Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 13:22, 22 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Television and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:TV WT:WPTV

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39Auto-archiving period: 25 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Television This page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision

Points of interest related to Television on Misplaced Pages: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style – To-do

WikiProject Television was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 8 January 2014.

WikiProject Television was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 6 September 2016.

WikiProject Television

Project main page Project discussion Project assessment talk Television portal talk Descendant WikiProjects and task forces Showcase Project organization Article alerts Deletion sorting Popular pages New articles Project banner talk Project category talk Project templates talk Television stubs Guidelines Project manual of style talk Project notability guidelines talk TV article naming convention talk Broadcasting article naming convention talk Related WikiProjects Actors and Filmmakers Albums Animation Anime and manga Comics Film Literature Media franchises Radio Screenwriters Westerns view · edit · changes

Nomination of Bleach season 2 for featured list removal

I have nominated Bleach season 2 for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Bleach season 3 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Bleach season 4 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Bleach season 5 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Television ratings graph

Hey all. I've updated {{Television ratings graph}} to use a different style of graphing, allowing ratings graphs to once again reappear. See the template documentation for a Game of Thrones examples. Please let me know if you've got any questions or concerns. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Amazing, thank you Alex 21! I know the overall "Graph" extension is (slowly) rolling out to a new "Chart" extension if that will be of any help in the future. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the work! I did notice that there's an error when there are more episodes (copied below from List of Modern Family episodes, also seen here):

Unable to compile EasyTimeline input:
EasyTimeline 1.90
Timeline generation failed: 1 error found
- Maximum image size is 1600x2000 pixels = 16x20 inch
Run with option -b (bypass checks) when this is correct.

Personally, I'll take a few errors over all of them being blank; we can comment out the faulty lists for now if we don't want readers seeing them. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Too many episodes. Ratings graphs shouldn't be used for a series of 250 episodes; the module figures out the lowest possible column width, and it's still too much to a fit a quarter-thousand of them in. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Do we know what the limit is? Might be good to note it in the documentation so editors can either split the template into multiple groups of episodes or omit it entirely over a certain size. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Let me dabble with some examples and I'll figure it out! -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Technically, the limit is 112 bars. However, I recommend a maximum of 99, else the numbers start overlapping like this. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably easiest to just say 100 (looks like 99 and 100 wouldn't overlap, just 100 and 101). RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done The template will now display "Too many episodes to display graph (maximum 100)", and adds the article to Category:Articles using Template:Television ratings graph with excessive figures. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

As an updated, I've added |no_graph=y to all graphs in Category:Articles using Template:Television ratings graph with excessive figures that had over 100 viewer figures. For what it's worth, more than 100 is doable, with narrower columns/bars, but then the issue becomes the overlapping axis labels, as can be seen through the raw graph code at User:Alex 21/sandbox. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Disney Star#First sentence & infobox

There is a discussion at Talk:Disney Star#First sentence & infobox that may be of interest to participants of this WikiProject. RachelTensions (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Disney XD (British and Irish TV channel)#Requested move 13 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney XD (British and Irish TV channel)#Requested move 13 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RachelTensions (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Disney Channel (British and Irish TV channel)#Requested move 13 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney Channel (British and Irish TV channel)#Requested move 13 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RachelTensions (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Star Trek: Starfleet Academy articles

I have started a discussion at Talk:Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series)#Possible move regarding several similarly titled articles and some recent undiscussed moves for them. I am hoping to confirm what the best approach is so those moves can be reverted or cleaned-up appropriately. All input is welcome. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Use of "&" in infobox credits

At St. Denis Medical, I noticed the infobox uses "Eric Ledgin & Justin Spitzer" in the creator entry (i.e., including the ampersand). I know ampersands have a specific meaning when it comes to writing credits, but I've never seen it enforced in infoboxes – there are plenty of other shows that don't do this despite the credits doing so (Modern Family, Parks and Recreation, and The Leftovers are a few examples I could confirm), and films with writing teams also omit ampersands. Does anyone know if there is a guideline for this? The documentation for {{Infobox television}} says to use a list template for multiple entries but nothing about the use of "&". RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

We go by according to credits, please see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 34#As credited on screen. Also, per MOS:&, But retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, such as in Up & Down or AT&T. Elsewhere, ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion where space is extremely limited (e.g., tables and infoboxes). — YoungForever 05:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think quoting MOS:& like that is a bit misleading. The previous sentence makes it clear this is referring to the use of "&" in place of the longer "and": In normal text and headings, use and instead of the ampersand (&). I wouldn't go so far as to say it requires the use of "&" when a list could be used. As to the prior discussion, it's not super decisive when I read it (several people seemed opposed and simply didn't keep replying). The fact that many other articles don't use this format and that editors try to remove the "&" (at least judging from the hidden comment) would suggest an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS against it. So I'd say there's nothing wrong with using the "&", but there's also no reason to force an infobox to use that if other editors feel it should be removed. (At the very least, I find a hidden comment to justify it as overkill.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually we don't go by credits in the infobox, that is incorrect. We use plainlist to separate entries as is clearly stated in the infobox. We also don't follow what the WGA (or any writing guild in other countries) do per MOS:JARGON. If writing credits need to be explained, it should be done in actual article prose. Gonnym (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

No where on MOS:TV nor {{Infobox television}} nor MOS:AMP say "&" is frown upon to use in the infobox. A team is not multiple entries. — YoungForever 18:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. A team name is a proper noun and the "&" is part of that name. The team entity is who got the credit, not the individuals that make up the team so the team name should be used. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

These teams are not a proper nouns, that isn't their "team name" and that is only the style of how the WGA denotes the credits (again, MOS:JARGON). Actual team names are Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead, Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer (no "&"). If you feel like MOS:JARGON, MOS:& and Template:Infobox television/doc are all incorrect, start a RFC. Gonnym (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with both YF and GP. See MOS:TVCAST. Names per credits also applies to a series' crew, down to the symbols. It doesn't matter whether it's an infobox or the article body. MOS:TVCAST does also say by common name and such, but that is only if for some reason credits aren't available. As an example, using an example name, there have been plenty of people who changed John A. Smith to John Smith because everywhere else he's listed or credited as John Smith; however, for a specific series, he decided he wanted to be credited as John A. Smith, which should be respected. The same applies here. Written by Apple and Orange means that they both worked on the episode, but separately, likely with different ideas, while written by Apple & Orange means they both worked on the episode as a team, likely with the same idea. Amaury • 22:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a distinction to be drawn between the way a person chooses to write their name and the way multiple names are combined in a list. For instance, some actors receive "with"/"and" before their name in the cast credits, but we don't do that here. The "&"/"and" for writers falls into a similar category. (To pull from an above example: Phil Lord chooses to be credited that name instead of, say, Philip Lord, so we reflect that, but he and Miller did not choose to be credited as "Phil Lord & Christopher Miller" – that's just credits jargon.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Just now coming across this discussion after an edit I suggested in an FAC was partially reverted. I have no opinion on whether we do or don't use an ampersand over the word "and", however we do need to come to a consensus even if it requires an RFC. I've seen multiple quotes to MOS:& and while I see the point these editors are making, I don't think I've seen anyone mention MOS:TVEPISODE which specifically says "In the WGA screenwriting credit system, an ampersand (&) is used to indicate a writing team or duo, while "and" is used to separate multiple writers who are not part of a team. Such distinctions, as credited, should be used in tables." It's no wonder we're having a debate over this when two versions of MOS are conflicting with each other. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure MOS:TVEPISODE is specifically for episode lists/tables, not infoboxes, which was the original topic here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The point is the same. It's names per credits, and that means symbols like the ampersand as well—a writing duo, not just two or more separate writers working on the same thing—per MOS:TVCAST. Amaury • 23:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Since the idea of a RFC has been batted around a couple of times, I drafted a version of what a question for such a discussion could look like. Not saying we have to go there, just providing it as an option or starting point. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion of Slayage as a reliable source

Slayage, a journal of Buffy studies, is currently under discussion as a reliable at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Slayage, in case anyone has and would like to give input. Daranios (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Australia's Funniest Home Videos § RfC: Closing songs table

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Australia's Funniest Home Videos § RfC: Closing songs table, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. wizzito | say hello! 05:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Updates to Template:Series overview (continued)

Continuing Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 39#Updates to Template:Series overview concerning the updates to {{Series overview}}:

• Per my quote legacy and new parameter formats will both be supported, until such a time that all live templates have had their parameters updated accordingly, at which point the legacy formats will be removed, all articles have been updated with the new |released#= paramaters, thus completely deprecating |end#=start from the template.
• The parameters |released=y and |allreleased=y have also been deprecated, and relevant articles are listed under Category:Pages using series overview with unknown parameters; this will be cleared out presently.

-- Alex_21 _TALK 03:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pages using series overview with unknown parameters has now been emptied; no {{Series overview}} template now uses |released=y or |allreleased=y. Thanks to all those that contributed. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

On the same topic, does {{Episode table}} really also need |released=y to differentiate between "Originally aired" and "Originally released"? If we were going by airing vs streaming, it would need to be "Originally aired" and "Originally streamed" - "Originally released" covers every format of release. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm all for being consistent with "released" across the TV templates. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

For the deprecated parameters of {{Episode table}}, I created Category:Pages using episode table with unknown parameters, and added checks for unknown parameters (turns out, there's a lot!). However, unfortunately Ahecht has reverted these necessary checks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21 {{Episode table}} gets abused quite a bit around here, often appearing hundreds or thousands of times on a single page, which can cause the WP:PEIS to balloon. If you integrate these checks into the module itself, rather than the template, you should be able to do the same checks without as large an impact on the include size. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you name any articles where {{Episode table}} appears thousands of times on a page? For example, on the recently-edited List of Law & Order episodes, it appears 24 times. I can think of a few articles where it would appear more, but I can not think of a single example where there's 1,000+ episode tables. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ahecht Sorry, forgot to ping in the above. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21 I must've been thinking of {{episode list}}, but in any case the template gets double-counted when on a transcluded page, such as the above, so it's effectively on that page 48 times. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ahecht Yes, that's a related but separate template, thus episode table is not the issue here. One template transcluded 48 times is extremely minimal; on the above example, there are 566 cite templates (1,132, if they're double-counted). I barely think the episode tables/lists are the issue here. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21 In any case you probably don't want to by bypassing the parameter checks when the module is invoked directly, so including the check there makes more sense. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that there is no need to invoke a minimal template into its respective module, that shouldn't need to happen. I'll restore any invoked episode table, use |dontclose=y, and restore the parameter checks. Problem solved. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented the parameter check in the module. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ahecht This has caused every instance of episode table across 21,000+ articles to error. Could you kindly fix this? Thanks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed. Forgot that that line doesn't get implemented when previewing. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Please make sure new code works directly after implementing; 21,000 articles erroring for over twenty minutes isn't contributive to the encyclopedia, for editors or readers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Anyone removing the deprecated released parameters, please ensure start1 is changed to released1 too so it shows properly, like diff . Don't know how widespread this issue is etc, just noticed there. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

A tracking category can be added to instances of |startN= without |endN=. Gonnym (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Listed at Category:Articles using Template:Series overview with deprecated start-parameter format, for any article that uses instances of |startN= and no instances of |endN=. Thanks for the heads up, @Indagate! -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

What happens if a TV series is still airing a new episode every week and the end date is still TBA? Wouldn't that be an issue for |startN= without |endN=? — YoungForever 03:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The category I've created tracks instances of the template where |startN= is used regularly with no instances of |endN= being used (e.g. if The Witcher (a binge-released series) solely used |startN=). I think that should track the issues well enough. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't check how Alex set up the code, but in the infobox we use |endN=present. Hopefully this can work the same. Gonnym (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

File:The Computer Book (BBC 1982).jpg nominated for discussion

Link: Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 28#File:The Computer Book (BBC 1982).jpg. George Ho (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:TV6 (1994)#Requested move 23 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TV6 (1994)#Requested move 23 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 18:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

why is burn notice not in this article

It has enough seasons & Episodes to be on the list why is it not there?" 172.59.117.50 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I am unsure of which article you are speaking, since this is not an article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Priscilla (singer, born 1996)#Requested move 16 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Priscilla (singer, born 1996)#Requested move 16 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. LIrala (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

DVD covers of Look Around You listed at FFD

Link: Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2025 January 7. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

GA collaboration?

I believe Number Eight (Battlestar Galactica) is within striking distance of GA status after I rewrote its analysis section some time ago. It needs content on casting and development, which I have no expertise in researching and writing: is anyone interested in working on it with me? Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Project-Class television pages
• NA-importance television pages
• WikiProject Television articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists