Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:TV)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Television (Rated 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Television:

To do list:
Major discussions/events:
Incubators:

Series overview information cells[edit]

Hey all. I'm considering deprecating the |infoheader= parameter from the {{Series overview}} template. Currently, we currently use the parameter by using the code

{{Series overview |infoheader=Ratings |infoA=Average viewers |infoB=Rank and {{Series overview |infoheader=Average viewers

to generate

SeasonEpisodesOriginally airedAverage viewersRank
First airedLast aired
SeasonEpisodesOriginally aired
First airedLast aired

respectively. The information header is forgone when there's only one column of information (but we still have to use |infoheader= instead of |infoA=), and displayed when there's two or more columns (requiring us to use |infoheader=, |infoA=, |infoB=, etc). This can become buggy when an editor uses |infoheader= and |infoA= together when there's only one column, by using

{{Series overview |infoheader=Ratings |infoA=Average viewers

which generates the faulty

SeasonEpisodesOriginally airedAverage viewers
First airedLast aired

However, (and the following scenarios are testcases from a sandbox), we can use

{{Series overview |infoA=Average viewers |infoB=Rank and {{Series overview |infoA=Average viewers

to generate

SeasonEpisodesOriginally airedAverage viewersRank
First airedLast aired
SeasonEpisodesOriginally airedAverage viewers
First airedLast aired

respectively, which provides less confusion of which parameters to include and exclude, by just using |infoA= through |infoZ=, and provides a more uniform layout when taking into consideration the number of information cells. It also allows us to include information columns that may not have any relation to each other, and thus no need for a confusing information header. Furthermore, it also allows the new multi-series franchise series overviews to have extra information columns without a header such as "Series information", given that the whole overview is information about the series (this is the same scenario as the previous sentence: information columns that may not have any relation and no confusing/redundant information header), as seen

SeriesSeasonEpisodesOriginally airedShowrunner(s)Status
First airedLast aired

Would there be any opposition to this, or any further comments or concerns? Let me know! Cheers. -- /Alex/21 07:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

So in short, by deprecating |infoheader=, there will be no functionality lost because there is still |infoA= through |infoZ=? I wouldn'd mind. I'll say though that it took me while to figure out a working parameter solution for the current system when a season was split into parts, and something should still work in such a situation after you made your prosed edits. (We met when you edited List of Money Heist episodes.) – sgeureka tc 10:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Exactly! Removing |infoheader= will simply remove the need for a header above the information cells, allowing them to stand alone and not cause any breakages or confusion on what parameters should or shouldn't be included. The article List of Money Heist episodes won't be affected at all by the proposed deprecation, as the parts column uses the |aux= parameters rather than the |info= parameters; several articles now use those parameters for "Part" numbers, including The Ranch (TV series). -- /Alex/21 10:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind keeping the "Ratings" header or removing it, but if this change also removes the need for the new "Series details" header for multi-series uses, then I support the change, as that header isn't helpful. --Gonnym (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
If there's no further comments, I'll go ahead in a couple days and remove the parameter, then run through with AWB to update the necessary articles. -- /Alex/21 22:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Alex 21: - One side effect of removal of this header is the removal of references, as happened here, here and here. References shouldn't be removed. --AussieLegend () 08:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Can easily be restored as such -- /Alex/21 09:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
As long as somebody notices.[1] You should be fixing hese as you do your AWB run. --AussieLegend () 13:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Last aired parameter for TV series[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:One-Punch_Man#End_date_and_Season_3 regarding the last_aired parameter of {{Infobox television}} and the language in the template's documentation as well as WP:TVPRESENT. Please join the discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Can you please summarize this discussion for us, please? Is the idea here that, in the absence of an explicit renewal announcement, we should switch to assuming a show is "cancelled" (and thus "ended" after the last first-run episode has aired) rather than assuming a show is renewed" and waiting 12 months to see if this is the case or not?... Because if that's what this discussion is about, it needs to be a much wider discussion than a discussion at a single TV show article... --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall: My understanding is that, currently, the guidelines say to wait 12 months before changing last_aired from "present" to {{end date}}. Sk8erPrince feels that this should not be the case and, if I understand correctly, that after any season ends that date should be used for the last_aired parameter until a new season begins. Blue Pumpkin Pie noted that WP:ANIME has separate rules and I do now see that Template:Infobox_animanga/Video has different documentation for this. Perhaps this whole point is moot, but now I find it odd that we treat one type of TV series differently from the rest. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:ANIME is effectively a "sub"-project of WP:TV, so they should not have separate "rules". WP:ANIME has been doing a number of things (e.g. article titling) incorrectly for years now, and several of us have been trying to bring them into compliance. They should not have a separate "rule" like this without a very good reason, and not unless the wider WP:TV group agrees to it. The whole "OVA" topic is another problematic area for which there's no real consensus, and WP:ANIME has been doing whatever what they want with these, whether it makes any sense or not. --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really passionate about this topic. But i personally don't consider WP:ANIME is not a sub-project of WP:TV. WP:TV covers basically anything TV-related, however, WP:ANIME covers manga, anime, and anything directly related to them. In a sense, it's for pop-culture media that is exclusive to Japan. But that is just my interpretation.
There is a very good reason why we shouldn't list anything as "Present" in the TV infobox just because there is no word of cancellation or 12 months of silence. The vast majority of modern anime TV-series are planned for one or two seasons. They are not planned out to continue and every season is potentially their last. Every time a season has finished airing, the expectation of a second or third season isn't solidified until it's been officially announced.
its closer to Netflix model. I realize this isn't a perfect comparison, but i hope you understand.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
If that's the case, there should be ample sourcing indicating that a certain anime series is only planned to run 1–2 seasons. IOW, the fact that it's ending should be easily sourceable in the first place... And, yes – the "anime" portion of WP:ANIME does clearly fall under WP:TV's auspices, including WP:NCTV. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
When I said they planned for 1-2 seasons, I'm not saying they have no intention of continuing the anime. Some modern anime is designed to leave room for a new season, yet still designed to being complete if a new season wasn't renewed. Similar to how Stranger Things first season was designed to being both open ended but also conclusive. For anime, the status quo isn't that its still continuing. The status quo after a season is finished is that it is complete until renewed for a new season. At least thats how its been for modern anime. I know in the past it was closer to western series like with One Piece, Dragon Ball, Naruto, and Bleach.
I can write a whole essay on how different the japanese animation industry is different from the Western and how they apply different rules and standards. I can understand why you apply this rule to western series because its just more common for a renewal of a second season and not designed to conclude. And because its that common, it treats it as common sense. Its just not common in anime.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
BPP is not wrong. Anime seasons are released in クール (Cours) of typically 13 episodes. It is common for anime to be done in 1 or 2 cour installments, with possible future cours. I'm not convinced that means the WP:TVPRESENT should be altered for this, but this is the (current) norm for anime. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Here's an ANN report that sheds more light on the nature of modern anime broadcasting. This could be treated as a reliable source because it was published by an industry professional. To quote the report: In order to limit the risk to the companies on these committees, each season is planned out at only a finite 11-13 episodes. If the show is a hit, additional seasons can be ordered down the line. If the show tanks, each member of the committee is only out for the cost of a single season -- and often that cost can be made up through international rights sales, home video, and whatever small number of merchandise items managed to get released.
In other words, in the absence of an explict sequel confirmation, it is better to mark the broadcast as ended, instead of still ongoing. We are presenting erroneous information that does not reflect the present state of things, otherwise. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Whether or not WP:ANIME is a sub-part of WP:TV is irrelevant. If you're using {{Infobox television}} you should be using it in accordance with the instructions. --AussieLegend () 13:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
OK. The thing is, it may be a good idea to switch all "end date" reporting to a system like this – i.e. assume cancellation, without an explicit renewal announcement, and put an "end date" after the last aired episode (this might solve some problems with shows on channels like Nick and Disney). But this requires a wider consensus across all of WP:TV to do this. Again, we can't have one set of rules for WP:ANIME and another set of rules for the rest of WP:TV. That's AussieLegend's point... But, on my end, I'd probably be willing to have a wider discussion about whether WP:TVPRESENT should be revised, what with the changes in the TV industry and all. --IJBall (contribstalk) 13:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
It does seem strange to assume it isn't canceled even after 11 months of no renewal information, rather than assume it ended ("ended" here does not mean officially canceled) until RS report that it's renewed. Seems much more in-line with WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. --Gonnym (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Might be worth having a WP:RfC on WP:TVPRESENT. Not sure if there should be an attempt at a wider discussion first (and, if so, where such a discussion should be held...). --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: If that is true, then there is no reason to have this discussion. One-Punch Man isn't using that template. It's using {{Infobox animanga}}.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. We really don't need an RFC when the template has *very* clear instructions on what to do with the dates. Quoting the instructions in the explanation box on the "last" row: The first air date of the series's last episode on its original Japanese network. Only insert the last episode's date after it has happened. Leave empty if the series is ongoing or renewed. Check out the chart here. (Or check the template page yourself and you'll see that I'm not making this up)
BPP is absolutely correct that we have our own set of rules when it comes to anime. Yes, anime series are broadcast on television, but we use a unique infobox *specifically* for anime series, and the template has also documented clear instructions on what to do. Hence, it is okay to disregard the instructions in {{Infobox television}}, since it clearly doesn't apply here. I'm going to boldly restore the end date on the One Punch Man article, since there is no announcement on season 3, and that it is clear that the series is neither ongoing nor renewed at the moment. This discussion is over. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Updating WP:TVPRESENT guideline (non-anime)[edit]

