Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 3

Considering creating Category:Television program debuts by year
After looking over how the television articles are currently organized, I'm considering creating a new subcategory of Category:Television and Category:Works by year called Category:Television program debuts by year. This would be similar to Category:Films by year or Category:Plays by year, and give a way to categorize the television program listing by year of their debut. It would not replace the Television by year lists, but rather would supplement them by giving users the ability to search for television programs by their release date using the category system.

So what do you guys think? I wanted to get some feedback, good or bad, before actually undertaking the project. It theoretically would add exactly one new category to all television programs, so the overhead per article isn't bad but it will take some time to go through all the TV shows. The upside is that a category system is auto-updating once its set up. Dugwiki 20:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No feedback yet, so I'm just going to go ahead and set this up since I don't see a downside to doing so (other than it will take me a little while). I'm using the same template structure as Category:Books by year.  Any questions, suggestions or if you spot any mistakes, please feel free to let me know. Dugwiki 20:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've set up the basic structure and templates for sorting programs by year of debut. Now all you have to do is, when you see an article about a television program, add the category "Category:YYYY television program debuts" to the article. For example, if a program first aired in 2003, add Category:2003 television program debuts to the category section of the article. Now I'm in the process of going through articles and populating the cats. Hope it helps! Dugwiki 17:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

One more note: I also created Category:Year of television program debut missing to hold all TV show articles that don't list their original air date. It's a bookeeping tool to allow editors to go through and append missing debut dates to stub articles, etc. If you spot a TV show article with no premiere date, feel free to add it to this category. Dugwiki 20:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm developing a template called cat year nav that has most or all of the functionality of the dedicated yearly navigation templates. I've already replaced cvg year nav with it. If it is suitable for your project, I encourage you to use it (or tell me what it needs so I can fix it up). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

CFD on Category:Actors by television series
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Dugwiki 20:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed "merge" of WikiProject List of Television Episodes and WikiProject Television episodes
I posted this on WT:LOE and thought I would also mention it here:


 * Since there's not a lot of episode list-specific activity, I was wondering maybe we should "merge" ourselves back with our parent project, WikiProject Television. Pretty much the main reason for LOE was to come up with a style-guideline for lists of episodes. We could merge some of our pages to WP:TV and then set up a dedicated sub-page with it's own talk page. I think we should do the same with WikiProject Television episodes. There's a lot of ideas and such that I've wanted to bring up, but it can be hard because they cross into a few different areas, including lists of episodes. Better integration with our parent project would still allow us to do all the things we've been doing independently, but allow for easier collaboration and make things easier to find. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This also makes a lot of sense considering WP:TV itself hasn't had a lot of activity recently. It would also help us create the much needed guideline summary / compliment to Centralized discussion/Television episodes (In the same way that WP:FICT summarizes Deletion policy/Minor characters). Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Characters designed by public contest
Hi, I'd like to get Category:Characters designed by public contest populated. I don't know of any other characters myself. --GunnarRene 21:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Television films
I created a new template at Template:Infobox Television Film. I felt it was needed because the television and film infoboxes didn't cover the merged category. Take a look at it, see if you have any suggestions or if you may want to add it to the links on the main article. Thanks. - Shannernanner   10:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Giant infobox
The infobox at Boy Meets World is so long it's messing up the formatting. It has like 27 producers and actors. Does anyone know of a good way to include the info while having a smaller box? - Peregrinefisher 15:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've implemented a solution. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Too much trivia and quotes problems at television pages
This happens usually at TV show episode articles: (Simpsons and South Park articles are 2 good examples). In my opinion: either add the trivia to the regular part of the article somehow, or just remove it. Wikipedia is about useful information, not huge trivia lists (which can include goofs, cameos, and more: all of which aren't always needed). Visit Category:Articles with large trivia sections if you want to help clean up trivia. Quotes needs to be cleaned up as well, and either moved to WikiQuotes or just deleted. RobJ1981 19:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Family Guy is another problem area. Most episode pages have long lists of cultural references. Anyone help is appreciated, these pages need serious cleanup. RobJ1981 23:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

CFD to convert all subcats of Category:Actors by television series into list articles
FYI, there is a cfd nomination for converting all subcategories of Category:Actors by television series into list articles. The discussion can be found here. Basically, the recommendation is to convert all categories of actors by television series (eg. Category:The 4400 actors) into a list article. Feel free to post your input on the CFD page. :) Dugwiki 21:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 100% to -100%. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied to your comment on the cfd page. I'd recommend keeping comments regarding these cats there, so discussion can be collected in one place as opposed to split across pages. Also, if you disagree with something I edited, feel free to let me know on my talk page and I'll be happy to respond or correct it. Dugwiki 22:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To follow-up, the final result of the CFD discussion was No Consensus. A lot of interesting points back and forth, with some people wanting to delete and others to keep. Since for lack of consensus the categories are staying put for now, that leaves a few questions that other people brought moving forward.

First, should lists still be created in addition to the category listings? I would say yes, that's still probably a good idea, since a list can contain information a category can't, like character name and, for guest stars, episode date. Therefore, if people are interested in having such lists, it might be a good idea to create a blank list TV series cast list template that editors can copy and paste to create such lists using a fairly consistent format.

Second, a question was raised over whether or not actor-by-series categories should include guest stars, or only include regular cast members. I would recommend that the categories only include regular cast members. The reason is that while it is noteworthy for an actor to star in a television series, it is much less notable for an actor to make a single guest appearance. For example, it's useful to know that Ted Danson starred in Cheers, but not that useful to know if he appeared once as a guest on The Simpsons. In addition, restricting categorization to only regular cast would reduce the potential for having too many categories in articles about prolific character and voice actors.

Just some thoughts. Later!Dugwiki 15:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Premier date, network and schedule
The network, premier date and schedule should not be part of the first paragraph. Some shows are shown on multiple networks and often in multiple countries. There is also TIVO, DVD release and now download on the Internet. Instead there should be a separate section that discusses scheduling and viewing of the program. This should be added to the project policy page.

Compare:

Men In Trees is an romantic comedy-drama television series starring Anne Heche,  Centered around relationship coach Marin Frist's misadventures upon relocation to Alaska, the series bears at least superficial similarities to Sex and the City and Northern Exposure.

to

Men in Trees is an hour-long drama television series which debuted on ABC on September 12, 2006 after the season premiere of Dancing With The Stars. The series began its regular time slot on September 15 with a repeat of the premiere episode. The series stars Anne Heche as relationship coach Marin Frist, an advice giver who has trouble following her own advice.

