| Revision as of 23:12, 17 January 2016 editUnframboise (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,925 edits →What constitutes a franchise?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:47, 7 January 2025 edit undoAlex 21 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors140,688 edits →Updates to Template:Series overview (continued): ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| 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}} | {{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=]| | |||
| {{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot II|age=25|small=yes|dounreplied=yes}} | |||
| ]]||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=]| | |||
| ]]||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 13: | Line 18: | ||
| |indexhere=yes}} | |indexhere=yes}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{ |
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 220K | |maxarchivesize = 220K | ||
| |counter = |
|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? == | ||
| *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> | |||
| ] An article that is part of this wikiproject, ] —has been '''proposed for ]''' with another article. If you are interested, please participate in ]. Thank you.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| *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> | |||
| == Proposed deletion of Dual Survival season articles == | |||
| ==== References ==== | |||
| ] | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| The ], ], ], ], ], and ] articles have been ]. The proposed deletion notice added to the articles should explain why. | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ]. | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> | |||
| == Disney-Kellogg Alliance? == | |||
| This discussion was originally brought up ] by {{u|Spshu}}, but I decided to refer it to WikiProject Television because I felt that we need to hash it out in a larger forum. | |||
| Personally, despite reliable sources being provided, I do not think we should refer to The Disney Afternoon as the Disney-Kellogg Alliance in the article because I don't think the name is notable enough to supplant the more well-known name in the article. I want to see what all of you at WikiProject Television have to say about this whole matter. ]]<sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> 23:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It should be discussed ]. Notability is only a test for having an article. ] (]) 14:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not everyone's gonna discuss it there. I need more than just your input, which is all I'm getting out of this discussion so far. ]]<sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> 17:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are several quotes from reliable sources with links indicating The Disney Afternoon was renamed Disney-Kellogg Alliance listed at ] like Variety: "The Disney-Kellogg Alliance, formerly known as “The Disney Afternoon,” would cease to exist in syndication,..." Please check them out to inform yourself if you want to comment. ] (]) 17:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This thread is long past its usefulness. The issue was settled outside of WikiProject Television, and it seems like this discussion is going nowhere. Can we close it now? ]]<sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> 07:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :There is no actual requirement to formally close discussions and, until today, nobody had commented here in 3 weeks, so the discussion had more or less closed itself. If you hadn't posted, the discussion would have been automatically archived in a few days. Now it's here for another 25 days, assuming nobody posts again. Sometimes it's best to let things just fade away. --] (]) 11:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Early online release == | |||
| With increasing importance of the internet it has recently become common that TV show episodes have been made ''publicly and legally'' available online by the networks themselves not only after they aired on TV but also ''before''. Sometimes for whole seasons at a time, e.g., '']'', '']'', sometimes just for some episodes, e.g., '']'', '']'', '']'', and sometimes including the pilot, e.g., '']'', '']''. Note that my question is ''not'' about teasers, trailers, leaked material, limited audiences / conventions, or press only access, but full episodes that are identical with the ones that air on traditional TV at a later time and available to everyone who also has access to the episodes on TV later. | |||
| I find no explicit mention how to deal with this in the MOS. I see that (even the above listed) articles deal with these facts differently. I find an implicit distinction in the wording of "released" (online) vs. "aired" (on TV), but I find that these distinctions are not made consistently or at least not in a way that can reflect the mixed releases (online and over the air) as described above. Points of conflict are | |||
| * the "No. of episodes" in the infobox: the description talks about "aired", to distinguish from "ordered" or "produced" – maybe also from "released online", or has this just not been reflected yet? | |||
| * the "Original release" date in the infobox, in the case where the pilot is available online before it is on TV. In rare cases this could even influence the article title if the pilot is released online in 2015 and on the air in 2016. | |||
| * The dates in the Episode table, which can be switched between "air date" and "release date" but only as a whole, to reflect streaming-only services like Netflix but not the new mixed approaches by the "classical" networks that expand into the streaming business. | |||
| I see three possible consistent approaches in general: | |||
| * The ''traditionalist'' approach, where one would ignore all online dates for shows on a network where they later air on TV on a regular traditional weekly schedule. | |||
| * The ''mixed'' approach, where one lists both dates at least for cases where the online is in advance (as it is common and never reported when episodes are released online after they air on TV). The question still remains if this is in prose or in the Infobox and Episode Table fields. | |||
