Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

FAR for Cheers

I have nominated Cheers for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritzpoll (talk • contribs) 08:12, March 10, 2009

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:45, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Charmed mergers

see Talk:List of Charmed episodes#Charmed (season_5)_and_Charmed_(season_6). -- User:Docu

List of Desperate Housewives episodes nominated at FLRC

I have nominated List of Desperate Housewives episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Navigation boxes

(redact in italics) During a recent discussion (see here), it was suggested that we should talk about the inclusion of actors in the TV series navigation boxes at the bottom of TV show articles across the entire WikiProject. First, there is a clear inconsistency in the inclusion of actors in a nav box.
Have it:
{{House}}, {{CSI: Crime Scene Investigation}}, {{30 Rock}}, {{Friends}}, {{Family Guy}}
Don't Have it:
{{OCnavigation}}, {{The Simpsons}}, {{LostNav}}, {{Buffynav}}
Second, the question becomes should they even be there in the first place? With a quick inspection, you'll note that for just about every actor listed there is also an article for their character. Thus, it becomes a little redundant to include a link to both the character's article and the actor's article when one link will easily suffice. A lot of TV series also have character lists, that have everyone listed. Then you have something like {{The Simpsons}}, which doesn't list the cast, or any individual that works on the show, but provides a link to a page that lists them all (which is probably a better option). The question then becomes, what is the stopping point? {{Firefly}} lists casts and crew, then again, so does the main page for that show. Why don't we list the music composer(s), band that provides the theme music to a show, or the co-producers, the directors of the episodes, or the writers? So, should these types of things be included, and if so/not should we make note of this at WP:MOSTV?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I find that it becomes hard to pick and choose which actors should be included and it also seems a bit unnecessary when, like you said, they are linked from the character articles. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Even though I do not use them often, I view navigation boxes as very helpful...when it comes to moving from one character article to the next. But I am not seeing why we should link to both the character's article and the actor's article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Flyer22. If someone wanted to know about a certain actor from the series, they would probably go to the article about the character first. The immediate navigation makes more sense. BOVINEBOY2008 22:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So where are we on this?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to suggest including only characters when such articles exist, but when only a list of characters page exists, and no individual character articles, I don't see why putting top-billed actors' names hurts anything. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They're already listed on the character list page, and the main page for the series. Given that those pages would have more information regarding their characters than the actors page, it would seem more logical to send them to the information then away from it. Templates that are just for actors in a series typically get deleted, because there is not a reason to put this template on each of their pages because of some indirect connection. It would seem like we are trying to side step that consensus by including them in a larger template that probably doesn't belong on the actor's page either (otherwise, you'd have to include a template for everything they ever starred in and with some actors that would be quite a lot). So, what would the point of including them in the template be, if the template itself really wouldn't have a home on each actor's page? If you clicked on Actor A, you'd have to backtrack till you got to a page with the template just to click on Actor D.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care either way, but I'm not sure it's something we need a rule on. It doesn't cause problems like an "age" field in a character infobox (I don't think). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it kind of does cause problems, just not of the in-universe variety. Like I said, if these types of templates are not allowed on their own (because linking actors on other actors pages because of a loose association isn't something that is apparently accepted given the deletion of that actors template), then circumventing the consensus is a problem. I mean, if we cannot put the templates on the actor pages, then the section serves no actual purpose - and given that we just deleted this template it begs the assume that a more generalized template wouldn't be accepted on the actor pages either. Thus, it's probably something we should note if editors are going to start taking these actor templates to TfD (which i think is already done), because people are going to be like, "where else can we put the names". But if the names are basically going to serve no purpose, because the template itself won't be allowed on actor pages, then we should probably say "Actors should not be listed in a TV series nav box, for this reason...."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're not going to put that kind of template on the actors pages. If templates should only include articles that can have the template, then remove the actors. But, is that a rule, that templates should only link to pages that include them? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If the template is a navigation box, then yes, they should be. That is the whole point of navigation boxes, to provide quick navigation between articles of similar subjects. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the point of this discussion. We had a template that was just for the actors, but that consensus there was that there was only a loose association between the actors and as such there shouldn't be a template on their pages (I challenge the "consensus" to merge to the Smallville template because only two people actually suggested it in the first place). The question is, if the consensus at TfD is that we shouldn't have the actor box then it would seem like we are sneaking around that concept by including them in a TV series box. The reason being, say we have an actor who starred in 3 or 4 TV series, and in several films. If we say that actors should be listed on the TV series box, and have the box in their article then you're talking about bombarding an article with multiple nav boxes - most of which are not necessary. Navs are for linking similar subjects, not actors that worked on the same show. If I'm on William Peterson's page, there shouldn't be a nav box pointing me to Lawrence Fishburne's page, simply because the two worked on CSI. They have no real connection to each other beyond simply appearing on the same TV show together. Their careers are not actually connected. Otherwise, it opens the door to other things. If I need to know what actor was in a show, then I should know what directors have worked on a show and who the writing staff is that writes the episodes (since most shows that go behind two seasons have a standard writing staff). These people are just as important as the actors.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are we talking about a navbox on Gil Grissom linking to Fishburne, or a navbox on William Petersen linking to Fishburne? The latter obviously just won't work. The former may be OK, or it may be frowned upon per BOVINEBOY above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nav on Peterson to Fishburne. Recently, the nav boxes that did this were deleted. My assumption here is, if they were deleted then putting the actors on a generalized template (i.e. one for the show), and then putting the template on the actors' pages would be both circumventing the decision to delete the nav box dedicated solely to the actors and provide an irrelevant nav box to a page that has a loose association to the topic. Peterson was on CSI, this is true and that's a connection. But his career and bio is not connected in anyway to Lawrence Fishburne, who took over CSI after he left. As such, a TV template on the actors page would be both unnecessary, and probably unwanted by the same people that think a nav box just for the actors is unwanted.

