Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 4

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on setting up an Assessment page right now. not finished yet. will do tonight. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: The suggested deletion of this and its subcategories failed, but even many of those voting keep stated something to the effect of "as long as it doesn't include anyone who just guest-starred."  Currently, such categories as :Category:ER actors do include guest-stars, by the explicit description of the category as well as the failure of the category title to impose any limiting conditions.  I suggest these all be renamed only to remove this problem, to either "[Television series] recurring actors" (my preference), or "[Television series] cast members."  Considering the sheer effort involved in simply listing all of them for renaming on CFD, I thought it best to bounce the idea here first.  Thoughts?  Postdlf 17:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a re-naming would help keep only reoccurring actors in the categories, then I'm all for it. Sounds like a step in the right direction. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer cast members, to further keep guests who appear in multiple episodes from showing up. CovenantD 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cast" may be too narrow, as the distinction between who shows up in the credits and who is billed as a "guest-star" often appears arbitrary (if that's all "cast" means).  For example, I think Martin Donovan appeared in every episode of the second season of Weeds in a rather significant role, yet he was billed as a "guest-star."  I think we'd have a greater consensus if we only went so far as "recurring" rather than just "cast," and it's a big improvement to eliminate one-off guest-stars.  What if we took that step first, and then a later rename can attempt to limit it further to cast only?  Postdlf 19:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of either of these suggestions.  As a related example, about six months ago Cindy Crawford had something in the neighborhood of 60 or 70 categories.  The article before the deletion of most of the cats can be found here.  If character actors have a cat pertaining to every show they've guest starred on, it could get out of hand.  On the television side of things, a category like :Category:Star Trek: The Next Generation actors has at least 300 right now.  Many of which were only in the show once and may have been "red shirts" and therfore only appeared for ~2-3 minutes of screen time.  Dismas|(talk) 22:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't X-Men actors be in CFD? I remember similar cats being in CFD. The category is too broad. Listify and delete is my thought on the matter. RobJ1981 00:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have listed that and other comic cook character adaptation categories for deletion; see discussion here.  Postdlf 20:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Has there been any effort put towards this issue?  There have been a number of these cats put up for CfD lately and still these cats exist with huge lists of actors who were in single episodes.  Dismas|(talk) 03:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no consensus on how to handle these categories. There's also a discussion going on about actors-by-series categories in general at the Wikipedia:Overcategorization talk page.  So far the only consensus is that actors-by-film and actors-by-stage-production categories are a bad idea.  But actors-by-TV-series is split, with some people (like myself) preferring to see most of them deleted, while others (like Tim!) generally ok with most television shows having an actor-by-series category.  There is some partial consensus, though, in that when these categories exist they should not include guest stars. Dugwiki 16:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Actors_by_television_series]] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: I have started a rewrite of the page Television program which is in a disgraceful condition atm. Please contribute with me to it in the comming days. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Are we pro this and will we make it "WP:TV" policy? I was reading the deletion discussion, and I'm not sure yet if I'm pro or not. Although the categories do have some commonalities with "categories named after people", I also think that most categories without their own verses are actually just fine within the "articlespace" categories. They are much less broad then most of those "people" categories. StarTrek and Stargate etc. might be exceptions of course. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh..? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories named after television series

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Recently I've submitted the DuMont Television Network article for Featured Article candidacy. I left a request for the fine folks on Wikipedia:Wikiproject TV Stations to make suggestions on ways the article might be improved before it was sent to FAC, but the results were somewhat underwhelming (in the sense that no one there commented). This article has had peer review and is currently a Good Article. I'm leaving a note here in the hopes that some nice TV buffs might take a look at the article and opine or whine about it on the FAC page. I will gladly attempt to fix anything that still needs improvement. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DuMont Television Network FAC

message: FYI, I have placed :Category:Cancelled TV series on the cfd board for discussion and either deletion or renaming/redefining/changing its parent category.  This category is brand new, created Dec 31 2006, and appears to have some problems in how it is defined.  
Please feel free to include your input at the discussion at .  (I'd recommend keeping comments on the discussion at that link so people not directly in this project will see them.)  I included my reasons for the cfd at that link, so I won't bother rehashing it here. Dugwiki 17:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Cancelled TV series]] cfd notice 

message: Someone has CfD several actor categories Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:The_4400_actors.2C_Category:Andromeda_.28TV_series.29_actors.2C_Category:Battlestar_Galactica_.281978.29_actors.2C_Category:Battlestar_Galactica_.282004.29_actors.2C_Category:Heroes_.28TV_series.29_actors.2C_Category:Roswell_actors_and_Category:Torchwood_actors. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annother CfD on actor categories 

message: The Quatermass Experiment has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Quatermass Experiment FAR

message: When randomly browsing some articles, I noticed several tvland.com links in the external links of some shows. These shows apparently all air or have aired on TV Land, however that hardly seems like a qualification for an External link (in that case those sections could be filled with a dozen of links from all around the world). I noticed that many of these additions have been made on January 2nd, by the following user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aldengirl
I propose they be removed. Does anyone disagree with that? TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No strong feeling either way, but could a case be made that these are the equivalent of an "Official website" for old shows that don't have a real Official site, and are broadcast on TVLand? - Peregrine Fisher 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tvland link spam 

message: A review of the Friends article, most probably leading to a rewrite, is going on at Talk:Friends/Rewrite. Anyone is welcome - a list of good references about the TV series would be quite handy at this stage. CloudNine 20:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Friends]] review 

message: I opened a peer review for Star Cops recently. I want to submit it for GA following the review. Please come by and  make some suggestions. Joe King 20:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review for Star Cops

message: FYI, I started a discussion over at [WikiProject Professional wrestling] over how to possibly handle episodic style articles for wrestling shows.  Many other types of television shows have articles for specific episodes.  However, wrestling shows, which are basically just scripted character driven shows with "fight scenes" in the ring, don't currently have episodic articles.  It seems odd to handle wrestling shows entirely differently from other scripted shows, including shows that draw lower ratings and/or didn't last as many seasons as RAW or Smackdown, for example.  
So the question is this: is there a way to allow for episodic style content articles for notable wrestling television series?  So far options might include:
1) Some people expressed that we should be deleting episode articles for television articles that already exist.  The idea there is that articles about specific television series episodes are not notable enough for inclusion and are better suited to fan sites devoted to that show.
2) Treat wrestling shows identically to other scripted shows, allowing for episode specific articles.  The main downside would be that these shows produce one episode a week each with no reruns, so there are up to 52 individual episodes a year per show.  That could mean extra maintainence.
3) Consolidate information from multiple episodes in a single article. One possibility would be to compact information from each month or between major pay-per-views within a single article.  Another would be to create an article per major storyline, most of which take place over multiple episodes, leaving out "one-shot" matches.  This would reduce the number of articles per show to about 5-15 per year, depending on the format used.  
Since this discussion is directly related to how to handle episodes for television shows in general, feedback from this project is appreciated.  I'd recommend keeping discussion on it to the WP:PW discussion so that all the comments are in one place.  The only advice I'd suggest going into the discussion is to keep in mind that these shows are not just sporting events, but do involve a fair amount of fictional scripting and plot lines. Reporting just simple numeric results loses a great deal of information. Thanks! Dugwiki 17:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think #1 is the best idea. Episodes should be on fan Wikis. It's getting way out of hand here on Wikipedia. Alot of TV episode articles (not all though.. yet at least) are full of POV, cruft, too many quotes, too much trivia and so on. The problem is never settled, and continues on with no apparent end in sight. As for wrestling: it would probably be the same thing, if articles for each show were made. A month article for all the Raw episodes wouldn't be much different. I know many people enjoy the TV episode articles, in case they miss a show or whatever: but the fact of the matter is... Wikipedia isn't a collection of information (a guideline clearly states that). There is many TV websites out there with plot summaries galore they can easily find. RobJ1981 05:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling]] about handling episodes/storylines 

message: People in a recent AfD for Airdates of Lost and now another for Airdates of House (TV series) have expressed concern that including a list/table of international broadcasters and the series premiere date for each is inappropriate, particularly because they are unverifiable and a collection of indiscriminate information. The AfDs have obviously targeted the cases where such lists are split off as their own articles, but there are many series which include the exact same information as part of the main article. The project page doesn't state explicitly whether it's appropriate or not, but I think given that significant concerns have been raised about these sections, we should probably come a decision and incorporate that into the project page.
My view and more explanation is covered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airdates of House (TV series). – Þ  21:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A list of airdates, the listings of dates and times that a show is on internationally, is not the same as listing the broadcasters, and therefore I think this discussion of international broadcasters will stray from the AfD.  If you can find another TV series article that lists dates/times of international stations, please list them here.  --  Wikipedical 21:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused, because Airdates of House (TV series) doesn't include the information you're talking about. Maybe Airdates of Lost did, I don't know since it's already been deleted. – Þ  09:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Broadcasters 

message: Is Cahoots TV a real show?  Also see List of Cahoots episodes.  Maybe they just got their dates wrong. - Peregrine Fisher 05:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cahoots TV 

message: I'm a huge fan of Supernatural and with all the canon and new backstory info this season maybe it's time for a WikiProject for the show and its pieces. Especially with all the plotline with Sam and how he's linked to others like him.
Just an idea from a newbie(but been lurking for quite some time)
(LadySatine 09:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Project for Supernatural 

message: I'm ok with the new section after the edit by Matthew.  Also, the four templates linked in that section have been updated recently, I'd recommend checking them out.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think it would be best to combine all four of those templates into one template now, seems more manageable that way as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They do seem fairly redundant.  You want to take a stab at turning one into a multipurpose template?  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Still working on it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Shall i put this template in place on  and redirect the other templates to use it? TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming TV 

message: *series
*episode
*running
:Still working on it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall i put this template in place on  and redirect the other templates to use it? TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My attempt... 

message: Are these included in this WikiProject? I added Top Chef and Top Design, but I am wanting to make sure these are part of this WikiProject. Tinkleheimer 19:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they are. Big Brother, Big Brother is anyway. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reality Telivision Shows 

message: There have been some mass removals of the images from various List of episodes pages.  For example, List of Heroes episodes.  Despite Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2 being thoroughly shot down, the removals continue.  Originally it started with the removal of images that weren't good, unique representatives of their episode, or didn't have detailed fair use rationals.  The movement seems to be gaining steam, and heading towards removal of all fair use images from TV episode lists.  Any ideas on how we can stop this? - Peregrine Fisher 22:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the proposed ammendment as particularly relevant either way.  What is the reason for the deletions, that they aren't necessary, or that they are a fair use violation?  Is using a bunch of photos to illustrate a list a violation of fair use?  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At times it appears that the prevailing attitude among some editors is that any use of images is a violation of fair use. See, for example, the (IMO unnecessary) mass removal of TV Guide images from dozens of articles last year. Right now I'm trying to keep the main image at T'Pol alive because an editor is of the opinion a free version is available.23skidoo 19:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a similar concern with the article for Jared Padalecki. Someone recently removed the actor's fair use photo from the infobox, leaving behind the words .  Has it really come to this, that unless a Wikipedian personally takes a photo of an actor and releases it, it is not acceptable to have an image showing what the actor looks like?  There is another image further down of Padelecki with his co-star, illustrating the show they're in, so it may be that the person was reasoning on a one-image-per-article basis.  The images illustrated two different things, (the actor and the series), but they are both from the same show.  I could substitute a screen capture from A Ring of Endless Light (film), but that seems like a silly way to handle this, and may not alleviate the other editor's concerns. Even if there's only one picture used, shouldn't priority be given to having something in the infobox?  I didn't revert because I didn't want to get into an edit war without further guidance. (I realize this is more a WP Biography issue, but surely it's an overlapping concern for TV as well.) Karen | Talk | contribs 21:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are the rules.  If a free image could be created, then a fair use image cannot take its place.  The reasoning is that no one will try to find a free image if there's already an image there.  This can't really be fought because the people who control wikipedia have decided this.  Images of characters are not replaceable, which is why the other image is OK.  The infobox image is about the actor, not the character, which is why you can't move the images up. - Peregrine Fisher 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass removal of images from List of episodes pages 

message: I recommend that The Rich List be moved to The Rich List (US game show), with the original link redirecting to The Rich List (Australian game show).
With the US version only lasting one episode it is unlikely to receive much interest on wikipedia - on the otherhand the Australian version is a major prime time show in Australia that is (at this stage) still in production.
Alternatively, merge the two pages together. 139.168.189.96 11:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of merging the two together. I've added merge template tags to both articles and suggest moving discussion to Talk:The Rich List#The Rich List. -- Ned Scott 23:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rich List