Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Amount of episodes required before split into episode list?

How many episodes does a series need to have before an episode list can be split into its own page? I've had the list of SheZow episodes episodes merged into the main article by CAWylie a while ago on the grounds that the main article was too short, but in my opinion this only makes it look worse. It lists 52 segments (of 26 episodes) individually, which makes for quite a long list. Not to mention we have featured episode lists like the list of Awake episodes which only consists of a season of twelve episodes. What's the limit here? ₂₃W (talk · stalk) 01:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything codified, nor do I think there's been a consensus discussion I can point to. My personal take is that anything more than a season's worth should be broken off, anything a season or less can be integrated into the main article. But that's just my three cents. — fourthords | =Λ= | 01:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The SheZow segments can be combined into episodes with "SegmentA/ SegmentB" titles, as both were aired as part of the same episode. If episode summaries are planned for each segment, then consider splitting them off again. If they're left to be a list, then it might be okay to keep in the main article. Splitting by season is usually for 80+ episodes per MOS:TV -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot speak for what some editors have done in other pages, but it's a combination of things. WP:MOSTV doesn't generally say when to create a LoE page, but it does address breaking those out further. You should generally follow WP:SIZE. As there is no point in splitting a table of episodes if the main page is not large enough to justify the split in the first place. Otherwise, you're merely gutting one partially fleshed out article and splitting it into 2 smaller articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

SheZow topic six months ago. If you look at the size of Awake's main article vs. SheZow's, you will see why I merged it back. If Awake's episode list page was just a list of titles, I would merge it, too. — Wyliepedia 01:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

MSN TV has a new design

FYI to all: MSN has a new design, and existing references like http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/nicky-ricky-dicky-and-dawn/?ipp=40 at Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn may not work any longer. Gaak! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Try http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/series/nicky-ricky-dicky-and-dawn/seasons-episodes/BBuYtC instead. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks GP. I'm not so much concerned about one reference though, rather how we now have numerous articles with non-functional references. Also, a lot of info seems to be missing from the new site. Note that there's only one episode at NRD&D when there used to be 4. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Numerous is an understatement. I just found at least 500 broken links. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I figured it wuz gonna be bad. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Order of "Starring" in the TV Infobox when new cast members are added.

Could I get a few opinions about the order of the stars in TV series infobox at Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#Starring_order_in_Infobox. The statement that: "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show" seems clear to me, but one editor doesn't want to add the new people at the end. I think the policy should be adhered to for consistency unless there is justification and a consensus to change.AbramTerger (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on at that article but neither the infobox or the cast section is organised per the MOS or the instructions for {{Infobox television}}. I've made appropriate comment in the discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Addams Family (TV series)#Requested move

Page move request is still ongoing. If you like, you can relist the discussion; see WP:RM#Relisting for instructions. --George Ho (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of Sailor Moon episodes (season 1)

Page move proposal is discussed; join in. --George Ho (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Free money!

No, not really. There is a content dispute at List of The Big Bang Theory characters. Unfortunately, the page doesn't seem to have a lot of active editors so I'm seeking wider input. The relevant discussion is at Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters#Content dispute - October 2014. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't get in the habit of crying wolf on talk pages. Also, just contacting Talk:The Big Bang Theory might have been sufficient or that and a normal notice. In the last 90 days, the readership has been over 7.5 times higher for the main article. I would bet that the number of watchers and active editors has a similare multiple.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

just checked to see that the watcher ratio is 5.1:1 (610:120).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Crying wolf? Huh? Despite the number of watchers and editors, discussions often don't attract participants, which is why posting in more than one place is the norm. We should always try to involve as many members of the community as possible and there are experienced editors who watch this page but not every TV article. Quoting ratios and other statistics is all well and good but you need to be practical. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Posting here is not so bad, but there is no reason to title the section "Free money!".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I was trying for a little humour. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

How about trying for a little humility? (--like the phrase "I'm sorry" or "Pardon me".) Also, if I might add, it's preferable (to me anyway) not to make a whole paragraph in small type. It makes it too hard to read. Just a little constructive criticism. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Where is the paragraph in small type? Are you sure your browser settings are correct? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's the quoted paragraph that comes after "The discussion copied from FleetCommand's talk page follows:". Not that it's wrong; I was just letting you know that it's harder to read for some people. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You can blame another editor for that. She decided it should be formatted that way.[1] That said, it looks fine to me. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOX animated universe

Some of you might be interested in weighing in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOX animated universe. Flyer22 (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Redundant cast list vandal

Hey all, just a heads-up that I've had some run-ins with a now indeffed user, Avenger2015 who keeps adding unsourced and redundant cast information in articles typically related to children's television. Typically if a main article has a list of characters, or even a unique LoC article, the user will (usually over the course of one or two dozen consecutive edits) add a litany of names/roles. The lists are indiscriminate and often include presumably non-notable roles like Raccoon #4 or Man #2. So if you see cast lists pop up, you might want to take a look to see if there is already a character list. Here are 23 sample edits from Avenger2015. 16 edits from IP 98.24.156.14 and 17 edits from new user Speedball1988, whom I suspect of being a sock of Avenger. The new user repeats the same edit summary in each of his edit, which is a new affect. The user almost never speaks. The first time Avenger spoke was after his third trip to ANI. My hypothesis is that this is another incarnation of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Voice Cast Vandal. If you notice any new socks, the SPI report is at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Avenger2015. Danke, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for the heads-up. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sock has been confirmed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG comments subpages cleanup

Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Television articles that would be affected by this action are these:

• Tara Strong

If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Television's use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Appropriate category?

I recently created Category:Television episodes in multiple parts for... episodes that are in multiple parts, but I'm not sure if this was appropriate or not anymore. Would it be helpful to anyone to have this? ₂₃W (talk · stalk · pend) 00:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone? ₂₃W (talk · stalk · pend) 00:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I like the concept, but thinking of its execution, if one was to go to that category, how would they know which episodes are the connected ones, especially if titles are different across each of the episodes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters

Hi,

Could someone from Wikiproject Television take a look at this edit and see if the sources cited are OK and if this type of information is something typically added to article's like this. As I posted at Talk:List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters#Gareth if cited by third party reliable sources then it's probably OK; One of the sources, however, appears to be from an interviews so I'm not sure if that's a problem per WP:PRIMARY. Also, I am a little concerned by the wording "It is rumored ..." even if it's cited. Anyway, I don't have lots of experience with these types of articles and since it's listed as being under this project, I thought I'd ask for feedback here. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the "rumored" language either. Especially not here where clearly does not appear to be a rumor. I'm not sure why Anon went with this language instead of saying "Andrew West has stated that the character Gareth is based on Chris the hunter from the comic series." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree Cyphoidbomb. The wording has been cleaned up a bit with this edit , but it still seems like possible synthesis. I think your idea eliminates that since the source being cited is from an interview, so the article should simply state what was said in that interview. Just my take on things. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Real Housewives timelines of housewives

Earlier last week, I had redone the timelines of housewives for each of The Real Housewives articles in a style that I thought was more clear and visually appealing that the original version. I had been reverted a couple times before I supposedly came to a compromise with another editor who was working on the tables, although they unexpectedly went back and reverted the tables to the original versions again. Instead of reverting them myself and running the risk of an edit war, I would like to reach a consensus here as to which style is preferable: WikiRedactor (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The original (and now current) versions

• Orange County
• New York City
• Atlanta
• New Jersey
• Beverly Hills
• Miami

My versions

• Orange County
• New York City
• Atlanta
• New Jersey
• Beverly Hills
• Miami
• Per WP:DTT, those empty cells are going to need some text or unique symbols. I'd say yours looks better though, from a design standpoint. ₂₃W (talk · stalk · pend) 22:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• New version. I was summoned by a bot. I agree that the new version looks better. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• I have to go with a combination of both. As 23W pointed out, the empty cells need labels. Per WP:COLOR, color should not be the only method used to convey information. {{CMain}}, {{CRecurring}} and {{CGuest}} can be used to simplify creation of cells with labels. The table needs row and column scopes as well, per MOS:DTT. With proper text labelling, there's no need for a separate key. I don't see the need to split recurring into current and former. The table makes that redundant. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As an example of what is needed, I've made these changes to The Real Housewives of Orange County. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

A little bit of background here, at least as far as I've been able to determine. It seems that WikiRedactor has been working on the articles for some time, and had updated the tables periodically, but there came a time when he had a minor dispute with Mgaisser123 over the tables. They had a discussion and came to an agreement. However, since August 2014 Acpurdy has been reverting attempts to change the tables,[2] and he hasn't been involved in the discussions. He's continued to revert, right up until today.[3] I've finally managed to engage him in discussion and his rationale is essentially "because it is the one that has been there the longest, for years".[4] Despite the outcome of the RfC, he seems to be a hurdle that needs to be overcome before any improved table can be implemented. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Inside No. 9/archive1

Any feedback would be appreciated! J Milburn (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

New article on viral video - From The Doctor to my son Thomas

• From The Doctor to my son Thomas

I've created a new article on viral video From The Doctor to my son Thomas.

Help or suggestions with additional secondary sources would be appreciated on the article's talk page, at Talk:From The Doctor to my son Thomas.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Son of the Bronx for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Son of the Bronx is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Son of the Bronx until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ₂₃W 00:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Original run for shows that get restarted

There is a discussion at talk:Futurama#Original run as to what should go in first_aired and last_aired for this show with a large time gap between some of the seasons. See also Category:Television series revived after cancellation for shows of a similar sort. This may impact the instructions at Template:Infobox television as the desire is to do something that goes against the existing instructions for attribute use. It may also lead to modifications of that template to incorporate the concept of large time gaps in the initial run. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

ToonZone - malware/virus?

