I'd take offense to indiscriminate redirecting, but welcome comments on individual article talk pages if there are notability concerns. Thanks! ---Another Believer(Talk)20:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Why does it have to be case-by-case? You created this discussion that would summarize all discussion concerning these episodes. None of the above episodes meet notability standards. -- Alex_21TALK20:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I believe I'm creating valid stubs, and ask editors to assume good faith instead of trying to squash these immediately. I don't understand the rush, or the resistance to evaluating on a case by case basis. This is not an unreasonable ask. ---Another Believer(Talk)20:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
There's certainly no rush, which is why we have the draftspace to incubate stub articles such as these. No article in the above seems any different to the other, they all merit the same action, hence the centralized discussion. Editors telling you that they're too short isn't not acting in good faith, it's informing you of Wikipedia's article sizing guidelines. -- Alex_21TALK20:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't take issue with editors telling me the stubs are short. Stubs are indeed short by definition. I disagree with the assertion that the articles violate WP:NTVEP because the episodes have received sufficient secondary coverage. Each of these can and should be expanded further, not redirected. ---Another Believer(Talk)20:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Several sentences is not significant coverage. And yes, they can be expanded further - in the draftspace. That's literally what the draftspace is for. -- Alex_21TALK08:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:NTVEP, Multiple reviews or other reliable, independent, non-trivial commentary demonstrate notability for a television episode. It looks like there are multiple reviews in these articles, from sources like The A.V. Club, Entertainment Weekly, Out, The Guardian and Vulture. To me this shows that standalone articles are appropriate. — Bilorv (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
In that case, almost every episode of every show would be notable based on that alone. Just reviews for its airing does not a notable article make; where is the development, the production, anything relating to the actual episode outside of the articles being mostly just plot? -- Alex_21TALK23:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
It's also generally worth noting that just because a topic is notable does not necessarily mean it warrants having its own page: WP:PAGEDECIDE. Sure, the episodes are notable pages just on reviews, but are they actually best covered as individual articles? Is the topic of the RPDG Season 7 best served by splitting the episodes into their own articles under the current coverage available? Are these episodes best covered as a group within the season article? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol00:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
"... but are they actually best covered as individual articles?" Yes! I'm confident these episodes have received significant coverage, and frankly I'm a bit disappointed at the obstacles being placed in front of me as I try to address an obvious content gap, especially form the perspective of LGBT culture and history. Each of these articles can be expanded to include details about production, ratings, and reception, including commentary related to fashion, design inspirations, performance assessments, pop culture references, how the episode fits within the context of the series and Drag Race franchise overall, etc. If you aren't interested in collaborating and improving the entries, fine, but there's no need to kill these just because they are not GA quality from the start. Again, if you assess sourcing for a specific episode and are concerned about notability, then you're welcome to start a discussion on the respective talk page. I'd love to get an episode entry promoted to Good article status, if anyone's interested in collaborating. If so, hit me up! Thanks! ---Another Believer(Talk)00:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Each of these articles can be expanded Fantastic, that's exactly what the draftspace is for! Do you oppose that? Nobody at all has suggested they be "killed", I'm not sure where you're assuming that bad faith from. -- Alex_21TALK00:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
There's no need to move these valid entries into the draft space. I'm done going in circles, going back to building the encyclopedia now. ---Another Believer(Talk)00:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Very well. If there's no further objections from other editors, they can be moved into the space designed for expansion and creation. -- Alex_21TALK01:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
No, draftspace is not for topics that have demonstrated notability. Take a look at WP:DRAFTIFY. Improvements to such topics are made in mainspace (unless TNT level, which this isn't as all the content is usable). I object to moving to draftspace. — Bilorv (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
almost every episode of every show – I've always been skeptical of this argument. I'll use The A.V. Club as an example here since it has more episode reviews than most places. Let's use their reviews from March 23, 2015, around the time of the episodes listed above. There are 7 shows covered as individual episodes: House of Cards, Bloodline, RuPaul's Drag Race, Better Call Saul, Bates Motel, WWE Monday Night RAW, and The Price Is Right (which was a one-off review, but I'll count it anyways). Using The Futon Critic's listings for that day, I count 58 new episodes released, implying that, as a very rough estimate, only about 12% of shows were getting episode-level reviews. That's not "almost every episode".
Regarding PAGEDECIDE: I think there is value in episode-level coverage for two reasons. First, it's very easy for quality to vary between episodes, and that detail would likely disappear at the season level. Second, when television is reviewed episode-by-episode, it would be very hard to combine those reviews into a coherent, WP:NOR-compliant summary of the season. In fact, I'd argue that episodes, not seasons, are the better way to cover reception for shows not released all at once to critics, as most reviews of the "season" (such as those that Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes mostly use to calculate their scores) cover only the first few episodes. I think American Horror Story: Murder House (a GA!) shows this problem pretty well, but it's present in most season articles I read. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
It's worth also saying that this is a sample of U.S. shows, which have the highest (international) audiences and most attention. It should not be surprising that many U.S. TV shows that air week-by-week are notable on an episode-by-episode basis. This is very far from all episodes being notable. — Bilorv (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I think for individual episodes, even if you can find two or three reviews, there still must be something fleshed out about the production to reasonably expand these to standalone articles. There are sources that routinely leave reviews (like AV Club) and while we don't necessarily dismiss those as applying to notability, that they are routine requires more than just those to justify the article. (To compare, film articles generally require a production section and do not rely solely on routine reviews from common critics).