| * The ''first is first'' approach, where whatever comes first counts. After all, WP does not list online release dates after the TV air date. So one could say why would it list TV air dates after the online release dates, those are repeats, and WP does not list repeat dates. With one exception: viewer numbers and ratings are usually not available for streaming, another reason not to ignore the fact when online is first, as it potentially diminishes TV viewer figures of those episodes that stream first. | |||
| –] (]) 12:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Obviously we do need to address this in the MOS. I'm not sure that there is an easy response, because it's not consistent and as you pointed out sometimes you get one episode and times you get the whole season (which is more like a Netflix show and completely different anyway). I would say that it should be approached from a consistency standpoint within the article itself. If a series airs all of its episodes early online, then that is the date of release. If a series had a single episode, or a single season, out of several that had this happen, then I'm less inclined to want to list it that way. Take the ]. That season aired all of its episodes a day early in Canada, for whatever reason. Never done before that, and never done after for the remaining seasons. Instead of creating an inconsistency within the list of tables by having one table include dates from another country, what we did was used the dates from the country of origin and then put in a note indicating that the season itself aired a day early in Canada that year. It kept the consistency while also acknowledging the change in airings. ] ] 17:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Much shorter (also skipping the above motivation): For mixed (i.e., on-demand and broadcast) releases, while it does not appear to be notable if an episode or season is made publicly available online after it airs on TV, | |||
| ::* is it ''notable'' if episodes are made publicly (i.e., to the same audience) available online ''before'' they air on TV, and | |||
| ::* does this depend on if it is all / only one / the premiere / the finale / some episode(s)? | |||
| ::If yes: | |||
| ::* Is the later TV broadcast still notable? | |||
| ::* Should this be reflected in the infobox and episode table and how? | |||
| ::–] (]) 13:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe: It's as notable as the broadcast of the episode itself. Which is to say that the release itself isn't notable unless there was something noteworthy about it. It's just a means of release. If we said that a release itself was "notable" then we get into this, "that makes the episode notable", which isn't true at all. Is it worth noting? Yes, it's worth noting. | |||
| :::Yes, the later TV broadcast is still just as important. It would be even more important if they never broadcasted it on TV only released the episode online (ala the ''Hannibal'' episode that never aired on TV in the first season). | |||
| :::In the infobox..No. In the episode table...No. Unless the entire series is always broadcasted earlier online than on TV. If it's a special event, then a note should be created to alert the reader that it's a special event and leave consistency for the rest of the article. ] ] 17:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for these explanations, but I do not share the views for mixed releases. | |||
| ::::''Why does WP list dates?'' Certainly WP:NOTVGUIDE. But because it was found noteworthy to mention when an episode was first publicly available. Nowadays, for all practical purposes from the viewpoint of a TV watcher, it makes no difference whether this is on demand or by broadcast: the contents is the same. (The online content can even be cast onto the same TV screen that shows the broadcast, too.) If some episodes are available online first, this certainly deserves more than just a footnote. | |||
| ::::''Consistency:'' For tables or boxes, while one can find it consistent to choose a delivery channel and have only that type of dates, and inconsistent to mix dates between online and broadcast, one can as well find it consistent to have first-publication dates, and inconsistent to mix some real first-broadcast dates with other broadcast dates that for practical purposes are really repeats of earlier published contents. Both types of consistencies will not be possible in a mixed release. | |||
| ::::The mixed release schedules are a new development not explicitly covered by the MOS and applying old broadcast-only or streaming-only guidelines does not do them justice. And my WP:CRYSTALBALL tells me that the examples I listed above are just the beginning with many more yet to follow. –] (]) 12:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Of the options you listed, I think I align with the mixed approach, as I do believe that it is notable enough to mention/list when episodes premiere online earlier than on television. -- ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is a difference between not mentioning something at all, and making a special mention of it outside of an episode table when it's an outlier. ] ] 03:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : For series normally broadcast on television, I would stick with broadcast dates and ignore on-demand streaming on the episode listings unless it was an exclusive. The broadcast section can certainly talk about how some episodes were made available for streaming in advance as pilot and sample episodes or to streaming subscribers. Some series have a "sneak preview" broadcast, perhaps even on a different channel, to generate interest in the series. Whether a bonus episode is given an "airdate" depends on how the episode was presented, but it can have (DVD extra) or (web) attached to such an airdate. ] (] • ]) 10:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{re|AngusWOOF}} I asked mainly about ''full episodes of identical contents''. I am not sure what "sneak preview broadcasts" are—If that means broadcasts out of the assigned weekly schedule, why does it matter? TV networks would certainly like to have their content "premiere" a dozen times over and invent colorful WP:PEACOCK words for it just not having to call the later ones repeats, but fact is, premiere literally means first, and there is only one first release of the content. (Maybe one first release per delivery mechanism, e.g., first on-demand, first broadcast, first discs.) Or if the MOS:TV/Infobox/Episode Table guidelines mean not to give "original" broadcast dates but the original broadcast date in the "regular" time segment, they should say so. | |||
| :: {{re|Bignole}} If in mixed releases the television ''content delivery mechanism'' (broadcast in contrast to on demand) is actually so essential, the Infobox has to be adjusted, because it always displays as "Original release". But that original release apparently would not include an on-demand release for shows that also ''broadcast'' some/all episodes.–] (]) 18:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::: As a specific example, there's ] which aired the first episode in its entirety on Disney Channel on January 18, 2015, and then had its "premiere" on Disney XD on March 30, 2015. The show was intended to run on Disney XD regardless, but the Disney Channel premiere was significant enough to generate interest for the show to be renewed for a second season. The table lists both. If the show had its premiere and "sneak preview" on the same channel, I agree there would be no point to list the second date as it would be a rerun. ] (] • ]) 19:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == TVmaze as a source == | |||
| Can I get some opinion on if is a ] regarding episode titles, air dates, cast, etc.? I see it popping up as reference, there is no ] wikipedia article, and I didn't understand where their information comes from, is it user-generated, like IMDb? –] (]) 15:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a wiki equivalent - see http://www.tvmaze.com/site/copyright - "{{tq|TVmaze is a collaborative site, which can be edited by any registered user.}}". ] (]) 16:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == The issue of criticism content at the ] article == | |||
| Opinions are needed on the following matter: ]. A ] for it is . The issue concerns including criticism in a section that is currently full of positive reviews, and especially the issue of including criticism of season 2 and noting how the show progressed from there. ] (]) 03:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == COI edits on ''Top Model'' series == | |||
| I just noticed that articles from ] have been extensively edited by {{User2|Michh1}} and {{User2|Moo1991}}. And they have edited articles related to this series only. I have dropped a note on their talk pages in relation to this, to declare their COI in these cases. I personally have no interest in the series and would not be able to pursue this if its going to get bitter ahead. Hence requesting other regular editors to look into this matter. {{ping|TheRedPenOfDoom}}, if you are interested and willing, do keep an eye on this. §§]§§ <small>{] / ]}</small> 03:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| So a while back, i never knew about this Millennium TV-mini series. And originally, i thought it was a completely different production then the original Swedish films. However, now that i'm digging a little deeper, i realize that the "miniseries" is a compilation of the three films with extended scenes. In the US, its not even considered a separate entity. That means that most of its success is due to the original films. The miniseries was released on DVD/Blu-ray as the "Dragon Tattoo Trilogy". | |||
| I'm still working on the article just in case i find out more that makes this piece of work. But, i'm having a difficult time find out about the subject as a "miniseries" and more of a compilation. it might be more beneficial to repurpose the article into a ] instead. This is a very big change but it ultimately might end up making a better article. ] (]) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :If it is repurposed as a "film series" article (there isn't one already after all), I don't see too much of a problem as long as the content keeps it clear that it was shown as a TV miniseries. I'm trying to think of comparable examples to see how we handle them - '']'', '']'' and '']'' spring to mind, but each of those has only been shown as a miniseries or a single film, not a series of films. --] (]) 09:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see what you mean. I also found more of a tv series being reconfigured as a film. Not the other way around. But I'm confident I can make it work. All the information will remain. it'll just be organized a little differently. I believe this will be better anyways because the article can cover the Millennium/Dragon Tattoo Trilogy (non-extended edition release). ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Category:ABC Persons of the Week== | |||
| ''']''', which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 02:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Criteria for TV season articles == | |||
| Hello, I wonder what are criteria for TV season series? There are seasonal articles for some programs, for example ], while others, such as ], doesn't. --] (]) 14:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :See also the related ].–] (]) 14:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Oops. Sorry I duplicated the thread. --] (]) 17:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Anyone have thoughts about how to treat the title in the lead at ]? It looks to me like someone took the logo a little too literally, and instead of considering the series' title to be "Wabbit.", they've inflated it to "Wabbit. - A Looney Tunes Prod." Reminds me of a weird debate AussieLegend had with someone who interpreted "Songs from and inspired by the television series" as part of a TV soundtrack album's title. Thoughts? Also, there's a discussion about whether or not the alternate European title of "Bugs." is widespread enough to be included in the lead. My concern is that there might be multiple country-specific titles, and we shouldn't encourage the addition of all of these. Since I might be being stubborn here, some other input would be appreciated. Thanks all! ] (]) 19:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : I would treat it as a ], so it doesn't belong in the common name / article title. Cartoon Network doesn't show it when listing individual episodes of the show. As for European titles, that