--Gbleem 11:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree, although I think the initial year of release should be included to place the article in historical context. It's like including the year of birth of a person or year of release of a movie or play in the introduction, and gives the reader an idea of what else was going on in the world at the time it debuted.  So while other scheduling details don't need to be in the intro, I would include the year or date of release.Dugwiki 15:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the spirit of your suggestion - with modern viewing options network and scheduling info does seem like unnecessary detail in the lead. I also agree with Dugwiki that the premiere date (or at least year) is important for establishing the content of the article and should remain in the lead. However, your example is not very convincing. The suggested rewrite contains unsourced speculative comparisons, weasel wording and some grammatical errors. I think giving it a copy edit might strengthen your argument.--Opark 77 09:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * One issue at a time please. Copy editing one particular article can go on the talk page for that article. --Gbleem 00:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless it's produced only for syndication, however, it's going to be branded by a particular network (sometimes two) that was responsible for giving it the green light and was/will be responsible for cancelling it, even if the production was by an independent company. Scheduling is probably not important in the first paragraph, but the parent network should be mentioned up front.  Secondary markets (e.g., NBC shows on Canadian TV, BBC shows on PBS) should not be mentioned up front, however; a subsection at the most should address this.  Postdlf 17:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Proposal: The original airdate and orginating networks should be mentioned in the second paragraph or later of the introduction and all other distribution and scheduling mentioned in a latter section. --Gbleem 00:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
The Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films has a side infobox gathering all the basic info a user must know about the project. I think it looks cool (check the link I posted), so I tried to make one for this project. I don't like the picture though. Can some one change it for a better one cool enough to use int the Films Wikiproject fashion?--201 21:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the infobox for a WikiProject is necessary.. at all.. People seem infobox crazy these days. -- Ned Scott 00:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, actually only tag templates are "necesary". All the box templates are navigational and their use is to gather all links and statics in a box. Not necesary, but useful. Infoboxes make the data scanning quicker and easier for the readers, but there is no guideline I'm aware of encouraging its use. So, althoug I lake them, that's why I'm going with the flow.--201 05:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing television series by network
I've noticed a pointless practice of categorizing television series articles not merely by the network for which they are produced and by which they are identified and defined, but by networks on which they merely happen to be shown in secondary markets. Lost, for example, is an ABC show, yet it is also currently categorized by the channel on which it airs in Germany, Canada, the UK, and Australia. Not only is there potentially no end to these as American TV has nearly the entire globe for a market (see this article section for an example of how many we're talking about), but these categories are all named in the exact same manner, so that one cannot even tell from the categories which one is more important. Rome was a joint HBO/BBC production, so both of those categories are appropriate to define the topic, but why is it called a Movie Central network show and a TMN network show? 1) All network television series categories need to be pruned to remove any series that were not actually produced for that network. 2) Any category for a network that doesn't actually air original programming should simply be deleted. Thoughts? Postdlf 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are also a lot of BBC series categorized as PBS shows... Postdlf 01:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You summed that up pretty well. I completely agree. -- Ned Scott 01:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the only category should be the original network. (unless the series move to another network to keep airing new episodes, which is a rare situation)--201 05:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems like a good idea, however for shows like The 4400 which are co-produced by other networks i believe those networks should have there categories in the article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771
 * I agree; I just restored the Sky One category to that article. Thanks for pointing that one out.  Postdlf 13:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed pretty much the same thing everyone above is talking about and I agree. Only the network(s) that the show is originally produced for should be categorized. At the very least, networks not specifically mentioned in the article shouldn't be used for categorization (as a rule only verifiable information present in an article should be used to decide categories). That includes the BBC series that are later shown on PBS, as Postdlf mentioned. Dugwiki 16:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I figured we should record this as some form of guideline since there's good rational behind it. Wasn't sure where to do that, so I added it to WikiProject Television. I also added another possible exclusion, where a second broadcast can be notable (the example I gave was Family Guy on Adult Swim). Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 09:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for opinion
Hi, I'm asking for a third-party opinion on a television-related manner. I've noticed that a large number of articles are showing up on various television series, including extensive plot summaries which detail the story's arc over a period of several years, as well as separate articles on each and every major character in the series, but none of these (plot summaries or character descriptions) are provided with any references or external links whatsoever. What is the general feeling on this? Is it originalresearch, or is it acceptable to have such summaries and character descriptions, with the claim that "the show is the source"? --Elonka 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If its refering episodes for these sumamries then its not OR (ie. "Tom said to xx in xx episode", references xx episode). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What about soap operas, which have no clear "named" episodes, but are ongoing series that last for decades? Is an unreferenced plot summary or character description "original research"?  Or no?  What about detailed listings of actors that played the part over the years?  For example, to a dedicated fan of the show, such information is definitely available in the show's credits over the years, but does that count as verifiable, if the only verification is the credits listing from an episode that aired once in 1982? --Elonka 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is such a huge gray area. For instance "self references" in wikipedia are not advised i read somewhere. So if you talk about an episode and then reference that same episode as a source, you don't HAVE to ref it because the named episode is a reference to itself by definition. If it is in that episode then it's a trusted source, and verifiable as well (theoretically). This mostly goes for cast and other stuff. However plotsummaries are so much more complicated. Most of the time they ARE original research. However usually, they are also required in order to properly describe the importance/notability, whatever, of the article and we do encourage people to write proper out-of-universe plot summaries which may contain in-universe information. I don't really think there is much we can really say about it. We need them for the tv series articles, and there is not a proper source we can usually quote from. For episode articles, well i guess it's one of the reasons why people say that episode articles should be moved to wikibooks. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Batman actors
This category is in sad shape. There appears to be a lot of vandalism from User:198.189.198.2 dating back to Dec 15, 2005. Betty White? Tallulah Bankhead? Please...

