Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject iconTelevision Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Early international release

Star Trek: Prodigy (season 2) is expected to be released in most countries on Netflix later this year, but the whole thing has just been surprise dropped on france.tv. This is clearly worth mentioning in the article, but what do we usually do with the lead and episode table in this situation? Should we use the French release date instead of the future US date, or wait for the US details and just make a note of the early French release? If we do use the French release date, should the series overview table include france.tv as the "network"? Any thoughts on this are greatly appreciated. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that we should wait until the US details are released first, and then make a note of the france.tv early release somewhere in the article. But then again, I'm not too certain myself. Lotsw73 (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV show season article titles issues

I want a new discussion for a solution regarding TV show season article titles that are currently have without special characters. Only have space on the title of those articles is not an improvement, it's a nuisance. Having special characters on those titles help with the consistency in some of the TV show titles and having that removed causes an issue. For example, "Chicago P.D. season 2". At the end, that show as a period on "P.D." and having that space does not help. Having special characters would help that. So I want to offer this:

The options are:

Options
No. Description Example A Example B Example C
1 Parentheses after series name The Simpsons (season 8) Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series, season 10) Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series, season 3)
2 Comma after series name The Simpsons, season 8 Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series), season 10 Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series), season 3
3 Colon after series name The Simpsons: season 8 Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series): season 10 Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series): season 3
4 Dash after series name The Simpsons – season 8 Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) – season 10 Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series) – season 3

There should a discussion about it to have special characters to have consistency without using space. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC to make this change closed less than a month ago. I personally thought that there were better options than just a space, but rehashing this whole debate again right after the prior discussion closed is not a classy move, in my opinion. And trying to open discussion here after raising the issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) comes across as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's gonna have to be an exception because space is not a solution. We need to have a better option than that. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This exact array of options was already considered and discussed at the RFC. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TenTonParasol: Not by me. Space is not an opinion for TV show season article titles. There should a special character or characters for it for consistency proposes. Space is not the kind of thing to use for TV show season article titles and makes the title layout of it inconsistent. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you why. Because space takes away the consistency of the TV show season articles title and having space affects it. Special characters like the parentheses were there on the season articles because it helps avoid issues like Chicago P.D. (TV series) does. In that show's season articles, the results of it shows Chicago P.D. season 1 without the parentheses. Without that, it would cause some consistency with the title display layout. Parentheses was there in the Chicago P.D. season articles to prevent that issue. Better start rethinking that and set up a new RfC on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Not by me" is not a valid explanation; I understand you may not like it, but the RFC was open for over two months, and closed with a very clear consensus. Remember: Consensus does not mean unanimity. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the consensus I chose to accept. Having space is not consistent, compared to special characters. Having something like Chicago P.D. season 1 and such without special characters on it is not very good for the grammar on display title.
I'm going make an argument about it and I'm bringing people in. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're beating a dead horse. Doesn't matter if you choose to accept it - the RFC is closed with a clear and detailed consensus. Don't like it? That's unfortunate, you should have argued that at the RFC. Be careful you don't violate WP:CANVASS and WP:FORUMSHOPPING (again, and the latter is a stricy policy). -- Alex_21 TALK 04:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not sign up for this. That RfC should've been about having change to different special characters, instead of having space along with it. Just so you know, I never knew about that. I wasn't even aware of it until after the fact. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were options for having different special characters - they were options 1, 3 and 4 at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles. The consensus was to not use those, and to use option 2 (a space) instead. It's unfortunate that you did not hear about the RFC, but kindly read the last two dotpoints of Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls and errors. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 is a fail. It causing grammar inconsistency on TV show season article titles. That should've been brought up. I'm going to make an argue about it, no matter what it takes. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is clearly just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a waste of time. The technical updates can proceed as expected. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you bring up the issue about the grammatical inconsistency of having space on TV show season article titles and just find a way to add special characters on it to create better grammatical consistency of the title of each TV show season articles. Use that one for example. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The grammar and formatting of the title Chicago P.D. season 1 is valid and correct. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. There's a period in between P.D. and season. Imagine is another show has a period at the end of the title and season. I thought I should make a case. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, because it's part of the "P.D." part of the title. "Chicago P.D." is the title, "season 1" is the season. This is identical to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 1, for example. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The period in "P.D." is not a full stop but part of an abbreviation. See U.S. state. Gonnym (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that shouldn't count. I notice some people agreed that space is not an option. Those special characters on there on those TV show season articles for a reason, no matter what the consensus now says. Sometimes some consensus are not very good on this site and that's one. I thought you should know that. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that's your opinion, and now we all know that. Thanks. Core policies still apply to this discussion and RFC, however, and the consensus was determined as clear. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me I would go with option 1 as it makes the most sense and would be clear to know what it actually is (but we need to be sure to have a main redirecting back to the main series page if it has one, in case there’s 2 shows of the same name) Hoopstercat (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 is the style that we have moved away from; the RFC closed with a clear consensus, and using a space was the agreed upon format, there is no need to change it again. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still there should be a special character on it. I agree with Hoopstercat. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revived UK Gladiators S1 & S2 articles?