Some TV shows get production info every epieose (like Better Call Saul), but when it comes to competitive reality shows, this rarely happens, typically with any production detail speaking to the entire season rather than any specific episode (for example, even with Survivor: Island of the Idols's infamous controversy, it was discussed in sources as a season factor rather than the specific episode). I have a difficult time accepting that these RuPaul Drag Race episodes really are notable individually because there is likely never going to be production info (everything being shot on a stage set) that doesn't apply to the season as a whole, and thus these should all be redirected and/or draftified until they can show reasonable means to expand production on an individual episode. Masem (t) 15:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I like the idea of focusing on a single episode instead of just assuming these should be mass redirected. If someone wants to propose an individual article to be representative of others, I'd welcome a more thorough assessment and opportunity to put my money where my mouth is in terms of demonstrating notability of a single episode. ---Another Believer(Talk)15:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I concur that these should be merged to the main RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7) article. The episode summaries and viewership are already there and a couple generic lines on the letter grade one critic gave and a ranking another critic gave are not substantive enough to justify a standalone article. This sort of reception can also be included in the main page; without episode-specific production information, it's routine and not particularly informative. Reywas92Talk16:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going to reply to the above comment by an editor who I've asked to leave me alone many times. My offers stands: if someone will just pick an episode, I'll roll up my sleeves and do my best to demonstrate notability. What do you have to lose? ---Another Believer(Talk)16:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
There's probably no issue for you yourself to pick an episode and demonstrate how well you can expand it to go beyond "routine reviews" for the episode. The issue raised is that you are just scraping the GNG (whereas the season clearly passes it), and thus why a standalone article is appropriate rather than containing the info within the main season page. Masem (t) 17:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Sigh. @Bgsu98:I see you've redirected. Would you be willing to revert for now, and select a single episode for me to work on? ---Another Believer(Talk) 17:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC) I've reverted your redirects, given this ongoing discussion and my offer to focus on a single episode of an editor's choosing. ---Another Believer(Talk)17:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Why not work on all of them? Why did one in particular have to be picked? All nine barely scrape GNG. I therefore nominate they all be worked on - does that help? -- Alex_21TALK20:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Help with the clean-up of subtle vandalism on Asian TV shows coming from an IP range
Vandal(s) coming from an IP range (2405:4802:1800:0:0:0:0:0/37) have been conducting large amounts of subtle vandalism/incorrect information (including changing dates, times, number of episodes, etc.) on a number of television shows originating in Asia. TV shows are not my forte (especially Asian TV shows); however, it would be helpful if someone with this interest/experience could go through the recent edits this range has been making and clean them up. Thanks! (Link to edits from the range: Special:Contributions/2405:4802:1800:0:0:0:0:0/37) Wikipedialuva (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
See commons:User_talk:Dhx1#Copyright_violation for further discussion and links to precedents. Copyright considerations are best discussed at Commons. If the concern is with promotional material used on Wikipedia (advertising posters, trailers, etc), these videos being CC-BY licensed could be trimmed to remove any overly promotional content such as "Movie now available on Amazon Prime" as a first step. Generally though, these videos may be the only freely licensed video and audio available demonstrating actors voices and acting styles, or settings and costumes and props of various movies and television series, so they add a fair bit of value to an article otherwise devoid of examples of an actor's style. Dhx1 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I also do not agree with adding trailers to articles with no context. Those added by Dhx1 (talk | contribs), that I have seen, contain advertising at the end, and in my opinion, the trailers themselves only serve to clutter the articles.—Anita5192 (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I would be more on board with this if the clips were of a key scene that is widely discussed in the article, for example. Currently if we want to illustrate scenes like that we have to use a screenshot from the show, a clip would be better than that. But it does seem to be opening a can of worms to start including these. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Given that we often include movie posters and screenshots of key scenes when they are not free, I'd leap at the chance to add a legitimately free trailer or scene. The existence of such a thing also prevents us from using a non-free work in that case under WP:NFCCP#1. If it's legitimately free for our purposes then we can trim overtly advertorial parts of a trailer, extract key scenes and intersperse them at relevant places (where there's analysis of that scene), and even remove brand logos. To some extent all aspects of our articles on television potentially increase the value of a product to corporations, but as long as that is not our intention and reason for inclusion (just a side effect) it doesn't fall afoul of policy. — Bilorv (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with several of the other users here. There is no encyclopedic value to just add movie trailers with no context or commentary. That's what YouTube and social media are for, not Wikipedia. We are not going to provide free advertising for Amazon or any other company. Just adding trailers or movie scenes to discuss "actors voices and acting styles, or settings and costumes and props" also seems to be a violation of OR/SYNTH in my opinion. I have reverted the remaining clips added by Dhx1 until further notice. TNstingray (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Mikeblas This is due to the moves being performed as part of the RfC on TV season article titles. As mentioned at the relevant Bot Requests thread, cleanup will be performed after these moves are fully completed, which includes updating usages of {{Episode list/sublist}} (in this particular example, from {{Episode list/sublist|America's Next Top Model (season 13)}} to {{Episode list/sublist|America's Next Top Model season 13}}. If you would like to do these updates manually, you are welcome to, else they will be completed automatically imminently. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. -- Alex_21TALK22:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
After the mass change to the titles of the TV season articles - where the parentheses are no longer used with the "season x" part - there have obviously been some side-effects. In the case of the ones for Cobra Kai (see Cobra Kai season 1 for example), the "season x" part is being italicized along with the TV series title. This may also be the case for some other TV series, but I've seen the article title displayed properly for others, where only the series is italicized and the "season x" part isn't. Using {{DISPLAYTITLE}} doesn't resolve things, as far as Cobra Kai goes, so how can this be resolved? MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
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
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)
@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)
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)
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.