On the other hand, let's say that we want that connection, no matter how small to be on his page, so we put the nav box there. Then any TV show they starred in would be listed at the bottom of their page. For some of these long term TV career actors that can be quite a few shows. Or it could extend into the film. I've already seen a few actor pages that have film nav boxes that lists the entire cast of the film. If we did that for every film, we'd have dozens of nav boxes on actor pages.

My opinion is that the actors are all listed on the main page of their shows, and if there is a character list/article they will be listed there as well. Given that those items are mandatory on a nav box, the actors are thus covered enough and don't need a dozen nav boxes all vaguely related to their overall careers covering their pages. If we think that the nav boxes for a TV show don't really belong on the actor's page, then there is no real reason to have them in the nav box given that you can find their names are probably any other related page to the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been over a week. Where exactly do we sit on this?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't ever put show navboxes on actor pages, IMHO. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Which would lead back to the "actors probably shouldn't be on the show nav boxes to begin with" theory.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, where I stand on that is that I have no strong feelings. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. I'm merely pointing out the logical turn. I agree, that show navs have no place on individual actor pages, as such there isn't a reason to have the actors on the navs since the actors really shouldn't have the box on their pages. If there is no reason to navigate to Actor Y from Actor Z's page, because their connection is miniscule, then listing them outright has no real utility.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just 2¢ from the peanut gallery... but looking at the above it seems that:

• Consensus at TfD is "No" for actor only navboxes. It sounds like the "loose/tenuous" connection was used but it's also a form of clutter avoidance.
• Merging the actors into the series 'box is side-stepping the consensus since it doesn't address the core issues. Worse, it can create a usability issue within the navbox, especially if producers, directors, writers, etc start creeping in.
• Looking at WP:NAV, the idea of "one way" links - either the 'box taking you to an article that doesn't have the 'box or the 'box being placed on an article that isn't within the 'box - is contrary to the purposes of the navbox.

Bottom line, it seems a good step to add a line to the TVMoS section on navboxes that highlights what shouldn't be there - at the least the actors - and a link to WP:NAV.

