Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 6

message: We need help over at the Sopranos big time. Barnstars for anybody who can siginificantly help me (and the other editors of course) get the article up to at least GA status. Aaron Bowen 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? C'mon we need help. Aaron Bowen 16:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, we need some help. Aaron Bowen 02:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Sopranos]]

message: Hello, everyone.  I've just expanded this article.  I'd be grateful if folks would take a look and edit my purple prose.  Best regards!  -- Ssilvers 06:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive had a quick look and made some minor changes. The prose is not bad at all but there are some long and cumbersome sentences, particularly in the lead.--Opark 77 18:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Grease: You're the One that I Want]]

message: A proposal to explcitly limit the use of fair use images in Featured Lists is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Fair Use images. This is especially relevant to this Wikiproject, as many TV-related lists use fair use images (particularly screenshots). Your input would be apreciated. Tompw (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images and featured lists 

message: Hi, the issue has been brought up in WP Films of what we consider films and what not. Surely television films is a common area between our projects, but we are unsure about TV series and TV miniseries. For TV series, I take it that they are basically TV films in a few (but how many exactly?) parts. Please correct me if I am wrong. So there remains the question of TV miniseries. :Category:Television miniseries has only parent :Category:Television programs. However many mistakes in categorizing such articles as films happen and lately even a whole subcategory :Category:Canadian television miniseries was assigned to parent :Category:Canadian television films. So before we start any cleanup, it would be good to have these points clear between our projects. Hoverfish Talk 23:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no fixed definition unfortunately. "A miniseries (sometimes mini-series), in a serial storytelling medium, is a production which tells a story in a limited number of episodes." it the closest that there is I think. Traditionally, and in general it's between 2 and 8 episodes. But it changes all the time. The main characteristics that we use I guess are "made for TV", and "episodic multi-part". Anything under that flag we will usually consider as part of the TV project, anything else is for WP:FILM. However, things as the Babylon 5 made-for-TV movies (2-part episodes) are really hard to clearly define as TV only or Movie only. I guess we will have more of such problems in the future. I think the best is to stay with the terminology of it's creators. They often use either mini-series or film, and I guess we should follow that convention to the best of our ability. I'm guessing this problem will become ever more apparent over the coming years. At some point in time, we will have to deal with it more thoroughly, possibly by adding more of each others infobox paramaters or something. we'll see. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intersection with WP Films 

message: I recently decided to delete all reference marks at List of Top Gear episodes because of irrelevance to the actual TV episodes and more in tune with "behind the scences fancruft" and already I got gang rushed by other editors that want to keep that stuff in. Aside from properly citing references, one of the references clearly tries to shore up a "Behind the Scences" trivia tidbit which is never mentioned in the episode itself. I know i'm partially at fault for not making my intentions clear, but am I right in assuming that the references might violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information?? --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a quick look and I tend to disagree with you. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information is not a reason to delete the references themselves. If the editors feel the content improves the article then it should stay. They have considered moving the information elsewhere but came up with no other options. I think it's more pressing to deal with the vast swathes of unreferenced, unencyclopedic content about television.--Opark 77 10:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the "trivia" mark is not mentioned in the Episode itself, so thats the main sticking point in the episode. If it's not in the episode itself, it's trivia, and is cruft. It's like me adding trivia about the episode of Barely Legal (Family Guy) to List_of_Family_Guy_episodes rather than the respective episode page (which Top Gear doesn't have). Plus i'm looking at other pages, and gotten a few ideas, but what I wanna know from folks not familiar with Top Gear is that mark legit ti add into an episode summary rather than being put into the footnotes or outright deleted? --293.xx.xxx.xx 18:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding trivia disguised as references in TV Episodes. 

message: The current list has gotten too big so it needs to be split up. Also it doesn't use templates so its a bitch to edit. I've done some work at my sandbox and at CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (season 1), but I could really use a hand here. Sandtiger 22:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed at [[List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes]] 

message: Is there any way to automatically generate a list of these articles, as the Film WikiProject does?  I think adding infoboxes is a really good way to encourage non-project members to start contirbuting. Gillian416 00:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Television pages that need infoboxes

message: Hi, I was wondering if anyone here could lend a hand at the Judge John Deed article, specifically with the broadcast history section, which needs expanding with international premiere dates. Ta. WindsorFan 13:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help at [[Judge John Deed]] article 

message: After several failed attempts to ban screenshots from episode lists, images on other Featured Lists are now being removed by some administators. See the administrator board at WP:AN#Clean up for the featured ones for examples and surrounding discussion.--GunnarRene 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see why it was removed from the selected page.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode lists are having images removed and protected 

message: Just thinking to myself recently that there are some to-do's in mind for the WP:LOE templates (Template:Episode list and Template:Japanese episode list)
#Update instructions now that the Image parameter has been taken out
#Update the code (linked to on the talk page) once all lists are reformatted correctly
#Page anchors. Document and spread the word about episode anchors, as most people probably don't know about them (you can link to a specific spot in a LOE using the templates by using the episode number or production code, for example List of Lost episodes#ep33)
#Apply new sortable templates. On List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes we debuted our first sortable episode list that contains a summary under a title/airdate/etc row. Currently the templates have some limitations, like no Aux or AltDate parameters, but hopefully that too will be fixed. They can sort by 3 episode numbers, plus prod code and title of episode. The two templates are Template:S-Episode list and Template:S-Japanese episode list. Right now only two lists use S-Japanese episode list, and none use S-Episode list. Finding more lists that can benefit from being sortable (shows that had different airing orders in different places, for example) would be great.
:::Note, episode lists using the template, but without summaries, can already be sortable.
Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 22:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bignole about the sorting (we discussed it before didn't we?) Matthew 23:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only a minority of LOEs will likely benefit from the sortable version, which is why it has a separate template. I'm not sure I understand what you (Bignole) mean about the Haruhi problem you are having. What web browser are you using? -- Ned Scott 23:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explorer. When I'm look at the 3 sortable columns on the right. Let's say I click the middle one, and it sorts from top to bottom. Then, lets say that I want to sort the first column from top to bottom as well. When I do, it resets the middle column back to its original state. I was wondering if there was a way to make it stay in the order that I selected, while I'm reordering another column this way all the columns can be made to sort the same way together.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sortable tables don't work like that. They sort the entire table row. If you click on another column then the entire row will resort. There wouldn't be a point to it if only the column sorted, but no other numbers, titles, or summaries sorted with it. -- Ned Scott 23:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, "The Adventures of Mikuru Asahina Episode 00" is the first episode to air (anachronically) and first on DVD, but it is the 11th episode chronologically. No matter what sortable view you are in, 01-11-01 will always line up because those values are unchanging to "The Adventures of Mikuru Asahina Episode 00". -- Ned Scott 23:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOE templates 

