Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• WT:TV
• WT:WPTV

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

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

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

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

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

Television Project‑class

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 Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template loop detected: Template:Todo

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

TVUPCOMING

Hello friends, I think I might be misinterpreting TVUPCOMING, which would be embarrassing, but hey, it happens. In these edits, 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 current format? 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, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As I thought, after resizing the image to comply with WP:NFCC, 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your meddling was appreciated at that article. :) So we have a POV editor, do we? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 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 File:TDRR Imagelogo.png. 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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 Giggett (talk) 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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 Giggett (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Only Fools and Horses - FAR

I've put Only Fools and Horses up for review of its featured status at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Only Fools and Horses/archive1. Improvements and comments welcome. Bencherlite 11:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the WP:Overlinking guideline

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender#Serious issues with ratings info. Thanks. Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

Request for Comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

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

• Yes. Stopwatching the running time of a TV show ourselves is original research, no different from measuring the height of a car with a measuring tape ourselves, or stopwatching a movie's running time. While simple calculation 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." --Tenebrae (talk) 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 primary source) 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. 23W 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. Mdrnpndr (talk) 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. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 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. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - This proposal is secondary to a discussion about whether or not we the |runtime= parameter at Template:Infobox television 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. 60 Minutes 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. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 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. -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• 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. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

We can't cite Amazon or iTunes. Those are commercial sales sites selling the TV shows. WP:ELNO 5. --Tenebrae (talk) 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 WP:ELNO#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. Geraldo Perez (talk) 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. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No, WP:ELNO is part of WP:EL, which applies to external links, not inline citations. WP:IRS governs what can and can't be used as a source for citations. WP:ELPOINTS specifically says This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section.. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

And the usability of Amazon and iTunes has very quickly been confirmed at Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 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 AussieLegend? --Tenebrae (talk) 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Tenebrae: Wait, wouldn't that be the same thing as closing this RfC in favour of the Yes side? Mdrnpndr (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, in that the RfC talks about footnoting versus what some here considered OR use of a stopwatch. The compromise is footnoting but not using a stopwatch — using e-commerce citations instead. AussieLegend, 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. --Tenebrae (talk) 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. Mdrnpndr (talk) 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. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:AussieLegend: 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.) Mdrnpndr (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Mdrnpndr. None of this RfC discussion has any bearing on WP:VERIFY. Aussie seems to suggest that WP:VERIFY 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. WP:FILM 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. --Tenebrae (talk) 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. WP:V 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Running times require citation at WP:FILM. 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.--Tenebrae (talk) 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason WP:FILM cites running time is absolutely central to this discussion: It's because that Project is following Misplaced Pages policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 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, WP:FILM is completely irrelevant to the discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry User:AussieLegend, the "status quo", if there is one, must be WP:V per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:V 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. Mdrnpndr (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Mdrnpndr. Without citation, anybody can give any number they want to whatsoever. WP:VERIFY 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 WP:VERIFY.--Tenebrae (talk) 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? --AussieLegend (✉) 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. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please show:

1. Where WP:V requires that everything be cited;
2. How the status quo is WP:V

If you cannot, it's most definitely wrong. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness' sake. Here: Verbatim from WP:VERIFY — boldface on the original page.

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. --Tenebrae (talk) 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:V says 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. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Approximations are inherently "likely to be challenged". Mdrnpndr (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"WP:V 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. --Tenebrae (talk) 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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. Mdrnpndr (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Approximations are inherently "likely to be challenged"." And yet, I don't think I've ever seen {{citation needed}} in the |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'". --AussieLegend (✉) 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? --Tenebrae (talk) 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. Mdrnpndr (talk) 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 WP:FILMs 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.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, User:AussieLegend, 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 WP:FILM says. Mdrnpndr (talk) 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"I have never seen such resistance to supplying citations." Well put... well put indeed! Mdrnpndr (talk) 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 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 {{citation needed}} is a formal process. As such RfC doesn't have the same weight as adding {{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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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 TV infobox require a citation to verify them...?" 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.--Tenebrae (talk) 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 sea of blue. Trivial claims do not need citations. --AussieLegend (✉) 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 sea of blue is deliberate smokescreening. --Tenebrae (talk) 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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. --Tenebrae (talk) 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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 Two and a Half Men and found episode lengths to vary between just over 19 minutes to over 23 minutes, which is why the instructions for {{Infobox television}}'s runtime 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 primary sources and timing the episodes is permitted per WP:CALC. 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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. --Tenebrae (talk) 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. --Tenebrae (talk) 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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.--Tenebrae (talk) 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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. --Tenebrae (talk) 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? Mdrnpndr (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

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 outing 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. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Username, not real name... Mdrnpndr (talk) 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.--Tenebrae (talk) 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. Mdrnpndr (talk) 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. --Tenebrae (talk) 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 vertifiable but only require a citation if they are "challenged or likely to be challenged". —sroc 💬 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.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 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. LADY LOTUS • TALK 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. REVUpminster (talk) 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? --Tenebrae (talk) 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. Geraldo Perez (talk) 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. --Tenebrae (talk) 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 don't seem to be getting, WP:V does NOT require that everything be cited. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That's just like, your opinion, man... Mdrnpndr (talk) 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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 The Big Lebowski. I don't know, but I suspect Mdrnpndr was simply injecting a lighthearted note into the proceedings. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've never seen that TV series. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:AussieLegend: 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... Mdrnpndr (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, you missed the subtle point that Tenebrae thought you were quoting a film, in a TV discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 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. Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(See humor essay Misplaced Pages:Sarcasm is really helpful) The actual policy is what WP:V states: "...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 "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. Geraldo Perez (talk) 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. Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur. Every editor here saying Yes to the RfC is challenging all uncited runtimes in the Project. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The wording used in WP:V 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 {{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. Geraldo Perez (talk) 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? Mdrnpndr (talk) 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. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a rather bizarre position given that approximations are inherently less easily verifiable than precise measurements. Mdrnpndr (talk) 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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. --Tenebrae (talk) 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. Geraldo Perez (talk) 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. --Tenebrae (talk) 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". Geraldo Perez (talk) 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.--Tenebrae (talk) 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. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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. --Tenebrae (talk) 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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." --Tenebrae (talk) 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, 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 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

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 Newspeak: 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 original research and demand that the rest of us take your word for it. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2015 (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". --AussieLegend (✉) 07:06, 16 March 2015 (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. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Section break with question

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.

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"? --Tenebrae (talk) 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?? REVUpminster (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2015 (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. 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 Template talk:Infobox television, 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

And there are four editors in this RfC who say Yes to requiring a citation.

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.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Of the four editors that you mention, one said If the run times are approximate (e.g., half-hour including advertisements), this is unlikely to be disputed; they need to be vertifiable but only require a citation if they are "challenged or likely to be challenged", while another said 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 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:04, 17 March 2015 (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.

And I don't even know why you're arguing against providing citations since you yourself said: "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. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

GA reviewer requested

In November 2014 I nominated "Clown in the Dumps" 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. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Cast and characters information

I do not particularity agree with the way MOS:TVCAST 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 King of Queens the current format doesn't work at all, as Lisa Rieffel is in 5 episodes she is never mentioned again but some what gets named the third main character.

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

This is how i feel it should be listed

• 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

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 JohnGormleyJG (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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 JohnGormleyJG (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2015 (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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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. JohnGormleyJG (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is one of the reasons why MOS:TVCAST 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. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Show genres and sources

I've noticed that genre info, especially in infoboxes, is largely unsourced. I know 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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 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. Dcbanners (talk) 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... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 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 Template:Infobox_television/doc and List_of_genres#Film_and_television_genres, but yes, I agree that if they are specific genres or subgenres they require citation if not explained in the article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 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. Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2015 (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. Mdrnpndr (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Babylon 5 walled garden

I love the TV show Babylon 5 - 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 Index of Babylon 5 articles for the absurd number of Babylon 5 in-universe articles. I have prodded a few and boldly redirected others and a lot of the ones listed here don't actually go to separate articles - they are (correctly) redirects to something like Civilizations in Babylon 5. 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. --B (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutral discussion notice

This is a neutral notice to request editors to join the discussion regarding potential WP:SPECULATION material on Constantine (TV series). Discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Category needed?

With the recent helicopter crash in Argentina, 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 Category:Reality TV deaths? Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2015 (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. Jsemmel (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Clem

Hi, I have just created Clem, 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 this page on the French wikipedia? Thanks in advance. --MirandaKeurr (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Mind Meld

The article about Mind Meld, a film about William Shatner's and Leonard Nimoy's experiences in the Star Trek television series, has an ongoing featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed