Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

With the discussion going around recently about Background sections for episode articles, I added one to a draft I’m currently working on (Draft:Chapter Seven: The Lost Sister), and added sources for three sentences in Background that aren’t part of the series’ plot, but didn’t for the parts relating to the narrative. Is this like the episode Plot section where it’s allowed to be sourced to the work itself, or not? I only ask because the section is about the series plot, not the episode plot, which is where the confusion for me comes into play Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 22:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The reason we don't need explicit inline citations in plot summaries is because those would just repeat the details from the infobox, that is not the case if you are including plot details from different episodes so you should definitely be explicitly citing them, either with {{Cite episode}} or with secondary sources that cover what happens in those earlier episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

We certainly aren't "just repeat[ing] the details from the infobox". Perhaps plot summaries are implicitly referenced to the material they are from, but not anything to do with the inofbox. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

What? I think you are confused. Are you suggesting that I said plot summaries themselves are repeating details from the infobox? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I misread. What does we don't need explicit inline citations in plot summaries is because those would just repeat the details from the infobox mean? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

If we added inline citations to plot summaries, those citations would just repeat the details from the infobox (writer(s), release date, etc.) - adamstom97 (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Im really confused now. Items in the infobox should be things that ARE listed in the body of an article and cited inline. Release dates and writers aren't really plot summaries, but are indeed examples of things that 100% should be cited in the body of an article somewhere. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I am really struggling to understand how you are misinterpreting my comments. I never said anything about release dates and writers being part of the plot summary. I am saying, if Crystal Drawers added an in-line citation to their draft's plot summary it could be something like this:

• Doble, Justin (October 27, 2017). "Chapter Seven: The Lost Sister". Stranger Things. Season 2. Netflix.

That citation just repeats details from the lead/infobox, so it could be seen as redundant. That is not the case for other episodes, as other episodes may have a different writer, title, release date, etc. so there is no argument that an in-line citation for a different episode is redundant. Does that make more sense? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we have the same opinion, but maybe for different reasons. We don't generally have to cite information about the subject to the subject themselves. In this case, citing the plot to the subject IS redundant. That's not because it repeats the information found elsewhere in the article though, because that would likely be true of most primary sources, but rather WP:SKYISBLUE. Where there are reliable third party sources that talk of a plot, we should use those.

Looking at the draft - should the background section cover the plot at all? It seems like this is just another way to have a longer plot summary. If we are citing information on another episode, we should cite the information to that if it isn't included in the direct plot of that episode. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think SKYISBLUE applies, the plot of a random TV episode is not common knowledge. We do expect secondary sources in plot summaries if the subject is not easily available for people to verify themselves. As for the plot info in the background section, that is what the above thread #Better contextualization of TV episodes for FAC is all about, using background sections to explain general info about the series that a new reader may need to know to understand the plot and details of this episode. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I think your point of having more than 500 words recapping plot details from throughout the show plus nearly 800 words on its own plot summary is where I would also sit as it being too much. Maybe a broad "this is what the show is about" might be ok, but a full piece on all of the plot from other episodes is something that should be incorporated into that 700 words, not in addition to. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all for the comments. Regarding Lee Vilenski's "should the background section cover the plot at all?", I tried my best to remove all unnecessary plot and only include the stuff that is needed to understand the rest of the article. The background section is in and of itself necessary because I was barely able to get the plot under the maximum 400 words, and so including all the extra info about who people are would’ve just damaged the section Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 13:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thing is, I would consider the background section there to also be part of the plot, just adding headers and separating things out isn't sufficient, since it is drawing much from the primary work itself and that's the reason we put word count limits here. We usually do not get that far into details about dramatic elements from previous episodes, barring resolution of immediate cliffhangers, for example, and if there is an important aspect from a previous episode that should be identified, to cite that as a footnote (as mentioned below). Otherwise, we are assuming that the reader is familiar with the events of the series to this point, and write only around what is shown in the episode itself to minimize interpretation and other problems plot sections can introduce. Masem (t) 13:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

That is the standard thinking here, but I do understand why some editors are challenging that. I have just had a GA review of an episode article where an unfamiliar editor raised the same concerns, that the plot section doesn't make much sense to someone who has not read about the rest of the show / earlier episodes. I personally am coming around to the idea of having such a background section in episode articles to avoid that problem, but I agree that it should not just be an extended plot summary to get around the current word limits. It should be more of a Setting section, explaining the premise of the series and introducing key characters and story arcs that have been covered by secondary sources. Just the bare minimum of context so when the plot summary begins with Eleven sees a toddler version of herself sitting next to another girl at Hawkins Lab a new reader will at least understand who Eleven is and what Hawkins Lab is without every episode article's plot summary needing to reiterate that within 400 words. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

If Draft:Chapter Seven: The Lost Sister#Background is referencing things that aren't from "Chapter Seven: The Lost Sister", then use {{Cite episode}} (or any other citation) to cite the source. If it's from this episode, then I think it's fine. If you think it's needed then it won't hurt adding it to that section even if its from that episode (as unlike the plot section, this section is a mix of source material). Gonnym (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Peter Greene § Age is 66, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

There are three separate discussions regarding the Wallace Shawn article over at Talk:Wallace Shawn/Archives/2026#Nickname in infobox and concerns about banned user, Talk:Wallace Shawn/Archives/2026#Accolades and Talk:Wallace Shawn/Archives/2026#Time to split off the filmography section?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is ongoing at the article talk page regarding sourcing for several international TV rating systems. Input from editors familiar with broadcasting regulations would be appreciated. Thanks.

Link: Talk:Television_content_rating_system#Request_for_sources_for_TV_rating_systems_(multiple_countries) Upset New Bird (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Great British Bake Off § A biographical article vs list of mini-bios. George Ho (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ashley Davies#Requested move 18 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the BritBox article. DrThneed (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk § 05:18, 9 March 2026 review of submission by George Ho. George Ho (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Ross Video article. DrThneed (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The following AFD re-nomination was relisted recently, so your further input is welcome: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Westman (3rd nomination). George Ho (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I’m looking for a bit of assistance or a "mentor" to help finalize a draft for KTVJ-LD (Channel 3) serving the Boise/Nampa/Meridian market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:KTVJ-LD The draft was previously declined for notability, and I’m struggling to meet the secondary source requirements to a level that satisfies the reviewers. I’ve recently updated the draft to reflect the station’s RF relocation from Channel 6 to Channel 26. While technical, this move is significant for the Treasure Valley market as it cleared interference issues and stabilized the signal for its unique subchannel lineup. Key Notability Points: Unlike many LPTV stations in the area that act as simple translators, KTVJ-LD provides three unique streams not otherwise available over-the-air in Boise: 3.1: theDove network (Inspirational/Christian news and programming originating from Medford, OR). 3.2: Newsmax2 (National news/commentary). 3.3: CMC-USA (Country Music Channel). The station is owned by CMC Broadcasting and operates from the Deer Point transmitter site. I have the FCC filings and RabbitEars data ready, but I need help finding or properly formatting independent coverage to push this past the "Articles for Creation" finish line. Would anyone from the stations team be willing to take a look at the draft and help me "Wiki-fy" the sourcing? Thanks for your time! Rlknlk (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Rlknlk, thanks for doing this the right way. You're already doing better than most COI editors. Looking at KTVJ-LD, I would have the same notability doubts, and let me walk you through why:

• The station has been on the air only about 10 years. Our experience is that there is a pretty significant fall-off in coverage of broadcast TV after 2008. When I search KTVJ in news databases, I'm actually more likely to get results about stations that long abandoned the call sign, in Joplin, Missouri, and Boulder, Colorado, than your KTVJ-LD or even the one in Santa Rosa, California.
  • Significant coverage, for notability reasons, would not include the RBR+TVBR deal report. That leaves the rest of the article's citations as being FCC filings and the like. These are fine... as long as the significant coverage is there.
• KTVJ-LD is what I would call a "diginet tree". It consists mostly of programming from other digital multicast television networks without a local presence beyond the transmitter. Stations like this are even less likely to get the significant coverage they need.
• We have had, in the last five years, a significant shift to tighter notability standards that has resulted in the removal of a lot of articles on similar low-power TV stations.

Unfortunately, I would definitely advise against approval of that draft if I were reviewing it. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Homer Loves Flanders has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Marvel Studios Special Presentations#Requested move 26 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Programming Insider and TV Series Finale hasn't produced any final ratings for U.S. since late November 2025. Apparently, they aren't the only ones, same as the blog websites. How should we approach this? Should we just remove the whole column on the Episode table for TV series broadcasted this year? — YoungForever^(talk) 18:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I think Programming Insider just stopped using the “final ratings” tag. The author Marc Berman still publishes them, and it couldn’t be preliminary as the cable data is included. Heartfox (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)