message: I'm growing increasingly worried with the problem of sourcing TV articles/LOEs, etc. For example, people see fit to remove secondary sources from episodes after they've aired... this is not good, I'm the first to admit that primary sources are perfectly fine... but removing secondary sources? Then there's stuff that's never sourced. Any uncited information should be removed, aggressively if we are to produce quality articles. Matthew 22:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could provide an example of what you are referring to with people removing a source.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, and that's just one - of many. Matthew 22:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it only with the titles of episodes?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Citation rules apply to episode number/air date, etc... people are removing citations that verify information contained. I don't believe this is good. Matthew 22:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Anybody can count yes, but who's to say that x episode is y number? (a source). This is not an isolated issue, I've seen it happen for quite some time. MoS:L#Position in article states: "Links not used as sources can be listed in the External links section", the issue I see is not with external linkage - rather sourcing. Matthew 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per verifiability it should be based on whether it will likely be challenged. Not saying you should add what you will and hope that it won't be challenged, but I would think that you don't need to cite the name of a film (one that have been released, not pending films), because it isn't something likely to be challenged. I'm kind of conflicted on this issue. It seems like stuff that can be easily verified without citation, but on the other hand, I see your concern about its remove and the possibility of challenging when an episode actually aired, or what number it was in ther series.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's because films are basically self-citing (plot, etc...) - the same goes for episodes. What concerns me is users actually removing secondary sources just because an episode has aired... Matthew 22:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what do you propose?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If people remove citations then they should be reverted, imo. Also content in any article (main television, episode, etc) that's uncited and likely to be challenged should be wholesale removed until cited, we have tons of articles with s/other templates. Matthew 22:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The difference is that the episode is a primary source (for more information on primary/secondary see WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). Primary sources are not bad. All the same, we should encourage use of secondary sources. WP:NOR states: "most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources", but does state that primary sources are "allowed". Matthew 23:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that, but it seems that a secondary source would really only be necessary for things that would be easily challenged. I don't generally come across too many episode title's that are challenged after they've aired. Before, I can see that, because something could happen in the last second the the title can change, but not after the fact. The same goes for the date something aired. The episode airing on October 8, 2006 should be the only citation necessary for something that's already occurred. An official website can generally verify anything that isn't normally challenged.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's like I stated up the page: "MoS:L#Position in article states: 'Links not used as sources can be listed in the External links section'". To be clear: It's my belief we should encourage usage of secondary rather then primary sources wherever possible. Matthew 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get that, and I agree, but for things that are challengable. Production information can be easily challenged. How the episode was received is easily challenged. But I disagree when it comes to episode titles, airdates, and other basic info requiring a secondary source after the episode in question has been aired. That's just my opinion. Hopefully some others will join in and we can get some other opinions on this matter.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing, a paramount concern... 

message: If you haven't already, go check out the talk on Template:Episode list.  The template has been changed to exclude images, which has had the unforseen effect of altering layout.  Episode lists may need to be corrected and adjusted. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Episode list - images removed 

message: Is it really neccesary to note in an article when something appeared in Family Guy? I see this all over the place and it's really annoying. Jtrainor 23:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then remove it. Please don't flag all WP:TV editors as "people who add cruft" --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugh 

message: Someone believes a person who got the first question wrong on the US Who Wants to be a Millionaire deserves their own article, and appears to be engaged in either sock or meatpuppetry to argue against the speedy delete. Can I request some people from this project come and comment on this matter please? DarkSaber2k 09:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chase Sampson]] 

message: How is posting on another blog to rally other forum members (trolling) to sway your opinion not a offence somehow?  — RX82004 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic. 
:YouThe other guy said lets get more peoples comments, so rather than create other accounts to back my viewpoint, I'm throwing it open to the Television project, as was suggested. DarkSaber2k 09:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a separate account owned by a separate person.  I don't have time to reward myself the duty of editing other people's articles on Wikipedia, let alone create another account to fuel the fire. Fenix 09:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Why would you care]] 

message: Aquaman (TV program) is up for FAC. I believe that Project TV could deliver some harsh critiquing of the article, something it needs in order to better itself.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on people, this is a television program up for Featured Article status. Let's support our troops, so to speak, and help get this thing over the line and into the coveted heirarchy of honors. This thing has been sitting in FAC for over a month with only a few people actually commenting on it. Let's Wikiban together and get this FAC moving.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC

message: He guys. Well over a year ago I tried to revitilize this project. With several editors we have seen some improvements stemming from our work, but all in all it has just not proven worth it. I'm sorry I have to do this, but i'm leaving this WikiProject, my involvement with any fictional topic, guideline, template etc. The problem is that I feel other editors are not taking me seriously for being part of this project. My edits and discussion in other areas, especially where it concerns copyright and image policies are being flatly ignored or marked as a "it's another TV guy", if I don't agree with them. I feel that I cannot edit freely enough within wikipedia by being part of this project and I care a lot about my freedom. I will probably focus myself more on space and software related articles. I wish everyone a lot of joy and pleasure trying to improve the Television articles and I'm sure the project will be instrumental in solving all the issues that we currently have. I'll just won't be part of it. Bye --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite sad that you're leaving, I've thought about it myself a few times lately. As you say "it's another TV guy", well this is actually how they perceive us (the "admins", on IRC), often having a nice "chit-chat" about us TV folk. I do hope you come back to this project eventually! Lord knows, we do disagree... but I *do* respect you. (Oh, and do you use TV.com?) Matthew 23:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we sure often disagree, but at least I could understand where you were coming from and respect that. However I feel that for myself it's better to no longer be involved with this topic, and then wikipedia as a whole might see more of me in the end. Oh and I do use tv.com, but not registered. I really care about wikipedia and television, but have absolutely zero desire to contribute to tv.com  I hope someone will be so nice to keep an eye at all the WP:TV stubs, templates and categories. I've already cleaned them out of my watchlist to protect myself from editing :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a fair few things watchlisted I'll watch out for. I actually quite disliked TV.com at first, but I'm spending more time there than here lately (and most of the community is surprisingly nice... though there are some very possessive editors). I'm really beginning to distance myself from the community, I just don't feel things work the way they should (for example this community is supposed to work on consensus, not sysop opinion decided on #wikipedia-en-admins). Perhaps some day the light will be rekindled and we can all work as a community, I don't think that can happen without some big overhauls. Wikipedia has an effect on me, it used to make me happy to edit... now it just makes me sad a bit :-(. Matthew 00:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm leaving 

message: I've noticed several shows that over the past year have accumulated extremely large tables of international broadcasters.  I don't have a problem with these tables as it is very relevant information, however these tables can and do take up a TON of space on the shows main article page.  Here is a list of several shows that have these tables so that you can see what I'm talking about:
*Shows listing internation broadcasters
**Heroes (TV series) - table
**Stargate Atlantis - table
**24 (TV series) - table
**Entourage (TV series) - table
**Grey's Anatomy - 3 column text only no table
**Weeds (TV series) - single column text only
**Stargate SG-1 - single column text only (shows been canceled so relevance of list is now questionable)
**Scrubs (TV series) - Single column text only
*Shows NOT listing international broadcasters
**Lost (TV series)
**Prison Break
**Smallville (TV series)
**Veronica Mars
**Jericho (TV series) (removed following discussion)
As you can see there is three main ways of dealing with these lists. Table form, text only, or not at all.  Personally I don't think these lists belong on the main article and should be either put on the accompanying List of Episodes for that show or given it's own article.  Additionally I think that the format should be standardized into the table format and a template created to make it easier to build the lists for new shows as they premier.  Finally lets not turn this into any kinda of vote, just weigh in with your thoughts and lets see where we stand for now.
-- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  08:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally prefer text only (as then we can also use neat columns). Also, a lot of stuff people add (such as "schedule") information to tables trying to turn it into a TV Guide. Matthew 08:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The table in Nip/Tuck is now over half of the article size. Do we need this? We aren't TV Guide. If someone in Albania wants to watch it, they can look in their own listings. I propose we remove these. --Golbez 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Resolved. The result was Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. / edg ☺ ★ 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is resolved. Both RfC comments agreed delete per WP:NOT#DIR. / edg ☺ ★ 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internation Broadcaster Tables 