Also, many of the actors who portrayed specific roles, e.g. Danny DeVito as the Penguin, have suffered because subcats were deleted instead of merged. I haven't looked yet, but I suspect that the Superman-related actors have also been unceremoniously dumped as well. CovenantD 18:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Both actresses were in Batman projects. According to the IMDB, Bankhead was in the 1967 series as the Black Widow, and Betty White was in Return to the Batcave: The Misadventures of Adam and Burt. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 19:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And Betty had a cameo, poking her head out a window as Batman and Robin climbed a wall, in the Adam West series. Doczilla 20:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * At Categories for Discussion they regularly delete this type of category. --Dhartung | Talk 20:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

network television schedule deletion discussion
There is a call to delete several of the US network television schedule articles (WP:AFD). The nomination mentions 1995 through 2001, but any argument which applies to those almost certainly applies to all TV schedule articles. See Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule. — EncMstr 17:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Characters/writing about fiction
The examples given on the page for character descriptions appear to be written "in-universe". I'm not very well-versed in this, but it strikes me as contradicting the Manual of Style's writing about fiction guideline. Am I interpreting incorrectly? Schi 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ratings
Anyone notice that alot of american tv shows now have ratings for there American broadcasts?, i really dont see the point as if we add ratings for every country it will get excessive ad if we have american only it still begs the point that its mainly trivial data and americanises the article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure which ratings you're talking about: the demographic numbers, or the parental guidance ratings (eg TV-PG). If you mean the parental guidance ratings, that won't bother me as long as it's restricted to a side box with a few key items (eg Desperate Housewives has one). If that box grows too large, though, I wouldn't have a problem with removing it.


 * With demographic data, I agree that random weekly data isn't all that useful. Certain things might be worth mentioning though. One is television program rating highs or lows, such as pointing out which episode received the show's best ratings or show's worst ratings.  Another is if a "special" episode of the program drew unusual ratings, to highlight the importance of that episode for the series.  And I think it would be ok for articles about current programs that are frequently monitored to include the most recent ratings data for the most recent original episode on the show's primary network, to give the reader an idea of how the show is currently doing. Dugwiki 19:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

TV program schedules
I have nominated Template:TV3 (New Zealand) Primetime Schedule for deletion, on the grounds that it's a copyvio (the TV station explicitly forbids publishing of its listings without purchasing the right to do so), that Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and that it's a recreation of a speedy-deleted predecessor. Since the deletion on the ground of Wikipedia not being a TV guide would set a precedent affecting many other articles on television networks, I'm drawing wider attention to the deletion debate. Please comment at Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 22, not here.- gadfium 04:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Last week there was a similar AfD at Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule. The consensus was keep.  — EncMstr 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That template has now been deleted. I've nominated several more similar templates at Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 5.- gadfium 04:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Tvguide show and related templates
Hello all,

I have nominated the following templates for deletion at Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 21:



These templates seem to exists purely to advertise the TV Guide. They all contain two external links - one to the appropriate page at TVGuide.com, one to the home page. Created by ; this account has only been used to create these templates and apply them to some pages. If we keep them, then I would suggest that they are merged to a single template, and that they link to the TV Guide page rather than the website homepage.

Further to this, has been proliferating the use of Template:Tvguide show. The only edits they have made are adding the links. has been doing the same, with no other edits but to apply the templates.

So far, this has had one vote to speedy delete as spam. What do people here think? Mike Peel 06:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - this is telefan. Please note the discussion here: []. I am an employee of TV Guide, and though I was adding links to the TV Show pages in the external links section in a way that was considered spam, I did so without malicious intent. I think the content TV Guide provides for TV Shows, Movies and Celebrities is just as valuable as the content IMDB.Com and TV.com has, and Wikipedia users would benefit from the link. I am also a newbie here, so this was my mistake for not more carefully reading the guidelines. I have started asking for the link to be included in the discussions section, as per Wiki guidelines. Given these actions on my end, I'd appreciate it if the TVGuide templates would not be removed.

However, I think this speaks to a larger question - can TV Guide.com be considered for inclusion in the infobox, similar to IMDB and TV.com? I believe the content TV Guide provides for shows (especially our listings grid) would benefit the Wiki community. Telefan 13:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your website seems good, the only problem is you working for them which affects your neutrality. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Standardized Image in infobox?
I have suggested here that we standardize the images used in the infobox to the title card for the show rather than cast photos or promotional photos. Most shows currently use this format including (but not limited to Prison Break, The O.C., Stargate Atlantis, House and Veronica Mars. Shows that don't do this include Lost, Weeds and Stargate SG-1.  The SG-1 article is particularly annoying since it's a cast photo thats at least three seasons out of date.  The advantages of standardizing on the shows official title card are: --  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  10:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * standard size (typically) - The taller the the image the further down it pushes the "content" of the infobox.
 * instantly recognisable - Most shows title cards are instantly recognisable, think MASH and Lost
 * doesn't change very often - If you don't use the shows title card then the image must be rotated frequently or you end up with a situation such as that with the SG-1 article.
 * No screen shots - Boy Meets World is a perfect example where a random screen shot is being used to reflect the entirety of the show.
 * Seconded. Cast photos are very well suited for season sections, as they change frequently. The other solution is to have only the logo, as done in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Rome.--SidiLemine 12:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Buffy uses the title screen. Deus (talk· contribs· count · email) 12:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmh, that's a tricky one, as it happens to also be the logo. But as I said, either one is good to me (see also Firefly for another one like buffy.--SidiLemine 14:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Firefly is also the title screen.. Deus (talk· contribs· count · email) 14:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Isn't it great and perfectly adapted to the infobox?--SidiLemine 15:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Griffin (The Invisible Man)
Hi, in order to complete the above article, we need someone to list any television versions of the above character. I am unable to do so due to knowing nothing about the character history--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories named after television series
I want to try to organize the television categories by creating Category:Categories named after television series because currently most of the television cats are very difficult to browse. Categories named after television series are being placed into the same categories as the articles about the television series. This is creating a mess in many parent cats as these eponymous show categories are being mixed with actually significant subcategories making browsing difficult and confusing (One example is Category:Comedy television series; there are many more). This also leads to unnecessary duplication. This was happening with eponymous people categories as well, and consensus was for those cats to only be placed in Category:Categories named after people or one of its subcategories. I want to do the same for television series by creating Category:Categories named after television series and removing all the excess cats from these categories that are already included in the article, where they belong. I want to go ahead and start this if nobody opposes. --musicpvm 15:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of categories, maybe new articles named List of ... could be used? That way you can reference articles that don't exist yet. And the List articles could clearly subcategorize entries and add clarifying commentary. — EncMstr 16:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that eponymous categories should be converted to lists? So instead of Category:Friends, there should be a List of Friends-related articles or something of that sort?  That's an idea, but I do think it's nice to have all the related articles for notable television shows in a category, and there is such a large number of these cats now, it would be difficult to convert them all to lists.  I don't know if we can control these eponymous cats, but for now I at least want to place them all into one parent cat so they don't create a mess in other categories as they are at the moment. --musicpvm 18:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I find it easier to locate articles (as opposed to categories) with Wikimedia search or Google.  I've tried dozens of times to find things by browsing categories, but that is usually an exercise in frustration.  Also, it's much harder to track category article deletions through the watchlist, and not possible to track additions (that I know of).  If an article is substantially changed at some point, it might be difficult for a future editor to figure out why it is a member of some category.  With a List of article, the listing article can easily describe the purpose of links in a particular section which greatly enhances maintainability.  — EncMstr 19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I also should point out that theoretically there should only be a limited number of such categories. In general it is a bad idea to create unique categories for individual television shows or movies as it could lead to overcategorization in related articles. For example, if most television shows had their own category, and actor or director or writer who been involved in 30 television shows over the years would have 30 categories in his article. Only TV shows with a very high number of otherwise unrelated articles associated with the show should be considered for unique categories.

