Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 40#Updates to Template:Series overview (continued)

Hey all. I've updated {{tl|Television ratings graph}} to use a different style of graphing, allowing ratings graphs to once again reappear. See the template documentation for a Game of Thrones examples. Please let me know if you've got any questions or concerns. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:Amazing, thank you {{u|Alex 21}}! I know the overall "Graph" extension is (slowly) rolling out to a new "Chart" extension if that will be of any help in the future. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for the work! I did notice that there's an error when there are more episodes (copied below from List of Modern Family episodes, also seen here):

:Unable to compile EasyTimeline input:
EasyTimeline 1.90
Timeline generation failed: 1 error found
- Maximum image size is 1600x2000 pixels = 16x20 inch
Run with option -b (bypass checks) when this is correct.

:Personally, I'll take a few errors over all of them being blank; we can comment out the faulty lists for now if we don't want readers seeing them. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::Too many episodes. Ratings graphs shouldn't be used for a series of 250 episodes; the module figures out the lowest possible column width, and it's still too much to a fit a quarter-thousand of them in. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Do we know what the limit is? Might be good to note it in the documentation so editors can either split the template into multiple groups of episodes or omit it entirely over a certain size. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Let me dabble with some examples and I'll figure it out! -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Technically, the limit is 112 bars. However, I recommend a maximum of 99, else the numbers start overlapping like [https://snipboard.io/I5aiBk.jpg this]. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Probably easiest to just say 100 (looks like 99 and 100 wouldn't overlap, just 100 and 101). RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::{{done}} The template will now display "Too many episodes to display graph (maximum 100)", and adds the article to :Category:Articles using Template:Television ratings graph with excessive figures. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:As an updated, I've added {{para|no_graph|y}} to all graphs in :Category:Articles using Template:Television ratings graph with excessive figures that had over 100 viewer figures. For what it's worth, more than 100 is doable, with narrower columns/bars, but then the issue becomes the overlapping axis labels, as can be seen through the raw graph code at User:Alex 21/sandbox. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Australia's Funniest Home Videos § RfC: Closing songs table, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. :User:Wizzito | :User talk:Wizzito 05:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Continuing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 39#Updates to Template:Series overview concerning the updates to {{tl|Series overview}}:

• Per my quote {{tq|legacy and new parameter formats will both be supported, until such a time that all live templates have had their parameters updated accordingly, at which point the legacy formats will be removed}}, all articles have been updated with the new {{para|released#}} paramaters, thus completely deprecating {{para|end#|start}} from the template.
• The parameters {{para|released|y}} and {{para|allreleased|y}} have also been deprecated, and relevant articles are listed under :Category:Pages using series overview with unknown parameters; this will be cleared out presently.

-- Alex_21 _TALK 03:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::Category:Pages using series overview with unknown parameters has now been emptied; no {{tl|Series overview}} template now uses {{para|released|y}} or {{para|allreleased|y}}. Thanks to all those that contributed. {{smiley}} -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::On the same topic, does {{tl|Episode table}} really also need {{para|released|y}} to differentiate between "Originally aired" and "Originally released"? If we were going by airing vs streaming, it would need to be "Originally aired" and "Originally streamed" - "Originally released" covers every format of release. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm all for being consistent with "released" across the TV templates. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::::{{done}} -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::For the deprecated parameters of {{tl|Episode table}}, I created :Category:Pages using episode table with unknown parameters, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AEpisode_table&diff=1267656401&oldid=827245230 added] checks for unknown parameters (turns out, there's a lot!). However, unfortunately {{u|Ahecht}} has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Episode_table&diff=prev&oldid=1267826544 reverted] these necessary checks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Alex 21 {{tl|Episode table}} gets abused quite a bit around here, often appearing hundreds or thousands of times on a single page, which can cause the WP:PEIS to balloon. If you integrate these checks into the module itself, rather than the template, you should be able to do the same checks without as large an impact on the include size. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Can you name any articles where {{tl|Episode table}} appears thousands of times on a page? For example, on the recently-edited List of Law & Order episodes, it appears 24 times. I can think of a few articles where it would appear more, but I can not think of a single example where there's 1,000+ episode tables. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Ahecht Sorry, forgot to ping in the above. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Alex 21 I must've been thinking of {{tl|episode list}}, but in any case the template gets double-counted when on a transcluded page, such as the above, so it's effectively on that page 48 times. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Ahecht Yes, that's a related but separate template, thus episode table is not the issue here. One template transcluded 48 times is extremely minimal; on the above example, there are 566 cite templates (1,132, if they're double-counted). I barely think the episode tables/lists are the issue here. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@Alex 21 In any case you probably don't want to by bypassing the parameter checks when the module is invoked directly, so including the check there makes more sense. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Given that there is no need to invoke a minimal template into its respective module, that shouldn't need to happen. I'll restore any invoked episode table, use {{para|dontclose|y}}, and restore the parameter checks. Problem solved. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I went ahead and implemented the parameter check in the module. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@Ahecht This has caused every instance of episode table across 21,000+ articles to error. Could you kindly fix this? Thanks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::{{fixed}}. Forgot that that line doesn't get implemented when previewing. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Thank you. Please make sure new code works directly after implementing; 21,000 articles erroring for over twenty minutes isn't contributive to the encyclopedia, for editors or readers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Anyone removing the deprecated released parameters, please ensure start1 is changed to released1 too so it shows properly, like diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=That_Damn_Michael_Che&diff=1267513616&oldid=1267401083]. Don't know how widespread this issue is etc, just noticed there. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:A tracking category can be added to instances of {{para|start{{var|N}}}} without {{para|end{{var|N}}}}. Gonnym (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{done}} Listed at :Category:Articles using Template:Series overview with deprecated start-parameter format, for any article that uses instances of {{para|startN}} and no instances of {{para|endN}}. Thanks for the heads up, @Indagate! -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::What happens if a TV series is still airing a new episode every week and the end date is still TBA? Wouldn't that be an issue for {{para|start{{var|N}}}} without {{para|end{{var|N}}}}? — YoungForever^(talk) 03:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The category I've created tracks instances of the template where {{para|startN}} is used regularly with no instances of {{para|endN}} being used (e.g. if The Witcher (a binge-released series) solely used {{para|startN}}). I think that should track the issues well enough. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I didn't check how Alex set up the code, but in the infobox we use {{para|end{{var|N}}|present}}. Hopefully this can work the same. Gonnym (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 28#File:The Computer Book (BBC 1982).jpg. George Ho (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TV6 (1994)#Requested move 23 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 18:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

