Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage task force/Archive 1

Inviting discussion
I've archived the old talk (but made a mess of the navigation box, which I hope Ned Scott or someone will sort for me) and will drop a note on Wikiproject pages to get some more comments. I think general discussion might happen here, but we should invite specific comments to be made at Television article review process and WP:EPISODE.

Things still to do: develop some sort of template message to put on talk pages of parent articles to explain what is happening/needs to happen to the individual episode pgaes, and direct them to the review page: WikiProject Television/Episode coverage/Articles for review. Gwinva 09:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I've found all the related WikiProjects.. lets see what response we get. Gwinva 19:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Reminder of notability template use
(Copied from archive for easy reference):

Episode-notability (which is technically now Template:Dated episode notability) has now been updated to automatically add a timer. To use it you subst the template,, and after 14 days the page in question will automatically be added to a category (for now I've named it Category:Episode articles not asserting notability). -- Ned Scott 06:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, that above category has been deleted (because it was unused). I don't know if that's going to be a problem. Gwinva 17:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, when you tag it will still put all the episodes there (if the tag is still directed there). Once they are there we can recreate the category. You can have articles that are present in a category that has not been officially created. When you create it, they don't change. Bignole 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a tag to indicate that it is a clean-up category and shouldn't be deleted just for being empty? Jay32183 18:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure, but that would be a good idea to have if it exists. Bignole 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't recall exactly what I wrote for the category's description, but I'm pretty sure it at least mentioned the template and the 14 days. I guess it just wasn't clear it was a maintenance / clean-up category. -- Ned Scott 19:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this good to go yet?
This seems to have died down, but is the tag(s?) ready to be used? We may not have the whole review thing up yet, but only a couple dozen series are probably going to need it. TTN 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say start using the tags and see how it goes. Best way to test the process is see if it works. Gwinva 09:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Futurama episodes and general concerns
After this project's tags have been added to ALL Futurama episode articles by User TTN, somewhat of a discussion over this has started on hist talk page. As I said there, I will repeat it here: I don't think the adding of episode-notability templates without any further comment comes across as a very harsh and thoughtless, almost random attack on a big group of articles that have meant a great deal of work to many people (not me, though). I invite you to take an unbiased look at the way episode articles like this one are now appearing. The only further comment was the non-specific edit summary of "Notability not asserted" by TTN. (Basically) Accusing an entire group of articles of non-notability without any further clarification or justification is a false presumption of guilt if you will. Of course this is not a legal case, I think that this is a concept of manners and Wikipedia netiquette, that has to be upheld here too.

Now, I readily concede that a great many episode articles are in a not particularly good state, which is true for Futurama as for any other show. However you are not asserting the articles' quality but their notability, and you are doing that according to the proposed (I cannot stress this enough) guideline "Television article review process". Well, excuse me, but considering the thriving of projects like WikiProject Pokédex and similar projects bordering on non-notability, I think that is pretty rich, especially when talking about a show like Futurama which has an immense following in internet and "geek" subcultures. If you are adding this to all episodes, you are questioning the notability of Futurama episode articles as a whole, and a thing like this, I believe you should really achieve a consensus on.

Please note that I am in no way in opposition to your goals. There certainly is a mind-numbingly huge amount of fancruft on Wikipedia, but in order to do something against it, you have to respect and work together with the people who added it in the first place, and will probably keep re-adding it again and again — you probably know what it is like to remove the same goof over and over again that different people keep adding to the same article. In fact I wouldn't be surprised or annoyed if most Futurama episode articles turned out to be non-notable. But if this is to be a default process against the Futurama articles, then this really should go on the Futurama project page. I ask that the disfiguring templates be removed from the Futurama articles, or at least moved to the talk pages. Maybe the addition of them to the talk pages should be part of your guideline. Also, a rewording of the template would seem in order.

