Misplaced Pages

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2015-09-19

• WT:TV

Template:Fiction notice Template loop detected: Template:Todo

Archives

Jul 2004 to Apr 2006 Apr 2006 to Sep 2006 Sep 2006 to Dec 2006 Dec 2006 to Jan 2007 Jan 2007 to Mar 2007 Mar 2007 to Sep 2007 Oct 2007 to Dec 2007 Jan 2008 to Mar 2008 Apr 2008 to Sep 2008 Oct 2008 to Dec 2008 Next to begin

Popstars

I have made a page for Popstars The Rivals because I noticed one didn't exist. I have put tables on the page similar to those on The X Factor. Feel free to fill in the tables with songs performed and the rest of the page with other referenced info. Thanks. Matcham of the Day (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone let me know and add to the page? Matcham of the Day (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.79.191 (talk)

Long standing question - episode notability

Hi. Has anyone come up with any guidelines for the notability of television episodes ? Going through new page patrol / uncategorised articles, I'm coming across a lot of articles for individual episodes of television series which contain nothing more than a list of guest stars, broadcast date, and a plot. I thought the consensus was that individual episodes were ok if they were notable in some fashion - major guest star, news coverage, real-world relationship etc. Has this been changed to allow all episodes to be de facto notable, or is it just a case of too many articles and not enough people checking them ? :-) Indidentally, the one that propmted me to write this was Shelter Island (How I Met Your Mother). CultureDrone (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There is WP:EPISODE, a content guideline, but it gets ignored all the time unfortunately. There are efforts since summer 2007 to merge/redirect episode articles that either don't establish common-sense notability (usually in the form of awards and controversy) or don't have much non-trivial real-world information (production and reception), but there aren't that many people interested in cleanup who are also willing to deal with hordes of unreasonable fans. The best (and safest) advice I can give is to tag bad episode articles (such as "Shelter Island") with dated {{notability}} and wait - nothing illustrates lack of improvement better than a time stamp. – sgeureka 14:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :-) CultureDrone (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as Sgeureka pointed out, there is currently no active notability guideline specifically for television. That being said, it is just as simple to point to WP:NOTE and say, "you fail the general notability guideline". This concept of "giving them time to improve" is frankly stupid. It's one thing when the article is a mess and another when it fails notability. A messy article should have plenty of time to clean up, but notability must be establish at the creation of the topic. If you cannot assert notability then you need to redirect your topic - and browsing Google News and/or Google Scholar (Google web generally includes only fansites and unreliable sources, though, occassionally Google News can produce crappy sources as well) can determine if there truly is notability for an episode. What I mean by that is actually reading the sources, as I've seen editors try and pass off an article that has 200 hits on Google News as notable, but the majority of those hits are usually just scheduling announcements, the official write-up of an episode plot, or one source citing another source (e.g. 10 individual sources reporting on something that was presented by 1 source, thus giving the illusion that 10 people are reporting on the episode, when in fact 10 people are merely re-reporting the same information present in the original source).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

New WP:FICT

A new notability guideline has been proposed at Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction). I think it would be prudent for members of this project to review and comment, as it could greatly affect articles within our realm and our current consensus' regarding various fictional elements if instituted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Newsbank, anyone?

Could anyone with access to US newspaper articles in Newsbank, or similar databases, spare the time to access old reviews for the pilot episode of Friends and either incoporate them into that article's reception section or add them to the article talkpage? I'm willing to give a shiny, albeit imaginary, penny to anyone who can do this. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have Newsbank, but I can't access it at the moment. Unless somebody beats me to it, I'll take a look tonight. Using Google news, you can find small previews of articles that can be accessed through Newsbank. So, if you could take a look through that and let me know of any that you think might be useful, it would help. -- Scorpion 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Crew section in Survivor: Borneo

As you can see, in the Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1) article (and all other seasons) there is a crew section. The article is a Featured list. In Survivor: Borneo, the largely expanded crew section was removed per this project's MOS. It says that IMDb lists the crew, but we aren't IMDb. Why can't the expanded crew section stay in this article. It's the only thing holding it back from DYK right now. iMatthew 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess the problem is not so much the section itself, but the mention of basically everyone who is associated with producing the show (it's a boring WP:NOT#DIRECTORY in prose). It would be better to only mention the major people, which I think stops after "David Cutler was an assistant editor.". Every reader who wants to learn more will find the info on IMDb. – sgeureka 19:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, then can I re-add at least that much? iMatthew 19:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the DYK rules, but I'd think so. The other option is to move/leave this information for the lead, but you know the article better than I. – sgeureka 19:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A Production section in film and TV-related articles is generally justified, explaining the more useful and important details of how it was produced (such as how long filming took, where it was filmed, etc.). Listing all the crew members, however, or even one or two main crew members, is not really justified, unless those crew members are known for their work and covered in third-party sources (in which case you could say, "So-and-so, famous for working on X, was the sound technician for this film" or something like that). —Politizer /_contribs 21:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've written up a production section. Thank you! iMatthew 00:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Graysons

The Graysons page has been nominated for deletion. More editor opinion is greatly appreciated.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Curtis

The Article Michael Curtis needs help, It is a stub and it needs a quality and importance assesment. Can you please help, --RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    18:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Citing IMDB

As television articles could be affected by this, the project may be interested in knowing that there is a lengthy on-going discussion(s) regarding a proposal about citing IMDB, particularly whether it should be a citable source or all, and if so, what parts. Discussions are at Misplaced Pages talk:Citing IMDb. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Two-part episode merge

Your input is requested at a two-part episode merge proposal here. Neelix (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Episode articles

I see that almost every episode of South Park has it's own article. I was wondering why it's considered notable, for each individual episode. If it's ok, I'd like to do the same for every episode of Survivor (U.S. TV series) ayematthew ✡ 00:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of them aren't. The fact that they choose to ignore the notability guideline doesn't make it ok.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto what Bignole said. There are several shows that have individual episode articles. They are not notable and shouldn't exist, people are just choosing to ignore the guidelines and creating them anyway in hopes they won't be noticed. If you go back through the AfD archives, you'll see that when they are discovered most end up deleted or merged back to the episode list, so far better not to waste the time or effort. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I think that reality shows are extremely hard to show notability for, even more so than scripted programs. There typically isn't any real world information on it. TV Critics don't "review" episodes so much as they recap events and they talk about how sneaky, conniving, or stupid someone was in a competition.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

List class

The template {{TelevisionWikiProject|class=List}} fails to add the the part with List with it's purple background to the template when adding the addition of |class=List it just has the three question marks instead. I noticed when I went to rate the article Talk:List of The Outer Limits episodes as a List class. Govvy (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Amazing Race seasons

The season articles are located at The Amazing Race 1, The Amazing Race 2, etc. To be consistent with other television season articles, would anyone object to moving these to The Amazing Race (season 1), The Amazing Race (season 2), etc.? ayematthew ✡ 23:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't, because I don't recall the show being advertised as "The Amazing Race 1", "The Amazing Race 2", but just simply "The Amazing Race".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So you wouldn't move the pages. Your comment is confusing... ayematthew ✡ 15:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a show shot in "seasons" (for example, there's two cycles of it this year, but some years only have one). Going by naming conventions that suggest using the most common name, which, for fans, is "The Amazing Race 1", etc. (even for the Family Edition and All-Stars), the current scheme is correct. --MASEM 15:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Then why not use "The Amazing Race (series 1)". The UK doesn't have "seasons" either, hence why they use the term "series". It seems more applicable here than just attributing numbers to the "seasons" when they show wasn't called, advertised, or even noted as such. I'm not sure where the "fans call it" comes from, because I've not hear it used as such.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither have I. ayematthew ✡ 15:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of CBS itself using "The Amazing Race 12": . Now, mind you, the DVDs seem to use "season" (but there's only 2 examples to go after). --MASEM 15:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Then leave it like it is. I don't trust DVD boxes, because I've seen them list things as "volume 1", just because they're idiots and that was how they listed the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Pocoyo credit

I just moved some of "Credit" section in the Pocoyo article into the infobox there and made the entire section hidden. It should merged into the infobox there. Help me! (Oh. It is located under the "DVD Releases" section.) - JSH-alive _(cntrbtns) 14:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. – sgeureka 15:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Wait a second. – sgeureka 15:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, still don't see the problem. Can you explain what doesn't work like you want it to? – sgeureka 15:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he's asking for help moving the relevant information from the hidden credit section up into the infobox. (which is now done) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC on WP:WAF

An RfC has been started at WP:WAF by User:Pixelface requesting comments on whether the guideline should be demoted and on his requested removal of the "Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles." As this project deals heavily with fictional topics, members may be interested in this topic. Discussion is at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Demotion from guideline. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Help me with these test articles.

• User:JSH-alive/Sandbox/TS! characters
• User:JSH-alive/Sandbox/WC characters

Modelled after List of Naruto characters, the above articles are need help with contents. (I'll do my best with the layout but it may need your help also.)

• User:JSH-alive/Sandbox/CN main article

A proposal to make a main article for Cartoon Network as a generic brand. Also need your help with contents. -- JSH-alive _(cntrbtns) 14:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction for Winx Club

If you have any accounts of IMDB, TV.com, BCDB and Voice Chasers, can you correct pages below?

• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0421482/
• http://www.tv.com/show/26195/summary.html
• http://www.bcdb.com/cartoons/Other_Studios/F/4_Kids_Entertainment/Winx_Club/index.html
• http://voicechasers.com/database/showprod.php?prodid=838

Things you should correct:

• It is produced by Rainbow S.p.A. in Italy. (NOT Italy-US co-production and 4Kids production)
• Add Italian voices and voices of Cinelume's English dub (So-called the UK dub and RAI dub).
• Replace the 4Kids' episode titles by that in the Cinelume's English dub.

-- JSH-alive _(cntrbtns) 15:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

links removed?

What is the project (both Misplaced Pages and WikiProject TV) current advice re: linking dates in articles about TV items to the article? I know that just linking years is discouraged as overlinking, but what about ? When is such linking appropriate and when is it also considered overlinking? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The version is almost always discouraged because it doesn't make it clear for the reader where the link links, but I think it may make sense in some tables. There is currently a related Request for Comment at Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Date_Linking_RFC#How_and_when_to_use_.22Year_in_Field.22_links, but I haven't really been keeping up with the discussion. – sgeureka 19:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Too many show WikiProjects

I agree with the fact that these should be avoided and most of these should be taskforces, however not many people seem to bother with this. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals is a very rarely viewed page and advice there is often not heeded. e.g. recently WikiProject Prison Break has been created despite much opposition. Would people be against me boldly moving some of the more recent Projects to taskforces within WP:TV. I won't be moving any of the much particpated in ones (like WP:Simpsons or WP:LOST) but think that many of the others should be taskforcified! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not see the Survivor task for be moved... ayematthew ✡ 18:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Survivor taskforce wouldn't be moved. As it is a taskforce of WP:TV and is already in the correct place. I think you misunderstood my proposal. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the said taskforcifying. However, taking into consideration the possible opposition that might be received doing such a move boldly, it would be pleasant to see the projects dissolving themselves into WP:TV. Of course, if there is still lack of understanding in terms working of this project by creating unnecessary Wikiprojects despite opposition, I think it is perfectly alright to take these straight to MfD. Sleaves _talk 18:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with what Sleaves said. Plus, there are also some older wikiprojects where the shows have been cancelled and fandom moved on, so the wikiprojects are pretty much inactive now. The video game project (WP:VG) benefitted greatly from taskforcifying, but it won't work if there is fan opposition. If you want to coordinate something major, maybe all TV wikiprojects should be notified of this discussion. – sgeureka 18:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not really see what the difference between a WikiProject and a task force is in practice, but I support this proposal. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe it will be easier to collaborate on assessment etc. I realise that some WikiProjects treat WP:TV as a parent project but not all do, and as such some stand alone show WikiProject shows can go unnoticed and become inactive. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(reply to thedemonhog) I know that for the older TV wiki(sub)projects like WP:STARGATE, each one had their own show-specific versions of WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:MOSTV etc instead of the standardized versions (because those hadn't been created yet). It was a mess of a walled garden, and a hell of bureaucracy. This isn't really the case anymore with more recent wikiprojects, where I agree that the difference is nearly nonexistent. – sgeureka 19:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As well as this Misplaced Pages:WikiProject British TV shows lists some show WikiProjects that go rather unnoticed under WP:TV. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have officially proposed a move for WP:Prison Break. This is an example of a project not listed on the WP:TV page, and could go unnoticed as a decendent of WP:TV. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Fictional character merge proposal