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_21TALK04:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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_21TALK05:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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_21TALK00:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
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.
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!
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!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
There should be a wider and better consensus for how to deal with franchise pages. Should it be: Series page → Series 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)
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)
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)
Perfect. Double redirect bots do take a few days to come around and fix those redirects, but they do eventually happen. -- Alex_21TALK21:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion regarding a fix to help summaries be more readable on mobile to avoid the sideways scrolling
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)
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)
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)
Gethin Jones has been nominated for a 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. Spinixster(trout me!)01:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Bernard Quatermass for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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 "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I have seen this done at different times in the past but it never made any sense to me. If there are reliable sources telling us who has been cast in the upcoming season then there is no reason to leave them out of the article. Otherwise there would be no cast list until a series starts airing which is clearly not the case for any TV show article. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm in favor of closing any dead task force, removing it from the project banner and deleting categories. Also, they do cause "harm" as they require active maintenance (look at the amount of edits that Template:WikiProject Television requires each time it needs updating) and populate categories that no one is ever going to care for. Ever. As as aside, there is also no reason to have task forces for single TV shows. Anyways Iljhgtn, you have my support of this ever goes anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
While updating the filmography of an actor, on the series The Boy, it has a list of guests. Now, with other TV series articles such as The Good Doctor and The Neighbourhood, the guest sections have been removed as they've gotten too expansive. The article for this series, the guest section is just that. There are too many listed. Main and recurring cast is fine. Having guests listed is WP:FAN. I can't find where it says no guests listed on TV series articles. If it's not, it should be. Unnecessary. I'm going to remove it either way. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!19:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
There is no "rule" saying that guests can't be listed at TV articles. You should review MOS:TVCAST for the current guidelines on how cast lists are generally expected to work for TV series articles. Essentially, cast lists should not be indiscriminate and that means not all actors are necessarily going to be noteworthy enough for inclusion. A common approach is to only include guest stars who have recurring roles plus potentially a few other notable guest stars. That sort of criteria should be determined through local consensus and will be different from series to series. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Guest section is for special guest stars/special appearances as in the credited as such on the on-screen credits, part of the main cast (past or in the present) in another series in the same network, a famous non-actor such as musician or athlete. Guest section is not for listing every single guest star. — YoungForever(talk)22:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relevant discussion here related to Coke Studio (Indian TV program) and others, including seasons related to each. Since the majority seems to be from the Pakistani version, the discussion was started there but also notifying other relevant projects. CNMall41 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Naming of Top Model seasons
I'm not very active on television-related articles, but just happened to notice it. (Next) Top Model pages refer to their seasons inside articles as "cycles", however the individual pages of these cycles are using the name "season" in the title. I think one of the two must be changed so that there's uniformity.
I do not think that this meets notability guidelines. There are stray mentions on a news search, most results seem to be about other media (radio shows, compilation albums) that are unrelated.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
While mainly used more for film news, this is a notice that all MTV News articles have been pulled offline, with it also noted that some of them are not even accessible in the Wayback Machine. This is why it is generally good practice to add url archives to all content added to prevent WP:LINKROT and being unable to access sourced content if sites go down like this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
The correct place to discuss a potential merge would be Talk:Peacemaker (TV series) or Talk:Peacemaker season 1. While I think there are problems with all those episode articles and they could all use work, I think you are going to have a hard time arguing that none of them should exist due to the amount of critical response information they have. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey all. I've made a number of updates to the {{StoryTeleplay}} to optimize/improve the template, and thought I'd share them here so we're all above board.
The template (and its new module) has been renamed to {{WritingCredits}}, given that there's now more than just story and template parameters (eight, actually!); {{StoryTeleplay}} still works as a redirect.
A "Written by" credit has been added, using |w=, which adds another option alongside an unlabelled credit, "Story by" (|s=), "Teleplay by" (|t=), "Storyboard by" (|sb=), and the three extra parameters. (example).
The default order of the parameters as displayed are an unlabelled credit, "Written by", "Story by", "Teleplay by", "Storyboard by", then the three extra parameters.
An |order= parameter has been added. This allows you to customize the displayed order of all seven labelled crediting parameters. For example: |order=t,ex1 would list the teleplay and extra #1 parameters first, and then any extra writing credit parameters set, in their expected order; in this example, the remaining parameters would be: written, story, storyboard, extra #2, extra #3. (Any unlabelled credit set with |1= remains top priority and cannot be reorganized.)
This will therefore deprecate |tfirst=y to display the teleplay first, as the new parameter setting will simply be |order=t (this lists the teleplay before all other parameters). |tfirst= still currently works as legacy support, but its usages will eventually be updated and the parameter removed.
The default setting for |order=, if it were fully set, would be |order=w,s,t,sb,ex1,ex2,ex3. This would do nothing, as it is the default order; rearrange the parameters to rearrange the order.
The template's documentation has been updated, and the template itself should be running without any functional changes at this point. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. -- Alex_21TALK07:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a reason for this to have a separate article from Vision Mixer, although clearly the main vision mixer article is primarily about the hardware kind
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Road to Rupert has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
MOS advice
Recently I came across an editor who is aggressively going through article - mostly television though some other media - and removing most occurrences of words like "originally" - even going so far as to suggest that shows don't "originally air" - they "air", and a rerun is described as a "re-air". I could see this line of reasoning, and I do like efficiency of verbiage, but something about this seemed to making the articles less clear. Some people undid these changes and the user quickly reinstated them. I did approach the user and received a reply that stated I was going to be ignored; I was directed here to possibly get some second thoughts on the matter, thanks. Tduk (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
It looks like @EagleEyeBerry is the user you are talking about, and their changes are focused on removing redundant wording. Looking at the examples you provided, I personally don't think any of their changes were correct but others may disagree. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree - and some did undo their changes, but the user immediately re-undid them and has shown no interest in discussing the changes. Since they've been doing these changes to a LOT of articles for quite a while, on pages that aren't all that monitored, and are redoing the changes whenever someone undoes them, I'm at a loss for what - if anything - to do. At least I appreciate your agreement on the changes. Tduk (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
The only person I remember reverting me is you and I never said I wouldn't be discussing anything. I always explain myself. You told me to ask you before editing and I said no.EagleEyeBerry (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
EagleEyeBerry, if you make an undiscussed edit to an article and someone reverts them then you really should take your concerns to the talk page rather than making the changes again, especially when it is a matter of personal preference as these changes are. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Martin Keamy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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 "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I am not a project member, but have created and edited quite a number of film- and TV-related articles over recent years. I think that some experienced editors' opinions would be useful in this discussion about the MOS for TV leads. IMO it would be useful to have some consistency (where possible and applicable) over the styles for films and TV series, but obviously this needs consensus to be applied to the MOS for TV. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
30 Rock season 1
I have nominated 30 Rock season 1 for featured list removal. 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 "Delist" the article's featured status.
A spinoff of Wits Academy and Every Witch Way. The season finale ended on December 28th, 2023 at 8/7c. The series aired with 10 episodes on August 24th, 2023 on YouTube and Nickelodeon. The series is renewed for a second season on May 2025 at 8/7c. 73.127.111.87 (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Concerning the page Rick and Morty: The Anime, if a source credits someone (Takashi Sano) as the "series director", is that enough of a source to state that they are the director of all episodes? An editor then said it was "safe to assume he wrote all the episodes as well" based on the credits of a singular episode, and then removed all credits; I have since added another source stating that Sano directed and wrote the series - is this enough to add them to the credits of all episodes? -- Alex_21TALK08:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
There's a discussion on my talk page where I agreed to do just that, but my question is: is there actually any ambiguity here, if the source clearly states that the series "is written and directed by Sano"? -- Alex_21TALK08:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Quite often we get sources saying someone is writing a series which actually means they are one of the writers on the series, so I think it is fair to be cautious. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it's also important to note that anime productions work differently from most western productions. Just because they're credited as series director or series writer, does not necessarily mean they directed or wrote all the individual episodes; you can easily find many examples of this on anime television series across Wikipedia. I made the original edit based off, maybe perhaps a misguided assumption, that the credits in the opening theme sequence would not change, because most of the time they don't. Takashi Sano was credited for direction/storyboard in the ending theme credits which are primarily used to credit the individual episode itself, but there was no writers section there that I could find. Take that as you will. I think we should just wait on a per-episode aired basis while keeping this information in mind if there is reasonable doubt to justify it.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with this. When there is any doubt with available sourced information, wait for the clear and obvious follow-up sources to back it up.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Are the episodes titles really titled "First Episode", "Second Episode", etc, or are they just numbered episodes? Gonnym (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I recalled this active discussion (having seen it on my watchlist) when I just came across List of The Rookie episodes and its season articles, then realized the discussion started concerning Rookie. I would like to merge and redirect all six season articles, if there are no objections. -- Alex_21TALK02:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I also notice empty section headings for these upcoming seasons at their respective LoE pages that violate MOS:TVUPCOMING and WP:SELFREDIRECT. I'm assuming (but haven't verified) that it's the same IP. I've removed them for now. I suppose we could always move onto WP:ANEW if it becomes a problem. Perhaps WP:ANI since it seems to be more of a long-term NOTHERE disruptive editor rather than a clear cut 3RR viiolation. TheDoctorWhoPublic(talk)16:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
IP users, I mostly understand. They're not fully part of the Wiki community so knowledge of notability and MOS isn't 100% a concern for them. As for Pete, it's really whether or not if they'll eventually follow the guidelines and, hopefully, become a big helper for WP:TV, or continue in this path and keep getting declined. @IAmJustPete: If you would like to get the drafts accepted, please listen to the feedbacks that me and the many users here given you here and in the draft submission comments. kpgamingz (rant me) 21:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
They may get resubmitted again without fixing the problems in an attempt to get another reviewer to accept AFC. I seen this happened before. Not a season article, but an article about an actress: Draft:Raegan Revord. — YoungForever(talk)03:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I did make a note of NTV and what we generally expect to see at a season article in my decline comments. Hopefully any future reviewers, would note the previous reason. TheDoctorWho(talk)04:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The IP address removed your comments, but was reverted. The IP address have been resubmitting multiple Drafts without any improvements. They are trying to remove any indication of having them declined before. Little that they know, when editors' View history can see them. — YoungForever(talk)08:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, your earlier message must have slipped my watchlist or I would have declined them myself last night and saved myself a bit of time. Reading your message the first time, I originally thought that you had a technical error in moving the pages. I was able to move them using the regular move feature. After re-reading it, you may have been referencing WP:DONTDRAFTIFY/WP:DRAFTOBJECT? If so, I may have accidentally violated that and won't object if someone reverts the move based on that. Either way they're back in the draft space for the moment. If the draft moves are reverted, I suppose are next option is WP:AFD. TheDoctorWhoPublic(talk)16:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Rejecting the draft won't solve the problem because there's still room for improvements in the drafts. The problem is the submitters not following the guidelines, taking the advice and improving the draft for submission. kpgamingz (rant me) 18:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Declined yet again. It's like they don't take the critics and fix the draft, instead just submitting and hoping someone will glace at it and accept it as is. kpgamingz (rant me) 19:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi there. In the first place, it feels that there are all fine. However I should be considering stopping reviews of TV seasons. ToadetteEdit!17:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily asking that you stop reviewing them, just that you familiarize yourself with MOS:TV (specifically, MOS:TVSPLIT) and WP:NTV.