I want to clarify i have nothing against updating guidelines. if it will be beneficial for WP:TV to have this discussion and improving their guidelines, then you can count me in on that vote.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't be leaving "ongoing" in the infobox of any TV series once its ended, regardless of where it is from, unless of course we have a source that it has been renewed. It would certainly be better than assuming that its been renewed just because the production company haven't annonced their renewals yet. And regardless of the different templates, if the idea ends up becoming that the {{Infobox animanga}} should follow similar rules to {{Infobox television}} then we end up reporting Anime as ongoing when they aren't, especially since anime companies hardly ever actually make a confirmation that a series is cancelled (I mean some have disappeared for seven years and then gotten a third season so...).
To be honest, I'm in favour of changing the rule to being that we put in the final episode's air date if we don't have any confirmation of renewal.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
In the short-term, it's better to assume a series is continuing rather than a series has ended or been canceled. That's why we wait a year to tag a series as over in those cases where we have no official confirmation. Although even that's not 100% foolproof, as Bubble Guppies, a series that was assumed to have ended in 2016, was renewed earlier this year and is now airing new episodes. Claiming that a series is over immediately following a season's end is entirely WP:OR, unless a network has officially confirmed a series' ending or cancellation. Likewise, it is also WP:OR to assume a series will only run for one or two seasons, unless, again, a network officially confirms it, and even then, you still need further official announcements stating when the final episode will air. The guidelines are fine as they are and shouldn't be changed. Amaury • 16:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Except that that still leads to confusion, speically on the anime side of things where it is pretty much an unspoken rule that any 12-13 episode anime season is simply advertising for the source material. I mean the vast majority of titles don't get sequals, and so if you come to a page about a recent anime and see ongoing after its ended, you are sending the message that its getting another season, where as the end date simply tells the reader that currently this is when the last episode aired, and no new season has been confirmed at this point. I think its safer and more inline with WP:OR to say that this is the last date a series aired on as currrently known than to have "ongoing" and tell people that there is more to come when we have no proof there is--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Unspoken "rules" are not good enough for Wikipedia. They're WP:OR. And using that logic, after every time a new episode airs, we should place an end date since there are no more new episodes until the next time a new episode premieres. There are plenty of series that aren't renewed until after the current season has ended. So hypothetically, a series' season ends and we place an end date on the series. Then two weeks after that season ends, it is officially announced that the series is renewed for another season and we remove that end date. It's a lot of unnecessary steps. Amaury • 16:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The unspoken rule Ditto51 is referencing isn't related to the guidelines. There is proper sources out there that explain how broadcast system works for anime and how its different from western series. It wouldn't have any more steps other than following what the sources say. If anything the current rule looks like a shortcut to just not keep track of renewal status. But WP:TV is very very very broad. You're probably thinking about all the series that continuously get renewed without question. But it might be more beneficial (even if its just slightly more work) to keep track of renewals for something like Netflix shows.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Again, I agree with BPP. Amaury, I am afraid you seriously do not understand how anime broadcasting works. Please read the instructions in {{Infobox animanga}}, as well as the ANN report I've linked above. Your logic is also incredibly flawed because there is literally a schedule that we could refer to on the anime's official website when it comes to broadcast dates; hence, we *only* list the end date when the season concludes. In most cases, one anime episode is broadcast weekly unless stated otherwise. Listing the end date when the season concludes is done in accordance to the instructions in the Animanga infobox. Why are we having this discussion again, when crystal clear instructions have already been documented?
There is no WP:OR here. Read up. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the confusion everyone, i was responding to this as an approach to updating WP:TV's own guidelines for the benefit of their articles.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. ... any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." That's from WP:V, a core policy. "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." That's from WP:OR. If you put in an end date without being able to support it with a citation that explicitly says the series ended on that date, it's OR. We had this discussion when we updated the instructions to what they are now. --AussieLegend () 17:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
But it can be equally argued that it's WP:OR to "assume" a show has been renewed (and is thus "ongoing") without an explicit renewal announcement. The days of the "three channel universe", where a show could assumed to be "renewed" until is was explicitly cancelled, is long since over. That's why a new discussion on WP:TVPRESENT may be merited. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes and no. Effectively, a source is required to support a change of state. In the case of The Penguins of Madagascar we had reliable sources confirming the production of episodes that had not aired so no source so it wasn't OR to assume that the season hadn't ended. We needed a source to confirm that it had ended. In the case of most programs we have sources confirming season renewals before the current season ends. When we don't get a renewal or cancellation notice we can't assume that it has ended OR been renewed and the program sits in limbo until we get one or the other. That's why the 12 month rule came in. --AussieLegend () 17:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Is that an outlier or the standard case? Again, we have to address that not every situation is going to be the same.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Then surely we need another answer to go in that box instead of the most recent episode airdate or "ongoing" because both imply something that isn't the case. Different shows have different unwritten rules in how networks handle them (Western shows like Flash, Arrow, NCIS, etc are normally known before the end of the season or within a few weeks of the end; kids shows don't have TV seasons and can be completely random like with the examples of Bubble Guppies and Penguins of Magascar being seemingly dead for longer than the year we allow and then coming back later on; and then anime which don't annonce cancelations only renewals (because the industry assumes cancellation unless told otherwise) and where series could get renewed seven years down the line like A Certain Magical Index and the resr of that series). So maybe we need to put down the last date and put a note that says no offical confirmation of cancellation, or keep ongoing for a year but leave a note that says that there isn't offical confirmation of the series being renewed.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a Schrödinger's cat problem: right now, we (in the WP:TV project) are interpreting "limbo" to mean "not cancelled". But we could just as easily switch that to "limbo" meaning "not renewed". Again, it just depends on how we treat the "limbo" case – arguments can be made either way, but I'm thinking in modern contexts, interpreting "limbo" to mean "not renewed" might be the better solution. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, we're equating "limbo" with "not cancelled or renewed". i.e. We don't know because we don't have reliable sources either way and we can't make a decision until we do or 12 months has passed. The "or 12 months has passed" part was what we added several years ago. --AussieLegend () 04:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: In my humble opinion, it is OR to assume a series is continuing for 11 months without any new information more than it is to say the Seasons have been completed with no confirmation of another. The former is based on our personal research and interpretations, the latter is based on citations and verifiability. We could be potentially giving false information to readers for 11 months for many articles.
If we follow the same process WP:ANIME is using, getting just a simple confirmation of renewal or that it's in production is much easier to cite for keeping a series in present/ongoing status. There's less inaccurate information given using this method. Adding the season's last aired date doesn't have to infer that the series is canceled or that it's complete. Another benefit is we don't have to wait 12 months of zero information to change the ongoing/status, we just wait until we have reliable information. information on a season renewal or that it's in production is commonly given with the first 6 months if not the first 2.
I think another problem is that "No. of Seasons" and "No. of Episodes" are separated from "Original Release" in the {{Infobox television}}. It would be a good idea to those two parameters be moved underneath the "Original Release" parameter if we do decide to follow WP:ANIME's method. It could present the information more clearly to readers on the situation of the series.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