At St. Denis Medical, I noticed the infobox uses "Eric Ledgin & Justin Spitzer" in the creator entry (i.e., including the ampersand). I know ampersands have a specific meaning when it comes to writing credits, but I've never seen it enforced in infoboxes – there are plenty of other shows that don't do this despite the credits doing so (Modern Family, Parks and Recreation, and The Leftovers are a few examples I could confirm), and films with writing teams also omit ampersands. Does anyone know if there is a guideline for this? The documentation for {{tp|Infobox television}} says to use a list template for multiple entries but nothing about the use of "&". RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:We go by according to credits, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 34#As credited on screen. Also, per MOS:&, {{tq|But retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, such as in Up & Down or AT&T. Elsewhere, ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion where space is extremely limited (e.g., tables and infoboxes).}} — YoungForever^(talk) 05:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

::I think quoting MOS:& like that is a bit misleading. The previous sentence makes it clear this is referring to the use of "&" in place of the longer "and": {{tq|In normal text and headings, use and instead of the ampersand (&)}}. I wouldn't go so far as to say it requires the use of "&" when a list could be used. As to the prior discussion, it's not super decisive when I read it (several people seemed opposed and simply didn't keep replying). The fact that many other articles don't use this format and that editors try to remove the "&" (at least judging from the hidden comment) would suggest an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS against it. So I'd say there's nothing wrong with using the "&", but there's also no reason to force an infobox to use that if other editors feel it should be removed. (At the very least, I find {{diff2|1257096387|a hidden comment to justify it}} as overkill.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

::Actually we don't go by credits in the infobox, that is incorrect. We use plainlist to separate entries as is clearly stated in the infobox. We also don't follow what the WGA (or any writing guild in other countries) do per MOS:JARGON. If writing credits need to be explained, it should be done in actual article prose. Gonnym (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:::No where on MOS:TV nor {{tl|Infobox television}} nor MOS:AMP say "&" is frown upon to use in the infobox. A team is not {{tq|multiple entries}}. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

::::I agree. A team name is a proper noun and the "&" is part of that name. The team entity is who got the credit, not the individuals that make up the team so the team name should be used. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::These teams are not a proper nouns, that isn't their "team name" and that is only the {{em|style}} of how the WGA denotes the credits (again, MOS:JARGON). Actual team names are Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead, Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer (no "&"). If you feel like MOS:JARGON, MOS:& and Template:Infobox television/doc are all incorrect, start a RFC. Gonnym (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

::::: I agree with both YF and GP. See MOS:TVCAST. Names per credits also applies to a series' crew, down to the symbols. It doesn't matter whether it's an infobox or the article body. MOS:TVCAST does also say by common name and such, but that is only if for some reason credits aren't available. As an example, using an example name, there have been plenty of people who changed John A. Smith to John Smith because everywhere else he's listed or credited as John Smith; however, for a specific series, he decided he wanted to be credited as John A. Smith, which should be respected. The same applies here. Written by Apple and Orange means that they both worked on the episode, but separately, likely with different ideas, while written by Apple & Orange means they both worked on the episode as a team, likely with the same idea. Amaury • 22:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::I think there's a distinction to be drawn between the way a person chooses to write their name and the way multiple names are combined in a list. For instance, some actors receive "with"/"and" before their name in the cast credits, but we don't do that here. The "&"/"and" for writers falls into a similar category. (To pull from an above example: Phil Lord chooses to be credited that name instead of, say, Philip Lord, so we reflect that, but he and Miller did not choose to be credited as "Phil Lord & Christopher Miller" – that's just credits jargon.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Just now coming across this discussion after an edit I suggested in an FAC was partially reverted. I have no opinion on whether we do or don't use an ampersand over the word "and", however we do need to come to a consensus even if it requires an RFC. I've seen multiple quotes to MOS:& and while I see the point these editors are making, I don't think I've seen anyone mention MOS:TVEPISODE which specifically says {{tq|"In the WGA screenwriting credit system, an ampersand (&) is used to indicate a writing team or duo, while "and" is used to separate multiple writers who are not part of a team. Such distinctions, as credited, should be used in tables."}} It's no wonder we're having a debate over this when two versions of MOS are conflicting with each other. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Pretty sure MOS:TVEPISODE is specifically for episode lists/tables, not infoboxes, which was the original topic here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: The point is the same. It's names per credits, and that means symbols like the ampersand as well—a writing duo, not just two or more separate writers working on the same thing—per MOS:TVCAST. Amaury • 23:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Since the idea of a RFC has been batted around a couple of times, I drafted a version of what a question for such a discussion could look like. Not saying we have to go there, just providing it as an option or starting point. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It has enough seasons & Episodes to be on the list why is it not there?" 172.59.117.50 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

: I am unsure of which article you are speaking, since this is not an article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Priscilla (singer, born 1996)#Requested move 16 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. LIrala (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 January 7. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Ronnie Barker has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Wildfeed has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, not updated, and unimproved for over 15 years. No reliable sources on Google.