I hope we can settle this peacefully and constructively. — Mütze 18:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like people are taking it personal, as if they own the article or something? I can find many problems with the first episode you listed above. There are links to how to write a good article on an episode (if it can be done at all, as not every episode can accomplish that), and there are other places which any good WikiProject should link to: WP:WAF and Notability (fiction) for example. There there is the WP:EPISODE. Plus there are are about half a dozen featured episode articles, and I don't know how many GA Season 8 Simpsons articles (however many in that season, as everyone is at least GA). The tag provides a link and explains what is going on. Wikipedia is not TV.com, and episodes do not inherit notability from their parents. Like everything else, you have to establish notability, the prime example would be professionals writing about the episodes (i.e. Reception section). If an article doesn't have that section then it doesn't meet the criteria. That doesn't mean it cannot, it just means it currently does not. Also, let me correct that the guideline is not proposed, it is sure enough a guideline. The only proposal we have is for the review process of each episode. The guideline has merely been expanded to give examples and clarified on several points that were a little vague in their definitions. There is also a tag for the parent articles to alert them to what is going on, and it should be used when tagging episode articles. This way it alerts the larger community to the problem.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen many crap articles saved at AFD on the basis that they could improve. I can't help thinking that time would be much better spent improving the articles and adding real world context than arbitrarily adding these tags to billions of articles (which can easily be removed, by the way). The JPS talk to me  22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The existence of crap shouldn't mean that we keep more crap. The point of the tags is to get people to search for the information. It's not like we can just go "Oh, Google, yep, there are the sources!" People need to find them first. If the tags are removed, they'll be readded like any other relevant cleanup tag. TTN 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, I agree that we shouldn't keep crap. I guess editors need to remember that the articles are not being deleted: they will still be accessible through the history. I'd be more comfortable if I saw evidence that certain people were helping to improve these articles rather than simplistically going through them like a bulldozer. Surely that is a more fitting task for the human brain. If tags are readded, then they can be removed again, so long as 3RR is not broken. This is a guideline, not policy. The JPS talk to me  22:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Once these go up for "review", we will help sort out any possible sources people have come up with. At this point, no work has actually been done, so there isn't much to help with, and if we could just go find sources, they wouldn't be tagged in the first place. "It's just a guideline" is a very bad excuse to ignore it. I would expect an admin to know that. Even then, a cleanup tag is a cleanup tag. You can't just remove them because you disagree with them. TTN 22:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I say show me mutiple, professional writers commenting on the articles (i.e. Reception) and I'll show you an article that has the potential to be expanded. If you can't, I'll show you an article that needs to be merged. Notability is not based on the objectionable material found (e.g. production information), but on the subjective material (e.g. criticism). Production is important yes, but it's irrelevant if the article has how outside commentary. You couldn't have a GA or FA film article that doesn't have a reception section.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, I think I'll withdraw my complaint. It seems you are working in the best interests of Wikipedia, and all the guidelines and policies you cite make sense and are applied correctly by you. I mostly got bummed by the sudden appearance of hundreds of templates and overreacted a bit. Sorry.


 * I will still ask you to mind your attitude a bit, though. A more relaxed way of doing things and a nice tone will do a lot more for you then all determination ever could. — Mütze 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my tone, like you said of yourself, I overreacted because it seems like we are explaining the same thing over and over again. I mean, people are trying to delete the template, but their reasoning is "they are trying to delete all the episode articles", which we are by no means trying. The majority will most likely (if it works properly) be merged with a parent article, but there are certain ones that will be able to establish their notability (Pilot episodes usually have the best chance of doing that with ease than others, as they are the starting point for a series). I understand how "crummy" it appears to watch your work (anyone's) be challenged, but I think there was a lot of hostility toward the removal of all those non-free images from articles. I know I was bummed at that, but now that I look at them, I don't see a real downside. I don't feel like I'm missing something, and I have a new respect for what a non-free image should be used for. I hope that that can be said about television articles, in the end. It's a long shot, but it's a hope that people will look back and go, "you know, it does look better this way".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's hoping. :-) — Mütze 16:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines
For a long time now, the guideline on lists of episodes (LOEs) has been to follow the example of featured LOEs. But I think it would be a good idea to outline more precisely a structure that should be present in an LOE. WP:NOVELS has something like this—and seeing it sparked my thoughts on the addition of something like that here. I have prepared something for this purpose, and I could present it here for those who would like to see it. Cliff smith 16:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Go for it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review
Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4 -- Ned Scott 07:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Outcome: Deletion overturned 2007-07-06; template restored. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

video clips
is it appropriate to post links to video clips of the episode from youtube, in the trivia section or any section for that matter, on the episode page?

