so do we really need to here? I only watch the Dance Moms articles, not the series, because my wife loves it. Please don't judge me! -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How is this any different for when normal Sept-May shows take hiatus' from Dec-Jan? We wouldn't do anything different if a normal Sept-May show went on normal break in Dec and then didn't come back as soon from the break. If it is all released under one season, it should be one table, and a note of a "hiatus" should be made in a "Production" section. At least that is how I would go about it. And totally judging you Aussie about this. Haha. ;) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty much exactly what I was going to say.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes please recombine.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Quickfail GAN because first season has not finished?
There's currently a discussion at WT:GAN concerning my nomination for Clarence (2014 TV series), but it has gone stagnant for a few days now. Since the first season hasn't finished airing yet, this is seen as a reason to quickfail the nomination per stability (5) of WP:GACR. However, since the series doesn't provide much or any continuity as far as I can tell (so far), and we're more than halfway done through the dozen episodes that were ordered this season, I don't really see this as too much of an issue. I mean, we have various good and featured articles on series still going – are first seasons of television series really that chaotic for shows like this? – 23W (talk &middot; contribs) 03:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Actor Bios
So in the Awards and nominations section on a TV actor's article, and also TV Show articles, how should the year be listed? Is it the year the ceremony was performed or should it be the year the award is for? AKA. should the 68th Golden Globe Awards be listed as 2010 or 2011? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Disney Channel (Asia) article
Disney Channel (Asia) is entirely unsourced, got HAMMERED with gibberish and unsourced content from Vietnamese IPs throughout most of January, (and for who knows how long before, or after that.) I have no idea where to find reliable sources for the article, but I'm hoping someone else might--should it exist? How can we meet WP:V, to say the least? I just noticed these edits which sort of go: Add a bunch of unsourced crap, refine it, remove most of it, but leave gibberish. ("Walt Disney Pictures presents communique in the February 10, 2004 released The Lion King 1½ is Disney direct-to-video animated produced by DisneyToon Studios.") What can we do here? Improve? Monitor? Delete? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia using wrong figures for Criminal Minds season ratings
http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/criminal-minds-season-nine-ratings-30062/ TV series has used figures provided by TV by the Number to show how well Criminal Minds was received by audiences. The current resource reference number 50 being used by Wikipedia number 50 is inconsistent with previous Criminal Mind seasons figures as Insight Media has based their figures on TV rating and internet hits.

http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/criminal-minds-season-nine-ratings-30062/ This resource gives a full breakdown of how the season ratings where worked out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay99a (talk • contribs) 08:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems like a specific thing you should take to the appropriate Criminal Minds' talk page. You may get this viewed by more users who have contributed to the content you are referring to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey Favre, while poking around, I noticed that the user did post at Talk:Criminal Minds a few weeks ago but didn't get a reply. It's a little confusing, (and I'm writing this mostly to test my own reading comp skillz,) but I think he's suggesting that at Criminal Minds the total average number of S9 viewers in the table is 12.66 million, which represents broadcast numbers plus internet viewership (although I think he means Live+7 DVR viewership), which the other seasons in the table may not be including. Inconsistent averages would paint an inaccurate picture of the show's popularity over 9 seasons.  For example does this data from the table include Live+7?  (I'm not slick with Nielsen ratings...)  In comparison, this reference averages the broadcast total for S9 at 10.88 million viewers.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It was original posted on Talk:Criminal Minds because that was what Wikipedia advised. I noticed that for seasons 1 -8 you have only listed ratings from just television broadcast, yet on season 9 you have opted to publish ratings based on television and internet figures combinations. For consistence should season 9 not just be television ratings like the rest if the season which is 10.88. By publishing 12.66 you are implying that Criminal mInds did well in season 9 with audience which is not the case. For consistence alone you should either change the reference 50 to TV by number website and figure or change the other 8 season figures to reflect television and internet rating combination like season 9. The Insight website which is the resource for the figure 12.66 has confirmed that their figures are based on TV & internet and he has posted that on the page. Previous resources have been mainly TV by the number website, who have gone on record to say they only use figures from television and record the figures the day after the show has aired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay99a (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Premiere dates vs. preview dates: what counts as the official airdate?
There's been some back-and-forth at List of Fanboy and Chum Chum episodes, for example here, where a user changes the premiere date with the justification, "Previews are the premiere episodes on Wikipedia", and the reversion here, with the exasperated counter, "Geez! Previews DO NOT count as start dates!"

The question is this: A network like Nickelodeon might do a lot of promotional advertising in preparation of a series premiere on date Y, then show a "sneak preview" a day or several days earlier. What does the community consider to be the series start date? The first literal date a series or episode airs? Or the date the network chooses as its official airdate?

Examples:
 * Nick's TMNT reboot was slated to premiere with "Rise of the Turtles" Saturday, September 29, 2012, but they also aired a sneak preview of the same episode the night before, Friday, September 28, 2012. Both dates appear in the listings at Zap2It, but only the 29th date is listed at Amazon, for example.


 * Breadwinners was slated to premiere February 22, 2014, but they aired a "sneak beak" (get it?) of the first episode on the 17th. The second episode aired on the 22nd.


 * The Penguins of Madagascar aired its first episode November 2008, then its second and subsequent episodes four months later in March 2009.


 * In the case of Fanboy, "Dollar Day" was aired a few weeks before the series' official premiere aired with "Wizboy"/"Pick a Nose"