I'm not entirely sure I understand your arguement, Amaury, in regards to episode to episode changing of the enddate. If I am understanding what you're saying is that we would have to change the enddate after each episode airs which isn't what I'm saying at all. If you know that a series has been renewed for so many episodes then you don't put the enddate in until after the final known episode has ended. Lets use Arrow as an example: We don't change the enddate between episodes 1 and 2 of season 8, we only change the end date once episode 10 ends.
That might be a bad example, because we know Arrow is ending, but the point still stands for if we didn't know that.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I'm actually annoyed that this is even a discussion at all. If a show uses {{Infobox television}}, then follow the instructions within the template. Anime articles adhere to the instructions in {{infobox animanga}}. Since the Animanga template instructs users to list the end date when the season concludes, in the absence of renewal announcements, we are going to do exactly just that. There is nothing wrong with following the guidelines as they are written. Nowhere in the Animanga template does it say that we have to wait one year for renewal announcements until we're allowed to input the end date. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not just a template documentation, it's also a guideline that has been linked multiple times. And yes, ANIME has to follow TV project guidelines. We apologize for "annoying" you with these guidelines that tens of thousands of articles follow. -- /Alex/21 21:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
For now, let's forget about WP:ANIME. For now, let's discuss whether its beneficial to follow this new proposal for all of WP:TV or not. Because this opened up a can of worms no one was expecting. If the status quo remains, we can discuss how independent WP:ANIME is from WP:TV. But its just not beneficial to discuss about that about now. I vote for an RfC for this.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Catch 21 GAR[edit]

Catch 21, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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?) 03:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Weeds episode naming issue[edit]

I've encountered an issue with a conflicting episode title and not sure which one should be listed in the episode list. Yeah, Like Tomatoes, an episode from the second season of Weeds, has different titles used by different sources. Netflix uses "Yeah, Just Like Tomatoes"; IMDB uses "Yeah, Like Tomatoes"; The Futon Critic uses "Yeah. Like Tomatoes". Which one should be used? --Gonnym (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd be leaning towards believing Futon Critic is correct because it uses the name from the press release. That said, Netflix is also a reliable source and it's possible the name was changed later on. In cases like this it's best to list both names and both references since we can't arbitrarily decide one is more correct than the other. This happened all the times with MythBusters when it was airing and I've seen it happen with other programs too.
Personally, I'd say list The Futon Critic's titles, given their official press-release status, then add header notes to the respective episodes (or the entire column) stating that the title differs between different sources. Same format as A Series of Unfortunate Events (TV series)'s episode table. -- /Alex/21 13:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both. Added a note to the title. --Gonnym (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Story/Teleplay credit formatting[edit]

For those interested in maintenance, I have created Category:Episode lists with unformatted story or teleplay credits, for where articles are using |WrittenBy=''Story by'': Ken Daly and John Matta<br />''Teleplay by'': Ken Daly, John Matta and Jon Colton Barry instead of |WrittenBy={{StoryTeleplay|s=Ken Daly and John Matta|t=Ken Daly, John Matta and Jon Colton Barry}}. The current count is 1,000+ articles. -- /Alex/21 22:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019. Discussion is about whether you can have a "List of episodes" article without having a "TV series" article. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Series overview tables at Marvel articles[edit]

Concerning the tables at the above Marvel Television articles, would these be considered series overview tables? They're simply raw wikicode, and identical to the display and layout that is given in {{Series overview}}; exactly what we use to do before the template was created. We changed to the template for a reason. They're an overview of each season, with episode count and premiere/finale dates (or the release data, in the case of the Netflix series). The first table even includes the timeslot, which is typically a feature of {{Television season ratings}}. List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes § Series overview even has a templated series overview, making its parent article's Release table redundant. If they are considered series overview tables, we typically always convert these tables to the template, and home media dates are not accepted in overview tables per MOS:TVOVERVIEW; a number of the tables are even classic series overviews with empty TBA cells for all the home media dates (see Cloak & Dagger). Should we be separating the home media dates and converting these tables to {{Series overview}}? -- /Alex/21 21:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

As these tables are in the Release section, I'd say they are NOT Series overview tables, and shouldn't conform to the MOS. However, a point could be made that these tables should be split into two tables: a {{Series overview}} table in the Episodes or Series overview section somewhere at the top, and a wiki table in the Home release section. I wouldn't fight local consensus for that step though. – sgeureka tc 22:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused as to how their location affects what they are? They are tables that summarize into an overview table the details of the series, such as episodes and dates. If they were moved to a "Series overview" section, would it be a series overview table? Yes, because it's the same table. I strongly agree with the splitting of the raw wikicode table, however, into more MoS-conforming practices. -- /Alex/21 22:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Location matters for the allowed scope of the table. Currently, they are tables that combine independent release data per season, which might be fine for a Release section. The series overview tables are usually in section that {{main}}-links to the LoE, and is (I guess) more about the show's structure and general data from the initial broadcast, i.e. the basis for the LoE. – sgeureka tc 06:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
They contain exactly the same information. Series overview tables combine independent release data per season. If I moved the infobox to a different section, it doesn't stop being an infobox. -- /Alex/21 07:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
No, the current tables include extra Home media release info for each season, so it is not exactly the same information as a Series overview table, so the location of the table does matter for what the table may include. Anyway, it seems that all of us here are broadly agreeing that a table split into {{Series overview}} and another for Home media could be a solution; we're just disagreeing how much the current situation actually requires another solution. – sgeureka tc 12:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed it does include such, because that's how series overviews used to exist for years, with episodes, dates and home media releases, before the implementation of MOS:TVOVERVIEW and {{Series overview}}. Once the latter was implemented (that is, Home media releases do not belong in the series overview tables. Such data can quickly overload a simple table and are not germane to our understanding of the series. Home media release information is best suited within their own section on the List of episodes article or main article.), home media dates were quickly removed from all series overview tables, either as a blank removal or a move to a separate table. How the tables in the above articles currently look is exactly how series overviews used to look before the home media guideline.
See an example here. How does the old series overview table linked in this diff differ to the current tables in the articles linked above? They don't. That is what I am arguing, that those current tables are a step backwards to before the guidelines that we currently use.
It does seem that we agree that it needs to be split into a templated series overview and a home media table. That's the solution that hundreds(/thousands) of television articles currently use, and thus that's the solution these articles should use to conform with standard practices. -- /Alex/21 14:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you, Sgeureka – those should be separate tables. For example, the way it's handled at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is particularly bad – you have an empty 'Episodes' section that contains only a link to List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes (this should never be done!) that doesn't even include the transcluded 'series overview' table from List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes, and then you have the awkward 'Release' table further down the page. The 'Release' table contains info that is redundant with a proper 'series overview table', while the 'series overview' table at the LoE article contains ratings info that should arguably be in yet another separate table. Jessica Jones (TV series) is another article where this seems to be handled badly. I agree that there should be a 'series overview' table, and a separate table for things like home video releases. --IJBall (contribstalk) 01:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd argue that those are clearly series overview tables despite their location. In fact I've argued about this before. However, I do agree with Sgeureka that they should be split. --AussieLegend () 05:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I also agree that they need to be split, preferably into {{Series overview}} for the episode counts and dates, and Home Media raw wikicode table for the home media dates. As for the ratings information... it's a common occurrence to include these in a series overview table, but there's further tables under the Reception sections in each article, the content of which is typically displayed in {{Television season ratings}}. I believe the article should just be converted to how the hundreds(/thousands) of television articles already display such data. Marvel articles are no different. -- /Alex/21 07:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
It's been ten days, so if there's no opposition, I'll go ahead and split the "Release" tables into separate {{Series overview}} and home media tables. -- /Alex/21 00:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool[edit]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Movies Shown on TV[edit]

On the List of programs broadcast by YTV, it has a section listing movies and specials that have aired on the network. Specials is one thing, but listing movies that have aired is WP:LISTCRUFT and unnecessary. I don't see any reason to keep a list of movies aired. No other lists with programming for networks have such a thing. Why have it for this network? Seems redundant and will never be complete as movies have been shown for decades. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

A lot of these TV channel/network lists are pointless. They should only list first run shows and movies and not reruns, syndication or anything else that was aired somewhere else first. --Gonnym (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Why should movies be listed? That is WP:LISTCRUFT and those sections won't ever be satisfied because you won't be able to name every movie they've ever aired. Plus that section would get too big. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 09:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Because First run (filmmaking) is notable. If a film is released on Netflix, that isn't a trivial thing, it's the exact opposite. --Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: This isn't Netflix. Netflix is not a just a streaming service, but a film and television studio thus produce films and web series. Not even the same thing. YTV doesn't produce their own films. Again, it is WP:LISTCRUFT and has been removed. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Hello,
Please note that Audience, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

The line between WP:ANIME and WP:TVSHOW[edit]

A discussion has been created in WP:VPM#The line between WP:ANIME and WP:TVSHOW. Those who believe they need to voice their opinion on the matter is welcome to respond.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Neither the above discussion nor the move discussion at Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019 seem to be going anywhere so I'm considering an RfC to determine whether MOS:ANIME is subordinate to MOS:TV when it relates to anime TV programs. However, I would appreciate help formulating the RfC question. Thoughts anyone? All constructive contributions are welcome. --AussieLegend () 17:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I already posted a sample RfC question in those discussions – it's basically: "Is WP:ANIME a sub-project of WP:TV and WP:COMICS, and therefore subject to the guidelines of the two parent projects?" This is basically the issue – Is WP:ANIME their own project that can do whatever they want? Or is it a subproject of the other two ("parent") WP's? --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll take it one step further - WP:ANIME is not a top-level WikiProject but more of a multi-project task force made up of TV, Film and Comics. They should not have any original guidelines, as any part of their project should already be covered by one of the three project guidelines. --Gonnym (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
None of the guidelines contradict the current. But i'm willing to have this discussion.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
An RfC is usually meant to get comments from other editors. It's pointless if it ends up being like the Village pump discussion, where the same editors are discussing at the RM and pump discussions.
@Gonnym: Is it stated anywhere that ANIME is a sub-project? I'm just trying to see how we can word the question so it's not overly complicated or ambiguous. --AussieLegend () 18:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to anything stated above, but looking at WP:ANIME#Scope MOS:AM#Scope says that This manual of style applies to articles about anime, manga, and related topics, and is a topic-specific subset Manual of Style of the following Manuals of Style: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies (where applicable) and later also Editors should also keep in mind the guidelines suggested on WikiProject Television or WikiProject Films, as those seem to work well for episodic media, including manga.. --Gonnym (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
That's strange. I can't find that text in the current version. --AussieLegend () 19:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Have you been listening to what WP:ANIME has been trying to tell you? It's like talking to a wall. We've said multiple times that WP:ANIME does use other — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Pumpkin Pie (talkcontribs) 09:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Oops, sorry for that. The link is MOS:AM#Scope. --Gonnym (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
That's very interesting reading. I wonder if WP:ANIME editors have read it? --AussieLegend () 07:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Everytime i see you three have a personal discussion, i notice more and more you don't even know what WP:ANIME's stance is. Editors from WP:ANIME have already confirmed that they are not violating WP:MOSTV or TVSPLIT. And we've expressed as well that WP:ANIME uses other MOS as a foundation of its own MOS. Any changes or exceptions to the other MOS are done sparingly and are using common sense. Common sense doesn't mean the majority of articles have one method, it just means that the decisions made were practical and sensible.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:11 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, good point: WP:FILM should also be included. The question can be amedned to: "Is WP:ANIME a sub-project of WP:TV, WP:FILM and WP:COMICS, and therefore subject to the guidelines of these parent projects?" --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the question should be "Should WP:TV allow exceptions for WP:ANIME to organize articles differently if it means providing more good-quality content. Because WP:ANIMe has not gone against any MOS.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

TV guest spots in filmographies[edit]

Hey all, what is the project's attitude toward TV special appearances and guest spots being included in filmographies in actor bios? Is this part of a bigger question? I often see film or TV actor bios include things like appearing as a guest on a comedy talk show, or comedy variety show, or a reality show, or a dance show or something. See Pearl V Puri#Filmography or this edit. Is there any guidance on this written anywhere? Sometimes they show up in dedicated Special appearances subsections. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, there was this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_25#Guest_appearances_on_chat_shows_and_similar and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture/Archive_4#Eradication_of_variety_show_sections AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Bob's Burgers (season 10)[edit]

I need some pairs of eyes on this. As several editors keep adding WP:COPYVIO episode summaries and episode summaries of yet to air episodes WP: NOTCRYSTAL. — YoungForever(talk) 23:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Episode table release dates[edit]

What's our consensus on series that are released in full on a streaming service first, then broadcast? War of the Worlds was released in full on MyCanal on October 28, is being broadcast weekly in double-batches from October 28 (to November 18, presumably), and is being advertised as being released in multiple countries in single-batches weekly from October 30 to December 18. What date/s should be listed in the episode table? -- /Alex/21 00:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it would depend on "who" the series was produced for. It it was produced primarily for a streaming service, then the release date should be used. If it was produced primarily for a "terrestrial" or cable TV channel, then the broadcast air dates should be used. If it's a "co-production" between both... then I have no idea. But I'm assuming "MyCanal" is the streaming service of the Canal TV channel?... If so, I'd say to go with the air dates. --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
It's a bit fuzzy, really, as to who it was produced for (same as for how it's fuzzy as to what country produced it, per the last discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#The War of the Worlds. I guess it's similar to how Timeless and Anne both had episodes and seasons (respectively) released on Netflix before their respective episodes and seasons (respectively) aired on the origin Network. I've detailed the full-series release date in the appropriate section, so I'd have to agree with the air dates. -- /Alex/21 00:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm in the opinion of going with the first official (non-leak, pirated, etc.) release. This is supported by {{Infobox television}} which says The parameter is not restricted to a "premiere" date. In the event a program airs a full "preview" episode on TV in advance of a premiere, that date should be used instead. and Infobox film Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release. --Gonnym (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:AXN (German TV channel), regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC discussion invitation[edit]

An RfC that affects your project has been opened at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Please review the discussion and contribute as you see fit. --AussieLegend () 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Watchmen (TV series)#About starring cast order[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Watchmen (TV series)#About starring cast order. — YoungForever(talk) 15:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Index pages[edit]

I invite editors to share their opinion about index pages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Babylon 5 articles. Question: Are index pages an endorsed way to organize TV-related articles, or are they a relict of the past? – sgeureka tc 02:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

More opinions on Infinity train[edit]

a discussion in talk:Infinity Train on whether a brief image shown in the HBOMax presentation is enough to include in the article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ratings of back-to-back episodes[edit]

This is regarding season 2 of The Masked Singer. I've put multiple message on the talk page about this (see here), but to summarize it up quickly- an episode was originally supposed to air on October 30, but was delayed to this week (November 6) due to a necessary Game 7 of the World Series. To avoid bumping the entire season up a week, FOX opted to air two back-to-back episode on November 6, the first from 8-9pm, and the second from 9-10pm. With multiple sources confirming it (again, see talk page messages), the episodes are listed separately as even FOX themselves list it as episode 5 and 6, which is why they are not listed together as "Mask Us Anything/Mask-ish" on the episode table.

