Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:29, 20 March 2015 editAussieLegend (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers173,395 edits fix RfC close← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:10, 8 January 2025 edit undoAsukite (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,315 edits Notifying of requested move using Move+
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{talk header\|WT:TV\|WT:WPTV\|wp=yes}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header\|WT:TV\|WT:WPTV\|wp=yes}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|
			{{WikiProject Television}}
			}}
	{{topic\|Television}}		{{topic\|Television}}
	{{WikiProject Television~~\|class=Project\|importance=NA~~}}		{{to do\|target=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects\|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-01-08/WikiProject report\|writer=]\|
	{{todo}}
			]]\|\|day=8\|month=January\|year=2014}}

			{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects\|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2016-09-06/WikiProject report\|writer=]\|
	{{auto archiving notice\|bot=MiszaBot II\|age=25\|small=yes\|dounreplied=yes}}
			]]\|\|day=6\|month=September\|year=2016}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television/Navigation}}		{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television/Navigation}}
			<!-- archive config -->
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used\|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-01-08/WikiProject report\|writer=]\|
	]]\|\|day=8\|month=January\|year=2014}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn		{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	\|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television/Archive index		\|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television/Archive index
Line 14:		Line 18:
	\|indexhere=yes}}		\|indexhere=yes}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{~~aan~~}}		\|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 220K		\|maxarchivesize = 220K
	\|counter = 19		\|counter = 39
			\|minthreadsleft = 2
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|algo = old(25d)		\|algo = old(25d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}

			== Why is there no best TV list? ==
	== TVUPCOMING ==
			*The ] ] '']'' (1989-1998) was named by '']'' as the ] in 2002.<ref name=tvguideTop50>{{cite news\|title=TV Guide Names Top 50 Shows\|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tv-guide-names-top-50-shows/\|agency=Associated Press\|date=April 26, 2002\|author=Cosgrove-Mather, Bootie\|access-date=February 16, 2022\|work=CBS News}}</ref><ref name="auto">{{cite magazine \|last1=Fretts \|first1=Bruce \|last2=Roush \|first2=Matt \|title=The Greatest Shows on Earth \|magazine=TV Guide Magazine \|volume=61 \|issue=3194–3195 \|pages=16–19 }}</ref>

			*The ] ] series '']'' (1999-2007) was named the greatest TV show of all time in 2013 by '']''<ref name="2013 TV Guide Great">{{cite magazine \|last1=Fretts \|first1=Bruce \|last2=Roush \|first2=Matt \|url=https://www.tvguide.com/News/TV-Guide-Magazine-60-Best-Series-1074962.aspx \|date=December 23, 2013 \|title=TV Guide Magazine's 60 Best Series of All Time \|magazine=TV Guide \|access-date=December 23, 2013 \|archive-date=December 24, 2013 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131224111355/http://www.tvguide.com/News/TV-Guide-Magazine-60-Best-Series-1074962.aspx \|url-status=live }}</ref> and in 2016 by ].<ref name="rollingstone">{{cite magazine \|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/lists/100-greatest-tv-shows-of-all-time-w439520/the-sopranos-w439641 \|title=100 Greatest TV Shows of All Time \|magazine=Rolling Stone \|first=Rob \|last=Sheffield \|date=September 21, 2016 \|access-date=September 22, 2016 \|archive-date=September 23, 2016 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160923092816/http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/lists/100-greatest-tv-shows-of-all-time-w439520/the-sopranos-w439641 \|url-status=live }}</ref>
	Hello friends, I think I might be misinterpreting TVUPCOMING, which would be embarrassing, but hey, it happens. In , I've moved content from the (basically) empty Episode section to the lead, which seems consistent with what we do for newly announced seasons per TVUPCOMING. However, this is a new series, not a new season—Should the Episode section exist in its ? Or do we move that content to the lead until eps start to be sourceable? I don't have a preference either way, I just want to make sure I'm doing the preferred thing. Input requested. Thanks, ] (]) 21:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
			*Another HBO crime drama series, '']'' (2002-2008) was ] in 2021.<ref></ref>

			*The ] sitcom '']'' was voted by viewers as ] in 2004.<ref name="top10">{{Cite web \|year=2004 \|title=The Final Top Ten Sitcoms \|url=http://www.bbcattic.org/sitcom/winner.shtml \|url-status=dead \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141013160237/http://www.bbcattic.org/sitcom/winner.shtml \|archive-date=13 October 2014 \|access-date=8 October 2014 \|website=bbcattic.org \|publisher=] \|location=London}}</ref>
	:I would say that you don't need a section that just says "this will have 26 episodes". I imagine that can be created once you either have dates, or can start creating a table. ] ] 21:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
			==== References ====

			{{reflist}}
	::Total Drama has always been problematic, from editors insisting that infoboxes have 300px wide images to completely unsourced, OR content being restored. I've cleaned up the infobox and eliminated the redundant section, but the article bears watching. --] (]) 09:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

	::As I thought, after resizing the image to comply with ], I set the infobox to 250px, which is a reasonable size for that infobox, but it's been resized back to make the infobox 300px wide by the same editor who has previously proved problematic at these articles. And, of course, he/she has restored the section that we've been discussing. --] (]) 17:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

	:::Your meddling was appreciated at that article. :) So we have a POV editor, do we? ] (]) 17:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

	::::Go back and have a look at the edit histories of all of the Total Drama articles. Even after we agreed on restricting the image sizes to something reasonable, the original 300px images were put back in. And that was just the tip of the iceberg. Look at ]. I reduced it to 270px, but it's now been increased to 300px. There is no justification for such large infobox images in any of these articles. --] (]) 18:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

	:::::The image may be 300px but on the article it's reduced to 285px so the infobox can still be under 300px but wide enough for horizontal text ] (]) 18:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

	::::::We don't use images to force infobox widths. We make them as wide as they need be using other methods and then resize images to fit. --] (]) 18:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

	:::::::See my most recent contributions, that is exactly what I just did right now by resizing all the images by making them smaller that way the infoboxes can be smaller than 300px ] (]) 18:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

	== Only Fools and Horses - FAR ==

	I've put '']'' up for review of its featured status at ]. Improvements and comments welcome. ]] 11:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

	== Discussion regarding the ] guideline ==

	Opinions are needed on the following matter: ]. A ] for the discussion is . You might also want to check out the '''Comments please on avoidable links''' and '''Nested links''' sections lower on that talk page. ] (]) 21:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

	==Discussion at Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender==
	] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. Thanks. ] (]) 23:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC){{Z48}}<!-- ] -->

	==Request for Comment==
	{{rfc top\|This discussion is moot. Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change ] to make an exception for such cases. An RfC among editors with a specific area of interest, and by definition biased in favour of a liking for the minutiae of TV shows, cannot be an appropriate venue for overriding foundational policy. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)}}

	Do TV-show running times in the ] require a ] to ], or are editors allowed to measure them with a stopwatch ourselves? WikiProject Film requires citations for movie running times. --] (]) 01:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

