Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WikiProject iconTelevision Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Season article notability


I am not sure how The Rookie season 5 and The Rookie season 6 passed WP:AFC when there is only 1–2 sentences under Production with 1–2 reliable sources (rest are just ratings) and no critical response. Wasn't there a general consensus on this project that season articles need to pass WP:GNG and WP:NFTV to warrant a season article? — YoungForever(talk) 13:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up a while ago on the MOS:TV talkpage when I found six season articles that all passed the AFC process with only a cast list, episode summaries, and ratings. I'd say that The Rookie article you linked definitely don't pass WP:NTV. I'd even go as far to say that 1-3 don't pass it either. Although they do contain more than just a few sentences, it's just a duplication of information that already exists in the parent article which isn't large enough in it's current state to meet the requirements of MOS:TVSPLIT and could easily continue to exist in the parent article only. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the the same IP address that been creating a bunch of season articles, but has recently IP hopped to — YoungForever(talk) 16:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message on the AFC talk page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume to the average AFC reviewer the amount of sources makes the seasons look notable, but the television ratings themselves should vary rarely be included in determining that unless they're independently notable (i.e. they set a viewing figure record, etc.) TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, television ratings with just ratings on the episode table and ratings table are not enough to pass notability. — YoungForever(talk) 17:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the mover was not an actual AfC reviewer but the point is still valid. I personally would not have accepted but I can see how someone would think the amount of sources built up to notability. Generally if I see a spin out I decline unless they have tried to get a consensus on the article talk page, and I know others do similar but not all. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:All American (TV series) season 2 and Draft:All American (TV series) season 3 are attempting to get accepted for AFC when both clearly do not meet WP:GNG and WP:NFTV at all. — YoungForever(talk) 19:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I declined both of those drafts per above. kpgamingz (rant me) 00:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both got resubmitted again without any improvements and declined by another reviewer. — YoungForever(talk) 07:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recalled this active discussion (having seen it on my watchlist) when I just came across List of The Rookie episodes and its season articles, then realized the discussion started concerning Rookie. I would like to merge and redirect all six season articles, if there are no objections. -- Alex_21 TALK 02:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections with that. — YoungForever(talk) 14:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to reply to this when it was first posted. I also have no objections with them being merged. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Alex_21 TALK 04:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information Update: asked IAmJustPete (who also have a history of creating season articles that clearly fail WP:GNG and WP:NFTV) as shown here to create season articles. And then went on to attempt to get Draft:All American (TV series) season 4, Draft:All American (TV series) season 5, and Draft:All American (TV series) season 6 accepted for AFC (still do not meet the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NFTV.) — YoungForever(talk) 18:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what to say at this point. I declined one of the submission and marked the other for review. Both drafts are all missing a production section. I'm sure the IP user and Pete are doing this in good faith but they really need to read the guidelines from MOS:TV before resubmitting those season article drafts. kpgamingz (rant me) 19:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They may just choose to ignore MOS:TV guidelines. — YoungForever(talk) 19:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP users, I mostly understand. They're not fully part of the Wiki community so knowledge of notability and MOS isn't 100% a concern for them. As for Pete, it's really whether or not if they'll eventually follow the guidelines and, hopefully, become a big helper for WP:TV, or continue in this path and keep getting declined. @IAmJustPete: If you would like to get the drafts accepted, please listen to the feedbacks that me and the many users here given you here and in the draft submission comments. kpgamingz (rant me) 21:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just declined the season 4 page for the series which was also submitted through AFC. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They may get resubmitted again without fixing the problems in an attempt to get another reviewer to accept AFC. I seen this happened before. Not a season article, but an article about an actress: Draft:Raegan Revord. — YoungForever(talk) 03:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did make a note of NTV and what we generally expect to see at a season article in my decline comments. Hopefully any future reviewers, would note the previous reason. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP address removed your comments, but was reverted. The IP address have been resubmitting multiple Drafts without any improvements. They are trying to remove any indication of having them declined before. Little that they know, when editors' View history can see them. — YoungForever(talk) 08:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a season article, but Draft:List of All American characters also fails WP:GNG was just resubmitted few days ago without any improvements from last time it was declined. — YoungForever(talk) 23:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
information Update: Draft:All American (TV series) season 5 trying to get resubmitted again without any improvements. — YoungForever(talk) 22:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
information Another update: Draft:The Equalizer (2021 TV series) season 1, Draft:The Equalizer (2021 TV series) season 2, Draft:The Equalizer (2021 TV series) season 3, Draft:The Equalizer (2021 TV series) season 4 have all been resubmitted to WP:AFC when they all failed WP:GNG and WP:NFTV. Also, 3 out of 4 them have no Production nor Critical response info at all. Draft:List of All American: Homecoming episodes is recently submitted to WP:AFC which also fails WP:GNG, WP:NFTV, MOS:TVSPLIT, Wikipedia:Article splitting (television), WP:SPLIT, WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPINOUT, WP:LENGTH. — YoungForever(talk) 21:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kp2016rockin: and @TheDoctorWho: All the Draft season articles of The Equalizer (2021 TV series) have now passed AFC without any improvements since the last submit of AFC. They cannot be Draftify because they were Dratified in the past before already. — YoungForever(talk) 16:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, your earlier message must have slipped my watchlist or I would have declined them myself last night and saved myself a bit of time. Reading your message the first time, I originally thought that you had a technical error in moving the pages. I was able to move them using the regular move feature. After re-reading it, you may have been referencing WP:DONTDRAFTIFY/WP:DRAFTOBJECT? If so, I may have accidentally violated that and won't object if someone reverts the move based on that. Either way they're back in the draft space for the moment. If the draft moves are reverted, I suppose are next option is WP:AFD. TheDoctorWhoPublic (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just declined the All American article since it was still under review. TheDoctorWhoPublic (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP address and IAmJustPete are still WP:NOTGETTINGIT. They are deliberately ignoring guidelines at this point, repeatedly resubmitting to AFC without any improvements. Draft:List of All American: Homecoming episodes is trying to pass AFC. — YoungForever(talk) 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just declined that submission on the grounds of MOS:TVSPLIT. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Draft:List of All American characters which is mostly plot points that belong on episode summaries, not character descriptions. No improvements since the last time it was submitted. — YoungForever(talk) 23:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, just keep declining the submissions and get admin help with the AfCs. kpgamingz (rant me) 18:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: and @Kp2016rockin: Draft:The Equalizer (2021 TV series) season 1, Draft:The Equalizer (2021 TV series) season 2, Draft:The Equalizer (2021 TV series) season 3, Draft:The Equalizer (2021 TV series) season 4 all got resubmitted again without any improvements since the last time it was resubmitted. — YoungForever(talk) 00:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:CSI: Vegas season 1 and Draft:CSI: Vegas season 2 had also been resubmitted. I declined them all. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They will probably get resubmitted in a few weeks with zero improvements again. May want to use this {{AfC submission/rejected}} with the STOP icon. — YoungForever(talk) 04:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rejecting the draft won't solve the problem because there's still room for improvements in the drafts. The problem is the submitters not following the guidelines, taking the advice and improving the draft for submission. kpgamingz (rant me) 18:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: and @Kp2016rockin: I stumbled upon this Draft:S.W.A.T. (2017 TV series) season 8. Filming haven't even started, Episode table is basically empty, and no premiere date, and etc. Most definitely not enough to pass AFC. — YoungForever(talk) 02:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Declined; I've added it to my watchlist. (On a side note, have you considered applying for WP:NPR rights?) TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it, but I don't think I meet all the criteria for it. — YoungForever(talk) 05:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you do suit the requirements. You never know. kpgamingz (rant me) 17:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: and @Kp2016rockin: Draft:All American (TV series) season 2 got resubmitted to AFC with zero improvements again. — YoungForever(talk) 19:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined yet again. It's like they don't take the critics and fix the draft, instead just submitting and hoping someone will glace at it and accept it as is. kpgamingz (rant me) 19:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: and @Kp2016rockin: Draft:Fire Country season 1 is a just duplication of info from the parent article. Draft:List of CSI: Vegas episodes is laughable, it was just declined 2 days ago and still not enough to warrant the split. At this point, they are deliberately trying to game the AFC process. They are pretty much disruptive editing as they are repeatedly resubmitting Drafts to AFC without any improvements. — YoungForever(talk) 21:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho:, @Kp2016rockin:, @KylieTastic:, and @ToadetteEdit: Draft:Fire Country season 2 was just resubmitted to AFC again without any improvements. While Draft:Fire Country season 1 is still a just duplication of info from the parent article and Draft:List of CSI: Vegas episodes is still not enough to split. — YoungForever(talk) 22:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YoungForever: Declined them all. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stumbled upon this Draft:List of CSI: Vegas episodes. — YoungForever(talk) 14:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was declined by an admin. I don't think it qualifies speedy deletion because it is a Draft for now. — YoungForever(talk) 20:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I talked to the administrator; it was a little more complicated than I'd thought. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
courtesy ping ToadetteEdit as they were the AfC reviewer who accepted them. KylieTastic (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. In the first place, it feels that there are all fine. However I should be considering stopping reviews of TV seasons. ToadetteEdit! 17:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of returning them back to draftspace or nominating tnem to AfD. ToadetteEdit! 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily asking that you stop reviewing them, just that you familiarize yourself with MOS:TV (specifically, MOS:TVSPLIT) and WP:NTV.
Grey's Anatomy season 17 is a great example of the information that an exceptional season article should contain. Now that is a featured article and I know not all television seasons receive that type of coverage, so on the slightly lower end of good articles there's Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series) season 1. At the absolute bare minimum, articles like Law & Order season 21 and Cobra Kai season 1 (providing a permaalink because I do plan on eventually getting that to GA status) are examples of Start to C-class articles that still manage to prove notability with the information available. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should be real world content to accompany any additional split that is not simply a duplication of the main page's content (e.g., reception specifically for that season, or that episode; production information for the season or the episode), or duplication of the season page's content (e.g., an episode article that contains one or two reviews, and used the overall production information about the season that isn't specific to any one episode). This is because notability is not inherited from a parent article, and all articles must stand on their own. So be careful when splitting pages too soon; if the material for the new article is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject, or would simply duplicate the summary that would be left behind, then it may be too soon to move.