my initial thought tells me no but i just thought i'd ask.--Numberwang 13:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there shouldn't be a "trivia" section (see WP:AVTRIV), any encyclopedic information in there should be written as prose and worked into other sections. As far as clips go, no, you shouldn't. That is clear copyright violation. The only way a "clip" could be used would be if it was only 10% of the entire episode, or no more than 30 seconds and it had some encyclopedic nature can couldn't be explained with a simply image or just text.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Review update
I've done some revisions to the review process that should address many concerns in the TfDs and MfD. For starters, the page has now been moved to Television episodes/Review with Television article review process moved to an instructions subpage and transcluded on the review page. Instructions could be cleaned up some more, but discussion themselves are now held on the talk page of a parent article, with a link to that discussion being listed on the review page. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 20:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy discussion regarding episode articles
There is a lengthy discussion regarding the redirection of episode articles to series articles at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (sic) which people from this WikiProject are likely already participating in, but which also should be referenced from here in case interested parties are not aware. (historical reference: this version at time of comment). --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

List page idea
I like this idea I saw on the Degrassi Next Generation page (don't care for the show, but this caught my attention). Suggestion mentioned WAVY 10 Fan 22:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Season articles, a very good suggestion, and an option that doesn't seem to be considered often. -- Ned Scott 00:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Ghost Whisperer episodes
Articles for deletion/Ghost Whisperer episodes &mdash; outcome = delete all and redirect (2007-11-06)
 * this is a multi-article AFD, covering 13 episodes
 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 11:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

UK Airdate Sources
Can anyone recommend a good source for finding out the original UK airdates of a show? Since it is primarily a UK show, I think it would be important to include in the episode list, but the show's site is rather lacking in episode details. Collectonian 16:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: 12 Miles of Bad Road

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: As You Were (M*A*S*H)

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Babble On (Dead Zone)

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Antonia Ramos

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:50, 16 November 2007 (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. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --User: (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Two-part episode merge
Your input is requested at a two-part episode merge proposal here. Neelix (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll likely alert more editors if you leave a note at WT:TV and/or WP:FICT/N. – sgeureka t•c 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the suggestion! Neelix (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject List of Television Episodes articles
I am planning to take the above category,, to CfD. Before doing do, I wanted to check with this project to ensure that it no longer has a use. Thanks. —Zach425 talk / contribs 19:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with need for deletion. See no valid use for it at all. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Threatened with deletion . ..
Hello, my friend: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. Several articles that include the phrase United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) have been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. You can see the list by clicking above. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

New episode assessment table
Hey all! I just wanted to direct everyone's attention to the new assessment table in the Episode Cover Task Force site. I've arranged for this task force to be included in the Template:Television so that we can rank the importance of television episode articles, thus having this assessment table. I think this will help us identify what episode-related articles are strong, which ones need work, and which ones might need to be merged/deleted altogether. As you can see, the table is really lacking in articles right now, but I plan to make a request with the Xenobot to tag pretty much all of the television episode articles with the assessment category. I am in the process of working on that request now, and wanted to make sure nobody had a problem with it before I move on it. Also, I wrote the criteria for Top/High/Mid/Low importance on the task force page myself, but obviously that's not set in stone, so anyone with suggestions on tweaks or changes are welcome to voice them. Thanks all! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  02:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, my thanks to and  for helping get the Template Television assessment stuff sorted out! —  Hun  ter   Ka  hn  02:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As per User talk:Xenobot Mk V/requests, I'm seeking a consensus for autoassessment of articles and the category list. Does anyone object? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  17:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
I've opened a Good article reassessment for E-mail Surveillance, an episode of The Office (US). Please see the talk page of the article. Fences &amp;  Windows  17:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1)
Hey all. Just wanted to point out that I've nominated Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1) for featured article. I believe the article is comprehensive and ready for FA status. However, there has been very little in the way of comments or feedback, and I'm beginning to get worried it will fail simply for inactivity. If anyone can spare the time, perhaps you could take a look at the FAC? Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  20:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Lists vs. Normal articles
Can somebody tell me a definite answer for this. Should television season articles be listed as "lists" or not and should they be nominated as such or should they be nominated for GA? One of my articles was recently failed because they user believed it to be a list Gossip Girl (season 4) while 90210 (season 3) was failed for other reasons, it seems quite contradictory. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Jayy008 (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride
 You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!


 * What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
 * When? June 2015
 * How can you help?
 * 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
 * 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
 * 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

GAR
Ocean's Three and a Half, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

30 Rock episodes
I know the 30 Rock episode pages all got redirected a few months back (due to notability issues) but if I could redo them with notable information, reviews, nielsen ratings, production/broadcasting notes (not trivia), real world info, ect. I could make one for "Episode 210" as a tester and if it is not notable, it can be deleted. Also, if I do create the page, would a cultural references section be allowed? I only ask because 30 Rock tends to have many cultural references, I can't see reason why not (as it is used on a featured article "A Streetcar Named Marge") but they are sometimes unwanted, it will not be in bullet point form. -- Jamie jca (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd be better off making the test article in a sub-page of your user space. If it fails the deletion is a lot simpler, it could be speedied by user request. As for making a cultural reference section, it would have to be properly sourced and written as flowing prose. Jay32183 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as you make a note about what's going on, on the talk page, it would probably be ok to do this to the article itself, but a user sandbox might be better simply because some people are on edge about the whole episode redirection thing. Either way, go for it, definitely go for it. Even if you don't have a perfect product in the end, as long as you can show reasonable potential, that will go a long way towards some of those episodes getting articles again. -- Ned Scott 09:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it. I see far too many people complaining about episodes being redirected and too few actually doing something about it. --Maitch (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the article I have written in my user space, User:Jamie jca/Episode 210 (30 Rock). I feel I have covered all required information and I have included notable information. I think the plot section may need a rewrite but that isn't a problem (The plot is 197 words of a maximum 220). I will probably add the proposed Cultural References section at a later time, after I have rewatched the episode and noted any references down. A screenshot will also be added if it gets moved into an article so that it qualifies under fair use. -- Jamie jca (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not see anything in the article that establishes notability. You may want to hold off while discussions in WP:EPISODE are underway, or take a look at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes/Proposed Objective Criteria which is a list of proposed criteria for what makes an episode notable. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not bad, but a bit thin. I'd lose the TV Buddy references and find something better to source the production info, and lose the TV Buddy part in the reception section. I would keep hunting for sources regarding 30 Rock and the writers strike to fill it out some more. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just half way through making a few edits (Reception mostly). Also, I didn't use Buddy TV as a reference, I know a used (AOL owned) TV Squad. If that is what is being refared to, it is used a reference on one of the example articles, "Through the Looking Glass (Lost)", BuddyTV is also used on that page. I know you're not allowed to use "but it's used on another page" as an excuse, but that is a featured article which is listed as an example page in the wikiproject. Also, the lake of production details is due to the episode only aired on January 10 so, obviously, no DVD has been released with commentary and due to the strike, I doubt any crew/cast members will be that willing to conduct indepth interviews. -- Jamie jca (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tracked down some more references. Could anyone help me find some more please? -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, my mistake about the Squad/Buddy mix up. TV Squad's article says they use a core group of bloggers, instead of just letting anyone submit a review, so I guess that does make for a stronger argument to use it. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know how much is needed until this page can be moved? 17 references (15 outside of NBC) have been used with 6 reviews. -- Jamie jca (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Namespace default
I'm curious if there's any sort of consensus on what to do with the names of articles, to make them more consistent. See, for example, Entropy (Buffy episode) vs. I Do (Lost). Any thoughts? Nedlum (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be I Do (Lost) and not I Do (Lost episode) per naming conventions. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  04:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also spell out the series, to prevent any possible future conflicts as well, eg "Entropy (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)". --M ASEM 05:08, 30 January 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 06:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Episode articles in the notability backlog
Hello,

In the notability backlog, particularly that from June 2007, there are several articles (probably 100+) about TV episodes and characters, often containing not more than a plot summary. Some of these are assigned to WikiProjects, others are not. (I had already posted a notice regarding some of these articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television.)

The notability project is slowly approaching the June backlog, so we are wondering what to do with these articles. In view of the recent developments, we are not planning any unilateral action to cleanup these articles in masses. But are there any activities here at the TV project to improve or merge those episode articles in the near future? It would also be an option to postpone the cleanup work further until a general consensus has emerged, but of course postponing forever does not really solve any problems. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments welcome at Template talk:Episode list
At Template talk:Episode list there's an new discussion about a proposed new optional field for the template. Your comments are welcome. 68.165.76.170 (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC).

hCalendar microformat
Japanese episode list now emits an hCalendar microformat, as was already done by Episode list. These are only valid if the first-aired date is entered using Start date. There's an outstanding BOTREQuest to do this; but in the meantime, please bear it in mind as you edit or add episode lists. For more information, see the microformats project. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Completing The Spectacular Spider-Man episodes
The tv series The Spectacular Spider-Man has had a few episodes as articles but not all of the episodes are articles. It would be a relief if the rest of the episodes could be articles. I was thinking about it but I know it isn't going to be easy. It would be nice if a expert could do it ;) Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Code Monkeys - List of Episodes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Code_Monkeys_episodes