Every time I click on a link to ToonZone's forum, (usually the forum component, but presumably some pages on the main site as well) my antivirus software (Avast) dings and warns "Threat detected". This has been going on for years. Anybody know anything about this? My thinking is that if ToonZone's forums are running malicious software, we probably shouldn't include them at Wikipedia for any reason, which might mean adding them to the blacklist. Here's an example: I've redacted the "Toonzone". www.(Redacted).net/forums/nicktoons-forum/229052-international-nickelodeon-thread-59.html. Also, I'm not sure where else to mention this--Village Pump Technical? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion forums are not reliable sources and shouldn't be included in external links per WP:ELNO #10. WP:ELNO #3 excludes sites "containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States" and says that such sites may be reported by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes in External links

Hello, WikiProject Television.

I looked at a few tv-series articles, and it seems that they generally have imdb under external links, but not RT. Is there any general reason I shouldn´t add RT as well? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that if a site is linked to as a reference within the article then it should not also be provided as an external link. IMDb generally wouldn't be linked within an article because, per WP:RS/IMDb, its reliability is often questionable. RT is more likely to be linked in the article content. DonIago (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to add to that, external links should only be used when they have info that is useful but cannot be added to Wiki articles because of Wiki content policies and guidelines. See WP:EL. RT has lots of good info but pretty much all of it probably already is in the article mostly as review info. IMDb has useful info that usually goes well-beyond what would be appropriate for a Wiki article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. What you say is not unreasonable, but what is RT adding to Constantine (film) that it doesn´t add to Constantine (TV series)? And they both use RT as reference. We seem to use it for films but not tv-series. Can one reason simply be that tv-shows on RT is fairly new? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Mostly because lots of editors don't consistently follow the guidelines for external links and not enough other editors care enough to remove links that don't add value. Generally if a link is added it is presumed by most that the person who added it believes it adds value and it will be left alone unless it is blatantly obvious that it doesn't. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. The value of RT as external link is (I guess) the easy access to a lot of reviews, since the other interesting bits (probably) are in the article already. Which is generally helpful for articles on movies and tv-series both. Not "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding" (that´s from WP:EL), but not "Links normally to be avoided" either. The advice in the essay Wikipedia:Review aggregators seem to say "may not be necessary, but not wrong as EL" when already a reference. So my view, in short, is that an RT-EL is helpful in both movie and tv-series articles (because of the reveiws, mostly), and it would not be wrong to add it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Need input re: removing duplicate cast/crew list

Hey all, so for a while I was dealing with a disruptive user, Avenger2015, who kept adding extensive cast lists that duplicated existing character lists. I mentioned him here a short while ago. He's resorted to sockpuppetry, which is disappointing. Anyhow, at Green Lantern: The Animated Series and Transformers: Animated (articles that Avenger and at least one of his suspected socks has edited at, I notice there is a list of characters, but there is also an extensive list of voice cast/additional voices. Now typically I would remove the additional voices, but the cast list was in the article first, and it is sourced. I'm not quite sure what I should do here. Delete the Characters list? That still leaves the problem that many of the additional voices may not be noteworthy, and thus has become an indiscriminate list. And frankly I find the "Character (portrayed by Actor) - Description" format more useful than a straight cast list. Thoughts appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• They're definitely an eyesore, and can be conveyed in the manner you've described. Trash 'em. ₂₃W 22:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, 23W. Just want to confirm which you're recommending I torch: the cast lists that are sourced or the character descriptions? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: The cast lists, as such information can be conveyed in the character descriptions, and if not, then the actor's appearance probably wasn't that notable to begin with. ₂₃W 03:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials

The naming and scope of "List of Doctor Who serials" is under discussion, see talk:List of Doctor Who serials -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:2015 television seasons

We've modified MOS:TV to indicate that adding future years in section headings is inappropriate, so do we think that adding season articles to Category:2015 television seasons is also inappropriate? As of right now there are 45 articles in the category despite not a single episode having aired in 2015. This seems inconsistent with what we've aimed at with WP:TVUPCOMING. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I am in agreement with removing the category, per TVUPCOMING on the same principle that an episode should air in the given year for the cat to be added. And as I've seen, the cats aren't generally added until the episodes air (which seems odd that there was so much hostility on the TVUPCOMING prose). So I think if we clarify/get it in writing, we should be good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm also in agreement. It wouldn't be abnormal for a show to be expected to air in the next year (for the second half of the season) and then get cancelled before it does.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That argument can be said for all of the shows already cancelled this season (ie A to Z and Manhattan Love Story). Should this wording be added to the TVUPCOMING section, or the "Categories" section? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in, but I believe this is a related question. What about Category:2015 television series debuts, which contains categories like Category: 2015 American television series debuts‎ and Category: 2015 British television programme debuts‎, etc.? There are currently 40 articles using these categories. Should these categories be empty until a series actually premieres? It seems to me that is how we did it in the past. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seems like typical premature editing. Everybody wants to get the scoop on everything, so they prematurely add stuff to categories that shouldn't exist yet. I wonder how WT:FILM deals with this stuff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As an FYI to Cyphoid's inquiry, Avengers: Age of Ultron has the cats Category:Upcoming films and Category:2015 films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Although some films do have that category added, we generally don't include the "2015 films" until they are actually released. I mean, especially not since anything could delay post-production of a film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Formatting changes to U.S. network television schedule lists

Currently, at lists like 2014–15 United States network television schedule#Cancellations/Series endings, there is no differentiation between previously ongoing series that happened to have ended in that season, new series that were cancelled the season in which they debuted, and series that were ordered and then pulled before they even aired. Boldfacing the titles of the cancelled new series would highlight those well, but I don't have an idea for the pre-broadcast cancellations. Thoughts? postdlf (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Tables again

Back in September I raised the issue of cast tables in articles. Today a new "threat" has appeared, excessively detailed, episode by episode breakdowns of "character appearances". These edits cover every main character in every episode that has aired of Two and a Half Men. I haven't seen these at any other article. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow. That seems excessive. Must've taken a long time to produce. What is the encyclopedic value to knowing who was or wasn't in an episode? Didn't we already discourage the use of "absent" trivia in articles? I remember that being a thing the kids were adding. Seems that the last time we discussed this, the attitude was the unless someone breaks their leg (I think Big Bang Theory might've been the article in question) and thus is absent for an extended period of time, knowing who is "absent" isn't of value. I would think the same argument applies for cataloging who is "present" in each episode. Also, doesn't this contravene WP:RAWDATA? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems harmless to me to have that summary info particularly with shows with large cast turnover. Lots of readers seem to value it, I see no strong policy reason to remove it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What value does this serve? Remove. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This type of stuff should be removed. It just becomes an indiscriminate collection of information, which is prohibited Geraldo.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The information is already in the article. This is just a summary presentation that makes it easier to access and understand. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

In the article where this was added there are text summaries of the characters as well as two different tables for main and recurring characters summarising season appearances. In the main series article, character descriptions include a prose season summary. How much summarising do we need? Imagine individual episode tables for a series like Law & Order, which had 456 episodes over 20 seasons. The mind boggles. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is already too much. ₂₃W 22:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Excessive for the exemplar article and hard check and maintain. I just don't like the idea of precluding this sort of presentation outright. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Market Watch

Does this topic adhere to WP:Notability? --George Ho (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Credit order

We should all be aware by now that the MOS says cast should be arranged in original credit order, but what is "original credit order"? For most series it should be obvious, actor A's name appears for a few seconds, then actor B, actor C and so on, so credit order is actor A, actor B, actor C. But what happens when two or more names appear at the same time on one screen? For example, the credits for a series that I watch has actor A and actor B appearing on the same screen with actor A appearing physically above actor A. Since we read from left to right and top to bottom, it would seem that actor A should be credited before actor B. Does this seem correct? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

When the credits for Shake It Up is shown one actor is bottom left, the other top right. The intent and also published information about the show give both Bella Thorne and Zendaya equal billing for that TV series and the intent is to credit them simultaneously as first billed. I put them in alphabetical order and added a hidden note reflecting that fact in the info box and explained in the talk page why. Normally when actors are equal billed they are listed alphabetically in sequential lists to head off who comes first in importance. This can be an issue when people want to reorder based on who is their favorite or personal evaluation of importance. I would have no problem with a normal reading order standard as long as this is consistently applied. I think alphabetical order is more the convention generally though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

About normal reading order, though. With two columns of text we generally read the first column first then the second so bottom in the left column would be before top in the right column. With paragraphs of text we read top first then next line. Normal reading order is still ambiguous depending on how the image is perceived. This ambiguity is why the credits are done that way. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Son of the Bronx a reliable source?

