Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 8

South Park problems
Imaginationland, Imaginationland Episode II and Imaginationland Episode III are getting out of hand. Each episode features many references to characters, so massive lists are on the articles. Anytime they get removed, they are re-added for no good reason. This is just too much plot detail, as well as just trivia clutter. Anyone have any ideas on how to solve this problem? RobJ1981 (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My first inclination is to say merge the individual episodes into the season list where they belong and AfD them if the redirects are reverted. Individual episodes of a show are rarely notable to have their own episodes, and all of them seem to fail WP:FICTION, WP:WAF, and WP:RS while falling right into WP:PLOT.  I doubt any of them would survive an AfD nomination.  Outside of that, the EL lists on Imaginationland needs some serious cleaning; it is chock full of WP:COPYVIO violations. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is season a proper noun in article titles?
Which one is correct: List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (Season 1) or Lost (season 3)? –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * lower case. It's the same reason we have Michael Myers (politician) and not Michael Myers (Politician). To clarify, for Michael Myers (Halloween), "Halloween" is the title of the movie, so it's always capitalized. "Season 1", or "season 3" are not the "titles" of those seasons, they are merely a representative number for that series of episodes.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The word season is a noun but not a proper noun except when it becomes part of a title. Wryspy (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Debuts and endings categories
G'day all! I'm a member of WP:AUSTV and I'm in the process of creating the categories Year Australian television program debuts and Year Australian television program series endings for the Australian project. For example Category:2007 Australian television program debuts is now a sub-category of Category:2007 television program debuts and Category:2007 Australian television program series endings is now sub-category of Category:2007 television program series endings. However, I am of the opinion that the category names should be the same. So it should be either one of the following:
 * 1) Year television program series debuts/endings; or
 * 2) Year television program debuts/endings; or
 * 3) Year television series debuts/endings

The current mix and match needs to be recified. I personally think option 1 is too long and clumsly and that it should be option 3. What do you guys think? -- Ianblair23 (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have place this nomination for renaming at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 14 -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

DVD Releases
Which is generally considered the most appropriate, having a show's DVD releases on its main page, or having them on the List of Episode page? I've seen it both ways and am not completely sure which is better. For the lists I've done, so far, I've been putting them on the List of Episodes but I'm wondering which is preferred for the project? AnmaFinotera (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I have them on both (unless the main page is so large you need to cut stuff), because they technically fit both pages, being a cummulative look at the show.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What I did with my articles was to give a subsection of prose to the DVD releases in the main article (release dates, general content, packaging, anything else that was noteworthy), and linked to the LoE via a hatnote where I kept a major table listing all DVD extras by name. Works great. – sgeureka t•c 18:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looney Tunes on TV
Recently, there's been a proposal by Agtax to create an individual article concerning the Looney Tunes television broadcast history. I've asked a few other WP:US-TOON and WP:TV participants for advice, and they give their support. In order for the discussion to spread out, though, I've posted this announcement at the main project page. Research and development are currently underway. Any comments? Ideas? Suggestions? Advice? Anyone interested may either comment under this heading or here at my talk page. Input is appreciated. — Cinemaniac (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to why that can not go in the main Looney Tunes article? It would certainly be appropriate and give the article a boost. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the Looney Tunes were shorts shown in cinemas and not originally produced for television, I'm not sure it's notable enough for an article on their broadcast history.Thomprod (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Figuring out their broadcast history would be a nightmare. They used to be syndicated and included in all kinds of programs. Public domain cartoons pop up all over the place. Wryspy (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Reprinting entire lists of production credits.
Some editors have added the entire credits of a number of Hanna-Barbera shows to their corresponding articles (see Josie and the Pussycats (TV series), Richie Rich (1980 TV series), The All-New Scooby and Scrappy-Doo Show). Is this proper, or should these be removed? --67.8.213.127 (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * IMHO, removed (which I've done to any articles I've come across with those). The credits of importance are already well covered by the infobox.  If anything particular credits are particularly notable, though they should be discussed, in prose form, in the appropriate section with citations. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reproducing an entire list is inappropriate and, I believe, against Wikipedia guidelines. Wryspy (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal peer review
Portal:The Simpsons is on Portal Peer Review. Your feedback/comments would be appreciated, at Portal peer review/The Simpsons, before I eventually nominate the portal to be a Featured Portal Candidate. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

Eric Cartman article is in need of massive cleanup
Over 20 subsections, with many of it just going into too much plot detail, and trivial information. It should look something like Bart Simpson: a few sections of well written text, not an article that is just cluttered and a huge mess. In general, most South Park character articles need a lot of cleaning. I didn't post this at the South Park project, as it's pretty inactive at the moment. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot of character articles on many shows need cleaning up, because people keep adding "vital" information and then revert any attempts to clean it up. I'm familiar with South Park, so I'll take a look. -- Scorpion0422 22:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just killed everything besides the opening. None of that information was worth actually salvaging. TTN (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's one way to do it... Generally I'm not a big fan of stubbing, it just seems like taking the easy way out of cleaning up a page, but that article before was one of the worst 50+ Kb articles I'd ever seen. I think a lot of the South Park character articles have fallen into neglect, so I'll take a look at some of them. -- Scorpion0422 22:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had originally started just trimming, but there was just way too much OR and crap. The South Park articles definitely need work. TTN (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Current fiction
Template:Current fiction has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Validity of this AfD: Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy)?
Based on what is written here on Television episodes, is there any validity to the reasons why the author puts Ernie (Family Guy) up for deletion?

Doesn't the article meet all of the requirements for a fictional character article? Odessaukrain (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The nom didn't say it, but this article fails WP:N (i.e. no reliable secondary sources are given), and then either WP:NOT or WP:OR (although I may be too strict here, and others would disagree). WP:N and WP:NOT are the foundations of Notability (fiction), which Ernie thus fails. Compare the article with e.g. Boone Carlyle and you'll see what is missing. The AfD is IMO valid. – sgeureka t•c 14:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As Sgeureka notes, it fails the fiction notability requirements. Despite appearances from the glut of character articles out there, most individual characters in a show can not meet notability requirements and should be covered in a list of characters instead.  The AfD is quite valid. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

External links in Infobox
I just stumbled upon this edit, which makes me question the point of the "External links" section in the infobox. The way it is now, articles with this template have two "External links" sections, one at the top and one at the bottom of the article. And both sections contain totally different links, without any indication (for the average reader) what links belongs where. In nearly all of our articles, the "Official homepage" link can be found in the External links section at the bottom of the article. But with television show articles, it's in the infobox instead. That seems very confusing and subobtimal to me. I know that there are other templates with such sections, too, but as far as I know, those allow to duplicate the links that appear in the infobox, so whichever External links section is used, the reader will find the right links. Why can't we do that with television articles, too? I think having the same external link twice is much preferred to being very confusing about which link goes where. Well, personally I wouldn't mind to remove the external links from infoboxes altogether, but it seems that consensus is against me there. --Conti|✉ 21:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am pro duplicate external links, especially when one is at the top and the other at the bottom. – sgeureka t•c 21:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer the duplicate links in long articles, though common sense prevails for stubs and shorter articles. Personally, I avoid putting TV.com (an IMDB when I can get away with it) in the infobox, but the official website ought to be in both places. Brad (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Project Box update
I've noticed several other projects have set up their project boxes to include a B-Class checklist, and was wondering if we should consider doing the same for ours? Also, I stumbled on the comics project box WikiProject Comics/Project banner and noticed they have a rather option for "fiction" which, when set, notes that the article is written from an in-universe perspective and needs rewriting and puts it in the appropriate category for it. They also have options for attention (article needs fast help) and cleanup (article needs some general clean up as detailed on the talk page). I think these could be some useful options for us as well, particularly the fiction tag. So, any interest/thoughts on giving our project banner such an upgrade? AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again this is a good idea. I wouldn't know how to implement it as I'm no good with template code but would happily start using it. n another note apologies for having stalled somewhat on assessments this year. I hope to get back to them in the new year but life has been busy lately.--Opark 77 (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob, I've been sporadic in doing them too of late, mostly due to working a lot on a couple of articles that needed some serious clean up. I felt guilty the other night and ended up doing 50 in one night (then questioning my sanity when I realized just how many I'd done LOL). I'd be willing to try to figure out the template code, if no one else with more experience doesn't step up and offer. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Reception sections
Any one have any tips for writing Reception sections? It is always the section I struggle with the most, and probably the weakest part of articles I do heavy editing on. If lots of news articles and the like are available discussion reception on the whole, its no so bad, but if not, should the section just note reviews from appropriate sources? Any other info that would be appropriate? AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If I can't find any reviews I just include Nielsen Ratings (For US shows anyway). They can be found at PIFeedback Jamie jca (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest ABC Medianet for non-cable programs. They publish weekly and seasonal ratings every Tuesday.    Earlier this year, they deleted everything on the website from before 2007, but it has all been archived at The Futon Critic.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  19:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Some Year in Television?
It is accepted style that ((year in television|year)) is improper format right? Why hasn't anyone gone about with AWB and repaired most of such links to avoid the perpetuation of the idea that this is proper format (people see the links in articles and assume it's correct and then start adding them to other articles, eh?) TheHYPO (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Lists of music
I feel like I once read that lists of music are discouraged. Do I remember incorrectly, i.e. should I nominate List of music featured on Lost for deletion or should I work on it and make it a featured list candidate. – thedemonhog   talk •  edits  18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lists of soundtrack music are usually considered WP:NOT, and are contravened by WP:EPISODE. I wouldn't mind a discussion reconsidering this, but I think such lists are in most cases not encyclopedic. As a free-standing article, List of music featured on Lost lacks secondary sources establishing notability (tho I don't know how this works with list articles). As written, it may be more a candidate for deletion than featured. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the resources to get sources. I'm just wondering if I should bother.  Could someone else weigh in on this?  Thanks, – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  19:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Striking my own prognosis on List of music featured on Lost. Per WP:LIST, these may be permissible if they organize other articles on notable subjects (which I will presume the linked song articles are), but I think the subject and reason for this organization (soundtrack of TV show) still needs notability established beyond "featured on notable show". Secondary sources may still be needed, and certainly would help. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is important to first establish why writing about the music in Lost is important before such a list is created. Basically, if its hard to write more than 2 alineas about the music in prose form, then the list with the raw data is hardly informative/useful. An article that could have such a paragraph would be Grey's Anatomy for instance. The writers of that series have production blogs and have written multiple times how important music in their series is. Stories and music are matched together and sometimes they have music they want to use before they even have a story to go with it (It's The End of the World was a prime example of that I believe). Also, every episode name refers to a piece of music. That is information that counts, and its much more important than having a list with the music. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates
Template:Actors in Law and Order: Criminal Intent, Template:Actors in Law and Order, and Template:Actors in Law and Order: Special Victims Unit are all pretty new, but inconsistently used. I don't know if there are standards for how specific templates should be, so I just wanted to drop a note off here. Thanks! -- RG2 07:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever articles are linked from the template generally have the template at the bottom of their pages. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  07:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What I meant: Are templates this specific customarily used, or are they normally taken to TfD as unnecessary? I was thinking it was the latter, as I see templates for a TV show as a whole, but I haven't come across ones designed only to accomodate the real-life actors of a specific show. -- RG2 08:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good gravy...L&O already has at least three templates per show, now someone has made another one? This one is really   rather useless and weird.  I'd be inclined to TfD myself and wouldn't support them being used in any articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible subprojects?
There are now proposals at WikiProject Council/Proposals, WikiProject Council/Proposals, and WikiProject Council/Proposals for groups to deal specifically with those programs, which have each gotten five members, which is generally thought enough for a task force. Would this project be willing to take on such subprojects? John Carter (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They should be, at best, task forces under this project. Individual shows (and even the L&O franchise) should not have separate projects.  Of the two options, I'd much rather have them as tasks forces here so they can be kept in line with the Television project guidelines and goals. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Related to this, I once posted a "crash corse" summary to help people understand how to do this:


 * A lot of projects don't have formal guidelines for taskforces, but here's a crash corse: pretty much just find a "parent" WikiProject, make the project you want to start a subpage (like WikiProject Music/A Band). Use the parent WikiProject's guidelines as a starting point (link to them) and then draft some "in addition" kind of guidelines. Edit the parent project's page to include a link to the task force. You also might want to ask for help on the talk page for the WikiProject's banner for adding an option for the taskforce (so that a link to the taskforce shows up on certain talk pages). Some other ideas is to make some lists, like all the current articles that fall under the specific task force, and any goals for those articles. See also WP:TASKFORCE.


