Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 23

Just a heads-up to fellow WikiProject Television editors that {{Series overview}} has been updated to include auxiliary variables between the Seasons and Episodes columns. A few examples are listed. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes#Shorts counted as an episode. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The article has now been fully protected due to an edit war, so some input would be really appreciated. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

How have the two editors reverting not been blocked or reported? That's almost four whole pages of history of just their reverts. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I know, right. I asked at RFPP and pinged admins on IRC asking them to either protect it or block them, but only the page has been protected (so far). nyuszika7h (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that the title of both versions of Are You Smarter than a 10 Year Old? has a grammar mistake (which can be seen on both logos as well) – it should be Are You Smarter than a 10-Year-Old?. However, a quick Google search suggest most sources also use the incorrect form (Google ignores the dashes in the search term even if quoted, so I can't compare the number of hits). Should we keep it as-is or correct the mistake? nyuszika7h (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The title we use should be that which the show uses, and so should include the error. GRAPPLE ^X 10:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Is that grammar, or just punctuation? I see the logo uses block capitals, so sidestepping the question of an upper-case T for "than". But IMDb uses "Than" - should we? Upper case Y for "Your"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: There was recently a discussion at WP:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 August 15 § Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? which determined that "than" is a preposition, so it should not be capitalized per MOS:CT. – nyuszika7h (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Wow. I'm glad to say I missed that one. We still seem to have some inconsistency between MoS, what the programme itself uses and what reliable sources (IMDb?) use. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hyphens aren't needed as 10 year old is the noun and is not used as an adjective. The show never uses hyphens. As for caps on in-between words, I'd watch out for stylizations. It looks like those two shows refer to ones in the UK and New Zealand, so apply regional rules there. It shouldn't have the slash though in "a/Your". That's just confusing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, date ranges for television seasons need to be updated for series and LoE pages per an update to MOS:DATERANGE (e.g. from 2015–16 to 2015–2016). This is per Special:Diff/735558618, Special:Permalink/735669610#Date formats, and Special:Permalink/731874769#WP:DATERANGE ambiguity and stylistic concerns. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

We've been using the yyyy-yy format since 2007 at least, so there are going to be a LOT of articles to fix. I fully expect a lot of pages will end up with broken links as people change headings, but not the links to those headings, especially in series overview tables. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

AWB with regular expressions? Any date of the form (\d{2})(\d{2})–(\d{2}) to $1$2–$1$3 (that makes sense if you know regex). It should change all occurrences, so links and headers. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I understand that guideline, "2015–16" is still fine as consecutive years, but not "2014–16", though any article should ideally use one format consistently at least for things like the season headings (if the body of an article has a good reason e.g. some naming convention to deviate, that's a different issue), and I'd rather have the date ranges standardized everywhere. As for broken links, we can add anchors. nyuszika7h (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, two digit end years are fine for consecutive years, which means most articles don't need changing. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Nyuszika7H, please explain: Special:Diff/735558618. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Some of these are not consecutive years so I thought it's best to make them all consistent, though the MOS doesn't say we have to, only in table columns. Mixing "1988–89" and "2008–2010" looks even more unprofessional than, say, mixing "1990–2000" and "2001–02" (made-up example, not actually used there). nyuszika7h (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

We can make a note on this if we feel necessary, when we get to the episode section of the MOS updates. I hope you all will comment and add your two cents when we get there. But for the record, we are good on most articles since we are using two consecutive years. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This is correct. There are some other exceptions, in regards to things like sports. But I don't know if any of these other exceptions can/should be extended to WP:TV. I think episode list sections headings should just be left as, for example, "2002–03" in most cases, under the "consecutive year" exception – no point in expending all the effort to go back and change all those. (FTR, I think I've changed even these to XXXX–XXXX format at one or two articles, but I think it's only been at articles that "rolled over the millennium" – e.g. it contained the "1999–2000" daterange: for those ones, it may make sense to change all the dateranges to XXXX–XXXX format.) But, for example, in WP:FILMOGRAPHY tables, I think we should slowly covert them all to XXXX–XXXX daterange format, as per the revised MOS:DATERANGE... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This topic again! An attempt to codify the consensus of not including cast and crew in navboxes, and not having filmographies in navboxes is at WT:CLT#Proposal for WP:PERFNAV (or similar). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey all, noticed these changes by Luigi where a lot of Start date templates were added to an episode list. Is it my imagination or did a bot go through a bunch of articles in the last few months and remove a lot of these because the Start date template was being misused across a number of articles. Does that ring a bell to anyone? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

That vaguely rings a bell to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

My tech understanding is garbage, but I feel like it had something to do with the Start date templates being worthless unless they were within other templates that invoked the Start date function. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

There was a bot (or at least a plan for one) that removed {{Start date}} from |AltDate= in {{Episode list}}, because it should only be used once within a template or table row, which is generally |OriginalAirDate= for episode lists. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Does anyone else have an opinion of the necessity of a ratings section at Blunt Talk, existing solely to provide 18–49 demo ratings? Please feel free to comment at Talk:Blunt Talk#"Ratings" section, thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I just created {{CNone}} which can (and should) be used instead of {{n/a|}} to provide some descriptive text ("Does not appear") for screen reader users. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nyuszika7H. Can you update the documentation table for it? I'll get to replacing {{n/a}} with this on articles I frequent. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Arrow episodes#Green Arrow episode flashforward. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Drovethrughosts, above you clarified one DVD release date. Can you clarify the DVD release of Cybergeddon (film).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Like I said above, it's best just to check Amazon.com. Per Amazon, it was released on March 18, 2014. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If TV shows are more universal than what some people call an American TV show, why do lots of editors insist that American spelling is correct? It doesn't seem very universal. And every so often I correct a word on a TV show article, some person reverts it to be American spelling stating it's American so should be American. I really don't understand the consensus for this and it looks like lazy writing on articles. Maybe a new consensus for real English can be installed throughout? Govvy (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Govvy: If it's an American show, WP:TIES applies. Otherwise, there's MOS:RETAIN. Also, you are not going to achieve anything by insisting that British is the "real" English, neither is "more correct" than the other, per WP:ENGVAR. But if the article uses some American word which may not be widely understood (I can't tell since you haven't provided any links), there's WP:COMMONALITY. – nyuszika7h (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Generally WP:ENGVAR would point to using the style of English to which the subject is more closely tied. If there isn't one, for example on an article about a non-English-language programme, I'd say we could just go with author preference in that same way that we tackle other formatting approaches like citation styles. GRAPPLE ^X 14:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am more concerned about TV articles which have a wide spread release across the world using Americanisms. Govvy (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I took a quick look at your recent edits, to take a look at what you were talking about as you didn't provide an example, and re: Agent Carter, at least, that article should use American spelling because it is an American production, no matter how English the title character is or how international the broadcast. Past that, what nyuszika7h said and Grapple X said. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If they are American in origin, they use American English; likewise Canadian, Indian, UK, etc. A subject's reach is not of any importance to its national ties for things like ENGVAR (for example, they watch a lot of Dr. Who in the US too but I'm sure the article doesn't mention the "color" of the Tardis). GRAPPLE ^X 14:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I give up, it's clear wikipedia doesn't want any uniform standard. Shame really, I find it rather annoying reading English which is poorly written, laziness not to put an extra letter in colour! Latin maybe a dead language but at least it was consistent. Govvy (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As someone else said, classifying American spelling as "lazy" makes it less likely anyone will take your opinion seriously. You want a "uniform standard", but why do you assume that should be UK-centric? Wikipedia has a pretty consistent and evenhanded policy which basically allows for "British" articles to use that spelling and date format, and "American" articles to do the same. Forcing the issue one way or the other would be universally unfair and unbalanced, this is a compromise that seems to make sense to most people. Sorry.— TAnthony^Talk 15:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And I should add, the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, is American, so if a uniform standard was ever forced, it would probably be toward Lazy English. ;) — TAnthony^Talk 15:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am so use to the Oxford English dictionary, Jimmy is Jimmy, just because he is American and Wiki-OverLord doesn't mean he needs create a bad piece of work. Govvy (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Imposing a variety of English onto the entire project isn't going to gain any traction. At any rate, it's not about consistency across articles, but about consistency within articles. (I feel like there's a guideline to link to here, but its name is escaping me.) Calling non-British varieties of English, particularly American English, "lazy" and "poorly written" and saying that it's "annoying to read" and is contributing to a "bad piece of work" is certainly not winning any sympathizers, especially considering millions of people don't spell color with a u. At any rate, this isn't the place to bring this grievance. This is a WikiProject for just television-related topics, and national varieties of English fall outside its scope. If you want to pursue imposing one variety of English onto Wikipedia, I suggest taking it up at WP:Manual of Style or WP:Manual of Style/Spelling. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:LANGUAGE, WP:SPELLING. Here's the quick, most appropriate answer that has been touched on before and is addressed in multiple guidelines. Whatever the topic's country of origin is, in the case of TV articles that would be who owns the property and is producing it, defines the spelling of words (consistently). There is a difference in say the fact that Harry Potter is an English character, written by an English woman, but the films are owned and produced by an American company. In that case, you would see English spellings of certain words on the book pages, because it was published originally by an English company, but you would see American spellings on the films (because they are owned by Warner Bros...J.K. Rowling doesn't own the rights).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

← If you get down to it, the internet is owned by the US government. Wikipedia is on the internet thus American spelling would win out if you want to force it to one version of the language. Spshu (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Please take your tin-foil hat opinions elsewhere. "The internet is owned by the US government"? Not the place for it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is relevant to the discussion. Take your insults else where. Just because you want to remain ignorant, do not force it on others. This is not the place for your insults and ignorance. The U.S. Gives the Internet to the World: "U.S. to advance Internet freedom, work with ICANN to privatize domain management by 2015." Spshu (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

According to the article that you've linked, your assertion that the internet is owned by the US government was wrong. The article says that "the only part of the Internet that any country owns" was (the article is from 2014) "the root server for the domain name system". --AussieLegend (✉) 15:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads-up for anyone that uses this script.