Grey's Anatomy season 17 is a great example of the information that an exceptional season article should contain. Now that is a featured article and I know not all television seasons receive that type of coverage, so on the slightly lower end of good articles there's Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series) season 1. At the absolute bare minimum, articles like Law & Order season 21 and Cobra Kai season 1 (providing a permaalink because I do plan on eventually getting that to GA status) are examples of Start to C-class articles that still manage to prove notability with the information available. TheDoctorWho(talk)20:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
There should be real world content to accompany any additional split that is not simply a duplication of the main page's content (e.g., reception specifically for that season, or that episode; production information for the season or the episode), or duplication of the season page's content (e.g., an episode article that contains one or two reviews, and used the overall production information about the season that isn't specific to any one episode). This is because notability is not inherited from a parent article, and all articles must stand on their own. So be careful when splitting pages too soon; if the material for the new article is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject, or would simply duplicate the summary that would be left behind, then it may be too soon to move.
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Acolyte (TV series) § Survey. A discussion is currently taking place about the inclusion of information relating to an actor who was in consideration to join the show in a starring role. Input from the WikiProject would be greatly appriciated. BarntToust (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Newsjunkie added some broadcast information to the article, and I objected to it because it seemed like advertising to me. I can't speak for Newjunkie's experience in these matters, but I know mine is limited, so I invite (I believe with newsjunkie's consent) others to join the discussion so we can reach a consensus whether to add the material, not add it, or some other in-between alternative. Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power
I have started a discussion about potentially changing the approach to determining the cast lists for this series at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power#Approach to the cast lists. It does not follow the standard Main/Guest/Co-star crediting style so needs a different approach from MOS:TVCAST, and the release of the second season has raised questions about whether the current approach is adequate. Any regular television editors who have thoughts on the best way to determine cast lists for the series are welcome to contribute them at the discussion. Thanks all, adamstom97 (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Episode article notability
Last year I moved Strange New Worlds (Star Trek: Strange New Worlds) to the draftspace because it was basically just a plot summary. It has just been moved back to the mainspace through AfC (ping reviewer @Utopes) but in my opinion it has not been improved enough per our guidelines at WP:NTVEP. I know this has been a controversial topic in the past, but considering this page has been having similar discussions about premature season articles being created through AfC I thought it would be worth asking for opinions here before doing anything about this. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I don’t see why it should. It was created, pushed back to draftspace, improved and, to ensure it wouldn’t be deleted again, passed through AfC instead of just being published. If you don’t think the article is good enough as is, WP:IMPROVEIT. DimensionalFusion(talk)22:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
If it meets GNG (a guideline), then NTVEP (an essay) doesn't matter. A merger might be relevant regardless of notability, but I personally think it's better to discuss episode-specific reviews in episode-specific articles instead of trying to synthesize them into a season-level review (which could run into OR issues). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
My two cents: This is a page that was created in 2022, developed in August 2023 as the pilot episode of the Star Trek Original Series prequel Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, and the first episode of ANY Star Trek to air exclusively on Paramount+. (cn)
This page was inappropriately draftified in November 2023, after it had existed for a year in mainspace, which I moved back. WP:DRAFTNO states that only new articles should be draftified; the 2023 move was in violation of this by over 3 months since content began to exist here, and a year since the initial redirect. Another clause is that an article may only be draftified one time only, per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, which is another aspect this proposal would theoretically violate. This page is not eligible to be draftified, but even if it were, there is an editor (in this thread!) who wishes to develop it in mainspace. WP:DRAFTspace is not a permanent holding ground for potentially unwanted articles. WP:AFD is the spot to take it to if there is a strong objection towards this page existing, which at worst would result in a blank-and-redirect outcome (as a likely search term and highly linked episode title). As this article contains substansive history, it should remain out of draftspace at the very least, and stay in mainspace as of this point in 2024, either as an "redirect with history", or as a standalone page. There's no benefit in letting the 2+ year history rot away and get G13'd as a draft; draftification is not a backdoor to deletion. There'll always be something at this title regardless, redirect/article or otherwise, so more prospective eyes driven towards potential future improvement will see this article and its lengthy history in mainspace. Utopes(talk / cont)00:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Jeopardy! has been nominated for a 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. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)04:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
FAR for Michael Tritter
I have nominated Michael Tritter for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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 "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Noticed that this category didn't exist recently when I was creating/populating Category:Action Bronson. There are three series in that category, and I think it would make sense to move them to a subcat, but since the tree doesn't exist I'm not just going to create one on its own. Since then, I've thought about why this tree doesn't exist/appears not to have ever been created before, and I couldn't think of any reason why it shouldn't. But given it's such a seemingly obvious gap, I figured it best to ask just in case anyone here has any opposing thoughts. So are there any objections? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I am currently gathering my independent sources of this TV show titled Passato e Presente (Italian TV program that airs in Italy), which is a historical analysis talk show that discuss the past and comparing it to the present.
While I have not created the article yet as I am seeing if there are sufficient independent sources beside press releases from RAI Ufficio Stampa (press office) to see if it deserves an article on this language Wikipedia or not.
My question is this - Should a title be translated?
For example, one of the episodes of Passato e Presente (which is in it eight season) is titled "L'assassinio di Alessandro I". Should this episode title be translated or left alone? If yes that it has to be translated, where would I insert it in Template:Episode list? I got confused as there RTitle, AltTitle, RAltTitle and TranslitTitle. Soafy234 (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Updates to Template:Series overview
I've made some updates to {{Series overview}} in its sandbox and tested them through testcases; after detailing the changes below, and waiting for any opinions, I'll make them live presently. Legacy and new parameter formats will both be supported, until such a time that all live templates have had their parameters updated accordingly, at which point the legacy formats will be removed.
For ease, any parameter listed below with a "1" includes any season numbered parameter; i.e. |start1= being mentioned below means it applies also for |start2=, |start3=, etc.; also specials paramaters such as |end2S=, |end3S=, etc.; also multipart season parameters such as |released2A=, |released3B=, etc.
The changes are:
Currently, to exclude an end date and make the start date span the whole two columns for first/last aired (i.e. the season was aired/released on the same day), you need to use |start1=[date]|end1=start. This will be updated to simply use |released1=[date] (no |end1= set). The |released1= parameter will span the two columns; separate start/end dates will continue to require |start1= and |end1= parameters. This matches the use of start vs release parameters across a multitude of television-related templates.
This applies to seasons and specials. Currently |start1S=[date] (no |end1= set) for a special will make the whole two columns for first/last aired automatically. This will no longer be the case; an end date cell will automatically be included if |start1S= is set, unless (as above), |released1S=[date] is set.
If any part of a overview uses |released1=[date] for a season (specials not included), the template will automatically change into the format as if the |released=y parameter was set (i.e. "Originally released"/"First released"/"Last released" columns, rather than "Originally aired"/"First aired"/"Last aired" columns). This therefore deprecates the use of |released=y. The parameter |released=y will still be available, for any series that are released through a streaming format but still entirely use |start1= and |end1= parameters.
If an entire series overview uses |released1=[date] for every season, and no |start1= and |end1= parameters, the template will automatically change into the format as if the |allreleased=y parameter was set (i.e. just one "Originally released" column, no separate "First released"/"Last released" columns). This therefore deprecates the use of |allreleased=y.
That particular template doesn't use |released=y and uses its original "Originally aired" columns, but I do see your point. I might need to keep |released=y and still implement the second dotpoint above, so that the header still automatically updates, but |released=y can still be used as an override in a template full of |start1= / |end1=. -- Alex_21TALK23:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes TV series broadcasted one new episode a weekly basis for the first season on one network and then, the second season released all episodes in one day on another network. Or vice versa. Like List of Lucifer episodes#Series overview. Would this mean that we can't change it to Originally aired"/"First aired"/"Last aired" whenever there is a |released1=[date] parameter? — YoungForever(talk)23:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
All that is aired is by definition also released, but not all that is released is by definition also aired. So if there's any season that was "released" as opposed to "aired", even if other seasons were aired, "Originally aired" should be listed as "Originally released", as "released" covers it all. "Originally aired" should only be used in seasons that are entirely aired. -- Alex_21TALK00:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Updates made. Documentation also updated. Just quoting again for clarity: Legacy and new parameter formats will both be supported, until such a time that all live templates have had their parameters updated accordingly, at which point the legacy formats will be removed. -- Alex_21TALK00:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
@Alex 21 Have you considered a PrimeBOT (Task 30) request for these? This is how I handled the radio and TV station infobox updates in 2020 (renames of parameters and later removal of slogans) and may prove immensely useful to you. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Released: Airing vs streaming
Proposal: Thinking about the use of "Originally aired" vs "Originally released", I'd actually like to propose that we just permanently stick with the latter, for both {{Series overview}} and {{Episode table}}. As I stated above, all that is aired is by definition also released, but not all that is released is by definition also aired. This would conform with {{Infobox television}}; even when we use |first_aired=, the row it still titled "Release" (this applies to {{Infobox television season}} and "Original release" too). Thoughts? -- Alex_21TALK04:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'm intending, unless there's any opposition to it. I just feel that "release" covers everything. -- Alex_21TALK08:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: Sometimes a TV series a co-production with two different countries have one country that broadcast a new episode on a weekly basis and another country release all episodes on one day. Having options avoid confusion to average readers. First aired/last aired on {{Series overview}} and Original air date on {{Episode table}} apply to Broadcast. Also, {{Infobox television}} still uses |first_aired= and |last_aired=. Sometimes TV series that broadcast a new episode, release the same episode on their official website and app the very next day.— YoungForever(talk)19:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
And no matter whether it's published through streaming sites, or broadcast on television, or any other way - is that series still not by definition released? Since when has "released" only applied to streaming series? To release something is to make it available.
I note that {{Infobox television}} still uses |first_aired= and |last_aired= - YoungForever, can I ask you, what is the row header for these parameters when they are used? What is the recommended header to use for any release information per MOS:TVRELEASE? -- Alex_21TALK20:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying the top header, I'm saying the label right next to the dates in the infobox. Release is available online/on demand and aired is broadcast/not on demand. There is nothing to actually support this. Anything aired or broadcast is, dy definition, released to the public. -- Alex_21TALK09:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Not everything air/broadcast is available to watch immediately. Back in the days, when everything was just aired/broadcasted on TV, we don't really used "released" on TV. — YoungForever(talk)16:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
If it has been aired or broadcast then it has been released, even if it is not available to be watched after that point. We didn't use to say "released", but there really isn't any reason why we shouldn't now. "released" covers anything that has been broadcast and anything released for streaming. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
For an example, an American TV series released all episodes on a Canadian streaming network on one day ahead of the American broadcast whereas the same TV series broadcast a new episode every week on an American TV network. Not the same thing. The original air date is still U.S. air date, not the Canadian release date because the U.S. TV network is the primary network. Another example, an HBO TV series released the first episode of the TV series on Max two days before the original air date on HBO. The original air date is still the HBO air date not Max release date because it is a HBO TV series, not a Max TV series. HBO is still the primary network. — YoungForever(talk)19:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Neither of those examples are about what we are talking about here, we are not talking about the "original" network or release date which is determined based on other factors. We are talking about using the term "released" regardless of how a series is released. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
For an example, an American TV series released all episodes on a Canadian streaming network Then those episodes have been streamed.
whereas the same TV series broadcast a new episode every week on an American TV network Then those episodes have been broadcast.
