Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 3

message: After looking over how the television articles are currently organized, I'm considering creating a new subcategory of :Category:Television and :Category:Works by year called :Category:Television program debuts by year.  This would be similar to :Category:Films by year or :Category:Plays by year, and give a way to categorize the television program listing by year of their debut.  It would not replace the Television by year lists, but rather would supplement them by giving users the ability to search for television programs by their release date using the category system.  
So what do you guys think?  I wanted to get some feedback, good or bad, before actually undertaking the project.  It theoretically would add exactly one new category to all television programs, so the overhead per article isn't bad but it will take some time to go through all the TV shows. The upside is that a category system is auto-updating once its set up. Dugwiki 20:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No feedback yet, so I'm just going to go ahead and set this up since I don't see a downside to doing so (other than it will take me a little while).  I'm using the same template structure as :Category:Books by year.  Any questions, suggestions or if you spot any mistakes, please feel free to let me know. Dugwiki 20:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considering creating [[:Category:Television program debuts by year]] 

message: Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD on [[:Category:Actors by television series]] 

message: I posted this on WT:LOE and thought I would also mention it here:
:Since there's not a lot of episode list-specific activity, I was wondering maybe we should "merge" ourselves back with our parent project, WikiProject Television. Pretty much the main reason for LOE was to come up with a style-guideline for lists of episodes. We could merge some of our pages to WP:TV and then set up a dedicated sub-page with it's own talk page. I think we should do the same with WikiProject Television episodes. There's a lot of ideas and such that I've wanted to bring up, but it can be hard because they cross into a few different areas, including lists of episodes. Better integration with our parent project would still allow us to do all the things we've been doing independently, but allow for easier collaboration and make things easier to find. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed "merge" of WikiProject List of Television Episodes and WikiProject Television episodes 

message: Hi, I'd like to get :Category:Characters designed by public contest populated. I don't know of any other characters myself. --GunnarRene 21:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters designed by public contest 

message: I created a new template at :Template:Infobox Television Film.  I felt it was needed because the television and film infoboxes didn't cover the merged category.  Take a look at it, see if you have any suggestions or if you may want to add it to the links on the main article.  Thanks. -Shannernanner 10:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Television films

message: The infobox at Boy Meets World is so long it's messing up the formatting.  It has like 27 producers and actors.  Does anyone know of a good way to include the info while having a smaller box? - Peregrinefisher 15:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've implemented a solution. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Giant infobox

message: This happens usually at TV show episode articles: (Simpsons and South Park articles are 2 good examples). In my opinion: either add the trivia to the regular part of the article somehow, or just remove it. Wikipedia is about useful information, not huge trivia lists (which can include goofs, cameos, and more: all of which aren't always needed). Visit :Category:Articles with large trivia sections if you want to help clean up trivia. Quotes needs to be cleaned up as well, and either moved to WikiQuotes or just deleted. RobJ1981 19:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Family Guy is another problem area. Most episode pages have long lists of cultural references. Anyone help is appreciated, these pages need serious cleanup. RobJ1981 23:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much trivia and quotes problems at television pages

message: FYI, there is a cfd nomination for converting all subcategories of :Category:Actors by television series into list articles.  The discussion can be found here. Basically, the recommendation is to convert all categories of actors by television series (eg. :Category:The 4400 actors) into a list article.  Feel free to post your input on the CFD page. :)  Dugwiki 21:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 100% to -100%. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied to your comment on the cfd page. I'd recommend keeping comments regarding these cats there, so discussion can be collected in one place as opposed to split across pages. Also, if you disagree with something I edited, feel free to let me know on my talk page and I'll be happy to respond or correct it. Dugwiki 22:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD to convert all subcats of [[:Category:Actors by television series]] into list articles 