User:Alex 21/script-seriesoverview.js is a script that transforms a tabular series overview for television series to the templated version {{Series overview}}.This mass update in September 2016 provided support for the newer features of the {{Series overview}} template, including custom link text for all seasons, split seasons, special rows (the previous two now implemented in the maint template itself, rather than sub-templates), excluding to-be-announced info cells, proper support and html-to-wikitext linking for the network column, auxiliary columns, released series (for seasons both released in their entirety and not), twenty-six info cells rather than five, and end dates identical to their start dates. The mass update also included a lot of code cleanup, optimization though functions, adding in the proper page link, and insertion of reminders to re-insert references not included in the table-to-template conversion Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Rachel Bilson, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Should "Prod. code" be linked in {{Episode table}}? There's an editor constantly adding it at Module:Episode table, even after I removed it. They then cleared the notice I posted on their talk page after they re-instated it when I said they should discuss it first. While adding it, they changed the colour of the link to white/black (depending on the background), so a reader isn't going to even know it's linked unless they're deliberately looking for it. Personally, I believe there's no need for it, as they're also removed the abbreviation template. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Per the editor's contribution history as well (119.224.39.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), they converted a multitude of usages of {{Episode table}} to raw header code, so that they could link the code. This goes against the very reason as to why {{Episode table}} was created, and hence, all such revisions have been reverted. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

What are they linking it to? If it does get linked to something, the link should be a normal link anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Production code number. And the user has cleared the notification of this discussion from their talk page, so apparently they refuse to discuss it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem with linking is that it would cause issues with color contrast. We already need to use a white background for references with most colors, otherwise the available range would be much more limited – it would look ugly to have to do that with the text or the entire cell. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits, inviting the IP to discuss on the talk their proposed changes, as well as requested generic semi protection for the module. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really think that we need to be linking to that, and it will just cause problems. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to invite the IP editor to discuss the changes, see here, after AlextheWhovian's initial invitation, but it is to no avail. They've also made a comment to User:AlexTheWhovian's talk page: see here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If they have no desire to discuss, then so be it. The module has been protected, so they cannot re-implement it anyways. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

So I just came across Category:Television episode list templates with many template that house all episodes for a given season of a show, to add to the infobox of a specific episode. Why do we need these? The current documentation for {{Infobox television episode}} allows for these lists to appear under a heading of "Season X episodes", above the "Prev/Next" section. The documentation says to use one or the other, but not both. I don't really think these lists should exists because a) so few articles use them, based on this cat (thought there may be more out there) and b) if a series is using this, they most likely have a navbox with all the episodes, but if not, then at least an LoE somewhere. Can anyone explain to me why these serve a purpose? I think we shouldn't give this as an option in the episode infobox, and just use the "Prev/Next" option, plus the linking to the LoE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey all, I'm proposing the addition of a native_name parameter to the TV infobox to facilitate the inclusion of native language titles. Currently the hack that most people use is to add a <br /> to |name= and paste the native script beneath. Comments invited! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone have any objections to this? There are two comments of support. If there are no objections, I'd like to proceed by asking someone at VPT to tweak the template. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Using {{TPER}} on the template talk would be easier, and would not decentralize discussion. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Cutthroat Kitchen#Tournament/Returning Contestants regarding the inclusion of contestants in episode tables. Your input and thoughts are requested. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I know I'm on the cusp of being annoying, but I really am curious as to WPTV's stance on this issue, particularly since the issue has migrated to the "List of episodes" page and I'd like a third opinion before cleaning things up. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

In the Medical Drama wikipedia page, there are several issues. Firstly, many statements are assumptions because they are not cited specifcally in the lead section. Every fact made does not have a corresponding source. For example, the statement "A typical medical drama might have a storyline in which two doctors fall in love" is not cited and there are mutliple other assumptions made in this article that are not verified. As a whole the article only has two sources. It severly lacks verification.

The second problem with this article is that it contains a direct quotation from a copyrighted book Understanding Media: The Extions of a Man "creates an obsession with bodily welfare", although the book is cited this is still a violation of Wikipedia's plagerism policy.

ArianaDuford (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ArianaDuford

for the first problem, it's better to add a small link that says "citation needed". i've seen it in other articles, but i don't know the name of the template. wait for some time and if you still see no citation, remove the content. and for the second problem, i don't think mentioning the source in a direct quotation is a violation and plagiarism. it's used in several other articles. but if you know it's a violation, you'd better delete it. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The quote is cited and in quotation marks, so it is acceptable and certainly not plagiarism. Any statements needing citations can be removed or tagged with {{citation needed}}. By the way, per WP:LEADCITE, statements made in the lead do not require citations if the same information is cited later in the article. The lead is supposed to summarize the entire article. — TAnthony^Talk 04:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 9#Category:2017 television series debuts. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated the article about the episode Chad Harris-Crane for Featured Article consideration. This article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions. The character made daytime television and soap opera history for participating in the first instance in a soap opera of two men simulating sex, and has also been cited as expanding the representation of LGBT characters of color on daytime television.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chad Harris-Crane/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't figure out what's wrong with the episode list at Hey Duggee § Episodes, sometimes the viewers cell is blank and spans down to the summary row below. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue with most of the error'ing cells was that that they didn't have |AltDate= included, hence decreasing the number of cells in those columns by 1, and the final row had a typo in |DirectedBy=. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Can the all of Star Trek tv series be considered a single series? This is relating to a naming discussion going on at Talk:The Dauphin (Star Trek)--Prisencolin (talk) 05:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This file is listed for discussion at FFD. I invite you to discuss it there. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Linking: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 1#File:Treehouse of Horror.png Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

In Hank Zipzer, another actress replaced Ashley's actress starting from season 2. How should that be indicated in the cast list? I added the new actress below the other one with parenthetical notes about the seasons as I think it makes sense for them to be together. Or should the new actress be added to the bottom of the season 1 cast list (above Mr Joy), or perhaps put them on the same line with a slash separator? nyuszika7h (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

How about Chloe Wong (season 1) and Alicia Lai (seasons 2-3) as Ashley? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I would like to make a suggestion that we stop using the "no. of episodes" section for articles on talk shows. Since these shows aren't scripted and episodes are taped and aired every day (excepting during the summer), its just more work that needs to be done, because the number of episodes is going up faster than editors can keep up with, automatically leaving the parameter open to inaccuracies (say article on [talk show] says it has 1,000 episodes but [talk show] actually has 1,200 episodes). The number also lacks context, because we don't even list every single episode that aired, just a brief summary of the topics that the talk show covers. It also lacks context because talk shows episodes rarely air in reruns, and after the shows go completely off the air, pretty much never get reran on television again. Long story short, the context of the number of episodes does not go beyond that of just the number itself. These are not reality shows or children's programming or animated series or sitcoms or dramas whose episode numbers maintain longstanding notability and relevance well after the episodes have already aired. Talk shows are in the same as news programming or newsmagazines where a summary of topics which it covers suffices to summing up its episodic content. I guess this is a case of recentism, while I know that page is only an essay and although there's also positives to recentism, I don't think that's the case here. If we have to treat this thing as solely a number, without any other sort of content or context to it, then I don't see why we should be listing the number at all. Thoughts? —Mythdon 07:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added 4 more articles to this wikiproject after reading user:Megalibrarygirl’s article in the Signpost. I was surprised to see that these articles were getting very little traffic even though they all deal with people who have shaped television’s history, exactly the kind of articles that are usually not pursued by wp:deletionists., I think? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Thanks for your contributions! Psst: Michaelangelo was a deletionist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for responding. I also tried to add the Signpost box at the top of this page (right before the table of contents) but I don't seem to be able to get it to link to the right Signpost article. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Hey all. WP:NFF is an interesting guideline. I'm sure most of you are familiar with it, but in film articles we have to establish that principal photography has begun in order for a film article to be created. Obviously there's the general notability guideline to contend with, but if everybody's talking about a film, and principal photography has not yet begun, it would be premature to start an article, because anything could derail a film production.