Is Son of the Bronx a reliable source? I have been using it to add ratings to articles. The WP:TVFAQ says that there is no consensus within the community if it's reliable or not. A pro is that it has a history of accuracy, and the data usually comes straight from Nielsen. The website has been referenced by other publications. A con is that it's on Blogspot, and the author isn't well known. Dcbanners (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The use of that anonymous blog as a reliable source is contentious and so I disagree with using it as a reference for all the reasons given in previous discussions. We should use sources that are indisputably reliable as references - there are strong arguments against using this one. I plan to continue to remove it as a reference whenever I see it used. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed on WP:RSN multiple times. While there's no clear consensus, it appears that there's enough support to use it with caution. The problem is that users like Geraldo Perez and Dcbanners remove it upon sight (and I used to as well) while others add it. I've tried (and failed) to get discussion on it. Can we get an RfC or something to settle this once and for all? I'm sick of dealing with this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Past discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_167#Son_of_the_Bronx, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_162#Son_of_the_Bronx, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_151#Son_of_the_Bronx, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_154#.22Son_of_the_Bronx.22_site EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Pragmatically, what I have been doing so far is ignoring it when it is the sole source of viewing data for an article and remove it when it is an outlier with the most other episodes in the article getting the data from unquestioned reliable sources. I mostly remove it when it is fresh but not when it has been in the article for a long time. Maybe we should just tag it with {{rs}} as plausible but not reliable and otherwise just leave it alone. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of {{rs}} makes sense and would be a good compromise here. That way users can take the source with a grain of salt. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I used to delete-on-sight too, but then I stopped and realized that he (Douglas Pucci, aka Son of the Bronx) has been cited by a myriad different sources for ratings info, such as TV by the Numbers, the Futon Critic, Dayton Daily News, Scripps Howard News Service, Soccer America, Yahoo! Sports, and Yardbarker. The fact that he is consistently used as a source by high-quality ratings outlets suggest to me that he is reliable and in many ways notable. Sure, he runs (or, rather, ran) a Blogspot, but that doesn't disqualify someone from being reliable. He's also the only source for ratings for many, many subjects.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I have stopped deleting Son of the Bronx references. He has been acknowledged by several, more famous sources, and the author works for TV Media Insights, which is owned by Cross-Media Works. I just wish it wasn't on Blogspot, because their blogs usually aren't reliable. Dcbanners (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Dcbanners, EvergreenFir, Gen. Quon, @Geraldo Perez: Interesting to note that Pucci has a another site at www.sonofthebronx.com, which is an almost complete mirror of his Blogger site. Perhaps we should replace all existing citations to his Blogger with this new one? ₂₃W 23:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hm... it's a WordPress site, but still looks better than the Blogger one. We could easily get a bot to change the URLs. Though I will point out the following quote at the bottom of the page: SonOfTheBronx.com does not vouch for the accuracy of any of its ratings content. Most audience numbers for televised events and programs have been compiled from data collected in the public domain, either from published press releases or other web sites. SonOfTheBronx.com does not claim any copyrights to these numbers. SonOfTheBronx.com would assertively urge any party or business not to make any decision based on any of the content mentioned on SonOfTheBronx.com. This kind of makes it not WP:RS... but then again he's just assembling data from actual WP:RS and that sounds like a legal disclaimer that it's not his own numbers and he can't be held responsible for them. Blarg... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'm pretty sure that's his way of covering himself. A few months ago, Blogger tried to shut down his site for "copy-right infringement". I'm not really sure why they did this (I mean, all he posts are data points), but I think he's just being careful.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion requested

For anyone who is interested, I have a question that I'd like some discussion about at Talk:Comcast SportsNet Houston#New article or re-direct?. Thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Secret Mountain Fort Awesome listed for peer review

I've listed the article Secret Mountain Fort Awesome for peer review to see how much progress is necessary in order for it to become a featured article. Any feedback is appreciated. The peer review can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Secret Mountain Fort Awesome/archive1. Thank you. ₂₃W 04:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Does pairing episodes make sense

There has been a dispute between Dcbanners and Chasbo123 on Phineas and Ferb (season 4) over if episodes should be paired. I don't think we should pair them because episodes are produced and aired individually; they're only paired to fill out a half-hour timeslot. It is confusing and misleading. It also makes no sense because the pairs air on different dates. If you look at most episode guides, they list each one individually. The episodes should be numbered individually by air date. The pairings made can also be considered original research. How about your opinions? Dcbanners (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If the episodes are airing on different dates, and are produced separately, I wouldn't pair them, but that's just me.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The only time we've generally paired episodes is when they are directly connected and aired together (back-to-back). Smallville had a couple of them (Absolute Justice).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd encourage other editors to step in at Phineas and Ferb (season 4). There's some edit-warring there and it looks like ther is some OR regarding the way episodes are being numbered. To put it politely, some more mature and knowledgeable editors would be a big help. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Rigby77181

I think we have an issue in need of addressing ASAP. This user is moving articles with apparently no discussion. Some are not terribly intuitive, and there are misspellings in others, etc. [5] Similar edits coming from this dude too, who expressed support of a proposed move by Rigby. My first instinct is that there could be socking going on. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been resolved. Rigby77181 is a confirmed sock of Mabel181, but John123521 is technically unrelated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC open - Phineas and Ferb episode pairing

Hi, there is a request for comment relevant to this WikiProject at Talk:Phineas and Ferb (season 4)#RfC - Pairing of episodes. There is a dispute about whether or not episodes should be paired, since reliable sources are inconsistent about the matter. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Need lead on category-adding vandal

Hey all, I'm trying to figure out who the possible sockmaster might be of this guy:

They typically add categories to articles that are not supported by article prose. They hop IPs a lot. The IPs don't leave edit summaries, otherwise I sort of feel they are related to the vandal I call "Marhc". (That vandal typically adds redlink cats and weird edit summaries like "(Marhc 2019)" or "(April 20015)".) Anyhow, the 108 IP guy has been at it for a while, and I was trying to get a lead as to who it might be related to. @Geraldo Perez:, @Smalljim:, @Bonusballs:, do you guys have any thoughts? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Verizon again? I had problems back in 2010/11 with an IP like this that I dubbed "The Verizon vandal™". It turned out that Clarify29 was the sockmaster. Good luck. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Commas, ampersands, writing teams, etc.

There's an IP user who's going through articles and adding commas before ampersands, like here as if he's going for an Oxford/serial comma, but this is problematic and I feel like I've seen people adding ampersands indiscriminately to a number of articles recently in place of ands or commas.[6] This is an issue because the Writer's Guild of America (WGA), which oversees most of the writer-related issues in mainstream live-action television in the US uses the word "and" to indicate two writers who have penned a script together, (or omits it entirely) but uses an ampersand (&) to indicate a writing team.[7] The Animation Guild, which has jurisdiction over union signatory shows in animation does the same thing.[8]. You can see how this is problematic if people are changing "and" to ampersands without reason, and if they're adding Oxford commas to break up the list. This is a pretty common convention in the US, although I'm not sure what the global attitude is. I feel like it's worth mentioning somewhere official. And any help I can get with trying to convince this kid to lay off the serial commas, I would appreciate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(sigh)...If only I had looked at their talk page. I suspected this user of being Avenger2015 a couple of months ago. Anyhow, I still think we might consider talking about this ampersand issue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: It would probably require a lot of fact-checking to figure out which is which, and iirc IMDb and the like don't list writing teams for credits. I dunno, that standard never made sense to me—seems too jargony, I think we should just stick to either one. ₂₃W 05:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [supposed to be on break]

The Powerpuff Girls

Another Wikipedian insists on having the article on The Powerpuff Girls at a higher importance than it needs to be for certain projects, including this one; see this edit: [9] I object to this because this show was a fad. A fad is a show or other material good or such that was very popular for a very brief period, as is the case with The Powerpuff Girls show. The show seems to have been very popular, mostly in the year 2000, but not so much after that. The feature film based on the series, released in 2002, did poorly, thus supporting the fact that this was a fad. Fads deserve to be of lesser importance than those things that have more lasting power, such as shows like SpongeBob SquarePants and Scooby-Doo. Classicalfan626 (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have already explained the reasoning here: Talk:The Powerpuff Girls#Ratings the notion that the show was a fad is the editor's opinion that is not supported by any WP:RS. We have sources saying that the show ranked as #1 when it comes to shows produced by CN [10] in my view that is high importance. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Listings

The context is List_of_programs_broadcast_by_WGN_America, which was reported to ANI a while ago because there was a single active editor fighting with IPs to keep unsourced speculation out of the article. Why do we have such articles? They're not encyclopedic, WGN has a website for anyone who is interested, and it's not clear to me there are enough volunteers to maintain it to Wikipedia standards. Seems like it would be better just to delete it. (Note: I found a prior discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_5#Current_primetime_television_schedules). NE Ent 13:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent I am absolutely not a fan of the "List of programs broadcast by..." articles. We have templates and categories that effectively do the same job of listing all of the crap broadcast on each of these networks, and these broadcast articles are major sources of vandal headaches, typically involving subtle numerical vandalism (changing broadcast year ranges, adjusting wikilinks, hoax sequels etc.) The kids' network lists (Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Disney, Disney XD, etc) are updated constantly, with crap moving around so often that I've given up on any real anti-vandal work, unless it's something glaringly obvious like a claim that Disney is airing the series Captain Assclown and the Neverland Pirates. I find it unrealistic to try to manage the prolific edits and vet all of the changes the kids make. A prime example here, an IP asserts that acquired series Fort Boyard ran on Disney XD not from 2011-2012, but from 2011-2013 instead. How can I verify that lateral unsourced change? I have no faith it was correct before, and no faith it is correct afterward, but I will revert it because it's an unsourced numerical change. Even if the articles remain, I think the date ranges should go. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Saturday prime time television in the United States

I started this draft two years ago, but I have not been able to continue editing it for two years. Can anyone help me determine notability of this topic and expand the article? --George Ho (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed category renaming

FYI: A discussion to rename Category:Cartoon Network programs to Category:Cartoon Network original programs can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 25#Category:Cartoon Network programs Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the category was renamed. We could still use some input to determine the scope of this category. Should Cartoon Network original programs include all original programming shown internationally, or should it be limited to original programming shown on the main CN network in the US/North America? (Or wherever the original network airs). See Category talk:Cartoon Network original programs to weigh in. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