message: The network, premier date and schedule should not be part of the first paragraph. Some shows are shown on multiple networks and often in multiple countries. There is also TIVO, DVD release and now download on the Internet. Instead there should be a separate section that discusses scheduling and viewing of the program. This should be added to the project policy page.
Compare: 
Men In Trees is an  romantic comedy-drama television series starring Anne Heche,  Centered around relationship coach Marin Frist's misadventures upon relocation to Alaska, the series bears at least superficial similarities to Sex and the City and Northern Exposure.
to
Men in Trees is an hour-long drama television series which debuted on ABC on September 12, 2006 after the season premiere of Dancing With The Stars. The series began its regular time slot on September 15 with a repeat of the premiere episode .  The series stars Anne Heche as relationship coach Marin Frist, an advice giver who has trouble following her own advice.
--Gbleem 11:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I pretty much agree, although I think the initial year of release should be included to place the article in historical context.  It's like including the year of birth of a person or year of release of a movie or play in the introduction, and gives the reader an idea of what else was going on in the world at the time it debuted.  So while other scheduling details don't need to be in the intro, I would include the year or date of release.Dugwiki 15:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the spirit of your suggestion - with modern viewing options network and scheduling info does seem like unnecessary detail in the lead. I also agree with Dugwiki that the premiere date (or at least year) is important for establishing the content of the article and should remain in the lead. However, your example is not very convincing. The suggested rewrite contains unsourced speculative comparisons, weasel wording and some grammatical errors. I think giving it a copy edit might strengthen your argument.--Opark 77 09:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One issue at a time please. Copy editing one particular article can go on the talk page for that article. --Gbleem 00:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless it's produced only for syndication, however, it's going to be branded by a particular network (sometimes two) that was responsible for giving it the green light and was/will be responsible for cancelling it, even if the production was by an independent company.  Scheduling is probably not important in the first paragraph, but the parent network should be mentioned up front.  Secondary markets (e.g., NBC shows on Canadian TV, BBC shows on PBS) should not be mentioned up front, however; a subsection at the most should address this.  Postdlf 17:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Proposal: The original airdate and orginating networks should be mentioned in the second paragraph or later of the introduction and all other distribution and scheduling mentioned in a latter section. --Gbleem 00:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premier date, network and schedule 

message: The :Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films has a side infobox gathering all the basic info a user must know about the project. I think it looks cool (check the link I posted), so I tried to make one for this project. I don't like the picture though. Can some one change it for a better one cool enough to use int the Films Wikiproject fashion?--201 21:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the infobox for a WikiProject is necessary.. at all.. People seem infobox crazy these days. -- Ned Scott 00:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Hi, I'm asking for a third-party opinion on a television-related manner.  I've noticed that a large number of articles are showing up on various television series, including extensive plot summaries which detail the story's arc over a period of several years, as well as separate articles on each and every major character in the series, but none of these (plot summaries or character descriptions) are provided with any references or external links whatsoever.  What is the general feeling on this?  Is it , or is it acceptable to have such summaries and character descriptions, with the claim that "the show is the source"? --Elonka 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If its refering episodes for these sumamries then its not OR (ie. "Tom said to xx in xx episode", references xx episode). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about soap operas, which have no clear "named" episodes, but are ongoing series that last for decades?  Is an unreferenced plot summary or character description "original research"?  Or no?  What about detailed listings of actors that played the part over the years?  For example, to a dedicated fan of the show, such information is definitely available in the show's credits over the years, but does that count as verifiable, if the only verification is the credits listing from an episode that aired once in 1982? --Elonka 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for opinion

message: This category is in sad shape. There appears to be a lot of vandalism from User:198.189.198.2 dating back to Dec 15, 2005. Betty White? Tallulah Bankhead? Please...
Also, many of the actors who portrayed specific roles, e.g. Danny DeVito as the Penguin, have suffered because subcats were deleted instead of merged. I haven't looked yet, but I suspect that the Superman-related actors have also been unceremoniously dumped as well. CovenantD 18:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both actresses were in Batman projects. According to the IMDB, Bankhead was in the 1967 series as the Black Widow, and Betty White was in Return to the Batcave: The Misadventures of Adam and Burt. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 19:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Betty had a cameo, poking her head out a window as Batman and Robin climbed a wall, in the Adam West series. Doczilla 20:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: At Categories for Discussion they regularly delete this type of category. --Dhartung | Talk 20:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Batman actors]] 