Do we need anything like that for TV articles? We often encounter upcoming series, and in most cases, so long as there are sufficient references chattering about the project, we tend to let the article stand, but as with film, anything could derail a TV project. Thoughts? No es necesario? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

the tv series that have received a pilot order and the production of the pilot is notable, according to nff, can have an article about the pilot, like Most Wanted and Krypton. when the full series is ordered, the article can be renamed to a series. if the pilot is passed on, the article will remain titled as a tv pilot, like what happened to most wanted. films and tv series are kinda differently approached. --HamedH94 (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think creating some sort of language is probably a good idea as a preventative measure, all we need is one well-meaning newbie to read an article in Variety and create 100 stubs for potential shows. Is the creation of articles about pilots actually spelled out anywhere? I do think we should attempt to create some notability guidelines for them. The above examples (Most Wanted and Krypton) and others like the FA Aquaman are notable in part because of they belong to notable franchises and have received significant coverage. The problem I foresee is that nearly every produced pilot is usually mentioned/described in some way in publications like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, and possibly more mainstream sources depending on attached talent, source material, etc. This technically makes them notable, but not necessarily deserving of individual articles. I would argue that whenever possible, stubs and smaller start articles about pilots should actually begin as sections within larger articles. For example, a pilot based on The Adventures of Tom Sawyer would be described in a couple of sentences there, one centered on Frankenstein's monster would be mentioned in that article, and a pilot starring Kim Kardashian as a powerful lawyer could be covered in her article.— TAnthony^Talk 15:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I would add that being mentioned in Variety of THR doesn't make something notable just because of the reputation of the magazine. Per the GNG, it requires "significant coverage", which does not mean mentioning by a high profile magazine, or 100 mentionings by high profile magazine. It means coverage beyond that trivial mention of "hey, they're making Krypton on SyFy and it's going to star actor Y." I do agree that we should have some form of NFF (ala NFTV?) so that we can direct people to said page. I would also agree with TAnthony that just because it make also have "significant coverage" doesn't mean that it needs an article. For example, they have been trying to get a Friday the 13th show off the ground for years, and there have been 2 major attempts in the last 10 years. One might argue that it has received "significant coverage" simply from the discussion of everyone working on it. Interestingly enough, that "significant coverage" exists quite well in the paragraph or two it currently has on the franchise page. It doesn't need an entire page devoted to that information. That is what we need to help people understand. Which is probably a good discussion for the MOSTV overhaul that's happening right now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that for the most part, we shouldn't make a series/season page until it has at least been picked up, if not started filming. Before then, information can go in other appropriate places (like at a franchise article, or a studio's article, etc.) if at all. If the pilot is passed on, then I think an evaluation can be made as to whether it could sustain an article as is, and if that is the case then the article can be made then (this is the process we went through on Most Wanted (TV pilot): we just had some info on the series in a spin-off section at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., but had a draft article for the pilot in the works; once the series was passed on, we felt that the draft was good enough to be an article anyway, and so moved it to the mainspace then). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Great question Cyphoidbomb! I was just thinking about this, as Bignole said, to potentially bringing this up during the MOSTV overhaul (which you can all find info on and join in the discussion(s), here). Currently, the only thing "on paper" regarding this is WP:TVSERIES, which is at Notability (media). It says there, Television pilots which have not been picked up to series are not normally eligible for Wikipedia articles — in most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network. A mere announcement that a pilot is in development may be noted in the Wikipedia articles about its creators, writers or confirmed cast members, but absent significant evidence that the pilot has notability for reasons beyond simple confirmation of its existence, the announcement itself is not sufficient basis for a standalone article about the pilot. A dropped pilot which does go to air as a standalone television film or special may, however, qualify for an article on that latter basis. As I read this, and my own thoughts, is that, in the early months of the year when networks reveal what scripts are becoming pilots, nothing in the main space should be created regarding them. Once May comes around, if that pilot has been picked up, an article could be created for it, given it still pass WP:GNG, and passed pilots should only get an article if it also has significant coverage regarding it (a la Most Wanted). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In case it is worth anything, the article that inspired this query was Pardes Mein Hai Meraa Dil, an upcoming Indian TV series. There's little written about it, it's unclear when it will begin (a blog says it'll begin in October 2017, some random users have said it's been postponed till 2017--no way to tell what's factual.) I like to plan for the most difficult cases, and in cases like these, pickup orders ain't exactly the norm. So I think we need some kinda guideline that takes into consideration that the rest of the world duzn't operate the same way that US television does, with well-publicized pickup commitments. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's another one: Sangharsh (TV series). The series name is tentative according to Times of India. Only the lead actor has been cast, his future co-stars are still in talks. Worth an article or not? What criteria would have prevented the premature creation of this article? Is maybe a release date the trigger? Like, if a series says, "We've got some stuff in the works, we should be ready to go on MMDDYY" would that be sufficient? Maybe not because there are lots of shows that are planned for "November 2016" or the beginning of the next Fall season. I dunno. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, I work with the Wikimedia Foundation's communications team; you may know me better under my volunteer username The ed17. We've been working for awhile on the idea of Wikipedia as a 'second screen' during major events. For the Super Bowl, for instance, we looked into the minute-by-minute page view spikes.

In the same spirit, we're planning to do a live blog on Medium about the 68th Primetime Emmy Awards, inviting people to use Wikipedia as their second screen when the winners are announced. As the editors and maintainers of these articles, we'd like you to take part to give your opinions and insights. Please leave a message here or on my talk page, or email blogteamwikimedia.org if you're intrigued. Thanks! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Lexa (The 100)#Proposed merge with Lexa Pledge. Along with discussion of merging includes whether or not to actually merge the content or simply redirect the Lexa Pledge article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: The content concerns a major spoiler. So if you would rather not be spoiled on the matter, it's best to avoid the discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if it's okay to create La Banda season 2 article? The show has gained popularity in the U.S. and other countries like México and their first band CNCO has gained popularity too. Seriesphile (talk · ctb) 03:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyone interested to contribute to the discussion are welcome at Talk:The Great British Bake Off (series 7). Hzh (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

An RfC titled "Should the article mention the national and/or iconic aspect of Lexa's impact?" has been started at Talk:The 100 (TV series). Interested Editors are invited to comment. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I could really use some input regarding a merge proposal of Naagin (season 2) to Naagin (2015 TV series). Discussion is at Talk:Naagin (2015 TV series).

I'm all alone in Indian television articles... It's me vs. sockpuppets. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel your pain. I see that in normal articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:30 for 30#Removed quote regarding the removal of Bill Simmons from the producer field of the infobox, since he is no longer involved with the series, or at ESPN for that matter. Additionally, it is being discussed if "former" should be included in front of Simmons' name in the text, as well as the inclusion of a "dated" quote. Editors are invited to weigh in on the discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I dunno what's going on this TV season, but this has become a proliferating issue lately – the problem is TV shows that have "special previews" before their "official" premiere dates. Here are three recent examples:

• Falling Water – special "preview", last night (Sept. 21); "official series premiere", Oct. 13
• Van Helsing – special "preview", July 31; "official series premiere", this Friday (Sept. 23)
• The Last Ship – special "preview" of season #3 premiere, May 30; "official season premiere", June 19

The question is: how should we handle situations like this, in terms of the episode list/table, and in terms of the infobox?...

Personally, I liked the way List of The Last Ship episodes episodes handled this in terms of the episode list (i.e. using a 'note' about the "special preview", and then using the "official premiere" date in the table), and copied that for Falling Water. But the Van Helsing article is simply ignoring the "official premiere" date outside of the lede... The bigger issue for the first two examples is does the "special preview" airing still count towards the "first_aired" parameter in the infobox? (I'm assuming it does...)

Thoughts, suggestions or comments on this issue are welcome... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: WP:TVOVERVIEW says the preview date should be used. Although it does not explicitly apply to other parts of the article, I'd say we should use the preview date elsewhere too, and if the "official premiere" can be referenced (it usually can be, so that's not the main issue), mention it in the "Broadcast" section and/or as a footnote. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, that does seem to answer the series overview table/infobox question... But I'm not sure it answers the episode list question... Waiting to see what others say... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't explicitly mention the episode list, but if I wasn't clear, I'll repeat – I would suggest just using the preview date there too. A footnote may or may not be added to the episode list, no strong opinion on that, though I wouldn't add footnotes in the series overview and infobox as the guideline there says to just use the "preview" date. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I think "original air date" is pretty clear. 'Preview' is just a marketing term. Should list the first airing in the episode list table. And as a compromise I can totally agree to a footnote that also lists the later, formal date. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Where it has relevance, though, is that sometimes these "previews" air unadvertised, whereas the "official premieres" are always heavily advertised. (Which leads to the philosophical question: If a "special preview" airs in the middle of the night, unadvertised, does anyone see it?!...) But getting back to Nyuszika7H's point, I agree with you that I believe these 'special cases' should be footnoted in the episodes list, one way or the other. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Another issue, that has just come up at Falling Water, is which ratings do you report (in the episode table)? For the reasons I've already outlined, I'd argue strongly that its the ratings for the "official" premiere that should be listed (the ratings for the "preview" airing can be mentioned in the 'Ratings'/'Reception' section). So this whole thing isn't purely an academic exercise... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Well, that's a good question. But listing the preview date as air date then listing the premiere ratings is misleading. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Hence it's a problem. One solution is to list the premiere date in the episode table, and then add a second 'note' to the ratings figure (to explain why they don't match). But that seems overly complex to me. The other solution is to go back to the way they had it at List of The Last Ship episodes, and list the "official" premiere date (with the 'note' about the "preview" airing added) with its ratings figure... Like I said, this turns out to be more than an "academic" question... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Over at List of Star vs. the Forces of Evil episodes we listed ratings for both the special preview (January 18, 2015 on Disney) and the series premiere (March 30, 2015 on Disney XD). The show resides on Disney XD. But the overview and episode listings can always list multiple premiere dates if it helps. This is a bit like a film festival release prior to the mainstream premiere. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

In January 2014 Arnav19 created Maragatha Veenai (TV series) an article about an Indian soap. This article went through a deletion discussion, which he did not participate in. As a result of this, the article was converted to a redirect.