	* '''Yes'''. Stopwatching the running time of a TV show ourselves is ], no different from measuring the height of a car with a measuring tape ourselves, or stopwatching a movie's running time. While ] is allowed, measuring, by definition, is not calculating — examples of which on the policy page are "adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age." --] (]) 01:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	* '''No'''. Running time is integral to any video production or motion picture. Requiring a citation is unnecessary because we can use the work in question (a ]) as sources on themselves. I'd argue that the same rule is needless for film articles too; there's countless featured articles on films that don't have any in the infobox. ] 01:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Remove from infobox entirely''' as runtimes seem to be verifiable by reliable sources only exceedingly rarely, and we shouldn't be including rare fields in infoboxes in the first place. ] (]) 02:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	* I doubt they should be in the infobox in the first place, but if they are they should be cited. ] ] 02:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	* I do believe this info should be in the infobox and don't really believe a source would be necessary given, as 23W said, the episodes are the primary sources to supply that info. And secondly, if dealing with a network show, you have a "60 min" show that is really only about 42 minutes, due to commercials. So the episode themselves are the best citation to use for the info. - ] (]) 03:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' - This proposal is secondary to a discussion about whether or not we the {{para\|runtime}} parameter at ] should be simplified. So the discussion is a mite bigger. I can see both sides of this issue for a number of reasons and I don't think there's always a clear either-or here. There is a general inconsistency in how various TV programs are described in the real world, because sometimes they're described in terms of the block of air time they occupy (i.e. 15-minute, 30-minute, 60-minute, 90-minute, 2-hour) and sometimes they're described in terms of their rough segment length. A show like ''Happy Days'' is considered a half-hour sitcom. '']'' is considered an hour-long news magazine although the article ascribes a 42 minute running time to the latter. I'm not sure that measuring a current broadcast with a stopwatch will be very helpful, especially when shows like ''Seinfeld'' and ''Friends'' are being sped up by TBS to fit in extra commercials. That makes verifiability a little difficult. Animated series are often categorized differently than half-hour sitcoms. Sometimes an animated series is picked up for a specific number of 5 minute shorts. Sometimes these shorts are lumped together to fill a certain block, and sometimes they are not and are used as interstitial programming. Sometimes an episode comprises two 11-minute shorts and are considered a "22 minute" series, though they might occupy a 30 minute block, and though they might not actually occupy a rigidly measured 22 minutes. (They might run long or short.) And when some sources report on these animation pickups, they sometimes refer to them in specific ways, like 52 x 13 or 52 x 11, (and I'm having a bit of difficulty finding specifics on short notice, although they do exist) or a bunch of different ways depending on what their internal preference is. My feeling is that there might be more than one way to refer to these series, depending on how the production network promotes/categorizes/considers them. ] (]) 03:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	* Numbers that aren't obvious to be the block length with commercials should be cited. If the program length varies per episode such as typical with news and sports then leave it blank. -] (]) 05:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	* {{strong\|No}} – Length of each episode is listed in descriptions on iTunes and Amazon, is part of most video playback info for streaming and DVD episodes and isn't exactly the same for all episodes in a series. We shouldn't need references for stuff that is trivially verifiable such as episode length – the episode itself is the implied reference and length is an easily observed attribute. 22 (varies 21–23) minutes is a nominal length of most current half hour slotted series. Some double-length specials are 46 minutes on the same series. We should just list the nominal length of a standard episode in the infobox and it doesn't need a reference. ] (]) 05:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	::We can't cite Amazon or iTunes. Those are commercial sales sites selling the TV shows. ] 5. --] (]) 18:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::There is no problem using Amazon or iTunes as references, we are not using them in an external link section, which is what ]#5 is addressing, and the info there is valid. We don't even need to provide a link in the cite for the cite to be valid. ] (]) 19:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::The ELNO guidelines apply to inline reference sources as well. We can't cite wikia, personal blogs, online petitions, etc. in footnoted references. I hope you're suggesting that we can. --] (]) 19:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::No, ] is part of ], which applies to external links, not inline citations. ] governs what can and can't be used as a source for citations. ] specifically says {{tq\|This guideline '''does not apply''' to ] or ], which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section.}}. --] (]) 19:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::And the usability of Amazon and iTunes has very quickly been confirmed at ]. --] (]) 20:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Well, by just one editor at that time. But now three have weighed in, and so I believe this RfC may be obviated: If we can cite running times to Amazon or iTunes links, then problem solved and everybody happy. What say you, my colleague ]? --] (]) 20:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::No arguments here. I don't think the RfC is going to have consensus one way or the other anyway. --] (]) 04:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Cool, Aussie. Well, I think an RfC's original poster, me in this case, can call it off it without consensus if a compromise or other alternative solution has been reached. Any objection from any editor here to adding a line in the infobox runtime parameter saying that running times need to be cited and that we can use e-commerce sites such as Amazon or iTunes to do so? --] (]) 18:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::@]: Wait, wouldn't that be the same thing as closing this RfC in favour of the Yes side? ] (]) 18:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::I don't think so, in that the RfC talks about footnoting versus what some here considered ] use of a stopwatch. The compromise is footnoting but not using a stopwatch — using e-commerce citations instead. ], who like me was an original party to the disagreement, agrees with this compromise, and I'm hoping other editors either do as well, or offer their own alternative compromises. --] (]) 18:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::This is not a compromise at all since e-commerce citations are already supposed to be used for this, the fact that a single editor (yourself) was previously unaware of this notwithstanding. ] (]) 20:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::According to the Misplaced Pages Foundation liaison person I was confirming this with, quite a few editors are unaware that e-commerce cites can be used as a reference. Regardless, since "e-commerce citations are already supposed to be used for this," then you and I are in agreement. Aussie agrees, I agree, you agree, and no other editor so far has weighed in. We're all in agreement. I'm not sure what the problem is. --] (]) 04:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::I think {{u\|Mdrnpndr}} has a point. When an RfC ends with a "No", "No consensus" or "Withdrawn by nominator" outcome, the result is the same, the status quo reigns. Only when the outcome is "Yes" do things change. At this time the RfC looks like ending with "No consensus". Withdrawing the nomination but changing the documentation is forcing a "Yes" outcome and ignoring the arguments of those who argued "No". I disagree with Mdrnpndr's argument that "e-commerce citations are already supposed to be used for this". That isn't anywhere in the documentation and I don't see anywhere that it has been discussed. That's not to say that we can't use them. Obviously we can, but we're not required to. We shouldn't be required to specifically use any source. --] (]) 09:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::@]: I meant that e-commerce sites (at least of the type mentioned) are already defined as reliable sources. Misplaced Pages requires reliable sourcing for absolutely every statement in every article unless it's specifically exempted (which is what this RfC is about). (You've correctly explained my point regarding the RfC outcome, though.) ] (]) 14:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