If anyone hasn't noticed, and are interested on the recently started BBC’s reboot of Gladiators, there are currently Draft pages for the two first series (the latter series being filmed this summer and airing next spring), that would be pleased if somebody could review them, and best if they would be accepted on the main article space.

They are both full enough of content, in my opinion, to be published, as the main article covering the full show is starting to fill with information.

The drafts:

Thanks, 2001:999:701:134F:D0A8:4216:3A37:D1CA (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:TVSPLIT. Not enough to justify splitting off season 1 yet when season 2 has yet to even air. Also your drafts are poorly and incorrectly named. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We really wouldn't have three articles (the overview article and two seasons) when the first series has just ended. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as long as there is nothing official information or new episodes for the S2, which although has been confirmed, I also think that there is no need to split the articles.
I added the contenders' scoring -table to the main page for now, so the readers would at least get some info about the flow of the series, but the full infos of each episodes are on the Draft articles, and can be seen visible when the articles themselfs are created.
Maybe when we know some facts for sure about the second series, it would be more optimal to put the pages public!
2001:999:701:134F:E51B:DF47:9AAA:5E5D (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that the Draft for the first series should be renamed like "Gladiators (2024 British TV series) series 1" due its technically being a 2024's show, and to match with the name of the S2's page!
2001:999:701:134F:E51B:DF47:9AAA:5E5D (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've updated the Draft articles' names to their correct forms, as they were entitled wrong!
Samuelzzzz1 (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Penguin (TV series) § Illogical and inconsistent arguments. This is a dispute about listing multiple directors in the infobox. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent the nature of the discussion. It is only being argued that the directors are usually listed for limited series and miniseries, not for regular TV series. That is the point here and that is how it has always been done according to the overwhelming majority of the articles I've seen. This is not about open-ended TV series in general, so the attempt to frame the discussion in that context is a ploy constituting misrepresentation and misdirection. Nicholas0 (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are posting this comment at multiple talk pages and in so doing are being illogical and inconsistent yourself. Trailblazer's post here is just inviting people to the discussion and adds that the discussion is about listing multiple directors in the infobox. That is not misrepresenting anything. Is your issue with the other discussions about this topic, or do you specifically think that what Trailblazer posted above misrepresented the original discussion? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is inconsistent? Explain. Nicholas0 (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is only being argued that the directors are usually listed for limited series and miniseries, not for regular TV series - Trailblazer didn't say anything about regular TV series in the above post. You have posted the same complaint in multiple discussions but it doesn't apply to all of them. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University Challenge 2023–24

Any opinions on whether University Challenge 2023–24 is a list or an article? I'm thinking it might make a nice model featured list. I've seen both article and list classifications for season articles so I'm not sure if there's been a big discussion and consensus about this.

Feedback on the table layouts and accessibility would also be helpful. They are essentially results tables, where fictional shows would have episode summaries. There's some unsourced prose that is easily verifiable to the episodes as is standard practice. — Bilorv (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'd say its a weird mix of a list and an article... parts are list-like and other parts are article-like, if that makes sense. Historyday01 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/University Challenge 2023–24/archive1 where anyone's comments would be helpful. — Bilorv (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television § Alternatives to writer and director parameters. For a discussion on the possibility of adding a showrunner parameter to television-related infoboxes and limiting the use of writer and director parameters. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving franchise articles

After splitting franchise aspects of Dora the Explorer to Dora the Explorer (franchise) from a consensus at its talk page, there was still unclear agreement for how to move the articles even after it was moved. Over at Talk:Rugrats where me and other users were discussing whether to move the series page to Rugrats (1991 TV series) and move the franchise page to that namespace or not, it was said to keep those articles where they are due to Wikipedia:Primarytopic.

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Media franchise, the series page is supposed to move to a new namespace with "((year if needed) TV series)" to make way for the franchise page.