So in the process of gathering together such categories, I also recommend submitting ones for less notable shows for category deletionn and listifying as applicable. Dugwiki 17:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that there seem to be too many of these categories. I don't think any of these categories should contain actors, writers, directors, etc.  In most cases though, they are being used to house related lists (lists of episodes, characters, DVD releases, etc) (ex. Category:Friends), and I do think those ones are useful.  There are the Category:Actors by television series subcats though, which are a little out of control as some of those shows are not even notable.  If I do come across eponymous television cats for non-notable shows that don't really deserve them though, I will nominate them for deletion.  --musicpvm 18:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Along those lines, and after taking a look at Fenton's post below, I put Category:The 4400 up for discussion on cfd. While The 4400 is a great show, the category appears to be mainly to house the actor and episode lists. Actor lists and episode lists can already be categorized under other categories, and the 4400 main article can have See Also links to those lists.  It's an example of a show that doesn't, I think, need its own unique parent category. (Good show, though) Dugwiki 22:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The 4400
Just a note, all the episodes of The 4400 have been put up for deletion here - These episodes are still relativly new and are activly edited and fleshed out. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied to the afd for the episodes and suggested Keep. I agree that episode articles can be useful, assuming the information is verified. Dugwiki 22:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I worry now that should that AfD be succesful that it would be sued as precedant to got on a mass deletion of tv series articles. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that would be a good thing. These articles are blatant violations of WP:NOT point 7. There is no point in making summaries of this detail. We actually do the work of fiction a disservice by attempting to re-tell it like this, as we can never accurately recreate the experience of an audio/visual show with text (and not violate copyrights). Articles on works of fiction need to focus on things you can't find out about by just watching the show. Summaries are needed for basic background and info of a show, and for examples of certain things, but that's about it. The individual episodes are not significant enough to the real world to warrant their own article. This is not always the case, and some episodes of some shows should have articles, such as Trapped in the Closet (South Park). -- Ned Scott 00:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The point of episode summaries isn't to recreate the experience of a show, it's to provide a reference for viewers. If a viewer doesn't know what episode a particular character or plotline is in, episode summaries are a handy resource, especially when they can be electronically searched.  To what degree of detail wikipedia should go on any given show or episode is obviously debatable, but I disagree with the blanket notion that there's no value in episode summaries.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said there was no value in episode summaries, however, Wikipedia is not the place to house summaries. This is a direct policy requirement via WP:NOT. There are a lot of things that are useful, such as travel guides and medical advice, but Wikipedia does not allow these things to be articles alone. We are not here to list every episode a character is in, or to give such extreme trivial details. -- Ned Scott 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I had second thoughts about phrasing it like that, I should have found a better way to say it. My point is just that there is a point to making detailed summaries (and even transcripts, I know that's even more controversial), that they're not inherently bad, although I agree that wikipedia may not be the place to go into such detail.  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Some Smallville articles: fancruft at it's best?
Smallville characters Season One: a page of guest characters for each season?! This really isn't needed. There is pages like that for each season. Then there is Smallville Places (Season 5). A list of places for the whole season really isn't needed either, in my opinion. I can understand a general list of locations (listing the notable main places, and some of the notable lesser places), but not a list for each season. I haven't seen other places articles, so the season 5 might be the only one. A serious issue of fancruft, in my opinion. I think a mass AFD is needed for these. Wikipedia isn't a fan's guide to every little character or location. Smallville is a popular show, but that still doesn't justify all these extra pages. RobJ1981 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * we have pages for every non-notable royal - So why not pages on the notable and interesting pages that will actually get edited and serve a useful purpose? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not enough to justify these fancruft TV pages. Wikipedia isn't a fan's guide to television shows. RobJ1981 21:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isnt a fans guide to "royalty" either, is it? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then AFD them. No one is stopping you. People add fancruft too much, and if no AFD goes on the articles...they remain. RobJ1981 21:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Those articles should be merged, Matthew. I can find lots of articles that have typos, but that's no excuse to intently produce typos, now is it? -- Ned Scott 21:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The character articles don't seem too bad, but yeah, over all having articles for even places is a bit too much. Much merging and cruft cutting is needed. -- Ned Scott 21:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

International broadcasters
I'm sure this has been discussed before (probably to death), but I'm just wondering: What is the official policy about listing international broadcasters of a show? Both the Scrubs and Weeds pages currently have rather extensive lists of which network broadcasts the show in which country, and these seem to be some of the most actively edited, and some might say the most unnecessary, sections in the articles. So what is the opinion of WP Television? --Gpollock 04:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:ANIME had the same issue with broadcasters and manga publishers. Our solution was to use the hide/show CSS function. For example, the infobox on Cardcaptor Sakura or Rurouni Kenshin. Another idea was using only the original broadcaster in the infobox. Then make a separate table for other broadcasters and place that table in an appropriate section in the article. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This proved a very effective solution. Articles like Grey's Anatomy and Rome (TV series also have huge blocks for international broadcasters (more than for the seasons description, or the characters, or in fact anything else), and that does seem inappropriate. While it is useful, encyclopedic information, I personally feel it is much better suited for a closed (closeable at least)drawer in the infobox than a major section in the article body. Or it could go, as episodes do, on a separate article, with only something like "Show Title was broadcasted in xx countries, with first air dates varying from Y to Z", and any other relevant info.--SidiLemine 11:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC for episode article naming conventions
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) - a debate over the use of disambiguation titles for episode articles of a TV show when no disambiguation is needed. Also, when disambig titles are used for episode articles should they be (ShowName) or (ShowName episode). All are invited to join the discussion and give their input. -- Ned Scott 02:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Since the old link was archived, the new link is at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television).  Fresh opinions are requested. --Elonka 08:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

tv-stub redux
There's been a few new TV stub types created recently:, ,  and. I'm also in the process of moving all the UK-tv-stubs to UK-tv-prog-stub, to free the later template name for use for an 'umbrella', in line with the practice for other countries. The TV-stubs are still very large, though: if anyone has any thoughts on how to split them up further, please share them at WP:WSS/P. Alai 02:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of channel/network lists
As an FYI, a mass AfD has been placed for List of DirecTV channels, List of XM Satellite Radio channels, List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations, List of CW affiliates, List of MyNetworkTV affiliates, List of Dish Network channels, List of CBS affiliates, List of NBC affiliates, List of ABC affiliates and List of Fox affiliates. The mass AfD is listed at Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels; and while I'm not trolling for commentary, each of these lists fall under the pervue of WP:TV. --Mhking 18:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Could Use Work
The article WNBC could use some help. With enough work, it could probably be a featured article. aido2002 04:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have several ideas for new WikiProjects
One of my ideas is a project to improve articles by researching and mentioning in the article how many episodes still exist (This is for shows from the late 40's early 50's), Another is to create Australian TV schedules for older years .The problem is that I dont have the knowledge to do it myself.DesignForDreamingFan 01:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't actually have to create a new project for that. Asking here is a good start, and you might also ask at WikiProject Australia for help with the researching.


 * I don't know much about those shows myself, but I'd be glad to offer any assistance I can, such as tables and templates. One thing to do is look at how similar articles look and take ideas from that. That's the great thing about Wikipedia, if you see a table format you like, then you can copy that table format and use it yourself. -- Ned Scott 02:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure if the TV schedule thing will work out too well, though. Are you talking about old TV schedules or new TV schedules of old TV shows? You might be able to use something like that as an example in an article, but in general Wikipedia discourages TV schedules and other such "directory" listings (see WP:NOT). -- Ned Scott 02:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont know what you mean. Whats a new schedule of old shows?DesignForDreamingFan 02:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A current TV schedule that shows when the repeats (the old shows) air. -- Ned Scott 03:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I talking about something like this: 1972-73 United States network television schedule. DesignForDreamingFan 03:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. The community is a little split on those kinds of things, it seems. Those articles have been nominated for deletion a few times, but clear support wasn't shown one way or the other. You can make the articles if you want, but personally I'd advise against it, per the WP:NOT link. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, But what do people think of my idea about creating a project, To research and describe in the appropriate article, How many episodes still exist of some early TV shows. This is important with shows from the late 40's and some shows from the early 50's. This is most important with shows of the failed DuMont Network, As few of there shows still exist. I dont have the time or knowledge to do it myself.DesignForDreamingFan 09:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds alright, but I'm not sure what you mean by "still exist". Do you mean that they still air on TV or that a copy of the episode exists? -- Ned Scott 04:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about shows that still exist physically, I'm talking about whether the episodes still have copys that survive. for example, i heard of a show called faraway hill and heard reports that no episodes exist, but i cannot add it to the article because i cannot confirm it. if there was a place where people could have a list of shows that needed the imformmation needed, then somebody with knowledge of the show might read it and add the imformation. my idea was to create a page that had imformation on what shows needed imformation on how many shows episodes still exist if any.DesignForDreamingFan 10:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is near-trivia that belongs in the article for a specific show. The most likely way to alert somebody who knows the answer is on the Talk page for that specific article. On the whole, though, I don't think it's important information except to collectors. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't see it as any different from noting that any other subject of an article no longer exists in any form; an article on a book or film would certainly note if no surviving copies have been found. I don't know that it's important to group it all together in a single "list of lost television episodes," but we do have Category:Demolished buildings and structures.  Postdlf 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That idea actually sounds pretty interesting. The shelf life of films, or the amount of copies that were made with old production methods, in itself can easily be a topic. For one, it shows a little bit about the business and production of TV shows at that time. I'll definitely give this some thought and let you know if I come up with any ideas on how to go about this. -- Ned Scott 01:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:NBCNightlyNewsCorrespondents
Hello all,

First off, apologies if there exists a better place to ask this question; I was forwarded here from the help desk. Anyway, I recently created Template:NBCNightlyNewsCorrespondents listing all the correspondents of NBC Nightly News (I plan on doing the same for ABC and CBS). I was wondering if there was anyone out there who might be able to inform me if anchors (such as Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, etc.) could be considered correspondents, and thus should be included in the template. Having grown up watching evening news, I'm under the impression that anchors often file reports much like other regular correspondents, and should be considered correspondents as well, but I'm not entirely sure. Any experts out there who might know? Or anyone work for the network news organizations who might know? :) Thanks so much. Gzkn 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I gotta tell you, I'm not a fan of nav templates like this at all. Templates like this really aren't that helpful and just flood the bottom of articles. Nav templates should not be a way to jump from loosely related article, but rather should be used for an article series. This kind of thing is best done with a category. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. Anchors is one thing, correspondents is another. Many correspondents spend their careers "on camera" for numerous broadcasters. I can't imagine what their articles would look like if each had its own template. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, sounds good. I've decided to nominate the template for a speedy delete. Thanks for your opinions. Gzkn 06:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Actor stubs needs some attention
I've been going through the stubs off and on for a while now, but I certainly could use some help. There is a ton of sorting to do. RobJ1981 00:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons peer review
Hi, I would appreciate if you would share your thoughts about The Simpsons article in the peer review. The goal is to make it a FA. --Maitch 15:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Buck Rogers in the 25th Century issues
I seem to be having a continuously circular argument with an admin on this page. The entire trivia section has been relegated to the discussion page. He cites that it is totally unsourced, when I cite sources he says it is irrelevant. I may be massively misjudging the guy, but it seems to be a case of one step forward, two back. He seems to be obsessed with references and sources and when I've asked what he will accept I get no answer. Can anyone help in this, or at least if they have had similiar problems, how they dealt with them? Douglasnicol 15:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's some relatively unbiased commentary - I like fiction articles, I like trivia, but I'm not a BR or BSG fan.