StewieBaby05

StewieBaby05 has some chronic problems. He came to my attention today after he split List of Malcolm in the Middle episodes into separate seasons without discussion, without edit summary, and without copyright attribution to the original editors. It appears as if he has been doing this same kind of thing for quite some time. His use of talk pages, always rather sparing, has become even less. I counted two uses in the past 1000 edits, and both were apologies for doing something wrong. I suggest that his latest work be reverted, and that his entire contribution history be scrutinized for copyright violations (and repaired or undone, see WP:Copying within Wikipedia) and perhaps someone would like to mentor him if he is willing to discuss that. Elizium23 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we do this with most season lists please? I think it's useless for readers to have episode lists split into seasonal articles that only have a couple dozen episodes or so. ₂₃W 23:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I also think that it would be a good idea to help him; I had a knee-jerk reaction and rollbacked him when I saw over 100,000 bytes being removed without an edit summary. I don't think his work, as well-meaning as it may be, is as useful to the project as it could be if he doesn't at least explain what he's doing. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 23:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There have been numerous attempts to discuss this with StewieBaby05. According to his talk page history my first attempt was in March 2013.[11] He has been generally unresponsive and refuses to comply with requests like this. He seems infatuated with splitting articles but not with doing it properly. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I see the points raised about his not using an edit summary, but copyright infringement? Uh what? Splitting large episode lists into season pages and transcluding the episode tables back to the list of epiosdes page is common practice and does not tread in any copyright/attribution issues. StewieBaby was right to want to split the list (over 100kb should be split per WP:SIZESPLIT), but the execution was definitely off. I do support splitting List of Malcolm in the Middle episodes into season pages if there is enough production/reception information to go with the episode tables. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is a copyright issue. WP:PROSPLIT outlines the procedure for splitting an article. Wikipedia's licensing requirements require that content contributors receive attribution. It's a copyright issue not to provide appropriate attribution and StewieBaby never does this. You've misunderstood WP:SIZESPLIT. It refers to readable prose size, not the file size. Readable prose is defined in Wikipedia:Article size as 'the amount of viewable text in the main sections of the article, not including tables, lists, or footer sections". Strictly speaking, List of Malcolm in the Middle episodes only contains 129 bytes of readable prose. Even using a very loose definition of readable prose, which includes all of the episode summaries, there is only 16kB of readable prose in the article. This is well below the 40kB "Length alone does not justify division" guideline. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It is true I have not followed StewieBaby's edits- I was commenting purely on splitting up List of Malcolm in the Middle episodes on the merits. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Multiple pages fully applies in this case. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Something definitely needs to be done. I'm pretty familiar with his editing history and his habits, and they don't seem to have changed at all. His article creation history needs to be looked at. He's created hundreds of unnecessary TV season articles, that contain only episode lists, and if anything else, basic DVD and time slot information, nothing else, which doesn't suffice to have standalone articles. He creates these articles, then doesn't touch them again (or in any significant way), with seemingly no interest in expanding them in any way. Just look at The Dick Van Dyke Show (season 1), Newhart (season 1), or The Mary Tyler Moore Show (season 1), all created more than a year and a half ago, with no significant expansion or edits since then. I'll gladly help out with redirecting and/or merging of this content back to episode list pages. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I requested a copyright investigation at WP:CCI. Perhaps this will get the attention he needs. Elizium23 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Are all of these truly unnecessary? This isn't an attempt to make episode articles, and the season articles contain details that a standard list can't. If WP:Copyvio is the only issue, why not just correct that? --------User:DanTD (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of the season articles contain nothing more than was in the main episode list. Often the only additional information in the season articles is the infobox and I really mean only. The articles consist of the infobox, a single sentence lead, a heading titled "Episodes" and the episode table. There are no references, no references section, not even any categories. Dick Van Dyke Show (season 1) was one of the more advanced articles as it included a category and one note. This type of article shouldn't exist. So no, WP:Copyvio isn't the only issue and, even if it were, Stewie created over 400 articles and adding attribution to all of those articles, plus the articles from which they were split, is a massive task that shouldn't be left up to other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've done a few merges/redirects of his articles, but it does get tiresome after awhile. He has gone ahead a done quite a few himself, which is great, but there's still tons left. Though his chronic editing habits still exist, besides creating the unnecessary season articles, he created dozens of "List of [TV series] writers" articles over a year ago, with most of them being deleted or redirected, and has since commented on them being mistakes and "apologizing" for them (from March 2013 and a more recent comment from last month). But, just recently, he has continued to make these similar edits: [12][13][14]. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Slednecks

Would it be OK to add {{WikiProject Television}} to this article? Also, this seems article seems to have been added straight to main space and has not been reviewed yet. In fact, the article's creator removed the {{unreviewed}} that was added when the article was created with this edit . So, I was wondering if someone with more experience in TV articles than myself might take a look closer look at this. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of UniversiTV for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UniversiTV is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UniversiTV until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theenjay36 (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

LoE pages - no infobox - why?

I was asked by a casual Wikipedia reader why we don't use infoboxes on LoE pages. (That's not exactly what the person asked but it's a close translation from "non-Wikipedian". ) For the life of me I couldn't think of a reason why. Of course, infoboxes are not mandatory, but we use them in main and season articles, as well as individual character articles, so why not on the LoE page? Any thoughts? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the key is "individual". The main article is that, a main article with a "main infobox". Seasons have "season" infoboxes, and individual character/episode pages have individual boxes for them. The LOE is really an aggregate page, and there isn't a real reason to have an infobox. Unless you're just going to duplicate what is over at the main page, which isn't really necessary. The whole point of an infobox is to highlight the key points from the page, and an LoE page is really just a highlighted page to begin with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Home media tables

DVD regions

Blu-ray regions

One of the things that convinced me that home media shouldn't be in series overview tables was the inclusion of Blu-ray information. MOS:TV#DVD and Blu-ray releases says "The inclusion of DVD and Blu-ray releases in episode lists is not a requirement but up to editor preference. If such releases are included, they should include all primary release dates (i.e. Region 1, Region 2, and Region 4 DVD codes and A, B, and C for Blu-ray)." This results in a very wide table that, with the the information that we normally include in series overview tables, is too wide for the average page. Even without the series overview content, home media tables are still very wide. Some editors try to avoid this by combining the regions (i.e. regions 1/A, 2/B, 4/C) but this is inappropriate as the regions are not identical. For example, DVD region 1 is essentially the US and Canada, while Blu-ray region A includes all of South America, which is in DVD region 4. Blu-ray regions require separate columns but that makes the table very messy. Examples of both the incorrectly combined table layout and a "correctly formatted" table that is also MOS:ACCESS/MOS:DTT and MOS:BOLD compliant may be seen here. The problem is, the compliant table looks horrible, because of the need to manipulate region column widths so as to include the "additional info" column. I was wondering if we should perhaps bang our heads together and come up with a standardised table format that looks better while still complying with MOS:ACCESS/MOS:DTT, MOS:BOLD, MOS:TV etc. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Tables are my weakness, but I will add my peanut gallery commentary as needed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm for it. Now, I know that a lot of tables do not have a single column for Additional notes, but do it for each release. I changed Arrow and Smallville to get rid of that because it just breeds a lot of "deleted scenes", "bloopers" being listed every time. Do we want to get rid of that entirely from the table?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In a LoE article I don't feel that we need to get into specifics about the home media. If seasons are released individually then they can be included in the season articles, if they exist, with additional information. If there's sufficient justification for including information about home media then maybe a "List of <foo> home video releases" article can be created but Wikipedia isn't a DVD catalogue. Listing just the release dates in the LoE is more than sufficient. @Cyphoidbomb: Based on what I've seen, tables are the weakness of most editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

MDY dates?

Really quick: Should Disney Channel (Asia) have MDY dates or DMY dates? Disney is an American subject, so I'm inclined to think MDY (December 16, 2014) is the right format for dates, however the article is about Disney Asia, so I could also understand a counter-argument for DMY dates (16 December 2014) since Asia formats numbers differently. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the stronger argument is that the formatting that applies to Asia is appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Asia uses YMD but some countries such as Indonesia use DMY. If its audience is in Japan or China, as with anime/manga, prefer MDY since that's closer to YMD. See Date_format_by_country. Since Disney Channel Asia focuses on Southeast Asia then DMY would be fine. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The article appears to have been stable for seven years now with MDY. WP:DATERET suggests that the articke should retain its date format unless there are strong national ties to a specific English speaking country that would require a change. In this case, most of Asia uses YMD, which is not one of the two acceptable formats to use on Wikipedia. In this case, the English speaking country that has the strongest tie to this subject is the United States. That fact, plus DATERET, would lead me to believe that the article should retain the MDY format. JOJ ^Hutton 20:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually MDY and DMY should be dropped in favor of a non-ambiguous YMD format such as ISO 8601. This would allow for uniformity across the whole site. If YMD can be used in templates, why not in the articles? But then most of the highly emotive and rigid editors here could never truly embrace any thing logical like that. helmboy 21:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well YMD is currently not one of the acceptable formats for the body of an article.JOJ ^Hutton 22:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well it should be to end the debates between the Christian inspired DMY and the newspaper derived MDY. helmboy 00:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Are the personal attacks necessary, Helmboy? In spite of differences of opinion, we typically strive for civil commentary. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack, I was just generalizing about my experiences with certain rigid editors. helmboy 00:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I disagree with using YMD because this is the English Wikipedia and we should adhere to the formats most commonly used in English language sources. Now if that makes me rigid, then I guess I'm rigid. JOJ ^Hutton 01:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I remember, Helmboy, you've participated in one discussion here ten months ago and the community didn't see things your way. Most people learn to get over that without seeing fit to sling passive-aggressive barbs in perpetuity. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Rounding audience numbers