They have both been released to the public. There is nothing to support that "Release" means streaming-only, as both infobox templates have proved - they both list any release date under "Release", as does MOS:TVRELEASE. I think you may be confusing the general definition of the word "release" with "streamed".
Let's use List of Lucifer episodes as an example. Its first three seasons were aired, its last three seasons were streamed. All six seasons have been released. What would you propse using as the series overview header? -- Alex_21TALK20:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question for the given example. As far as I can see, there is no such local consensus concerning this. "Released" as never meant solely streaming, and there has been no agreement with you on that here. There has, however, been agreement that streaming and broadcasting are the separate types of release, "release" being the term that covers all types of distribution, which is supported by established guidelines and infoboxes. -- Alex_21TALK22:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Original air date and Original release date are not the same thing. List of Lucifer episodes is different because 3 seasons were streamed and 3 seasons were broadcasted. For an example, List of Arrow episodes are all aired because they were broadcasted on The CW, not released on The CW. You don't say The first season "was released" from October 10, 2012 through May 15, 2013. — YoungForever(talk)23:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
They were indeed released on The CW. They weren't streamed, is what you mean. At Arrow (TV series), can you tell me what the infobox header above the Network row reads as, and what the label next to "October 10, 2012 – January 28, 2020" is? Using your own example, what is the label next to "October 10, 2012 – May 15, 2013" in the infobox at Arrow season 1? -- Alex_21TALK09:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
So, why is that it is not acceptable to leave as it is then? I see nothing wrong with using aired when it is appropriate to use. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Limiting to no options is making it worse than before because you are forcing editors to just use "Release". — YoungForever(talk)16:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm saying to leave those examples as they are, and update others templates to conform with them.
Anyways, this is going in circles and there seems to be a misunderstanding with you as to the general definition of "releasing" media, so I'll await any further opposition or comments; if there are no further comments, then we have a solution. -- Alex_21TALK20:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
No, I do not have any misunderstanding. So, why it is not acceptable to continue using original air date, originally aired, first aired, and last aired? Why are editors forced to conform when it is perfectly acceptable to use "aired" when it is appropriate? Also, when templates are updated, they are automatically conform, hence, forced to conform. — YoungForever(talk)20:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going in circles with you. I've explained that difference between "released" and "streamed". Everything made available to the public is, by definition, released to the public. Cheers. -- Alex_21TALK22:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
You did not answer my questions. We have the options of using aired and released for years and flat out removing "aired" is detrimental because you are taking away the option to choose. — YoungForever(talk)22:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
It remains meaning the same thing. We haven't had that choice for infoboxes - is that an issue that's been plaguing anyone? -- Alex_21TALK22:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Please do not twist my words. Having options to begin with and having them taking away are not the same thing as having no options to begin with. — YoungForever(talk)23:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I have nothing further to add to this discussions, besides simplifying templates. If there is no further opposition, or if there is no further support for keeping the separate headers... -- Alex_21TALK01:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
YoungForever your argument is that we should keep it because it is an option, not that we need it. That is not a good argument. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
We do need it because we have been using it. Currently, there are actually still a lot of TV series use original air date, originally aired, first aired, and last aired. Are many broadcasting TV series only using "release" right now? I do not think so, many are still using "aired". — YoungForever(talk)16:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
The whole point of this discussion is forcing everyone to use "released" and claiming no one is actually using "aired". When the truth is that the majority of the broadcasting TV series are still using "aired". — YoungForever(talk)18:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
And yet, if it was being "forced", nobody else has claimed that this is an issue, why?
Are many broadcasting TV series only using "release" right now? Yes - every television series article that exists on Wikipedia.
It is because it has only been few days, frequent WikiProject Television editors may not have seen this discussion. The separate proposal only started a few days ago.
That is just incorrect, it is just what you to want to believe. The fact is most broadcasting TV series are still using "aired". Claiming no one is using "aired" is completely false. — YoungForever(talk)22:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
That's why I'm not implementing it and said we'll see if there's any actual opposition. And nope, every television article is already using the term "release", that's a fact I've already shown above. -- Alex_21TALK23:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
That's not true because you are only counting the infobox and nothing else. If you actually read broadcasted TV series articles, you would notice that the majority would still used "aired" throughout those kind of articles overall. — YoungForever(talk)02:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying those articles can't continue to use "aired" in the prose. Way to make a mountain out of a molehill much? -- Alex_21TALK20:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The Bill has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
List of Television Episodes Notable for Negative Reception?
It stands out to me a bit that even as you're claiming these are considered the worst episodes of their series, the episodes you mention in your second post lack articles of their own. Meanwhile, I looked at "Lisa Goes Gaga", which you cited in your initial post, and the article for that episode claims that it received "mixed to negative" reception, which implies it's far from being notoriously bad. "Skibidi Biden" similarly seems to lack the level of condemnation that you're ascribing to it. DonIago (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Polygon cited Skibidi BIden as "the worst thing that Stephen Colbert has ever done" and many casual viewers hated it. Some described it as "the 9/11 of television." If Lisa Goes Gaga is not considered to be notably bad by Wikipedia-trusted sources outside of IMDB, then I suppose that The Principal and The Pauper could be in place of it as a Simpsons episode on the list. Even Matt Groening, the series creator disliked the episode. The Megalodon episode from Shark Week has its own article, and it is featured on the list for notably bad television series.