should not be in the lead, but can be relegated to the International broadcast section if it spans a large number of countries as "Bugs.". ] (] • ]) 01:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hey all, I'm planning to nominate ] for deletion, but before I do, I thought I'd float it past you all in case there was something I was missing, or if anyone had any thoughts for how it could be saved. As short as possible: '']'' is a daily, live, semi-serialized, improvisational comedy segment that airs during '']'', a daily, live, variety show in the Philippines. . While it's very popular and presumably notable, my concern is that since we're talking about a live segment within a live show, a list of episodes seems like an academically fruitless endeavor, since no real "story" is being told, and more importantly, the article will never meet ]. How does one verify any of the "episodes"? Is anyone ever going to release DVDs of this live, improvised segment? It would be like trying to catalog the daily banter between Hoda Kotb and Kathie Lee Gifford on ''The Today Show''. (Which I said verbatim in the AfD for ]). If you read some of the episode summaries, I think you'll see what I mean. There's no real story happening, it's mostly banter with some story-like beats interspersed. Also, I appear to be the only one participating in discussion at ]. Community input would be greatly appreciated. ] (]) 18:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : If it appears as a separate production from the show as with cartoons ] or ] then it can be separated out. But if it's just a usual segment like ] or ] then it doesn't need to be documented down to each individual episode. The segment articles themselves can cover the details and highlight any significant episodes. ] (] • ]) 18:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Awards from what looks like some random blogger == | |||
| Hi, everyone. Going through my watchlist, I noticed someone recently added an award nomination from what looks some random blogger, cartermatt.com. I removed it, but indicates that there are quite a few more of these citations. Before I unilaterally remove all of them, I figured I'd ask how the WikiProject feels about this – are these awards something we should be reporting? I located a ] about the site, and that doesn't really instill me with any more confidence. ] (]) 03:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Offhand I don't think that the site would be considered a RS. A look at their shows less than 9,000 followers. Follower counts don't automatically mean something is or isn't a RS, but a low amount of followers can be fairly telling. In comparison, Twitch Film has and they're still considered to be relatively unknown as far as mainstream awareness goes. Now I do see it listed as a source in published through ]. I do see that there's a Matt Carter that has worked as a reporter for various topics, many political, but this doesn't seem to be the same person. I'll od some more searching, though. ]] 05:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I know that the criteria for the TV project doesn't always line up with those of the film project - nor should they. However, this case reminds me of the discussion earlier this year about the removal of several local/regional film awards from various articles. One question should be "Do these CM.com awards receive coverage in secondary sources?" If not then they shouldn't be in WikiP articles. As I look at these they are too ]AL for my liking. But that is just me if others think they merit a place in the articles then that is fine. ]|] 05:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *They're listed in as a source. It's Cambridge Scholars Publishing, which initially sounds good but a quick look brings up things like and where people dismiss it as little better than vanity publishing, meaning that this wouldn't be seen as a reliable source so being listed in this book as a RS would mean nothing to Misplaced Pages. As far as news goes, I can't see where they're repeatedly referred to as a source by other outlets, nor do I see where they're listed anywhere else. They do seem to be popular and for a site that launched in 2012 they seem to have a nice following. It's possible that in the next few years they could be seen as a RS, but right now I would say that no, they're not a RS. This means that any award given by this site would be non-notable and not worth listing on Misplaced Pages. I'd say that we ''should'' probably remove or replace the links in the various articles, since it's not a RS. However I doubt that the information in the articles is incorrect per se, so it doesn't need to be as big of a rush as it would be if people were linking to my personal blog site or something like that. The awards though, those definitely need to go. From what I can see, there's zero coverage of the awards outside of the site itself and I can't really find anything for the awards from years prior to 2014, so this seems to be something that they just recently launched. ]] 05:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't post a direct link because Examiner dot com is on the spam blacklist, but there are some funny scathing comments directed at this guy at examiner dot com/article/exclusive-interview-tila-tequila-dishes-on-new-reality-show-pregnancy-music-and-more Also, for whatever it's worth: "Matt Carter is a poet, journalist, and screenwriter from Dallas, TX. A former reality and game show contestant, he published his first book, 'Storms of Change,' in May 2008." : "Matt Carter is best known to millions of Americans as "The Poet" from the hit television show "Beauty and the Geek," but he has also appeared on the television program "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" in addition to hosting "Mustang Movies with Matt and Christy" for Southern Methodist University. He also reports frequently on sports for Most Valuable Network. Carter currently lives in Dallas, where he enjoys writing, video gaming, and pining away at what to do next." I don't have a plan for what we're supposed to do with all this information, but there ya go. ] (]) 16:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Is Carter a notable television critic? That he's been a former reality television show contestant is nice, but are his writings regularly published in news entertainment magazines (Variety, Hollywood Reporter, etc.) or relegated to self-published places like Yahoo Contributor Network, Examiner, Facebook, Livejournal, Wordpress, or forum posts where anyone can write about anything? If he's a legit critic, then is the award that he gives meaningful? Any writer can write up their "best television show of 2015" or "my top 10 favorite shows of 2015" list or write-in their own categories of superlatives. A website can also gather nominations and have their subscribers and viewers vote on the winners, publishing those results. If it's a viewer vote, that doesn't count for anything either. Some of those year-end results might be listed in critical reception or even Metacritic among the hundreds of others, but is hardly a notable award for an Awards and Nominations list. Then on the recipient side, does the recipient even get anything or consider it important? Do they come on the show and thank the awards site? Do they add it to their resume as their own accomplishments? (e.g. I was named the Best Actress in ''Houston Metro''!) ] (] • ]) 18:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I think {{u|Tokyogirl79}} is suggesting the best test. Is this award itself something that would be notable enough to be covered in third party reliable sources independent of the awarder and awardee - basically does the award itself meet our standards for ]? I don't think we necessarily need an article for the award but if there were one, that would show that the award is notable enough to matter. ] (]) 18:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: That's generally how I feel, though I agree with everyone who's posted. ] (]) 23:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==WikiProject NCIS== | |||
| I have suggested that ] be converted into a taskforce of this project, WPTV, similar to how other inactive TV wikiprojects have been converted to WPTV taskforces over the years. For the proposal discussion, see ] -- ] (]) 23:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice to participants at this page about adminship == | |||
| Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at ]. | |||
| So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page: | |||
| *] | |||
| You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate. | |||
| Many thanks and best wishes, | |||
| ] (]) 19:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| At the above there are claims that it is a British American co-production using cites that may be right or wrong and on the list of episodes since the new template allows multi countries and dates British and American date formats are being used setting what I believe is a precedent. As a non interventionist editor who does not get into edit wars, I think some guidance is needed from the experienced editor here. Over to you] (]) 18:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| : No one has commented but another tv series ], An editor has used the multi airdate format to list Canada two months after it's initial broadcast. There must be a stop or every English speaking country will want an air-date. ] (]) 15:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :: Alternate dates are acceptable under some circumstances and {{tl|Episode list}} has always supported them. However, per ], dates in the body of the article should use the same format. I don't see any reason for the Canadian dates in ]. --] (]) 16:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| I took out the Canadian dates and I was shot down on the ] re date consistency and life is too short. ] (]) 17:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :What exactly is an acceptable use of AltDate to you? So far as I am aware, Canada is the first country to pick up the show after its UK debut. Do we even know of any other countries broadcasting it? If it is the first extranational broadcast then this is notable to me. We're talking about the show getting exposure after its creator announced the originating network dropped it. ] (]) 20:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==Numerical season category proposal== | |||
| Under ] we have ] on the basis of when they happened. | |||
| We also have ] which collects the seasons of multiple series. | |||
| I would like to know if we could also collect seasons on the basis of their counting. As in a category for all articles about a first season, another for all second seasons, and so forth. | |||
| For example ] and ] and ] | |||
| The only thing I am not sure about is the formatting of the naming. | |||
| == Nomination of ] for featured list removal == | |||
| Before creating I figured I would throw out some ideas to see if anyone had better ones. It would be a big project but it wouldn't have to be done all at once. There are a lot of pages like these and this would be a good way to track them. Naturally the population of each category would shrink as we went forward. | |||
| 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) | |||
| ] perhaps? | |||
| :] has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to ]. ] (]) 02:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| As for how to populate it... | |||
| :] has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to ]. ] (]) 22:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| #] | |||
| #] | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| and so forth. | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] ] 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Jeff Sneider == | |||
| Once we got to season 10+ the category would display out of order, a problem the 'by year' has not had to deal with since it ranges from 1950 to 2016, so it would only approach a problem on the year 9999. | |||
| 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) | |||
| One prevention might be to make it double digit from the start: | |||
| #] | |||
| == FAR for ] == | |||
| but that might not be easy for people to remember... I don't know any shows approaching 100 seasons so it seems to fix the problem at least. | |||
| 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) | |||
| It occured to me we could spell it out rather than use the numerical characters: | |||
| #] | |||
| #] | |||
| #] | |||