 * We should probably make something similar (but better written) so that people understand how to do this, and so it doesn't sound very hard. -- Ned Scott 02:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Something else that has been on my mind are the existance of projects that really should be task forces under this project, especially those for some TV shows dedicated to making "complete guides" to a single series or set of related series.  I suspect their very existence is one reason several of our show articles have gotten so out of hand and so full of fancruft and unnotable articles that go against Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I recently asked on how one goes about getting a project axed or demoted, and was pointed to MfD, which can result in a project being forced down to a task force.  I'm curious as to what others here think about that?  Should we make an effort to reign in these seemingly rouge projects (some members of which think that since they are a project, they don't have to follow the TV MOS at all and spurn clean up efforts by TV project folks)?  We have a notice essentially saying no more TV show projects and that those existing ones will be task forces in the future, so it is time to actually make the move? AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Some, if not all, daughter WikiProjects should definitely be converted to task forces. WikiProject The Office is a fine example.  It has a single featured article, the main page, which was promoted in April 2006.  The quality of all other Office content has not changed since, however the quantity has.  Articles have been created for secondary characters and episode articles continue to be made without real-world information.  I even placed an  template on the outdated Project page on December 2 that went unnoticed for four weeks.  However, I do not have a problem with WikiProject The Simpsons continuing as a daughter WikiProject, as articles are constantly being developed and the Project currently boasts 99 featured, good or A-class articles.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  09:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that in most cases it should only be a task force, but it depends on the show. If we take The Simpsons for example, it spans several parent projects (comics, video games, films and music). It doesn't make sense to split this up into several independant task forces. --Maitch (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

List of The New Detectives episodes help
Hi, im not really a major contributor to this project but I want to expand this episode list. I have recently improved the main page, The New Detectives. I have put two sources on the bottom of the page and they list all 121 episodes. I will work on this but I need help with it because it is alot of work. Would anyone care to help? Tr U cO 93 11 TaLk / SiGn 19:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In case you do not know, there is a list of high quality episode lists at WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  19:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm...ok, I just want help to improve the list, how is that link suppose to help me? Tr U cO 93 11 TaLk / SiGn 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can model your list after those ones. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  19:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I Know how to list the episodes " I AM ASKING FOR ASSISTANCE"! to help list the episodes Tr U cO 93 11 TaLk / SiGn 21:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Woah. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  21:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind... Tr U cO 93 11 TaLk / <b style="color:darkblue">SiGn</b> 21:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

More ideas for project improvements - our project page
I've noticed our project page is rather long, probably because we have so much stuff on the front page. Any thoughts on maybe moving some stuff to sub-pages for a cleaner layout? For example, a lot of other projects have the Peer Review section as a separate page, with instructions on adding peer reviews, responding to peer reviews, and maybe an archive of older peer reviews.

Also any thoughts on the idea of actually writing up some goals, project, scope, etc and adding it to the intro of our project (which, sadly, would get tagged as intro too short if we were an article LOL). I think we also really need to really give some attention to our "MOS", maybe a full rewrite, and we need more guides for TV stations, non-fiction shows, etc. I also think our episode page may need redoing as right now, it gives the impression that individual episode pages are preferred to lists, which contradicts WP:EPISODE.

And while I'm throwing out ideas this fine morning, a few months ago the Film project decided to have project coordinators to handle basic project admin/procedural stuff. They aren't given more powers or anything, just really a set of folks dedicated to dealing with the project stuff itself (see WikiProject Films/Coordinators). Since our project is arguably almost as big, with just as much stuff to be dealt with regularly, is that something we might want to consider? AnmaFinotera (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

An attempt to ban images from character lists
There are a few editors who have taken an extreme interpretation of the guideline portion of WP:NFC to mean that images are banned from any list or group article regarding characters. This has never had consensus, and directly conflicts with what is allowed per WP:NFCC. When I raised this issue with User:Betacommand, his suggestion was to break WP:FICT and simply split the characters into independent articles, which has no bearing on WP:NFC. I strongly encourage everyone to get involved at WT:NFC. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments would be appreciated at Peer Review for The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson
The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson has recently been passed as a Good Article, and is currently undergoing a Peer Review. Any comments/feedback on how to further improve the article's quality would be most appreciated, at Peer review/The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson/archive1. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC).


 * You should list it at WikiProject Television. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  06:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. Cirt (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC).


 * Peer review has been archived, thanks to those who gave feedback. Cirt (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

Please review proposed WP:FICT guideline
I would like to get more eyes to review the proposed version of Notability (fiction) beyond what those participating on the current talk page have provided. This is not to get consensus for it yet, but to make sure there are no major issues with it before going to that step. Please address any concerns on WT:FICT. Thank you. --M ASEM 18:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Last Temptation of Krust on Peer Review
The Last Temptation of Krust has recently been passed as a Good Article, and is currently undergoing a Peer Review. Any comments/feedback on how to further improve the article's quality would be most appreciated, at Peer review/The Last Temptation of Krust. Cirt (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Update on The Television Portal

 * -- Update: Portal:Television has recently become a Featured Portal. There is also a featured version at the French Wikipedia, called Portail de la télévision.  All of the articles at Portal:Television in the "Selected article" and "Selected biography" sections are of Featured Quality Status.  Thanks to the efforts of folks from this project, for churning out such great high-quality material!  Keep up the great work getting articles to Featured Quality Status !  Cirt (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

Request for comments
Hello to the members of this project. A discussion has commenced at the talk page for the sitcom The Good Life here. Your input is requested to help reach a consensus on this matter. Thank you in advance for any help that you can give in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 23:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like consensus is really needed as everyone but that one editor agrees that the official spelling is Margo, but I left a note there. Faux01's only edits have been his attempts to change the spelling in the three article, and I didn't see any sign that its been a major problem before. I've left Faux01 a warning for NPOV since that seems to be his personal preferred spelling.  If he reverts any of the three articles again, I'd recommend considering him a vandal and giving him a 3RR warning (since he already has three between two articles for the same change).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collectonian (talk • contribs) 23:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like the editor has given up the attempt to make any further changes. Thanks for the time in you took in this matter Collectonian. MarnetteD | Talk 20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on possible Japanese Television subcategory?
Is it possible to have this kind? For instance, we do have the British Television section here? Ominae (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox for webisodes and mobisodes
Should I design a new infobox for Lost: Missing Pieces, 24: Conspiracy, Prison Break: Proof of Innocence and Doctor Who: TARDISODEs, etc.? Currently, they are using Template:Infobox Television. While I am here, I will link to the GAN and the PR for Missing Pieces. Thanks, – thedemonhog   talk •  edits  00:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that would be very useful; this type of broadcasting is only going to grow as technology progresses Ged UK (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I do.  ЩіκіRocкs  talκ 10:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I started to make one at Template:Infobox Minisodes, but it was basically the same as the television infobox, so I redirected it there. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Several new proposals for Template:Episode list and other notes
I've made a bunch of proposals for the episode templates Episode list and Japanese episode list (such as dedicated "Director" and "Writer" fields), as well as a method of translcuding season pages onto main LOE pages, plus other notes. Input from anyone interested would be greatly appreciated. See Template talk:Episode list -- Ned Scott 06:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Xena: Warrior Princess
Someone sent Xena: Warrior Princess up for FA (who had no clue how the FA process works). In doing so, they did, however, highlight the absolute hideousness of this article. I've done some quick clean up to it, but was wondering if anyone (or several anyones) would like to take on the daunting task of giving it the true overhaul it really needs. For such a huge series, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to have a FA article here. There is plenty of verifiable information to cover all the relevant aspects, but the article right now suffers from fan glut. I'd work on it more myself, but I've already got a more than full queue of articles I'm working on. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Fiction as Fact" Templates
These templates seem to be used much too liberally in articles on TV characters, marring articles that already clearly establish the fictional nature of the person in question. Paragraphs on the character's fictional biography confuse fiction as fact only if taken out of context; articles that include such paragraphs only after several paragraphs discussing the fictional nature of the character -- thematic significance, behind-the-scenes development of the character, etc. -- should not include the template, as a non-fictional perspective has already been clearly provided. Minaker (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * When 95 percent of a character's article talk about his fictional in-universe significance, the perspective is clearly fictional. For a non-fictional perspective, the article needs to actually have non-fictional material. "X is a fictional character in Y" as the only non-fictional perspective can only serve as an introduction into an article clearly violating WP:NOT and/or WP:OR, which is obviously discouraged on wikipedia. If the thematic significance and everything else you mentioned is sourced by non-primary sources, there is usually not a problem with fictional perspective. Can you link to an article that you believe is wrongly tagged? – sgeureka t•c 14:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sgeureka, I agree with your analysis. However, my point is that the purpose of "fiction as fact" templates is not just "we do it this way because this is how it's done," it's to avoid articles from misleading a reader into potentially thinking that the fictional subject of the article could be a real person. Although I have seen other examples of the template's misuse, when I wrote the above comment, I was thinking of articles on various "West Wing" characters -- articles which do include fictional biographies of the characters, but also detailed information on genesis and development of the characters. The article on Leo McGarry, for example, includes "biographical" information about the fictional character, but also sourced information on the casting of John Spencer in the role, as well as a brief discussion of critical reaction to the character's significance to the series. Furthermore, the character's fictional biography, while it would seem to be written in purely "in-universe" style if certain paragraphs are taken out of context (exactly what I talk about in my above comment), also includes a brief discussion on how Spencer's death affected the series' plotline. Because all of this information together clearly establishes the fictional aspect of Leo McGarry, and provides significant "out of universe" information, the "fiction as fact" template would be inappropriate here. (I deleted the template for this reason.)