First, the tone in that discussion seems awfully heated. That never helps.

KillerChihuahua appears to have two distinct concerns: (a) that the material be sourced (that you say where it came from), and (b) that the material be notable. When a particular item is both unsourced and arguably trivial (not notable), it should be unsurprising to see rejection based on both issues. You should always be prepared to provide sources (which might be the episodes themselves) and to explain why the particular item is important enough to be mentioned.

As for the items listed in that talk page's section 5.1 "trivia removed from the article"... I do have to say that a lot of that looks pretty trivial. Illnesses during production, coincidences in casting, throwaway references to other works... they don't seem to impact the real world, and they don't seem to impact the story. Crediting the stunt double, if he's an interesting fellow in his own right, seems appropriate... if you can find a source for the information. (The source does not necessarily have to be the credits.) His biographical material, however, would seem to want to be in his article. The political comparison is interesting, but it's pure OR... it'd need to come from somewhere else. It arguably belongs on Glen Larson.

Hope that helps.

Jordan Brown 19:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A few questions and comments regarding TV episode articles
Do TV show episode articles need sources? I thought they did, but I decided to ask here. I've came across countless articles without sources, I've added unsourced to some of them. In my opinion, Wikipedia is getting flooded with too many TV episode articles. Game show articles seem to be the newest issue. Why do they need to exist? I put Deal or No Deal and 1 vs 100 episode lists in AFD, because the articles lack the content or importance. For Deal or No Deal, it was basically a list of money won, what the models wore, and guest stars (which doesn't happen that much). The show itself is notable, but the episodes in general don't need articles. The Price is Right has been on the air for a long time, that doesn't mean we need articles listing what games were played, money won, and the color of Bob's clothes or the model's clothes. There is no Price of Right episode articles (that I know of), and it should remain that way. Deal or No Deal, 1 vs 100 and some other recent hit gameshows, shouldn't be the start of game show episode articles. Episode articles also shouldn't exist for: reality shows and sporting events (that were televised: regular season games. Big events like Super Bowl and World Series are fine as articles.). What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 06:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sources: A synopsis of a television episode does not require a source as it is self-reference, however something like music played in an episode does need a source, casts do not as they are self reference to the credits as well, non the less it is always best to have a link to the IMDb/TV.com as a secondary source as well. Why?: Probably because there encyclopaedic, they have a wide spectrum of interest and because a large percent of Wikipedia's traffic is to fictional related things, now game shows.. I don't see a purpose to game show episode lists as there is nothing substantial that can be wrote about them. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, why is that articles like TV Land are so poor? It's a cable channel, but the article is just mainly a list. I would imagine some other channel articles are like that, but from the few I've looked at... there is hardly any lists of programs. In my opinion, there shouldn't be. It's a regular article, it's not a list of TV land programs, period. RobJ1981 20:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably because no one has taken it upon them self to "fix it"? Just expunge the lists if you don't like them.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
 * See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

''End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.''

AFD underway for schedule grid article
For anyone who isn't aware, an AFD is currently underway for one of the American TV schedule grids articles here. The nominator says it was chosen at random from the 99 in Category: Television schedules suggesting he plans to try and get all of them deleted. PS - can someone also add a reference to the schedule pages so people can stop whining about WP:V? Thanks. 23skidoo 14:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * These are great and all, but they're just too borderline TV guides, which is not allowed by policy. -- Ned Scott 20:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There not indiscriminate information, they are verifiable and they are also encyclopaedic - so no Ned, my friend, they do not fail any policy. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks, dude. When WP:NOT specifically says no to TV guides and TV schedules as articles, it doesn't matter how useful or great they are. I don't hate these articles, but according to current policy they should go. -- Ned Scott 21:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks..? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have to explain that to you. You know exactly what I'm talking about, and you need to cool off. -- Ned Scott 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Our definitions of a PA must be different as I believe I was pretty courteous.. I even attempted to make you a wiki-friend :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think these are against policy for the reasons I stated in the now-closed AFD: 1) It is not in dispute that articles may properly consist of lists or tables of information rather than solely prose (e.g., List of cities in the United States). 2) It is not in dispute that the same information may properly be organized in different ways in multiple, separate lists (e.g., List of United States cities by population). 3) It is not in dispute that television series are encyclopedic. 4) Organizing television series by the period of time in which they were broadcast is reasonable and useful. There are at least far more trivial ways to organize the information (as the contents of Category:Lists of songs suggest). Postdlf 21:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with this, policy is. It specifically talks about TV schedules and guides. If we want to include these articles then we need to propose a change to the policy. One or the other needs to happen. -- Ned Scott 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's less "policy" than an inapt example of something supposed to be against policy, which should probably be removed as overbroad if it would exclude these. There's a valid reason to exclude day-by-day listings (like what you'd find in TV Guide) or even annual listings for cable rerun stations that have no original programming; this is arguably the kind of cruft that the inclusion of "TV/Radio schedules" in WP:NOT was targeting.  However, those can be distinguished from the network schedule lists, so it isn't all or nothing.  Postdlf 21:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review for The Honeymooners
I opened a peer review for The Honeymooners recently. I've done quite a bit of updating and think it is close to FA-worthy. Please come by and make some suggestions! --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Overcategorization guideline discussion
Just a heads up that the discussion at for the proposed Overcategorization guidelines has a talk section dealing specifically with how to handle actor-by-film and actor-by-tv-series categories. The goal would be to form a consistent policy guideline for which actor-by-series categories are acceptable, which aren't, and generally help editors decide when to use a category for cast lists and when to use a list article.

If you're interested in this topic, head on over to that discussion page and give your two cents. :) Dugwiki 17:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes on articles covering multiple media
Some articles cover multiple TV shows or a mix of TV shows and movies. Examples: The Addams Family, Dragnet (series). How should infoboxes be used in these cases?