Side question though... has this been brought up at WP:FILM? It sounds like something that just as likely happens there. - J Greb (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been brought up to my knowledge, at least not lately. I've seen production people (actors, directors, etc.) creep into film nav boxes every once in a while, but it's usually on newly created nav boxes and often get removed when the box starts appearing in more pages. Sometimes they're there for awhile, and I know WP:MOSFILMS doesn't address it. If it's the consensus, then I'm all for adding a note about nav boxes to the WP:MOSTV page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So, should we make a note on WP:MOSTV with regard to TV nav boxes? If so, how should we word it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say "yes". - J Greb (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume we can put it under "WP:MOSTV#Navbox". Here is a basic write-up, which we can adjust because I'm still not sure what we're all in agreement with exactly.

The standard navbox for television articles is the {{Navbox}} template. See the template's article for instructions on creating a navbox. When deciding what articles to include in your navigation box, it is best to begin with the primary article and expand out to the articles most relevant to the subject. For example, a template for The Simpsons would begin with its main article, then include any episode related articles, followed by any character related articles, so forth and so on. While a navigation box might include a page for the List of writers of The Simpsons, it would not include a link to every writers individual page. The same is true for other production staff, which include directors, producers, or actors. Given that such a navigation box would not be relevant to these individuals' articles, they should not typically be included as the navigation box would provide a one-way link to the article.

This is just a rough draft, and we can tweak it accordingly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand about this discussion is how these argument relate to, say, awards navboxes or office navboxes. People on them can be centuries apart. Holding the same academic office (in 19th and 21st centuries) or receiving the same award (in 1901 and 2008) seems to be a much looser connection than starring in the same series.
Navboxes exist to make browsing through articles, related to a particular subject, easier. Reading about the cast's background, or looking for more series starring them, is what I do very often, and navboxes do help.
Now, I understand there is a problem of deciding who is to be on the navbox. But then, it's no different to diving the characters into main and minor, and this is done all the time. Just a question of consensus.
Primaler (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, speaking of "if we place a navbox on every series to the actors pages, for some actors the navboxes would be way too many" argument. For some reason, this doesn't seem to bother anyone in case of Winston Churchill. "Political offices" are two screens long! No actor will have half as many collapsed navboxes. But even if he did, I can't see the problem; filmography in the very same article would be twice as long. Navboxes are in the end of the article, anyway. Primaler (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FLRC delegate election

Hi everyone! I'm just dropping by to let you know of the FLRC delegate election that begins on Tuesday. Being that this project is pretty active in the FLC/FLRC process, it was suggested that some editors here may wish to run in this election, or at least vote in it (voting starts on Tuesday). You may run in the election by following the instructions on the page. If you don't wish to run, please come and vote sometime next week! The election starts Tuesday and ends Saturday. For more information, check out the opening section of the page. Cheers, iMatthew ^talk at 22:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Season ratings

Anyone know where I can find refs for Supernatural_(TV_series)#Ratings? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is season 1, season 3, and season 4. The season 2 link I had is a register link, but I think if you backtrack on the ABC Medianet to that time frame for season 2 you should find it there as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks a lot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I hope they help.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what the "NO/OF VIEWR VIEWR RANK | T/C 2+ 2+" stuff means here? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first column, but the second column is number of viewers (000), so 28820 corresponds to 28,820,000 or 28.82 million viewers. And the third column is the rating which represents the percentage of all television households tuned into a program. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but I'm sure it's irrelevant to the article. It's probably something that we'd have to spend time explaining beforehand. It's one of the reasons why I just stick with those basic viewership numbers, otherwise you have to explain what 25/39 means and all that other stuff. Most of it is over my head, let alone probably over the average readers' understanding. For Supernatural, it's the middle column and the ranking that's really important. So, for season 1, it's the 2.74 million.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out what all the info means, and 2+ means viewers 2 years old and older. It's usually not mentioned, I guess. I can't figure out the T/C number, but it doesn't seem important. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Three TfDs

Template:Infobox Hercaverse and Xenaverse character, Template:Infobox He-Man/She-Ra character, and the newly created Template:Infobox fictional artifact have been nominated for deletion. As all three are most heavily employed on Television-related articles, giving project notification. Discussion on all three at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 13. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What counts as a character?

I'm currently working on the article Supernatural (TV series), and I trying to weed out the recurring elements section. One of them is about the car used on the series, and my question is whether the car can be counted as a character? Many fans consider it to be the third character of the series (and I have found some sources on that), so is it acceptable to include it on a list of characters page? Ophois (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't include the car in a "list of characters" page or section, but if there are reliable sources about the car it then it should be noted, either in one of the brothers' section, or the dad's section given that I believe it was his car first. The car is clearly an important element to the show, but it's not a "character". KITT from Knight Rider would be a character, and unless the Impala is something along those lines, then it's not a real character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it's Deans car. Put the stuff in his article or section. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 02:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Request opinions

I'm requesting additional opinions over at Talk:Chloe Sullivan#Chloe's Middle Name, where another editor and myself are in disagreement over the inclusion of this fictional character's middle name. The other editor is over the opinion that the middle name is important in adding realistic qualities to the character, while I believe that it's a trivial piece of information (mainly because it was only ever mentioned once, in season seven).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

RabbitEars article under developement

Just to let everyone here know, I've been developing an article about RabbitEars (and the [http:\\www.rabbitears.info website]) at User:TripEricson/READS Ranks all morning. Additional input and collaboration would be appreciated.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

International broadcasting section?

Is there any sort of guideline as to whether or not articles should have a section about international release? In looking at the FA-class articles, it seems that there is no set rule. The Lost series article has pretty much nothing, and the individual seasons have information on when they premiered in the US and Canada. And List of Firefly episodes has a really gross list on the bottom that needs to be cleaned up. I'm only asking because we started a discussion on Talk:Dollhouse (TV series) about it, and getting a little more consensus would be helpful. So has this ever been discussed elsewhere? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's been discussed or not, but generally it's a matter of whether the info is available and what kind of info it is. To be honest, we don't need a list of international television channels for which a show airs on. It would become an indiscriminate list. That said, if there is something special about its airing somewhere, then that should be noted. But, I don't think that just listing all of the places it airs is very helpful. Even WP:FILM limits film articles to just major releases in major-English speaking countries (even that's just a simple listing in the infobox itself). IMO, unless we have prose information about what a show does in other countries, I don't believe it is necessary (or really holds much value) to just list channels it appears on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured as such. The argument given over there was "I find it useful," which violates WP:NOT. But I agree with the indiscriminate list thing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox practices.

Okay, so I was told to come here to bring something up. I will, before an edit war escalates. On The Cleveland Show we seem to be having a problem. It seems the Template:Infobox Television page says for number of seasons and episodes to, and I quote:

“ The number of seasons (non-UK) or series (UK) produced. ”

And, for the number aired it specifically states, and I quote:

“ The number of episodes produced (a reliable source is required if greater than the number aired). ”

Now, please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I see nothing that states these "rules" are only for inclusion on shows that have not aired all of their episodes such as Firefly (TV series). Perhaps I am over-looking something, but, according to what is stated, if, in the case of TCS, there are two seasons with a total of 35 produced episodes, we should be able to include them. We have sources, I personally don't see the problem. --HELLØ ŦHERE 16:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the case of TCS, this isn't an instance where a show was produced and the studio didn't broadcast all of the episodes. This is a case of where the show just hasn't premiered yet. As such, the rule we typically follow is the "update when it happens". Meaning, when season 1 premieres you'll put "1" for "Season" and 1 for "Episodes". Also, that source you have says that the studio plans to produce a total of 35 episodes, not that they already have. We certainly wouldn't put numbers up for proposed episodes that haven't even been produced yet (let alone aired on TV).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