| #] | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| we can see that breaks down even sooner in terms of automated parent category order though. I guess we could simply comment |01 and |02 and so forth when adding them to do that though. It seems like using number characters would take up less space though. ] (]) 14:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| :What purpose would this serve? --] (]) 15:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Organization, like any category. It would let us easily know which shows have become notable enough to not just have a -list of episodes- page but also a season-based page, and of those, how many season articles there are for higher-numbered seasons. --] (]) 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are no different levels of notability. If a series has a page then it's notable. Having a season page doesn't make it any more notable. Grouping ] (1997/98) with ] (2011/12) and ] (2015/16) in {{cl|Ninth television seasons}} serves no useful purpose that I can see. --] (]) 21:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with Aussie. I don't see the benefit. How will these categories help readers? - ] (]) 03:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The purpose is to identify how many shows have gone into that many seasons. Just like when we group seasons by year of air date, it lets us know how many shows aired during that year. Just as people might be curious about what other shows were airing during a given year, people might be curious about what other shows have accrued as many seasons. 20:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == "situation based comedy show"? == | |||
| == ABC Family/Freeform == | |||
| 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) | |||
| I think the articles on ] and ] need some attention. It looks like a cut-and-paste move was done. | |||
| :Why not ]? ] (]) 05:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Also, ] was moved to ] which I don't understand either. Are even old shows that have been produced by ABC Family now automatically Freeform shows? Shouldn't there be a new category for Freeform shows, leaving the ABC Family as it is? –] (]) 11:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| And this applies to ] and ], too. There is also ].–] (]) 14:26, 12 January 2016 (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) | |||
| :I have requested speedy deletion to delete the cut and paste move article, Freeform (TV network), which is an incorrect name per ], and for Freeform (TV channel), its correct location/article name. (You are welcome, Frosting.) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :Not sure about the category issue. In some regards with Freeform being a new name for ABC Family that moving that category makes some sense. On the other hand, they may be better know under the ABC Family name. Perhaps based on the number of shows should determine if the old category name should continue, nested with in a new Freeform equivalent category. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :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 ] == | |||
| ::For the categories, there is still a ] which has not been moved into ABC Family, either. Same for The WB/The CW.–] (]) 14:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is a discussion at ] that may be of interest to participants of this WikiProject. ] (]) 14:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Netflix "Original" programming in Navbox == | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| Additional opinions welcome at ]. --] (]) 14:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 02:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| ==Dr. Phil episode list or season articles== | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 02:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Would there be any opposition to organizing a list? The show seems notable enough to arrange one. Usually each episode has a page on the site which could be used as a reference to support its title and air date. Due to there being over a thousand episode it would not seem appropriate to allow summaries on a master list and to save that for if season pages were made. | |||
| == Star Trek: Starfleet Academy articles == | |||
| Are any notability criteria needed to allow for a ] to ] to be made? I'm personally only interested in doing a master list but I imagine some people might want to add summaries so if they begin to do so it would be nice to have a season page to divert them to. ] (]) 20:52, 12 January 2016 (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) | |||
| ==Citing TV guides behind pay and registration barriers== | |||
| Would ] be appropriate for this? Or perhaps ]? I have just been using ] til now. Would an online log-in TV guide be considered a ]? I am told there is some kind of registration=yes field to make use of. Bell Fibe TV has a basic TV guide anyone can view without logging in, but if you have an account and log in you can view a more extensive guide that goes more days into the future and also lists original air dates for programs, like when I view the guide for the TV itself. | |||
| == Use of "&" in infobox credits == | |||
| Brought this up at ] and some repliers advised to ask here too. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Unfortunately it is just a basic page for the guide, I don't know how to produce any unique URLs to link to content, I can provide an access-date in good faith to show when I viewed it. I can't archive it due to the registration barrier. Unfortunately this means that once an episode airs, it would have to rerun and someone would have to find the rerun to verify the Original air date data I provide from it. | |||
| :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) | |||
| I have been told that taking a photograph of my TV showing the OAD or a PrtScn of the logged-in website guide is copyvio but since I am merely citing a date I don't see how, it seems like fair use to include brief snippets of something in the 'quote' field from a source for verifying basic data like air dates and titles. Would there be a way to qualify them for fair use if I cropped it to be a small-as-possible portion which was only large enough to show the title and OAD but small enough that it crops off a portion of the summary? ] (]) 20:28, 14 January 2016 (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== | |||