I can think of three possibilities:
 * Just don't. They'd be too much clutter.
 * For the most notable releases only. Perhaps, for instance, for the 1950s and 1960s Dragnet TV shows and the 1960s Addams Family TV show.
 * For all releases. (For Dragnet, that'd mean a radio box (if one exists), four TV boxes, and three movie boxes; for Addams Family it'd be four TV boxes, four movie boxes, and dodges six video game boxes only because they have their own articles.)

Thoughts? Jordan Brown 20:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is something that WP:ANIME deals with a lot, since anime takes form of a lot media. Although I like the clean look of the current infoboxes, we might be able to pull a lot of good ideas from the Template:Infobox animanga system. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. That's a pretty serious rework, though.  I know I'd have to learn more about templates and tables to attempt it.  Also, the architect in me says that it really should be a joint project between anime, TV, movies, video games, ... so that it ends up with a single template suite that they can all share, so that it's immediately obvious how to handle an article that covers any random combination of media.  That kind of Wikipedia project management is well beyond me.  (I wonder how reasonable the result would be if you just took the animanga templates and used them unchanged.  If it's not bad, maybe the right answer is just to rename them to something more generic.)
 * Jordan Brown 00:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I like where this is going. Media standardization infoboxes. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so I can't resist a puzzle. I tried putting vanilla animanga infobox entries into Dragnet (series).  The result was this.  Since that was sort of successful, I got more adventurous.  First I created my own private module for a radio program, and then I copied one of the animanga modules to create my own TV series module and added a few of the Infobox Television features, to create this.  Of course, you can always look at the current state of that page at User:Jordan Brown/Dragnet (series).  (Note one change from the TV infobox:  I consolidated IMDB and TV.com into a single "Links" line, both for consistent formatting and to conserve space.)


 * One might hope that the background color could be extracted out to CSS or a metatemplate or something, to avoid having to duplicate it across the entire suite. It'd be nice to create a meta-template for an optional parameter, so that you'd just say  and it'd do all the conditionals and whatnot, but I don't know whether that'd really fly.


 * Comments? Jordan Brown 06:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please take discussion of the implementation of this experimental infobox system to User:Jordan Brown/Infobox media and User talk:Jordan Brown/Infobox media. We can leave discussion of whether and how to use it or something like it here.  (Plus of course it'll eventually be necessary to get buyin from the movie, video game, animanga, et cetera communities.) Jordan Brown 07:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(indentation reset) Hmm. No comments since Ned's comment; in particular, no comments on my experiments.

Based on the results of those experiments, I think that Template:Infobox Television should be reimplemented based on a modular framework like the one in WP:ANIME. Articles that need only the single-entry form could use Template:Infobox Television; articles that need multiple entries could use the underlying header and module templates directly. Of course, the Anime infoboxes should be pulled into the same framework.

Comments?

Jordan Brown 08:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be interesting to open up a brain storm of sorts for new ideas. Invite lots of editors via WikiProjects and talk pages to just whip up different ideas on how to approach the infobox situation, get lots of different examples on one page, and see what we come up with. Make your own infobox and show it off, then everyone picks and chooses the different elements they like and don't like, as well as maybe identifying unique situations, etc. Heck, the more I think about this the more it starts to sound.. well.. fun. (oh, the wikidork I've become..)


 * The reason I suggest this is because I'm not sure if people would normally be comfortable with large scale infobox change. I think if we can present many ideas like I've suggested, we'll be able to develop this idea more rapidly and with more flexibility. Basically, something to help people think outside of the box. Throw all the ideas out on the table and really get something nice. It's not that the infoboxes are bad, but I've always thought we could do better, for just about all of them (TV, anime, film, etc). -- Ned Scott 09:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to me. I agree that they aren't bad, but I think they have some weaknesses.  In particular, they seem ill-suited to multi-release works like The Addams Family and Dragnet (series), and they have a lot of duplication from one to the next.  (In fact, if I was to be really bold, I'd suggest some commonizing across all infoboxes... why should they have different color schemes, for instance?)

There seems to have been a fair amount of discussion over at Template talk:Infobox Television, so let's continue the discussion there.

Jordan Brown 17:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fix The Love Boat Links
Could someone please fix all improper links to The Love Boat? Many pages link to "Love Boat" assuming that it will lead to the television show, and instead it links to an obscure "Overseas Chinese Youth Language Training and Study Tour to the Republic of China". It won't take a lot of time, as there aren't that many incorrect links. I just don't have the time currently (swamped with schoolwork) and I think it should be fixed ASAP, that's why I came to you guys with the job. Bifgis 01:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"U.S. Broadcast History"
What is the opinion of people here on sections entitled "U.S. Broadcast History" (or for that matter any other country..) – They are generally just duplicating "International distribution" sections, the point of the matter is Wikipedia is not a U.S. only encyclopaedia, (nor for that matter is it a UK, Canadian or any other country only encyclopaedia) and so should we be having dedicated sections for singular countries? (I do believe however we should of course tell when it premièred in its original country and when it ceased within the lead-in..) - I've recently had to remove a fair few of these sections and asked the editor in question who is adding them to stop. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be ok if it was something like "English broadcasting history" and contained info on all English speaking nations, since a reader of the English Wikipedia is likely to take particular interest in that. If there is something notable about a specific broadcast, I can see that, but I doubt there would need to be a dedicated section just to one country. -- Ned Scott 21:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Err.. "They are generally just duplicating 'International distribution'" (in my above message.. :-\) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"See Also" vs infobox?
I'm extrapolating from WP:TV that when the infobox includes a link to the list of episodes, the See Also section shouldn't.

Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordan Brown (talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Linking No. of episodes in the infoboxes
If a show has a separate article on its episodes, should that article be linked to the number of episodes in the infobox? --May the Edit be with you, always. T- borg (drop me a line)  15:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you looking for something other than the Template:Infobox Television "list_episodes" parameter? It shows up in the infobox like




 * No. of episodes
 * 27 (List of episodes)
 * }


 * See, for instance, the infobox at Star Trek: The Original Series.