YoungForever(talk) 22:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Ren & Stimpy Show § Creators, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is every single episode of Peacemaker encyclopedic?


So, we have an article for every single episode of Peacemaker (TV series). Are they encyclopedic just because two–three reviews? Now we also have the article Peacemaker season 1, and I think that we could merge these episodes into that page. Redjedi23 (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place to discuss a potential merge would be Talk:Peacemaker (TV series) or Talk:Peacemaker season 1. While I think there are problems with all those episode articles and they could all use work, I think you are going to have a hard time arguing that none of them should exist due to the amount of critical response information they have. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:YuYu Hakusho (TV series)#Requested move 8 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 11:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{StoryTeleplay} updates


Hey all. I've made a number of updates to the {{StoryTeleplay}} to optimize/improve the template, and thought I'd share them here so we're all above board.

  • The template (and its new module) has been renamed to {{WritingCredits}}, given that there's now more than just story and template parameters (eight, actually!); {{StoryTeleplay}} still works as a redirect.
  • A "Written by" credit has been added, using |w=, which adds another option alongside an unlabelled credit, "Story by" (|s=), "Teleplay by" (|t=), "Storyboard by" (|sb=), and the three extra parameters. (example).
    • The default order of the parameters as displayed are an unlabelled credit, "Written by", "Story by", "Teleplay by", "Storyboard by", then the three extra parameters.
  • An |order= parameter has been added. This allows you to customize the displayed order of all seven labelled crediting parameters. For example: |order=t,ex1 would list the teleplay and extra #1 parameters first, and then any extra writing credit parameters set, in their expected order; in this example, the remaining parameters would be: written, story, storyboard, extra #2, extra #3. (Any unlabelled credit set with |1= remains top priority and cannot be reorganized.)
    • This will therefore deprecate |tfirst=y to display the teleplay first, as the new parameter setting will simply be |order=t (this lists the teleplay before all other parameters). |tfirst= still currently works as legacy support, but its usages will eventually be updated and the parameter removed.
    • The default setting for |order=, if it were fully set, would be |order=w,s,t,sb,ex1,ex2,ex3. This would do nothing, as it is the default order; rearrange the parameters to rearrange the order.

The template's documentation has been updated, and the template itself should be running without any functional changes at this point. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no concerns within a week, I'll go through and make the updates to implement |w= (102 articles), and update |tfirst=y to |order=t (401 articles) (and thus deprecate the former). -- Alex_21 TALK 00:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Software vision mixer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I don't see a reason for this to have a separate article from Vision Mixer, although clearly the main vision mixer article is primarily about the hardware kind

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gnisacc (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Road to Rupert


Road to Rupert has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS advice


Recently I came across an editor who is aggressively going through article - mostly television though some other media - and removing most occurrences of words like "originally" - even going so far as to suggest that shows don't "originally air" - they "air", and a rerun is described as a "re-air". I could see this line of reasoning, and I do like efficiency of verbiage, but something about this seemed to making the articles less clear. Some people undid these changes and the user quickly reinstated them. I did approach the user and received a reply that stated I was going to be ignored; I was directed here to possibly get some second thoughts on the matter, thanks. Tduk (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some example articles of where the changes have been made? - adamstom97 (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many going on a day for a while now, two recent ones are My So-Called Life and The Boys (TV series). Tduk (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like @EagleEyeBerry is the user you are talking about, and their changes are focused on removing redundant wording. Looking at the examples you provided, I personally don't think any of their changes were correct but others may disagree. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - and some did undo their changes, but the user immediately re-undid them and has shown no interest in discussing the changes. Since they've been doing these changes to a LOT of articles for quite a while, on pages that aren't all that monitored, and are redoing the changes whenever someone undoes them, I'm at a loss for what - if anything - to do. At least I appreciate your agreement on the changes. Tduk (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only person I remember reverting me is you and I never said I wouldn't be discussing anything. I always explain myself. You told me to ask you before editing and I said no.EagleEyeBerry (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EagleEyeBerry, if you make an undiscussed edit to an article and someone reverts them then you really should take your concerns to the talk page rather than making the changes again, especially when it is a matter of personal preference as these changes are. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:My Cute Guys#Requested move 9 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Martin Keamy


I have nominated Martin Keamy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lifetime (TV network)#Requested move 24 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 02:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]