Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 1

message: It appears that things have been pretty quiet around here since a flurry of activity in 2004.  I'd like to try to jump start this project again.  There are a growing number of TV articles and a standardized format is badly needed.  Would anyone object to me re-working the main project page, using Wikipedia:WikiProject Films as a model? Regards, Jeremy Butler 14:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mighty Quiet Around Here 

message: Next, about whether to make the episode names links... I don't think it's that big of a deal.  Wikipedia already provides readers with the ability to distinguish between written articles and empty ones when they're linked to (the current red vs blue link system).  Using a plaintext vs hyperlink system would be a redundant method of accomplishing the same thing.  However, from a completely personal point of view, I think that the plaintext vs hyperlink system is much easier to comprehend than the red vs blue system.  Wikipedia, IMHO, should not have done the red vs blue thing to begin with because after years of web usage, it's easy to automatically assume that off-color links are simply ones that I've already visited.  Wikipedia actually uses purple for that purpose, but it's hard to conciously keep that in mind when browsing.  So I'd vote for the plaintext system, but I don't think it matters too much one way or the other.
:I agree for plain text on the separate episode list page, but I think that if the episode is mentioned in the text, it is probably an important episode in the show's developement and we should link it to encourage people to write about it, as we did on The X-Files.  Acegikmo1 01:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Names and Links

message: I do agree with you that episodes should not be linked to on a "significance" basis.  Whether something is "significant" is a purely subjective thing and different viewers will think different things are significant -- for example, one viewer might find all the Mulder and Scully romances in The X-Files to be significant while another fan might find them a total waste of time and would prefer to focus on the Alien Conspiracy episodes instead.  Both types of episodes contribute to the series, no doubt, but there is no objective way to measure their importance.
If somebody really believes an episode is significant for one reason or another, well, all they have to do is write an article about it and it'll naturally be linked to.  That way, not only do we avoid the previous issue altogether, the writers can also tell readers why the episode should be considered significant.
:Agreed.  Episodes within an episode list should not be discriminatorily linked.  Acegikmo1 01:47, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance

message: Okay, now moving on.... the introduction section.  I think we should use a layout similar to the Presidents template (see the George W. Bush page), meaning a chart with technical/basic information should appear on the right side, along with a picture.  Then, a brief few sentences covering other things can be added to the main body text.  I believe this would make quick comparisons between different TV series easier.
As to what actual information should be included, I think the list you made is good.
:Thank you.  What specifically do you think should be included in the table.  I've noticed that sometimes tables tend to be redundant (e.g. with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, some of the information in the table is naturally going to be repeated in the body text).  So I think we need to be careful that information that should logically be presented in the textual introduction is not repeated in the table.  Tables, in my view, should be more for statistics than important quantitative information, but I'm not sure what your view on this is.  Acegikmo1 03:13, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Should DVD releases be listed?  And, if so, in what format? --Jeremy Butler 13:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,it should be released as well but I am not sure about which format it should be in. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Releases 

message: Is is best to write about shows (cancelled shows specifically) in the past or present tense? For example, I'm refactoring the lead of Sex and the City and I can't decide between:
: The series, set in New York City, focuses on the love lives of four female best friends who are reaching their forties. A sitcom with soap opera elements, the show often tackles socially relevant issues such as the status of women in society.
and
: The series, set in New York City, focused on the love lives of four female best friends who are reaching their forties. A sitcom with soap opera elements, the show often tackled socially relevant issues such as the status of women in society.
I'm leaning towards the present tense, since that's the way I'd write about a book or movie.
– flamuraiTM 05:23, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
I also think that present tense is preferable.  Articles on individual episodes of a television programme are written in the present tense, a practise creates an effective article.  I think the practice can naturally be extended to articles describing the programme itself (just the collection of episodes after all).
Acegikmo1 07:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense 

message: I just came across a proposal to rename the entry for Battlestar Galactica at Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2003)#Title Rename.
I assume that there is somewhere on Wikipedia, a definitive format guidance.  Where does one find the answer? --Tony Hecht 17:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper format for Wikipedia entry name of TV series? 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper.  We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-class articles, with no POV or copyright problems.  Can you recommend any suitable articles on television?  I'm also contacting the daughter WikiProjects.  Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 06:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: I'd like to see this article become featured, but unfortunately I lack the time nor the skills to write a stunning article. However, the linked fan site has a few bits of behind-the-scenes info and repeated guest star Leslie Wolos and main star Meredith Henderson may be available for questions through their personal websites. I would like to invite anyone with a passion for Canadian children's television to get this article in a top-notch state. If it ends up featured, I'll award the people who made major contributions to the article with a personal award. - Mgm|(talk) 21:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Adventures of Shirley Holmes]] 

message: I have added a list of TV shows as part of the Missing encyclopedic articles wikiproject. The goal is to help organize creation of articles about TV shows between these two projects.  If you can help by either pruning the list of existing articles or creating new articles it would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 00:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that the introduction to this list refers to the non-existent category :Category:Needs television infobox and suggests that articles lacking the television infobox be added to this category.  Is this out-of-date advice? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggested the category because other similar projects, Albums and Songs have a similar category to help identify articles which have content but not an infobox.  I thought that there would be at least one item in the category already, but this is a relatively quiet wikiproject.  Thanks for asking!  --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of missing TV shows 

message: Perhaps participants from this wikiproject would be interested to work on the TV IV wiki. Jacoplane 11:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it seems an exchange the other way around would be quite a bit more needed. I made a similar invitation on TV IV - The DJ 23:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV IV 

message: i have just joined so where can i start ?
--Madcowpoo 11:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just joined too. Let's wait a couple days for a reaction. Otherwise we could go fishing for new participants. Lvr 12:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not quite 

message: One thing that annoy me in TV shows articles are that the broadcasters section. If it is relevant to know the original broadcaster, all the national broadcasters are not really intersting. What I suggest (and already did for some shows), is to create a separated pages in order to list them.  Eg: ER (TV series) broadcasters. 
Would that be a good pratice for all shows ? Lvr 12:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shows broadcasters 

message: A draft poll for a new naming convention for television shows is now available for comment and questions.  Voting begins on January 24 and continues for 3 weeks.  Your input is appreciated. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28television%29/poll|poll for naming conventions available.  Voting starts on Jan 24]] 

message: The poll has been completed for the naming conventions for television content , but several items remain unresolved.   I would appreciate any comments others might have for the follow-up discussion - Thanks --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow-up discussion after poll

message: I have been in the home video business for over twenty years and the historical footage business for nearly as long. I also wrote a book on the great television series, The Prisoner, starring Patrick McGoohan.
My family happens to own a video portal and British Pathe...On the video portal, there are CLEARED VIDEO clips for streaming. This includes The Honeymooners Lost Episodes, Lucy, Jack Paar, and literally dozens of quality stuff.
I started linking to external resources and was targeted for "Link Spamming" and self-promotion. I made it known that I was connected to EVTV1.com, the video portal.
I agreed that I would no longer link videos. By the way, each video clip is preceded by a :15 commercial... I would be willing to compose a list of all video clips dealing with television shows and make these available to any Wiki editor or writer. I will no longer link myself...it appears to be a conflict of interest.
EVTV1 has cleared rights to Lucy, Hoineymooners Lost Episodes, Jack Paar, and dozens of television shows. The clips are between 1 and 2 min. in length.
The thing about the list is that there is no question regarding the rights... these have ALL been cleared (the ones I would make available. I will also post this message in "Resources". Please let me know if I should go through the work to do this. I am willing to do it if the community thinks it is worthwhile. Please post responses. or contact me at J.ali@evtv1.com
Thank you, 
Jaffer 13:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some editors will think the :15 commercial is too much, others will not. But it will be up to them, not me. Is the :15 excessively commercial? That is of course subjective. Jaffer 21:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: well the only way youll know is to go ahead and make the list and see if people use it Discordance 23:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folks, Does this make sense? 

message: Since these links are in the infoboxes, they should not be repeated again at the bottom of the article. (I added the TV.com link, BTW, hope you all like it.) Redundant links of any kind should be scrupulously avoided. LA
Lady Aleena  07:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IMDb and TV.com links

message: Are there any standards for the image, or is it up to the authors of each article to decide what image they want to put in the infobox? Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well several pictures have been changed, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more.  I want some confirmation from the project to see what's accepted before this gets out of hand. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Business International needs some attention and categorization. I ran across this page when tracking down a user's contributions. If someone from here could take a look at it, that would be great. Thanks everyone! Semiconscious • talk 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Business International]]

message: Should links to general fan sites be included on the Season articles (such as Smallville (Season 5))?  These links are not specific to the season itself, and are already present on the main Smallville (TV series) article.  I have been removing these when I see it to conform to other shows' season articles (like Episodes of Lost (Season 1)), but some editors have protested their removal so I thought I'd put it to the relevant wikiproject to see if there was a more official policy on this. --DDG 19:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a few problems with this.  Another user claimed in an edit summary that pictures were being used from KryptonSite.com.  As I understand it, Fair Use only covers the person who captures those images directly.  By uploading pictures that have been captured by another person or site, we are violating copyright law.  As it stands, I can't really see what information is necessarily sourced from kryptonsite that does not originally come from the broadcast show.  User:Bignole had an example that I couldn't quite follow, but it sounded like plagiarism with a few words changed just to avoid a google test.  However, he seems really passionate about keeping the link there, and I just don't have time to get into it this week.  The "Lost" fanboys are a handful all by themselves... --DDG 01:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, people who are very passionate about keeping fansites are usually somehow affiliated with them (be it the owner or a die hard fan).  My suggestion is to keep with the external link policy.  More specifically, if the site does not provide any exclusive, original material (not including fan made content) on a regular basis chances are it is not notable. It seems the best way to avoid these kinds of problems is not to allow any fansites. Jtrost (T | C | #) 01:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, now there are TWO links to kryptonsite from the season 5 pagee, one for the episode guide and one for the main site.  This seems to me like linkspam, they want the link in as many places as possible, and they even protested exclusively using a more direct link- on Bignole's talk page the site's creator thanks him for not having us bypass the ads.  I don't see why we need ANY content from this page, and other than referencing it as a fansite on the main article, I don't think we should have any other links to it.  However, any attempts I've made so far to ameliorate this have been met with hostile words on my talk page and I don't have the time or energy to get into it this week.  Going forward though, if the  WikiProject could set concrete rules and guidelines as to what the format of seasonal episode pages and set policies on the use of external links/material, it would make all of the other editors' jobs a lot easier.  --DDG 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links on Season articles 

message: see Portal:Television →AzaToth 16:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new portal 

message: Currently this project mostly deals with Television series and as such is somewhat incorrectly named.
I propose to move the series specific information to a WikiProject TV Series (see naming conventions) and use this project as a central point for the subprojects (channels, producers, series, episode lists, episodes, TV technology), conventions, and television in at large. In this it will become the backbone of the Portal:Television effort.
Also I propose to largely Archive what's on the current talk page, because a lot of information is starting to become outdated. The DJ 15:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, most of them should actually be merged into one Project, with apporpriate subpages I think. opions ?  - The DJ 19:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that to split this project into many subproject is a good idea. I fear we may loose focus/involvment from wikipedians. A good introduction should be enough. We should try to finalize first the TV series stuff first, no ? The discussion could be archived. If you have the time to get out of the page intersting conclusion that could be added to project, it would be nice too. Lvr 13:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I became bold and did a lather large reordering of the main page. In my eyes the new order of the various sections will allow for a better guide to writing new articles. I hope everyone agrees, but if you have any grievance, better ideas etc. be equally bold or put them up for discussion here please - The DJ 22:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure WikiProject Television 

message: A television related category, :Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI, was nominated for renaming. The debate ended with a consensus to delete the category. I raised the matter on Wikipedia:Deletion review as the category was never tagged for deletion.  It would be good to get opinions from people actually interested in television shows. Tim! 13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar category of Simpsons voice actors was also deleted. Personally, I'm fine with their deletion. The lists in question are way too long. Lambertman 19:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI 

message: Sorry if this is the wrong Talk, but I need help Templating and evaluating The Oblongs. I started a list page and the first episode article, but I'm unfamiliar with this wikiProject. Any help is welcome.
LaVieEntiere (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Oblongs