Should we round the audience numbers to the nearest hundredth? I noticed that the majority of series articles show the first three numbers of data. I was thinking about making the kid shows like that too. How about your opinions? Dcbanners (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I am for consistency across the various articles about TV shows, and their episode lists, regarding ratings (audience numbers). Dcbanners, you mention that a majority of TV shows' episode lists use hundredths in reporting these numbers, and in particular (in an edit summary on the Girl Meets World page) broadcast TV shows and those not geared toward younger audiences. You will have to forgive me as I don't watch much broadcast TV, and have not seen the episode lists for most recent shows airing on broadcast TV. (I was, however, aware for a couple of months that ABC's "The Middle" uses hundredths in reporting the ratings, but I haven't done any thorough run of shows on broadcast TV to confirm what you're observing.) If, indeed, the ratings are being reported in hundredths across these shows, why is it being shown in tenths across programs mainly on cable and geared toward children and teens, like with all the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon programs? As I've been focused mainly on Disney and Nickelodeon for the majority of the time I've been a registered Wikipedia editor, I definitely have blinders on and need to take them off. So, if many episode lists for broadcast TV and non-children's programs are reporting their ratings in hundredths, I see no reason why that can't be extended to the rest of the TV shows, though the problem will be with consensus for the affected articles, and it would be a major undertaking to get the other shows in line (reporting the ratings in hundredths). MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a set determination and it should be based on the community of editors for a particular page (or set of pages). You may find that some sources don't have a hundredth place, and to assume it's zero would be an assumption with fallacy. Let the individual page(s) determine what it should be. It isn't worth a battle across the entirety of TV articles. That said, most already use the "X.XX" setup anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Earlier this year there was a discussion at WikiProject Film about how to treat budget and gross totals in the infobox. MOS:LARGENUM seemed to be the prevailing guideline, and I believe the consensus was to round large numbers to the nearest tenth. Although it personally took my stupid-ass a while to understand the cryptic language in the guideline, what I eventually understood was that if the margin of error (or "uncertainty information") isn't known, it's best to round broadly. So I definitely don't think thousandths are necessary, but I wonder if even hundredths are necessary, or if they conform with MOS:LARGENUM. I respectfully disagree with Bignole that the determination for decimals should be left to the individual articles or group of articles because we already have a general guideline that attempts to bring consistency to these large values, and our MOS should probably reflect that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the difference here is that you're talking about data that is presented in large figures (e.g., $4,556,434 to 4.5 million), whereas with ratings they are often already presented in smaller figures (e.g., 3.55 million viewers). The MOS doesn't restrict how many decimals to use either. In the case of TV ratings, it's unnecessary to round again when they are already rounded and broken down into smaller figures. If the figure was more detailed, as film box office or budgets are, then I would agree. That isn't the case with the majority of TV ratings, as you always find them with the note "(in millions)" and then subsequently listed with the hundredth spot included. This isn't the case all the time, and some sources will only include a tenth spot, but if the hundredth is there then it should be included if editors so choose. So long as it is consistent across the page, there isn't a problem. Given that there isn't a glaring issues across TV articles when one page does 1 decimal and another does 2, I don't believe that it needs to be micromanaged in the TVMOS guide.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we should convert the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon ratings to the hundredths digit. Almost all episode lists show this data. I was thinking so we can keep it consistent throughout the TV WikiProject. I don't see a policy for ratings numbers; so I think users should be making consensus on the respective talk pages. Dcbanners (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

How are the ratings determined? Is every viewer counted, as in a census? If not then the ratings are a statistical "guess" so a single decimal place is all that is really needed. If every viewer is counted then hundredths might be justified. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously can't be a census but sample size might be enough to justify the precision given in the ultimate source. Without knowing the methodology can't know for sure but also can't say they are wrong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've had no success finding the sample size, which is why I asked. I know that in Australia ratings mean absolutely nothing because the sample size is so small and geographically limited (more than 40% of Australia is not represented) so I had to wonder how the US does it. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Only info seems to be at Nielsen ratings which is ultimate source of viewing numbers. I'm dubious as well that statistical accuracy of their methodology supports precision reported. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Bear in the Big Blue House episodes

Hey, anybody have a lead on reliable air dates for this series? There's an IP-hopping editor from Terre Haute who keeps changing the entirety of the air dates without references or explanation. They've been at it for months. Most of the usual sources, MSN, TVGuide, Zap, are completely useless. Can't even find anything at Epguides. The only remaining sources seem to be IMDb, TV.com, and Wikia, all of which are garbage, and TVSeriesFinale.com offers a crumb or two, but doesn't fill me with much hope, WP:RS-wise. I've even tried poking through old Google archived newspapers to see if I could drum up some info on episodes, but to no avail. Most of the TV grids tend to be for evening programming. Ideas? I slapped a "factual accuracy is in dispute" template on the article a while back. What should I do with the dates? Leave 'em? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of dubious edits by that IP range so don't trust anything he changes. For now the tag for disputed accuracy looks sufficient. Should probably get the page protected again to force people who want to change it to at least discuss where they get new info on talk page for an edit protected request. We should consider removing everything we can't verifyGeraldo Perez (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely thought about wiping out the air dates, since the stuff there now is no more trustworthy than the stuff from the silent IP. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

As creator of the episode list article, I don't have a problem with removing the airdates. They were simply transposed when page was created, then later...well, you know. The only thing I have found even mentioning any dates is when the individual seasons start on Metacritic (link starts at season 1), but there is no episode-specific nor end dates. TV Guide.com is also very sparse. — Wyliepedia 07:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinions needed

Nine months ago, {{Infobox Rome episode}} was nominated for deletion. Since that affected {{Infobox television episode}} I started a discussion here, which become moot after the TfD was closed as "no consensus". Infobox Rome episode has again been nominated, so some opinions on how to proceed would be appreciated at the TfD. The discussion may be found here. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Comedy-drama

Hey, if anyone could add Comedy-drama to their watchlist, I'd appreciate it. Although it's not a prolific problem, users keep coming by and adding examples to the list of notable comedy-dramas as if the purpose of the article is to list every comedy-drama under the sun. Had some problems with kids adding cartoons like Kung Fu Panda to the list and crap like that. It would be ideal if we could establish what the intended scope of the article is, because a list article it is not. Grf. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Added. I've always wondered why "Comedy-drama" is turned into "dramedy" by some. surely it should be "comma", or better still, "coma", which is what I feel like being in when I see these manords. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I've opened a discussion on the talk page hoping to arrive at some scope, since the list of examples has been the primary focus for random users over the last six months. I understand your objection to portmanteau, Aussie; sometimes they can be pretty fucktastic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Unseen characters

What constitutes an unseen character? In The Big Bang Theory, Mrs Wolowitz is clearly an unseen character. She interacts with other characters on numerous occasions but her face was never seen. However, other characters are not so obvious to some editors. Another character in the series has appeared in three episodes over 2 seasons, and was mentioned by name once or twice in 3 other seasons. Does this make him an unseen character. I would argue not, but another editor has a different opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

To me, an "unseen character" is one that is never seen. They're a disembodied voice. This would not include characters that are referenced, but never heard nor seen. Example being a show that routinely mentions a character's sibling, though they do not appear and are not even heard (ala Mrs. Wolowitz).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Niles Crane's wife Maris is another example. IMO someone who is seen onscreen, even if only once, should not be classified as unseen. MarnetteD|Talk 04:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This what I thought. However, another editor is attempting to add "unseen character" to the "Character appearance summary" table in List of The Big Bang Theory characters, arguing that the character is "unseen" in seasons 2, 6 & 7.[15]— Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieLegend (talk • contribs) 07:12, 2 January 2015‎

Roles can change during the course of a show. A character can start as unseen, become seen, and then go back to being unseen. What if the producers of Frazier would have elected to cast someone as Maris on the series finale? would that have made the character's role for all the previous episodes no longer "unseen"? Ricardo Santiago (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

No, they cannot go back and forth. They may not have been "seen" in an episode that they were referred to or referenced, but if they were seen before and seen again then they are a seen character. The definition of an "unseen" character is specifically that they are never seen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying that had the producers of Frazier chosen to cast someone for the role of Maris on the series finale, her prior role as an unseen character would no longer hold true? Ricardo Santiago (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You're trying to create an exception situation to prove your point. If you want to go letter of the law, then yes, it would negate her unseen status. The spirit of the law would say she was unseen with the exception of one single moment. Either way, that doesn't really sit with the president in BBT, because they were "unseen", then clearly seen, and as of right now are "unseen". This isn't a situation where they have always been unseen and then in one final moment at the end of the show you see them. That's more of a special circumstance than anything. In this case, we're talking about a character that was clearly cast and appeared multiple times. We don't make every other recurring character "unseen" just because they don't appear one particular season or another.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Normally when characters leave the show, they are gone, and not mentioned again. If they are mentioned, then I would contend that they become unseen. In the case of President Siebert on TBBT, the character was unseen, until it was decided later to cast the character, so my example above about Maris seems to suggest that you agree that until a character is cast it is treated as an unseen character, but (for whatever reason) you believe that once the character has cast then the character can never go back to unseen status. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not true at all. I can cite several shows where characters "leave" and then come back a couple seasons later. This is especially true for recurring guests. They are classified as "recurring" for a reason. If they were there all the time, then they would be series regulars. The president "may" have been an unseen character, but he isn't anymore. He may not be seen all the time, but he has been seen. He has a face. Thus, he cannot be un-seen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is what is meant by the word "never" in the first sentence of the definition for unseen characters: never directly observed by the audience. I interpret the word "never" as within the episode, as opposed to within the series. The "face" of a character can always change (i.e. portrayed by a different actor), hence I don't put too much stock in the fact that a character "has a face[,] thus cannot be un-seen".