message: "Broadcasters" (example) should be removed — these change constantly and are outdated quickly, so they can never become encyclopedic. Removed these from Family Guy (with some resistance) and Sex and the City.
Relevant policies:
*Wikipedia is not a directory – specificly says Wikipedia articles are not electronic program guide[s]. This is sometimes quoted as Wikipedia is not a TV Guide.
*Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly – obviously broadcasters change all the time, especially when a show is shown internationally. Wikipedia information should be useful 50 years from now.
Similar sections certainly can be found in other articles. Without addressing any specific article, these should probably all be removed as well.  / edg ☺ ★ 00:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved. The result was Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. / edg ☺ ★ 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is resolved. Both RfC comments agreed delete per WP:NOT#DIR. / edg ☺ ★ 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Broadcasters

message: More interestingly, I've nominated International broadcasters for 24 (TV series) (a stand-alone article) in Articles for Deletion. This should get us a few more opinions, and maybe a precedent. / edg ☺ ★ 01:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved. The result was Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. / edg ☺ ★ 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[International broadcasters for 24 (TV series)]]

message: Deletion of international broadcasters list (entitled Around the world) is currently being challenged in Talk:Scrubs (TV series). / edg ☺ ★ 00:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is resolved. Both RfC comments agreed delete per WP:NOT#DIR. / edg ☺ ★ 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Scrubs (TV series)]]

message: New, typically angry challenge to deleting International Broadcasters in Talk:Heroes (TV_series)#The_international_broadcaster_list. Typical objections: disputes all previous decisions, says there is insufficient precedent, and that this has nothing to do with WP:NOT.
Should I take this to another forum for discussion? Tired of debating this repeatedly. / edg ☺ ★ 03:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Heroes (TV series)]]

message: There's been a lot of precedent for these lists to be deleted. Most recently, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International broadcasters for 24 (TV series) decided to delete solely on grounds of Wikipedia is not a directory (AKA Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide). This is significant because this suggests the lists themselves are unencyclopedic, whether or not they are subject to becoming outdated (per WP:DATED, mentioned in the nomination but not in the deletion decision).
(Whoever disagrees with this decision can take it up on Wikipedia:Deletion review, but a really solid argument should be presented for any attempt to overturn precedent.)
The WikiProject Countering systemic bias concern for writing articles from an "international perspective" was brought up in defense of broadcasters lists. This got little traction.
Delete these tables/lists on sight. Within broadcasts sections, preserve only:
*Original broadcasters, like network the show was made for, or on which an episode was first broadcast.
*Non-broadcast information mixed in, such as info on translations (if non-trivial), or (possibly, if seriously notable) ratings info
Otherwise, these lists don't belong on Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ★ 08:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant AfD decision on broadcasters lists

message: Not sure what all the fuss is about, but WP:ANIME solved this problem via hide/show in an infobox. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just do what WP:ANIME does

message: What are your thoughts on articles for each Saturday Night Live episode? I have constructed a model article for Scarlett Johansson/Bjork. Vast information is available on every episode on many database sites. List any thoughts on the format/etc. here. Weatherman90 00:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me :-)! Matthew 00:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes (especially the bottom for a small list of FA articles on tv episodes, those are templates for what should be in those articles) and Wikipedia:Television episodes.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make sure you can find more than just the "plot" of the episodes. Without any production or reception notes, they'll fail WP:EPISODE. Please try to do that before making more articles rather than after. Personally, I really don't think that many of them be able to pass it. A few like the Ashlee Simpson lip synching one may be able to, though. TTN 00:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't seem to find much as to ratings, reception and production. I'm not sure if they all need this, as most episodes of The Office, listed here, don't have them. If anyone knows of a website that can give ratings for each episode, let me know. Weatherman90 01:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Individual episode articles shouldn't be nothing more than plots and trivia. Not every episode will be able to satisfy the requirements of the indy eps guidelines.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this is a rather bad idea, given the structure of SNL. Oddly enough, I've seen more individual skits be notable, rather than an "episode" be notable (can I get some more cowbell?). Exceptions might be when information is relating to a specific host, etc, but even then there's usually better formatting options. You can't really treat SNL like a normal TV show, and I can't help but think that people want to make these episodes only because "other shows have them", which is not a reason to make episode articles. -- Ned Scott 01:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I want to stress that my objection is with the format, not the whole "episode article or not" thing. SNL is a unique show, regardless of how you feel about episode articles. -- Ned Scott 01:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought of another format SNL tends to be in, an article for a specific "character" or other type of reoccurring sketch, such as Wayne's World or The Church Lady. -- Ned Scott 01:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches, there we go, that's what I'm talking about. Those articles already cover the notable content found in individual episodes, and do so more accurately (More cowbell was a notable sketch, but that doesn't make all sketches on that same episode as notable). -- Ned Scott 01:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there is a better chance of notable sketches than notable episodes.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point - the notable sketch articles should be expanded and/or created. Weatherman90 02:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saturday Night Live episodes

message: Should we have spoiler warnings in articles or not? Discussion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion about when not to use spoiler templates is now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. Kusma (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler warnings up for deletion 

message: There is a proposed merger going on at Smallville season 1. It's in regards to the episode articles. Though I'd let everyone know here.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: In light of the discussion here, I am opening it here.. Anyway, there are debates going around whether to keep or remove the 'International' airings area of many TV programme articles. So, express whether you want to keep the international airings, or delete.. Cheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib. 16:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote to delete, because Wikipedia is not a TV guide, those sections are completely uncited [in all the articles I've seen with them], so the info could be completely false.. Cheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib. 16:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously I agree with the removal of such sections. Wikipedia is not a tv guide. Even when sourced the info is unencyclopedic. In general only the airings of the original country should be put in the article. And in some cases international info. But not sentences like "Latin America: The third season is currently running on TNT Latin America on Saturdays at 3:00 pm" Garion96 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Airings 

message: Hi, I am assembling a list of Nielsen ratings pages from 1999-present. I currently have the link of them for the seasons of 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007. These links will be for say someone wants to add a U.S. television ratings section for seasons 1999-present.. ThanksCheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib. 22:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is one for 1999-2000 and another for 2000-2001. --Maitch 06:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks alot, Maitch, and I did find 2003-2004, so now I'm set. Also, I will credit you for finding these :) Cheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib. 17:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. nielsen television ratings (1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2003-2004) 

message: As per Wikipedia not beeing an indiscriminate collection of information, a list of titles in other languages is unacceptable in an article, is it? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is. If it's a non English show/book/film than the original language title and the English title should be mentioned. But not a list of translations of Ducktales (recent example) in 20 languages. Garion96 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless there's something notable about the different titles in different languages, then yeah. -- Ned Scott 21:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right then, thanks. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If people want a translation of a title to another language they can just follow one of the interwikis. --Maitch 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles in other languages 

