Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 7

message: I haven't delved very deeply into this, but from looking at the articles for Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown and The Peoples Court there seems to be room for improvement in the Television infobox.  Those three each list their format as judicial, which is a page describing the judicial system.  Would it make more sense to have a judicial (television) article describing judicial TV shows?  --dinomite 12:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would, the problem is finding sources to support an article about TV show format.--Opark 77 10:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television infobox 'format' field 

message: There is way too many cultural references on just about all of them. This is very trivial, plus is too much detail for an episode article. The show revolves around them: so these sections are basically scene by scene guides to the show, which isn't suitable. I suggest people being bold and moving the sections to the Family Guy wiki at http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:familyguy. This nonsense needs to end, and by having the sections at all: just encourages people to expand them to every little thing that happened in the show. The problem has gone on for a while, and I've seen no one even attempt to clean the sections much. Any thoughts?  RobJ1981 05:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the core of it, we have waves of new or drive-by editors (our most common editors) who simply don't know not to add this stuff ahead of time. I think what we need is a way to flag their attention, maybe with a hidden comment that shows up when you edit, or some other method. Hopefully being firm, but nice about it. Another idea, we have boxes that say stuff like "See Commons for pictures of this" to help direct people to our sister projects, and I think there is a version for Wikia. We could basically say "For a detailed list of pop-culture references see X". And of course, if there are any other GFDL or CC type wikis other than wikia that would also be appropriate, we'd mention them as well. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Drive-by edits are a problem, but Family Guy episode pages are like RobJ describes from the beginning, by design. Edit any of the Season 7 episodes (yet to be broadcast) and and you'll find commented-out Cultural references sections just waiting to be filled in. This is standard operating procedure for a group of regular editors. Attempts to "educate" may not help much since they are mostly aware of policy and simply object to it. / edg ☺ ★ 11:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Family Guy episode problems

message: I do not understand it.  For example, Lost averaged 16.05 million viewers in its first season, yet the episode with the least amount of viewers had 16.54 million viewers and when you do the math, the average number of viewers per episode was 18.38 million.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nielsen Ratings are not an exact science, and sometimes people post articles on the estimated rating, and the more accurate ratings which comes out after the week has ended goes unreported. A report may come out saying the Lost premiere has an estimated 17 million viewers, but by the end of the night, or week or whatever, it turns out to be really 16.5 million. It also doesn't hlelp that  Yauws is a forum, and not a news organization like The Hollywood Reporter.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used YAUWS because it has all the numbers in one place.  Every Tuesday, ABC Medianet posts the ratings for every non-cable series that week.  How can it be that only two of sixteen episodes of the second part of the third season of Lost had over the average of 13.82 million?  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an estimation. It depends on when people post the information, when they got the information, and where they got the information.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick answers, but I don't think that is really what I'm looking for.  I don't think that the numbers are going to change after a week.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 01:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen Smallville's numbers change after a few days, and if a certain site is using old numbers, or just plain inaccurate numbers then that makes a difference. I don't know what to tell you other than use the most reliable source, even if that means it's not the most outstanding numbers.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Then it's a discrepancy on their site, and you should contact them to find out if it was a human error (i.e. someone typed the wrong number, or cannot add) or if there was something else going into these numbers that readers are not aware of. This isn't a Wikipedia issue. We don't figure out which number is right, we just use the most reliable one. If their addition sucks, then I suggest doing the math yourself and using that number with those weekly sources. It isn't original research to take an average from a set of numbers, as anyone can verify that the average is correct.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, maybe I will replace the numbers.  I am hoping that someone on Wikipedia knows the answer and will write "Oh, it's because the February and May sweeps numbers are worth twice as much" or something like that.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 19:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, if it were all that easy.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If reruns played a part, that would explain the ratings for the first two seasons, and if Live + 7 DVR ratings were factored in a couple weeks after initial broadcast, that would make sense for the third season.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nielsen Ratings|Ratings]] 

message: I've noticed on just about every Family Guy episode article: a censorship section. I don't see how this is notable. Things are censored all the time, how is Family Guy any different? I would imagine there is more examples, but Family Guy is the main example I see of listing all the ways something has been censorsed. I want to point out: it's not talking about censorship in general, it's a list of all the censors that took place when Family Guy aired in syndication and in reruns. RobJ1981 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, I try to avoid them, unless there is something REALLY notable and it's mentioned by the production crew but if it's just "______ was cut out in syndication", then I don't think it's necessary. -- Scorpion0422 16:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, well season 1 episodes are done. If anyone wants to help me go through the others, that would be helpful. RobJ1981 20:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are censorship sections notable?