This website is missing information about half the first season, and the entire second season. Could someone fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.170.123 (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oliver Miller and AOL slaves
http://thefastertimes.com/news/2011/06/16/aol-hell-an-aol-content-slave-speaks-out/

Miller admits that his reviews weren't really based on watching full episodes but rather short clips, so his reviews can't be considered reliable sources anymore. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Captain Planet is a mess
List of Captain Planet episodes really needs works it just a mess. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute re episode list transclusion
For some time there has been discussion at Featured list candidates/List of Friends episodes/archive1 as well as Talk:List of Friends episodes regarding the transclusion of episode tables from season articles into the parent episode list articles. Whichever way this ends up could have widespread effect on the articles within the WikiProject's scope. For anybody who actually gives a hoot (noting that previous requests for input, thoughts and guidance [ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television and the slightly related Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television ] went ignored) and has some advice or thoughts about it, a content dispute resolution thread has now been opened on the matter at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 29. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 07:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Admin. assumptions RE:US Copyright issues cause Episode description deletions
There is a problem regarding the content at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Real_Housewives_of_New_Jersey_episodes

If it is the wholesale policy for this, I would like to see the reasoning for that. But first I would have to ask, "What is WikiPedia's reason for copyright policy?" My short answer for that would be so that Wikipedia content can be viewed, copied, and shared in a public domain way, meaning, no litigation, or legal problems would be expected to arise from the use and re-use of any material found on Wikipedia. Keep in mind here that the original reason given for deleting episode guide content was, "copyright". In my opinion, this is a very serious problem that affects ALL episode and television series. Is there anyone besides myself who thinks that using the network descriptions for television episodes IS within Wikipedia policy? If so, please respond here. There is an group of editors here with admin. privileges who support the deletion of this content mostly on the basis that it is "copyright" violation. I say that it is Non-Free use, or even public domain,(almost like the title of an episode) but since I am not admin. what I say means nothing around here. The episode descriptions that are being removed, are promotional content which was freely given to the media and elsewhere to be used in describing the television episodes.

HousewifeHater 20:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Housewifehader (talk • contribs) HousewifeHater 20:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Using the network descriptions/recaps of episodes is a copyright violation. We expect editors to craft their own non-interpretative summaries from the primary work to use for episode lists and pages. --M ASEM  (t) 20:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I always try to avoid network/production company descriptions even when other people don't. When I was working on the List of That Girl episodes I left a lot of descriptions blank, while I believe others may have swiped them from IMDb and other sources. I don't think whole lists should be elimiated because of all these copyvios, though. DanTD (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It most certainly is a copyright violation. I haven't read through all the policies and guidelines recently, but I'm pretty sure this was explicitly stated at one point. Jay32183 (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to DanTD, definitely it is the case that if the episode descriptions seem pulled from an external site, they should be removed, but the whole list shouldn't be removed because of that. --M ASEM  (t) 00:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you agree that the whole list shouldn't be removed. It seems most of the copyvios were made by User:Hardy1956. The main issue now is how we're going to do a total rewrite. DanTD (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Game of Thrones episode Oathkeeper
There's an RS RfC on the Game of Thrones episode Oathkeeper talk page. It's about the use of a blog source to provide a backing for listing the chapters of the book upon which the episode was based. Participation (and fresh voices) would be welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of The Land of Gorch for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Land of Gorch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Andromeda episodes
Hello, my english is not very good...I think there are mistakes in the List of Andromeda episodes. The air dates of the episodes 2.10-2.22 are wrong, I think. tv.com lists earlier air dates-->http://www.tv.com/shows/andromeda/episodes/. Is this a mistake by wikipedia or by tv.com? In the trird Season, from episode 3.01 to 3.06, there are earlier air-dates in wikipedia than in tv.com. Why is this? Greetings.--Eddgel (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Being Human (UK series 4)
Dear television episode experts: This old draft was never submitted to be added to the encyclopedia. There appears to be an article for series 5. Should this page be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sisters at Heart
I have initiated a featured article candidacy for "Sisters at Heart", an article about a television episode. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide at the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyvios
It is starting to look like a large number of the episodes for Seinfeld have plots copied from seinfeld-episodes.com. Before I practically blank most of the episode articles, can someone confirm that this is what's happened? -&copy;2016 Compassionate727( Talk )( Contributions ) 20:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the copying was the other way around. After looking it up on archive.org, it appears that seinfeld-episodes.com in its current form didn't come online until 2013.  I sampled a couple of Wikipedia's episode articles and in both cases their plot summaries were already in place years beforehand.  --SubSeven (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise for peer review
I've listed The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise for peer review.

Comments would be appreciated, at Peer review/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

House MD
Have the House episode articles ever been subject of this project? It seems that at some point at least a plot summary existed for all episodes. A few with content issues have been redirected, a few haven't. The articles for newer episodes seem to have more additional input besides the plot summary. Anyhow I get the feeling that their notability has never been put to test.


 * (I personally don't want to redirect any of them, I even access the deleted plot summarys :), but I understand that WP is actually not the place for them.)

Additionally the use of the links to the episode articles has to be reworked, as often the links to redirected episodes haven't been removed, e.g. the list page sometimes link-redirects to itself... --Murata (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The X-Files
Greetings.

Given the signifcance of the X-Files, I'm approaching this with appropriate reverence and caution...!

One of the UK TV channels is airing all X-Files episodes, so I'm enjoying a journey down memory. At the same time, I've been looking at the X-Files episode pages on Wikipedia and have found the occasional error which I'd like to correct. However, when I attempted this for another TV series, all my edits were backed-out by someone requesting 'appropriate citation', and I never received any reply to my explanation.

So I'm posting notice here that I would *like* to make some changes to X-Files episode pages, here and there, but I don't want to waste my time if they're all going to be backed-out again. Anybody with access to the episodes themselves will be able to verify the accuracy of the edits I'll be suggesting. I'd be starting with S1 E19, which incidentally is quite a major edit as the account of the episode climax is inaccurate.

If anyone can suggest somewhere better for me to post this 'alert' then I'll happily do so - I don't know my way around Wikipedia that well.

Thank you. roddr (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King? - featured article candidate
I've nominated the article about the episode "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" for Featured Article consideration. The article is about about an episode from the American television medical drama Private Practice that received critical acclaim and attention for its representation of rape.

Comments would be appreciated, at Featured article candidates/Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Brave Witches
Hi. There seems to be some issues regarding wording issues in the episode summaries and lead section on List of Brave Witches episodes, which I intend to take as FL in the future. These can be found at Talk:List of Brave Witches episodes and Talk:List of Brave Witches episodes (the lead section discussion is in that particular thread). Comments from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice about adminship to participants at this project
Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:


 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Mother's Day (Rugrats) - featured article candidate
I've nominated the article about the episode "Mother's Day" (Rugrats) for Featured Article consideration. This article is on the Mother’s Day special from the animated television series Rugrats, which aired on May 6, 1997. Comments would be appreciated, at Featured article candidates/Mother's Day (Rugrats)/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Looking for Now" (Looking television episode)
"Looking for Now" has been nominated for deletion, if project members want to contribute to the ongoing discussion and/or help expand the article. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

migrate episode data and references to wikidata
Is it OK to migrate data and references for each episode to wikidata, for example, migrating each episode data from List of One Piece episodes (season 1) to One Piece episode 1, 2, 3, and so in wikidata? This will make it be harder to monitor or watch the changes? As the episode list data will be broken into many items/pages in wikidata. --Ans (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of Extreme Spots
Extreme Spots, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Parks and Recreation (season 1) Featured Article Review
FAR coordinator User:Casliber has nominated Parks and Recreation (season 1) for a featured article review here. This is a procedural review of its FA status due to the discovery of socking at its original FAC. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. The instructions for the review process are here. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Redirects
Should redirects for the title of every episode of a series by created and placed in the category for those shows' episodes? For example, that was done for New Girl with articles for only a couple episodes but a redirect for all the others, as seen in Category:New Girl episodes. Even for shows that have redirects for some episodes, I usually see them placed in a "Foo episodes redirects to lists" category rather than "Foo episodes" category directly. Thanks. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 23:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_American_Dad!_episodes
Hi

I did a bit of work on redefining the refs since the search-engine has been changed.

Does anyone have the time to fix the rest of the refs in that list?

I tried to think of an easy way to "replace" or similar, but need to get on with other stuff today ... Chaosdruid (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Should television episode article titles default to official names over the common name?
WT:TV czar  01:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Television episodes in multiple parts has been nominated for deletion
Category:Television episodes in multiple parts, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, along with 2 of its sub-categories. .A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Job Switching (I Love Lucy)
This page uses the episode "Job Switching" from I Love Lucy as an example of a top-importance episode, but it's a red link. I can't find the page Job Switching on the wiki, nor in AFD. Does this page need to be (re?)created, or should a different episode take it's place as an example? The Only Zac (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)