I understand the logic of using the literal first airing as the Start Date for a series or episode. On the other hand, the literal first airing might conflict with the DVD liner notes for a series if the network considers another date to be the REAL premiere (see TMNT example above). In such a case, we would have two reliable sources in conflict. There is a related problem created, (for example again with TMNT) where the series' regularly scheduled airtime is Saturday morning, but the network "sneak peeked" the eps on Friday nights as well--Friday night ratings are typically higher than Saturday morning, which paints a different picture about the success of the series over time. Anyhow, if anybody has any thoughts about this, they'd be appreciated. I think it's something we should figure out, though. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think another relevant murky issue is online premieres. Many networks are now posting/streaming premieres on the web before they air on television. Will have to figure out a convention to accommodate those dates as well.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * When you say "sneak preview", do you mean a piece of the episode, or the whole thing? A "preview" to me is not a full viewing, but a portion. If that's the case, then the episode did not really air in its entirety and thus wasn't an actual broadcast of the episode itself.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, no, I mean the full episode, (or in the case of Fanboy, one full episode segment) in its entirety. So, Turtles was slated to premiere with a full episode Sep 29, but Nick aired the full episode a day earlier. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's happening to a bunch of the episodes, you can add footnotes saying that it was also aired the day before. If episodes were made available online or by streaming prior to the official air date that can be noted as well, so it doesn't disrupt the official first run date for that channel. If it is a web/online series first-most, then use that date of release. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree with AngusWOOF. I'm thinking about this now, and what if a situation ever arose where an episode was aired as a preview, but then the series never ended up airing officially. In that case, the episode/series never aired in my opinion, but the network aired a preview episode before it was canned. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Per AngusWOOF's suggestion, the problem is not quite solved. We can add a note in the lead to explain that Fanboy, for example, aired a preview ahead of its normal run, but what do we put in the infobox within the Start date template? Or in the various data tables that are hungry for single pieces of information? If we decide that the first airing of something constitutes a the start of the series, then we are sort of on the cusp of original research because we, as Wikipedia, are effectively deciding when a series begins instead of letting the network decide that.  Brick and mortar stores, for example, often change management or open for business well in advance of their Grand Opening.  Shouldn't we use the grand opening as the start date, then explain in the prose that the store (or the TV series) had its grand opening on X date, but opened its doors to the neighborhood a few weeks earlier?  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Cyphoid, for your issue I think you should do as follows: anywhere where a date needs to be used to indicated the start (ie the infobox, series overview table), you should use the official date of airing. Any preview screenings should be noted as Angus stated, and the same notation could be used in the infobox as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For Fanboy and Chum Chum use the official air dates but add a note on the full-episode sneak preview for November 7, and you can cite Frederator's official blog entry here which explains it as well as any of the other sources (you can cite the others if they are secondary though). As for the first episode, the sneak peek isn't the full episode per here so you can just use the regular premiere date. The first sneak peek can be detailed in the prose as that marketing tactic is similar to an extended trailer or teasers for music videos. I had some similar cases regarding air dates after midnight on some shows. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Fear of a Bot Planet
Some input would be appreciated. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The Prisoner Task force
Good day dear people. After some years of absence from wikipedia, I have returned, with the intention of improving the quality of articles surrounding 1960s TV show The Prisoner. I've come hear in search for answers to two questions, first would anybody be interested in helping me or know where I could search for people with interest in this TV show. Second, I was wondering if someone could advise me on creating a taskforce. I realise that the number of articles surrounding the topic is quite minimal, so a taskforce might not be necessary, yet I feel it might be useful for getting insight into what can be done (including one of those nice tables that gives an overview over the number of articles and their quality, such as this one, I love those), and recruiting members. I hope you can help. Cheers. -- Music 26/  11  21:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The Simpsons (franchise) is soon a GA.
The GA-nomination is currently on hold and some things needs to be fixed. You can help! (I know this belongs at WIkiProject The Simpsons, but it seems inactive.) (t) Josve05a  (c) 04:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Clark Kent FAC
I have started an FAC for Clark Kent (Smallville). Please feel free to stop by and comment at Featured article candidates/Clark Kent (Smallville)/archive1.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Blank and redirect sourced Indian actress
Hi. An editor keeps blanking this http://cityairnews.com/content/jalandhar%E2%80%99s-surbhi-jyoti-makes-her-hindi-television-debut-zee-tv%E2%80%99s-qabool-hai actress see Talk:Surbhi Jyoti, refuses to use a normal delete tag or go via AFD. Can someone else check and see if this is appropriate for this actress, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Kleargear deletion discussion notification notice

 * 1) Kleargear
 * 2) Articles for deletion/Kleargear (2nd nomination)

Discussion about whether or not to delete article for Kleargear, discussion at Articles for deletion/Kleargear (2nd nomination). &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

4:3 ?
We have a 16:9 article (and 21:9 aspect ratio), but there's no 4:3 aspect ratio article. Seems like a very big hole in our coverage, considering how common it is and how much more so it was. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4:3 is covered at Aspect ratio (image). -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Primetime Emmy Nominations are out
Complete list: http://www.emmys.com/sites/default/files/Downloads/66th-nominations-list.pdf  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please 21:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Awards
Is there any set format on how to list awards/nominations? I was trying to add the new Emmy nominations to some cartoon articles and saw a large variety of how the sections were structured.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please 21:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen them formatted as tables, prose or both. I like using both, so you can convey things you want that you can't in a table while still having one for casual readers. This is also the same kind of format used in lists of awards by television series. 23<small style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg);">W  02:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay! I prefer tables myself (especially when there are more than a handful of awards), but I'm fine with either.   Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  03:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski New Girl guest appearance verification?
I am having difficulty determining if a guest appearance actually happened. Please comment at Talk:Emily_Ratajkowski if you can help.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Amazing Race season articles...
I just want to see others' opinions on the current article naming structure used in The Amazing Race season pages as it really is a mess... Currently it is set up with a number to represent the season such as "The Amazing Race 1". This however is very disorganised and creates many problems.

Take this for example: There is a Latin American version of the show that had been titled as "The Amazing Race en Discovery Channel" for seasons 1 and 2. However the title has since been simplified to just "The Amazing Race".
 * The parent article is at present "The Amazing Race (Latin America)"
 * The season articles is where it gets confusing as it seems to imply that there had been two different shows...
 * The Amazing Race en Discovery Channel 1 and The Amazing Race en Discovery Channel 2 ....Versus...
 * The Amazing Race 3 (Latin America) and The Amazing Race 4 (Latin America)

Another being the Viernamese version were it is titled by year:
 * The Amazing Race Vietnam 2012, The Amazing Race Vietnam 2013, The Amazing Race Vietnam 2014

Wouldn't it be neater if each article was simply known by its parent article and its season number as it is common in other articles for other reality shows. likewise...
 * The Amazing Race en Discovery Channel 1 –> The Amazing Race (Latin America season 1)
 * The Amazing Race en Discovery Channel 2 –> The Amazing Race (Latin America season 2)
 * The Amazing Race 3 (Latin America)            –> The Amazing Race (Latin America season 3)
 * The Amazing Race 4 (Latin America)            –> The Amazing Race (Latin America season 4)
 * The Amazing Race Vietnam 2012                –> The Amazing Race Vietnam (season 1)
 * The Amazing Race Vietnam 2013                –> The Amazing Race Vietnam (season 2)
 * The Amazing Race Vietnam 2014                –> The Amazing Race Vietnam (season 3)
 * The Amazing Race Asia 2 –> The Amazing Race Asia (season 2), etc.

The numbers and the years seem to imply that that is those are the show's actual titles when in fact they aren't ... This has been brought up several times on the various Anazing Race talk pages but have gone nowhere and has only been discussed with few editors so I thought I'd ask here... : ) Many thanks! :D

-- Kartoffel  07   10:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think what you have proposed seems good, and would put all the articles in correct alignment to how the projects states we should name articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to change last_aired parameter instructions
Comments requested at Template talk:Infobox television.

Basically: Do we need to require sources for series end dates as we have been doing, which often results in shows being designated as "present" forever, or can we allow last_aired dates to be added if no pickup is announced at the next upfront, or if the show goes silent for NN months?

I'm hoping to encourage clarification in the documentation one way or another. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Canadian TV Guide ceases, link rot warning
TC Transcontinental recently pulled the plug on the Canadian version of TV Guide, and with it, a ton of articles that were syndicated on The Loop. According to someone who had contacted one of the former editors, the articles were entirely deleted (which blows my mind a little). I've started scraping cached versions of their articles from Google using archive.today over at my userspace. While archive.today is blacklisted from Wikipedia, and thus cannot be used as an archive URL, it's still useful for expanding articles. If you're able to scrape more cached versions of their articles, please do. <span style="background:hsl(0,25%,25%);border:thin solid hsl(312,25%,75%);color:hsl(312,25%,75%);">23W 00:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Proper move of Clarence (2014 TV series)?
recently moved the page Clarence (2014 TV series) to Clarence (animated series). I've never seen animated series articles disambiguated like this before; is this proper? I started a discussion on the talk page here. <span style="background:hsl(315,25%,25%);border:thin solid hsl(120,25%,75%);color:hsl(120,25%,75%);">23W 21:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back as it's contrary to WP:NC:TV. Clarence is a disambiguation page so normal disambiguation rules would have the article at Clarence (TV series) but, since that is a redirect to the disambiguation page and because Clarence (1988 TV series) exists, Clarence (2014 TV series) is the appropriate location for this article. WP:NC:TV suggests that Clarence (animated TV series) is acceptable, although not preferred over Clarence (2014 TV series), but Clarence (animated series) is wrong. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Anarchy with regard to the UK
There's been a little back and forth at The Amazing World of Gumball, which sparked this query. I made some edits a while back where I'd removed from the infobox the United Kingdom as a nation of origin, because the United Kingdom isn't a nation. I tidied up a little and I think it was determined that an Irish company had originally been a coproducer for the series, then later an English company. Anyhow, Holiday56 changed England back to United Kingdom in the infobox, and the lead to Irish-British-American, both of which I disagree with, but they did helpfully point out in this edit that United Kingdom is used in a variety of articles as the nation of origin, for example at Mr. Bean. My question is, why? How is it of value to be vague about the nation of origin if we can be specific? I can perhaps understand using United Kingdom if all four member regions are involved, but otherwise, specificity makes sense to me. Does a dude have a "British" accent or an "English" accent?

Bigger issues: Are we getting a little overboard with the micro-specific hyphenations? "XYZ is an American-English-Australian-Canadian animated series." Should we cap these at three or something? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland aka UK is valid in the nation attribute as it is the sovereign state. Individual countries in the UK may be more specific just as individual US states would be more specific, but we should use the top level legal sovereign entity for this type of info which in this case is UK. Only exception I am aware of is in bio articles country seems more important but that varies based on the article and is an exception as country identity seems really important to a lot of Britons for personal identity. As for multiple countries of origin, assuming somewhat equal participation (not just filmed there, but co-production), they should be separated with WP:NDASH, definitely not hyphens, as the first does not modify the second, all ordering has same meaning, and the n-dash basically means "and" in the context. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Accent comment parallel does a person have an "American" accent or a "Texas" accent. Just levels of specificity. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Though I'm still a little confused, because the US states are not considered countries, whereas Wales, England and Scotland are literal countries, I stand corrected. Thanks, GP. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Country and State mean basically the same thing as well, but the US uses "state" as its major subentity, and the UK uses "country" as its major subentity. Variations in meanings based on context and national usage, mostly based on historical usage. US states started out as separate sovereign entities and evolved over time to component parts but still kept the name. Likewise in the UK for component countries or kingdoms. Both the US and UK are Sovereign states in international usage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for FYI (TV network)
An article that you have been involved in editing, FYI (TV network), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spshu (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And if there is an administrator here, both article were incorrectly move to (TV network) when they should have remain named as (TV channel). Spshu (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they are networks, not channels. A channel is what they are carried on. Ironically, the page you just linked actually supports the naming convention you do not. ViperSnake151   Talk  22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, no, Naming conventions (broadcasting): "Networks provide content over one or more channels, and broadcast by one or more independently-owned stations." "Articles about channels should use (radio channel) or (TV channel)." No station is involved so it is a channel. A cable network on WC-BC indicates for cable a "network" is a provider of multiple channels, so A+E Network is the network and A&E and FYI are both channels. --Spshu (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Marge Be Not Proud GAR
Marge Be Not Proud, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 20:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Literature Online Access
Hello all! At The Wikipedia Library we are currently in talks with Proquest's Literature Online and Early English Books Online to get Wikipedians access to those databases/collections. They asked us for a bit of information about how Wikipedians might use the research materials, asking us to do a brief survey. It would be extremely helpful if users could fill out the following Google form: Proquest - Literature Online / Wikipedia Library user interest survey. Afterward, while waiting for us to finish talks on Literature Online, we would like to invite editors to apply for already established available partnerships, listed at our partners page. Thank you for all of your help! Sadads (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just reminding everyone that this might be of interest! Calling all survey takers, Sadads (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Starring credits, infobox starring attribute, main character section, official website role
I started a discussion at Talk:Girl Meets World about what would normally be a straight forward situation of matching opening credits to infobox starring and list of main characters in an article. In this case a recurring character with a guest starring end credit is being featured equally on the official website for the show with the opening credit main characters. There has been some oscillation in the article moving this character between the main and recurring sections. I generally consider the official site as pretty authoritative and I conjecture this actor's designed role is as a main character but couldn't be listed as such in the opening credits due to internal show production issues. My instinct is to treat him as starring because of how treated on the website but this conflicts with how we normally do this. I am looking for some inputs on how to handle this. This may be a more general issue than just this case.

Somewhat related, at Henry Danger, two actors listed on the show-runner's site as supporting cast, are not in the opening credits but are listed in end credits as starring. I considered a starring credit in the end credits the same as a listing in the opening credits so listed the characters in the infobox starring attribute. I would like some opinions on this decision as well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

TTN and mass blank and redirecting of articles
I just noticed that has been mass blanking and redirecting articles instead of putting any work or effort into improving them. While the Hercules TV series may be more debatable, I've gone and undone (hopefully the majority) of the Twilight Zone blank and redirects. This is some sort of case where Fait accompli] seems to be the heart of the issue because mass blanking and redirecting occurs and this is not the first time upon which TTN has been warned of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't disagree with you. He recently nominated List of Primeval creatures for deletion. It failed, but he then decided to "prune" the article significantly, prompting a long discussion on the talk page. While this was going on I noticed that he redirected Claudia Donovan and "merged" a small portion of the content to List of Warehouse 13 characters. He didn't touch any of the other main character articles, which was peculiar, so I looked at his edit history and noted what you have. Another editor has also mentioned the fait accompli issues. To be fair, a lot of the articles that TTN has been redirecting do have a lot of issues, but he hasn't really attempted to fix any of them and "Redirect to the main article. This contains nothing but plot information" seems an overused edit summary. It certainly was in this edit when he incredibly redirected an article about bottled water to List of Decepticons. We're losing a lot of articles that could be improved and almost nobody is noticing. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into this, but was known for converting articles to redirects, ridiculous deletion nominations and stuff like that. Might be worth a look. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've warned him before and I spent dozens of hours fixing and trying to undo his damage while balancing and working on plenty of other things. The user is simply overwhelming in the blank and redirects, multiple within a minute, and their complete and utter lack of discussion. WP:PLOT is not a valid deletion reason, much less a blank and redirect reason. I just did a video game Sneak King that was just "Plot and gameplay" information, but in a few hours it is quite respectable article now. And just looking at what has been done to numerous other single episodes and other content, these blank and redirects seem to be an attempt to cover up the problem or make it "disappear" instead of working on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there anything we can do to Topic Ban TTN from fictional topics? It seems there is a long history of abuse, concern and that TTN has an outright disgust for fictional topics and seems to neither care or maintain any articles. TTN's sole purpose is the deletion, pruning and otherwise removal of content. TTN has previously stated that he believes all of Transformers should be down to 5 core articles - there are more movies than that alone. Clearly, we are dealing with someone who will not listen and has a single purpose - the removal of fiction-related content. Also, I had reverted a bunch more of the Twilight Zone and Hercules episode purges, but gosh - I think nuking his contributions might be a major net positive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by XYZ
There are changes submitted to lists like these almost every day, for example List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon, and I'll admit, I don't have the time, energy, or ability to verify every change. That would be a real timesuck. For instance, the dates at this article change constantly and shows are moved around constantly. Who's actively maintaining the accuracy? Why do we care when reruns of a series were aired? (Can you imagine tracking every day, time and channel that I Love Lucy aired?) Networks change their lineups around constantly--are we seriously supposed to assume that volunteers should invest their time memorializing every aspect of such a network? What do we expect out of these articles? What's the least amount of information that we'd find useful, and what's the most amount of information that we need? These lists are largely based on the primary sources anyway, i.e. someone moving a program to Current Programming because they swear they just saw it on Nick Jr. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is definitely a verification issue, some sites maintain that, but otherwise the list of programs should really be no more than a category verified by sourcing, but even then editors have a history of purging those and other verified links on the individual pages - much less the "line up" and other data. Wikipedia simply cannot cover all content and still be expected to be an accurate record. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the sources regularly used in these articles is nickandmore.com, which is not a reliable source. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * - Any thoughts on what the community's approach to such articles should be? The monkeys are running the zoo at many of these articles and subtle vandalism is rampant. I've seen people move a show from one section to the other, hoping to hide the fact that they also fudged the airdates. I wish there were a way to verify content once, then lock out any changes to that content. I ran this idea past The Pump a couple of times, but nobody seemed to care. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Give me a couple of hours to ponder this one... its something I don't have a good answer for yet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We need to overhaul it, the vandalism and the issues are too prominent to ignore. The lack of sources are also going to be an issue. Ideally, I'd like a template that takes the series and a reference before its inclusion in some manner, but really - what channel re-runs the content is of low importance. The articles as a whole should not be our concern for some time, don't purge, but don't encourage their meticulous development. Save it for the series and the content itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For anyone who isn't aware of what's going on with these articles, here's an example from today: Editor adds unsourced content and content sourced to nickandmore, which I revert. What was the editor's response? To restore the content completely unsourced, with a "look at the TV guides" comment in the summary. sigh. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That user has been problematic in the past, for example here in January where he references an Australian television grid (nothing personal, AL--it was USA's SpongeBob) and instructs users to find the information themselves. Like, if referencing were just as easy as pointing to a library and saying, "it's in there", then we would never have a problem, would we? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The reruns absolutely have to go. I don't see the encyclopedic value of that, unless to say, "This series aired in reruns for 70 years beyond its cancellation" (I Love Lucy, perhaps...) I'd also suggest that the dates ranges should at some point be cut. There are three problems that will take the entire Wikipedia community to fix: 1) Data fluctuates so rapidly, that it is impossible to check it all. 2) It would be ideal if we could vet data and lock them in secure modules within articles, instead of relying on (basically) one giant text file for the entire article that can eventually be corrupted through repeated tries. 3) We needlessly duplicate so much data manually, across so many articles, that are handled by so many people, that inconsistencies and inaccuracies are what you come to expect at Wikipedia, which means that the data has no real value, academically or otherwise. If these "List of programs broadcast by XYZ" articles were, for example, pulling the start/end airdates from the infoboxes of the main articles, or even from protected documents that only, say, Reviewers and Admins could change, that would eliminate a TON of the contamination. Change the dates in one place, and all the articles using that template are affected. Anyhow, I dream big. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Change it to "List of programs debuted on XYZ" instead? Solves the problem of re-runs and gets to the point about which channel first broadcast what. That also means "rerun"s and movies do not need to be cross-spammed based on a TV Guide claim. Anything that important should be sourced in the topic article if so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jim Ignatowski
I started a new re-proposal on renaming the article. Join in talks! --George Ho (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising
Hello. I am trying to elevate the article on the 1972-74 American television sitcom Temperatures Rising to FA status. Currently their is a discussion going on about it, but I need some more feed back on how to improve the article, notably with the issue brought up by Dank. Does anyone care to take a look at it and offer up some suggestions? Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

List of The Bill home media releases: Revision history
Can someone look at the constant revision of this page. The author Jason Singerling from Australia has added a wide range of data pertaining to DVD Releases of The Bill from around Europe and Australia. This data has been deleted by unknown person. It is relevant data. I cant undo it to put the page back to what it was, so can someone senior at Wikipedia or one of the administrators on this board have a look at it and come up with a solution please. Thanks. Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbeaver12 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hatnote usage debate
There is debate about the propriety of a hatnote at Legends (TV series). I added, which results in the hatnote "This article is about 2014 American crime drama. For the Korean TV series, see The Legend (TV series). For the 1995 American science fiction drama, see Legend (TV series)." has removed it and I have reverted. He started a discussion on the talk page, but I don't think a lot of eyes are watching that talk page so I am posting here for advice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing discussion on the show's talk page, and it should be allowed to run its course before any attempt to bring it here. Moreover, Wylie's revert should not have been reverted; the pages stays at status quo as of when the discussion was opened.  This was an inappropriate move by an editor attempting to control the discussion.  The show just premiered tonight, and time should be allowed for new viewers to find the article and weigh in before we run here for help.  Request an uninvolved editor close this discussion.  --Drmargi (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is really a hatnote discussion about three different pages. It would make more sense to hold it here than on any one of the pages. IMO, all three pages should have the same type of hatnoting. I created all three hatnotes when I saw a commercial for Legends (TV series), but entered Legend (TV series) in the search bar.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that I am probably one of the more proficient Wikipedia users in the world, I don't see how 's change to remove Legends (TV series) from the hatnote of the other two is going to help anyone who is as confused as I was when I saw the commercial for Legends (TV series) and went to the Legend (TV series) page on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Restored it to Legend (TV series) to prevent visitor error. In future, I will only discuss this at the original talkpage. —  Wylie pedia  07:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Need some help
I'm having some problems at Marido en alquiler and would appreciate some extra eyes on the article. An editor recently requested addition of a new field at Template talk:Infobox television. As a result I've been doing some cleanup at the article but I'm constantly being fought by that editor, who isn't a native English speaker and seems to be having some problems understanding that we apparently do things differently to the Spanish Wikipedia. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Could somebody please look at this and tell me whether they think it's acceptable? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm watching now Aussie. Reverted back to your prose and will continue to watch/assist where you need me. Just ping me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The telenovela articles need extra eyes on them, they're a mess. The ridiculous situation with Marido en alquiler in aprticular is that we have a Spanish editor with very poor English making what I've come to refer to as "dummy spit reverts". Since your edit he's reverted again. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Telenovela navboxes
I just discovered Telemetro 2014 telenovelas. There are several similar navboxes in, all with series organised by aired time. There are others, like Canal 13 Chile telenovelas that are full of redlinks. These all seem useful, but violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE and need appropriate cleanup. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you should be deleted templates are unnecessary and even there are many, including:


 * 1) Univision 2014 telenovelas
 * 2) Televisa 2013-2014 telenovelas
 * 3) Univision 2013 telenovelas
 * 4) Televen 2013-2014 telenovelas
 * 5) Televen 2014-2015 telenovelas
 * 6) Telemundo 2014-2015 telenovelas
 * 7) Venevisión 2014 telenovelas


 * There are many for years, I created some templates for you to eliminate unnecessary. how come:


 * 1) Televisa telenovelas 2010s
 * 2) Televisa telenovelas 2000s
 * 3) Televisa telenovelas 1990s
 * 4) Telemundo telenovelas 2010s
 * 5) Telemundo telenovelas 2000s
 * 6) Televen telenovelas
 * 7) Venevisión telenovelas 2010s
 * I think you are more practical.-- Damián  (talk)  22:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Starz requested moves
I have requested that "Starz (TV network)" be moved to "Starz." Feel free to comment at Talk:Starz (TV network). -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Series Finale revisited
Hey all, looking to establish a clear definition for what constitutes a "series finale"? This affects numerous article and often appears in the headers of series overview boxes.
 * Definition 1: The literal, final episode to be broadcast in a television series, regardless of intention or circumstance.
 * Definition 2: A planned final episode, typically promoted as a special event.
 * Definition 3: ??

I previously raised this question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 3 and a couple of editors replied, but I wanted to get more discussion going.

There was some back and forth about this at Sam & Cat recently because the series was canceled toward the end of its second season. Nick decided to air the last two produced episodes and call it a day. Does this constitute a finale? Another example: I recently reverted this good-faith edit by Anthonyg328. In this scenario, Nickelodeon basically stopped airing new episodes of Fanboy in December 2011. Ten months later, Nick burned off most of the remaining episodes except for "Brain Freeze", which had been released to DVD early in Season 2. Over a year and a half later, in July 2014, they finally aired "Brain Freeze". What might be worth noting also, is the Brain Freeze was produced early in the season, which makes calling it a "series finale" all the more odd to me.

Calling the first episode in a series a "premiere" make sense to me, because it is typically a planned and promoted event, and there is a "specialness" to it (which is probably why we use the fancy French word). Final episodes are not always planned or promoted events, because shit happens. There is also an inherent specialness to "finale", because now suddenly we're speaking Italian. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If I had my druthers, I'd just avoid the loaded terms "premiere" and "finale" all together and just label the first episode "first episode" and the last episode "last episode" as is supported in the series infobox first_aired, last_aired. Sometimes the first aired episode is labeled "Preview" and the second time it is aired it is labeled "Premiere". The final episode aired may or may not be a designed series "finale". Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that there are precedents for both found all over the project. For example at All Grown Up! the overview lists First air date and Last air date. It may be worth noting that I picked several TV-related Featured Articles at random, and none of the seven that I selected had overviews. (1234567) Perhaps a coincidence. And GP, I believe you helped me out of a mental roadblock as well, because I've been under the impression for a while that the start of a season is its "premiere", when, for our purposes the "first_aired" parameter should list the first airing in its primary market. Articles are inconsistent and I think we should clarify that as well at Template:Infobox television.Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I bold edited Template:Infobox television/doc to remove the only mention of "finale". See if it sticks. This is a problem when jargon conflicts with common usage. We should avoid jargon terms when that happens and use plain descriptive words. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This topic is in danger of dropping off, but I'd like to get some other input about this since the concept affects so many articles. I'm going to drop invites to some of our regulars. I know Bignole and DonIago contributed their thoughts at the MOS talk page. My goal is to get some clear guidance on the usage of Premiere and Finale as opposed to First aired and Last aired, because I do think there is an implied difference that is not covered by the literal definition. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on the premiere should be when it is officially starting. If it airs before then, that should be noted where ever the episode info is, be it the table or prose. As for finale, I would say it should be whenever the final produced episode airs. So if it is a serial network show, typically when it is ep 22-24 has aired for the season, and it is the last season, that is it. If it is animated, where eps air out of order, whenever that last produced episode airs, that should be it. Now, if there is a discrepancy between if the show has officially ended or not, I think there should be some timeframe used as a judge of when to put that date. And if produced episodes have not aired, that should be mentioned in prose. If we get changing info that those episodes will air, then we can just change the info at that time. Hope this helps your conundrum. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey F1F93, thanks for commenting. I'm asking more about the terminology, but based on your response, it sounds like you're more aligned with Definition 1, because you don't perceive the word "finale" to imply anything special or different from the norm. Like, I think of M*A*S*H*'s "Goodbye, Farewell, Amen" as a finale. Or any network sitcom that ended with hugs and bows and some sort of resolution. Breaking Bad had clear season finales and a series finale.  In contrast, did Garfield and Friends have season finales, or series finales?  When the final episode of Sam & Cat aired after cancellation, was that a "finale" or just the last episode to air? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. It should be definition one. "Finale" is just a marketing term, but in the case of animation or children's television (as this seems to need to be applied to), it should be after the last produced episode airs, regardless of the "episode number" it is in the season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's a marketing term, wouldn't it be more encyclopedic to simply refer to "series start" and "series end"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well the doc just uses first aired and last aired. Is that not fine? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not explaining myself well. "Series premiere" and "season finale" often appear in overview boxes, for example, here. And, the children seem to like to change first aired/last aired in the overview to Premiere/Finale because somehow that means more to them. But my question isn't limited to the overview box; I'm trying to get sufficient community input to determine how we'd like to handle the use of this language, because while premiere/finale could be fine for prose (if appropriate), I don't think that every start/finish qualifies to be labeled premiere/finale. A mid-season pickup may not "premiere", it may just "start airing" with no fanfare or searchlights (Three's Company?). In the case of Robot and Monster, the series had a premiere, and then it was basically just not picked up for a full second season. So there is no la-dee-dah "finale". So, my argument is that we should perhaps be judicious about the uses of these words. The miniseries Roots had a premiere and a finale, but so did CatDog, apparently, according to the overview. And, if I'm being completely insane about this, I would like my peers, with whom I think I generally get along well with, to tell me so, although I believe Geraldo Perez agrees with keeping the terminology fairly sterile. The infobox is not presently the issue, although we have not as a community settled on the appropriate usage of the first aired/last aired parameters... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah! My apologies and thank you for clarifying. I thought you meant the infobox, not the series overview tables. I did not read that right. So my feeling then would maybe to go with something like "first airing" and "last airing". I also don't know if you are just looking to much into the fact that "premiere" and "finale" are being used. To me, see that doesn't always mean there was a "spectacle" regarding the first and last episode airings. Hope that helps a bit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, currently the info appears redundant with the section's header "Originally aired, first aired, last aired", or so it seems to me. —  Wylie pedia  14:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Emmy Award Charts
I see that has charts from several Emmy Award pages. Is this a supported set of edits?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * They are indiscriminate trivia sections. Why the actor with most "Guest Actor in a Comedy Series" awards should be mentioned in "Leading Actor in a Comedy Series" (and vice versa) I have no idea.  Anyway, they are redundant of the information in "Multiple wins" and "Multiple nominations" sections lower down on the pages.  I am merely removing these "Superlatives" sections, which have also been removed from Academy Awards lists.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Superlatitives like that, in which the data can be validated just by doing one's own count of the table, if not backed by a secondary source that makes note of the importance, are considered "trainspotting" type trivia and inappropriate for WP. I am sure there are people that sources know as having the most nominations, but as Wikpedical says, on the actors page would be suitable for that. It is an appropriate removal. --M ASEM (t) 01:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Bold edit at Template:Infobox television/doc re: last_aired parameter
Hey I've made a bold edit at Template:Infobox television/doc and I need the community to pass/fail it/clarify it, etc.
 * Before: last_aired - The first airdate of the show's last episode on its original channel or network. Use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed and end date if the show is ended. Only insert the last episode's date after it has happened.
 * After: last_aired - The first airdate of the show's last episode on its original channel or network. Use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed and end date if the show is ended. Only insert the last episode's date after it has happened. In some cases the fate of a program might be uncertain, for example if there are no announcements that a show has been renewed. If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date the last episode aired, using end date. This does not imply the series has been cancelled, rather that the program "last aired" on that date. This is to prevent programs from being listed as "present" in perpetuity.

I'm basically proposing a shift in perspective. Rather than using the parameter only to represent cancellations or planned series ends as we have been doing, I'm suggesting that if a show hasn't aired a new episode in 12 months, we drop "present" (because the series is not "presently" airing new episodes) and treat the parameter literally, with the data indicating when the series "last_aired" a new episode. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with this change. One year with no new episodes scheduled and no announcements of any sort about the show is a pretty strong indication that the show will not be renewed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The change seems reasonable to me and I agree with the comments by Geraldo Perez. I think it's worth noting that has posted a quite well written and well thought out rationale for the changes he made to the template instructions on my talk page. That rationale, which can be read here should serve to answer any questions that may arise in the future as to why the particular changes were made. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So how would we treat Curb Your Enthusiasm? Leaving "present" and adding an end date both feel weird. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like: <pre style="overflow:scroll;">last_aired = September 11, 2011 (see § Future) ? 23<span style="color:hsl(30,100%,25%);display:inline-block;transform:rotate(138deg);text-decoration:underline;">W 02:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like one of those exceptions we'd have to treat locally. There's no shame in adding notes to clarify, as 23W has suggested. Or, we could add "ongoing" as an alternative to "present" or whatever wording we decide is more suitable to the series. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC relevant to this WikiProject
An RFC about The Simpsons Movie and its inclusion on an episode list can be found here.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Cartoon Network template split proposal
Neither the template talk page nor the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cartoon Network seem active, so I'm coming here to propose a split of Template:Cartoon Network across three templates: one for the main topic (Template:Cartoon Network), one for programming (Template:Cartoon Network programming) and one for video games (Template:Cartoon Network video games). You can see what I've come up with below.

The main topic (Cartoon Network) would have all the first two (in order) and any others under Navboxes; programming articles would have the programming navbox first, followed by the proper one; and video game articles would only have the video games navbox.

This was sort of inspired by Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons. I think this would look more attractive and less unwieldy to readers. I think I've complied with WP:NAVBOXCOLOR, as I've adapted the shades of grey from the network's official website. What do y'all think? 23<span style="color:hsl(15,100%,25%);display:inline-block;transform:rotate(90deg);text-decoration:underline;">W 01:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * All three look good! "Unwieldy" is correct. Made my eyes roll when I checked the old main one. —  Wylie pedia  14:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've boldly implemented them into all articles. Let me know how they look; I've changed the documentation so that programming articles only have Cartoon Network programming. 23<span style="color:hsl(345,100%,25%);display:inline-block;transform:rotate(180deg);text-decoration:underline;">W 23:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I randomly checked some articles in all three. Much more succinct. —  Wylie pedia  11:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I just realized that the Cartoon Network programming is missing series produced by other companies (originally) for the network. Bit of a problem. 23<span style="color:hsl(90,100%,25%);display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg);text-decoration:underline;">W 06:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Feedback requested
I've opened a discussion at Talk:List of Oggy and the Cockroaches episodes regarding the inclusion of content I interpret as trivia being included within episode synopses. A few extra opinions would be appreciated, as there seems to be a gambit in place from an inexperienced user to take ownership of the article, and to threaten page protection if any changes are made contrary to their wishes. (See my talk page for examples of this.) I had previously removed the content circa April 2014, and there has recently been a push to re-insert it. Most of the content involves statements like "Note: the characters' colors appear pale in the scenes of them on the skyscraper" though in one edit at the main article, the IP user (who is probably the same person behind the logged-in account) added speculation about the cartoon cat's religion, "In many episodes including "The Blob and "Flower Power", Oggy's religion is most likely Hindu." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The Importance of Mister Rogers
Hello, I am CharlieBrown25. I would like to inform you that you have placed Mister Rogers' Neighborhood in the category of low-importance. If this is intentional, might I inquire the reason that you would place such a popular and critically acclaimed series as low as the most obscure shows?
 * This was done with this edit in 2010, apparently just to give it WikiProject ratings without considering the respective importances. I've changed it where WPTV is concerned. That said, in the future, please list such review requests at WikiProject Television/Assessment as well. Thanks for letting us know. —  Wylie pedia  13:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

La viuda negra (telenovela) / United States broadcast
Hello, I know that relevance is the list of episodes on the article mentioned. It has almost no references, the only one; not show the audience and viewers. Furthermore occupies almost the entire space of Article.-- Damián  (talk)  14:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It could use some tweaking, per Template:Episode list. The Duration column is unnecessary, since the running time is listed in the infobox. A separate episode list page could be done, but per WP:Size split, that would leave this main article skeletal and should stay until more episodes are possibly done. As for sources, I would remove the Viewers/Ratings columns as well, since they are neglible. The premiere numbers, et al., could have their own section. The rest, unless sourced, can go. —  Wylie  pedia  11:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think the names of the episodes are invented, I entered the Univision page, and found the titles of the episodes, so I think maybe can be invented. telenovelas usually has almost no second seasons are just soap operas and transmitted Monday through Friday. I would say you can do something like List of Mi corazón es tuyo episodes. But I still say that this table is unnecessary, and very long. Users entering wikipedia are looking for more information, a complete table with episodes, I think the center of attraction of this article is the list of episodes. Well I say there are saying, or you can do.-- Damián  (talk)  16:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 78 episodes certainly warrants a possible separate list page, but since there is nothing to the list except for dates, titles, and numbers, it should stay at the main page. To say it is the "center of attraction" means editors should find other things to add about the series other than short sections for broadcast, synopsis, and cast. Having a separate mostly empty episode list only causes further linking and time taken for visitors, who could simply scroll down or "jump" with the TOC on the main page. —  Wylie pedia  13:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I will delete the list of episodes, because I find no reference to that. I just think that list generates too much of the article also this telenovela is a production of 3 tv channels, so they are missing the release dates in Mexico and Colombia, and is only the release date in America.-- Damián  (talk)  13:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think the episode titles are "invented" and there are no known Spanish titles or original dates, then it should be deleted. The broadcast section mentioning the US date is sufficient, in my opinion. —  Wylie pedia  18:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if anyone knows where they have gone the titles of each episode, should put references at least, but no information on the titles of each episode. Now, as I said before, because nothing placed the date of issue in the united states, not the date of issue in Mexico and Colombia. But anyway. I'll get a little more on google to see if I can get information.-- Damián  (talk)  18:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

TV related AfD
Articles for deletion/Marcel Hillaire is a TV related AfD discussion that isn't getting much comment. Editors are encouraged to participate. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This AfD still requires more comment from editors if anyone has a few minutes. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Anybody feeling up to hashing out Series overview tables this week?
I know there was some talk about Series overview tables a while back. I notice there's nothing yet in the MOS. Anybody up for coming up with some guidelines this week for inclusion in the MOS?

Seems that we need to figure out:


 * 1) Do we want to use them at all? Does the community find them to be valuable or unnecessary?
 * 2) When do we use them?
 * 3) What content do we include? (Do we include DVD or other home media releases as in some articles?)
 * 4) What wording should we use? ("Premiere date" / "Finale date" vs "First aired" / "Last aired" or some derivative -- we've had some discussion about this)
 * 5) General formatting: Table width, color guidelines, page placement etc. Some tables are presented as tidy blocks and columns, often underneath the Table of Contents, while some tables are presented as wide as one's viewscreen, which, on larger monitors can look odd.)
 * 6) What not to include (i.e. if a season hasn't been aired yet, don't add it to the overview, as previously discussed.)
 * 7) Maybe addressing "TBA" vs "N/A" vs "—" preference finally?
 * 8) Profit.
 * 1) Profit.

Since so many articles use the overview tables it seems that we should encourage consistency. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do I want to help with this? Yes. Do I think I'll have the time to give a good amount of discussion? Maybe to no. Definitely keep me up to date with this Cyphoid! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this proposal is seriously flawed. How can you possibly expect profit without collecting underpants? ;) -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I expressed making it into a template, but I guess it would be too complicated to program. I now think that home media release dates should be omitted entirely, but I guess they're valuable to some. 23<span style="color:hsl(255,100%,25%);display:inline-block;transform:rotate(108deg);text-decoration:underline;">W 17:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , I know myself and at least have this stance on home media, and we both feel better use of the table is to include viewership data (see this as an example) as that generally has more of an effect on how a show performs and is either renewed or cancelled. Home media info is great to keep on the main series page, but not really in an overview template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I've previously explained the rationale for including the home media releases in the series overview table, I tend to agree that they shouldn't be there. People are now including Blu-ray releases for different regions alongside the DVD releases, often in the same columns despite the fact that the Blu-ray and DVD regions are different. It's becoming a mess and I think that the home media should remain in the home media section in the main article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * My feelings are that series overview tables are best utilized on the main page, as it's the easiest point of contact and navigation, as well as providing a basic overview (which is what the main page does once it's grown large enough). To me, overview tables on say a List of Episode pages becomes redundant simply because an LoE page is nothing more than a summary page once a series reaches the completion of 4 seasons and you start contemplating season pages. That's because, once you do that, the LoE page becomes nothing more than dates and titles, as the summaries are all gone. It seems odd that you'd need to summarize a page that is just a summary. But, I do see benefit on a main page. FavreFan is correct in that I also don't think DVD info has any place in there, because it has nothing to do with the series itself. It also tends to overshadow the rest of the information because having dates for every region just bogs up the table and becomes all that you see.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think then what makes sense is for me to write up a rough wording at the MOS and we can edit as we like. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with Bignole about the location of the table. Since it's summarising the episode lists it's best placed on the LoE page with the episodes that it summarises. The episode summaries are really irrelevant and there are plenty of articles that don't have season pages, so that argument doesn't apply. As I've previously pointed out, there are a lot of editors that concentrate on the LoE pages and don't go near the main article so placing the table in the main article would return us to the situation we had in 2010, where the table in the main article was often significantly different to the LoE page. It's a process that's just asking for trouble, especially with TV series aimed at children. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am indifferent regarding the table's ultimate origin location, but where ever it is, transclusion should be used, to avoid the unnecessary duplication. Place it on the LoE and transclude to the main page, or vice versa. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Aussie, that argument doesn't make sense. You say that people update the LoE page, but not the main page. I've never worked on pages with an active TV series where both pages were not updated. The overview table contains nothing more than premiere/finale dates, number of episodes, and maybe some viewership numbers. Those are not weekly updated figures, they are figures that need to be placed 2 times a year. Thus, you don't need to transclude anything, nor do you need to have a summary table on a page that is nothing but summary tables. Why would your table be "significantly different" from one page to another, unless people are creating different tables (can you point to these multiple instances, because I feel like you're stuck on relatively minor moments, since I've never experienced this and have been editing since 2006). That has nothing to do with tansclusion, and more to do with editors wanting to put different information. You don't see an overview table on List of Harry Potter actors, nor do you see one for List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. You don't need to repeat information that is already summarized on the same page. That's just being unnecessarily redundant. Why does a reader need to a table that "summarizes" the contents of a page that is nothing more than a summary itself?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we covered this at the last discussion. Unfortunately, I've had to work with far too many series where editors only update one page. Even num_episodes often falls well behind the aired episode count, and that is a figure that should be updated regularly. That some of the figures in the series overview table may only need to be updated once per season actually makes it worse as people either forget or assume someone else will do it. You and I have both been editing for about the same time so I'm surprised that you haven't seen it, although admittedly I've made 50,000 more edits to 18,600 more articles than you and I've rarely seen you at the same lists as me. Perhaps it's just that your lists are more stable than mine, or maybe the problem doesn't exist because series overview tables are transcluded, eliminating the problem. As I said, it's worse at children's TV articles. Of course I wouldn't expect to see a series overview table on List of Harry Potter actors or List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, since they are lists of episodes. List of Harry Potter cast members does have a nice table summarising the actors' roles though, and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films has several tables summarising content already explained in the prose. Why does a reader need to a table that "summarizes" the contents of a page that is nothing more than a summary itself? As already explained here and at the previous discussion, not all LoE pages are simply summaries. The series overview table is performing a similar function to the tables at List of Harry Potter actors and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't happen on the pages that I'm working because I update all the pages I work. I don't sit back and let others update it (or not update it) if it can be avoided. Yes, you're on more pages, but I'm on pages with little traffic outside of episode summary updates. Smallville was largely neglected for years, and Arrow doesn't get a lot of attention outside of a couple of editors (FavreFan being one). Episode counts I do see get neglected. I've never seen overview tables get neglected. Even if they were, it should not be hard to quickly add in a finale date. As for the tables on those other non-TV pages, yes they have tables. My point was that you don't see a table summarizing the tables. That is what you're asking for on an LoE page, is to have a table that summarizes a bunch of tables that are nothing more than summaries themselves. You're unnecessarily repeating information for no real reason outside of the fact that it would be "neglected" on a main page if it was there. The idea that people might not edit a page should not be an argument to put it someone else (that is less appropriate), just because someone might frequent that page more often. If it's better suited for another page, then people will go there if they truly need to use that information. If you put the table on the main page only, which is where I believe it belongs, then people will go there to update it (as there won't be a duplicate table on the LoE page). As such, you're likely to actually start bringing traffic to the main page, and thus more edits. Since you're saying the main page gets neglected, then what better way to have traffic on a page that doesn't get traffic?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I've hacked out a rough rough rough version of a proposed series overview section. I know we have a lot of stuff to hash out so that we can be friends again, and I tried to consider your various points by putting controversial statements in red. No diss intended if I didn't properly represent your perspective--I have a bad memory sometimes. If we can hammer out the less controversial stuff first, (like, do we have a minimum # of seasons in mind that have to be produced before we add an overview? 2? 3?) then maybe it will help us get the guideline into the MOS faster? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

AFD and minor tangent
There is an articles for deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/List of Horrid Henry (TV series) episodes in case anyone wishes to participate. The discussion made me wonder why we don't have clear notability guidelines for Television programs, with editor Nwlaw63 suggesting that just because something is on the air doesn't necessarily make it notable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hawak Kamay (TV series)
Hi, I have removed all bold text of the article mentioned, who were in the cast section. But the user ElNiñoMonstruo; reversed my changes for no reason. I would not know, if the section of the cast is fine as it is, is correct to use bold text in the names of the actors?.-- Damián (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edit was accurate, and followed MOS:BOLD and WP:CASTLIST guidelines. "... per Wikipedia's Manual of Style on boldface, please limit boldface to table headers and captions. Actors and roles should not be bolded." In addition, removing the link to 'English' is mentioned in WP:OVERLINK and thr Template:Infobox television instructions for the language parameter state: "The original language or languages of the show. Do not link to a language article, e.g., English, per WP:OVERLINK.". While I see nothing wrong with your edit, I want to make it clear that I am not encouraging you to edit war with, an editor you have had numerous disagreements with in the past. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm back to remove all text in bold. I do not know if ElNiñoMonstruo understood, but there is always this user problems. That's why I came here, to ask for help.-- Damián (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Andrea Harrison
Opinions are needed on the above linked matter. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Fictional character names
Please join the discussion regarding whether proper disambiguation is Character (character), Character (fictional character), Character (Show name character), Character (Show name) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Crisis at American Dad
There's somewhat of a problem at Talk:American Dad!. There's a confusing issue about whether or not three straggler episodes found at List of American Dad! episodes belong to S10 or S11. From what I have been able to discern, Fox announced a micro series of 3 episodes as Season 11, and then the series was passed off to TBS, which is now advertising upcoming new episodes as Season 11. So there is an inconsistency between sources. A lengthy discussion took place at Talk:American Dad!, and now a user is asking regular editors on the page to vote for whether the stragglers should be moved to S10 or S11, although there is another option: that right now it cannot be adequately discerned which season the episodes belong to. Since the nominator didn't reach beyond the main article's talk page, I worry that the article won't get enough input from experienced editors outside of the niche, and there is also a risk of original research becoming consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Dancing With the Stars RFD
Just making this group aware. Dancing with the Stars request for deletion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What is going on lately? First it was List of Horrid Henry (TV series) episodes and now somebody has nominated all 19 Dancing with the Stars season articles for deletion. Don't people have better things to do? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD History of Sky television idents
FYI, an AfD: Articles for deletion/History of Sky television idents. Article is mostly unsourced, and is the history of a TV station's logos noteworthy? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Templates for discussion: TVUS
Hey guys, I've nominated Template:TVUS for deletion since our main article infobox and season infobox documentation discourage the use of wikilinks per WP:OVERLINK. Feel free to chime in Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 23. Grazie, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Jim tuner on The Tonight Show but not listed as musical guest on for March 25th 1969
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/2RUAAOSwQItT~7zn/$_57.JPG