| : Picking an online guide from the TV itself is rather difficult to cite, well, I suppose you could use cite AV media for that. I would suggest a URL-based website to login to get the content. You can list the basic Bell Fibe online website and then in the citation, put a "postscript=" to list what the commands and terms you used to navigate the site/app to get to the episode. Example: url=www.attuverse.com, postscript=. Search show "MyShow". Selecting "Episode 302" shows "Original airdate: 01/15/2016." Be sure to set the accessdate and set subscription=yes. If there's a direct link to a show page with episodes as with Netflix or Hulu, you could try citing that. ] (] • ]) 23:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ''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 ] == | |||
| == Siya Ke Ram == | |||
| ] 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) == | |||
| Would someone from WP:TV mind taking a look at ] and possibly assessing it? I'm not sure if including information about "dubbed" versions, etc. is something commonly included per ] and also not sure about the "Former cast" section. Thanks in advance. -- ] (]) 06:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Continuing ] concerning the updates to {{tl|Series overview}}: | |||
| == What constitutes a franchise? == | |||
| * 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) | |||
| At ] an editor is claiming that '']'' is part of the '']'' franchise. (NCIS was a spin-off from JAG, not the other way around). Unfortunately discussion has suddenly stalled and the editor has decided to make his edits anyway. So what constitutes a media franchise? Can a series be part of a spin-off's media franchise? The complete discussion is at ]. --] (]) 00:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :: My case rests with the fact that ''NCIS'' is clearly a ''JAG'' spin-off, and then therefore ''NCIS'' spin-offs also exist in the ''JAG'' universe. ''CSI: NY'', for example, exists within the ''CSI'' franchise, whilst being a ''Miami'' spin-off. Series creator Donald P. Bellisario filed a law-suit noting that ''NCIS: Los Angeles'' is technically a spin-off of ''JAG'', and all three series exist within the ''JAG/NCIS'' franchise. ''JAG'' has crossed over with ''NCIS'' multiple times, as recently as 2013. Hollywood insiders such as Matt Carter, who states that "all stemming from JAG" (), also agree that the series are inter-linked. ''JAG''{{'s}} existence is already outlined on the franchise page, so it wouldn't mean adding new content, simply moving it around a bit - which I'd be happy to do (and have done, actually), myself. ''JAG'' was already included as part of the franchise when the page was first created, though this has since been removed. --] (]) 00:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm all for being consistent with "released" across the TV templates. - ] (]) 10:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would personally say based on what's presented here, NCIS would be part of JAG's franchise, rather than JAG as part of the NCIS franchise? ~Cheers, ]]] 00:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{done}} -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 22:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That has been (part of) what I have been arguing, and why JAG was originally removed from the NCIS franchise article. ] says {{tq|A '''media franchise''' is a collection of media in which several derivative works have been produced from an original work of ] (usually a work of ]), such as a ], a work of ], a ] or a ]}}, which supports the view, since ''NCIS: Los Angeles'' and ''NCIS: New Orleans'' are derivative works of ''NCIS''. However, the only spinoff from ''JAG'' was ''NCIS'', although it's not a spinoff in the traditional sense, since the series itself is totally different to ''JAG'' and the NCIS spinoffs have no no resemblance to ''JAG''. --] (]) 00:40, 17 January 2016 (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) | |||
| :::: Here are a few more: Matt Mitovich ("JAG/NCIS franchise"; ), series star Zoe McLellan, who discusses what its like to play different characters in the same franchise (), and JAG front-man David James Elliott describes himself as the "grandfather" of NCIS: Los Angeles (). Obviously one option would be to re-direct ] to ] or ], however I'm more than happy to concede and just have ''JAG'' added to the ''NCIS'' page. ], what are your thoughts on all four series existing as part of the same franchise, regardless of whether its under the ''JAG'' or ''NCIS'' moniker? --] (]) 00:36, 17 January 2016 (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) | |||
| :::::Note that the first link refers to the "JAG/NCIS franchise", not the "JAG franchise" or the "NCIS franchise", the second refers to "universe", which is different to "franchise" and is really a more accurate term, and the third refers to NCIS: Los Angeles being a spinoff of JAG, which it clearly never was. NCIS: Los Angeles follows the NCIS premise, which is far different to JAG and JAG had ended 4 years before NCIS: Los Angeles aired. NCIS was a completely different series that used two episodes of JAG as a backdoor pilot and the NCIS characters never appeared in JAG before or after those two episodes. --] (]) 00:46, 17 January 2016 (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) | |||
| :::::: But ''JAG'' characters appeared on ''NCIS'' after those two episodes. I think the thing you're having trouble getting your head around is that ''JAG'' doesn't have ''NCIS'' in the title. If the series was called ''NCIS: JAG'', then you'd have no problem with including it on the franchise page. ''CSI: Cyber'' doesn't follow the same premise as ''CSI'', but they're considered one franchise. ''The Lone Gunmen'' follows a completely different premise to both ''The X-Files'' and ''Millennium'', but again, one franchise. --] (]) 00:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] Sorry, forgot to ping in the above. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 22:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The name is completely irrelevant. The premise, crossover characters etc are all important but none of the NCIS characters were spunoff from JAG. They first appeared in the NCIS pilot and didn't return to JAG after that. Even JAG characters didn't really crossover. One JAG character appeared in one NCIS episode during its first season and that was really the only crossover. A JAG lawyer, who did not appear in JAG before or after the NCIS pilot, later appeared in 2 NCIS episodes, briefly. She spent more time on NCIS than JAG. Another character appeared in 2 unrelated episodes of JAG and NCIS. He only appeared in JAG as a minor character after the NCIS pilot, and then appeared in NCIS with no, as I remember, mention of JAG. Another reprised his JAG role in a single NCIS episode 8 years after JAG ended. NCIS and JAG were like chalk and cheese. You can't claim that anything in the NCIS franchise was derived from JAG. --] (]) 01:06, 17 January 2016 (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) | |||