Your input is requested at a fictional character merge proposal here. Neelix (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Veronica Mars task force

This is simply an announcement that the proposed Veronica Mars task force has been created. I don't know the standard protocol from this point out, but I thought it prudent to inform the main project of this creation. hornoir (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would you create a task force when you only have three members? –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As long is it's not a wikiproject, and as long as it has more than one serious editor, it's all good. Good luck. – sgeureka 23:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

To thedemonhog: As sgeureka points out, task forces don't require the five dedicated members that a true WikiProject does prior to creation. This, at least, was the understanding I was working under by creating it. If this was erroneous then my apologies. hornoir (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

General Query: Who would I inquire with about adding the task force page to the show-specific projects and taskforces lists? The task force, obviously, would benefit from the exposure. Thanks. hornoir (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not that it is not allowed; I just would not have created it with so little support, especially when the show has been cancelled for over a year now. There is no need to ask about adding the task force to the list and I have done so, in addition to correcting the spacing of "task force". It is nice to see that Cornucopia has jump-started you with three excellent articles. Good luck! –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, thedemonhog. The task force is really the baby of jclemens and cornucopia... I'm mainly providing the design help they required. Thanks again. hornoir (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Momma's Boys

Could someone please take a look at Momma's Boys and its talk page? A couple of IP editors are intent on identifying all the contestants by race or ethnicity despite my requests on the talk page not to do so, and they have not provided any justification for doing so. I have noted that similar racial coding is not used on other articles about dating/reality shows such as The Bachelor. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Size of Infobox tvseason images

Hello, there. At this current FLC, an editor commented that they felt the image in the infobox section was a little big. The image in question is 200px wide, which is within the norm for episodes list as far as I understand. The editor added, "This in a way goes against WIAFL Cr 6, Visual appeal. because the image is very distracting. I would consult with the respective project(s) to discuss reducing the default size for the images in the infobox." It seems to me that the consensus about infobox image width in episodes lists goes against the FLC criteria. Your input is welcomed. Rosenknospe (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The standard for television infoboxes is 200 to 250 pixels wide and any smaller than default thumbnail size makes the image hard to see, which is even more distracting ("The second season of the international fantasy series—what is that thing on the side supposed to be?"). –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the matter is resolved now. Thank you for commenting, and have a nice Christmas holiday ! Rosenknospe (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Jul 2004 to Apr 2006
2. Apr 2006 to Sep 2006
3. Sep 2006 to Dec 2006
4. Dec 2006 to Jan 2007
5. Jan 2007 to Mar 2007
6. Mar 2007 to Sep 2007
7. Oct 2007 to Dec 2007
8. Jan 2008 to Mar 2008
9. Apr 2008 to Sep 2008
10. Oct 2008 to Dec 2008
11. Next to begin