But obviously the source is a little older, the show begins airing in less then a week. There are already three episodes scheduled to air. And if it is confirmed by a reliable source, I do not understand why it can't be added. And if not, then I personally feel the infobox template should be changed to such. We have confirmation of 2 seasons and 35 episodes (for now). Obviously if things change we can fix it then, but why (re)move reliably sourced content? --HELLØ ŦHERE 16:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And actually, to play "Devil's Advocate" for a moment, we shouldn't include any 'upcoming' episode details for shows then, if we're going to go by the 'wait when it happens' approach. Believe me, I hate when other and new editors come in and say things like that. It upsets me as that's too general and not how things should be done on Wikipedia. But, I personally feel, that to add the episodes and seasons, is not a violation. Even WP:CRYSTAL states in their first rule:

“ Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. ”

Now, granted, this isn't as important as the Olympics or anything, but if they've ordered two seasons before the first episode even airs, to me, thats "almost certain to take place". Just my personal feelings. --HELLØ ŦHERE 16:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We usually just go by what's been aired. It's a more useful number to our readers. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

2¢ - The refes that are currently in the article are of the "Fox has ordered..." type. There is no statement that in them as to the exact number of episode MacFarlane's company has completed to date. "Produced" is a pretty specific word, otherwise it would be "number of seasons/serials ordered" and "number of episodes ordered". Even that would have problems as per King of the Hill where the production company made additional, unordered, episodes on spec.

As for CBing... the information is included within the article in the tone of what Fox ordered. Having little or no information from MacFarlane makes it hard to know if the initial 13 episodes are in the can, much less the 9 to round out the "1st seasons" or the 13 for the "2nd". Wanting to use what is currently there to place it in the infobox is a bit of CBing and a bit of WP:SYNTH. - J Greb (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in Phineas and Ferb

This article is heavily in need of help. Not only is it un-sourced and messy, but people keep editing things that need to be reverted immediately such as:

• Break templates by messing with something
• Link to "Main article" but they just redirect back to the same section.
• Change the characters age. (I have no idea what their real age is, so I dont know who to revert.)

It would help if your project would watch this page. It had no project boxes on the talkpage, so I added them as Start-class and low-importance. Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You might tell User:SuperFlash101. They work on PnF articles a lot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

He-man and She-Ra mergers

I dunno if this is the right forum since it has been a cartoon but I believe Princess Adora and She-Ra should be merged the same with He-Man and Prince Adam its like Bruce Wayne and Batman having separate articles even though they are the same person.

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Clark Kent and Superman have separate pages. That said, I doubt that She-Ra/Princess Adora and He-Man/Prince Adam have such notability within their individual personas that they require separate articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, they do not need separate articles at all. Same character, just one is an alter ego. I'd merge She-Ra to Princess Adora and He-Man to Prince Adam. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If these mergers do take place Prince Adam's references seems to dead and or he-man.org links Dwanyewest (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

yeah, all of them need some serious cleaning. I tried once to work with some of them, but got fed-up. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would merge the prince and princess articles to the He and She articles, and not the other way around. Those are more common names. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree on that direction of merge.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, the actual merge discussion is here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I acutally thought from the topic title that you wanted to merge She-Ra into He-man apart form the crossover I would have found it hard to understand merging like that. But now i read the comment I understand and I agree merge the characters into the show :)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Mattycollector.com considered a good source of information?

I really feel alot of the characters in Masters of the Universe need a major overhaul such as Stratos ,He-Ro and many others should allowing myself to use Mattycollector.com be permissable as a credible source of information. [4] [5]

Dwanyewest (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What is your intention on using the source? Are you using it to cite that an action figure exists, or are you using it to cite something else? In general, it's probably ok as a verification tool that an action figure exists, but not much more.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I would say its RS only for the existence of the figures as a retailer, but that's about it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Overenthusiastic editor vowing to revert any edits to a TV page

Seems a Wikipedian is abit too overenthusiastic about Conan O'Brien and information about his show. How should this "situation" be handled? I'm kinda at a loss if this is a joke or serious.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Take him at face value, Point him to WP:OWN and WP:MOS-TV (and no, every Sketch should not be be listed - per WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE. (and its Just Plain Silly). Looking at the list further, I'd honestly say it should go to AfD. I can't see any notability value in that list, and any sourced bits can go to the main article if they are actually relevant. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Last AfD was in May 2008.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

First season production vs TV series Production

I've been reviewing some Season one lists recently like Desperate Housewives (season 1) and Supernatural (season 1) and it has come to my attention the difficulty of the distinction between a Season production and a TV series production, since a season is part of a TV series. How should this be handled? For example, should Supernatural (season 1) include all the information in Supernatural_(TV_series)#Production since it's mostly about the first season and the conception of the first season of the TV series?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't WT:TV be a better place to ask this? I'm sure some editors here could help, but discussion should take place there. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Diaa, in theory there will probably be some overlay between a season (or even episode) production and the main series production. That said, each page should not be a mirror of the other. For example (and I know this is a season "article" and not a "list", but the idea is the same), Smallville (season 1) shares some info with Pilot (Smallville), Tempest (Smallville), and Smallville. But, if you look, the bulk is on the season page, and what is specific to the series as a whole is on the main page, and what is specific to the pilot and the season 1 finale are on those respective pages alone. You have to read the info and see if it is pertaining more to the show as a whole, or just that specific season. Based on what I see at Supernatural, I think think "season" production section is being fluffed with production info that encompasses the show as a whole. As such, it should probably be cut where necessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to do a destinction actually. Applying to Supernatural_(TV_series)#Production, conception and creation deals with the first season and the Series as a whole. Should this be summarized and moved to the season article/list? The second paragraph of Mythology is only about the first season is this supposed to be moved over there? Everything between Writing and Mythology is about the First season and the Series as a whole. Should this also be moved over there? This is a big issue of Pilots-Seasons-TV Shows and some guideline or How to should exist....--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We have WP:MOSTV, but it doesn't get that specific, because it isn't supposed to. The suggestion would be that that the main page probably needs some major reworking. Anything that's overly specific to just one season should be moved to that season page. If it's something that is really just a series long thing, then it should be on the main page. It may take some time to reorganize the information to the relevant pages/sections. For instance, the entire first paragraph in the production section of the season page should probably be move (or removed) to the main page for the series. Unless these people change every season, this is information that should be on the main. It shouldn't be repeated on every single season page. The last paragraph is original research (personal observation by an editor) and should be removed. Everything else seems fine where it is. If the main page duplicates those middle paragraphs, then they need to be either trimmed down in detail on the main page, or removed altogether.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So if something influences the whole TV series it should only be in the main page and something that is only specific to the season should only be in the season. Like the change from self enclosed to normal episodes in the season. Such information should be in both right...? This is very hard... I'll see what I can do... Thanks--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Use your best judgment, and I'm sure you'll clean it up nicely. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

IMDB in external links

more than once I've seen links to the IMDB profiles of shows and actors deleted with explanations like this:
>> imdb is classed as unrealible see many dicussion at wp:rs archive
on the other hand, imdb links still are on hundreds of thousands of pages
{{imdb}} is not deprecated, nor are there any warnings about its use
I can't find any definite consensus or policy on the subject
so can I add imdb profiles or can't I? any links would be highly appreciated
Primaler (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are any links of the sort, but IMDb has only been denied as a source, not as an external link. It is widely accepted that IMDb generally offers a wide array of information that you would not normally find on Wikipedia. As such, it is acceptable to place it in the EL section of articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, look what I've found: WP:WikiProject_Television/Style_guidelines#External links
quote: "Links to the Official Website, TV.com, or IMDb profile pages should go in the infobox and this section of the article"
Case solved.
Primaler (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No... the sited section does not mention infoboxes, just that "Links to the Official Website, TV.com, or IMDb profile pages should go in the external links section of the article."