Regardless, your argument sounds like all mention of a character prior to its first appearance can fairly be characterized as "unseen" and only after the first appearance the character "cannot be un-seen". Ricardo Santiago (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a problem with your interpretation. The definition of never is quite clear: "At no time; on no occasion; in no circumstance". The definition in unseen character says "they are continuing characters", which implies appearances in more than one episode. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Episode list

In case anyone has not noticed, new episodes in episode tables using {{Episode list}} are now displaying a space between the episode title and the reference:

Title
"Episode Title"

References

This is a breach of WP:REFPUNCT, which requires that references immediately follow punctuation. The change was caused by this edit to Module:Episode list, after a discussion by some people who I assume have never used {{Episode list}}. I admit to being more than a little frustrated by this, as the same thing happened back in 2012 to {{Episode list}} (The change was even made by the same editor).[16] The change has effectively made the Title field useless. When adding a new episode now, instead of typing this:

{{Episode list/sublist|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 19
|Title           = Episode Title
|RTitle          = <ref>episode reference</ref>
}}

it will be necesssary to type:

{{Episode list/sublist|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 19
|RTitle          = "Episode Title"<ref>episode reference</ref>
}}

This makes it overly complicated for inexperienced editors, even moreso when you consider that we normally remove references after episodes have aired by deleting the RTitle line. Now we can't be that quick. Instead the RTitle field will have to be renamed and the quotes removed. I've posted about this at Module talk:Episode list,[17] but others may need to become involved if we're to stop it happening again, and again.... --AussieLegend (✉) 09:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Series overview table / WP:TVOVERVIEW at List of Smallville episodes

Hi. My addition of a "series overview" table to List of Smallville episodes per WP:TVOVERVIEW has been met with objections. A neutral editor's take would be appreciated (and WP:TV is obviously directly related). The conversation can be found at Talk:List of Smallville episodes#Series overview table. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

QI

QI, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 20:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

OMM Line up

There is a discussion about former programs (or not) of One Magnificent Morning in whether one can assume by schedule if a program is no long in the line up thus a former program. Also, whether or nor Boomtron is a Reliable source. Spshu (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wonder Pets discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:Wonder Pets about whether or not to move the article to Wonder Pets!, which contains an exclamation mark. There are numerous similar articles, like Yo Gabba Gabba!, All Grown Up!, Go, Diego, Go! and Hey Arnold!. (Does Nickelodeon add exclamations to everything?) and there are other examples of non-TV-related articles like Wham!. (In Wham!, I notice that the exclamation appears in prose numerous times.) I think a lot of kids feel that the logo should be a determining factor, although WP:TITLETM says that independent sources should determine the title. What then are these independent sources? Do we use sites like TVGuide, which uses "Wonder Pets!" in their episode listings? Or do we care more about books, newspapers, etc? Tis not quite clear, but perhaps it should be. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• For me looking at the titlecard, the article should be Wonder Pets!. An example is The Persuaders!. As an aside Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) was followed by the remake Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) which agreed with the titlecard but an editor in their wisdom changed to Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) (2000s series). 19:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi REVUpminster, thanks for your note. WP:TITLETM gives an example of Invader ZIM as being correctly titled Invader Zim, though on the show's title card, the ZIM is stylized in in uppercase, or as ZiM, depending on one's interpretation. If we tend to ignore such stylizations, why the exclamations? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Template for Deletion?

I don't think this template (concerning the TV show that auditioned Dorothys for Lloyd Webber's production of The Wizard of Oz) does anything useful -- all the information in it are contained in the article about the show and in the relevant category. If others agree, can someone please nominate it for deletion and then let us know so that we can comment? Please also let the WP:MUSICALS project know. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Recruitment for Wikipedian Interviews

Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgrobison (talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

GA article discussion about Quote boxes

WP:GA article From The Doctor to my son Thomas had a couple quote boxes at time of promotion to GA quality.

Now there's a discussion about use of those quote boxes.

Please see discussion, at Talk:From_The_Doctor_to_my_son_Thomas#Quote_boxes.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ron Wear deletion discussion

1. Ron Wear
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Wear

Please see ongoing deletion discussion for Ron Wear, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Wear.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Naming of a miniseries article

I have a draft article I'm creating that is a known miniseries and I do not know how to disambiguate it (it does need one). Looking at Category:American television miniseries, I see a disparity between (TV miniseries) and (miniseries). Which one would be the better one to use? (FYI, the draft is for the Marvel The Defenders Netflix miniseries.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NCTV says just to use "(miniseries)". "(TV miniseries)" seems like unnecessary disambiguation. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. How did I completely miss that guideline? Thank you as always Aussie! That's what I will do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Genetic testing

So whos doing the testing for pbs or are the just pulling this stuff out of thin air? I would like to see more information on this because half the show is about genetics and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornersss (talk • contribs) 15:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A) What in the world are you talking about? and B) What does it have to do with this project? MarnetteD|Talk 15:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Cornersss I too am perplexed. No disrespect intended, but you should probably proofread your comments before clicking save to be sure that they make grammatical sense, and that you are providing enough information for other users to help you. I looked through your edit history to see if I could figure out what PBS article you are referring to, but I was unsuccessful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologize.I ended up on the wrong page and was just as confused. Cornersss (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

International broadcast

There is a dispute between me and Favre1fan93 about international broadcast on Agent Carter. Is it limited to only English-speaking countries? I added the Middle East and Southeast Asian broadcasts because they air it in English. Maybe changing WP:TVINTL to include all countries that air shows in English? Dcbanners (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This issue was discussed, at length, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television in late 2013. Essentially, Favre1fan93's position is what was agreed upon. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DC, the reason we don't include every country that is not English speaking is because it would ultimately be an never ending list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the non-English speaking countries have their own Wikipedia. Yes, it was aired in English, but the country itself is not an English speaking country.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What about Asian (Phillipines, Singapore, Malaysia) and Middle Eastern (UAE) countries that have English as an official language? Dcbanners (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Theoretically, if "English" is the primary language of the country, then yes. Not an official language, the primary language. Again, we're not an indiscriminate collection of information, so the random Middle Easter country (which btw, English is not the primary language there, it's a secondary language that is taught) that is primarily English may not be relevant. In the end, you're right that the MOS needs to be updated. It should say "where English is the primary language", not "English speaking countries", as many countries speak it even though it isn't their primary language.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this list sufficient to help guide the decisions? List of territorial entities where English is an official language I admit, I've added India, the Philippines, South Africa to some of these lists because someone once argued that these are English-speaking nations, which is what WP:TVINTL requires. If we mean "primary language", I propose we tweak TVINTL accordingly. Also I'm really bummed that Dcbanners was hit with a 72 hour block for edit-warring over this, considering it was based on a misinterpretation, and thus was easily-preventable. Dc, keep a cool head! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need to tweak the MOS to be "primary language". The list for "primary" is much smaller, and if we say "official" then, as you've provided, we're opening the door to an extremely long list that does not serve the readers. We're not here to list every single broadcast of a show (which is not the spirit of the MOS for international broadcastings).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The MOS should explicitly list the countries to be included and not depend on a fuzzy definitions of inclusion per primary, official, de facto, de jure usage. I too am bummed by the excessive 72 hour block on a valued contributor for basically trying to do the right thing and tripping over something that deserves a slap on the wrist. 24hrs is normal for this, WTF. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, I believe it was his second block for edit-warring. I agree with adding more specificity to the MOS. I pretty much always agree with adding more specificity to the MOS. So who do we care about? Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, the UK. Who else? The Caribbean? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "fuzzy definition" is accurate if you say only "primary" language. The countries kind of tell us if it is their primary language or not. "Official" isn't necessarily primary. I think if we get into the habit of going so specific that you say, "you can only use these ones", you're going to limit the page and create more problems and edit wars. This is because, by just saying "these countries" and not providing a rational reason, people that believe a particular country warrants inclusion are going to edit war over it. If you say, "just primary" then at least you have something to fall back on. You can point out that the country does not recognize "English" as the primary language.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the 5 major English-speaking countries only as there is likely to be universal acceptance for inclusion as both major and notable. There should be demonstrated a strong consensus for inclusion of other countries in the list and that discussion should be part of the MOS discussion, not part of each article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a slippery slope to go down, I cannot think of the last time I've seen any project regulate such specifics in articles like that. Film doesn't do it, and that is our closest medium (they are released in far more diverse markets as well). I'll be interested to see what others think (though, it would probably be best to have this discussion at the MOS than on the main project page).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Closest is MOS:Film#Release which basically says notable only. If we followed that we would only list broadcasts that had significant coverage in reliable third party sources with more than a directory listing for the broadcast section. That type of guideline I could get behind and it would significantly reduce the size of the International broadcast section if followed. That would also mean that whether or not the broadcast was in an English speaking country becomes irrelevant if there is significant coverage to support notability. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I agree with that approach, but it is certainly better than arbitrarily identifying a select few countries to include. It would definitely affect the international broadcast section, by virtually making it obsolete in most articles (which is not necessarily a bad thing, considering how prevalent the giant tabular lists are that contain every country and their TV channel that a show appears).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I would be more supportive of changing the wording to "primary language". Using the article Cyphoid linked to above, if the show is in English, that would be: USA, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia/NZ/"Australasia", Nigeria, Singapore, and Caribbean nations. Out of all of those, in a general case setting, you probably will not find info on the Caribbean nations or Nigeria. That leaves then a potential of up to six broadcast listings (again, for English). We have to remember that Wikipedia is not a TV guide, so we can't be listing things indefinitely. However, I would be supportive of using this language, with a mix of Geraldo's suggestion of including significant coverage broadcasters. In any event, whatever changes we make, they must have clear definitions. So if we go with the first option I mentioned, what exists for us to link to, for users to check if a language is the primary one for a certain country? And any more notability guidelines for the second option? Because some users may come out with "X show got picked up by this network. That's notable!" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Just as an FYI to my first question I posed, this site may be an option, if we could link to it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. A wider range of acceptable nations isn't the death knell for TVINTL, but requiring sources would certainly help manage the cruft. Sure, Nigeria may be a primarily English-speaking nation, but if nobody can provide reliable sources, the content could be omitted. The lack of sources is probably the biggest obstacle for TVINTL. I barely trust the various "reliable" sources in the US (TVGuide.com/Zap2It/TV.MSN.COM) for accurate airdates for big-money US shows, but even beloved Canada has a dearth of reliable sources. Frankly, I'm not sure why TVINTL is even a thing with the source pool being so poor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I would be really happy to deprecate the International Broadcast section completely, grandfathered for existing articles but strongly discouraged for new and replace it with a release section similar to how it is done with film articles. I have never seen the value of a section that just lists a bunch of countries and dates. Table or not this is still TV guide type data. There should be more well-referenced meat in this type of section. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you get rid of the section, then you cannot grandfather older articles. Articles would need to change. We've never grandfathered stuff in the past. When we got rid of trivia sections, we didn't let articles keep that that already had them. When we removed IMDb as a source we didn't let articles keep them that had them.