This picture of the back of Jim Turner's album "The Well Tempered Saw" states he performed on the 1969 Tonight Show March 25th. You should add it to the wikipedia page :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Tonight_Show_Starring_Johnny_Carson_episodes_(1969).

He's not mentioned there as a musical guest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.118.47 (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hatnote from Legends (TV series) to Legend (TV series) has been reverted 4 times
The hatnote from Legends (TV series) to Legend (TV series) has been reverted 4 times now. Join the discussion underway at Talk:Legends_(TV_series).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Cast tables
There is a trend at the moment to replace cast lists in series articles with tables, eliminating all prose in the process. It seems that 99% of these are being added by IPs with little or no edit history.This is fairly typical and, given the editors' history, is rather peculiar. I've been checking WHOIS but finding that IPs don't geolocate to the same areas. Does anyone know what has caused this trend? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I run in different circles; I haven't yet seen this as a trend. Using the new beta search feature, I found a few spots on Wikipedia where this sort of content exists: this user's sandbox, Grange Hill (series 12),Grange Hill (series 7) (the Grange Hill stuff seems recently created and submitted by a single purpose account). A 2013 version of NYPD Blue has something similar, although it looks like officer ranks are presented instead of acting "position" or role. Also CSI: Cyber, and this page from 2007 has a similar markup, as does this article from 2010. In this edit from May 2014, we can see an Oldham UK IP adding a table to CSI: Cyber. What does it all mean? Fuck if I know! There are a lot more examples of this than I bothered to paste. Do we hate the grid? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just had this issue over at Arrow (TV series). Don't know what started it, but they (IPs) somehow believe the tables are better. (Look at the article history for their "claims".) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't particularly care for those types of tables in any page. To me, they are merely a way of trying to organize the least useful information (e.g., number of episode appearances, when they were or were not recurring guests). I have seen it more and more than I had before. They are also reminiscent of a period of time when people were creating mini-articles for characters within pages, including character infoboxes. If I had to take a guess, it's because there are IPs who are frequenting certain pages where the community of editors have decided to use that approach (I mean, other than my personal distaste for them, there isn't anything regulating against it), and then they are wanting to be productive to other pages and understand how to copy and paste code.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice re: RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects?
There is an RfC concerning whether it is appropriate to use pronouns such as "he", "she", or "who" when referring to fictional characters in out-of-universe portions of articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Future episodes editnotice
Are people aware Template:Future episodes editnotice exist? It doesn't get as much use as I would expect. 117Avenue (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably because it needs to be added to articles by a template editor, and that's only when all hope is lost and that is a last alternative to get the page under control. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think admins can add these to edit pages too. See, now if you guys got behind me when I was nominated for adminship, I'd have taken care of this.  But nooooo...  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes Minister
This article may have issues. I would hope interested contributors to fix them. --George Ho (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Featured article review/Yes Minister/archive1 is created. --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is WatchersOnTheWall.com an expert SPS?
There is an RfC at Game of Thrones (season 5) regarding whether the site WatchersOnTheWall.com meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). Participation is welcome. Piandme (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Boldface in character lists
Yo, yo! Anybody have any thoughts about the use of boldface in character lists? There's nothing in MOS:TV to support the use of boldface in this way. I think the bullet points are sufficient to differentiate one character from another, but these sorts of character lists are prolific, and of course MOS:BOLD seems to discourage this sort of usage. Anyone have any thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Dee Shivers (voiced by Ken Fernroot) is a fictional character made up for the purpose of this example.


 * MOS:BOLD seems to argues against it although it seems to be common usage somewhat supported by a similar usage in the MOS of Entries in description and the example given there at Glossary of the American trucking industry. The character entries are effectively subheaders with the subheader portion being the character name. Possibly should use:

Coded as: ;:(voiced by Ken Fernroot) is a fictional character made up for the purpose of this example.
 * (voiced by Ken Fernroot) is a fictional character made up for the purpose of this example.

To match the definition list example. With the ";" used for a non-TOC header. This would conform to the MOS. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec):As pointed out above WP:CASTLIST says "... per Wikipedia's Manual of Style on boldface, please limit boldface to table headers and captions. Actors and roles should not be bolded." An editor recently tried to argue on my talk page that MOS:BOLD permits bolding in definition lists but, as I pointed out there, the example used by MOS:BOLD of the appropriate use is completely different to the example that you've given. While MOS:BOLD does recommend the method suggested by Geraldo Perez, MOS:ACCESS says "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings. If you want to reduce the size of the table of contents (TOC), use TOC limit instead." -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

So I remember seeing this discussion, but forgot where it was. I recently edited the MOS to include the line from WP:FILMCAST regarding this. While I do believe Geraldo's method is a valid one, I feel that character names (or actor names) should not be bolded, either conventionally or with the ';'. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements
RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

This RfC is specifically about one episode, "Oathkeeper," but it is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Specifically, should the episodes contain a line such as, "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book(s)]"? Right now, some episode articles have lines like this and some don't, always in the Writing section. Here's an example:  So far, the first few respondents have outlined the reasons for and against inclusion pretty well, but we need more voices. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Outro"
The usage of Outro is under discussion, see talk:outro -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus required
My purpose for reporting this issue here is to get a consensus. User:सुनील मलेठिया (For your convenience I would like to inform you that this user users the Devanagari script for his username. If to write it in English/the Roman script then it will be - Sunil Malethia. This user's userpage is blank but you can visit his talk page) is constantly:
 * De-italicising the television show names in Template:Star Plus Shows and Template:Life OK Programmes. However as per WP:ITAL we must "use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, pamphlets, films (including short films), television series, named exhibitions, computer and video games (but not other software), music albums, and paintings".
 * Is also removing the space between two consecutive names in the list, making the source cumbersome while editing.
 * Is classifying part of the template as per format (such as reality) and partof them as per genre (such as drama). Note - I had classified them as soap opera, anthology series and reality show.

What did I do? - I notified the user in his talk page and even started a discussion in the respective talk pages of the templates (here and here). I am refraining from using rollback, as I am afraid that it may lead to an edit war.

What is सुनील मलेठिया doing? - The user is not responding and have undone all my edits to the templates.

My last edits to the templates and those of सुनील मलेठिया - This was the last edit I made to Template:Life OK Programmes - here and this is his last edit (current revision) to the same template - here. This was my last edit to Template:Star Plus Shows - here and this is his (current revision) - here.

My purpose for reporting this issue here - To get a consensus regarding this issue.

Thank you. -- Tamra vidhir (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Quick answer - You're correct. He is not. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)