message: There is a call to delete several of the US network television schedule articles (WP:AFD).  The nomination mentions 1995 through 2001, but any argument which applies to those almost certainly applies to all TV schedule articles.  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule.  — EncMstr 17:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  network television schedule deletion discussion 

message: The examples given on the page for character descriptions appear to be written "in-universe".  I'm not very well-versed in this, but it strikes me as contradicting the Manual of Style's writing about fiction guideline.  Am I interpreting incorrectly?  Schi 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters/writing about fiction

message: I have nominated Template:TV3 (New Zealand) Primetime Schedule for deletion, on the grounds that it's a copyvio (the TV station explicitly forbids publishing of its listings without purchasing the right to do so), that Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and that it's a recreation of a speedy-deleted predecessor. Since the deletion on the ground of Wikipedia not being a TV guide would set a precedent affecting many other articles on television networks, I'm drawing wider attention to the deletion debate. Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 22, not here.-gadfium 04:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last week there was a similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule.  The consensus was keep.  — EncMstr 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TV program schedules

message: Hello all,
I have nominated the following templates for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 21#Template:Tvguideshow:
:
:
:
:
These templates seem to exists purely to advertise the TV Guide. They all contain two external links - one to the appropriate page at TVGuide.com, one to the home page. Created by ; this account has only been used to create these templates and apply them to some pages. If we keep them, then I would suggest that they are merged to a single template, and that they link to the TV Guide page rather than the website homepage.
Further to this,  has been proliferating the use of Template:Tvguide show. The only edits they have made are adding the links.  has been doing the same, with no other edits but to apply the templates.
So far, this has had one vote to speedy delete as spam. What do people here think? Mike Peel 06:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your website seems good, the only problem is you working for them which affects your neutrality. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Tvguide show]] and related templates 

message: I have suggested here that we standardize the images used in the infobox to the title card for the show rather than cast photos or promotional photos.  Most shows currently use this format including (but not limited to Prison Break, The O.C., Stargate Atlantis, House and Veronica Mars.  Shows that don't do this include Lost, Weeds and Stargate SG-1.  The SG-1 article is particularly annoying since it's a cast photo thats at least three seasons out of date.  The advantages of standardizing on the shows official title card are:
*standard size (typically) - The taller the the image the further down it pushes the "content" of the infobox.
*instantly recognisable - Most shows title cards are instantly recognisable, think MASH and Lost
*doesn't change very often - If you don't use the shows title card then the image must be rotated frequently or you end up with a situation such as that with the SG-1 article.
*No screen shots - Boy Meets World is a perfect example where a random screen shot is being used to reflect the entirety of the show.
-- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  10:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Cast photos are very well suited for season sections, as they change frequently. The other solution is to have only the logo, as done in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Rome.--SidiLemine 12:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Buffy uses the title screen. Deus (talk contribs &site=en.wikipedia.org count email) 12:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmh, that's a tricky one, as it happens to also be the logo. But as I said, either one is good to me (see also Firefly for another one like buffy.--SidiLemine 14:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Firefly is also the title screen.. Deus (talk contribs &site=en.wikipedia.org count email) 14:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. Isn't it great and perfectly adapted to the infobox?--SidiLemine 15:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardized Image in infobox? 

message: Hi, in order to complete the above article, we need someone to list any television versions of the above character. I am unable to do so due to knowing nothing about the character history--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Griffin (The Invisible Man)]] 