There should be a wider and better consensus for how to deal with franchise pages. Should it be: Series pageSeries page (TV series) and Series (franchise) → Series Franchise (namespace)? Or will it be: Series page and Series (franchise)? kpgamingz (rant me) 15:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is going to depend on what is the primary topic. If the original series is then that should stay where it is. If the franchise is then that gets the main name and the series gets the TV disambiguation. If neither is the clear primary topic then they should both get disambiguation and the main name should become a disambig page. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Fitzgerald nominated for deletion

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Fitzgerald. George Ho (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dare to Love Me (TV series)#Requested move 17 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 08:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 April 2024 of The Singing Bee (American game show)

An editor has requested that The Singing Bee (American game show) be moved to The Singing Bee, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 21:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Doctor Who episodes‎

There is a disagreement at Template talk:Doctor Who episodes concerning the inclusion of related articles. Should Doctor Who missing episodes be included in any format in {{Doctor Who episodes‎}}? -- Alex_21 TALK 11:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars episode articles

I have started discussions about some episode articles that I feel should probably be merged or sent to draft. They are at Talk:The Mandalorian season 3#Episode articles and Talk:List of Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes#Episode articles if any TV editors here are interested in contributing. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with AWB or a lot of free time please help fix all of the redirects to this page? The bot hasn't picked them up yet, and the move happened yesterday. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR Do you mean this move? If so, what redirects are you referring to? These automatic updates seem to be complete, and there's very few articles that link to the origianlt title. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per your link, the bot seems to have taken care of it now. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Double redirect bots do take a few days to come around and fix those redirects, but they do eventually happen. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New "showrunner" parameters for the TV and season infoboxes

A new |showrunner= parameter has been added to {{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox television season}} per this discussion. All uses should be reliably sourced per the now updated documentation. For any more modern series that utilize this title, please feel free to begin updating articles, again with respect to the person and title being reliably sourced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Writer's Guild of America website is a great source for finding showrunners on American series. Alternatively, oftentimes Googling "show_name" "showrunner" (with the quotes) will turn up useable sources. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that WGA sometimes do not include showrunners. — YoungForever(talk) 22:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, in those cases I would recommend trying a Google search for possible results. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding a fix to help summaries be more readable on mobile to avoid the sideways scrolling

See here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User making large changes to TV shows

Hello, I noticed The Best Baker is making a large number of changes to TV show articles, you can see their contribs here.

The edits are tripping a large number of vandalism filters. As far as I can tell, it is a lot of category changes and removing episodes from main articles to their own newly created, dedicated articles.

It seems above board, but worried it might be a sock given that the account is less than a week old and making significant changes. Would like an extra pair of eyes to take a look at the edits. (To the user I do not mean to wp:BITE, I am just making sure I am covering my bases, please take no offense.) Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the category changes seem fine, but they've created a lot of new categories I'm less certain about. The episode splits seem okay based on size (though WP:PROPERSPLIT should be followed). Also, the lack of edit summaries is not great. I'm going to WP:AGF and guess this is just a zealous new editor; maybe just use edit summaries so it's easier to follow what's going on and provide feedback? RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:TVSPLIT and Wikipedia:Article splitting (television), not enough to split into a List of Episodes page until an article is between 50kB to 60kB of readable prose or 50 and 60 episodes. — YoungForever(talk) 05:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted one of these list of episode splits, at Star Wars: The Bad Batch, per MOS:TVSPLIT. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. I'd also be partial to reverting all of the other page splits. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert as undiscussed splits, and also WP:Copying within Wikipedia violations if there is not the proper attributions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Season article notability

I am not sure how The Rookie season 5 and The Rookie season 6 passed WP:AFC when there is only 1–2 sentences under Production with 1–2 reliable sources (rest are just ratings) and no critical response. Wasn't there a general consensus on this project that season articles need to pass WP:GNG and WP:NFTV to warrant a season article? — YoungForever(talk) 13:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up a while ago on the MOS:TV talkpage when I found six season articles that all passed the AFC process with only a cast list, episode summaries, and ratings. I'd say that The Rookie article you linked definitely don't pass WP:NTV. I'd even go as far to say that 1-3 don't pass it either. Although they do contain more than just a few sentences, it's just a duplication of information that already exists in the parent article which isn't large enough in it's current state to meet the requirements of MOS:TVSPLIT and could easily continue to exist in the parent article only. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the the same IP address that been creating a bunch of season articles, but has recently IP hopped to 82.46.25.83. — YoungForever(talk) 16:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message on the AFC talk page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume to the average AFC reviewer the amount of sources makes the seasons look notable, but the television ratings themselves should vary rarely be included in determining that unless they're independently notable (i.e. they set a viewing figure record, etc.) TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, television ratings with just ratings on the episode table and ratings table are not enough to pass notability. — YoungForever(talk) 17:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the mover was not an actual AfC reviewer but the point is still valid. I personally would not have accepted but I can see how someone would think the amount of sources built up to notability. Generally if I see a spin out I decline unless they have tried to get a consensus on the article talk page, and I know others do similar but not all. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:All American (TV series) season 2 and Draft:All American (TV series) season 3 are attempting to get accepted for AFC when both do not clearly do not meet WP:GNG and WP:NFTV at all. — YoungForever(talk) 19:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]