Another example, which still sports the template, is the one on James T. Kirk. The article includes quite a bit of Kirk's fictional biography; one could argue that the article includes TOO MUCH biographical information, which could make a good case for the template, but I would consider this more of a case of relevancy than confusing fiction as fact. As with the Leo McGarry article, there is significant out of universe information, on such aspects of the character as casting and viewer reception.

I agree that an EXCESS of in-universe information is inappropriate. If somebody wants to know the tiniest detail about Captain Kirk's fictional adventures and family tree, for example, there are plenty of "Star Trek" websites for that, but it gets to a point where the information is too trivial for an encyclopedic entry. However, some degree of fictional "biographical" information on a character is relevant and should be included, since such information, to an extent, defines the character's significance to the series.

Going back to my "West Wing" example to make a point of comparison: The article on Will Bailey deserves the template because it uses your "X is a fictional character of Y" approach of introduction and then launches into in-universe-style writing. By contrast, the article on President Bartlet uses the template inappropriately, because despite the presence on RELEVANT info on the character's biography, there is also more than enough out of universe information to establish President Bartlet's fictional status.

The bottom line is that if the article does not confuse fiction as fact, a template saying that it does is simply inappropriate and misleading. Minaker (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with everything you just said (although I never watched West Wing or the Original Star Trek series). The important point however is that different people see a different quality in each article. E.g., I think that every character article with more than half of the text being a fictional biography (which are most character articles on wikipedia) has an obvious lack of non-fictional perspective, but I will still only tag those articles with less than ten percent of sourced secondary information. On the other hand, there are certainly editors who claim that three trivial secondary sources make an article acceptable to pass e.g. WP:FICT. I believe, as long as tags encourage more secondary information or show that no work is being done, the tags serve a purpose, and the article will improve (be it trimming and merging, or encyclopedic expanding). – sgeureka t•c 23:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes
List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes has recently been cleaned up and put into the proper episode list format, using the episode list template, adding a decent intro, etc. An editor is wholescale edit warring over it, insisting that his preferred format is correct. This is now spilled over into List of Goodnight Sweetheart episodes, as well as two ANI filings mine against him and his retaliatory one. I came to the list at the request of another editor as a project rep to help when the edit war start, but its continuing to escalate. Several other editors have requested Edito stop, but he continues while hurling insults at anyone (but most especially me) who reverts his changes. At this point, I think some additional help from the project might be good, as he claims the new formats have no consensus, despite my arguing that it follows the format of many of our recent FLs. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Deal or No Deal (US game show)
I think the TV project needs to hit this article, hard, and give it some attention and clean up. For some reason, an extremely new editor decided to break every section into its own article on February 8!! It looked hideous. I hadn't noticed earlier because I had de-watched listed it. I just undid that, see for the diff], but the article does have a lot of cruft that needs cleaning out. Some experienced television editors need to take it in hand and someone needs to keep an eye on the person who did the break out (who also is removing comments from the talk page he didn't like an inappropriately archiving comments less than a week after they were left). AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune (US game show) have similar issues. As they are primarily edited by fans, they have tons and tons of gameplay info, unnecessary sub-articles giving even more details about the game play aspects, and little in the way of valuable content regarding the shows' production, history, reception, impact on society, etc. The fancruft is out of hand, but so far my attempts to suggest clean ups on the articles is being met with fan resistance (polite, but obviously with no intention to support any major clean up).  We really need to make a project effort to clean up a lot of these game show articles, and I think these three would make good starting points. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a first pass at Deal or No Deal (US game show), with the likeliness of a episode sub-article to support the bulk of the rest (eg special guests, banker deals, themes, etc.). Still rather fancrufty though. --M ASEM  18:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work on the first pass! Hopefully it will help them see the article can be trimmed without losing the pertinent details. Unfortunately, I seem to have annoyed the editors of the articles who feel I'm "disrespecting" their work, have too much attitude in my suggestions, and should accept a Jeopardy fansite as an RS (though at least the main pusher admits he has a COI with the site).  *sigh* I think part of WoF issue is taking fifteen words to say what could be said in like five...and I thought I was long-winded :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Some feedback on infoboxes for game shows is needed at Jeopardy!. Due to its lengthy history, it has had many directors, producers, etc. My view is the infobox should include the current director, producer, etc, while others feel it should either include all or none. Some outside views would be helpful. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also brought up this issue at the Template talk for the infobox. Input there is appreciated. Robert K S (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Office
The Office (U.S. TV series) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