message: I want to try to organize the television categories by creating :Category:Categories named after television series because currently most of the television cats are very difficult to browse.  Categories named after television series are being placed into the same categories as the articles about the television series.  This is creating a mess in many parent cats as these eponymous show categories are being mixed with actually significant subcategories making browsing difficult and confusing (One example is :Category:Comedy television series; there are many more).  This also leads to unnecessary duplication.  This was happening with eponymous people categories as well, and consensus was for those cats to only be placed in :Category:Categories named after people or one of its subcategories.  I want to do the same for television series by creating :Category:Categories named after television series and removing all the excess cats from these categories that are already included in the article, where they belong.  I want to go ahead and start this if nobody opposes.  --musicpvm 15:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that eponymous categories should be converted to lists?  So instead of :Category:Friends, there should be a List of Friends-related articles or something of that sort?  That's an idea, but I do think it's nice to have all the related articles for notable television shows in a category, and there is such a large number of these cats now, it would be difficult to convert them all to lists.  I don't know if we can control these eponymous cats, but for now I at least want to place them all into one parent cat so they don't create a mess in other categories as they are at the moment. --musicpvm 18:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  I find it easier to locate articles (as opposed to categories) with Wikimedia search or Google.  I've tried dozens of times to find things by browsing categories, but that is usually an exercise in frustration.  Also, it's much harder to track category article deletions through the watchlist, and not possible to track additions (that I know of).  If an article is substantially changed at some point, it might be difficult for a future editor to figure out why it is a member of some category.  With a List of article, the listing article can easily describe the purpose of links in a particular section which greatly enhances maintainability.  — EncMstr 19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that there seem to be too many of these categories.  I don't think any of these categories should contain actors, writers, directors, etc.  In most cases though, they are being used to house related lists (lists of episodes, characters, DVD releases, etc) (ex. :Category:Friends), and I do think those ones are useful.  There are the :Category:Actors by television series subcats though, which are a little out of control as some of those shows are not even notable.  If I do come across eponymous television cats for non-notable shows that don't really deserve them though, I will nominate them for deletion.  --musicpvm 18:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Along those lines, and after taking a look at Fenton's post below, I put :Category:The 4400 up for discussion on cfd.  While The 4400 is a great show, the category appears to be mainly to house the actor and episode lists. Actor lists and episode lists can already be categorized under other categories, and the 4400 main article can have See Also links to those lists.  It's an example of a show that doesn't, I think, need its own unique parent category. (Good show, though) Dugwiki 22:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories named after television series 

message: Just a note, all the episodes of The 4400 have been put up for deletion here - These episodes are still relativly new and are activly edited and fleshed out. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The 4400]] 

message: Smallville characters Season One: a page of guest characters for each season?! This really isn't needed. There is pages like that for each season. Then there is Smallville Places (Season 5). A list of places for the whole season really isn't needed either, in my opinion. I can understand a general list of locations (listing the notable main places, and some of the notable lesser places), but not a list for each season. I haven't seen other places articles, so the season 5 might be the only one. A serious issue of fancruft, in my opinion. I think a mass AFD is needed for these. Wikipedia isn't a fan's guide to every little character or location. Smallville is a popular show, but that still doesn't justify all these extra pages. RobJ1981 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we have pages for every non-notable royal - So why not pages on the notable and interesting pages that will actually get edited and serve a useful purpose? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not enough to justify these fancruft TV pages. Wikipedia isn't a fan's guide to television shows. RobJ1981 21:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isnt a fans guide to "royalty" either, is it? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then AFD them. No one is stopping you. People add fancruft too much, and if no AFD goes on the articles...they remain. RobJ1981 21:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those articles should be merged, Matthew. I can find lots of articles that have typos, but that's no excuse to intently produce typos, now is it? -- Ned Scott 21:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The character articles don't seem too bad, but yeah, over all having articles for even places is a bit too much. Much merging and cruft cutting is needed. -- Ned Scott 21:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Smallville articles: fancruft at it's best?

message: I'm sure this has been discussed before (probably to death), but I'm just wondering: What is the official policy about listing international broadcasters of a show? Both the Scrubs and Weeds pages currently have rather extensive lists of which network broadcasts the show in which country, and these seem to be some of the most actively edited, and some might say the most unnecessary, sections in the articles. So what is the opinion of WP Television? --Gpollock 04:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ANIME had the same issue with broadcasters and manga publishers. Our solution was to use the hide/show CSS function. For example, the infobox on Cardcaptor Sakura or Rurouni Kenshin. Another idea was using only the original broadcaster in the infobox. Then make a separate table for other broadcasters and place that table in an appropriate section in the article. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This proved a very effective solution. Articles like Grey's Anatomy and Rome (TV series also have huge blocks for international broadcasters (more than for the seasons description, or the characters, or in fact anything else), and that does seem inappropriate. While it is useful, encyclopedic information, I personally feel it is much better suited for a closed (closeable at least)drawer in the infobox than a major section in the article body. Or it could go, as episodes do, on a separate article, with only something like "Show Title was broadcasted in xx countries, with first air dates varying from Y to Z", and any other relevant info.--SidiLemine 11:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International broadcasters 

message: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions - a debate over the use of disambiguation titles for episode articles of a TV show when no disambiguation is needed. Also, when disambig titles are used for episode articles should they be (ShowName) or (ShowName episode). All are invited to join the discussion and give their input. -- Ned Scott 02:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC for episode article naming conventions 

message: There's been a few new TV stub types created recently:  , ,  and .  I'm also in the process of moving all the  to , to free the later template name for use for an 'umbrella' , in line with the practice for other countries.  The TV-stubs are still very large, though:  if anyone has any thoughts on how to split them up further, please share them at WP:WSS/P.  Alai 02:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tv-stub redux 

message: As an FYI, a mass AfD has been placed for List of DirecTV channels, List of XM Satellite Radio channels, List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations, List of CW affiliates, List of MyNetworkTV affiliates, List of Dish Network channels, List of CBS affiliates, List of NBC affiliates, List of ABC affiliates and List of Fox affiliates. The mass AfD is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels; and while I'm not trolling for commentary, each of these lists fall under the pervue of WP:TV. --Mhking 18:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion of channel/network lists 

message: The article WNBC could use some help. With enough work, it could probably be a featured article. aido2002 04:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Could Use Work 

message: Hello all,
First off, apologies if there exists a better place to ask this question; I was forwarded here from the help desk. Anyway, I recently created Template:NBCNightlyNewsCorrespondents listing all the correspondents of NBC Nightly News (I plan on doing the same for ABC and CBS). I was wondering if there was anyone out there who might be able to inform me if anchors (such as Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, etc.) could be considered correspondents, and thus should be included in the template. Having grown up watching evening news, I'm under the impression that anchors often file reports much like other regular correspondents, and should be considered correspondents as well, but I'm not entirely sure. Any experts out there who might know? Or anyone work for the network news organizations who might know? :) Thanks so much. Gzkn 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gotta tell you, I'm not a fan of nav templates like this at all. Templates like this really aren't that helpful and just flood the bottom of articles. Nav templates should not be a way to jump from loosely related article, but rather should be used for an article series. This kind of thing is best done with a category. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur. Anchors is one thing, correspondents is another. Many correspondents spend their careers "on camera" for numerous broadcasters. I can't imagine what their articles would look like if each had its own template. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sounds good. I've decided to nominate the template for a speedy delete. Thanks for your opinions. Gzkn 06:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:NBCNightlyNewsCorrespondents]] 

message: I've been going through the stubs off and on for a while now, but I certainly could use some help. There is a ton of sorting to do. RobJ1981 00:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Actor stubs]] needs some attention

message: Hi, I would appreciate if you would share your thoughts about The Simpsons article in the peer review. The goal is to make it a FA. --Maitch 15:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Simpsons peer review

message: I seem to be having a continuously circular argument with an admin on this page.  The entire trivia section has been relegated to the discussion page.  He cites that it is totally unsourced, when I cite sources he says it is irrelevant.  I may be massively misjudging the guy, but it seems to be a case of one step forward, two back.  He seems to be obsessed with references and sources and when I've asked what he will accept I get no answer.  Can anyone help in this, or at least if they have had similiar problems, how they dealt with them? Douglasnicol 15:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buck Rogers in the 25th Century issues