 * Jordan Brown 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So, is that the way it should be in the infobox, under the condition a separate page for episodes exists? --May the Edit be with you, always. T- borg (drop me a line)  18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a newbie here, but I can only presume that since that's the way the infobox template is rigged it's the preferred way to supply the information. Note that if the show's article supplies list_episodes, the template can be tweaked to a different presentation and all shows will track it. Jordan Brown 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. --May the Edit be with you, always. T- borg (drop me a line)  22:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: List of problems solved by MacGyver
FYI, List of problems solved by MacGyver is nominated for deletion. — EncMstr 07:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A question on game show categories
Category:1 vs. 100 has people that were in "the mob" on the show, as well as the host Bob Saget. I can understand the host, but others? I don't think it's needed. Category:Jeopardy! seems to have the same issue. Then there is Category:Gameshow Marathon. Celebrities were solely the contestants on that show. Game show categories shouldn't be dumping grounds for contestants. Category:Game show contestants and it's sub cats do the job just fine in my opinion. What does everyone else think? I was just going to remove all the un-needed cats, but decided to ask here first. Plus I'm sure the other game show categories are effected by this as well... so it's not a simple one person task. RobJ1981 01:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I created Category:Jeopardy! contestants as a start. As long as we have categories for actors on specific shows, we would have categories for notable contestants on specific game shows. If the game shows are short-lived and/or have few notable contestants, then a separate category would be overcategorization. For 1 vs. 100 and Gameshow Marathon, having a separate cat for contestants would be over the top. Tinlinkin 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? is the next cat I want to clean up, but I don't know if there should be separate cats for the British and US contestants. Tinlinkin 16:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Reality contestants, hosts & judges vs. participants
In the December 6, 2006 CfD discussion for Idol series contestants, I raised the proposal that there be two levels of categories for people in reality television: The basic idea is that there should be a distinction between contestants and non-contestants. Any thoughts? Tinlinkin 16:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Reality television participants Category:Reality television staff: includes hosts, judges, advisors, and other non-contestants/participants
 * Category:Reality television contestants Category:Reality television participants: a subcategory of the above, contains only contestants/participants
 * I agree on the distinction part of it, but participants and contestants sound alot alike to me at least. RobJ1981 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Participants" and "contestants" do sound alike to me, also. And I don't think reality show non-contestants are called "participants" as I think of the connotation of that word. But some users want to have consistency in categories named "contestants" and "participants", preferring to land on "participants". At the same time, they want to have the participants category include all reality show people, and I disagree with that because an important distinction would be lost. I don't have a better suggestion other than Category:Reality television people, which I'm reluctant to have as a category name (rather indiscriminate-sounding title), and I don't want to overcategorize judges, hosts, consultants, etc. either. Tinlinkin 22:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Staff"? Jordan Brown 02:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Staff could work for the category. RobJ1981 03:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a naming I'll support (with changes reflected above). Also, since some participants are not contestants (e.g. Britney Spears), the subcategory will be named "participants." If you want to preserve the separation of contestants/participants (or not), you should discuss at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 6. Tinlinkin 07:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Adult Swim
I've added 2 tags to it recently: cleanup-laundry (list cleanup basically) and advert (for advertisement). The article has a few good starting paragraphs...then goes downhill. It has a current schedule and coming soon sections. Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, nor should it ever be. Plus there is a huge trivia section that needs to be cleaned as well. I've posted this message on the article's talk page as well. So I'm hoping both groups of editors can improve these issues. RobJ1981 06:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Adult Swim Fix also needs cleanup. RobJ1981 06:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Filmography
Do we have a filmography guidline? If not, we should make one. Or maybe let Biography take care of it. - Peregrinefisher 01:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

original run information in intro section
TheDJ added


 * This section is usually reserved for "original-run" information, sometimes with additional US/UK information in case the series is not of US/UK origins. Lists with International broadcasting information, or syndication information is often not desired here.

Why is US/UK information special? It seems like either it makes sense to include all first-run-in-country information, or only first-run-in-origin-country.

Now, since runs in countries other than the origin country aren't on the originating network, for instance, it seems like the appropriate information may be quite limited - perhaps only run dates. That's true whether or not the country is US/UK.

Jordan Brown 06:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Because en.wikipedia.org is english oriented. This means that in many cases the "english speaking" point of perspective is primary and as such important. For instance "The Office" is originally a UK series but it's US spinoff success is so much more prevalent to "our" audience that it's valid first section information. (I know bad example since it's UK vs. US, but it's the best i can come up with atm.) I however do think that the addition needs some rephrasing.... TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Syndicated television series
The original category is intended for "first-run syndication, shows that were never broadcast on a major television network, as opposed to shows which are syndicated in reruns." With subcats as Andromeda and Babylon 5, and listings of for instance Dr. Phil. This clearly is not the nature of the current category. I would like to rename this category to make it's purpose more clear (because i DO see it as a potentially important category) and remove everything that doesn't belong there. Any opinions ? - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Television series produced for syndication"? Postdlf 17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename tvtome templates
I've put up a RM proposal to finally start the renaming of the tvtome templates. I think it's about time by now. Add your opinion here please: Template_talk:Tvtome_show. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * *snif* moment of slicence for TV Tome... -- Ned Scott 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And they are gone :( /me wisthles the Funeral March, readies his airgun, waves the flag and shoots salutes into the air TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Again the temporal templates
Not much seems to have changed, but more templates are now in existence then ever before. Which should be condoned, and which should be condensed/removed do you guys think?

We now have:
 * Future television -> Category:Upcoming television shows
 * Future television series -> Category:Upcoming television series
 * Future television episode -> Category: Upcoming television episodes
 * Future television episode list -> Category:Lists of upcoming television episodes
 * Future tvshow information ->Category:Running television shows
 * Future tvshow redirects to Future television
 * In-progress tvshow redirects to Future tvshow information
 * Recently Aired Television Episode (I have put this one up for deletion. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television))
 * Future Television Episode (I have put this one up for deletion. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television))

Note that most of these templates are not listed in Current and future event templates My personal preference is the "series, episode and episode list" templates and categories, even though not every program will fall into the "series" category TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Unaired Television programs
Because the fandom goes wild with creating articles for each and every show, I have created: Category:Unaired television program. By browsing trough the pages lately, I have come across a couple of programs that never even saw the light of day. We can add them to that category, and then keep track of them. Possibly put them up for deletion some day. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)