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 {{Tlc|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 {{Tlc|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. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe Number Eight (Battlestar Galactica) is within striking distance of GA status after I rewrote its analysis section some time ago. It needs content on casting and development, which I have no expertise in researching and writing: is anyone interested in working on it with me? Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It's recently come to my attention that the {{tl|Episode table/part}} template is an accessibility issue per MOS:COLHEAD. Just something I thought I'd bring up, not sure what we can do with this information. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:Looks like means should delete that template then, uses would need to be replaced in articles with accessible solution like multiple episode tables for a season, or not specifying the parts. Indagate (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:It just came to my attention today too unfortunately. It's a shame because it was extremely useful, but I understand that we we shouldn't ignore the accessibility issues. There's a better description of how it affects screenreader software at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Magnum_P.I._(2018_TV_series)_episodes/archive1#c-PresN-20250123125200-MPGuy2824-20250123070400 this FLC comment]

:You can also see how I implemented a fix for that list at List of Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series) episodes#Season 5 (2023–24) and Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series) season 5, for the time being. I assume that's not the best permanent solution though, because I had to wrap an equals sign in the header (=) into "noinclude" tags so that the subsections would transclude to the episode list properly. Even if that wasn't an issue, I understand that splitting into two tables would probably be overkill in some articles, such as for individual specials (re: Doctor Who series pages). TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::For what it's worth, I actually found what is probably a better solution, when split into two tables. I removed the includeonly tags and used standard section headers (removing the ones with the noinclude tags I implemented earlier). Then, on the episode list, I utilized {{code|{{#section-h}}}} (so in this specific case {{code|{{#section-h:Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series) season 5|Part 1}}}}) to pull the Part 1 and Part 2 tables over from the season article. This avoids having to transclude section headers, which solves a problem where the levels on the season article may not equal the needed level on the episode list, which is what initially happened here. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I can't say I'm the biggest fan of the layout, but I can respect that it's probably the best solution yet. Nice job! -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I can agree with that, hopefully something better with the layout comes across at a later time. I just needed something I could implement immediately for FLC purposes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have a suggestion, but I'm not sure whether it will work. If the "part" headers now apply to a single table, we could change {{t|Episode table/part}} to be an initial row with scope="colgroup", above the standard episode table header. That way we could still have the nice formatting that we currently have and I believe it would resolve the accessibility issues. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::: So, you're saying that a split layout should look something like this?

{{Episode table/sandbox |before={{Episode table/part|part=1|c=#01CA9A}} |background=#01CA9A |caption=List of Magnum P.I. season 5 episodes |overall=5 |season=5 |title=18 |director=14 |writer=24 |airdate= |prodcode= |viewers= |country=U.S. |episodes=

{{Episode list

|EpisodeNumber = 77

|EpisodeNumber2 = 1

|Title = The Passenger

|DirectedBy = Bryan Spicer

|WrittenBy = Eric Guggenheim

|OriginalAirDate = {{Start date|2023|02|19}}

|ProdCode = MPI501

|Viewers = 3.87

|ShortSummary = Magnum and Higgins take a woman's case [...]

|LineColor = 01CA9A

}}

}}

{{Episode table/sandbox |before={{Episode table/part|part=2|c=#01CA9A}} |background=#01CA9A |caption=List of Magnum P.I. season 5 episodes |overall=5 |season=5 |title=18 |director=14 |writer=24 |airdate= |prodcode= |viewers= |country=U.S. |episodes=

{{Episode list

|EpisodeNumber = 78

|EpisodeNumber2 = 2

|Title = The Breaking Point

|DirectedBy = Bryan Spicer

|WrittenBy = Gene Hong

|OriginalAirDate = {{Start date|2023|02|19}}

|ProdCode = MPI502

|Viewers = 3.30

|ShortSummary = Magnum and Higgins pose as lifeguards [...]

|LineColor = 01CA9A

}}

}}

:::::: (Whipped up some sandboxing.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, that was what I was imagining. I don't think it looks as nice as the current layout, but if it is okay from an accessibility standpoint then it means we can keep the general style and don't have to add unnecessary sub headings. Or at least there would be the option to use this approach or the sub heading approach. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of programs broadcast by HGTV (Canadian TV channel)#Requested move 31 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TiggerJay (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Restless (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Last year a suggestion was made at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Episode title disambiguations that I thought would be a good improvement, but there hasn't been much interest in the discussion. Posting here in the hope of getting more eyes on it. Basically, the current approach of using "Episode Title (Series Title)" doesn't make much sense, especially when compared to normal disambiguation rules. The recommendation is to move to "Episode Title (episode)" by default, or "Episode Title (Series Title episode)" if there are multiple episodes with the same name. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:I would very much support this, bringing NCTV further in line with Wikipedia's standard for disambiguating. Concerning {{Tq|[w]here the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show, disambiguate further using Article title (Show Title episode/character/element)}}, it would simplify examples such as Serenity (Firefly episode) and Serenity (Firefly vessel) to simply "Serenity (episode)" and "Serenity (vessel)". -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:Personally, I think it's more useful to have the show name as the disambiguation term and that such an approach is acceptable. While it may not be the most common way, WP:NCDAB does allow parenthetical disambiguation using {{tq|the subject or context to which the topic applies}}, as opposed to {{tq|the generic class}}. Another example of this would be works of art: some quick examples are Serenity (Clara), The Entombment (Michelangelo), and the list at Self-portrait (disambiguation)#Visual arts. Also, there are [https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/tv/news/common-lazy-tv-episode-titles-stock-title-a7533671.html a lot of repeated episode titles] ("Pilot", "The Finale", "Reunion", etc.), in which case you'd still have to use the show name and you'd just be adding the word "episode" to the title.

:Also, since I didn't see it posted, a previous discussion on this topic was held in 2013. (Though obviously consensus can shift over 10+ years.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::We generally disambiguate fictional elements by work or author, so this is a no-go. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'd like to point out that the season disambiguation move has yet to be fully completed and still probably has bugs as I encounter additional templates that still needed fixing. Changing the episode disambiguation will probably be a bigger issue. I'll oppose this {{em|at least}} until the season move is completed (including moving {{em|all}} links to the new format). Gonnym (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::Just confirming, the only things we need to do is update all links across all articles with those, and fix {{tl|Article history}} GAN links (like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAgents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D._season_2&diff=1216226534&oldid=1216209513 this])? -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I have no idea. As I said, I find issues randomly. I noticed just recently that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_television_crossover_episode%2Fpart&diff=1269780404&oldid=1047342552 Template:Infobox television crossover episode/part] was still using the old season code. Gonnym (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of most-watched television broadcasts § CMG New Year's Gala. Toadspike [Talk] 05:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Newtopia (TV series)#Requested move 5 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 09:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Would anyone like to weigh in at this discussion? It could use some more eyes. --woodensuperman 16:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TNT Sports (Argentine TV channel)#Requested move 6 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. John123521_{t c} 16:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TNT Sports (Chilean TV channel)#Requested move 6 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. John123521_{t c} 16:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to bring attention to articles such as Criminal Minds (franchise), CSI (franchise), Chicago (franchise), FBI (franchise) and Law & Order (franchise). All of these articles use whole-cell colours to differentiate series, and when that colour is used in a cell with a link to the series/season, those colours fail WCAG AA/AAA compliancy per WP:COLOR against the lightest default link color ({{color|#0645AD|#0645AD}}). On the other side, NCIS (franchise) is an excellent example of the use of colours, that matches what we do with {{tl|Series overview}}. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Agree. Coloring in a cell with text will almost always be bad. Gonnym (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Also agreed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:In those cases, the colors can just be removed — they don't contribute any information that cannot be conveyed through text alone. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::I'm planning on reformatting them to the same as the NCIS article - colours can be helpful in identifying separate series, same as our regular series overview table. I'm also thinking of creating some new templates for articles such as these, so we use a uniform approach. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Tables like NCIS (franchise)#Series are completely pointless tables with mostly blank cells. Just use {{tl|Series overview}}. Gonnym (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Replace it with an example like Star Trek#Television series or List of Star Trek television series#Series overview? I'm impartial to either. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, in my opinion those tables are better and are easier to view on smaller screens. Gonnym (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:Is there a way to combine the color and text into a single cell using CSS, similar to what was done for {{tl|Series overview}} after this discussion? I agree that the background color should be separated from the text, but I feel like splitting the color into its own column as was done {{diff2|1274213333|here}} could cause other issues. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::Definitely doable, I feel I'd need to convert the series timeline, cast and crossovers table into templates so we'd have uniformity. (I do feel like flatout removing the colours, as was done at Criminal Minds and CSI isn't necessary, as it's an issue that can actually be fixed.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

There has been some discussion lately about whether or not a rules synposis for a game show falls under MOS:TVPLOT or similar guidelines when it comes to summarizing a work. I've seen some pull in both directions as to how sourced a "Rules" or "Gameplay" section should have sourcing. To wit:

• Talk:Pyramid_(franchise)#Rules raised the concern on January 7 regarding Pyramid (franchise), with at least {{ping|WhatamIdoing}} expressing concern that citations were not mandatory before the discussion fizzled out
• Press Your Luck is GA-class and most of the rules are not sourced to anything other than the show itself
• When Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? was listed at GAR, the fact that the rules did not have sources was not one of the pressing issues
• Catch 21 was kept at a GAR, with no one expressing concern over sourcing of the rules section
• When I nominated Bargain Hunters at DYK, {{ping|Departure–}} suggested the rules section should be sourced before the article passes DYK (to which I complied)

MOS:FILMPLOT states, {{tq|Since films are primary sources for their articles, basic descriptions of their plots do not need references to an outside source.}} MOS:TVPLOT likewise states, {{tq|Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, such as its credits, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given.}}

Personally, I would think that if a film or fiction TV series falls under "the show itself is the source", then the same would hold true for explaining the basic rules of a game show. The exceptions I would think of are:

• Shows such as Wheel of Fortune (American game show) (also GA-class), where multiple rules have changed over time and are elaborated on with sources as needed
• Shows such as CBS Television Quiz, where the show is so obscure that specifics of its rules are not known
• Shows where there is a source explaining why a certain rule change was made; again, Wheel of Fortune is an example here, as there is a citation explaining why the rules of the Final Spin were changed

tl;dr: I believe the rules of a game show do generally fall under the "show itself is the source" rule, unless there is a pressing need to do otherwise. What say you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:I don't know that there's any pre-existing consensus on it, but I've always assumed that MOS:PLOTSOURCE and WP:PLOTCITE can be applied to non-fiction shows as well. I've run into disputes with it on reality television series (On Patrol: Live comes to mind specifically). Regardless of whether it's fiction or not, as long as an overview/rules/synopsis can still be sourced to the work itself, I believe it still meets the spirit and intent of what it was originally written for. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::I feel the difference here is that when we're summarizing fiction, we are (or should be) summarizing exactly what occurs in the work of fiction, without applying any of our own interpretations or such. With game shows or such, unless a specific rule is being brought up during the course of the show (in which case it could be cited to the episode in which it's brought up), how do the various episodes themselves clearly establish the rules? They're not displayed at any point, at least not in the shows I've watched, so to me it seems as though any uncited summary of rules runs the risk of being prone to interpretation. Especially if/when the rules are changed at some point. As an example, it's one thing to say in "Press Your Luck" if you get four whammies (or however many), you're eliminated from the game, a claim which could be fairly be said to come up often enough as to be uncontentious, but what about something like (from the "Pyramid" article), "All versions of the show feature a maximum of seven words and a thirty-second time limit for each category, except for the 2002-04 verison, which used six words and a twenty-second time limit"? I'd like to know what the basis for that statement is (if there's an encyclopedia of game shows that makes that claim, awesome, but then it should be cited). DonIago (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:Knowing that game show and reality show rule kudzu is an easy trap that one can fall into on the basis of allowing plots to be primary sourced, I think we néed to apply common sense as well as aspects of sourcability here. The rules should be what is obvious after watching a few episodes at random. If there are more specific rules that are only applicable in a small number of episodes, more as exceptions, that is something that shouldn't be included unless we have secondary source coverage. The kudzu happens when we rely too much on primary sourcing to explain the exceptions that do not come up often.
When a show does have rule changes that persist for multiple seasons, then those can be done via the plshow itself as long as the change is clearly obvious from just a few random episodes. — Masem (t) 18:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::Despite what Donlago said above, I don't think it's particularly contentious to say the 2002-04 incarnation had 6 words in 20 seconds versus 7 in 30. I actually found the premiere of the 2002 version on YouTube, and Donny Osmond specifically says "I'm going to give you 20 seconds to describe six words or phrases" at the start of the game. Even if he didn't say that outright, the first round of gameplay shows a timer counting down from :20, and the round ending after the sixth word is successfully guessed. This can be contrasted with a random episode of any other version of the show, where a :30 timer is visible on screen, and a round ends after the timer expires or the seventh word is guessed.

::I think it's acceptable to use {{tl|cite episode}} or a secondary source if a rule is not immediately evident, such as some of the Winner's Circle clues on Pyramid that aren't permitted, or the way I did on Bargain Hunters where I used an exact question from the show as an example. But to me, the length of a round on Pyramid is not contentious. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::That type of rule change which persists across a season or more and can be reafily verified by watch 2 or 3 random episodes, that's fine to have as a primary. What would not be expected would be, using Pyramid as the example, exactly how the judges rule when buzzing certain clues during the bonus round; eg we can readily glean from a few random episides that clues must be a noun phrase and can't include the topic word, but there have been many instances of slight problems that were deemed invalid and that gets into the weeds. Masem (t) 19:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I suppose I draw a distinction between claims that can likely be backed by individual episodes or, say, a week's worth of episodes, and claims that would require substantially more viewing. As I said, the PYL claim is pretty easily verifiable by a casual viewer, while the Pyramid claim would require a great deal of viewing for an individual to verify. If you prefer, I suppose I see it as micro-claims versus meta-claims. Perhaps we should be distinguishing between current rules and historical rules, with the latter requiring sources and the former requiring sources if they can't be reasonably ascertained by watching, say, a random sampling of ten episodes. DonIago (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::With only four editors chiming in for this discussion (unless I've miscounted), I daresay this conversation has fizzled out as well. The next step might be an RfC, but I have to admit I don't care enough one way or another to write one (besides, I already have another ongoing RfC), though I'm happy to work with anyone else who feels strongly enough about this to want to write one. DonIago (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The Sarah Jane Adventures 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) 15:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Collins (2nd nomination). George Ho (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted for the 2nd time. George Ho (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello all, I've started a discussion on the naming conventions of articles that affect this WikiProject here. I'd love if people could get involved and add their thoughts/findings. – Meena • 17:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like advice about a proposal to split a list of episodes into lists of episodes for seasons. First, in general, what are the guidelines for when it is appropriate to split a list of episodes into separate lists of episodes for each seasons? Second, does anyone have any specific comments about two drafts for Bluey (TV series)? I reviewed and declined Draft:Bluey series 1 and Draft:Bluey series 3 and declined them because they are portions of List of Bluey episodes, and there had not been any discussion on whether to create separate articles for each season. So my question is whether I was reasonable in saying that there should be discussion at Talk:List of Bluey episodes first?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Robert McClenon}} You are looking for MOS:TVSPLIT. As it stands, Bluey (the main article) would satisfy such guidance as the episodes have already split off to a list of episodes. Without more season-specific info to populate a season page and justify a further split, the drafts being declined are the correct approach. I will comment on the LoE talk as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Disney+ Hotstar original programming#Requested move 14 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I am working on a draft of an episode article. I want to get it to mainspace-quality but I need the help of someone that has experience doing this. This is my first article and I'd really appreciate all the help I can get. Ladtrack (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Pinkie Pride 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. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neos • talk • edits) 11:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cochran (Survivor contestant) (2nd nomination). George Ho (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Invincible season 2 has recently been accepted at AFC, splitting off from Invincible (TV series), but I don't believe it conforms with our TVSPLIT standards. Thoughts? -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:Content seems rather decent at a first glance in terms of it not being a direct duplication, but it also seems to lack depth (it's all surface info). If all content was merged into the parent article, it would seem to be ~40kb, placing it a tad lower than what we traditionally expect before splitting. I assume in a case like this a split to an LoE page (when conditions are met) first would be more useful than a season split. Season articles do come first occasionally, but I'm not necessarily seeing enough to warrant that here (yet). TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. It doesn't provide anything that the parent article doesn't. A split to an LoE would definitely be more helpful here. I'd recommend that this article is moved back to the draftspace. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::@Alex 21 @TheDoctorWho I strongly disagree with the decision to move the article because its content is significantly different from that of the parent article. There is valuable information in this article that is not present in the parent article, such as the music section, guest cast, and additional details. It also highlights several notable actors and musicians who are not mentioned in the parent article, which is an essential aspect that should not be overlooked. Furthermore, this season is a highly notable one in the series, and moving it back to the draft space is entirely unwarranted. Afro 📢Talk! 09:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::::No one is saying the unique information in the season article should be deleted, just moved into the series article until the time is right for a split. I agree with the others that the current season article is weak and needs improvement to be kept in the mainspace. If you are confident that the season is noteworthy enough for its own article, you can prove it by expanding the article with more production and reception information. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Would be doing that @Adamstom.97 Afro 📢Talk! 10:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Alex 21@Adamstom.97@TheDoctorWho The article has significantly improved and is now well-detailed. Afro 📢Talk! 12:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree that this article is now in a much better state and should exist as an individual article. Good job @Afrowriter! {{smiley}} -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Drew Carey 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) 20:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to mediate a dispute at DRN concerning The Simpsons season 36. There were four episodes which were broadcast on Disney+ rather than the usual network coverage on Fox. The question has to do with the formatting of the table of episodes, and whether the Disney episodes should be listed separately in the table of episodes, or whether they should be listed in chronological sequence along with the regular episodes.

Thank you for any guidance.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

: I immediately thought of the Bionic Woman which changed networks in season 3. Agree with Bionic Woman formatting ... just continue the list without special mention of Disney +.Phatblackmama (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that the episodes should be listed in chronological sequence along with the regular episodes. I think to List of South Park episodes, which includes special releases on another network to the main series. While those particular episodes are specials and not released/aired during the airing of any particular season, they are still listed chronologically, rather than grouped together outside of the main series in some separate specials section. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::@Robert McClenon Pinging you, in case you din't see this. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::To be fair, the South Park episodes are both listed chronologically and grouped together outside the main series (even in a separate table in their case), which is possible due to their airdates. U-Mos (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Disney+ episodes are regulars, nothing to doing, everything is fine. Lado85 (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Obviously everything is not fine, else you wouldn't be at DRN. Please keep dispute comments at DRN; I was simply providing an opinion here. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::::That's fair. Even if they were aired during a season, I'd recommend keep it chronological in the table, and maybe set the episode number (within the season) as "–", much like how we do it with Doctor Who specials (e.g. "The Snowmen"). Would that be an acceptable compromise? -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::They have regular episodes numbers, overall and in season. This episodes are in-season specials like Treehouse of Horror. Only difference is broadcast network. I think in season number can be changed as "–", but not overall. Lado85 (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::"Treehouse of Horror" are Halloween-themed episodes, not special releases. Special releases constitute non-regular/non-season episodes, such as Christmas specials in Doctor Who or the Paramount+ episodes in South Park. Keeping the overall numbers but blanking the season numbers would be in form with the two examples given. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:News Nation#Requested move 7 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed there has been an update to {{tl|End date}}, in that we cannot use {{tlx|End date|present}} in {{tl|Infobox television}} or {{tl|Infobox television season}} anymore. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Last_of_Us_(TV_series)&diff=cur&oldid=1277314125 This] is the edit being performed, to prevent [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Last_of_Us_(TV_series)&oldid=1277314125 this] error (scroll down to the bottom of the infobox). This is likely fixable with AWB. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

There is concern that the category name uses an invented neologism that isn't used outside Wikipedia and doesn't reflect the scope of the article Videography. Apparently, various articles with the name were also moved by the nominator without any discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Blue Bloods (TV series)#Requested move 21 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Big Man on Hippocampus 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) 16:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Friends 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) 16:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:No Time to Spy: A Loud House Movie#Requested move 6 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I am proposing that Strange New Worlds (Star Trek: Strange New Worlds) be merged into Star Trek: Strange New Worlds season 1. The merge discussion can be found at Talk:Strange New Worlds (Star Trek: Strange New Worlds)#Merge proposal. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Carnivàle 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Bleach season 2 for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

:Bleach season 3 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:Bleach season 4 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:Bleach season 5 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:Bleach season 6 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:Bleach season 7 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:Bleach season 8 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:Bleach season 9 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Bleach season 10 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Home (Game of Thrones) 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) 17:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Blair Waldorf 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) 17:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy 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) 17:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion regarding the inclusion of the executive producers on the Mashin Sentai Kiramager article. It can be found at Talk:Mashin Sentai Kiramager#Executive producers. Feedback from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! What is the preferred way to list the cast if an actor replace other actor in a long running television series. For example Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. Sid95Q (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:I prefer to do something like "[Actor 1] (season #s) and [Actor 2] (season #s) as [Character]". If there for some reason are more than one replacement, then "[Actor 1] (season #s), [Actors 2] (season #s), and [Actor 3] (season #s) as [Character]" etc. If season's aren't a good indicator of when an actor was in the role, year of release would also work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::A great example showing the above would be The Crown (TV series). -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::✅: I support Favre1fan93 format as it clearly indicates who played the role and when, using years instead of seasons for Indian shows like Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. It ensures clarity, avoids ambiguity, and aligns with Wikipedia practices, as seen in The Crown (TV series). Tenshi Uisu (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Is the use of "/" ok? Like used in the above mentioned page Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. There have been several discussions in past to avoid these Like here you can read paragraph "Ambiguous slashes" in "Examples" section. Sid95Q (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The problem in that example isn’t the slashes but the excessive, confusing information crammed into one line. When used properly, slashes offer a clear, concise way to indicate role replacements without unnecessary repetition. Instead of bloated cast lists repeating character names, a simple Actor A / Actor B along with years format efficiently communicates that one actor replaced another.

:::Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines would have explicitly prohibited them. WP:TVCAST prioritizes clarity, but it doesn’t forbid slashes when they enhance readability.