message: We link to imdb and tv.com because they are the most widely used and most widely recognized "wide-topic" coverage places of "reasonable quality" of filmographies and release/air-dates. Their linking has been questioned before, but all-in-all people just like to have those things at hand. It's like having the episode count in your article. On its own its useless, but a couple of those small things together are sometimes useful. That does not mean however that we should use those 2 EL-"exceptions" to basically white-list all the other "crap". The more topic-specific these external links become, the more problematic basically. The reason is that it becomes more obscure. If IMDB would start to "really suck" people would report on this, and you would definitely see wide criticisme, possibly leading to a turn-around in administration of the site, a split, or the entire downfall of the site. If one of these wikia wiki's makes some goofs what is the likelihood that the "public at large" will be able to judge these sites properly on their mistakes? Also imdb mostly is a "factbook", now some of those facts may not be accurate at times, but more importantly the site does not give "encyclopedic" background either. There is no analysis or research involved and almost anyone who ever visited imdb.com knows this. People go to imdb.com to find basic info on broadcasting history and the filmography of actors. Not to find the history and story of the creation of the movie or all the things that went wrong when the movie was being filmed. This is also why trivia from imdb should never be used in wikipedia (it's not part of the core-business of imdb, much like keeping filmographies is not the core-business of wikipedia). (you might notice I talk less about tv.com Read the above, and you might be able to guess why).
In the basics wherever we link to wiki's (user generated external sites) most important is the way this information is compounded. Is there any editorial behaviour going on, or is it complete fandom writing? What are the quality requirements there and are they being adhered? What is the "usefulness" of the site (what does it have that wikipedia or imdb or fansite or official webpage does not have) ? Also any wiki should have found it's "notability" from outside wikipedia. There can be no case where a wiki grows to become the most "popular" wiki simply because it's the one linked from Wikipedia. It should have established itself within the community of a topic as such a source long before Wikipedia would ever link it. Every fan needs to expect that specific link 
Also remember that for instance we only link to ONE fansite (officially) if it is widely recognized as being a useful place and being the most popular fansite on the topic. Also, is this "fansite" viable, or will it likely be gone within the year? Has it become "notable" in itself (not for an article, but for mention on the wikipedia article of the show that is)? Those are important questions to ask every time we add an external link.
In conclusion, we deal with basically 4 kinds of ELs.
# Background information (highly reliable, very TV-show specific, non editable) (often usable as sources/references)
# Factbooks (less reliable, non-show specific, widely used)
# Fansites (highly variable reliability, show-specific, targeted audience)
# Episode guides (variable reliability, show-specific, targeted audience, editable)
These 4 kinds of links have different properties, and therefore the inclusion guidelines also need to be interpreted different per category and per inclusion of the link. It is part of the nature of these categories. Each and everytime we need to judge them on all the questions raised above. Personally, I think we should create a "this talkpage is not a discussion forum" template, which includes links to episodeguides, fansites etc, just to avoid them ending up in the articles too much. Everyone who asks for "specific guidelines" is out of luck. It's just impossible. Please assume good faith on any edits and listen to your fellow editors. It's logical that some sites on the Simpsons are more widely excepted to be in the ELs then some sites for Bionic Woman, but to set in stone where that line in-between should be is impossible. There is nothing wrong with that, it's Wikipedia. Oh and we should DEFINITELY NOT prefer wikia links by default. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: I've listed List of broadcasting data for Rome (TV series) for deletion.  The AFD listing can be found here.  --  Wikipedical 00:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD: [[List of broadcasting data for Rome (TV series)]] 

message: There is a lot of work to be done to get this into good article status. So I was wondering if I could get help? It's almost impossible to know if the pages I find on Google are trustable or just some random bullshit, since there are a lot of parody sites that use similar format as news sites. Peter is a TV animated character, and since Family Guy is actually more for adults than children I figured I should go here instead of the U.S. Animation WikiProject. Help would be nice, thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 14:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Peter Griffin]] 

message: There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Animation for a project which would deal specifically with all articles related to animation, be they television, movie, web, or what have you. Any interested parties are encouraged to indicate their support there. Thank you. John Carter 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animation project proposal 

message: I think (though I might be wrong) that I've found a significant gap in Wikipedia's coverage of media organizations. I'm just sampling opinion at relevant WikiProjects to see if someone more informed has any ideas. The process of commissioning content for television and radio networks is an important one, with commissioning editors being notable media figures. The process affects the people who write and produce media content, as well as the commercial fortunes of the networks. Balances have to be made between artistic and commercial considerations, audience demographics (e.g. commissioning shows designed to attract younger or more affluent viewers), and in some circumstances, public service commitments. Should there be an article on this subject that explains details like how a show gets commissioned (who has to persuade whom? Are formats prepared to a brief specified by the network? What sort of test-screening or pilot schemes can be used to test a show's viability?), what the role of a commissioning editor is (I'm guessing they aren't in charge of scheduling a show... in multi-channel companies, can they even decide which channel it should be broadcast on? Is the tendency for different channels to have separate commissioning editors? Are commissioning editors' roles generally field-specific e.g. "Controller of Drama Commissioning", "Commissioning Editor for Factual Entertainment"? Presumably they have to work within the budget allocated to their area by their network, but do they have leeway to negotiate prices when trying to secure content or does that have to be authorized from higher up the company? Who becomes a commissioning editor anyway, and what is it the stepping stone to?), and what are the differences in the process between organizations with their own production facilities and those that rely on external independent producers - I presume the pitching process works differently? How do networks decide on when to re-commission a series? (In the middle of its run or at its end? Is it tied in to the advertising cycle that exists in some countries? In a first season of a show, are only the first few episodes commissioned in case it bombs, with an expectation that the rest of the season will be commissioned if they fare well?) Are there any particularly notable re-commissioning decisions? (I know that the re-commissioning of the original Star Trek for its final season, after an initial cancellation, only came after a major fan campaign - I'm sure such fan campaigns aren't unusual, but how is such a success rare?) As a general rule, how long after an original show is commissioned is that show actually ready to air? These are all questions I don't know the answers to, but I think Wikipedia should address them somewhere. Should there be an article at programming commissioning, commissioning editor or commissioning director that covers this sort of thing? So that replies gather in a central place, it's probably a good idea to post any thoughts at Talk:Commission where I wrote at first. I hope my query makes sense! TheGrappler 08:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programming commissioning 

message: I recently put alot of images from the show Maui Fever up for deletion, but i'm having trouble trying to remove images from from the episodes section. Attempts by me have met with possible formatting problems. Can anyone help me and remove them entirely?--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend using Template:Episode list, which would take care of the formatting. -- Ned Scott 11:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My request was for someone else to remove the images. I'm kinda wrapping up research for something else and have no time to make such alterations. --293.xx.xxx.xx 11:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Opark 77 21:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki formatting problems on [[Maui Fever]] 

message: *Trapped in the Closet (South Park), please voice your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trapped in the Closet (South Park).  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article candidate 

message: A question - are tables of weekly ratings considered encyclopedic? I've removed them from a few articles for television shows because it doesn't seem appropriate to have a table of week-to-week numbers for U.S. viewers. (The data is irrelevant to anyone outside of the U.S., it is difficult to get similar numbers for all broadcasters, and the charts inspire amateur analysis of the series' possible fate.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 05:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't the guidelines here encourage including ratings information as a measure of response to the show? I think the average number of viewers per season should be included on the main page of an article but perhaps a table of week-to-week figures in the main article of a show is excessive. However, for individual episode articles the viewing figures for the episode in question are appropriate. I have no problem seeing ratings in an episode list format either as it is then just one of several bits of useful reference information presented to the reader.--Opark 77 08:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: A general summary/discussion of how well it was received is appropriate, but I think a table of week to week is excessive and would fall under WP:NOT.  That much detail would belong on a ratings site, not here.  I'd agree with their removal, so long as there is something else in the article that already gives a prose account on reception (which ratings can help indicate).  So, replace with something more appropriate, if needed, rather than straight removal. :) Collectonian 09:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's kind of what I was thinking - prose that reflects the overall popularity, especially in the market or markets that directly affect the future of the production. Well-supported references, no "analysis" of what it means (unless it comes from third-party sources, or course. --Ckatzchatspy 09:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds wonderful. It can be difficult to quantify popularity based on sources without using ratings though. Do you think its appropriate to include the average viewing figures for a season in the response section?--Opark 77 09:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I find original ratings encyclopedic, even if I don't live in the US. I merged week-to-week ratings to the episode list, see List of Carnivàle episodes (about to get featured). I think it works well there, as long as it's sourced. A short overview section in the main article is also good for season opener, finale and average ratings. – sgeureka t•c 10:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it is difficult to find ratings in other countries doesn't mean we should not include them for the ones/one we do find. It's hard to find reviews for television shows in general, let alone in countries outside of the US, maybe the UK. Should we discontinue reviews because of that? Ratings are an objective way of looking at a shows popularity. See what Smallville (season 7) is doing. It's a column connected to the episode list. If someone found UK ratings it could easily be adapted. Frankly, American shows live and breathe by the ratings they revieve in the US, not other countries. ABC wouldn't cancel Lost if it was performing great in the US but poorly in the UK. But if it wsa the other way around, you're likely to see it canceled. That's generally because the TV business is built on advertisement space here in the States. If you cannot secure commercial space on your show, it's usually because the ratings are poor, which usually means no one is watching. Ratings would be considered "cultural impact", just like how much money a film makes is considered the same thing. The difference is that networks don't typically release the amount of money their television shows make for them, but Nielsen is kind enough to release the amount of viewers a television shows receives on average. If you have reliable sources to back it up, and you don't use original research to try and guess a shows popularity, then there is nothing wrong.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more.  This is one of the few ways to track the popularity of a show over it's lifetime, has direct influence over said shows lifetime.  I don't mind the idea of merging the data into a list of episodes provided it could be done cleanly, like List of Carnivàle episodes, but I also don't mind a small detailed list like the one over at Bionic Woman. Hewinsj 23:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine for the Bionic Woman show, at the moment, because the show only has 5 episodes--so there isn't a LOE page for it. It would be a problem if we put a weekly ratings box on say Smallville or CSI's main pages, because you're talking about 22 weeks worth of ratings for 7 and 8 seasons, which would be a bit much for the main pages.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with the tables is this: what do they really mean to the average reader? The raw numbers are not especially meaningful, given that advertisers and broadcasters use far more detailed and specific criteria to assess performance. For example, a show on the CW might have abysmal ratings on a strictly numeric basis when compared to something on NBC or CBS. However, if those viewers are concentrated in a desirable demographic, the show will survive, whereas a higher-rated show with less desirable demographics will fail. Similarly, what is a "bad" number on Sunday might be a great number on a Friday (or vice versa, I can't remember which one is the better day.) Tables of numbers don't provide that sort of analysis, and they just invite uninformed comparisons. (One comment I had after removing a table was "Its encyclopedia type information because people can see if a show is in danger of cancellation.") I've no problem with referenced, overall ratings trends, analysis (third-party, or course), demographics, advertiser preferences, and the like. It's the use of raw data - just because it is available - that needs examination. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 08:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me serve as an example. I have one hour of must-see television each week (partly because by the time that popular shows air in my country, I have long bought them on DVD and no longer need to watch it in television). Still, one of my daily stops is quotenmeter.de, a German website that keeps track of German and American TV ratings. From the original raw American ratings I can tell how soon a TV show will come to my country, if ever. I'll also know what ratings a German channel expects until it cancels an American show in its program. And I'd rather do the analysis of ratings myself than to hear "the show was cancelled in the US because ratings slipped over the season". It's the kind of US-centric analysis that's unhelpful for me, not the raw data. (Edit: That doesn't mean that sourced analysis shouldn't take place – it should, but not at the expense of raw data except if you can link to an off-wiki site that lists them.) – sgeureka t•c 10:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ckatz, what you are asking for is prose. The same thing could be said for box office numbers for a film. What does a film that makes 300 million actually say? We may know the budget, but we don't know the marketing costs, so the gross is meaningless because the marketing costs could very well outweigh the total box office take. So, should we get rid of instances where we mention box office numbers? If you have week by week data, you can clearly see trends in the viewership of a show. If a show started out strong, but then started losing ratings drastically, then you can clearly see that people stopped watching it at a specific point in the season. If the numbers were steady the whole season then you know it has a stable fanbase. If the numbers climb, well you get the picture. You are basically saying that if someone cannot provide an explaination for something that obviously affects the show, then it shouldn't be there? No one is drawing comparisons to other networks, it's just providing the most comprehensive information available. If no one analyzes a show's ratings, then they don't analyze them, but that doesn't change the fact that we have overall viewership. If you have more, broken down by demographics, even better. We measure fan reaction of films by the motto, "money talks", well that's simply "data", and on that isn't representative of the film's actual performance given that we don't know what the company really paid. Well, Nielsen Ratings are the only thing we have to measure "fan reaction" for television shows. If a show gets 5 million viewers every week, and suddenly shot up/down for one episode, then we can clearly see that there was either something horrible about that episode, or great about that everyone wanted to/didn't want to see it. If you want to compare numbers to CBS or ABC, in a manner that makes sense, then you need sources that analyze the "raw numbers". But if the only thing you are doing is showing the trend of the show's popularity on its own network, there isn't a problem.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings, once more 

message: The above named project recently was nominated for deletion and kept. As a result of the discussion, the article was tagged as inactive. It was also proposed during the discussion that the project be merged to this one. I am now formally proposing the merger as was indicated there. John Carter 15:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a test cards task force would be wholly appropriate for the TV project and would support the merger if the other project is indeed inactive.--Opark 77 15:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the nominator for deletion of the project, I think this would be appropriate too.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger with Wikiproject Test Cards 