Over a year later, he reverted the redirect, then made some cosmetic changes to the article. (AussieLegend, I notice some of your gnomish edits as well.) Arnav added a few sources (I'm not sure that any of them resolve.) When that version was converted back to a redirect by Natg 19 based on the previous AfD, Arnav waited three days, then recreated the article at Maragatha Veenai (Tamil series).

I'm bringing this here for community scrutiny. Arnav's edits were squirrely, but I'd question the original deletion. It's not like WP:TV has specific notability criteria for TV shows. And are we suggesting that a daily soap produced in one of the major languages of India, and that has survived 800 episodes, is potentially non-notable? It would seem that anything that makes it to a network's broadcast lineup is probably a reasonable thing to write an article about. Do we ever give a thumbs-down to original cartoons that air on Nickelodeon? Anyhow, if anyone has any input on this or how to proceed with the recreated article, that would be appreciated. If it helps, I'm no more of an expert on Indian entertainment than you are. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

If the article is to exist it should be at Maragatha Veenai (TV series) and not Maragatha Veenai (Tamil series) per WP:NCTV. While the TV project doesn't have specific notability guidelines, we do have WP:N, or more specifically, WP:GNG. If there are reliable sources, and the sources in the article do not appear to support anything in the article, then a subject is notable. If no sources can be found, then there shouldn't be an article. That it has survived for 800 episodes (has it? where is the source?) is probably not a big thing when you consider the population and how these programs are churned out. Looking at all the articles that I've had to fix, they seem to either have one channel per person or work on a 72 hour day. Personally, I think the AfD result should stand unless there are some reliable sources added. As you are aware, Indian TV articles are sadly lacking in this aspect. If it were a US program, what would we do? --AussieLegend (✉) 07:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

If it was deleted per AFD, the article should be redirected until a sufficiently different article is created. If the user is being disruptive on the point, then we educate. If he continues to be disruptive, then we proceed to poking an admin to block for edit warring. --Izno (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this a new thing that I missed? Nationality aside, newish TV shows normally don't get episode splits till a second season begins, correct? — Wyliepedia 17:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wyliepedia: This looks to me like a relatively new user boldly asserting a made-up fact. @Leo kingston: though you mean well, we typically wait until a second season begins to branch off into a LoE article. I don't understand your table ordering either. Why are they organized by months? We typically organize by seasons. Unless you have some evidence of a specific discussion having taken place where consensus was arrived at for how all Filipino television series should be formatted, our normal formatting should prevail. It would be appreciated if you'd please participate in the discussion here so we can hear your perspective. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

(from Leo kingston on my talk page) It's a different thing here on Philippine TV. We don't usually have that 'season' thing. So we group episodes by months or by book number. Just like the other LoE articles of Philippine TV. You can just go here to find out the difference Category:Lists of Philippine television series episodes. Philippine TV has its own format of LoE and does not follow US style. Hope it's clear! Thanks! Leo kingston (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC) — Wyliepedia 05:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Still, WP:SIZESPLIT applies, and it does not necessarily need to be split at this size. (Plus splitting requires attribution.) And not to mention, that table is a WP:ACCESS nightmare... nyuszika7h (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zap2it#Name change to Screener. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Our article on Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated describes it as "the eleventh incarnation of Hanna Barbera's Scooby-Doo".

My reading tends to be very literal, and while I know in modern colloquial English "incarnation" can just mean a certain entry in a series, isn't this WP:SLANG? That definition doesn't appear in my copy of the OED, nor in TheFreeDictionary nor even in the present version of Wiktionary.

Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it is an appropriate use of the word if you think of it in terms of reincarnation, in which this is the next version rather than a sequel or continuation or something. But if you can think of a better alternative then I would support that change. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You said it: "the eleventh version of Hanna Barbera's Scooby-Doo". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"Version" or "installment" would be appropriate in this case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: The OED seem happy to use incarnation in that way in their press releases - X201 (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The tongue-in-cheek nature of the sentence in which they used it seems to agree with my assertion that it's a use that is okay for an informal register, but Wikipedia isn't written in an informal register. But that is a pretty hilarious coincidence - kudos for digging it up! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't blink twice at the use of "incarnation" in that context... and might even write using it that very way. To me it reads like "iteration"/"version". See definition 3 here. Joeyconnick (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that "incarnation" is better and more formal than "version", but "installment" may be a good alternative. The sentence would just need a slight rewording. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I hardly think a (usage of a) word that is so informal it doesn't appear in most dictionaries is better and more formal, though. As for Webster: The example looks like the way it is used in our Scooby-Doo article, but it's third on the list and falls below the more etymologically accurate ones that have specifically to do do with gods becoming flesh; this, combined with the fact that Webster includes it but Oxford doesn't, implies it's a fairly recent Americanism (even if Webster doesn't specifically say so): even if it can be used in some articles, should it be avoided in articles that aren't written in American English? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It isn't an 'Americanism', it is a pretty common usage of the word. I'm sure I've read many articles that refer to remakes or reboots as the next incarnation of a franchise, and that sits perfectly well with my understanding of the word. It actually confuses me that you haven't seen it used that way before. The word incarnation, as I have always known it, tends to be used when referring to the physical embodiment of unearthly things ("that dog is the devil incarnate") or to an installment, for lack of a better term, in a series or reincarnations ("the Avatar reincarnated into its next incarnation"). This case obviously applies to the latter definition, with the Scooby-Doo franchise being remade/rebooted/renewed/etc. multiple times, and this being the eleventh incarnation of that. Another example would be the iPhone 7, which is the latest incarnation of the iPhone. "Version" does not convey the same meaning that "incarnation" does, and sounds really out of place and amateurish in this context. "Installment" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "incarnation", but could be used anyway if we alter what's around it. But I do think that "incarnation" is the most appropriate word for this situation. Just as a note, I'm not American and I don't think this is an American English issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Country of origin of the Scooby-Doo page lists the United States, so not sure why using American English would not be appropriate. But the better argument for keeping "incarnation" is Adamstom.97's above, to which I would say heartily "me too!" (and I'm not American either). Specifically, since we're talking about a TV-related article, the entertainment press commonly uses "incarnation" to refer to whichever remake is being discussed (film or TV) and WP:SLANG does say articles should follow the style used by reliable sources. Joeyconnick (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

A Indian Marathi TV Series which is very famous for its story and characters! I need help in writing more about it. by BOTFIGHTER (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated the article about the episode Chad Harris-Crane for Featured Article consideration. This article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions. The character made daytime television and soap opera history for participating in the first instance in a soap opera of two men simulating sex, and has also been cited as expanding the representation of LGBT characters of color on daytime television.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chad Harris-Crane/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey we could use some help and extra input at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements, specifically for the TV series Class (2016 TV series).

And at Talk:Class (2016 TV series).

Whatever you can do, if you can have a look.

Thank you ! 69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Different sources have reported different spellings for the surname of the character "Lowell" on iZombie. Looking for some second opinions on which one is more reliable at this link. Thank you. Sock (tock talk) 00:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone got any idea what the |num_episodes= parameter is trying to tell us at Diya Aur Baati Hum? I opened a discussion, but I'm not optimistic anyone will respond. I'm mostly just bringing this up here for your personal amusement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding whether or not to have a Litton syndicated block subgroup at Template:KidsTVBlocksUSA. Please reply there. Spshu (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey all, if you're in an investigative mood, we're trying to figure out at Talk:Doki (TV series) whether the series is Canadian + something else or not. Based on this article dug up by Palettepony895 Discovery Kids Latin America ordered the program and hired Portfolio Entertainment (Canadian company) to produce. So the question is: Who runs Discovery Kids Latin America, and would Doki be considered Canadian + whatever nation runs Discovery Kids Latin America?

Also, more eyes on the article would be appreciated since there's a zealous kid (Byron) who doesn't speak English well who's kinda taken ownership... Thanks all! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Martial Universe was created today. As it was unreferenced and, according to the article itself, principal photocgraphy has not commenced, I prodded it. This was deleted by the article creator, and some references have been added, but the fact that principal photography has not commenced is still an issue. Should we really be creating articles about programs that haven't had a single episode filmed? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't really have a notability guideline (that's something we will look to add to the MOS at the end of the rewrite). However, on articles I've worked on, I've taken the spirit of WP:NFF, which states film articles are not allowed until in the mainspace until filming has begun. Myself and additional editors discussed this very thing recently, which you can find here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I've been distracted recently and had forgotten about that discussion. Thanks for reminding me. I do think there is a subtle difference between films and TV here, in that if filming for a movie has started, it's almost a certainty that the film will be released. However, with TV, there is no guarantee of that. It's entirely possible that a TV series will not proceed beyond the pilot episode, and we don't usually (at all?) create articles for TV series that don't proceed beyond the pilot. The question from this is, what's the best way to proceed with Martial Universe? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd send it to the Draft space to continue to be populated until production has actually begun and maybe an intended release date/window is revealed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying for the past few hours to populate Category:Decades in television with subcategories corresponding to Category:Years in television by country. Instead of editing by hand, I wrote some crappy JavaScript in order to replace in my editing window the string Category:Years in [country] television with Category:Decades in [country] television, in category pages with the title Category:[decade] in [country] television. The script also makes the category keys contained in Category:[decade] in [country] television consistent with that category's title.

For example, with this edit to Category:1960s in Danish television, Category:Years in Danish television got replaced with Category:Decades in Danish television. Denmark also got changed to Danish in the key for Category:1960s in television.

Before I go any further with these edits, I'm wondering if this restructuring would do more harm than good. I'm looking to follow WP:ASSISTED guidelines, even though this is not a bot, just script-assisted manual edits. 23W 01:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's the source code of this script, slightly updated to perform other replacements. 23W 20:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed an edit war between Pppery and AlexTheWhovian, which prompted me to start this discussion. "Consensus", i.e. common practice might be to use <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>, but as Pppery points out there's no consensus against LST (labeled section transclusion), as it didn't even exist back then. But it's probably better to discuss before making mass changes, so here goes. Personally, I would support its usage as it's more obvious and less prone to mistakes (e.g. forgetting the <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>), and also allows us to transclude more parts of the article separately if ever needed. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

For editors unfamiliar with this method, here's how it would work:

{{transcluded-section|Arrow (season 1)}}
{{#section-h::Arrow (season 1)|Episodes}}

Note that {{Main article}} is redundant in this case, and {{Transcluded section}} seems to be a better alternative as it also provides an edit link. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I have posted on the talk page of the editor in question; I await their response or actions. LST section transclusion has never been used in television articles (actually, there's only one instance I know it); <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> is the method that has been used for years across hundreds of articles. It is definitely better to discuss mass changes first, especially when one is unfamiliar with the methods that is used within a particular WikiProject. I am also not the only editor that has reverted these undiscussed edits. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure, I wasn't blaming you, I acknowledged above that it's better to discuss first (which is why I started this discussion), but the fact that something has never been used doesn't mean it's bad. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I definitely support this change, for reasons I've stated many times, most recently at User talk:Pppery#Series overview table transcluding, and have been converting uses of onlyinclude tags to LST on-and-off since July. Primarily, onlyinclude tags are confusing and limiting, whereas the addition of LST sections has no effect on the article and #section-h does not even require any changes to it. Pppery 13:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Come again? Onlyinclude tags are confusing? I'm not seeing how -

{{:Arrow (season 1)}}
<onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>

- that is, a few tags and a colon, is more confusing than -

{{transcluded-section|Arrow (season 1)}}
{{#section-h::Arrow (season 1)|Episodes}}

- that is, long template names, hashtag templates, etc, etc. Especially if sections include content other than the episode tables. These are tags that have never been used in the TV WP; editors are familiar and comfortable with the current versins. There's no need to fix what isn't broken. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

First off, you're missing the point of the {{transcluded-section}} hatnote. It should be added regardless of whether LST or onlyinclude tags is used. "Onlyinclude tags are confusing" was slightly vague wording on my part. What I really meant was the effects of onlyinclude tags are confusing. To someone who doesn't understand the system of transclusion of seasons, the markup {{:Arrow (season 1)}} looks like it would transclude the whole season article, but it actually transcludes just some small section. {{#section-h::Arrow (season 1)|Episodes}} (which is not a "hashtag template", it is a parser function) seems much clearer to me. Pppery 14:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The template should be included according to what policy? And I think that you believe that editors for the most part aren't able to understand what they see. They see that only the episode table is pulled by using {{:Arrow (season 1)}}, they then actually go to Arrow (season 1), and see the <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags around the episode table. Understood. And you still failed to explain what then occurs when there is both text and tables in the one section, per this example. Your method also seems to include more unnecessary whitespace at the end of a transclusion; it appears to be more trouble than it's worth. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Um, didn't Nyuszika7H state why the transcluded-section hatnote is a good idea above ({{Transcluded section}} seems to be a better alternative as it also provides an edit link.}}} Pppery 14:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

So, no policy. Are editors really so lazy that they can't go to an article and click the edit link? What it also adds is a link to the List of Episodes page, per the previous example I linked and from the transcluded section, which (when on that same page) is simply bolded text, and hence, a useless line. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to calm down, nobody is attacking you, but you're taking everything personally and being aggressive in your tone of response. There doesn't have to be a policy to do something. If we had to have policies for everything, nothing would ever get done. I could say, is there a policy for the usage of {{Series overview}} (which, by the way, is very useful)? Calling editors "lazy" is not constructive at all. Certainly, they are used to clicking through to the article, but why are you so vehemently against a convenience link just because you personally don't need it? Also, you would place it in the article where you transclude it, not where it's transcluded from (just like you do with {{Main article}}, which this supersedes), so there wouldn't be any redundant text.

As for the whitespace, LST seems to be a bit sensitive to that. Putting the transclusion on the same line as {{transcluded-section}} or removing the blank line before the next section header fixes it, though neither is ideal. It could be templated away, although {{section}} currently doesn't work due to a bug, but I think a Lua module could generate these tags. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: I think you are confusing the two modes of LST here. {{section}} would (if it worked), work with the #section mode, where <section /> tags are placed in the transcluded article, not the #section-h method that I was using. A template could be created that adds a transcluded-section hatnote and transcludes the section, but I'm not exactly sure what purpose it would serve. I don't think that phab:T39256 (as it relates to LST) can be worked around with Lua. By the way, the spacing bug is phab:T144762. Pppery 16:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It's correct that there is no consensus against using LST, but doing so using {{transcluded section}} (the correct title - the template was moved from {{transcluded-section}} in June) certainly does not have wide support. That template is used in a mere 73 articles across Wikipedia, despite having existed for two years. I don't see why this template includes notification that transcluded content follows, as this means nothing to most readers, and is certainly not commonly done in other templates. We generally only announce that in hidden notes for editors. That aside, the edit that I reverted removed the <includeonly> tags that are added to stop the entire page reloading each time a link is clicked on that page. The content between the tags is only necessary on the page to which the content is transcluded, not on the source page. Personally I find use of the template more confusing, and if I find it confusing, so will the average editor who doesn't usually understand much beyond how to edit text. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm basically with Alex here – unless there is a compelling reason, we should not be forcing editors to edit a certain way. The 'onlyinclude' tags have been used for years, and many of us are comfortable using them, and we shouldn't be forced to stop using this simply because a single editor has their 'bee in a bonnet' about the practice. If consensus is to advise editors that doing it Nyuszika7H's way is "better practices", then fine – but we shouldn't be deprecating things like 'onlyinclude' tags when many of us are very comfortable using them (and fixing mistakes on them). P.S. There were previously spacing issues with using 'transcluded-section' – so those haven't been fixed?! If they haven't been, I'd actually advocate against using it until the spacing issues are permanently fixed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

... Fixing issues that couldn't occur unless the section is renamed in the LST method. Pppery 17:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Alex and IJBall: if this method hasn't been an issue, and editors have gotten used to working this way, why change it or seemingly force the depreciation of this method if it still works? Additionally, I think editors are savvy enough to either figure out transclusion tags, or if they don't know how, waiting until an editor who does completes the task, or asking for help on the talk (even if in terms of "I want page A to look like page B"). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, we probably shouldn't be changing to LST until the spacing issue is fixed. There's no need to "force" changes I guess, <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> is also fine when there's no need for another transclusion, though LST makes it obvious to people unfamiliar with it that it's just a section being transcluded – they will likely have to read up to understand how it works either way, it rather reduces confusion, doesn't add much to it apart from a bit of getting used to for experienced editors.

As for {{Transcluded section}}, people not knowing what transclusion is is not an argument against it – quite to the contrary, the word "transclusion" is linked to a page which explains it, which is actually more helpful to new editors than seeing {{Main article}} and something that looks like a template, which they may assume transcludes the whole other article, or not know what it does at all. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: I'm not entirely sure where you get the idea that I'm being hostile, I'm just in disagreeance of the edit. And I dont think you understood my next part; see this example. It transcludes the whole Episode section, including the "See also: List of Arrow episodes" like, which, when transcluded to List of Arrow episodes, is a redundant line of bolded text. But it does seem that more editors are in a disagreeance over using this new format. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Oh, I didn't think about its use to transclude season pages. Well, in that case, you can surround the desired part with <section> tags, which is almost the same as <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> except makes it more obvious in the wikitext what's being transcluded, to those who understand it (and those who don't won't care anyway). But it seems most people are against this – I guess it's not a big deal, it doesn't really matter much if you only need to transclude one section from a page, and even though the current method implies at first that the whole other page is being transcluded, this pattern is common for episode list pages and people will learn eventually either way. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Section tags require markup in the source article. #section-h doesn't. Pppery 14:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: Yes, I'm aware, but section tags are necessary to avoid the redundant backlink to the "List of episodes" article when transcluding a season episode list to the "List of episodes" page, unless you create a subheading which seems redundant. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

quite to the contrary, the word "transclusion" is linked to a page which explains it - merely linking to the page doesn't mean that people understand it. Most editors simply don't have a clue about the more technical aspects. Nowhere was this more obvious than when we had to split List of The Simpsons episodes to List of The Simpsons episodes and List of The Simpsons episodes*. People just couldn't get their heads around the fact that merely moving List of The Simpsons episodes* to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) introduced additional problems that now sees that page perilously close to breaking the post-expand include size. When we create articles we have to make sure that the code used is as non-confusing to as many editors as possible, and {{Transcluded section}} just adds a confusion, complexity and redundancy. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Well, it may not explain it in words easy to understand to anyone, but I'd think most of those people just wouldn't care about it – it doesn't change how they use the article, unlike the split. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that this edit be implemented into {{Infobox television season}}, giving two date ranges in the template for parted seasons. I understand that the template is a summary for the season, but when you have Haven (season 5), for example, listing the date range as "September 11, 2014 – December 17, 2015", this is factually incorrect. The season didn't air continuously between those dates (in fact, it had a break of ten months, which is rather significant), so that's why I would like to suggest something like this. As a summary for the season, such major details should be noted as such, as in several cases, the split seasons are sometimes advertised as two separate seasons. Another example would be Vikings (season 4), which lists the original release as "February 18, 2016 – present" - it is not currently airing, only Part 1 premiered in February; Part 2 is in November. Hence, it should list "Part 1: February 18 – April 21, 2016", and then adding the second part should comply with the existing documentation, and not be added until it premieres. Such a listing would not necessary for regular fall shows that take only a month break, only seasons that are advertised as split. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This is also increasingly common in anime, though they typically tend to use their own infobox. --Izno (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

If this gets added, we'd all have to make sure that this is used in these instances, and not "normal" winter hiatus breaks for network shows (ie, the first 12 or so eps airing from Sep - Dec, then breaking for the holidays, and returning in the following year to conclude in May). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Most definitely. Only for seasons that are advertised as split, and who's home media is released as such, and that use {{Episode table/part}}. Perhaps I should bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Parent, season, episode infobox? Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Eh, this isn't really something that needs to be added to the MOS, so bringing it up in that discussion wouldn't be helpful. Doing it here and at the infobox television season talk is fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: But... isn't this exactly a style change that should be mentioned in the MOS and so wouldn't it totally make sense to include it in that discussion? I think if someone forgets to include something there, fine, understandable oversight, but I feel like if you actively encourage people not to put info there when there's a big push to revise the MOS, you end up looking like you're trying to sneak something through. Not saying you are, but I've seen some comments around that imply that people can get that impression, so shouldn't the default be to overshare?

I'm thinking it would be particularly important given the final point re: when not to list split dates (i.e. normal "winter" or mid-season hiatus, not released or referred to as a split season) vs. when to use them... because you can just totally see people coming in and relabelling all regular hiatuses (hiatusii? LOL) as split seasons, so having a section in the MOS to point to will really help ward off those well-meaning yet confusing changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyconnick (talk • contribs) 02:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

We've had virtually the same discussion regarding dates in {{Infobox television}} and decided not to do what was proposed. The consensus was essentially that first_aired and last_aired are merely meant to show when the first episode and last episode of a series were aired and it didn't matter if there was a long hiatus between seasons. The same applies to seasons. Even if it is broken into parts, and really, most seasons are even if they're not specifically called parts, all we need to list are the first and last dates.

when you have Haven (season 5), for example, listing the date range as "September 11, 2014 – December 17, 2015", this is factually incorrect. The season didn't air continuously between those dates - That's true for any season. Most seasons have a small hiatus, but it's still a hiatus. They don't air continuously, almost no programs do. Between the last week in September and the first week in May there are 32 weeks, but how many series have 31 episodes?

As a summary for the season, such major details should be noted as such - At the discussions regarding infobox television, we decided that if the information is significant, it should be addressed in the prose. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not proposing multiple dates be added to the one parameter, I'm suggesting that new parameters be made for seasons advertised as split (hence, not including regular fall shows). So, can you explain to me why {{Series overview}} should allow for split seasons, but {{Infobox television season}} should not? Especially when the latter displays more information than the former, and should then list the same information available in a series overview. If it really is a case were first_aired and last_aired are merely meant to show when the first episode and last episode of a series were aired and it didn't matter if there was a long hiatus between seasons, then this should apply across all television templates, no? Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: The MOS isn't really meant to go indepth with template parameters for the infoboxes, which is what Alex is proposing changes. I'm not trying to sneak anything by any means, but all the MOS is showing currently, and should continue to, is the templates for users to copy for use. If they want more info on the specific parameters and how to format them, they should go to the template's documentation. Does that make sense? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

To Aussie and Alex's points above: for {{Infobox television}} it makes sense, in my eyes, to not do what Alex is proposing. But for seasons, which are single entities, doing what Alex is proposing seems fine to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not proposing multiple dates be added to the one parameter, I'm suggesting that new parameters be made for seasons advertised as split - That's just the same thing using a different method. We could have done that with infobox television to allow for situations where a show is cancelled, and then started again.

can you explain to me why {{Series overview}} should allow for split seasons, but {{Infobox television season}} should not? - Most of the edits to {{Series overview}} have been made by you. It's a table, not an infobox. Two different things.

this should apply across all television templates, no? - Maybe it should. Where is the discussion where we decided that it should be changed?

But for seasons, which are single entities, - A TV series is a single entity, comprised of parts called seasons. A season is a single entity, comprised of parts called episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Favre1fan93: Keep the standard and current method for {{Infobox television}}, but adjust as suggested for {{Infobox television episode}}. And don't put the series overview on me - parted seasons in series overviews existed far before I even joined the site. All I've done is made it easier to display such content. An infobox is also a table, and one that provides further information than a series overview - you would expect the infobox to then display the same info provided in the overview. It might be interesting to see the views of other editors who oppose this edit as well, to see how far the opinion reaches. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I see what you mean. --Joeyconnick (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Prior to the creation of {{series overview}}, series overview tables all used raw code and parted seasons were never, as far as I am aware, discussed. It was only after you created {{series overview}}, along with several other highly useful templates that you also created, did parted seasons become an issue because of the coding of that template.

All I've done is made it easier to display such content That's actually a modest reply. Your templates have been of huge benefit to the project. As a courtesy, I personally have generally left editing of the templates to you, since you are intimately familiar with them.

And don't put the series overview on me The fact is, you are the editor who has made the vast majority of these templates, and the response to your question, can you explain to me why {{Series overview}} should allow for split seasons was not able to be answered because I couldn't find where this had been discussed. I don't oppose this functionality, it's essential content as far as I can see, but it's not an infobox, so there is no comparison between the two. The infobox and the lead are similar, both are supposed to summarise, the lead in prose, the infobox in a dot point format. The series overview is an adjunct to, but not part of the lead.

We need to be consistent in the way that we do things, which is one reason the MOS discussions are occurring. Over recent years we have made changes to the infoboxes so that they are more similar. This change would be inconsistent with the previous discussions that we've had and the changes that we've made. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think this is needed. It's not incorrect to simply include the start and end date, it does not suggest that the series aired continuously and consistently over that period, per the above comments. And, say, a series goes on a long – possibly unplanned – hiatus, but they are never called "parted seasons". Those wouldn't fall under this definition even if there was a longer period of no new episodes. The infobox is meant to summarize information, it's just a date range. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I have only been an editor here for two years, so I am obviously not aware if there were or were not discussions of the issue before I joined, but when I created the series overview template, I was aware that many articles, that had split seasons, if not almost all such articles, did use raw code to display them as such in the overview table. Whether if was by some unspoken consensus, agreement between editors, private discussions on talk pages, I do not know. That is why I created support for this in the template (initially through another template, then through the module).

If the lead and the infobox are both similar, then they should put forward mostly the same points as each other, albeit in their different forms. In this case, many leads for split seasons describe the mid-season finale and premiere dates (which as previously stated in this discussion, this has been discussed as acceptable) as well as the regular season premiere and finale dates, and hence, the infobox should display these separate dates as well.

Discussions are held all the time, and are mostly always about content that has already been discussed previously; these discussions then may or may not go ahead to change the content that the previous discussions has settled upon. This is just one of those. Infobox content has been agreed upon in the past, and now this is a discussion on that content; it is certainly not the first of its kind.