From a video game side we have List of video games notable for negative reception but key for being on that list is not only an established critic aggregate less than 50/100 or 50%, but that there are long-term aspects of being that critically bad (that is, documented in reliable sources not associated with being a review), as to avoid simply just being a list of games with poor review scores. I think if applied to TV shows, you are definitely going to need a pretty strong criteria beyond just lower review scores, and unlike video games, where one bad game can cost a studio, episodes are generally part of a package so one bad episode is not going to have that great an impact. In other words, I think this would be highly difficult to create in the first place for episodes. --Masem (t) 12:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I started the draft and have a decent number of sources ranging from news articles and books covering the negative receptions of episodes such as Principal and The Pauper and Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives. Principal and The Pauper is often cited to be the start of The Simpsons' decline in quality by both critics and fans, and the megalodon special caused many to lose faith in Discovery and Shark Week in addition to perpetuating the erroneous belief of the megalodon still being extant in an unexplored part of the ocean. As I stated above, these episodes either ruined the reputations of their series or were so bad that the writers or series creators apologised or expressed disdain for them. Such as Matt Groening and Lauren Faust expressing disdain for Principal and The Pauper and Everyone Knows it's Bendy.
The criteria is that one MUST provide a source detailing how poorly the episode is received, entries that solely use IMDB or fanmade lists as sources will be removed. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the article in draftspace? I think other editors (myself included) could provide better feedback if they could see an actual work-in-progress instead of speculating about how it could look. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
How do I provide the link? I have made decent progress on the draft with 12 entries so far.
I could use some help in finding sources for claims on how bad some of these episodes were received though. I was able to find sources for Matt Groening, the creators of Avatar, and Lauren Faust apologising and expressing regret for their respective episodes, However, I have read claims on many sites such as TV Tropes and SpongeBuddy Mania of Clancy Brown, the voice actor for Mr. Krabs expressing hate and discomfort for One Coarse Meal due to the episode depicting Krabs as a phycological abuser that tortures Plankton to the point of attempted suicide. I cannot find a source on either the English, French, Italian, or Spanish internet that describes Brown's opinions on the episode unlike I was able to find sources for the three previously mentioned. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
The Next Line has been unsourced since 2009. "Next Line" + "Kevin Frank" turned up zero results on newspapers.com and GBooks. Google itself even asked "did you mean Kevin Franke" while giving only fan forums, Wikipedia mirrors, and the like. Throwing this out there to see if maybe someone could find something I missed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)18:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hmm, I couldn't find great sources from a quick google, but I am UK based, so that might not be the best. I find it hard to believe a channel associated with Amazon that makes original movies, and has run for almost 15 years is non-notable though. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)21:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski, it's merely something Amazon sells subscriptions to, not something Amazon runs. The reason for its GNG obscurity likely lies in its Christian orientation. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Sure. I'm not religious, I don't really know a great deal about that side of the world. There would presumably be Christian based reliable sources that talk about this sort of thing though, right? Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)09:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I think that would be in WP:NARROWCAT territory. It would actually be worse than some of the examples given; at least there's a chance for "Sportsmen from Brisbane" to organically grow over the years. At most, "Season X America's Got Talent contestants" is going to muster 48 articles (assuming everyone taking part becomes a notable person). - X201 (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Bart Simpson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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 "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
The Contest has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
This is also the case for Thai drama series. Recently, User:วรุฒ หิ่มสาใจ has been creating non-standard categories such as Category:2022 Thai television dramas presumably to avoid this redundancy. However, this creates problems due to (1) incompatibility with the larger category scheme, and (2) introducing the term "television dramas" into the categorisation, leading to inconsistency and ambiguity, as there's already Category:Drama television series by country where drama is meant as the genre rather than an umbrella term. (Or is it? The current categorisation is really confusing.)
I'm reluctant to wholesale revert his edits, as they do address the issue mentioned above. But then I'm also unsure how to integrate these categories into the TV categorisation scheme. (The user has also made a complete mess of the Thailand TV tree.)
On the whole, I think it boils down to two things:
Should an additional by-year category tree be created for limited-run series, and how should the categories be titled?
Should television dramas be used as an umbrella term that covers TV dramas in the wider sense (all fictional scripted shows regardless of genre, so also including e.g. action, sci-fi, etc.)? Or does the existing drama television series category already serve this function?
I want to separate the TV dramas and series from the TV shows such as game shows, talk shows, and variety shows into the own categories. How can I do this without causing any problems? วรุฒ หิ่มสาใจ (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
วรุฒ หิ่มสาใจ, I was hoping we might find some advice here, but it doesn't appear that much is forthcoming. I'll take another look at the category and see what I can do to make things at least internally consistent and compatible with the wider tree. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:NBCUniversal that people here might be interested in; it pertains to the spinoff of cable channels owned by Comcast and its subsidiary NBCUniversal into a new company tentatively named SpinCo.
Live Show has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Primary source for episode titles and release dates
Hello, I am not certain if it is correct tag the episode section of Voltes V: Legacy with Template:Third-party for something that involve cold facts such as episode titles and release date. It just happens that the episode information are not neatly collated in a single cite. Am I incorrect with my assessment, cause the whole point of third party sources is to combat bias or establish general notability for the article as a who;e. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Homer Simpson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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 "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
American Horror Story has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