That said, I'm not against dismantling it. I think that any relevant international broadcasts can be listed in prose form in the basic "Broadcast" section. Most of the time, you're talking about (maybe) a paragraphs worth of information anyway. It is rare (not unheard of) for a TV article to have a really fleshed out international section that is more than just listing countries, dates, and probably TV channels. That said, I would not get rid of the sections that are fleshed out into well developed pieces.

So, I think we have 2 decisions here. First, do we get rid of the idea of "international broadcast" and follow the film route of only including notable releases? Or, do we just more specifically define what should be included in an international section?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't particularly see the value of the section since as a list it invites unsourced cruft, and as a prose section it is limited to a scant few examples of English-speaking nations, most of which are unsourced. Do we need an RfC to deal with this? I remember the Rayna Jaymes canvassing situation after we passed the Series Overview guidelines, and I think at least one other editor was critical of the changes, as if we were hiding the discussion or something... I could go either way though, between deprecating the section and being super-specific about what the section should contain. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any encyclopaedic value in the current format. I actually see more value in the old tables as a way of demonstrating the world-wide recognition of the various series, but obviously we don't want to use tables again. Something along the lines of "The Real Wikipedians Who Have No Lives has been marketed in 33 countries including Angola,^[1] Botswana,^[2] Bolivia,^[3], New Zealand,^[4] South Africa,^[5] and Yemini^[6]." I feel that's likely to cause more problems than it solves though. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel if we get into a situation where we go more the Film project route, we are going to get in a very murky area of what is notable and what isn't. To me, it is somewhat easier to define that with a film, because under that guideline, you have the generally single release date in the country of production, and then notable releases become known. With television series, you have so many other factors such as delayed broadcasts in other territories, broadcasters changing after so many seasons, etc. If we only go on notability, some series, in my opinion, would not feature info that, to me is worthwhile to have. For example would a series say as Doctor Who only be limited to the UK info, or would the US get included too? Also, at least for network shows, probably 90% of the time a US show is tied to a Canadian broadcast. That's why I feel there should be some thing like the primary language to define what is and isn't included. That way, we would have a clear cut knowledge of it (and again, with any broadcasts not falling under that heading if it is indeed notable). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:, what we will need to do is decide here what we want to do and how it should look. Then, we go to the MOS and make an official proposal. Following that, we will need to do legitimate "canvassing" to all the projects to let them know of the proposed change to give them ample time to either agree or disagree. This way, no one can say we're hiding anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Moving the discussion to the MOS page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Teen Titans Go! (TV series)

Hey all, could use some feedback at Talk:Teen Titans Go! (TV series). Users (probably the same person/people) keeps adding romance content that appears to me as speculative and non-noteworthy. I'm not familiar with the series, so if anyone has a better take on what the user is adding and can tailor it for inclusion so that it doesn't come off as speculative and crufty, I'd appreciate that. Feedback on the talk page would also be appreciated, since the user hasn't yet responded to discussion on their talk page or the article's talk page. If the content is sound, then by all means we can include it, but right now it's coming across as crush cruft. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Episode title capitalisation

For a long time it has been standard practice to list episode titles as they are shown on-screen or in reliable sources, especially when the reliable source is authoritative, such as a press release. This includes capitalisation. However, MOS:CT seems at odds with this practice and I was wondering how we as a project see this issue. Using on-screen or WP:RS capitalisation is never usually an issue, but I've been having an issue at NCIS: Los Angeles (season 6) over this with an IP who refuses to discuss. On-screen the episode title is all-caps, but the press release shows all words capitalised.[18] If we decide to follow MOS:CT (which is only a guideline after all), then we should probably address this in MOS:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: In the Line of Duty v In The Line Of Duty seems the most contentious on that page and I have to say I have never done it as the latter and to me does not look right and the majority of TV guides do not. If you do it as on screen a case maybe made for the typeface to be as on screen. I would still stick to screenshots for titlecards and wikitype for the script. REVUpminster (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "In the Line of Duty" does look better, but that's a subjective response and we can't use OR. The press release, in this case, does seem at odds with TV guides but the press release does seem more authoritative, since it's directly from the network. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Press releases are notorious for using all-caps just to grab attention, and not adhering to any styling standard; it does not denote anything "official" in the styling of anything resembling a title in that press-release. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something? MOS:CT, has a link to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles_of_works, and that clearly states "The English-language titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.) are given in title case, in which every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words (as detailed at WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Composition titles). The first and last words in a title are always capitalized." So combining this with MOS:CT as directed, means that "In the Line of Duty" is correct, "In The Line Of Duty" isn't. - X201 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Even with direct quotations, we are allowed to change trivial mistakes like spelling errors to bring things into typographic conformity, or so the page says. Thus, I agree with X201 and Aussie. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

List of television stations in New York (by channel number)

I think that this article needs to be updated. --Gce (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gce, in what ways do you feel the article should be updated? Can you provide any sources to help the process? Wikipedia is run by volunteers, so if you have changes to make, and as long as they reflect a neutral point of view and can be adequately sourced, you should feel free to volunteer the time and effort to improve it. To help you along, I would strongly recommend reading about the sources that qualify as reliable sources, since there are many, like IMDb, Wikia, TV.com, TVTropes, blogs, forums, and even Wikipedia itself that do not make the cut for one reason or another. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that this article may be outdated because it may reflect the status of 2007, almost eight years ago, but I don't know what sources have to be used so I'm asking the help of the community to verify if it's really necessary an update and then what sources can be used. --Gce (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Assistance requested

For the past several years, I have been dealing with low-speed vandalism regarding the official trademarked spellings for several television shows because the online fandoms for these TV shows disagree with how the trademarks were filed and prefer alternate versions that appear in no reliable sources. The articles are as follows:

• Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Energy Management Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a character for the abovelist)
  • Vaglass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (another character list for the above, I should really merge them together at some point)
  • List of Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The words on these pages that cause issues are "Buddyloid", "Metaloid", and "Vaglass". At Talk:Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters#Final statement on Vaglass, Buddyloid, and Metaloid, I have gone over the evidence as to why the L spellings are used on Wikipedia, as they are the only spellings in use in reliable sources (outside of the exactly one instance of an alternate spelling appearing on screen briefly extremely early into the TV show's broadcast).

• Kamen Rider OOO (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Probably some related pages by proxy

The word in contention on this page is "Tajadol". The proof for this spelling comes from these officially licensed products' packaging as well as the TV show's official website. I had not attempted to get this onto a talk page until now.

There are also peripheral issues with the titling of Himitsu Sentai Gorenger where people prefer "Goranger" over what was recently found to be the official trademarked name now in use on the article, but it has been covered at Talk:Himitsu Sentai Gorenger#Proper title translation? where people have been ignorant of the spelling for years despite blatant usage on props in the show.

With the pending arbitration sanctions against me, I fear that my ability to prevent vandalism to these pages to bad-faith change the spellings against consensus will be hampered or willfully exploited by people to spite me. This has already recently happened at Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters and has happened in the past at Kamen Rider OOO (character). I would just like more eyes on these pages to watch for these bad faith changes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

1st NVS Awards Brazil nominated for deletion

1st NVS Awards Brazil was nominated for deletion over a week ago but there has been no discussion. Comments would therefore be appreciated at the deletion discussion, which may be found here. Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Blacklist's "Blacklist"

There's a ongoing discussion at Talk:The Blacklist (TV series)#The Blacklist regarding the "The Blacklist" section. All interested are welcome to comment. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox character - "Centric episodes"

I have a question about the listing of "centric episodes" in the {{infobox character}} template. I checked MOS:TV#Character article structure and this talk page's archives, but wasn't able to find anything specific regarding this so I thought I'd ask.

The parameter "lbl#" is being used to add "Centric episode(s)" info to (pretty much) all the infoboxes of the character pages of the The Walking Dead. I'm not exactly sure what criteria are being used to determine what is "centric". This kind of information seems, at least to me, to be pretty subjective at best, especially since some episodes are being listed as "centric" for multiple characters. Isn't this kind of information just original research?