:::At the end of the day, it’s about balance. Tenshi Uisu (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Tenshi Uisu}} I don't think the edits you made provide any clarity. That's why I am here to take suggestions from uninvolved editors. Thanks Sid95Q (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! What is the preferred way to list the cast if an actor replace other actor in a long running television series. For example Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. Sid95Q (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:I prefer to do something like "[Actor 1] (season #s) and [Actor 2] (season #s) as [Character]". If there for some reason are more than one replacement, then "[Actor 1] (season #s), [Actors 2] (season #s), and [Actor 3] (season #s) as [Character]" etc. If season's aren't a good indicator of when an actor was in the role, year of release would also work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::A great example showing the above would be The Crown (TV series). -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::✅: I support Favre1fan93 format as it clearly indicates who played the role and when, using years instead of seasons for Indian shows like Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. It ensures clarity, avoids ambiguity, and aligns with Wikipedia practices, as seen in The Crown (TV series). Tenshi Uisu (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Is the use of "/" ok? Like used in the above mentioned page Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. There have been several discussions in past to avoid these Like here you can read paragraph "Ambiguous slashes" in "Examples" section. Sid95Q (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The problem in that example isn’t the slashes but the excessive, confusing information crammed into one line. When used properly, slashes offer a clear, concise way to indicate role replacements without unnecessary repetition. Instead of bloated cast lists repeating character names, a simple Actor A / Actor B along with years format efficiently communicates that one actor replaced another.

:::Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines would have explicitly prohibited them. WP:TVCAST prioritizes clarity, but it doesn’t forbid slashes when they enhance readability.

:::At the end of the day, it’s about balance. Tenshi Uisu (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Tenshi Uisu}} I don't think the edits you made provide any clarity. That's why I am here to take suggestions from uninvolved editors. Thanks Sid95Q (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I've put the article for TechTV up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/TechTV/archive1. Any and all suggestions for improving the article can be made there and would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Got some valuable input from Sammie Brie that just might've gotten the article up to GA-level quality. I'll be leaving the peer review open until April 6 at the most, and if there's no other input by then, I'll be closing the PR and making that nomination. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney+ Hotstar#Requested move 29 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Brian's Got a Brand New Bag has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The following pages have date errors that I couldn't fix for one reason or another. If anyone is familiar with these pages, please take a look. Search for "error" to find the errors.

• Chronicle (British TV programme)
• Cluedo (Australian game show)
• Dr. Oakley, Yukon Vet
• Down to Earth (American TV series)
• Khasara
• The Last Word (Malaysian TV series)
• List of Audubon Wildlife Theatre episodes
• List of Buso Renkin episodes
• List of Harukanaru Toki no Naka de Hachiyō Shō episodes
• List of Spring Baking Championship episodes
• Material World (TV series)
• Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer (1958 TV series)
• Ripley's Believe It or Not! (1982 TV series)
• List of Robocar Poli episodes
• Sports on Amazon Prime Video
• Spring Tide (TV series)
• The Ties That Bind (Jeeves and Wooster)
• Wiggle and Learn
• List of Wild Kingdom episodes
• Wowser (TV series)

Gonnym (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

24: The Game 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) 18:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters#Requested move 22 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. AsuGPTNow with 100% more artificial intelligence! 13:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Rose of Versailles § Proposal for character and synopsis section merges?, which is within the scope of this WikiProject.

There's also a discussion on Talk:The Rose of Versailles § Synopsis section if you are interested. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Earlier today, Zap2it was not loading whatsoever, with error pages coming up when trying to load the website. Fast forward a few hours later, and now https://tvschedule.zap2it.com/ / https://tvlistings.zap2it.com/ redirects to the NewsNation TV schedule.

Obviously hoping this isn't an abrupt end to Zap2it, but if it is, what should be done? Dozens of TV articles here use Zap2it as a source for episode listings, so lots of shows are being impacted here. We still have The Futon Critic, and as of recently, I've seen some users using TV Insider, but from what little I've seen, it's definitely not as good of a source as Zap2it.

The only other thing I have to say before others chime in is that I found someone on Twitter/X mention this: https://tvlistings.gracenote.com/grid-affiliates.html As that same user [https://x.com/notta_walrys/status/1904712561578107291 pointed out] however, "it's apparently the result of Nielsen buying the old TMS and Gracenote from Tribune back in 2016 before Nexstar bought the rest of Tribune in 2019. The copyright in the old page footer fooled me into thinking Nexstar still owned it".

Anyways, as this may have a large impact across loads of articles, even if it does miraculously come back at some point in the future, it'd be wise to start figuring out what the next steps are given the current status of this all. Magitroopa (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

: I also know that Showbuzz Daily was moreso regarding ratings, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 34#U.S. TV ratings sources may be of use in finding sites that may/may not be useful for this new dilemma. Magitroopa (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

{{od|1}} Update: Someone apparently got in contact via email, and was told that Zap2it has been shut down and to use the Gracenote site for TV listings. If this is indeed the case, something still needs to be figured out regarding the numerous articles using Zap2it as a source, that now just redirects to the NewsNation TV listings on their website. No idea how easy (if it all) it would to convert the references to Gracenote links. Magitroopa (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Magitroopa If URLs are convertible, consider talking to Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 20:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::There's a few URL changes if you want to go to a certain show, for example, for season 1 of Danger Force:

::*https://tvschedule.zap2it.com/overview.html?programSeriesId=SH03452957&tabName=guide&season=1 (Zap2it link)

::*https://tvlistings.gracenote.com/overview-affiliates.html?programSeriesId=SH03452957&tabName=guide&season=1 (Gracenote link)

::Of note:

::*Both https://tvschedule.zap2it.com/ and https://tvlistings.zap2it.com/ previously brought you to Zap2it, where as it appears only https://tvlistings.gracenote.com/grid-affiliates.html works, with no 'tvschedule' link.

::*The 'grid-affiliates' appears necessary for the URL to work. https://tvlistings.gracenote.com/ does not work.

::*Omitting the '-affiliates' from a specific show URL also does not appear to work.

::TL;DR, no idea in the slightest if the URLs are convertible or not. Hopefully someone else will know better regarding all of this than myself... Magitroopa (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:Pinging @GreenC to this, maybe they have thoughts or ideas how to handle this. Gonnym (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::I can do this. Only need redirect mapping rules, like the rule discovered by User:Magitroopa. I add the rules into my bot that makes the change. If the rule doesn't resolve for a given URL, it will convert to an archive URL. There are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3Azap2it+insource%3A%2Fzap2it%5B.%5Dcom%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 11,487] pages which is "large". Different types of URLs may have different rules, like for blog, or news, etc.. the more rules patterns you discover will improve conversion rate. I created a request Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests#zap2it.com, feel free to continue using this Project page thread as the main discussion. -- GreenC 22:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} more info at Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests#zap2it.com .. most of the links were already archived, was able to save about 780 using the rule discovered by User:Magitroopa, and the rest treated as normal dead links with archives added. -- GreenC 04:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated One Piece season 5 for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tales of the Jedi (TV series)#Requested move 11 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alastor (Hazbin Hotel)#Requested move 5 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chicago (franchise)#Requested move 6 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fated to Love You (2008 TV series)#Requested move 6 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chicago (franchise)#Requested move 6 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fated to Love You (2008 TV series)#Requested move 6 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

In two days, the WP:The Core Contest is starting, which might be of interest here. Plenty of very highly-viewed articles and [https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Television/articles?quality=C-Class&importance=Top-Class C-class top important] articles to work with in this Wikiproject. Sign-ups are open, and remain open during the 6-week contest. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Good evening! Yesterday I found out that anonymous user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devil_May_Cry_%28TV_series%29&diff=1285271021&oldid=1285194538 removed negative review citation from the article] about Devil May Cry (TV series), stating that, since the show has an overwhelmingly positive critical reception, we can't cite any one negative review as an example of other opinions about show, as that would allegedly violate WP:FALSEBALANCE. The anonymous user ignored the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Devil_May_Cry_(TV_series)#Joshua_Fox discussion (by the way, created by them themselves)] and an attempt to address them via the talk page, but their opinion was echoed by several other users who stated that they weren't against the source itself, but felt that it needed to be accompanied by 1-2 more negative reviews to be included in the article and comply with Wikipedia's source balance rules. My opinion is that the application of this rule is not entirely correct, since this review was not positioned as an equal counterpoint to all positive critical reaction and that the rule clearly (in my opinion) described several other situations was largely ignored (especially considering that in the past I have seen the opposite in many articles about media content, and in perfectly decent articles, if that matter). So I want to raise the issue here, to find out the tradition of writing critical sections about TV shows and what other contributors to the project generally think about this case. This is not a matter of life and death, but I have some suspicions that the anonymous person has some conflict of interest around modern films and TV shows, so I am especially interested in the opinion of the project users on this matter. In particular, I was a bit surprised by opinion that adding a negative review violates NPOV when positive reviews dominate, while removing critical reviews based on a conflict with an entirely positive section that doesn't even mention the critical points from the positive reviews somehow does not. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Given the size of the reception section before the review was removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devil_May_Cry_(TV_series)&oldid=1285194538] I don't think it was inappropriate to do so; 2 lines of praise versus 5 lines of criticism is overly negative for something with such a high RT score. That doesn't mean the same source can't be added now that the reception section has been expanded. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Do you think that after a section has been detailed and rewritten, getting a deleted review back won't be a problem anymore? Solaire the knight (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I think so, but this isn't a show/genre that I'm familiar with. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::As one of the editor's who has been contributing to to the article in question and is involved in the current discussion, I have no issue with you readding the previously deleted review. Cheezknight (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: Thanks for your reply and response, I appreciate it. In that case, what do you think about waiting 1 or 2 days to hear some arguments from the anonymous person as the initiator of the dispute and returning the section if they don't mind/continue to remain silent? Of course, if they oppose it, the discussion can be continued here. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sounds good to me. Although I'm not sure how long the customary wait time is. I was going to add the missing episode summaries to the article next, but I'll hold off for now. Thanks for leading the discussion in resolving this. Cheezknight (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: I'm not sure I understood you correctly, but I didn't mean not to edit the whole article for the next couple of days. Just to return the paragraph in a couple of days if there are no new objections. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey, question: where does a National Sports Emmy fall on the scale of Emmy awards? Is it like a primetime Emmy (notable enough to keep on that alone), is it more like a regional Emmy (can count towards notability but not a keep on that alone), or is it somewhere between the two depending on the category? I have an article (George Bryan Polivka) where the guy's main claim to notability is a National Sports Emmy and was curious. If the guy's article is nominated then this would be good to know. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:It looks like it's a Sports Emmy Award if that helps any. I'm not a sports person so I'm not sure where that would be notability-granting-wise. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Input is invited at here. I have added a few characters to the page, but I'm hoping to get more thoughts before adding any more to the List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2000–2004 page, since many of these characters, in this Class S & yuri series, are in "sisterly" relationships (i.e. soeurs) so I don't know if that would fall under a lesbian relationship or not. As such, I look forward to your comments. Historyday01 (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

82.46.25.83 is back their old ways by gaming the AFC system with zero improvements again. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{a note|Update:}} They have been blocked for 6 months as of few hours ago. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#Long-term abuse (gaming the Article for Creation process) for incident report. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was any broader input here for discussion on talk page for the List of programs broadcast by CBS about the possibility of listing the years that in development shows were first announced as a (sortable) column in table form on the relevant page beyond the references. Overall there doesn't seem to be much guidance on how to handle in development shows, though there seems to be an informal practice among some editors of removing them after three years of no updates, but would appreciate some broader input and also when to include references for pending status for shows (when they exist). The article for

List of Paramount+ original programming includes in development shows in table form with only two columns. newsjunkie (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Meredith Grey has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Movie#Requested move 20 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)