message: A user has proposed the merging of  into .
Please add comments in Talk:Galaxy_(British_television)#Merger proposal. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good if you bothered to check the facts before starting the proposal procedure and wasting everyone's time. You've been taken in by a delinquent editor. Look at the comments in the talk page for Galaxy. 91.85.185.30 (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I merely helped an editor with the actuality of creating the discussion; in doing so, I did not feel any obligation to form any opinion about the actual proposal; I remained neutral. I am disappointed by your attitude; it is not helpful to describe another editor as 'delinquent'.  Chzz  ►  00:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While the actual proposal is frivolous - albeit not malicious - it isn't appropriate to criticise Chzz for bringing it to the action of the WikiProject. It is only fair that the proposal is taken seriously and seen by the right people with the right knowledge, namely the people in this project. It's Malpass 93! (drop me a ___) 22:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Galaxy (British television)]] → [[Pick TV]] merger proposal 

message: For channels on freeview I think it would be useful to have the multiplex listed in the infobox. What does everyone think about this? In my opinion this would improve the articles. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi I also agree with you it would look much neater and improve the article Fatty2k10 (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, the infoboxes are there to provide a summary of common important facts. A multiplex name will rarely be of any use to most people beyond troubleshooting. Generally the infobox will only summarize material from an article, which also isn't the case with multiplex names. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. But surly say if a newly registered member to wiki for example went on a channels page for argument sake just say sky news and are unaware of the dtt channel list surly they may find this useful info. I have lost count as well the amount of non members of wiki have come to me and said when there looking at a tv channels page why does it no mention what multiplex its on. If not in the infobox can it not be mentioned somewhere in the article thus keeping the infobox tidy? (Ruth-2013 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A few articles do mention the multiplex, Gems TV (UK) for example explains why the channel has changed broadcast hours. For the most part though they don't, I guess because channels are usually identified by name or channel number rather multiplex/satellite/transponder etc. A manual search, some computer software or generic DTT receivers would use the frequency of the multiplex rather than it's name so I don't see it as comparable to the FTA satellite channels carrying tuning parameters in the infobox. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeview Multiplex. 

message: I maintain a couple of Wikipedia Books for my personal use mainly (I was planning to update the Freesat one with today's changes), for Freeview and Freesat channels. If anybody is interested, I can make a Sky one and a Virgin one too.
User:Muzer/Books/freesat channels
User:Muzer/Books/freeview channels
--Muzer (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books 

message: I would like to suggest the merger of this WikiProject and that of Wikiproject British TV shows to form a new WikiProject British TV. It would have two dedicated task forces: TV Channels and TV Shows, but would be a boost to greater co-operation between the two existing WikiProjects which are fairly well linked and involve many of the same participants. I've copied this onto both WikiProjects' talkpages, and would welcome your thoughts. Cloudbound (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This was merged to WP:WikiProject British TV, as a taskforce, in December 2011 70.24.249.190 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject merger? 

message: It has been suggested that this project be merged into WikiProject Television as a task force since it might be inactive or semi-active. After reviewing this project, it appears that there have not been any active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. If you have questions or comments, please let us know. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 09:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This was already merged to WP:WikiProject British TV, in December 2011 70.24.249.190 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of this project into WikiProject Television as a task force 

message: I'd like to suggest that the two task force banners be merged into a WPP banner for the new WPP. For the discussion, see WT:WikiProject British TV. 
70.24.249.190 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge channels and shows WPP banners

message: Hey all, there's a discussion at Template talk:Infobox television channel‎ about whether to swap  with  for consistency with other templates, like Template:Infobox television. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox television channel‎]] 

message: I put the Classic FM TV article into the past tense, as its web pages no longer exist, and I can't find mention of it on the current . Please fix it if I am mistaken, or add a source for its demise. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Classic FM TV]] defunct? 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cartoon Network (UK & Ireland)#Cartoon Network UK and EMEA.  Thanks. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 05:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Cartoon Network UK and EMEA

message: I invite editors to join the discussion at WP:WikiProject Television to convert many inactive WikiProjects into taskforces, including this one. --Gonnym (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turn this WikiProject into a WikiProject TV taskforce? 

message: The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template .
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass.  Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
=== Background ===
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    10:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject collaboration notice from the [[WP:WPPORT|Portals WikiProject]] 

message: On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    10:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
:– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new newsletter directory is out! 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:American Idol (ABC TV series)#Requested move 6 January 2018, regarding a page related to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy Publishing!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please come and help...