The Principal and the Pauper is on Peer Review
Please see Peer review/The Principal and the Pauper/archive1. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fraggle Rock in peer review
It can be found here: Peer_review. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Listing peer reviews on the talk page is unnecessary as there is a spot on the project page designated for them. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Section order
I have recently had a look at this Wikiproject's How to write about television programs article. I would like to raise issue with the order of sections that it prescribes. The guide suggests that after the intro, the next section should be characters, then plot, episodes, reception and finally production. However, most articles do not use this order, including FA articles Arrested Development (TV series), Lost (TV series), Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), Avatar: The Last Airbender, Cold Feet, The Simpsons and so on. These articles, and most, put production first (making of programme etc), then plot/episodes then reception. This, in my eyes, is the logical order. You start with how the programme was created and made, then talk about the cast/characters/plot/episodes and then the reception/reviews (followed of course by other things like DVDs etc). What do other users think, should the "How to write about television programs" guide be changed to reflect how most articles are laid out?--UpDown (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ~pokes project~ I think some discussion on this would be good. We see, we seem to be saying one thing and doing another. This would be a good time to revisit our "MOS" and update it, as needed. It makes a mess when it says one thing, but those of us who have taken series articles to FA realize that to pass GA or FA, it has to be another way. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I rewrote and/or reordered some sections. – sgeureka t•c 19:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thee are bolder than I ;) One thing that might need to be noted is that if the episode list is moved to a separate List of, then it is usually linked to in the plot section with a main or see also template. Also, should reception be above the media section, with media above episodes? AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The how-to should definitely include a References/Notes section, and perhaps a See also section as well. Sarilox (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

CFD nomination
Members of this WikiProject may be interested in the following television related CFD nomination:

Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 21

Tim! (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Amazing Race task force
One of these is long overdue. Is there some way to vote on it? ♥ Shapiros10 Wuz  Here ♥ 01:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Errata in TV Shows
I posted to the Help Desk and was referred here: I was wondering if there is a Wikipedia guideline for discussing errata in articles about TV shows. It is human nature to point out an error if you see one, but people seem to do so without regard to Wikipedia's policies on OR. So, two questions: (1) suppose the discussion of an error is NOT original research (i.e. IS verifiable from a reliable source), but the error is a technical one and does not affect the plot or themes of the TV show. Should it be included? (2) Suppose the claim of error CAN be supported by external links, but the links do not specifically address the TV show. Should it be deleted for OR? I was specifically wondering about the discussion on this talk page in which the TV show apparently made a blooper about inheritance of blood types.Fritter (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Errata, even if the user knows that they are correct compared to the show, is generally WP:OR, and should not be included, unless a source can be found, either as a commentary from the show (a writer admitting they screwed up) or if another reliable third party source points it out (such as a TV Guide review or the like). If it's unsourced, it should be handled like trivia, which is, it should be cleaned up if no sourcing can be found. --M ASEM  19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is my view, too. I expect it will encounter resistance -- people love to add their two cents.Fritter (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel like doing a copy-edit? Well, look no further!
The article for the fourth season premiere of Lost, "The Beginning of the End", from the Lost WikiProject is currently at FAC and Laser brain needs the article to be read over before he can support. Thanks, – thedemonhog   talk •  edits  05:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination backlog
There's still a significant backlog of tv articles at wp:good article nominations. We do not have enough regular reviewers to deal with all the nominations received, and unfortunately certain topics seem to suffer more than others. The good news is that the review process is relatively simple and any registered user is more than welcome to participate. If you'd like to help out, simply pick an article you haven't contributed to from the list and see if it meets every good article criteria. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the good article nominations talk page or even directly on my talk page. --jwandersTalk 21:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Passions
Stated in the soap opera "passions" page, that it replaced Another World, while that is partly in truth, it technically replaced a short running soap opera, Sunset Beach, which was the actual soap opera to replace Another World. 75.68.21.26 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Energy

FAC notice

 * FYI, The Last Temptation of Krust is currently on WP:FAC. Cirt (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Having Host Bio In Show Articles
I am have noticed that that in some articles there is host bio in the show. For instance in the Licence to Grill article it has bio information for Rob Rainford, even though he has his own article. Is there a consensus (spelling?) against having that info on the show article? Mr. C.C. (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The host section seems no different to me than the cast and characters section of a fiction TV series, so I see no reason for it not to be included. However, where the separate article for the person would contain his or her general biography, the host section for the TV series should contain only that information which is relevant to the show. In your example, Rob Rainford's birth date and place, and previous jobs are probably not important and should be included only in his separate article. On the other hand, his formal training does seem to be worth mentioning, as well as any other aspect to his role on the show that might be noteworthy. Sarilox (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the date of birth and birth place can be removed. I guess his training could be left, but where he worked removed as well.  I was just wondering.  I will revamp that section.  But when you remove that fluff of info that doesn't belong there, it would just say that he enrolled in college in 1994.  Mr. C.C. (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I revamped that section and condensed it into the rest of the article. Mr. C.C. (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Draft article in need of a read through
Could someone please give this article on I Love Lucy spin-offs and crossovers a good look through. It is a very rough draft and in need of further references, but I finally got a list into article form. It needs to be proofread, but I am too close to see minor problems. Leave input for it on the talk page, please. - LA @ 22:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: What is the article trying to achieve? It is neither complete (as in, it is only limited to a couple of shows), nor does it offer any insight why the crossovers are happening. If this was in mainspace, an AfD wouldn't be far away. (I'm just saying.) – sgeureka t•c 23:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is to show all of the series connected in one (1) shared reality through spin-offs and crossovers which started with I Love Lucy. All of those series are connected, and with so many (150+) connected, I felt that an article was needed. We can continue this discussion on the talk page of the rough draft. - LA @ 11:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

MOS Question
I was just wondering what happens if the name of an episode of a tv show is also the title of an episode. For example, there is an upcoming episode of 30 Rock named Milf Island. MILF Island, aswell as being the name of the episode is that name of a tv show within the episode. Do I type the title so it looks like this "MILF Island" or just the normal "MILF Island"? -- Jamie jca (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

TV-related articles of unclear notability
Hello,

there are currently about 160 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. Based on a database snapshot of March 12, I have listed them here.

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see WikiProject Notability.

If you have further questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Question
I have a question regarding a television article and I didn't know where to post it, so I posted it here!

I speak in regards to the Blue Heelers and Blue Heelers DVD Releases articles and the List of Blue Heelers episodes.

The list is becoming far too long, and it will only become longer; it is apparently the 66th longest article on the English Wikipedia. The main Blue Heelers article is also made unnecessarily long with the inclusion of the season synopsis.

Would it be appropriate to make a new article for each season of the show (for example Blue Heelers (season 1)) and include the season synopsis, season episode list and season DVD release info, as well as real-info in regards to the reception etc.? It would reduce the size of the articles and lists to a reasonable size.

I started a discussion on the article's talk page, but this does not seem to be attracting many opinions.

Any comments or suggestions???

Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 06:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC).


 * Um, yes, with a series that length, it is time to consider doing something similar to what is done with List of Lost episodes (FL) or List of Lassie episodes (588 episodes, so similar in length to Blue Heelers), in which the main episode list uses transclusions to just show the titles and air dates with links off to the main season pages that have fuller discussion in the lead and the summaries. You already are on the right track, though, that each of those season pages should then have a proper lead, episode list with summaries, DVD info, and as much real-world info such as reception and production as can be sourced. Also, the "related article" links in each season section are unnecessary. The individual DVD article should also be redirected back to the main once this is done, as DVD releases generally do not meet notability for having standalone articles. With the details in the season pages, a summary can be put back in the main. For the main article, the season summaries should probably just be removed. There is already a plot section, so its redundant to both the plot and the episode list. I'd also agree with the comment on the talk page that the character list needs to be culled down to just the main characters, and let the risk take care of the rest instead of duplicating them in both. :) Hope that helps some! If you need help on doing the code for the season pages, feel free to leave me a message as I did the Lassie ones, including the custom templates needed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Collectonian. For such a long running show with so many episodes per season (you might want to remove the redlinks for the episodes), it's the best course of action to pursue season pages now. – sgeureka t•c 08:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

New template
Just so you all know, at the Doctor Who project, we've created newepisode for articles such as the ones you cover. See ya! <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">TreasuryTag —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">t —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">c 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that you should get rid of the "not yet aired" part of the disclaimer because that is already covered by Future television episode. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  18:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(Was) aired
Which of the above is correct? – thedemonhog   talk •  edits  19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The episode was aired on April 1.
 * 2) The episode aired on April 1.


 * Had to think about this for a moment, but I think the second one would be correct. Not entirely sure, though. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think(?) the first version sounds like the passive tense "The episode was aired on April 1 by the BBC" (active: "The BBC aired the episode on April 1") and thus puts a slight emphasis on the broadcaster. The second version puts more emphasis on that the episode was aired, and when. Both appear to be grammatically correct. – sgeureka t•c 07:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Scooby-Doo
Scooby-Doo is listed for FA review. Ultra! 14:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been added to WikiProject Television. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  16:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)