message: Do TV show episode articles need sources? I thought they did, but I decided to ask here. I've came across countless articles without sources, I've added unsourced to some of them. In my opinion, Wikipedia is getting flooded with too many TV episode articles. Game show articles seem to be the newest issue. Why do they need to exist? I put Deal or No Deal and 1 vs 100 episode lists in AFD, because the articles lack the content or importance. For Deal or No Deal, it was basically a list of money won, what the models wore, and guest stars (which doesn't happen that much). The show itself is notable, but the episodes in general don't need articles. The Price is Right has been on the air for a long time, that doesn't mean we need articles listing what games were played, money won, and the color of Bob's clothes or the model's clothes. There is no Price of Right episode articles (that I know of), and it should remain that way. Deal or No Deal, 1 vs 100 and some other recent hit gameshows, shouldn't be the start of game show episode articles. Episode articles also shouldn't exist for: reality shows and sporting events (that were televised: regular season games. Big events like Super Bowl and World Series are fine as articles.). What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 06:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources: A synopsis of a television episode does not require a source as it is self-reference, however something like music played in an episode does need a source, casts do not as they are self reference to the credits as well, non the less it is always best to have a link to the IMDb/TV.com as a secondary source as well. Why?: Probably because there encyclopaedic, they have a wide spectrum of interest and because a large percent of Wikipedia's traffic is to fictional related things, now game shows.. I don't see a purpose to game show episode lists as there is nothing substantial that can be wrote about them. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, why is that articles like TV Land are so poor? It's a cable channel, but the article is just mainly a list. I would imagine some other channel articles are like that, but from the few I've looked at... there is hardly any lists of programs. In my opinion, there shouldn't be. It's a regular article, it's not a list of TV land programs, period. RobJ1981 20:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because no one has taken it upon them self to "fix it"? Just expunge the lists if you don't like them.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A few questions and comments regarding TV episode articles

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: For anyone who isn't aware, an AFD is currently underway for one of the American TV schedule grids articles  here. The nominator says it was chosen at random from the 99 in :Category: Television schedules suggesting he plans to try and get all of them deleted. PS - can someone also add a reference to the schedule pages so people can stop whining about WP:V? Thanks. 23skidoo 14:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are great and all, but they're just too borderline TV guides, which is not allowed by policy. -- Ned Scott 20:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There not indiscriminate information, they are verifiable and they are also encyclopaedic - so no Ned , my friend, they do not fail any policy. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No personal attacks, dude. When WP:NOT specifically says no to TV guides and TV schedules as articles, it doesn't matter how useful or great they are. I don't hate these articles, but according to current policy they should go. -- Ned Scott 21:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personal attacks..? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I shouldn't have to explain that to you. You know exactly what I'm talking about, and you need to cool off. -- Ned Scott 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Our definitions of a PA must be different as I believe I was pretty courteous.. I even attempted to make you a wiki-friend :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think these are against policy for the reasons I stated in the now-closed AFD: 1) It is not in dispute that articles may properly consist of lists or tables of information rather than solely prose (e.g., List of cities in the United States). 2) It is not in dispute that the same information may properly be organized in different ways in multiple, separate lists (e.g., List of United States cities by population). 3) It is not in dispute that television series are encyclopedic. 4) Organizing television series by the period of time in which they were broadcast is reasonable and useful. There are at least far more trivial ways to organize the information (as the contents of :Category:Lists of songs suggest). Postdlf 21:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disagreeing with this, policy is. It specifically talks about TV schedules and guides. If we want to include these articles then we need to propose a change to the policy. One or the other needs to happen.  -- Ned Scott 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's less "policy" than an inapt example of something supposed to be against policy, which should probably be removed as overbroad if it would exclude these.  There's a valid reason to exclude day-by-day listings (like what you'd find in TV Guide) or even annual listings for cable rerun stations that have no original programming; this is arguably the kind of cruft that the inclusion of "TV/Radio schedules" in WP:NOT was targeting.  However, those can be distinguished from the network schedule lists, so it isn't all or nothing.  Postdlf 21:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD underway for schedule grid article

message: I opened a peer review for The Honeymooners recently.  I've done quite a bit of updating and think it is close to FA-worthy.  Please come by and make some suggestions!  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for The Honeymooners 

message: Just a heads up that the discussion at  for the proposed Overcategorization guidelines has a talk section dealing specifically with how to handle actor-by-film and actor-by-tv-series categories.  The goal would be to form a consistent policy guideline for which actor-by-series categories are acceptable, which aren't, and generally help editors decide when to use a category for cast lists and when to use a list article.  
If you're interested in this topic, head on over to that discussion page and give your two cents. :)  Dugwiki 17:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization]] guideline discussion 

message: Could someone please fix all improper links to The Love Boat? Many pages link to "Love Boat" assuming that it will lead to the television show, and instead it links to an obscure "Overseas Chinese Youth Language Training and Study Tour to the Republic of China". It won't take a lot of time, as there aren't that many incorrect links. I just don't have the time currently (swamped with schoolwork) and I think it should be fixed ASAP, that's why I came to you guys with the job. Bifgis 01:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix The Love Boat Links 

message: What is the opinion of people here on sections entitled "U.S. Broadcast History" (or for that matter any other country..) – They are generally just duplicating "International distribution" sections, the point of the matter is Wikipedia is not a U.S. only encyclopaedia, (nor for that matter is it a UK, Canadian or any other country only encyclopaedia) and so should we be having dedicated sections for singular countries? (I do believe however we should of course tell when it premièred in its original country and when it ceased within the lead-in..) - I've recently had to remove a fair few of these sections and asked the editor in question who is adding them to stop. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be ok if it was something like "English broadcasting history" and contained info on all English speaking nations, since a reader of the English Wikipedia is likely to take particular interest in that. If there is something notable about a specific broadcast, I can see that, but I doubt there would need to be a dedicated section just to one country. -- Ned Scott 21:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err.. "They are generally just duplicating 'International distribution'" (in my above message.. :-\) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "U.S. Broadcast History" 

message: I'm extrapolating from WP:TV#External links that when the infobox includes a link to the list of episodes, the See Also section shouldn't.
Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordan Brown (talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See Also" vs infobox? 

message: FYI, List of problems solved by MacGyver is nominated for deletion.  — EncMstr 07:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: List of problems solved by MacGyver 

message: :Category:1 vs. 100 has people that were in "the mob" on the show, as well as the host Bob Saget. I can understand the host, but others?  I don't think it's needed. :Category:Jeopardy! seems to have the same issue. Then there is :Category:Gameshow Marathon. Celebrities were solely the contestants on that show. Game show categories shouldn't be dumping grounds for contestants. :Category:Game show contestants and it's sub cats do the job just fine in my opinion. What does everyone else think?  I was just going to remove all the un-needed cats, but decided to ask here first. Plus I'm sure the other game show categories are effected by this as well... so it's not a simple one person task. RobJ1981 01:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created :Category:Jeopardy! contestants as a start. As long as we have categories for actors on specific shows, we would have categories for notable contestants on specific game shows. If the game shows are short-lived and/or have few notable contestants, then a separate category would be overcategorization. For 1 vs. 100 and Gameshow Marathon, having a separate cat for contestants would be over the top. Tinlinkin 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? is the next cat I want to clean up, but I don't know if there should be separate cats for the British and US contestants. Tinlinkin 16:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A question on game show categories

message: In the December 6, 2006 CfD discussion for Idol series contestants, I raised the proposal that there be two levels of categories for people in reality television:
*:Category:Reality television participants :Category:Reality television staff: includes hosts, judges, advisors, and other non-contestants/participants
**:Category:Reality television contestants :Category:Reality television participants: a subcategory of the above, contains only contestants/participants
The basic idea is that there should be a distinction between contestants and non-contestants. Any thoughts? Tinlinkin 16:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the distinction part of it, but participants and contestants sound alot alike to me at least. RobJ1981 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Participants" and "contestants" do sound alike to me, also. And I don't think reality show non-contestants are called "participants" as I think of the connotation of that word. But some users want to have consistency in categories named "contestants" and "participants", preferring to land on "participants". At the same time, they want to have the participants category include all reality show people, and I disagree with that because an important distinction would be lost. I don't have a better suggestion other than :Category:Reality television people, which I'm reluctant to have as a category name (rather indiscriminate-sounding title), and I don't want to overcategorize judges, hosts, consultants, etc. either. Tinlinkin 22:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Staff"? Jordan Brown 02:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Staff could work for the category. RobJ1981 03:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a naming I'll support (with changes reflected above). Also, since some participants are not contestants (e.g. Britney Spears), the subcategory will be named "participants."  If you want to preserve the separation of contestants/participants (or not), you should discuss at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 6#Category:Idol series contestants. Tinlinkin 07:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reality contestants, hosts & judges vs. participants 

message: I've added 2 tags to it recently: cleanup-laundry (list cleanup basically) and advert (for advertisement). The article has a few good starting paragraphs...then goes downhill. It has a current schedule and coming soon sections. Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, nor should it ever be.  Plus there is a huge trivia section that needs to be cleaned as well. I've posted this message on the article's talk page as well. So I'm hoping both groups of editors can improve these issues. RobJ1981 06:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adult Swim Fix also needs cleanup. RobJ1981 06:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Adult Swim]]

message: Do we have a filmography guidline?  If not, we should make one.  Or maybe let Wikipedia:Biography take care of it. - Peregrinefisher 01:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography 

message: TheDJ added
:This section is usually reserved for "original-run" information, sometimes with additional US/UK information in case the series is not of US/UK origins. Lists with International broadcasting information, or syndication information is often not desired here.
Why is US/UK information special?  It seems like either it makes sense to include all first-run-in-country information, or only first-run-in-origin-country.
Now, since runs in countries other than the origin country aren't on the originating network, for instance, it seems like the appropriate information may be quite limited - perhaps only run dates.  That's true whether or not the country is US/UK.
Jordan Brown 06:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because en.wikipedia.org is english oriented. This means that in many cases the "english speaking" point of perspective is primary and as such important. For instance "The Office" is originally a UK series but it's US spinoff success is so much more prevalent to "our" audience that it's valid first section information. (I know bad example since it's UK vs. US, but it's the best i can come up with atm.) I however do think that the addition needs some rephrasing.... TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  original run information in intro section 

message: The original category is intended for "first-run syndication, shows that were never broadcast on a major television network, as opposed to shows which are syndicated in reruns." With subcats as Andromeda and Babylon 5, and listings of for instance Dr. Phil. This clearly is not the nature of the current category. I would like to rename this category to make it's purpose more clear (because i DO see it as a potentially important category) and remove everything that doesn't belong there. Any opinions ? - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Television series produced for syndication"?  Postdlf 17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Syndicated television series]]

message: I've put up a RM proposal to finally start the renaming of the tvtome templates. I think it's about time by now. Add your opinion here please: Template_talk:Tvtome_show.  TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *snif* moment of slicence for TV Tome... -- Ned Scott 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And they are gone :( /me wisthles the Funeral March, readies his airgun, waves the flag and shoots salutes into the air TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename tvtome templates

message: Not much seems to have changed, but more templates are now in existence then ever before. Which should be condoned, and which should be condensed/removed do you guys think?
We now have:
* -> :Category:Upcoming television shows
* -> :Category:Upcoming television series
* -> :Category: Upcoming television episodes
* -> :Category:Lists of upcoming television episodes
* ->:Category:Running television shows
* redirects to 
* redirects to 
* (I have put this one up for deletion. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television))
* (I have put this one up for deletion. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television))
Note that most of these templates are not listed in Wikipedia:Current and future event templates
My personal preference is the "series, episode and episode list" templates and categories, even though not every program will fall into the "series" category TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again the temporal templates 

message: Because the fandom goes wild with creating articles for each and every show, I have created: :Category:Unaired television program. By browsing trough the pages lately, I have come across a couple of programs that never even saw the light of day. We can add them to that category, and then keep track of them. Possibly put them up for deletion some day.  TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unaired Television programs