message: Just to let you know that User:TTN is blanking episode pages and redirecting them to the main series page, believing that they ALL contravene WP:EPISODE.  In the past 24 hours he has done this to Yes, Minister, Yes, Prime Minister, Foyle's War, The Cosby Show, Cupid, Iron Man, Twin Peaks, Nip/Tuck... now I've got bored of looking through his contributions history.  Some people are going to get very angry if consensus is not reached regarding what constitutes a good episode page, and when they should be used. Gwinva 06:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Using Wikipedia:Television episodes.  Rather than everyone getting heated about individual redirects, perhaps Wikiproject television together should determine policy/consensus, (including input from User:TNN). Gwinva 13:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently trying to get many redirected at Smallville, but I'm holding a discussion on the season's talk page. There, I've proposed a new layout for the season page that addresses the concern about non-free images, keeps plots in check, and allows for an area where you would put production and critical reaction type information. Sometimes it's easier to find reactions for an entire season, than for every episode in a given season, because many episodes do not even come close to what was decided in the debate over them.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: May I suggest discussion on this takes place at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#DISCUSSING THE GUIDELINE.  Gwinva 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode redirects

message: The following is a copy of the message I posted at AN/I regarding the redirect issue.
"I'll preface my remarks by saying that AN/I probably isn't the place for a discussion over Wikipedia guidelines. With that in mind, however, the way TTN is proceeding - and the scale of it - should not be permitted until a consensus on the larger issue can be achieved. Whether consciously or not, the Wikipedia community has permitted the creation of these articles, and allowed them to develop and grow - not for days, or weeks, but for *years*. This is not a question of a few random pages that don't meet guidelines - we're talking about literally thousands of pages, and tens of thousands of hours of work by good, solid contributors. We're talking about the Television project, dozens of related sub-projects, and all the rules, guidelines, and procedures developed within those structures with the goal of standardizing content and creating professional product. We're talking about editors who - on a daily basis - struggle to maintain a strong body of pop-culture content. Not only are they having to weed out the constant onslaught of speculation, trivia, and fan-boy debris, but they are also having to work within a community that, to some degree, "looks down" on their efforts as being "less than worthy". (See this note from TheDJ) TTN says "go to TV.com and Wikia" - but that is *not* the same thing. Speaking for myself, if I wanted speculation, fan theories, and "what if" scenarios, sure, I'd go to those sites. That, however, is *not* what I want out of an article, and not what I want to work on. Whether you like pop-culture articles or not shouldn't be the issue here - it should be about showing a certain degree of respect for your fellow Wikipedians. TTN's actions, I'm sorry to say, do not meet that mark." (Ckatz)
I strongly support Gwinva's suggestion that this project *as a whole* should work to develop a solution, rather than having to react to a unilateral action. --Ckatzchatspy 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest discussion on this takes place at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#DISCUSSING THE GUIDELINE.  Gwinva 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The Price Is Right (US game show) is up for FAC. Since there haven't been any substantial comments as of yet, I'm looking for a few sharp eyes. So please, c'mon down! —Twigboy 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: FA failed ostensibly due to lack of comments.—Twigboy 15:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Price Is Right 

message: This article needs massive cleanup, it has multiple trivia sections and a huge lead. Aaron Bowen 23:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of good information though, if anyone wants to clean it up and source it. Aaron Bowen 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[I Love Lucy]]

message: Anyone who hasn't done so already should check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes and it's talk page. How to handle episode articles that don't pass WP:EPISODE, expanding WP:EPISODE, and more, are currently being discussed, and we're making some great progress. -- Ned Scott 01:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More development: WikiProject Television/Episodes and WikiProject Television/Episode lists have now merged to form WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. This was done to better organize all articles relating to episode-level detail, as well as provide a place for "in-between" areas like season / series articles, and to provide over-all advice on how to grow this information. This is, of course, related to the WP:EPISODE expansion as well. -- Ned Scott 01:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode task force seeing new life 

message: We need an article for Wraparound (television) to explain what a wraparound is and give notable examples of how they have been used. Articles routinely reference this concept without explanation, and I personally don't know how to explain it to create an article myself. If you use WP's search function for the terms "wraparound" and "television" in the same article, you turn up some 60-70 articles that mention shows that began as wraparounds or notable actors who worked in wraparound segments. This is a technical term and a concept that has a pretty interesting history, especially in early television, and it would be nice to have an article on it if someone knows enough to start a good one. Lawikitejana 02:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article request 

message: I'm not sure where your project puts notices of TfDs, so I'm posting this here. The template  has been nominated for deletion. --GentlemanGhost 21:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV template nominated for deletion 

message: Some of you might be aware of WP:EPISODE, which is our guideline for dealing with articles about an individual episode from a show. Before it had the shortcut WP:EPISODE and the current title, Wikipedia:Television episodes, it was known as Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes . Well, it still says pretty much the same thing as before, but some recent redirecting of episode articles that weren't seen as notable lead us to some new activity on the talk page of WP:EPISODE. We're now looking for input and comments to expanding the guideline at WT:EPISODE#Suggested expansion of guidelines. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:EPISODE, our guideline for articles on episodes 

message: There's more discussion recently about schedules & program lists at WT:NOT#Schedules & program lists. Editors are asking for clarification on, and possibly updating, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#DIRECTORY part 3. The policy currently reads:
Feel free to join in the discussion and give your input. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schedules & program lists 

message: Could any of our experts take a look at expanding/fixing Parker Lewis Can't Lose? 
(if they can help with Maia Brewton it would be a bonus) PMA 13:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Parker Lewis Can't Lose]] 

message: I've copied this from Category talk:1970s American television series and hoped to get some sort of opinion on it. I'm just wondering what qualifies a show for inclusion in this category? The paragraph says that it is shows that originated in the US during the decade and I take that to mean shows that began to air during the '70s. I guess it could also mean just shows that aired during the decade, but it would seem pointless to me for every show to be in a category for every decade that it aired. There are ending categories as well as debut categories for series debuting and ending in certain years, so I would think that as long as a series had those categories it wouldn't need ever other decade that it aired, only the original decade that it started. Any thoughts on this? Phydend 15:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decade categories 

message: I'm suggesting that it be modified to be clearer that the article may contain spoilers - that is, it sort of implies it now, but not quite so much. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to ask on WP:SPOILER first. I'm not sure how well received the idea will be, given the current spoiler warning dispute. -- Ned Scott 03:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I remember one of the arguments being that they couldn't include certain info in the lead because of spoiler warnings. However, current shows should not have major spoilers in the leads. On top of that, I think the template right now already does what a spoiler warning would do - warn them of the contents of the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current TV show template 

message: The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles.  There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements.  Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes.  We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page.  After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles.  See: Wikipedia:Television article review process.  We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage.  Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode coverage

message: This article needs to be restructured into a more accessible format. User:The Tramp was working on a table version, but the best solution would require input from more than one person. Can we get some discussion going on this? --FuriousFreddy 01:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera]] 

message: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Template:Dated episode notability -- Ned Scott 07:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Dated episode notability 

message: Someone from this project may want to take a look at Greek (TV series).  It's only had one episode and looks like it needs some standardizing to the format of other tv shows. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek (TV series) 

message: I think pilots that aren't picked up by networks are notable enough to warrant mentions, but I don't think they deserve their own articles, but how about listing them, descriptions, and their casts on pages such as '2006 CBS Pilots', '2007 FOX Pilots' etc. --IvanKnight69 14:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, Aquaman (TV program) isn't worth mentioning in its own article?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for Pilots? 