| ::::::::I'm seeing you list an awful lot of links between the series, and I'm also seeing ridiculous attempts to claim they're not *really* links. I've given my two cents - we'll see how this plays out. --] (]) 01:15, 17 January 2016 (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) | |||
| ::::::::::If the star of ''JAG'', and the creator of both ''JAG'' and ''NCIS'' believe these "links" (which clearly indicate a franchise) are enough to indicate a franchise, then I don't see why you're so against the idea. ''Law & Order'' and ''Homicide'' existed concurrently, and crossed over throughout the shows (like ''Hawaii Five-0'' and ''NCIS: LA''), while ''JAG'' spun-off ''NCIS''. ''NCIS'' is *clearly* a spin-off of ''JAG'', as noted by CBS here ("Spin-off of the highly successful ''JAG''"), therefore ''NCIS: LA'' and NOLA exist as part of the same media franchise. Your argument that "no JAG characters spun-off into NCIS" (aside from appearances by the core four, which were introduced on ''JAG'', Cmdr. Faith Coleman, and Commander Rainer, Bud Roberts, and AJ Chegwidden), would also mean that ''CSI: NY'' is not part of the ''CSI franchise'', but instead part of the ''CSI: Miami franchise'', as ''CSI: NY'' has only featured an appearance of two ''CSI'' characters, and no characters spun-off, not even via an embedded pilot. Again, if anyone knows what series exist as part of the ''NCIS'' franchise, its the creator of ''NCIS''. --] (]) 14:36, 17 January 2016 (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) | |||
| ::::::::::: Isn't the brand/name ''licensing'' an important aspect of a franchise in contrast to a universe? Then even a multitude of spin-offs would not automatically form a franchise if they are produced by the same people/companies. (I don't know what the production or licensing situation is for JAG/NCIS.) Another important feature of the examples in ] seems to be the common brand or name, but does JAG carry the NCIS name anywhere, or vice versa?–] (]) 14:52, 17 January 2016 (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) | |||
| : ''JAG'' and ''NCIS'' are produced by CBS and Bellisarius Productions, ''NCIS: LA'' is a Shane Brennan production, with CBS, and ''NCIS: New Orleans'' is produced by CBS, Gary Glasberg's company, and Mark Harmon's production company. The common brand, in this case, would be the military justice nature of the series, as claimed by Bellisario and Elliott, CBS also explicitly uses ''JAG'' to promote ''NCIS'' overseas (as demonstrated above, ). ''JAG'' and ''NCIS'' do not carry each-others names in title, though both reference the activities of the other group throughout the series - ''JAG'' even sent one of its characters off for a secondment with NCIS. And I mean, hell, even this mainstay of the ''NCIS'' opening credits is taken from a ''JAG'' episode. --] (]) 22:44, 17 January 2016 (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) | |||
| :: And I know that part of Aussie's (poorly formed) argument is that a ''JAG/NCIS franchise'' is different to an ''NCIS franchise'', but I created the franchise page originally, and the only reason I didn't include ''JAG'' in the title is because it seemed redundant, and I assumed everybody would know it was part of the same group of series. Clearly I overestimated the intelligence of some editors. --] (]) 23:12, 17 January 2016 (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) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:47, 7 January 2025
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Television and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
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: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | Points of interest related to Television on Misplaced Pages: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style – To-do |
|
|
 | WikiProject Television was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 8 January 2014. |
| WikiProject Television was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 6 September 2016. |
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- As an updated, I've added
|no_graph=yto 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)
- 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)
- No where on MOS:TV nor {{Infobox television}} nor MOS:AMP say "&" is frown upon to use in the infobox. A team is not
- 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":
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#=startfrom the template. - The parameters
|released=yand|allreleased=yhave 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=yor|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=yto 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)
- @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)
- I went ahead and implemented the parameter check in the module. --Ahecht (TALK
- 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
- @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
- @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 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
- @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
- 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)
- I'm all for being consistent with "released" across the TV templates. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the same topic, does {{Episode table}} really also need
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)
- The category I've created tracks instances of the template where