	:::::::::::::::Again, I agree with ]. None of this RfC discussion has any bearing on ]. Aussie seems to suggest that ] is in question; it is not. The RfC was about the type of verification: Primary source or footnotes. There is nothing anywhere I can find in any guideline that suggests that running time can be taken from the primary source. ] certainly doesn't accept that, and running times are running times, whether on a TV show or a movie. '''The status quo is to verify.''' And the novel suggestion that we don't need to footnote running times is not the status quo. --] (]) 20:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::I'm not suggesting anything of the sort and I don't see how you got that from what I wrote. The RfC question is rather specific; Do we need to cite running times or can we use a stopwatch? That's not about types of verification, it's a question of whether we need verification at all, and a question asking whether we can use a stopwatch. The stopwatch issue has been largely ignored, except by you. The responses to the question have all concentrated on whether or not running time needs to be cited and there's no consensus either way. It's as simple as that. And, for the record, "that we don't need to footnote running times" is not a novel suggestion. ] does not require that citations be provided for everything. We have never required that citations be provided for running times and that most definitely ''is'' the status quo. --] (]) 12:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::Running times require citation at ]. So saying running times do not require citation ''is'' novel. It doesn't matter if the running time is for film, TV or a stage play — running times require citation.--] (]) 21:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::That another project may require citations for a specific running time for one film in one field while this project does not require citations for the average running time of 80-300 episodes in a similar field does not make it novel. --] (]) 05:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::::The ''reason'' ] cites running time is absolutely central to this discussion: It's because that Project is following Misplaced Pages policy. --] (]) 22:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::::WP:V does not require that ''everything'' is cited and specifying that running times be cited is not following policy, it's going beyond what policy requires. As such, and for other reasons already mentioned, ] is completely irrelevant to the discussion. --] (]) 04:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::Sorry ], the "status quo", if there is one, must be ] per ]. ] (]) 16:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{od\|17}}That makes no sense at all because WP:V has nothing to do with the status quo. The ], as it applies to this discusssion, refers to the current state of the documentation, which says {{tq\|Episode duration. Should not include commercials and should be approximated, e.g. "22–26 minutes" for most half-hour shows.}} The documentation, as it stands, does not override the requirements of WP:V, so WP:V vs WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not relevant at all. This RfC is asking if we should change the documentation to require citations, which is above and beyond what WP:V requires. --] (]) 17:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:] requires that everything be cited except for those statement types with specific exemptions (something which this does not have at this time, hence this RfC). What the documentation states in this regard is utterly irrelevant except as a starting point for this discussion. ] (]) 18:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Concur with ]. Without citation, anybody can give any number they want to whatsoever. ] is absolutely the status quo of WIkipedia. And as the person who wrote the RfC, I certainly know what the RfC is about: Whether stopwatching could be used in place of a citation. Read it again. The RfC in no way was trying to override ].--] (]) 21:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Mdrnpndr said that everything requires citations, which we've already explained is not what is required by WP:V and WP:V is most definitely not status quo for this discussion. Why would you concur with something that is very wrong? --] (]) 05:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Because it's ''not'' wrong: It's policy. "Taking one's word for it" is not how Misplaced Pages works. --] (]) 22:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Please show:
	:::::# Where WP:V requires that everything be cited;
	:::::# How the status quo is WP:V
	:::::If you cannot, it's most definitely wrong. --] (]) 04:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

	::::::Oh, for goodness' sake. Here: Verbatim from ] — boldface on the original page.
	::::::{{quote\|All content must be verifiable. The '''burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material''', and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.}}
	::::::You are misunderstanding basic policy. You want us to just accept your word that the runtimes you put in are accurate. No: Uncited runtimes are being challenged by this RfC, and the burden to verify lies with editors who want to add runtimes. --] (]) 23:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::What you've written does not show where WP:V requires that everything be cited, nor does is demonstrate how the status quo is WP:V. --] (]) 06:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::] says {{tq\|any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed}} not everything. In this case the info is not likely to be challenged when the approximations are plausible and easy to verify. ] (]) 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Approximations are inherently "likely to be challenged". ] (]) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::"''] requires that everything be cited''" - Incorrect. WP:V only requires that everything be verifiable, not that everything be cited.
	::::::And how are alleged running times verifiable without a citation? I'm not sure it that saying anybody can put any numbers they want and we "have to take their word for it" is a good idea. --] (]) 21:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::The same way that everything without a specific citation is verifiable. Content that is easily verifiable does not require citations. --] (]) 05:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Pardon me for arguing the other side here for a moment, but running times are comparable to plot summaries in this sense, which don't require separate verification because the source is implied as being the show (or episode) itself. The problem is, though, that plot summaries (when properly-written) are indeed directly verifiable, and thus have that specific exemption I was talking about, while runtimes are quite variable within a show (or movie, for that matter, if we're making that comparison here; there are so many movies with different versions that differ by a few minutes or so in length) because you have to account for a bunch of factors (such as length of commercials for shows recorded from broadcast TV), and thus do not have such an exemption at the present time. ] (]) 21:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::"''Approximations are inherently "likely to be challenged".''" And yet, I don't think I've ever seen {{tl\|citation needed}} in the {{para\|runtime}} field of an infobox. I've seen cases where editors have argued over the length because they chose to include commercials, despite the documentation clearly saying not to include commercials, or where there is an argument as to whether a children's program had 11 or 22 minute episodes because some editors regard episodes to consist of 2 x 11 minute "segments" but these are few and far between. The actual runtime is rarely challenged though, so no, runtimes are not inherently 'likely to be challenged'". --] (]) 19:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::This entire discussion challenges every uncited runtime in the project.
	:::::And I'm not sure what Aussie's larger point is. If we ''can'' cite running times — and we can, through e-commerce sites, reviews, etc.. — then for what earthly reason would we ''not'' want to? --] (]) 21:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Many shows have not been released in any home video format whatsoever, whether on physical media or via digital distribution. In fact, my unscientific guess would be that the vast majority of shows that have ever been made fall into this category. ] (]) 21:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::"''This entire discussion challenges every uncited runtime in the project.''" - No, it does not. One editor is questioning why we don't cite runtimes because he can't seem to see beyond ]s requirements. That's not the same as challenging every runtime at all.
	:::::::An editor doesn't have to put a "citation request" tag on every single infobox to challenge an infobox parameter. One challenges every single infobox through an RfC infobox-parameter discussion. '''Half the editors here, those commenting "Yes", are indeed challenging every uncited runtime.''' That's how it's done — not by two thousand individual tags.--] (]) 23:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Also, ], it's not just one editor but at least two... and that's without including the others who simply voted "Yes" here regardless of what ] says. ] (]) 23:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::You're not challenging the parameter, or even the data used in the parameter, You're challenging the instructions for the parameter. There's a big difference in what you think you're doing and what you actually are doing. Voting "yes" does not challenge the data either. Remember, RfC is an informal process. As such, the outcome is not binding. --] (]) 04:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

	:::::::::::First, I know what I wrote — saying that it says what ''you'' want it to say is highly inappropriate.

	:::::::::::As for saying that no matter what the RfC '''''consensus''''' is, you're going to do whatever you want ... that's not how Misplaced Pages works.

	:::::::::::I have never seen such resistance to supplying citations. You want other editors to "take your word for it" that the runtimes are what you claim they are. That also is not how Misplaced Pages works.--] (]) 20:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

	::::::::::::"I have never seen such resistance to supplying citations." Well put... well put indeed! ] (]) 21:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

	:::::::::::::You may know what you wrote but what you wrote is not what you think it means. It's not inappropriate to point out flaws in what somebody has written if it's crucial to the discussion. I certainly did not say "that no matter what the RfC '''''consensus''''' is, you're going to do whatever you want". I was referring to your argument that {{tq\|An editor doesn't have to put a "citation request" tag on every single infobox to challenge an infobox parameter}} by pointing out that RfC is an informal non-binding process, while adding {{tl\|citation needed}} is a formal process. As such RfC doesn't have the same weight as adding {{tl\|citation needed}}.
	:::::::::::::"''I have never seen such resistance to supplying citations''" - That's not what this part of the discussion is about. This part was started because you wanted to close the RfC but effectively force a "yes" result. --] (]) 14:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

	:::::::::::::::"You may know what you wrote but what you wrote is not what you think it means." So, I ''didn't'' know what I wrote, then, huh? How hubristic — it ''must'' mean what ''you'' want it to mean. What a clever way to try to short-circuit discussion.
	:::::::::::::::And I don't believe ''you'' know what it means if you think this RfC is not about "resistance to supplying citations":" I wrote: "Do TV-show running times in the ] require a ] to ]...?" and ''you'' answered, "Requiring a citation is unnecessary...." You need to please stop mischaracterizing what this RfC is about in order to pursue your agenda, which appears to be to have the right o put any running time you personally deem correct and so the rest of us will just have to take your word for it.--] (]) 19:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

	::::::"''then for what earthly reason would we ''not'' want to?''" - For the same reason that WP:V does not require citations for everything. We'd have articles with many hundreds of citations that distract the reader from the article itself. It would be far worse than a ]. Trivial claims do not need citations. --] (]) 05:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Episode length is hardly trivial. It's one of the very core elements of a television show. And to suggest that a single footnote in an infobox creates a ] is deliberate smokescreening. --] (]) 22:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::As has already been pointed out to you, a film has a single runtime, so only needs one citation. TV episodes vary in length. There are many TV series with not times on Amazon or iTunes so, if we are to cite them as you wish, because times vary we have to go to the episodes themselves, meaning theoretically we'd need at least two and possibly hundreds of sources for shows that have widely varing times, and there are many of those. You're not looking at the big picture here. --] (]) 04:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::False assertion. Running times can range, so you need either just one source that cites "episodes 22 to 24 minutes" or, to use this example, one cite for 22 and one cite 24. Two citations ''at most''. --] (]) 23:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::Running times do vary widely and the problem with your claim is that sources don't cite different times. They generally state a single time that does not represent what the individual times actually are. --] (]) 06:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	* '''No''' There are parallels with films being drawn in the two discussions and these are invalid. A film is an individual production that is designed to be shown from start to finish without interruptions and, as an individual production, has an individual runtime. A TV series consists of many (often 80-100+) episodes that are designed to be broken up with ad breaks and episodes have widely varying runtimes. As an example, I recently checked '']'' and found episode lengths to vary between just over 19 minutes to over 23 minutes, which is why the instructions for {{tl\|Infobox television}}'s <code>runtime</code> parameter only require that the figure "should be approximated". It provides an example of "22–26 minutes". Citing an individual film is easy, as film runtimes are widely published. TV episodes are not because they vary so widely. Even the runtimes seen occasionally on iTunes and Amazon are approximations. As Cyphoidbomb has indicated, some shows are sped up on TV but, generally, first-run airings are not making timing easy. This is based on several years of checking the 28,000+ episodes that I have available here. Contrary to Tenebrae's assertion, TV episodes are ] and timing the episodes is permitted per ]. Geraldo Perez is correct in stating that we shouldn't need references for stuff that is trivially verifiable such as episode length. Runtimes are essential parts of any episode so we certainly should ''not'' delete the parameter from the infobox as suggested by one editor. --] (]) 07:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::By definition, measuring and calculating are two different things. We wouldn't be allowed to measure the height of a car with a tape measure and enter our measurement. --] (]) 18:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

	::::The fact that "a film is an individual production that is designed to be shown from start to finish without interruptions" and TV episodes "have widely varying runtimes" has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not their running times can be measured on a stopwatch. Of course a film's running time can be measured on a stopwatch. We all have phones that can do that. So if you can measure a TV show's running time with a stopwatch and enter that claim in an infobox, then you can measure a film's running time with a stopwatch and enter that claim in an infobox as well. It's the same thing. --] (]) 19:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I suggest you read what I wrote again because I didn't say that episode runtimes had anything to do with whether the runtimes can be measured with a stopwatch. I was explaining why a film runtime is easily cited. As for measuring and calculating, your argument that calculating the runtime is not permitted, but this is not supported by WP:CALC, which gives as examples "adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age". Calculating a person's age is the most applicable here. To calculate a person's age you need a start date and an end date. Calculating runtime requires a start time and an end time - it's no different to calculating a person's age and is actually easier. --] (]) 19:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

	::::::And where are the start times and end times coming from, particularly for shows with commercials that have multiple start and stop times? If it's from a source you can cite, that's fine &mdash calculate away. But if you're coming up with the start and end times on your own, that's measurement, and that's original research.--] (]) 20:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::The times can come from a number of sources. Many PVRs will record a program without ads and display the actual episode time. DVD players will tell you the time without having to measure them, as will most PC based media players. Load a series of videos into Windows Media Player and it will tell you the length of all of the videos on a DVD without you having to do anything at all. Really, timing with a stopwatch is a last resort. --] (]) 20:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

	::::::::In that case, I think we may have common ground for a solution that covers all our concerns: We footnote "DVR measurement" or "Windows Media Player measurement" or similar. A roughly two- to four-word footnote. This makes the source clear; it prevents people from edit-warring over differing running times since these will be sourced; and, finally, it generates more confidence that the running time is correct, since a naked running time could come from who-knows-where. It's no more awkward in an infobox than the footnotes we use for movie running times or box office. --] (]) 20:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

	:::::::::Yeah, I think I'm going to have to '''oppose''' that "solution" on the basis of being ridiculous. What's next, citing Misplaced Pages editors by username? ] (]) 20:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

	::::::::::<s>What on earth?? I think you're misinterpreting my post. Having a footnote saying that something ''was'' sourced and wasn't just some number someone stuck in there without verification has nothing whatsoever to do with ] editors. To even imply so is completely out of bounds. So far, this has been a reasonable, respectful discussion among editors of good will with opposing views trying to reconcile them. Let's keep the conversation on that level, please. --] (]) 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)</s>

	:::::::::::Username, not real name... ] (]) 22:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

	::::::::::::My apology for misreading. Even so, no one is suggesting anything of the sort. If one opposes a given suggestion, that's fine. I'm not sure bringing in a straw dog that no one has suggested and objecting to ''that'' is proper. I'd also ask for a reason — labeling something "ridiculous" is not a reason. I gave three reasons for why such footnotes might be a workable solution for what is, in this discussion, a roughly equally divided issue. Maybe you could address those three reasons.--] (]) 22:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