message: I've cleared the backlog of assessment requests. We're standing on approximately 4700 articles to be assessed now. This should be faster as there is no need to leave comments when assessing an article without request. Would anyone like to help out? I'll pledge 10 a day if someone will assist me. Would only take us 204 days to get the lot done with two people at 10 a day!--Opark 77 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done my 10 for today. See it doesn't take long!--Opark 77 01:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I tried to assess some TV articles a couple of times, but I've never really done so in the end because the Quality scale isn't of much help for deciding the appropriate rating - TV/fiction articles are a completely different beast than regular real-life articles. Also, quite a few (e.g. individual episode articles) have massive plot summaries but don't even attempt to satisfy notability and/or shouldn't exist in the first place. Could you (or someone else) give two examples each so that someone unfamiliar with the process knows what ratings apply? And what about articles that got redirected but still have an unassessed banner on the talk page? – sgeureka t•c 02:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this request.  I've noticed most projects just reiterate the main quality scale, but it would really be helpful if it was written more specifically for the television project to serve as a better guide.  I started to post that I'd help out, but then I started worrying if I'd be able to do a decent job.  Stubs and starts are generally easy, but I have a harder time figuring out of an article is at B class or not. I'm gonna give it a run, though, to help the backlog.  I can at least deal with those easier ones ;-) (45 minutes later, 18 assessments done, 3 more PRODed, one AfDed :P) Collectonian 03:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm...I think for redirects, just deleting the template would be better (and making sure where it redirects to has the template, if applicable). Collectonian 02:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay...because I'm insane, as of this exact moment, there are no more articles needing assessment that start with the letter A :D Collectonian 02:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good effort. Thank you!--Opark 77 10:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah I think we should. I'm not sure if I have been (probably not) but I will from now on. Thanks for bringing this up before we got to "L"!--Opark 77 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, agreed!  I'll update the assessment page to note that, since its missing from the page. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And speaking of the assessments, I've noticed many projects have a customized Grading Scheme, with their own examples.  I thought it might be good for our project to have the same instead of just using the default one.  That way we can point to examples for each class, and have a place to (hopefully) put in more customized descriptions that would help with assessments.  I've started the template here: Template:Television Grading scheme to show what I mean, get feedback, etc. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: I'd like to propose a task force for people working in the television industry. WP:Biography has an arts and entertainment task force which loosely covers this but there are potentially many notable television writers, directors and actors so it might be worth us focusing on it too. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Screenwriters which covers both film and television writers and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers which covers exclusively people in the film industry and not television. As it stands wikipedia does not have a community associated with supporting articles detailing the people involved in creating television. I have no problem with the taskforce being hosted by WP:Biography but it seems like it should be a joint effort between this project and the Biography project.--Opark 77 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Television people

message: I proposed a task force to focus on Maryland produced television and film for wikiproject Maryland. This would include the TV programs Homicide: Life on the Street, The Corner and The Wire amongst other articles. Would anyone be interested? Would anyone object to the project being hosted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Maryland. I think it makes the most sense for them to have it as all articles fall under their mandate while only the television related articles would fall under ours.--Opark 77 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Television in Maryland

message: WP:Biography have automated some of their assessment process. I believe they use bots to assess articles in stub categories as stubs. Does anyone have a bot? Would anyone like to attempt this for WP:TV. Above there is a question about redirect pages with the WP:TV tag. Could we automate the removal of these tags or the automatic assessment of class=NA (non-article) for these pages?--Opark 77 10:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be an awesome thing to have if we can find a bot.  I could have sworn I saw a script once that can also help automate some.  It was made to run over the page, then offer a suggested class based on what the page had, references found, etc. as well as offer some basic (if generic) feedback about the article.  Collectonian 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated assessment