Another concern I have is that for a main character like Rick Grimes (for some reason that article is not listed as being under the purview of this WikiProject), practically every episode could be considered to be "centric", couldn't it? Currently, there are 17 episodes listed as "centric" in that article's infobox and I expect there's going to be more added as the series goes on. I've looked at some other character pages from popular TV series such as Tony Soprano, Rachel Green, Hawkeye Pierce, Archie Bunker, Walter White (Breaking Bad), Jerry Seinfeld (character), Jack Bauer, etc. and none of the infoboxes on those pages have "Centric episode(s)" listed. So, I am wondering if "Centric episode(s)" is something unique to The Walking Dead articles.

Anyway, I just thought I'd ask here and see what others might have to say before bringing it up on each article's talk page. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

To me, that seems excessive and unrealistic in its application. Unless you can show some reliable source identifying those episodes as "centric" then you're really practicing original research in attributing importance to certain episodes over others. As for where to address it, it should be addressed on the series main page, with links to the character pages. Then, notify each of the character talk pages, this way your discussion takes place on a "central" location (pardon the pun).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There are some series where "centric" episodes are clear from the primary source, without entering original research territory. Centricity in Lost episodes is defined by who is featured in the off-island flashbacks. Other series, I'd agree are much less clearly emphasized. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bignole: Thanks for the input. Per your advice, I have started a discussion about this at Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)#Character page infoboxes - "Centric episode(s)". Feel free to comment if interested. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Defined by whom? Us? If we're doing the defining, simply because they are featured, then it's still original research. Even if the argument is sound in how "we" are defining it, the act itself is still based on opinion if there is not an actual source saying that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Lost, "flashback character"/"featured character" is a plot descriptor, a description of the episode, which follows WP:PRIMARY. There is no interpretation needed to describe one episode as "Hurley's flashback episode." So the source is the episode. With other series where it is less clear, I agree with you. Only brought up Lost as an example. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wikipedical: Thank you for you comments. I am not at all familiar with Lost so I can really say anything specific either way. However, using your example above, I think it would be OK to describe an episode as being about Hurley's flashback as part of a plot summary per MOS:PLOT and I think it would be acceptable per "WP:PRIMARY" to cite the episode for quotes or other factual information that are added in support. However, labeling something as "centric" seems to be more of an interpretation than a description of fact, and therefore in my opinion needs to be supported by reliable secondary/third party sources if it's not to be considered original research. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Or, context (that is, a sentence?) can explain that centricity describes the character in each episode who has flashbacks (or _____ for other series). Is the term "protagonist" also interpretation? -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It can be. This is why the use of such labels is discouraged with regards to film articles, as discussed at WP:PROTAGONIST. DonIago (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:Primary sources dispute for The Walking Dead television character articles

I'm starting this discussion here as to centralize it (see WP:TALKCENT) and because it concerns a matter that confuses me. I reverted Trivialist here at the Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead) article; as seen in that diff-link, he tagged the article with Template:Primary sources, which states, in part, "This article relies too much on references to primary sources." I stated with my revert, "There are plenty of non-WP:Primary sources in this article. Primary sources are fine for the plot section." I then saw that Trivialist came to the Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead) article because of a dispute he had with an IP at the Tyreese article. I'm not seeing the IP's point of referring Trivialist to the Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead) article, since whether or not an article "relies too much on references to primary sources" is not dependent upon another article; the Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead) article clearly has more non-WP:Primary sources than the Tyreese article does. And if Trivialist is tagging articles with the "primary sources" tag because the plot summaries don't use WP:Secondary sources, that is faulty reasoning. I reiterate that primary sources are fine for the plot section. Look at the WP:Good article Clark Kent (Smallville), for example. Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries, the plot section does not necessarily need references.

Since I've pinged Trivialist to this talk page via WP:Echo, I'll alert the IP of this section on the IP's talk page. That stated, edits like this and this make me think that the IP is Thelonggoneblues. And if you are that IP, Thelonggoneblues, you need to start consistently signing in instead of making it seem like you are two different people; do see what Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts states about editing while logged out. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: Going by this compared to this, and Thelonggoneblues trying to remove this section, it's safe to state that the IP and Thelonggoneblues are the same person. Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, basically Flyer22. I wasn't hiding it though, simply because it's pretty obvious in the first place (for some reason, it often logs me in and off) but it's good you've taken interest in me lol, and also thanks for the comments and tips about the articles. I deleted this section because I didn't think it was useful because I had already put in the source for Tyreese. That's all. thelonggoneblues (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thelonggoneblues, that you are the IP is not immediately obvious to everyone. When you reverted me at the Maggie Greene article (linked in the last paragraph of my "17:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)" post above), that is when I first thought that you are likely Thelonggoneblues. When you are editing as an IP and as Thelonggoneblues, it is deceptive when editors think that you are two different people. How could you have been sure that Trivialist would have known that you are the IP? In the case with me, you didn't revert as Thelonggoneblues; you came along and reverted as an IP. In the case with Trivialist, you didn't revert again as the IP; you reverted again as Thelonggoneblues. That is why I pointed you to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. Just make sure that you sign in more often and don't WP:Edit war both as Thelonggoneblues and as the IP (not unless you are certain that the editor knows that both accounts are you). Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

And I've reverted your change to the heading; see what Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments states about changing section headings. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This section is not about this source for the Tyreese article, though that matter is a part of the dispute between you and Trivialist. If everything I stated above is resolved, then this discussion will remain as is and be archived soon enough; it doesn't need a "resolved" note. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Time in Infobox

I think time should be included below the date in the info-box for awards shows. With a quick glance, I want to be able to see the date AND time of the event without having to read the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdavi333 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the discussion. As noted on your talk page, Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. You might want to begin with a strong argument for what the encyclopedic value is of including the time, other than just your personal preference. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

ITV and disambig

I just tagged ITV as {{dabconcept}}. I was editing an article recently that mentioned a British person worked for ITV. How could I possibly know which of these many entries to point it to? This is a classic case where there needs to be an article called ITV about the series of British television networks so it doesn't take an expert to figure out how to make a simple link. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

IMDb reviews, TV.com reviews, user reviews...

Requesting comments at Talk:Little Einsteins#IMDb reviews, TV.com reviews, user reviews... Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"Absent" info on episode list pages?

Should main characters who are absent from an episode be mentioned on episode list pages in the table? Example: [19]. In my opinion, it's not important and should but be listed, but an IP editor is insisting it should be on my user talk page, so I'm seeking other opinions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion if we list guest stars we should list main cast absences for consistency of documenting who was the principal cast in a given episode. We presume all main cast is in every episode unless otherwise noted and guest stars only when noted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I'm against listing guest stars too. But those are notable for the actor, not the role. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If the actor who plays the character is still credited in the episode, even if they don't appear, it should not be mentioned. Unless there is some notable reason for why that character is not appearing (and are still credited) there really is no reason to mention it, in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Once it a while, the absence/minimal inclusion of the normal cast will be a highlight of an episode (for example, the Doctor Who "Doctor Lite" episodes), but this is the exception. There's often plenty of series where you can describe an episode overall and not have to mention all of the principle cast if their roles in the episode are otherwise minor (I know plenty of ST:TNG episodes that work that way). It's only if the absence has been noted as significant by other sources - like any other piece of trivia - should it be documented. --MASEM (t) 05:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with episode list table editing?

This might be a question better suited for the village pump, but I'm having difficulty with making a table for List of Action League Now! episodes. Before that, the page listed the episodes using bullets, so I did some regex to conform the data to a wikitable. Right now, however, it's only showing the first season's table and nothing else. Can someone figure this out? Thanks. 23W 05:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look to see if I can find your issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@23W: Fixed it. You were missing some "}}" and had some extra ones too. I also edited the lead, and fixed the section headers. (I think the edit to the section headers was correct, based on what I saw/learned in the five minutes I was on the page.) Feel free to adjust those back if I was wrong. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! 23W 06:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Only Fools and Horses - FAR

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

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.[20] --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)

Discussion regarding the WP:Overlinking guideline

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

Babylon 5 walled garden

I love the TV show Babylon 5 - it is one of my all-time favorites. But Wikipedia'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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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.

This discussion is moot. Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases. An RfC among editors with a specific area of interest, and by definition biased in favour of a liking for the minutiae of TV shows, cannot be an appropriate venue for overriding foundational policy. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

---

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.[21][22] 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 [23] 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 Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources.[24] --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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

That makes no sense at all because WP:V has nothing to do with the status quo. The status quo, as it applies to this discusssion, refers to the current state of the documentation, which says Episode duration. Should not include commercials and should be approximated, e.g. "22–26 minutes" for most half-hour shows. The documentation, as it stands, does not override the requirements of WP:V, so WP:V vs WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not relevant at all. This RfC is asking if we should change the documentation to require citations, which is above and beyond what WP:V requires. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:24, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy, just as a standalone Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 — Wikipedia 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 — Wikipedia 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 [cite: Per iplayer counter.] or [cite: Curb Your Enthusiasm Volume One DVD (XYZ Video, 2005).] 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 — Wikipedia 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I want you to join

I started discussion topics in two articles, but no one is coming.

1. Talk:Public broadcasting#Time for separate article for the situation in the USA: New, separate main article about public broadcasting in the U.S.
2. Talk:Television advertisement/Archives/2017#After the break: Commercial break is being redirect to television advertisement, but it also happens on radio. What should we do with ad breaks?

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Nickandmore

For what it's worth, Nickandmore.com has posted on their main page that they are no longer active. "NICKandMORE has come to an end. The website will remain a permanent archive." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)