message: Hey guys, the Scrubs episode "My Musical" article has been put up for peer review here. If anyone here, with your (presumably) special knowledge of Wikipedia television coverage, could contribute anything to the review, it would be greatly apprecitated. Thanks! --Gpollock 20:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[My Musical]] 

message: Hi, this is my first post so I hope I am putting this in the correct place. I've looked at the archives but this hasn't been mentioned. This is about the prank which went wrong with all the identical cars in the car park and the woman who sussed it was Jeremy Beadle behind it. As I remember it, this was on Game for a Laugh, not Beadle's About. I am sure Beadle introduced the item saying "does everyone want to see a prank that went wrong?" or words to that effect. I'm sure they then showed it. This is how I remember it, so apologies if this is wrong but someone may wish to check.
Rich680 19:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beadle's About 

message: A comment by a user on Pinky and the Brain brought up a good point that the article, as written, talks both about the characters and the show.  It's near impossible to separate them, so it's more a matter of having something prior to the lead to indicate that the article covers both.  I presently used the dablink generic template, but I was wondering if such a situation has occurred before here, and what that solution was, or if there's a better template/message to suit the need. --Masem 15:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indicating a page is about a show and the characters in show? 

message: The episodes (from several I noticed): are cluttered with trivia. For a full list, see: :Category:Charmed episodes. RobJ1981 06:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there anyone that is an expert on Charmed?

message: is a little ungainly for a template name. If there were a shorter name it would be more likely that people would remember to put it up. What about  (similar to ) or ? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Television template 

message: :Main discussion: DuckTales#The episodes (If you're watching this page, please read.)
If you have any DVDs of DuckTales, or recorded episodes, or a channel that shows DuckTales(it doesn't have to be in an English, people not from English-speaking country are more than welcome to help.) please use these sources to help you with the cleanup, and try to clean up. TheBlazikenMaster 09:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The articles on the [[DuckTales episodes]] need some serious clean up. 

message: Hi, I'm doing an FA for a television episode right now, but then someone complained that I only have ratings for the UK and US.  Does anyone know any website where I can find out how many people watched an episode from the following countries: Canada (what's sad is that this is where I live), South Korea, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Greece, Poland, Australia and Argentina?  Please respond if you know anything.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say, in the least, you need not worry about any of the countries who do not speaking english as their primary language. Unless the episode broke records there, general info about those countries is usually not even included on film articles which are much more likely to garner attention all of the world than a television show.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help!  Where can I get international ratings numbers? 

message: The Colbert Report is now a Featured Article Candidate here. Since it's within the scope of this wikiproject, I thought anyone interested could take a look and support or oppose. Cheers, Jude. 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Colbert Report 

message: <Strike>*As stated on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas talk page, I have requested that the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article be peer-reviewed. I would appreciate any comments from you all as well concerning this article. Here's the internal link to its peer review...Wikipedia:Peer review/Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone/archive1. Flyer22 07:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review for Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article

message: Can anyone familiar with Spike TV identify this person with the first name 'Nicole'? Thanks! Videmus Omnia  Talk 15:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, never mind - it's Nicole Malgarini, who doesn't have an article. Videmus Omnia  Talk 15:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo ID help

message: In the Format section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article, it says to add a paragraph called Significance, which will "explain the significance the episode has in relation to the series;" however, none of the featured episode articles have such a section?  Should they or is the page outdated?  --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always thought that was odd, especially since you don't see such things in movie trilogies. I would vote for its removal, because it's asking for an interpretation of how a specific episode impacts a series. And if it wants reliable secondary stories, then that stuff might as well go in another section anyway.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a "Significance" section to Homer's Phobia during its FAC, but it wasn't popular and was reworked into the current "Theme" section. I think it should be removed from the guide line. --Maitch 19:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Significance" sections in episode articles 

message: A user is creating multiple articles on individual episodes of celebrity deathmatch - there are two problems - 1) the articles are...well... awful, entirely what encyclopedia articles should not be. 2) what is notable about each of those individual episodes? nothing as far as I can see - the show consists of Puppet X vs puppet Y week in, week out - what is really required beyond a single episode guide paper? I'm a little out of touch with the guidelines around individual episode pages but thought they had to demonstrate some level of real-world notability or significant beyond "this exists"? Even if those pages should exist, massive clean-up is required at present. --Fredrick day 15:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrity deathmatch 

message: Hello folks, I'm not a member of this project, but I would like to ask you to take a look at The A-Team. I have recently done some heavy editing on the article, although it's far from finished, I think it's coming along nicely. That however, is my own biased view on the matter, so I'd like a 3rd party opinion, which would be yours. Thoughts? Kusonaga 16:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? Kusonaga 12:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered at User talk:Kusonaga. – sgeureka t•c 13:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The A-Team 

message: I have added a section to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television to contain information on nominations for deletion via the WP:PROD path. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PROD]] nominations 

message: Hi, can we have a taskforce for Frasier. Anyone interested in creating episodes for Frasier or expanding the articles for Frasier, please create this taskforce. Right now, about 80 epiosdes have their own articles. It would be nice if we could have an article for all 264 articles--60.234.55.135 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that would be the best idea. Might want to check out WP:EPISODE before making more episode articles. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taskforce for [[Frasier]]

message: Hello, I've just created a seperate page proposing guidlines for noteability of Reality TV contestants and if they should have their own articles. I did this due to the mass number of articles being created and deleted on these subjects in recent months, and confusion among editors if they are in fact noteable or not. You can read this here. All edits and comments on the talk page are welcome. Thanks, Dalejenkins |  18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reality TV star noteability guidelines

message: There is a bug in the infobox template. Every page with it has a "- |}" in it at the very top. Somebody fix it please.  vlad§inger  tlk 03:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I reverted all of Wikiipedian's edits, because it wasn't there yesterday and so I went back a full day, but it's still there. I have no idea what is going on. I can't find any stray codes at the top of the box. Also, what was up with Wikiipedian's "German, Slovakian, Poland, etc ratings"?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bug

message: Hi all, I started Pregnancy on television in my userspace. Originally I wanted to write about how TV deals with actresses who become pregnant (such as the Hunter Tylo case) and how TV either acknowledges or hides the pregnancy in the fictional universe of the show. However, I've also set aside space for reality pregnancy shows like the ones on Discovery Health. I would appreciate community comments before I finish it up and move it to article space. Thanks! Wl219 03:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TV pregnancies

message: I would like to have the feedback of active wikiproject members on the following. Wikipedia has a number of guidelines on articles about fiction, predominantly WP:FICT and WP:WAF. These guidelines have been rewritten some time ago, but this appears to have been done without substantial input from editors who write about fiction.
Guidelines on Wikipedia are supposed to be a description of common practice. At present, however, these guidelines call for the removal of most material that does not include real-world information, which could be read as to include most articles about fictional characters, locations and concepts, such as those about most television series.
This does not reflect actual practice, because Wikipedia has thousands of such articles. Now there's no need for alarm, because to my knowledge, nobody is actually deleting any of this. However, it would be prudent to reword and update the aforementioned guidelines to accurately reflect how, and on which aspects, articles on fiction are written.
Please feel free to update the guidelines as needed, or direct your feedback to their respective talk pages. >Radiant< 10:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some time ago? You are aware that both of those pages were just recently rewritten and reproposed for guideline status, right? The fact that people ignore them under the guise of "Wiki is not paper" (which actually shows a lack of understanding of that policy) doesn't negate the practice of the guidelines. I have written plenty of articles on fictional topics, and thoroughly believe in those two guidelines. You say "this isn't the standard practice," but I'd like to point out that the standard practice of a page being created and run into the ground because of disregard for these guidelines, and the standard practice of what is accepted in an FAC are completely different.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm referring to debates such as these AFDs, where one side says to delete the articles because they fail the guideline, and the other side disagrees. Despite your claim, it does not appear to be standard practice. >Radiant< 12:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What did I claim? I said that it is for an FAC. You mean to tell me that "Media in The Simpsons" is FA material? So, I should have left that Jason Voorhees article like this, instead of how it currently is? I just looked at the Media in the Simpsons page, and it's horrible. It really fails WAF, even after you said "there are books on this stuff". I don't know what those books are, but if they are simply a retelling of the fictional world, and not of real world content, then they are not viable for establishing notability. Also, The Simpsons is a horrible example to use, because that WikiProject is so huge and so active that anytime anything goes up for AfD, no matter how concrete a case may be, there are too many of them to sway the discussion. I'm also sorry to say that I've seen too many closing admins count votes instead of actually reading what is being said. Regardless, the existence of a POS article, or even 10,000 POS articles has nothing to do with the problem of the guidelines, but with the problem of editors not enforcing them. If you leave the gate open and the cattle get out, do you blame the gate?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oh, by "run into the ground" you meant "not made a featured article"? I thought you meant "deleted". I was thinking of the rather large middle ground of articles that are neither feature-worthy nor delete-worthless. >Radiant< 12:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, don't get me wrong here. I don't believe that every article can be featured, but I do believe that all should strive for that quality. When I said run into the ground, I mean, they are not even GA status, and they are only B status because they have a lot of information (yet none of it is relevant in an encyclopedia, they way they've presented it). There is a difference between standing at the door and not being let in, and not being anywhere near the line for the door. That Media article has no real world content. Wikipedia isn't a fansite, it's an encyclopedia. It is meant for everywhere, not just fans of The Simpsons, who have the only invested interest in a page that merely recycles information about what fictional news station was on the show. How about talking on how those news stations are portrayed, in comparison to "real world" news stations. Not only does that article fail notability, since it doesn't have any sources listed showing significant coverage anywhere, but it's entirely IU. Simply saying "this is fictional" doesn't change the fact that it's still all IU information. There is a reason we have WP:PLOT, because people should not be creating articles that are simply plots of television shows, films, books, etc. It's one thing to have an episode article that just does not have enough information to show it was notable outside the series, but it may have enough OOU info (in the way of production information) to warrant separation on its own, and maybe even be GA status. It may have 2 reviews, which show coverage outside the source, and tons of production material, but just not enough to be considered "the best of Wikipedia." But then you have episode articles that are all plot, trivia (nothing relevant in the trivia, just lots of OR), quote sections (have a separate wiki for that) or some other meaningless crap on there that isn't relevant or verifiable. One can argue, "well it has the chance," but that isn't the purpose of either FICT in establishing notability. As Cuba Gooding Jr. would say, "show me the money," in this case that means sources. These articles exist purely under the guise that "they can be fixed," when in reality they cannot, or at least they've shown no clues that they can. If you want an article that is strictly about IU information, go to a Wikia. That is what they are there for.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've said it before, and I wish I can find where I said it, but my take on it is this: common practice isn't always how guidelines are set, nor should they be. If they were then typos would be recommended. It is because we have so many fictional articles in a bad state that we require these kinds of guidelines, to help clean up the articles. While a mass of fans of some shows might not like that 30 pages of plot summary is frowned upon, that alone doesn't create a Wikipedia consensus, since we look at the arguments along with the number of arguments. WAF and FICT take their roots from other guidelines and policies, and when applied produce excellent articles. They benefit the editors, both new and old, and help clear up many misconceptions about our coverage of fiction and entertainment. They are good, sound advice, that is to the benefit of all. By golly, they are guidelines. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request feedback on guidelines

message: On a season page, should the casting section be under Production or Cast and characters?  And should Cast and characters sections simply be a list that states "Actor as Character" or should it be in prose and briefly describe the characters like on the show pages?  --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on how the page is organized. What is the page? You shouldn't have both. You can put it all in casting, or under each character in a C&C section. It really depends on what other information is there. You can do it A&C. That is how I did Smallville's main page. But you can also do a simple casting section, which is how I did the pilot episode of Smallville. It really depends on what the information is. If it's simply casting info, then you are best to have a Casting section. If it has other information, like an actor's take on the character, then it may work better the other way...then again you may just prefer a casting section that encompasses that too. Halloween (1978 film) puts all of it in a casting section. It's preference, but it's also, "what is the best organizer".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to go with prose for the characters section on Lost (season 4).  What I mean with the casting section is should the page look like this or this?  --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casting and characters sections on season pages 

message: I noticed that two episodes are combined into one article at William Gibson's "The X-Files" episodes, and episodes aren't usually (or never?) combined just because they have the same writer. This seems to be the best place to ask. 172.188.223.135 20:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen someone organize the information like this, but it actually might be a good idea. Right now I'm on my lunch break, and can't really look up much about it, so I might be wrong, but certainly an idea worth considering. Episodes might be notable for different reasons, which might affect how we organize them. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-Files experts here? [[William Gibson's "The X-Files" episodes]] needs attention 

message: I'd like to see a task force for Scrubs (TV series). Can I just create one or does it require consensus, etc? Caissa's DeathAngel 14:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you can just create one.--Opark 77 09:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrubs Task Force 

message: There is a discussion over at Buffy the Vampire Slayer over the name of the article. Some people feel the article should be named as it is, while the competing opinion is that it should be named Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), per naming conventions. The film with the same title has "(film)" attached, and it came first. Please see the discussion at Talk: Buffy the Vampire Slayer#Page move.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming an article 

message: I just had to remove all episode descriptions from Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 1), Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 2), Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 3) because they were blatant copyright violations from http://www.onlygreysanatomy.com (and other sites). I suspect that other popular series' episode descriptions are also in violation. AxelBoldt 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The domain "onlygreysanatomy.com" was registered 2007-05-15, but the synopses supposedly copied from that shoddy website have been around since March 2006 (going by the season one article). Ergo I suspect it's not Wikipedia doing the copying, but rather Wikipedia that's being copied. Matthew 17:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, they copied from us, but many of our episode descriptions were copied from http://www.greys-anatomy.com . All the descriptions there are attributed to ABC.com and the Internet Archive shows them to be older than our text. AxelBoldt 21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grey's Anatomy episode descriptions removed 

message: I believe TV Squad is a reliable source for television information, but they use the word blog so I'd like help making a determination.  They're a part of Weblogs, Inc., like Engadget.    This National Business Review article says about Engadget "If that sounds like a magazine, it should. Although it looks like a blog and acts like a blog, Engadget is a webzine (web-based magazine) dressed up like a blog."  It says of Weblogs, Inc., "the content areas are covered by people who treat content production as a job."  Also, that "An expert writes alone or in conjunction with others about a "hot" topic (gadgets, say), links to outside material and solicits feedback from the readership."  They describe the system as "artificially-viral" and as a "blog-like, content-specific, web-only publication."  TV Squad is indexed by google news.  According to the Weblogs, Inc. site, they're "bloggers" are paid, they have a team of editors, and have a clear separation between advertising and editors.  Their also part of AOL now.  That's all the info I've been able to find so far, Peregrine Fisher 17:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not call TV Squad a reliable source. -- Ned Scott 00:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? - Peregrine Fisher 01:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I might be thinking of a different site. -- Ned Scott 02:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: They may-well be reliable for factual information, but they're hardly an independent third party source being a unit of AOL. I would not dispute the citation of a factual detail from such a site - at least not without other cause than the source - but I would not count their having a page on an individual episode or character as severing to establish notability. Sites such as this aim to cover every bit of minutiae about tv; they amount to a "phonebook". --Jack Merridew 11:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does being part of AOL make them not independant? - Peregrine Fisher 18:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  AOL is a piece of AOL-Time-Warner which is a huge media company and TV is one of their vectors. They have a serious bias towards promoting TV - didn't the site list itself as part of AOL Television? (not going to look again). Linking to their pages in an extern or references section should be fine and useful to some readers. I would consider it a somewhat reliable source for factual details but please don't view them as a source to establish notability. It is really a fan-site — or, better, a fan-predation site. --Jack Merridew 11:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't look to reliable for factual information, as they don't provide sources for where they get their information (kind of like IMDb). Even if they are used for a review, 1 single review isn't going to establish notability, and they didn't appear to carry enough "factual" information about a given episode to provide enough OOU info for that either, regardless of whether you accept them as equivalent to IMDb or reliable enough to cite alone.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm. I was thinking of details such as episode titles, capitalisations and the like. Probably best then to avoid using them in a references section. You may be onto something with your OOU comment; this lack is key to dismissing a site as a "fan site". --Jack Merridew 13:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the reviews (as I noted) do come off as pure fannish (even when they are negative). Sometimes they provide some useful analysis. I'd say that I wouldn't have a problem if someone wanted to use one for the reception section (because it alone isn't going to make any article notable, but it would help to show varying opinions of the show), but that we just pay attention to how it is used. This is a problem with even the most respected critics like Roger Ebert, where editors read a review and pick some peacock term like "John Clark thought Heroes episode X was 'outstanding!'". I don't care if Ebert and Roeper said the same thing, it wouldn't be acceptable per NPOV, but I could see usefulness if there was actual critiquing of the episode going on. I didn't see a lot of that in the reviews, but that doesn't mean it isn't there somewhere. If we look at it with a cynical eye--AOL owns it so it will be bias--then does that mean if Microsoft buys out some of the most reliable gaming review sites that we will have to dismiss all those sites since they would be owned by a corporation that releases video games? From what I was reading on the FAQ page, the reviewers themselves appear to be outside critics. It doesn't state that explicetly, so don't hold me to it. I think it should probably be a case-by-case (or in this case--pardon the repetativeness--a review-by-review) basis. It should be clear if the review is nothing but hogwash, and simply peacockish opinions (i.e. "Outstanding", "Best Episode Ever!!!", etc), in which case I'd say it needs to go.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you hoping to use them for reviews? I've been reading some of the Smallville reviews and I tend to read like fans of the show voicing their disgust or praise for a particular episode. It seems to run that way with others shows (when I click a "reviewers" name and get other reviews they've written). Checking out their FAQ page, it seems that they have a "staff", but that it is more like bloggers send in their stuff and if TV Squad likes it then they become part of their staff (at least, that is what I'm gathering from reading the FAQ page that basically talks about not being able to review every show but if there is enough requests they will find someone to cover it). It just makes me weary to use on a professional scale, but I guess you can look at it like "we allow IGN and Moviehole, which are basically the same thing." We may be able to disregard that "blogger" terminology, since they are paid bloggers (at least I hope they are paid, that really didn't get mentioned anywhere that I could find...maybe we should check for that).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the review for the Smallville season six finale and I'm wondering if other reviews are like that. It was pretty much unusable for Wikipedia, because it didn't do anything but say things like: "this was cool, this should have happened earlier, this sucked." It's hardly an analyzation of the episode. I haven't read any more, but are you finding any reviews that are worth anything? They have a list of bloggers, so you might find something better with a different blogger, but I got my analyzation from Kryptonsite's reviewer "Triplett", who usually disects almost every aspect of an episode down to costume design.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some reviews are better than others.  Is kryptonsite a reliable source? - Peregrine Fisher 19:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't use Kryptonsite for anything unless it's a personal interview (because that's a primary source), because they usually do the "it was officially annouced that...," and that isn't reliable enough. Craig Bryne (webmaster) has written 2 of the official companion books (and is working on a third). He's also listed on either John Glover or John Schneider's official website as the go-to, so the site itself is reputable for the show (would you consider it the "official fansite"? I don't know). I think I used a Craig Bryne review once, but he doesn't review a lot, he's usually busy with other things. Here's a Triplet review of "Reckoning". I don't know if it would be acceptable, because I have never used her before. She's a professional reviewer (at least she identifies herself as a paid one, and I assume she does it for other organizations based on her occassional side-chatter in some of her reviews). Anyway, she usually goes into more technical aspects of the show, beyond those "I liked this," but unless I find an actual analysis, then I'd be skeptical to use her. The same for TV Squad. I guess my only concern would be abuse of it when the only reviewer of the episode has nothing more to say that "this is a good episode" (boiled down). If you can find reviewers that actually write something that can be used (I wouldn't use every critic that Rotten Tomatoes puts in its "Cream of the Crop", because they can sometimes say simple things like "great movie!!" and then move on) then I'd support its inclusion. I would think that it would need make sure it was in line with WP:NPOV's "fitness of tone" section, which basically says that yes we can verify reliably that Critic X said this movie was awesome, but the tone itself would not be neutral. Otherwise, we'd have reception sections that boiled down to "Critic X like the episode/film, but Critic Y hated the episode/film." Did that make sense?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Now, I think their FAQ page explicitely stated they were not an episode recap site, and that Reckoning review was just a recap, but yeah it's that sort of thing. The only big thing I saw in the Nemesis review was how you could probably mentioning the reviewer talking about how the writers worked up the Clark/Lex dynamic. Anyway, it would depend on what is found. Review wise, I'd say as long as you can find some analysis to use, more power to you. I did find some "factoids" about Smallville's next season, and the look exactly like what's at Kryptonsite (which I won't use, because they don't say where they got it). I don't know where TV Squad go there's either, because they don't say...so I'd be reluctant to use any of that type of information for fear that it's really equivalent to using IMDb's trivia page that contains the same thing.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[TV Squad]] as a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] 

message: Carnivàle has been an FAC for a month now (moving to close), and it has been suffering from chronic non-comments for a while. (I guess part of the reason is that the show is too obscure and was cancelled too long ago to be in the public mind any longer.) A request at WP League of Copyeditors to have a look at the article has not been acted on (I know, they have a lot to do; I don't blame them). I am posting here to ask whether someone could spare a few minutes and give the article an extra pair of eyes. FAC comments are always appreciated (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carnivàle). Thanks. – sgeureka t•c 12:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Carnivàle]] FAC 

message: In the past few weeks I've significantly changed this entry. Proof read it, had images apply to fair use law and added a lot more information. Any chance of another rating? bingo99 12 September 2007 10:06 (UTC)
:The next level up is GA status, which can be achieved through the WP:GAC process. My first impression is that it looks good, but details need adding to references. Also, I see references to blogs, which are not reliable sources, and there is even a reference to Wikipedia (we don't use ourselves as references). The JPStalk to me 09:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had another look over as well. Comments here.--Opark 77 08:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Victoria Wood As Seen On TV]]

message: I was thinking that a Three Stooges Taskforce should be created to help expand and clean-up stooge-related articles. The Three Stooges, in my eyes, are an important part of television. They made 190 Shorts with Columbia. Most, probably all have been shown televison. Not to mention their cartoon series, appearances on shows such as Scooby Doo.
Just my 2 Cents,
DTGardner 18:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Three Stooges]] Taskforce 

message: While I love to know more about news themes and think that they could have their own articles and that Wikipedia should have an article on just about everything that people want to know about (why wouldn't it?), the general population of Wikipedia doesn't feel the same way.  I noticed that many of the news theme articles (i.e. The X-2 Package, FOX O&O News Theme, etc), are tagged as not being verifiable/notable/referenced/whatever.  While they've been marked since July, it's inevitable that someone will notice it and AfD them.  So anyway, if I were you, I'd consider a "News theme" article with a link to a "List of news themes" or something like that if AfDs come around.  My 2 cents.  Peace, --MPD T / C 03:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google just showed me the "List of television news theme packages", which is also tagged as not worthy of Wiki.  I'd suggest expanding that list with info found in the articles.  I work at USRD, and if we can manage to defeat an AfD on lists of thousands of roads, there's probably a way to make it work here.  --MPD T / C 03:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News themes 

message: I started working on a completely rework of Da Rules article, since it is a total mess. One problem I got when decided to deal with it is a total lack of references. When stating the rules it has, the only source I have for it are the Episodes I've seen, therefore I think it caracterizes as WP:OR. Can I go with it, or what should I do? Samuel Sol 15:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can cite an episode for an event that takes place, for instance, you can say "Jane Doe is in love with John Doe.Episode X, quote:"Jane Doe - 'I love you John Doe'."" That make sense? If you are stating something that is objective, and doesn't require analysis, then you can cite the episode. For the article in question, if they actually said "Fairy godparents are powerless inside a butterfly net," is a rule in the actual rulebook, then you would cite the episode that occurred in. But, if it is insinuated, but not expressly stated, I'd have to say that it would be original research to cite the episode, because it may not have been the intention to make that a "rule".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It indeed is a stated rule inside the episode, so I should be clear. Thanks for the help. But in this case, the article will be without any external references, isn't that a problem? Samuel Sol 18:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: External links to sources are not necessary, or mandatory. Though most editors probably prefer that, because they are easier to verify, you could technically write an article (a featured article at that) based completely on journals, books, and other written text. It is not any editor's obligation to make all/any source a website (if they are, then it is helpful, but don't think you cannot use 20 books to write an article and that it will be condemned, that is why we have public libraries).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am currently writing a fiction article where a fictional book is important for understanding the whole mythology of the series (Mythology of Carnivàle, see refs there). I found that it is indeed best to do what Bignole described above: reference a rule with the episode name and a quote unless the rule itself is the quote. All other rules should either be removed as OR or grouped and summarized (e.g. "Da Rules has rules for naughty children, for example..." without going into more detail), unless you find producers/media repeating or explaining them. But I really endorse the merge tag in the article. WP doesn't need a list of all rules - maybe summarize the significance of this book and merge, then find an external link to a fansite that lists all these rules? (Without a merge, this article desperately needs third-party references to establish notability. Just see what you can find, and if it isn't worth it, be bold in merging.) – sgeureka t•c 17:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I posted on that talk page I do agree with the merge too. Although I think it is important to state the rules, and there are really few of them across the episodes, it is just that on the article they expand each in a mad way. Samuel Sol 18:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't forget the cite episode template can be useful to cite specific episodes. There is a link on the wikiproject main page. I agree with Bignole if the info is evident from the episode then citing the episode as a primary source is fine. When inferences are made using the content of the episode that constitutes original research. You're right that articles with only primary sources of one type are not ideal, but they are not unacceptable. What I mean is its Ok to cite just primary sources when you can't find any secondary sources.--Opark 77 20:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Opark stated, you can have just primary sources, but, the kicker is that primary sources generally do not establish notability, or any type of significance. So, the article may be well sources, but it could also be entirely in-universe, trivial, or something else if there are no secondary sources explaining why it needs an entire page to itself. So, just take into consideration the topic at hand, and you can figure that out. Having no secondary sources is probably a big reason why the Da Rules page is proposed for merger.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference Data from episodes

message: This article needs extensive work, and there needs to be a List of Police Camera Action! episodes.
I'm not really sure how to do such an article on this, so if you can advise me that would be great!
This could be a featured article if any editors are willing to work with me to get it to that standard.
Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 10:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost every article on wikipedia needs a lot of work. If you want to improve an article yourself, have a look at other articles of the same format. A good place to start would be Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles; they will give you plenty of ideas. And as long as there is no extensive information for the episodes, there is no need to create a new list for the episodes immediately. (Common sense will be helpful to determine the right time.) – sgeureka t•c 10:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Sgeureka. I am not really an expert on this show, despite being a fan of it, so if anyone else who knows a bit more can help I would appreciate this. The talk-page isn't really getting much discussion: how do I get more people discussing there?? Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 11:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sometimes takes some days or even weeks to get a reply on talk pages of obscure subjects, but don't let that discourage you from improving the article. My best advice is to look how other articles deal with information or problems, and adept their style. I replied on the article's talkpage and put it on my watchlist. If you have further questions, you can ask there, as it is more likely that more people who are interested in the program will see it there instead of on this wiki project. – sgeureka t•c 12:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Police Camera Action!]] 

message: I wanted to ask, can the airdates/end dates posted on TV.com be considered reliable enough for referencing? If not, then do we have a major reliable source for them? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 20:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen, TV.com is equivalent to IMBd, and generally unacceptable. TV Guide has a website where you can usually find airdates for episodes, though older shows generally lack a lot of information. If it's a new show, I'd look there.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, TVguide.com can be trusted? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 21:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know they can be. You have to be careful with some shows, because I found that they listed multiple airings (like when the Smallville pilot aired a couple times before the series actually began) which can throw off the total number of episodes aired, but the dates themselves are based on what I would assume to be network information. I mean, their little TV Guide magazine was the source for television start times before cable and satellite started using that scrolling box.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airdate/End date source