message: I archived the rest of the September items from here, which I hope was okay to do (didn't know if someone else normally took care of it or not).
Also, I was wondering what anyone thought of the idea of us having some tags similar to the film project's tags?  I find them wonderfully useful for my work in there, especially the need image tag, and I think it could help us out here too for handing to do items.  I'd be willing to try making similar ones for us, if others agree that would be a useful addition? Collectonian 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be good. I would try to use them when assessing articles.--Opark 77 21:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for archiving the talk page. As far as I'm aware anyone is free to do it.--Opark 77 21:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the first one  if folks would like to take a look and offer some feedback :) If this works, some other ones I thought of were for marking shows needing an episode list, shows needing a character section, and shows needing a plot section.  Thoughts? Collectonian 07:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks fine. I'd strengthen the wording for the fair use part to "A low-resolution screenshot would also be appropriate for a show or made-for-tv film providing that the fair use guideline is properly observed, or the image will be removed." Also the link is to fair use the concept rather than the guideline: try Fair Use instead to send the uninitiated straight to the guideline. Those other suggestions would be good. However, more commonly I find TV shows needing a production section and TV shows needing a response section. For the episode list one we should point editors in the direction of the episode list template and our featured episode lists. For the characters section we should include the writing about fiction guidelines, request prose rather than a list and point them to the guidance here at WP:TV. Similar links should make the plot one.--Opark 77 09:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on the character section, though do we have any guidelines?  I know one of the character guideline links is red-lined on the front page.  A production section and response section are also quite useful, though the latter seems to be the hardest one.  Far to frequently people will do "fan reaction" based on their own reactions, like "fans didn't like the new designs" and the like that can really only be "sourced" by forum postings and blog postings. :P  Still, especially with some big shows, it really is needed and a tag would certainly be useful to help point that out. :) Collectonian 14:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: How about needs infobox too?--Opark 77 09:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the infobox is taken care of by the television project template already :) Collectonian 14:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  has links to uploading images and the guide to improving articles, perhaps we should include those for consistency in our TV screenshot template.--Opark 77 10:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea!  I'll take a look at that and see how they can be combined. Collectonian 14:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've updated the image tag per the suggestions.  I've also created these templates: , , , , and . :) Collectonian 03:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job. I've used most of them in my 10 assessments for the day. Thank you.--Opark 77 16:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome and thanks :)  I went through and added short intros to each of the categories generated by the tags so there are no more red lines. :) Collectonian 16:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed one small grammatical error but I'm not sure how to fix it. The episode list one puts articles in a category for television articles that "need a episode list" when it should be "need an episode list".--Opark 77 20:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fixed the typo, but there is either some kind of lag until the pages using this template show up in the category, or I did something wrong. (Talk:Barbara (TV series) still shows up in :Category:Articles that need a episode list for me, although it states on its page that it is in :Category:Articles that need an episode list.) The old cat can then be  in four days. – sgeureka t•c 20:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops!  Thanks for fixing that Sgeureka.  I was able to fix Barbara still showing up in the other one by resaving her talk page, so I guess it was cached.  :) I went ahead and put a CSD with a note so maybe it won't have to wait four days for the old one to get deleted. Collectonian 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks!  I'm glad they are already getting well used and are helpful to others :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags and Archiving

message: Is an article on a Columbo character notable enough to warrant an own article, like this one here? Should probably be removed no. Oblomow 21:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can get enough information for behind the scenes and reception sections.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory yes but this should be AFDed as its unreferenced and the character was a one off so its not likely to meet notability guidelines.--212.57.229.16 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV character 

message: Judge Judy requires assessment, probably a rewrite. Not my typical area of interest, but I came across it during other business and think it needs a major overhaul and copy edit. There is an editor displaying ownership issues; I've tried to start gradually in the hopes of working with him, but am encountering strong resistance. I've run User:AndyZ's peer review script on the article (this version) and I'd appreciate any input and contributions you might have. --Ckatzchatspy 10:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assessment completed. I've left some comments.--Opark 77 11:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment - Judge Judy 

message: Hey guys, I would like to request that Maging Sino Ka Man: Ang Pagbabalik be merge into Maging Sino Ka Man since Maging Sino Ka Man: Ang Pagbabalik is season 2 of Maging Sino Ka Man. Thanks! -chris^_^ (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.  I've tagged both to suggest the merge, though feel free to be bold and go ahead and do the merge :) Also put them in the Project since they were missing that tag AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested for the merge, since technically I don't know how to do it. Thanks! -chris^_^ (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob.  If one of the editors working on either article doesn't take the initiative to do and no one objects, someone from the project will :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maging Sino Ka Man

message: I noted that the above portal page has recently been turned into a redirect to the main article. Can anyone tell me why this was done, and/or whether you believe that the old portal should be restored? Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that there was little activity and I doubt that there was much traffic, so I support the change to redirect.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. The edit history for the portal page shows no constructive edits since it was started and some other redirects in its past. As there is little activity it is probably not worth having the portal in place.--Opark 77 (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As to your question of why the redirect was performed the best bet would be to ask the editor who made the redirect.--Opark 77 (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Sesame Street]] 

message: I've stumbled across the merge discussion of several character articles related to Scrubs (TV series) (which can be found here) and something User:TTN wrote made me think about guidance for writing about television characters. The discussion included commentary on the appropriate length of plot related sections in character articles. Apparently the relevant guidelines are WP:WAF/WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT. However, while these guidelines imply limitations of the length of plot they are non-specific. Our guidance on episode coverage is very specific about using roughly 10 words per minute of screen time. Can we work together to come up with similar guidance for television articles about characters?--Opark 77 (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strangely, I've been thinking about updating the character guidelines as well, but from another perspective. My opinion about this matter is primarily based on WP:WAF#Conclusions (the bolded lines) and recent personal experiences concerning a character article. I think most people would agree that the majority of character articles are very focused on primary (plot) information, are unsourced, and won't change any time soon. So, I've been looking through WP:GA and WP:FA for some content inspiration for my own articles, and I noticed that there are almost no TV/film character articles, but a lot of videogame character lists. I believe the reason is that most videogame editors start out with a character list and then add/tweak/de-cruftify so long until the list fullfils the GA and FA guidelines. But this is rarely done with television characters, who usually go from the main TV show page into their own individual articles. Because real-world material is hard to come by (or doesn't even exist), the only thing that usually gets added over the years is an overdetailed plot summary. And when people try to bring these articles in line with guidelines and policies and suggest a merge, they are often met with "but these characters are notable!" and "all the other TV shows have separate character articles!". This, I believe, is the underlying bane of current character articles, leaving the few people who want to do something about it powerless.So, getting back to your guideline proposal, I'd go one step further and not limit the amount of plot-summary, but introduce a new notability threshold (actually, it is just WP:NOTABILITY applied to character articles). I'd prefer to merge all character articles into Characters of X lists, and only allow individual characters to be split off when they have established notability with already added significant secondary sources (with a lot of leeway for reasonable exceptions). The German wikipedia already seems to go that route, and they have little trouble with cruft: de:Figuren der Harry-Potter-Romane, de:Figuren aus Star Wars, or even de:Stargate SG-1#Hauptcharaktere (although I admit all of them are almost too strict for my taste). I know my suggestion will not be very popular, but that's how I would tackle this issue. It would certainly reward those editors who add real-world information, and keep original research and trivia to a minimum, making this encyclopedia overall better. – sgeureka t•c 19:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (And while we're having this discussion, would someone care to comment on Help talk:Merging and moving pages#What happens to categories after a merge?) – sgeureka t•c 19:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am completely in agreement with you on merging characters articles in to Character of X lists!  Its something I do with articles I edit if the character list has gotten long enough to need to be broken out.  AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed and ready to help! I really think our having some good guidelines about writing about characters would be extremely helpful for guiding editors, and for having something to point to when editing and cleaning up articles. I also really think we need to tackle updating or overhauling our episode guidelines. The article we have now seems to go against WP:EPISODE by (hopefully unintentionally) giving the impression that individual episode articles are the norm rather than a list of episodes, a list of episodes in a season, and individual articles only when they meet WP:N. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing about characters

message: Just wanted to note that the list of TV articles up for deletion has been updated. Several of the current nominations are ones I made as part of the on going effort to clean up some of our TV articles and get rid of the fancrufty articles that do not add value to our articles.  I think it would be good to get some comments on these nominations from more TV Project as most of the voting appear to be coming from the article fans and a few regular AfD voters.  Not asking for a specific vote, but would like more input from other folks "in the trenches" so to speak who actually deal with TV articles on a regular basis. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until poeple like you came along, there was at least some hope of keeping the information realted to these subjects alive, since many fansites became out of date, or were taken off line for whatever reason. But you and people like TTN, Ned Scott, and others had to ruin this too. Wikipedia has gone from a place where users can write about any subject, to one where we're only allowed to write what YOU want people to know. And this applies to every segment of Wikipedia, not just television, and not just fiction. ----DanTD (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've been spending several hours each day working on moving content to an external TV show wiki (hosted on Wikia), and am working on a setting up a guideline or maybe even a WikiProject dedicated to preserving this information. I actually like these articles, I just don't think they should be on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfDs

message: Hi, i recently noticed this wikiproject and i was looking at some of the taskforces/projects associated to it. I was wondering what the process is to creating a taskforce as i am interested in creating one for Scrubs. Eddie6705 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page might help you out.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Or Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, if you are looking to start a new WikiProject like Wikipedia:WikiProject The Office (US) or Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost.  --  Wikipedical 18:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Scrubs (TV series)|Scrubs]]

message: Hello, I am Alejandro Roggio from the Pro Wrestling WikiProject. I am here to ask of you if the articles about pro wrestling pay per view events should be part of your WikiProject. I thought they were, but none of them have WikiProject Television notices on their talk pages. Please reply, Lex  T/C Guest Book  22:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link to such an article (preferably one that you consider quite good)? I admit that I have no idea how such articles are structured or what content they offer, so I can only offer my help when I see one. :-) – sgeureka t•c 00:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No. Smackdown, Raw and ECW: yes. But not pay-per-views because they really aren't television shows, they're pay per view specials. -- Scorpion0422 01:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet they're aired on television...Lex  T/C Guest Book  01:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Movies can be seen on television too, what's your point?  -- Scorpion0422 02:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Think of wrestling events like football events. It comes down to whether these specials were specifically produced/held for television (then yes, add the WP:TV banner), or for the attendees, and the event just happened to be aired on television (then no WP:TV banner). Hope that helps with the decision and with the reasoning, Raaggio. – sgeureka t•c 02:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The thing about professional wrestling is that they make the events for the television broadcast. You'll never see a major event like these to be held without them being broadcast on PPV. If it was with the logic you mentioned, the events would be broadcasted free. Lex  T/C Guest Book  03:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, new movies are broadcast on PPV, and they don't get a TV banner. That's because the primary focus isn't on the tv release, it's on the cinema. With wrestling, their primary focus is on the live event that people pay to attend. The PPV show is something additional they provide for all the people that cannot attend, or don't want to attend. We don't cover music concerts that are broadcast on PPV under this project. That being said, the whole idea of Pro Wrestling is tricky. Technically, every show is live audience mixed with television broadcasting. You could look at this from both ways, seeing as the main broadcasting--Raw, Smackdown, etc etc--are regularly scheduled television events. The PPV events are schedule television events as well, just restricted to payments per viewing. I don't see a reason why there couldn't be a TV banner on those articles, they're all basically fictional-reality tv.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 05:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why it's necessary though. WP:PW is already doing a more than decent job of cleaning up and maintaining these articles, so why do they need to be part of this project too? It would be like making all wrestling pages part of WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Technically you could do it, but what would the point of it be? -- Scorpion0422 17:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many articles fall under multiple projects though. Smallville falls under television and comics, and not because the series has its own line of comics. WP:PW is just a specific project for those articles. Depending on the topic, you could fall under 3 or 4 projects.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no big deal for multiple projects to track the same article. Wryspy (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro Wrestling PPVs

message: is starting a crusade against fair use images for identification of a subject: this could possibly threaten the WikiProject's use of television screenshots to identify a series or article in an infobox, per his argument they should be used for critical commentary and not for identification. I invite fellow editors to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Screenshots / promo images in TV episode list infoboxes to perhaps allow a change in the policy's prose so as to allow understanding that fair use is acceptable to identify copyrighted work in general. Alientraveller (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to this, I've also opened a thread on a somewhat similar issue: character images.  It's at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content#Character images and lists.  I don't know if this has affected any television articles yet, but presumably the same logic would apply to articles and list articles on television characters. SnowFire (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use for identification 

message: A group of IPs has been adding new episode information to Lloyd in Space since August. I just undid the whole thing and was reverted by an IP. I don't want to get in an edit war with these people so I thought I would let you guys handle it. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lloyd in Space]] 

message: Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Days of our Lives GA Review: On Hold

message: As I'm sure many of you have noticed, there has been a big surge in the removal of articles about individual episodes of TV shows recently. It's sparked a dispute over the guideline that was used as justification for this. The discussion is going on over at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes, I figure since this is likely of significant importance to this Wikiproject I should drop a note here to let you know. Bryan Derksen (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to point out, the guideline is only a part of why something is removed. There's always context to be had for these situations. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ugh, I guess those who think every last episode of every last television article every created should have its own article to give a blow by blow of the plot and silly trivia notes are out in full force now.  The irony, to me, is that at least one seeming support is the same one who keeps fighting viciously to have the spoiler tag brought back and applied to film articles. *sigh* The discussion, however, did remind me that we seriously need to work up a real MOS for television articles.  As I noted over there, our current ones are not that good, and our own episode one seems to go against WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT by putting more emphasis on individual articles than lists. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people are just upset at how some people have been handling the situation, rather than actually having an objection to the page itself. Hopefully things will boil over, like they normally do. -- Ned Scott 08:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't to boil over to become inflamed or more heated? I hope they calm down instead! :) --Opark 77 (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No way. People were frustrated with how to deal with these articles, and some of them decided to apply merges and redirects in great mass. That was not something the guidelines caused, but was simply caused by the frustration of dealing with the articles. WP:EPISODE, regardless of it's guideline tag, had consensus and was applied for years. What we need to do is address how we handle these articles, and not blame guidelines that are only trying to stop edit wars and mass AfDs. -- Ned Scott 18:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:EPISODE is in dispute