With this comes a problem over how the viewership/ratings should be listed (see here for that discussion). The initial ratings on TV by the Numbers list them as to separate episodes, one from 8-9pm with 6.97m and the other from 9-10pm with 7.22m. The article further states that they are, "back-to-back episodes," and that they, "averaged 7.1 million viewers across the two episodes". However, their later final ratings list it as just one episode from 8-10pm, with 7.10m. The math works out correctly to the average (6.97 + 7.22 = 14.19, divide by 2 results in 7.095, which rounds to the 7.1 average).

The problem then comes to if initial ratings or final ratings should be used. While yes, I know the final ratings would be better off to use, the initial ratings list them off as two separate episodes, while the final ratings list it as just one two-hour episode and averages the separate ratings. As can be seen through the talk page, two users are saying the final ratings should be used, and give both episodes the 7.10. In my mind, that would be incorrect and not be going off of both sources- as the initial ratings give two different numbers for each episode, and that the final ratings they are changing it to to use 7.10 lists 7.10 as the average for both episodes combined as one- 8-10pm. With multiple sources confirming it, the episodes should definitely remain separate in the episode table, but how would this ratings problem be handled? This seems to be an interesting case, as with the Roseanne instance they give, both the initial ratings and final ratings list them as one episode, from 8-9pm- while The Masked Singer changes between the initial and final ratings. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The final ratings are reported how the network chooses to label the back-to-back episodes (unlike the initial/prilimary ratings, which most often separate them before the network chooses what they want) so we should be following the final ratings. - Brojam (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
We should always follow the final ratings, not preliminary ratings. Preliminary ratings can be subject to change. — YoungForever(talk) 17:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Brojam: That would be contradictory though. You say, "The final ratings are reported how the network chooses to label the back-to-back episodes"- yet on their website and YouTube channel, label them as episodes 5 and 6. So between the final ratings and official sites, they themselves apparently don't know which to refer to it as. Their advertising + social media and press release called it a two-hour episode, but is then listed as two one-hour episodes. If a Game 7 were not needed, "Mask Us Anything" would've aired the previous week, it was only made into a back-to-back so a week would not be lost. Magitroopa (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry I should have been more clear. How they want their ratings for those episodes represented. A network can call it two episodes, but want it to only be represent in one ratings value, so thus we would list them as two different episodes but with the same averaged rating. (Also, another point, we don't have the separate final ratings so we really have no option but to use the averaged ratings.) - Brojam (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Then I assume a note like this would be appropriate to use if the final ratings must be used. With the finals ratings listing the 7.10 for "(8-10 p.m.)", if they are still listed as separate episodes in the table, then I would think that would solve it. If fine, the same should also be done for the Roseanne S10 premiere and any other similar cases. Magitroopa (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You should never use the preliminary ratings, especially around this time of the year as they are often subject to downward adjustments for things like Sports preemptions in certain markets. For arguments sake if a television show was preempted in New York(The number one Nielsen market) it would result in a greater than usual adjustment. These sort of situations are fairly common for networks like ABC(On Mondays) & The CW which frequently has preemptions which are often a pain in the butt for fans in those markets and always results in adjustments down. Esuka (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Final ratings must always be used, for the reasons outlined by Esuka above. A note isn't really necessary. Just put 7.11 million, according to Showbuzz Daily, and be done with it. Amaury • 20:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Characters looking like animals without being animals[edit]

When it comes to characters who look like certain animals without being those animals, is it okay to use "-like" in their descriptions (for example: dog-like, cat-like, mouse-like, etc.)? 107.77.231.236 (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A specific example (e.g. an article or two) would be a help here. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

MOS:TV discussion[edit]

As the result of a recent failed move discussion regarding a television series, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Article hierarchy clarification with the aim of adding what should be simple clarification regarding article hierarchy to the MOS. All editors are invited and encouraged to participate, even if that is to just read what is written. Thank you. --AussieLegend () 01:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Nigel Mitchell[edit]

Just wondering if anyone from this WikiProject has heard of this person. He's described as TV presenter from the UK, but I haven't found any real WP:SIGCOV about him. There appear to be some others who share his name so there's lots of hits, but not finding anything but trivial mentions. All of the article content is unsourced and it actually reads like something written by a fan; so, even if he meets WP:BIO, there's going to be lots of cleaning up to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I haven't heard of him either to be honest. I agree with you 100% this article screams fan to me honestly. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)