And IIRC, TV.com IMDb were specifically pulled out of the infobox templates as inappropriate to be included any where but the EL section of the article. - J Greb (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It has just been edited out by Bignole. Primaler (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because, if you look at the "Infobox" section we left a message awhile ago that IMDb was deprecated from the infobox. The EL section was just not updated. Either way, they are still acceptable in the EL section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I accept that imbd should maybe used for actors etc but there tv informaiton is very poor and tv.com well it even worse, so if sometihng is different here to tv.com peopel will say that it should be the same so why list them at all? i was told because there unrealible as source they should not be used as external links--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

They carry information we don't. For one, we don't carry a list of all the producers, editors, sound editors, etc. Why, because it's trivial to the type of info we do talk about. Regardless, to be comprehensive we link to a place that does list all of those places. Second, we also don't list have Dick, Jane, and Sally that appears on a show--not even in a character list--because one time, or stand-in appearances are rather irrelevant to Wikipedia. IMDb does that. The purpose of linking it is because it's an external source that provides details on things that would not be appropriate to include on Wikipedia. The data that we have no problem including is stuff that we trust Wikipedia to be reliable on (i.e. it's the stuff that isn't user submitted).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Immediate requests	Entries
IMDb in infobox	0
TV.com in infobox	0

On the subject of IMDb and TV.com being removed from the infobox, has enough time passed for these categories to be removed from the template once they have been depopulated (see right). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I would go ahead and say that enough time has passed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, what if the IMDb link for a particular series doesn't have a comprehensive listing of "minor" production staff and even includes inaccurate information? Should we be sending people there for further information that we know to be wrong? Bradley0110 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What "inaccurate" information are we talking about, and what TV series are we talking about? If you can include evidence of why it would not be helpful to include it on Show X, then don't include it in the EL section of Show X. Simple as that. There is no guideline anywhere that will fit every article to a T. It just doesn't work that way. Sometimes a source works well from one standpoint and not well from another (e.g., there are websites that have paid staff that write reviews of TV episodes, but the website itself uses unreliable reporting when it comes to their news coverage thus, as you might use their staff to expand a "Reception" section, the news they report is feed through scoopers and rumors and as such could not be cited in an article). My suggestion is review the pages in the EL section, as per WP:EL, and determine if they actually provide anything we don't. If they do, then keep them. If they don't, then remove them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please make article structure consistent in episode lists

According to MOS:TV, the list of episodes should come before information about the release, production, reception etc. In practice however, most TV lists, even featured ones, have this order switched around. Can we make this consistent by a) fixing the lists or b) changing MOS:TV? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to the specific section? I'm not seeing that anywhere in the MoS, as the episode lists don't have release, production, etc except a few of the season lists with a lot of real-world info? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The article structure section, which points the plot (could be list of episodes) before the other body paragraphs. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Supernatural (season 1)/archive1 for a discussion about this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, for the main television series article, and for individual episode articles, as per all the GA/FA articles. I don't think that needs to be switched because of the episode lists, which is a different animal and shouldn't really be referring to that part at all. The opening sentence and header of that needs correcting, as ep lists and season lists should be using the "List of ..." structure section. If needed, the latter section should be expanded to note that information order for optional sections. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of what needs to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the season lists need to be changed. As I stated in the discussion about Supernatural, it makes no sense for the plot information to come last. Plot is supposed to provide context for the real world commentary, and if it comes last it cannot do that. Most real world commentary will discuss an episode, but if you don't have any idea what happens in said episode then you have no context. You can still choose to skip the plot section if you wish, but organizationally it makes sense for that to come first. Plus, these are lists about the episodes (whether it's a List of episodes or a season page, it's about the episodes) and as such, your primary subject should be explained immediately.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, we may just want to put some concrete language in about the order of sections for the MOS. That way there isn't any confusion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Heat

The article about Tropical Heat devotes an insanely amount of space to the show's purported popularity in Serbia, but doesn't offer any actual content on the show itself. That, and the comic scan might be a copyvio.--87.164.63.104 (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Masters of the Universe needs a major over haul

I feel that the whole Masters of the Universe articles need redoing for an example I asked earlier if Mattycollector.com was a legitimate resource for references but if it is not considered legitimate maybe it should be removed as it being used on the main article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_the_Universe#Masters_of_the_Universe_Classics_2008-. Also the other problem I have is I feel there are too many article relating to Masters of the Universe with no verification of its information and lots of original research the other articles like Keldor have dead articles from He-man.org and my final point I feel Masters of the Universe should have a wikiproject like GI Joe WikiProject G.I. Joe its just as important as GI Joe or should it be moved to Media Franchises.

Dwanyewest (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I forgot I feel some character articles should deleted for lack of information and lack verification of importance such as Optikk and Karatti and a few others.

Dwanyewest (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Galaxy Rangers needs sorting out

The whole article needs sorting out but my main concern is List of characters in The Adventures of the Galaxy Rangers and I believe that Zachary Foxx , Niko and Walter "Doc" Hartford should be merged.

And my final bugbear is Supertroopers (The Adventures of the Galaxy Rangers) 3 years and not being sorted I feel this should be merged too.

Dwanyewest (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the criteria for TV character articles

What is the criteria for TV character articles getting their own article the reason I ask this is there seems to be a glut of poorly written and ill defined character articles such as Lizorr and Kayo (He-Man).

Dwanyewest (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's contested what the criteria is. Look at WP:NOTE for one of the most common criteria. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

See the WP:GNG. All articles most assert notability, and that's defined by the GNG on even the most basic level. If you satisfy that then the article is generally fine (unless it's agreed upon in a talk page discussion to merge it somewhere else - that's a different discussion).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

A recent comment at an FAC got me to thinking that we should probably create a section at WP:MOSTV that lists reliable sources that can be used for articles. Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches, we'd have to be able to explain why the source meets the criteria and in what capacity. Meaning, a website might be reliable enough to provide critical reception, but not reliable enough for general production information because of how it ascertains its news. Or, a website might generally be considered unreliable, unless it can be determined that the source conducted their own first hand interview, and that was where the information came from. I think working to craft this section in the MOS might help us all in future FACs so that we can easily justify any challenged references.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea. Films and anime/manga both have similar lists (along with "resource libraries" to see which members have some offline resources). As an editor, I've found them immensely useful, not only for confirming a source is reliable, but for finding more to search. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the first thing we should do is probably just start searching and listing out all the common sources we see in TV articles. After we create our list, then we can start to go through one-by-one to see if we can find sources that support some form of reliability/notability of the ones we're trying to use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Count me in. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Put a link here. I'd like to watchlist it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Should we just stick it in someone's sandbox (User:Bignole/Reliable sources) until it's finished?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not just create a project subpage? I don't think it's controversial, is it? On the other hand, if you're about to go to town, and want to do it in your userspace, go for it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It makes no nevermind to me. I just don't know how long it will take (I can't do it all myself, because frankly I don't work on enough TV-related pages to have a good enough idea of what sources are typically used--whether they are reliable or not).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(redent) This may need to be deleted, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone should watchlist it. I've broken the list into 3 categoes--"Supposedly reliable", "Supposedly unreliable" and "Final outcome"--I've always added a general discussion section where we can talk about their sources in general. For the "Final Outcome" I've copied the table used by the Film community so that we can update it with sources that we've deemed to be reliable based on the evidence we find. We can restructure the table later to include links to the evidence so that it'll always be present if questioned.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Should we have the discussion on the page or move it to the talk page? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Makes no difference. If the subpage stays then we can move it all to the talk page as an archive. If it doesn't, then really the main page is the talk page in some respects because we'd just end up moving everything anyway. If you feel more comfortable having it on the literal "talk" page then that's cool.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reunion?

I cant find any article about reunion shows. I was watching curb and wanted to know more about them, and what shows have done them. But I couldn't find any article on wikipedia on it. Is it hidden somewhere? Or is it not there at all? Don't you think there should be one?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Dynasty: The Reunion - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a reunion. I'm looking for reunion shows in general.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have one. If you can do some research and find good sources, I think we should have an article on the phenomenon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

I have requested a list of popular pages for this project at [6]. --78.111.169.38 (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)