What I have proposed is also just a date range. It is just an extra added date range. A discussion may have been held for {{Infobox television}} to simply include one date range, but it does not seem that this has been adhered to; just earlier, I came across an instance of the template that has four date ranges for the original release bracket, and I believe that this is perfectly alright and normal, as the infobox is meant to summarize the series. And both the example I gave and the proposed edits, they both do so, by reflecting and showing a quick summary of when the show has been airing, and when it has been off air outside of its regular hiatus breaks. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Any further opinions on this would be greatly appreciated. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

If the lead and the infobox are both similar, then they should put forward mostly the same points as each other - Mostly, but not all, and we have to be consistent in our approach. If we allow splits in the season infobox, why not in the main series infobox? In the two years sonce you started editing, every change we've made to the infoboxes has been to ensure consistency, and this would be a step in the opposite direction. In any case, content in the infobox is supposed to be significant, and splitting a season is not all that significant. As you, or someone, said, it's becoming more common. The infobox is also supposed to be about the season as a whole, and for that we need to know when the season started, and when it finished. We don't need to know about breaks in the middle. As already said, every season has them. And what are the criteria for identifying a season as parted? Does it specifically have to be identified as part 1 and 2? If so, then a number of articles will have to be modified because we used common sense when determining that they were parted. If we decide to get around this by giving a specified period between episodes, which is a bit ORish anyway, what is the period? A month? Two months? Three months?

What I have proposed is also just a date range. It is just an extra added date range. - Somebody can always argue that something is "just" this or that. If we look at the simplest effect, we often have problems with this infobox because of its length, especially now that we can include starring cast. Often that alone increases whitespace between the "Episodes" heading and the table. "Just an extra added date range" will contribute to that.

A discussion may have been held for {{Infobox television}} to simply include one date range, but it does not seem that this has been adhered to; just earlier, I came across an instance of the template that has four date ranges for the original release bracket, and I believe that this is perfectly alright and normal, as the infobox is meant to summarize the series. - The consensus was that there should be just one date range. If there were more, then this is an edit against consensus and should have been fixed. People can't just add things willy nilly. What if the infobox is changed and that breaks the display in that article?

and when it has been off air outside of its regular hiatus breaks - If a season has been broken into two parts, then the break is a regular hiatus break. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in reply.

Mostly, but not all, and we have to be consistent in our approach. If we allow splits in the season infobox, why not in the main series infobox? Many series that have been split (e.g. cancelled then revived) do still use multiple dates in the release parameter of the main infobox, so I would put forward allowing the usage of these cases, but that's not what this discussion is about.

As already said, every season has them. And what are the criteria for identifying a season as parted? There's no specific date range for split seasons, but they are always advertised as such, and almost always released on home media as such. For example, Haven, Breaking Bad, Vikings have all had seasons advertised as Part 1/2, Volume 1/2, etc, and each of those parts have been released separately at home media. Series like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., that had a break from December '15 to March '16, did not have the split season advertised as such, and did not have the home media released as such. There's no OR going on in these examples.

If we look at the simplest effect, we often have problems with this infobox because of its length, especially now that we can include starring cast. Often that alone increases whitespace between the "Episodes" heading and the table. "Just an extra added date range" will contribute to that. One date range isn't going to cause a great amount of whitespace on a great number of articles. If there is whitespace caused between the episodes table and the season infobox, then the episodes table should be moved down to allow production information (for example) to fill it in (and if it doesn't have that, or reception information, then it probably should not be a separate article in the first place). Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, if there's nothing else, I'm going to assume WP:SILENCE... Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if there is anything else, but I don't think you can assume SILENCE. Even though I agreed with you, I think Aussie presented their arguments, that I'm not really sure where the consensus stands. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I have not changed my opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

In that case, ignoring the thread won't magically let it go away. Since you apparently still disagree with it but have no further views or arguments to add, perhaps an RfC would help the thread further along? Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes a thread just runs its course with no real outcome, and beating it with a stick isn't going to bring it back to life. Do you really think an RfC will achieve anything, given the lack of interest from interested editors? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Stating that it's a dead horse simply because you - the only editor thus far disagreeing with the propose edits - don't want to put any further arguments across to editors who have, that is what gets threads nowhere. And yes, I do, as it will bring in neutral editors to share their views. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Stating that it's a dead horse simply because - It's a dead horse because nobody has been participating. Even you took 5 days to reply to my last post and the only reason that there is still activity is because you keep poking it, like you did here, or when you decided that because there was no further discussion, that there was consent for your proposal.

you - the only editor thus far disagreeing - That's not correct. Nyuszika7H also disagreed..

don't want to put any further arguments across - There are only so many things you can say. It's not up to me to convince you to not include the edits. It's up to you to convince everyone else that they should be included. This is a template used in (currently) 4,238 articles, so it requires a good consensus, not just the wishes of one editor.

I do, as it will bring in neutral editors to share their views. - How many are realistically going to be interested when even people who have an interest in TV don't seem interested. I'd be interested to here from long-term editors, like @Bignole, Cyphoidbomb, and Geraldo Perez: and others, but they haven't shown any interest either.

Many series that have been split (e.g. cancelled then revived) do still use multiple dates in the release parameter of the main infobox - Yet we agreed this should not be the case. You've been around long enough to know that 2 wrongs don't make a right. If infobox fields are incorrectly used, they should be fixed. It's not justification to incorrectly use those fields at other articles.

There's no specific date range for split seasons, but they are always advertised as such - That's more than a little deceptive. Many shows have a long hiatus between parts, but they don't make a big thing about it. They don't specifically refer to them as part 1 and part 2. Often they just say the next episode will air in <insert month here>. Some do, but others don't.

One date range isn't going to cause a great amount of whitespace on a great number of articles - Whitespace is whitespace. It's undesirable and we shouldn't be encouraging a situation where whitespace might be forced into an article.

If there is whitespace caused between the episodes table and the season infobox, then the episodes table should be moved down to allow production information (for example) to fill it in - A lot of season articles doesn't have a lot of information other than the episode list. We had a big discussion about this as well in the past.

if it doesn't have that, or reception information, then it probably should not be a separate article in the first place - That was part of the discussion. A lot of articles should really be named "List of <Foo> episodes (season x)" because they have little more than the episode list, but consensus has never been that such articles shouldn't exist, so saying that they should is really irrelevant.

And once again I have to point out the consistency issue, since it is important. The consistency that we've been aiming for over the past 2-3 years has produced better articles than we had 5 years ago. Now that it is getting in the way of your preferred method of doing things, you're quite happy to drop it, but that really isn't the approach we should be taking. We can't ignore something just because it is inconvenient. If we do, we may as well just throw out the MOS altogether. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a lot to read, but the gist of what I see (correct me if I'm wrong) is about adding an element to the season infobox that allows for acknowledgement of "parted seasons". My first thought would be a simple "note" next to the date should suffice this. If an element is added though, it needs to be very very clear that this isn't about winter breaks, even if one half of a season was marketed as one thing and the second another. For example, Gotham last year had two marketing campaigns for each half season. Heroes did this as well, but those are still all one season as far as television goes. They were not truly distinct separations. So, as long as we are not allowing those to be treated as "parted" seasons, then I'm ok.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Repectfully, I am leaning toward not including a unique parameter. This seems like an uncommon issue and I don't think I consider it a real problem in need of a solution. When circumstances arise that require clarification, like when an old series is revived, editors have found work-arounds like bolded notes for Revival series in the infobox instead of requiring new parameters. I think the same could be done here. I feel that 1) the run of a season is from date A to date B, regardless of how long it took to get to date B. I don't think we need to break that up in to Part 1 and Part 2. And if there is disagreement about that locally, a workaround could be presented, as indicated above, or with notes as Bignole suggests. 2) Lots of kids' series will air a ton of new episodes, then go silent for months, then air then air a ton of episodes all at once. I think we're asking for original research troubles by giving kids an opportunity to invent season parts. "Six months have elapsed, so this must be a new Part." Granted, clear documentation could help to control some of that, but my #1 concern still exists. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

For this particular case, I'm talking about Young Justice (TV series). WB Animation just announced today that there will be a third season of the show.^[1] I was going to add a third season to Young Justice (TV series)#Episodes, and I was looking for a guideline on whether or not I should do that now. However, I can't seem to find any guidelines on how to write an "Episodes" section, not even at MOS:TV. When is the appropriate time to add Season 3 to the table? — Gestrid (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The table at Young Justice (TV series)#Episodes is not normal. It's a duplication of the series overview table at List of Young Justice episodes, extended with home media, which is not supposed to be included in series overview tables. A row for an upcoming season, per WP:TVOVERVIEW, is not to be added until an actual episode table is added for that season. Per WP:TVUPCOMING, "When a series is renewed for an additional season, a section is not to be added for that upcoming season until such time as an episode table can be created for the season." An episode table requires substantive episode content, not just a whole pile of empty fields, or a single date. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This project page is now marked as "semi-active". I have not yet changed the status to "inactive". However, shall it stay as the project or a task force of the parent project, Television? --George Ho (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

A task force may be appropriate, considering the series is no longer airing, and the attention to related articles may not be as great as it was when it was airing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to make one change to each of the list articles 1977 in television through 2016 in television. Currently they are added to the category Category:Set indices through the use of the template {{Set index article}}. I'd like to move them to the category Category:Set indices on media instead by using the template {{Media set index}}.

As an aside, I deem the category Category:Set indices on television programs too specific. An intermediate category Category:Set indices on television [sic] might also be an option, but I don't see the need to create it (and modify the SIA template to enable this new category). Thoughts? --Azertus (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated the article about the television series Love, Inc. for Featured Article consideration. This article is a short-lived UPN sitcom that revolves around five matchmakers working at a New York City dating agency. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love, Inc. (TV series)/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, umm... our Red Dwarf article refers to the show's ninth series (which in common parlance is the same thing Americans call a "season" and as far as I can tell this particular franchise is not an exception) as a "mini-series", because it was half the length of the others. But this is not how the word is normally used in American English, and I don't think British English actually uses this word in the sense "a season that is shorter than the other seasons" (sorry to use American-style, but "series" being the same in the singular and plural was problematic).

Is this normal? I didn't want to change it myself because, having grown up in Ireland and being (basically) too young to remember Red Dwarf, I can't shake the feeling that I might just be ignorant of the reason this is not a mistake.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I normally work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics, and a lot of character articles have an in other media section that will list their appearances in cartoons or films, like Karnak (comics)#Television. These (and the voice actors associated with them) are often tagged as being unsourced. Since this project deals with this more directly, I wanted to ask if this is a case where the episode itself could be used as a source, or if I need to locate third parties that say a character appeared in the episode and was voiced by Actor. If the episode is acceptable as a source, could someone also give me an idea of what information needs to be included in the citation? Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Third party is definitely the way to go if possible. If that can't be found, you can use {{cite episode}} to directly cite an episode, as long as it has credits explicitly stating Actor as Character. You should use then use the time/minutes parameter to indicate at what point in the episode the credit for said actor appears. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. I just wanted to drop a line here that I've created a proposal to add to WP:TVLEAD as part of the MOS overhaul in regards to how genres and a series' nationalities are defined. This is a somewhat large/divisive topic and wanted to make sure as many people interested had the chance to discuss what I proposed (short answer, similar wording for these two things as done at WP:FILMLEAD. You can find the discussion here to weigh in if you choose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Would someone mind taking a look at this IPs edits? They've been adding a crossover connection between Hakeem Lyon and Sleepy Hollow (TV series) to various related articles. I've tried to verify this connection through googling, but can't find anything about it all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

A potentially obscure TV-related AfD could use some input, please.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistakes in naagin

Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JV- The Extraordinary Adventures of Jules Verne has had no input from other editors. Comments at the AfD would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

To the group: please note that a "TV" argument has been added to the {{Notability}} template after a request by myself. So now, when tagging any TV article with the {{Notability}} tag please do it as, for example, {{Notability|TV}}. Doing so will include a link to WP:TVSERIES which discusses the notability requirements for TV series and TV pilots.

Sidenote: It would also be super great if the creation of a category like "Television articles of unclear notability" could be created/populated based on such tagging, as I'd be the kind of editor that might occasionally peruse such a category looking for obvious WP:AfD candidates. I dunno how to do that, but if someone around here does... it's just a thought. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we're going to make a "proper" notability section in the MOS. That was discussed at some point recently, and there was interest to do so, and the best time would be at the end of all the current sections we're discussing, covering anything to add overall. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. But the current WP:TVSERIES does an adequate job already, so there's no reason not to start using it more broadly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think WP:TVSERIES can be better in its definition, but that's of course what the discussion is for! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There's an ongoing WP:RFC at Star Wars expanded universe regarding the issue of the non-canon material before April 2014. The discussion can be found at Talk:Star Wars expanded universe#RfC: Is it relevant to group all non-canon EU material in a Legends subcategory?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, if a few of you could please watchlist Naagin (TV series), it would make my admin efforts a little easier. For the past few months at a number of Indian TV articles I've encountered what I can only describe as a widespread coordinated effort to promote ignorance. It's as though dozens of editors are adhering to a bare bones template and are determined to make articles less informative by removing anything that doesn't look like the template. For weeks I dealt with one editor (at another article) who was determined to write numerals as 01, 02, 03... and who despite numerous explanations kept using |followed_by= to indicate what series replaced a show in the time slot.

At some articles, including Naagin, information about cast departures and character descriptions are all removed in favor of terse skeletal content. Prose is removed in favor of parentheticals. "She is an Icchadari Naagin, or a shape-shifting serpent" is replaced with "(Naagin)". Very weird. Main and Recurring cast is rearranged to indicate current cast members at top. Cast members who depart are stuffed into a "Former cast" section with no other info about if they were Main or Recurring. Even attempts to provide details about why a cast member left have been deleted at some articles. Anyhow the above article has been plagued by sockpuppetry and could just use some extra eyes to help bring things up to TV standards and maybe I'll whine to you all about the other articles as the disruptions continue. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: You've probably noticed by now that I requested page protection for it; it lasts until February and will hopefully curb the disruptive editing down. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Appreciated. I could have protected it, and probably have. I think that having more eyes on it in general will allow for it to evolve, but still be under community scrutiny. So many of these articles seem to be manipulated by people completely unaware that there are basic standards. The promo farms could take a hint from some of the children who edit TV articles, because at least they know what the goals are. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's another example of the weird shit. Let's assume the reference removal isn't an issue, why is the editor removing normal sentence structure in favor of parentheticals? I have other examples of similar bizarre edits, where people will chain together multiple parentheticals like, "(2015-2016) (dead) (main female lead protagonist)". And I'm not exaggerating with that last super-redundant one. apparently being in the Main cast sub-section isn't sufficient, they have to repeat "main", add interpretive and redundant "lead" and "protagonist", and then point out the actors' genders as if that's confusing. Even from an administrative point of view, I have no idea what I'm supposed to do. Semi-protect everything? That'll only encourage account creation. I've blocked some accounts and that seemed to help, but geez... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Another example at Kasam Tere Pyaar Ki. A new actress is portraying a role, so the IP obliterates any mention of the old actress. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking for input on the necessity of a standalone "Ratings" section for a 3-episode miniseries. See Lost in the West#Ratings and Talk:Lost in the West#Removing "Ratings" section. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional voices would be appreciated in this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kepompong 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/Kepompong 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdiPras95 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If anyone can add Adventures of the Little Koala to their Watchlist, please do. Back in October, an IP user restored redlinks to the article that someone kindly removed. The user also removed links and categories involving Cookie Jar and CBS Television Studios whose predecessors (Cinar and Viacom) produced the English dub of the show and falsely claimed that Cinar and Cookie Jar are not the same studio when in fact they are. I did my best to restore the article back to how it was before that user vandalized it. Judging by its edits, the user was trying to claim ownership of the article and doesn't want anyone to touch it and has succeeded and that's something I hate to see. I already filed a report about the user after it made a fourth revert and nothing happened yet. I had to give up hope on that article, removed it from my Watchlist and take a very long break from the show until everything is sorted out. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The page is now a redirect to the 2010 reboot series. I invite you to the ongoing RfD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Daenerys Targaryen#Lead image about which lead image to use. Please consider weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

An editor is trying to introduce geocoding to the episode summaries at The Grand Tour (TV series). (See this revision.) Some eyes on the article would be appreciated. Opinions may be added at Talk:The Grand Tour (TV series)#Interactive maps in Episodes section. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. —Sladen (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello all. The Game Show Network game show The American Bible Challenge is currently a featured article candidate. Anyone who wants to review the article or give feedback can do so here. This would be the first game show ever to achieve FA status if promoted and only the second article under the Game Show project banner to earn the bronze star, so all comments and/or suggestions are much appreciated. Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. We are now discussing WP:TVPLOT over at the MOS overhaul. You can find the discussion here. I'm posting here, because I know this can be a contentious and confusing topic, so it would be really great to have as many eyes and opinions contribute. I'm going to hold off on pinging specific users for now, but please do come by and voice any opinions on how this section can be updated or made clearer if you don't think it currently is as good as it can be. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Television/Archive 23 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey all, there are no docs at Template:Infobox broadcasting network and many of the parameters are confusing. Type? Branding? If anyone knows anything about this template, it would probably be helpful to have some clarification for how the parameters are to be used. I've opened a quick note on the template talk page. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I invite you to ongoing RM discussion about the Korean television series. --George Ho (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This image has been nominated as FFD for six months. I invite you to improve consensus as soon as possible. --George Ho (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, could I trouble some of you to please take a look at Tamil television soap opera and figure out if it deserves a stand-alone article? It was created by a person who was responsible for a ton of Indian television articles, many of them extraordinarily problematic. I don't know that there's anything new being said in the article to warrant a unique article for the Tamil-language variant. I note that there's an article for Korean drama, so maybe my concern is unwarranted. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There is both a miniseries and an upcoming television series with the title Taken. Is Taken (miniseries) and Taken (TV series)Taken (TV series) enough to disambiguate the two? If the consensus here is "yes", I intend to move Taken (2017 TV series) to Taken (TV series)Taken (TV series) using Page mover "trickery"!! Thanks in advance for opinions proffered on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding unsourced Discovery Family material on The Transformers (TV series) and List of programs broadcast by Fox Kids. Can anyone please look into it? — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)