	:::::::::::::What I meant to point out with the comparison was that citations are supposed to be reserved for reliable sources only. A standalone measurement cannot be a reliable source as defined by Misplaced Pages policy, just as a standalone Misplaced Pages username cannot be. Thus, if you are looking to cite a standalone measurement, that fact in itself should be a warning to you that you may actually be looking at original research. ] (]) 23:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Well, yes, that was my very point in my first post above, at 1:23, 2 March 2015. We completely agree. I, too, believe it's original research. However, some editors in this RfC do not — and the issue so far seems to be equally divided. That being the case, while I believe it's original research, I'm trying to craft a compromise that addresses each side's main concerns. --] (]) 23:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

	* '''Yes''' if exact times are given, as these can vary between episodes and are subject to editing (for example, repeats are often cut down in syndication). If the run times are approximate (e.g., half-hour including advertisements), this is unlikely to be disputed; they need to be ] but only require a citation if they are "challenged or likely to be challenged". <small>—''']''' ]</small> 09:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Yes,''' they should be cited but they should only be include infoboxes in articles about a particular episode not an entire series as they typically vary by few minutes per episode. In series articles, this information is better suited in the episode table.--] (]) 13:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Yes''' per sroc - if exact times are given or if it's a specific episode, then they need to be cited. If the time is a range (ex: 22-25 minutes), I wouldn't think they needed to be cited. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 13:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''No''' The present approximation is adequate for a series infobox as the show made may differ from the broadcast show due to local editing, (for adverts, fitting a time slot, censorship for broadcast at an earlier time of day or an old show that is now deemed not politically correct or something might be cut temporally due to a local incident but restored later. All these things have happened in the UK with it's myriad of commercial channels and the BBC's commercial free six entertainment channels). All these variations should be mentioned in the broadcast section, if there is one, and you can find a cite and on any episode article if created as it would be real time information. ] (]) 14:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Question''' If we ''can'' cite running times — and we can, through e-commerce sites, reviews, etc.. — then for what reason would we ''not'' want to? --] (]) 21:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::I see no reason to ''not'' add a cite if you are so inclined although for easily verifiable info like most current TV shows shouldn't be necessary. ] (]) 21:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::If it really ''is'' "easily verifiable info" then there's no reason not to cite it. '''How exactly is one getting that "easily verifiable" running time?''' I think that needs to be stated clearly here. --] (]) 23:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::If you feel the need to cite runtimes then there is no reason why you shouldn't, but there is no need. As we keep saying, but you ], WP:V does '''''NOT''''' require that ''everything'' be cited. --] (]) 04:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::That's just like, your opinion, man... ] (]) 22:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::And your opinion is just like, your opinion, man... It doesn't make it any less valid than anyone elses opinion, unless it can be proven to be incorrect. Geraldo Perez is not incorrect though. --] (]) 05:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I think a perhaps too-subtle joke was missed. "That's just like, your opinion, man" is a line from '']''. I don't know, but I suspect ] was simply injecting a lighthearted note into the proceedings. --] (]) 23:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::I'm sorry, I've never seen that TV series. --] (]) 04:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::@]: Clearly, the action of clicking on the wikilink provided proved too difficult for you, for you would otherwise have noticed that it is a movie, not a "TV series". I wonder if comprehending Misplaced Pages policy is too difficult for you too... ] (]) 21:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::Clearly, you missed the subtle point that Tenebrae thought you were quoting a film, in a TV discussion. --] (]) 14:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::It wasn't so much a joke as a sarcastic way to point out how certain commenters in this discussion seem to be imposing their opinions (and/or infobox documentation) over actual policy. ] (]) 23:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::(See humor essay ]) The actual ''policy'' is what ] states: "{{tq\|...all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.}}" The point of contention is if running times for TV series episodes is material "{{tq\|likely to be challenged}}". My ''opinion'' is no, particularly for the approximations or ranges generally listed for and expected for half-hour-long or hour-long slotted TV episodes. In my ''opinion'', times that deviate from the normal 22-23 or 45-46 times will be something likely to be challenged and should probably be referenced for support. ] (]) 23:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Although I've previously argued about it myself, upon further observation, the "likely to be challenged" part is actually irrelevant here. This RfC challenges all runtimes in TV show infoboxes in and of itself. ] (]) 00:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::Concur. Every editor here saying ''Yes'' to the RfC is challenging all uncited runtimes in the Project. --] (]) 00:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::The wording used in ] is "likely to be" not "might be". A few editors that challenge the info on principle per this RFC doesn't really rise to the level of the number of times something in actuality is "likely to be challenged". I have yet to see a {{tlx\|cn}} tag added to run times on any shows I watch, so the likelihood appears minimal to me, of course based on my experience. I would probably investigate or tag weird times, though, and adding references if I had to investigate. ] (]) 00:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Oh, come on, it's right there in the quote you posted: "challenged or likely to be challenged" – see that "or" there? ] (]) 00:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::In reading the ''yes''-marked comments, it looks like support for references required for exact times. Approximations, which the infobox template instructions say is what should be in the attribute, no. A blanket challenge to all existing articles because of this RfC? I didn't see that implied by most ''yes'' comments. The ''yes'' comments, in general, seem to support the status quo, if anything. ] (]) 01:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::That's a rather bizarre position given that approximations are inherently less easily verifiable than precise measurements. ] (]) 02:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Not really. With virtually all TV programs we're forced to use approximations because it seems that no two episodes are the same length throughout the run of a TV series. --] (]) 04:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::And Geraldo, please do ''not'' try to assert that the '''Yes''' commentators here are saying the opposite of what they mean. I mean, really — that's highly inappropriate. --] (]) 23:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::It would be useful to read what the "yes" commenters actually wrote in full, not just the first word, most were yes with caveats that basically ended up supporting the current instructions. ] (]) 00:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::That's ''your'' interpretation, cleverly designed to support your position. Don't put words in other people's mouths. --] (]) 20:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::No interpretation needed for pretty explicit statements. Accurately summarizing what people state is not "putting words in other people's mouths". ] (]) 20:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::My interpretation is different than yours. Who is correct? Please stop claiming that your own personal opinion is fact. Again, that is inappropriate and self-serving. Let the people who posted speak for themselves. Do not speak for them.--] (]) 20:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::The interpretation that matches what was stated is the correct one. It is absolutely ''not'' inappropriate to read for understanding and summarize that understanding. It is a bit inappropriate to state that I am somehow not participating in this discussion in good faith. 1 yes vote was yours and talked about measurements being original research that need needs to be referenced. 2 yes votes basically said exact times need references but approximations just need to be verifiable. 1 yes vote said we shouldn't have the attribute at all in series articles, just in episode articles where exact times should go and be referenced. Instructions for this attribute in series template recommends approximations. ] (]) 21:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}
	Anything you say — or that I would say — characterizing ''someone else's post'' is our interpretation. The above is solely your opinion. The editors who posted are quite capable of speaking for themselves. You don't like the fact they disagree with you, that they say '''Yes''' to citing, and it is highly inappropriate of you to try to twist other people's comments to say what you'd like them to say. --] (]) 21:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:I have to agree with Geraldo Perez's interpretation of the comments made by other editors. He has not tried "to assert that the '''Yes''' commentators here are saying the opposite of what they mean" at all. --] (]) 14:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

	::Whether you agree or disagree with his interpretation is irrelevant, but I'm gratified to see you at least concede that it ''is'' just his interpretation, his opinion, and not objective fact, as he's tried to claim. None of us should be interpreting to our own advantage what other commentators say.

	::And with all respect, you're wrong to state that Geraldo "has not tried 'to assert that the '''Yes''' commentators here are saying the opposite of what they mean' at all." Here are Geraldo's exact words at 00:40, 12 March 2015: According to him, the '''Yes''' commentators "basically ended up supporting the current instructions" — in other words, saying '''No''' to the RfC, when in fact they said '''Yes.''' That's just plain dishonest, on both of your parts. '''Yes''' means '''Yes''' — don't try to put words in other people's mouths and claim that '''Yes''' means "No." --] (]) 19:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

	:::Yes doesn't mean "Yes in all cases", as you seem to think. When people add caveats this affects the actual vote. For example, one editor wrote, {{tq\|'''Yes''' if exact times are given}} but the added a caveat "If the run times are approximate ... this is unlikely to be disputed ... only require a citation if they are 'challenged or likely to be challenged'." A following editor voted yes, per the editor I quoted, but added {{tq\|If the time is a range (ex: 22-25 minutes), I wouldn't think they needed to be cited}}. Both of these are effectively '''No''' votes based on the template instructions, which specify an approximate range. As Geraldo said, you need to read beyond the first word of the vote. --] (]) 10:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

			== Nomination of ] for featured list removal ==
	::::Once again, the editors are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. Interpreting their statements in a way you that says the opposite of what they said is Orwellian ]: To quote you, "Yes" votes "are effectively '''No''' votes." And we're not "voting," by the way — Misplaced Pages decisions come by consensus and compromise. I've never seen anyone so desperate to be able to put their own ] and demand that the rest of us take your word for it. --] (]) 20:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

			I have nominated ] for featured list removal. Please ] on whether this article meets the ]. 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 ].<!-- Template:FLRCMessage --> ] (]) 01:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::::The interpretation is not saying the opposite of what they said. I've explained the interpretation with quotes, and anyone closing the RfC would interpret it in the same way. Even without analysing the results, it's very clear that the outcome is "no consensus". --] (]) 07:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

			:] has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to ]. ] (]) 02:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::This is remarkable: Your argument can't stand on its own, so for the umpteenth time you resort to Orwellian Newspeak to claim "Yes" votes are No votes! And we're not "voting," by the way — Misplaced Pages decisions come by consensus and compromise. Once again: The editors are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. Interpreting their statements in a way that says the opposite of what they said is reprehensible. --] (]) 20:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
			:] has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to ]. ] (]) 22:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Requested move at ] ==
	===Section break with question===
			] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] ] 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	I find it interesting that neither of the two editors arguing that they should be allowed to put in runtimes without citation have refused to answer a couple of critical questions.

			== Jeff Sneider ==
	They say the information is "easily observable" or "easily verifiable." How is time "observable"? And if the running time is "easily verifiable", exactly ''how'' is it "easily verifiable"? --] (]) 20:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:I do not know how others would do it but for new programmes the iplayer has a running time, and for old TV a dvd on it's cover usually has the total running time. I would still use an approximation to cover all the local editing that might take place. Reading all the above, how could a film be verified with all the different cuts that are made worldwide. As an aside nothing to do directly with this thread 50 Shades of Grey is rated 18 in the UK and 12 in France; is the running time the same?? ] (]) 21:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::{{tq\|I find it interesting that neither of the two editors arguing that they should be allowed to put in runtimes without citation have refused to answer a couple of critical questions.}} Why do you find it interesting that neither of us have refused to answer? I'll remind you that I've explained how one can verify the runtime at ], in the discussion prior to this RfC and there are 4 editors who have argued that citations are not necessary. Of course there are other editors who have said that citations are not required for approximate times. --] (]) 07:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

			There is a discussion about whether Sneider should be considered a reliable source at ] which impacts multiple articles within the scope of this WikiProject. - ] (]) 09:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::And there are four editors in this RfC who say '''Yes''' to requiring a citation.

			== FAR for ] ==
	:::If you're claiming a certain running time, or a range of running times, based on the iplayer, then say so: 22 to 24 minutes or Otherwise, you're asking us to just take your word, or the word of anyone else who throws in a runtime.--] (]) 23:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

			I have nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. 🍕]🍕 (]) 11:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Of the four editors that you mention, one said {{tq\|If the run times are approximate (e.g., half-hour including advertisements), this is unlikely to be disputed; they need to be ] but only require a citation if they are "challenged or likely to be challenged"}}, while another said {{tq\|If the time is a range (ex: 22-25 minutes), I wouldn't think they needed to be cited.}} Since the infobox only requires approximate times, those are effectively "no" votes, as already explained. A third editor said {{tq\|they should be cited but they should only be include infoboxes in articles about a particular episode not an entire series. In series articles, this information is better suited in the episode table}}. That vote can be discarded as there's nothing close to consensus to remove running times from the infobox altogether. Only your vote supports citing all runtimes. --] (]) 07:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	:::::This is remarkable: Your argument can't stand on its own, so for the umpteenth time you resort to Orwellian ] to claim "Yes" votes are '''No''' votes! And we're not "voting," by the way — Misplaced Pages decisions come by consensus and compromise.
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 23:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

			== "situation based comedy show"? ==
	:::::Once again: The editors are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. Interpreting their statements in a way that says the opposite of what they said is reprehensible.

			A recent edit to '']'' changed "situation comedy" to "situation based comedy show". Is that terminology preferred? I don't remember seeing it used before, and it seems a bit wordy. ] (]) 01:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::And I don't even know ''why'' you're arguing against providing citations since you yourself said: {{tq\|"for new programmes the iplayer has a running time, and for old TV a dvd on it's cover usually has the total running time."}} So you ''can'' provide citations, but you say you're refusing to. --] (]) 20:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{rfc bottom}}

			:Why not ]? ] (]) 05:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	== GA reviewer requested ==
			::I agree that sitcom is a simpler way of saying the same thing and made the edit in the article. ] (]) 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thank you, @] and @]! ] (]) 19:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Television ratings graph ==
	In November 2014 I nominated "]" for GA. A user expressed intent to review it in January 2015, but has not been active on Misplaced Pages since. If anybody has the time, I would be more than grateful for somebody to pick up and do the review. ] (]) 17:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

			Hey all. I've updated {{tl\|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. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Cast and characters information ==
			:Amazing, thank you {{u\|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. - ] (]) 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 ], also seen ]):
			:Unable to compile EasyTimeline input:<br/>EasyTimeline 1.90<br/>Timeline generation failed: 1 error found<br/>- Maximum image size is 1600x2000 pixels = 16x20 inch<br/>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. ] (]) 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. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 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. ] (]) 22:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Let me dabble with some examples and I'll figure it out! -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 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 . -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 22:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Probably easiest to just say 100 (looks like 99 and 100 wouldn't overlap, just 100 and 101). ] (]) 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 ]. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 01:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:As an updated, I've added {{para\|no_graph\|y}} to all graphs in ] 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 ]. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 01:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Discussion at ] ==
	I do not particularity agree with the way ] is currently run. I feel that the cast list should be arranged in episode frequency from most appearances to least. In a show like ] the current format doesn't work at all, as ] is in 5 episodes she is never mentioned again but some what gets named the third main character.

			] There is a discussion at ] that may be of interest to participants of this WikiProject. ] (]) 14:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	This is how it is currently listed
	*Kevin James - 207 episodes
	*Leah Remini - 207 episodes
	*Lisa Rieffel - 5 episodes
	*Patton Oswalt - 126 episodes
	*Larry Romano - 33 episodes
	*Victor Williams - 157 episodes
	*Jerry Stiller - 176 episodes
	*Nicole Sullivan - 53 episodes
	*Gary Valentine - 84 episodes

			== Requested move at ] ==
	This is how i feel it should be listed
			] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 02:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	*Kevin James - 207 episodes
	*Leah Remini - 207 episodes
	*Jerry Stiller - 176 episodes
	*Victor Williams - 157 episodes
	*Patton Oswalt - 126 episodes
	*Gary Valentine - 84 episodes
	*Nicole Sullivan - 53 episodes
	*Larry Romano - 33 episodes
	*Lisa Rieffel - 5 episodes

			== Requested move at ] ==
	It is much clearer for someone who hasn't watched the show who the main characters are. Please consider this and reply if you agree as I feel this system is corrupt and need to be fixed. Thank You ] (]) 10:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
			] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 02:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Star Trek: Starfleet Academy articles ==
	:I think you're identifying an exceptional case that doesn't impact most shows. It's extremely rare that a series regular will appear in 5 episodes and then get dropped in the first season. It happens, but not enough for me to think that the MOS needs to be adjusted to say "list them in order of who has appeared the most". We're going for historical accuracy, not popularity. ] ] 13:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

	:: Do you mind if I change this rare exception to this way as the current is very misleading for this specific series. Only for King of Queens as I feel this way will work best for the article and show. Thank You ] (]) 18:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

			I have started a discussion at ] 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, ] (]) 11:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::That is ultimately up to the editors that frequent that page. This isn't a hard rule. My personal opinion is that historical, she was supposed to be a series regular, they just couldn't find anything for her to do after 5 episodes. She technically did appear before any of the other regulars that came after her, and to move her down implies that she was not important when they originally created her. ] ] 18:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::: I personally feel it should be done my way IMO. As Kevin James, Leah Remini and Jerry Stiller are noted as the 3 main main characters. They are the only ones to appear on the cover arts, posters and DVD covers and putting Stiller near the end just fells silly. ] (]) 18:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::This discussion is one of the reasons why ] exists. We must stick strictly to the main cast as defined by producers, not personal opinions on the order. For a series such as Kings of Queens that has multiple seasons, the order should be the main cast as done for the first season, and any additional cast members added in later seasons should be appended to the end of the list. Despite the case that one of the regulars may not have appeared as many times as others, they were still credited as a main cast by the show and producers. - ] (]) 20:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

	== ~~Show~~ ~~genres~~ ~~and~~ ~~sources~~ ==		== Use of "&" in infobox credits ==

			At '']'', I noticed the infobox uses "Eric Ledgin & Justin Spitzer" in the creator entry (i.e., including the ampersand). I know ampersands have a ] 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 ('']'', '']'', and '']'' 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 {{tp\|Infobox television}} says to use a list template for multiple entries but nothing about the use of "&". ] (]) 05:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	I've noticed that genre info, especially in infoboxes, is largely unsourced. I know {{U\|Cyphoidbomb}} has been helping fend off the folks who keep adding unsourced genres (esp. comedy-drama and black comedy) to pages. I am going to start editing to add sources, primarily on cartoon pages. Just wondering if anyone wants to join me as well. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 22:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	:The two main genres for children's shows are action and comedy. I don't think those need sources, but all other "minor" genres need citation. I will remove "Animation" and "Kids" from genre columns on pages. ] (]) 22:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	:I appreciate the recognition from Evergreen. Seems to me that these come up as some kids learn what black comedy or comedy-drama/dramedy is (generally speaking), then try to extrapolate it to shows that they like, and we get some really silly results, like that any time a character dies (i.e. Wile E. Coyote) it's somehow now a black comedy or a dramedy, when there is a very thin line between dramedy and comedy. It's one of the reasons why I proposed that genre should be sourced. I could ramble further, but... ] (]) 03:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Cheers to both of you. I agree that "comedy" probably doesn't need sourcing, but sources never hurt. But I certainly won't remove that category if it's unsourced. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 16:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Before unloading a mass deletion of "Animated" or "Kids" on the infoboxes, please note that they are listed as genres per the link provided in ] and ], but yes, I agree that if they are specific genres or subgenres they require citation if not explained in the article. -] (]) 19:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::All genres in TV show infoboxes require citations, not just certain ones – and regardless of whether said genres are listed elsewhere on Misplaced Pages or not. ] (]) 19:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

			:We go by according to credits, please see ]. Also, per ], {{tq\|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).}} — ]] 05:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	Sourcing is absolutely required for genres in TV show infoboxes per the template documentation. Any unsourced genres should be removed from such infoboxes (but not necessarily the corresponding articles) on sight. ] (]) 21:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			::I think quoting ] 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": {{tq\|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 ] 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 {{diff2\|1257096387\|a hidden comment to justify it}} as overkill.) ] (]) 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 ]. If writing credits need to be explained, it should be done in actual article prose. ] (]) 12:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::No where on ] nor {{tl\|Infobox television}} nor ] say "&" is frown upon to use in the infobox. A team is not {{tq\|multiple entries}}. — ]] 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. ] (]) 20:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::These teams are not a proper nouns, that isn't their "team name" and that is only the {{em\|style}} of how the WGA denotes the credits (again, ]). Actual team names are ], ], ] (no "&"). If you feel like ], ] and ] are all incorrect, start a RFC. ] (]) 22:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::: I agree with both YF and GP. See ]. 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. ] • 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.) ] (]) 00:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

			==Discussion of ''Slayage'' as a reliable source==
	== Babylon 5 walled garden ==
			''Slayage'', a journal of ], is currently under discussion as a reliable at ], in case anyone has and would like to give input. ] (]) 12:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Discussion at ] ==
	I love the TV show ] - it is one of my all-time favorites. But Misplaced Pages's coverage of the fictional Babylon 5 universe looks more like a Babylon 5 Wikia site than an encyclopedia's coverage ... see ] for the absurd number of Babylon 5 in-universe articles. I have prodded a few and ] redirected others and a lot of the ones listed here don't actually go to separate articles - they are (correctly) redirects to something like ]. But there are still articles on ships that were only used in a single episode and other similar things that really don't belong in an encyclopedia. I'm throwing this out there for anyone interested. --] (]) 22:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			] You are invited to join the discussion at ], which is within the scope of this WikiProject. ] \| ] 05:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- Template:WikiProject please see -->

			== Updates to Template:Series overview (continued) ==
	== Neutral discussion notice ==

			Continuing ] concerning the updates to {{tl\|Series overview}}:
	This is a neutral notice to request editors to join the discussion regarding potential ] material on ]. Discussion can be found ]. - ] (]) 02:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
			* Per my quote {{tq\|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 {{para\|released#}} paramaters, thus completely deprecating {{para\|end#\|start}} from the template.
			* The parameters {{para\|released\|y}} and {{para\|allreleased\|y}} have also been deprecated, and relevant articles are listed under ]; this will be cleared out presently.
			-- ]<sub> ]</sub> 03:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

			:] has now been emptied; no {{tl\|Series overview}} template now uses {{para\|released\|y}} or {{para\|allreleased\|y}}. Thanks to all those that contributed. {{smiley}} -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 02:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Category needed?==
			::On the same topic, does {{tl\|Episode table}} really also need {{para\|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. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 02:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	With the recent ], it is apparent that there is no category covering deaths during filming of reality TV programmes. I'm sure that these are not the only ones to have happened as I remember the death whilst filming Noel's House Party in the 1990s (not mentioned in the article though). So, do we need ]? ] (]) 07:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
			:::I'm all for being consistent with "released" across the TV templates. - ] (]) 10:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{done}} -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 22:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::For the deprecated parameters of {{tl\|Episode table}}, I created ], and checks for unknown parameters (turns out, there's a ''lot!''). However, unfortunately {{u\|Ahecht}} has these necessary checks. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 21:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@] {{tl\|Episode table}} gets abused quite a bit around here, often appearing hundreds or thousands of times on a single page, which can cause the ] 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. <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Can you name any articles where {{tl\|Episode table}} appears thousands of times on a page? For example, on the recently-edited ], 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. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 22:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::@] Sorry, forgot to ping in the above. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 22:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::@] I must've been thinking of {{tl\|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. <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 22:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::@] 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. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 22:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::@] 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. <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 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 {{para\|dontclose\|y}}, and restore the parameter checks. Problem solved. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 22:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::I went ahead and implemented the parameter check in the module. <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 22:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::@] This has caused every instance of episode table across 21,000+ articles to error. Could you kindly fix this? Thanks. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 22:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::{{fixed}}. Forgot that that line doesn't get implemented when previewing. <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 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. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 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, ] (]) 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Three shows to add ==
	Three hard to document shows for the 1970s English TV section are Sky, Andra and The Eagle of the Ninth. The first has a name that gets a swamp of mis-hits, the second had its master tape overwritten by a Singaporean game show and the last has the most documentation, about three lines on the scriptwriter. These were the best young adult shows I saw as a kid, and somebody should save them if they can. ] (]) 13:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

			:A tracking category can be added to instances of {{para\|start{{var\|N}}}} without {{para\|end{{var\|N}}}}. ] (]) 13:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			::{{done}} Listed at ], for any article that uses instances of {{para\|start''N''}} and no instances of {{para\|end''N''}}. Thanks for the heads up, @]! -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 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 {{para\|start{{var\|N}}}} without {{para\|end{{var\|N}}}}? — ]] 03:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The category I've created tracks instances of the template where {{para\|start''N''}} is used regularly with ''no'' instances of {{para\|end''N''}} being used (e.g. if ''The Witcher'' (a binge-released series) solely used {{para\|start''N''}}). I think that should track the issues well enough. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 04:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I didn't check how Alex set up the code, but in the infobox we use {{para\|end{{var\|N}}\|present}}. Hopefully this can work the same. ] (]) 10:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] nominated for discussion ==
	Hi, I have just created '']'', a French TV series. As I am not familiar with pages about TV series (I am mostly working on models/fashion related pages), could someone help me by adding the episodes from ] on the French wikipedia? Thanks in advance. --] (]) 16:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

			Link: ]. ] (]) 20:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ''Mind Meld'' ==

			== Requested move at ] ==
	The article about '']'', a film about William Shatner's and Leonard Nimoy's experiences in the ''Star Trek'' television series, has an ongoing featured article candidacy ]. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. ] (]) 12:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
			] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 18:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:10, 8 January 2025

Skip to table of contents

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.

Shortcuts

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

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2021-05-04

To do list:

Contributes to the assessment drive by assessing articles in the unassessed category.
Ensure that requests for article assessment are met promptly.
Ensure that articles tagged for needing our expert attention are dealt with quickly.
Participate in deletion discussions for television-related articles.
Tag articles related to television with the {{WikiProject Television}} template
Add Info-boxes to TV-show articles that don't yet have them
Tag articles with requests for improvement
Create requested articles
Work on articles needing improvement
Note or direct people to biography conventions for articles on actors, crew. Similar for characters and episodes etc.
Ensure that shows are discussed in the present tense (see WP:TISWAS)
Create high priority episode articles.
Create high priority season articles.
Create high priority fictional characters.

Major discussions/events:

Incubators:

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

Why is there no best TV list?

The NBC sitcom Seinfeld (1989-1998) was named by TV Guide as the greatest TV show of all time in 2002.
The HBO crime drama series The Sopranos (1999-2007) was named the greatest TV show of all time in 2013 by TV Guide and in 2016 by Rolling Stone.
Another HBO crime drama series, The Wire (2002-2008) was voted as the greatest TV show of the 21st Century by BBC in 2021.
The BBC sitcom Only Fools and Horses was voted by viewers as Britain's Best Sitcom in 2004.

References

Cosgrove-Mather, Bootie (April 26, 2002). "TV Guide Names Top 50 Shows". CBS News. Associated Press. Retrieved February 16, 2022.
Fretts, Bruce; Roush, Matt. "The Greatest Shows on Earth". TV Guide Magazine. Vol. 61, no. 3194–3195. pp. 16–19.
Fretts, Bruce; Roush, Matt (December 23, 2013). "TV Guide Magazine's 60 Best Series of All Time". TV Guide. Archived from the original on December 24, 2013. Retrieved December 23, 2013.
Sheffield, Rob (September 21, 2016). "100 Greatest TV Shows of All Time". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on September 23, 2016. Retrieved September 22, 2016.
Why The Wire is the greatest TV series of the 21st Century – BBC Culture
"The Final Top Ten Sitcoms". bbcattic.org. London: BBC. 2004. Archived from the original on 13 October 2014. Retrieved 8 October 2014.

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)

Requested move at Talk:The Trunk (TV series)#Requested move 20 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Trunk (TV series)#Requested move 20 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Jeff Sneider

There is a discussion about whether Sneider should be considered a reliable source at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/noticeboard#Jeff Sneider / The InSneider which impacts multiple articles within the scope of this WikiProject. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Homer Simpson

I have nominated Homer Simpson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for American Horror Story

American Horror Story has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

"situation based comedy show"?

A recent edit to Honestly, Celeste! changed "situation comedy" to "situation based comedy show". Is that terminology preferred? I don't remember seeing it used before, and it seems a bit wordy. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Why not sitcom? DonIago (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that sitcom is a simpler way of saying the same thing and made the edit in the article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Doniago and @RunningTiger123! Eddie Blick (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2024 (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)

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)

Categories: