Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television‎#‎Plot summaries on the date of premiere

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)

Honestly, not entirely sure what to do regarding this article. Recently, edits from both IPs and users have been claiming the series as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricky_Zoom&diff=prev&oldid=1287654837 ended in July 2022] or that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricky_Zoom&diff=prev&oldid=1288044696 it is still running], both of which appears to be false. From the limited sources I've been able to find (such as [https://therokuchannel.roku.com/details/c08f8ec683135651b61080397908dfb5 Roku], [https://tv.apple.com/us/show/ricky-zoom/umc.cmc.5vnhvhkkx3m7or2eqc39yrjz Apple TV], and [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHI5D_APbnrkn-HEEmWUTFMkqIxrY50Yz YouTube]), a second season appears to have been produced and aired, but as far as I can tell, was not aired on TV in the US. The season 2 episodes also have dates ranging from 2020 to 2021, and the [https://www.frogbox.fr/en/production.php?p=8 FrogBox production website] says that season 2 was produced from 2019 to 2021, but I have no idea where it was originally aired and/or streamed.

To add on to all this confusion, Entertainment One has undergone ownership changes the last several years, including being acquired by Hasbro in 2019, and then being sold to and rebranded as 'Lionsgate Canada' in 2023/24. The information in the Ricky Zoom article regarding Hasbro Entertainment being a production company since 2023 appears to have been added back in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricky_Zoom&diff=1168716699&oldid=1168065166 August 2023], but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricky_Zoom&diff=prev&oldid=1288064495 I've just changed that information back] given that as I've previously mentioned, the series appears to have completed production and not been aired since 2021.

Any help figuring out what to do here would be greatly appreciated, as there's so much that appears to have happened with this show, and so little sourcing regarding anything about it outside of the US. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Most filmographies of Filipino TV and film actors have a separate "TV network" ("film studio"/"production studio" and something else for films). Imagine Calista Flockhart listed this way:

By my understanding, these are not standard, only Filipino filmographies do this, and this should be removed. Is that right? Howard the Duck (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Could there be some additional input on whether it is appropriate include a link to an official website in one place and to Amazon as a release reference information that were removed by another user citing promotion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_%26_Friends&diff=prev&oldid=1288361605 Some of my additional comments/context are on the Talk page: Talk:Thomas & Friends#c-Newsjunkie-20250502173000-Policies regarding links: newsjunkie (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:(Issue might be resolved for now, but further input might still be helpful) newsjunkie (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::I know at the Film project using Amazon for release date information isn't considered appropriate because Amazon often has incorrect information. I would generally assume the same logic would apply here. DonIago (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's not about the release date. Just as a reference that certain seasons are available there for streaming currently. newsjunkie (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If the only way to cite that a show is currently on a given streaming service is to link to that streaming service, it's probably not notable that the show streams there. In other words, it's a WP:DUE issue. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well, it's complicated by there being completely different versions and seasons available in different places. In this discussion the information was found to be legitimate information as long as it was neutrally stated, at least with regards to the promotional issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Merlin_(2008_TV_series)#c-YodaYogaYogurt154-20240908152100-Newsjunkie-20240904032100 newsjunkie (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Expanding on @RunningTiger123's comments, we are not an indiscriminate list of information, and we are not tv guide. There is no need for us to tell people that it's on Amazon - our readers are generally web savvy enough to look there. There is nothing notable about it being streamed on Amazon (or any other streaming service for that matter). Also see MOS:TVINTL. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Under Home Media and Streaming services it does say "The addition or removal of a season or series to a streaming service (Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.) or other on-demand service can also be noted here." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Release newsjunkie (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{tq|can also be noted}}... does not equate to "must be noted" or even "it's ok to note it". It has to be notable. This isn't notable. You asked for input. Three people have all told you the same thing, yet you're still trying to find a way around it. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The initial issue was "promotion" and I was just trying to be clear about what that specific guideline there said which does not refer to notability, which itself in my understanding is more a guideline for whether things get their own articles, with more different factors weighed for article content. If the style guidelines state that this type of information can be considered for inclusion, then it does not seem to fall under "What Wikipedia is Not." It is also verifiable, neutral and a statement of fact, not original research, the other core elements to consider for content in articles, rather than notability for whether something should have its own article. newsjunkie (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::It doesn't really matter what the "initial issue" was. You asked for input. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, nor does neutrality. Yes, there is a notability guideline for articles, but that doesn't mean that notability isn't considered for article content. It absolutely is. Not everything improves an article. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Would streaming availability on a small streaming service with a small number of subscribers (assuming the number is known) with a secondary source automatically be more notable than availability on a major streaming service with a large audience (which is specifically referred to in the guidelines and already has its own article)? Or in more traditional terms, isn't it automatically more notable to note that something aired in primetime on a major network, rather than say at 3AM on a cable network available in very few homes? The standards I mentioned are just the ones listed explicitly as content guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Content. If it were the kind of subject that was totally unacceptable for inclusion, it doesn't seem like it would be included in the TV style guidelines. It's always good to (also) have secondary sources, but if the general type of information itself is acceptable for inclusion, then it would seem just those other guidelines would apply.newsjunkie (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think {{diff2|1244519017|this diff}} from that conversation nails the point: {{tq|Third party reliable sources should ideally be used to support the show broadcasting on these new places, not relying on primary sources.}} Regarding MOS:TV, "can be noted" ≠ "must be noted" – the main driver of inclusion is whether or not something is encyclopedic and relevant, which is shown by the existence of secondary ({{tq|third party}}) sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::This article would be a secondary source with summary/introduction, though in the end it's really just links to the various streaming sites themselves: https://www.thepopverse.com/movies-tv-thomas-tank-engine-and-friends-shows-series-watch-order And then there's the factor that a lot of these types of articles get a commission if you click on the links from there, which would not be the case with a direct link. Not sure how much of a concern that is. newsjunkie (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Inside No. 9 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) 05:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Friday Night Lights (TV series) 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) 05:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I Take Thee Quagmire 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) 06:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney Jr. (international)#Requested move 20 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 01:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trippin'#Requested move 28 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 22:54, 5 May 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. TarnishedPath^talk 23:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated 30 Rock 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. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:30 Rock season 3 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:30 Rock season 4 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thus has been unsourced for 15 years! Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'd suggest PRODing it. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

In case you've missed the post, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#We will be enabling the new Charts extension on your wiki soon! Gonnym (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Will this be able to help reinstate {{tl|Television Rotten Tomatoes scores}}? From my understanding, each chart is it's own generated image stored at Wikimedia. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have no idea. @Sannita (WMF), do you have any input on this? Gonnym (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi @Gonnym @Favre1fan93, I don't know exactly how this template works, so I'm not sure I can give you a 100% accurate answer. From what I can see, the template generates locally a graph, while what will happen with Charts is that data will be hosted on Wikimedia Commons and, from there, be available to all projects. I guess the template will need reworking based on that - but again, please take my answer with a grain of salt. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

On the talk page for Agent Carter (TV series), an editor has told me that third-party sources are not required for genre and says (on the talk page, not the article itself) that it is This appears to be against MOS:TVGENRE which states that "All genre classifications throughout the article, including in the lead, should be reliably sourced and comply with Wikipedia's due weight policy and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." The user claims the source is from Disney+ and that they only require sources is more genres are added. This seems to be against the manual of style and on searching through the archives, I do not see any sort of consensus or rules that this applies too. Can anyone confirm this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:As the editor in question, I will keep pushing back against your misinterpretations of my comments. The basic, non-controversial genres listed by the people who make the series do not need a third-party source to support them. We can still provide third-party sources if needed. We do need a third-party source to support other genres that come from reviews/commentary/etc. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I was asking if this was considered standard within the community and genre is subjective so its not that the genres are controversial (which I never said whether I agreed with them or not), its that they aren't sourced within the article, and do not comply to weight. Adamstom has implied on the article that there is some form of understanding within the project that this is how genre should be applied, but I can not find it. That is why I'm asking for someone else to comment here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I checked some examples in infoboxes from Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama#Other television series, 2010s debuts – these should represent higher-quality standards while adding some randomness:

:::{{collapse|

:::* 17th Precinct: Fantasy and police procedural are unsourced

:::* The Americans: Period drama and spy thriller are unsourced

:::* Angel Beats!: Fantasy is sourced (but lead sentence only describes it as anime, not fantasy)

:::* Baggage: Dating game show is unsourced

:::* Beat the Chefs: Game show is unsourced

:::* The Beautiful World of Jeffree Star: Reality, docu-series, web series, and drama are unsourced (though the lack of links make me think they were added later)

:::* Benefits Street: Documentary is unsourced

:::* Blood-C: Action, dark fantasy, and thriller are sourced (but lead sentence only describes it as anime)

:::* The Bold Type: Comedy-drama is unsourced

:::* Brotherhood: Final Fantasy XV: n/a

:::* Butterfly: Drama is unsourced

:::}}

:::In my view, the general trend is that genres generally do not need to be sourced if they are the broad, top-level genres that we would describe in the lead sentence (i.e., " is a television series..."). As non-random examples, The Good Place has no source for "comedy" but does provide sources for "philosophical fiction", and Community has no source for "sitcom" but does for "surreal humor". In each case, the former is something suitable for the lead sentence but the latter isn't. For Agent Carter, I'd say any of the current genres could reasonably be used in the lead sentence and therefore don't need sources – though, of course, there is nothing preventing the addition of sources if they should appear. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Just for the record, the idea of genres not requiring sources would be against MOS:TV standards. Giving sources equal footing in an infobox as you would suggest also not comply with WP:WEIGHT which is already stated above. While your articles you've found show that genre aren't sourced, this isn't part of any standard in the manual of style or any general wikipedia rule as genres are subjective. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::My point was that the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS from editing does not require sources. Personally, I prioritize what people actually do over what a MOS guideline suggests – your views may differ. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::From a technical standpoint, I think that it's generally understood that the Infobox doesn't need citations per MOS:INFOBOXREF: "{{tq|References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious.}}" However, the instructions at {{tl|Infobox television}} explicitly "{{tq|Genres must be reliably sourced.}}" That said, I can definitely see both sides of this and how confusion could arise. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think it is possible to agree that "Genres must be reliably sourced" and also feel that third-party citations are not required in some instances. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I've already stated what rules apply that require third-party things. See WP:AUDIENCE. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully. I'm surprised this has gone on in such disarray, but yes, we need to cite content like genres, and a third-party sources is preferred per Wikipedia:Independent sources. If {{ping|Adamstom.97}} how your ideas satisfies WP:COISOURCE, specifically that an "Independent studies, if available, are preferred." and as these are highly visible popular Marvel products in question, there is no limit on the amount of sources we can dig up. So I'm not sure where your logic behind a primary source as s standard came from, as clearly, the active users here do not seem to follow your lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Third-party sources are not always better than first-party when it comes to works of art. They are when discussing reception/interpretation, of course, but not when talking about production and the intentions of the creators. The point of the genre parameter in the infobox is not to just list genres that critics think are appropriate, though we do sometimes in the interest of WP:DUEWEIGHT. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm not saying it's invalid, but it requires further sources regardless. In this case, we should be applying weight. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Genre classification is a type of interpretation. Sometimes it coincides with the creator's intentions, and other times it does not. But how a film is ultimately classified is not up to the creator(s). --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od|:::::::::}} I'm going to try and summarize different users comments and ideas here.

• First is my own, where I try to apply WP:WEIGHT which I've read as we require sources that fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.
• {{ping|Adamstom.97}} "non-controversial genres listed by the people who make the series do not need a third-party source to support them.
• {{ping|RunningTiger123}} has shown there is no consistency on how sources are applied through a select number of good articles and prioritizes "what people actually do over what a MOS guideline suggests".
• {{ping|TheDoctorWho}} States that sources do not have to be in the infobox, while noting that there is confusing here as they note that {{tl|Infobox television}} explicitly states"{{tq|Genres must be reliably sourced.}}}

Since then, on digging up material, I believe third-party sources are required from several rules.

• WP:WEIGHT. Weight implies we take in various sources for interpretations on a work, this would include genre. I do not see any writing with this or the following that implies the creator or owner or Wikipedia editors get priority in selecting/interpretting the genre of a film, tv series, video game, media franchise etc. If anything, the following bullet point suggests otherwise.
• Per WP:SUBJECTIVE "{{gt|Articles on creative works should provide an overview of their common interpretations, preferably with citations to experts holding those interpretations.}}" Any serious discussion of genre will tell you that genre is subjective.
• We should focus on third-party coverage of genres over a creators per WP:INDEPENDENT. as {{gt|Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved. Wikipedia encourages the use of independent sources because these sources are typically associated with reliability, a lack of bias, and factual accuracy.}} and even more simply from WP:SCHOLARSHIP which says {{Gt|Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.}}

WP:PRIMARY which states "{{gt|Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.}}" I could add more, but I do not feel like I'm misinterpreting anything.

• As for following "the flow", the MOS:TV itself states to "{{gt|Editors should generally follow it}}". While there is the side to suggest ignoreallrules, just adding unsourced or first party material seems a very big stretch to make wikipedia better considering the myriad of guidelines and standards above.

While I agree it does sound eye-rollingly trivial to need to cite that Seinfeld is a sitcom, we probably should do this to comply with weight. For example "dark comedy" is on the Seinfeld infobox and is unsourced. But is that how the show is generally described? Is it "important" to know it's a dark comedy? Placing them next to each other, even with a single cite next to "dark comedy" gives the implication that the general studies and writing on the topic says its called it equally. For all I know, it may be, but this is why we need sources and apply WP:WEIGHT to make this clear and straightforward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment – As noted in a recent discussion elsewhere, genre classification is an act of interpretation that is best left to secondary sourcing. Now, it is not always required or even necessary to cite a source for a well-understood, widely-accepted genre classification; such classifications are easily verifiable. Verifiability does not require sourcing for well-known facts, such as when we write the capital of France is Paris. It is only required for material that has been challenged or is likely to be, and the challenge should be reasonable. You would not reasonably challenge that the capital of France is Paris.{{pb}}A creator's intent can be covered in the article body in an appropriate section that gives adequate weight to that specific aspect, but it likely has no place in the lead unless it became a significant controversy. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Good points {{ping|GoneIn60}}. While I do not think we have to push for having a citation in the infobox for television work for every article, I think as editors we can agree that while there are not always discussions about genre, in my history of editing wikipedia for decades (!) one of the most common edits I see to articles is a quick change of genre by casual editors. I do not think anyone is going to argue that Paris is the capital of France, but genres, especially those listed in an infobox, are often extended and showcased through microgenres or interpretations of harder to define genres. For example, I do not think anyone will debate that Bonanza is a Western as the Western is a genre with clear iconography or that Wheel of Fotune is a game show, again per the format, it gets more complicated. On my attempt at expanding articles on genres like the crime film, action film, adventure film and thriller film and heaven forbid mystery film, authors find it hard to define these types of work. While trying to expand these genres into television (see my attempt with Action television), similar situations arise. Don't even get me started when it comes to genres that aren't English in origin like Tokusatsu. This is why I emphasize sources and weight, as unless a genre has obvious iconography, its often hard to parse consistently. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yes, I would concur that for obvious genres such as your Bonanza example, an inline citation would not be necessary, nor should it be a point of contention among editors. But for more controversial genres that aren't easily verifiable, they should require inline citations. Generally, providing those citations down in the body of the article will suffice, but the more controversial the claim, the more likely we would also cite in the lead and/or infobox. The quality of the source is a different conversation that goes beyond these basic points. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Agreed. You wouldn't be able to really have a Wheel of Fotune article for example without explaining the general premise of the show that would clearly give away what it was or what it isn't about. Same with Bonanza where the narrative or opening text would clearly give away its a Western from its iconography. That said, The F-Troop might have to clarify if its a comedy as well if you had never heard of the show, sure, the name might give it away, but Bonanza also sounds like it could be a comedy, which it seemingly wasn't always. It gets worse with shows that are all over the place like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Supernatural which have a myriad of genres. While these genres are probably all applicable, seeing them at a glance would not tell someone who hasn't seen the show how and why these genres apply. I would suggest anyone reading the Action_film#Hybrid_genres section of action film that sort of expands on this, because trust me, "action film" is hard enough to define, when you try to tell someone that "action crime" and "action thriller" have enough of a clear definition other than they are hybrid forms of two genres, it does not really help anyone get an idea of what they are getting into. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@GoneIn60 Do you think the text at your link to the genre discussion at Talk:The Terminator should probably be copied/referenced somewhere where editors with less savvy skillsets can refer to it? It seems like it would avoid a lot of edit warring. Tduk (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{u|Tduk}}, it would seem that MOS:FILMGENRE and MOS:TVGENRE already contain advice along these lines, but both can always be updated/amended further if anyone feels its necessary. From experience, however, most novice editors are not aware of the MoS and wouldn't read the directions anyway even if they were. Most learn through trial and error, in which the rules are pointed out to them as they make mistakes. The best advice wouldn't prevent the behavior, unfortunately. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::MOS:TVGENRE says "All genre classifications throughout the article, including in the lead, should be reliably sourced and comply with Wikipedia's due weight policy and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources.", which doesn't mention primary vs secondary sources; am I missing something? Should it be inferred from "majority of mainstream"? I can see people arguing around that vague wording. Tduk (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::In my books, yes. While editors are free to disagree, we should probably only deviate from this if there is a strong reason that it will improve the article. So far in my experience of editing, I only have done this when a one or two word genre summary would not adequately clarify that a show is a mixture of several genres or would potentially technically fit one genre, but that ut would be misleading. Generally yeah, the MOS makes the most sense. Why even have it otherwise?Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Oh, I don't disagree with that. I just thought it was unclear in how @GoneIn60 thought that the passage discouraged using primary sources for genres. If it _is_ discouraged it should possibly be clearer. Tduk (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I didn't realize you were referring specifically to "primary vs secondary". IMO, any source is better than no source, which is a very big hurdle on its own for most editors to get past. Usually, the problem is the addition of unsourced genres. But when you get more granular and start talking about primary vs. secondary, I don't think our MoS is the best place to get into the weeds on that. There's already WP:PSTS that we can point editors to. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Yeah primary sources are not bad per se, but generally speaking, you will want to take secondary sources over them for a myriad of reasons. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::I agree. Some people don't seem to feel the same way though. Tduk (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I am new to Wikipedia and I want to start editing about Twin Peaks. I was looking at the page for Part 1 (Twin Peaks) and saw that the image in the infobox was only in the category Screenshots of television. But for Episode 8 (Twin Peaks), the image in the infobox it has a Twin Peaks images cagegory.

So, for my first couple edits, I thought I would try and find whatever Twin Peaks images I could and put them in the Twin Peaks images category if they weren't already. But when I tried to edit the page, there was no spot for categories and I didn't even see the ones already existing. So I thought the problem was I was on Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons, so I went over there and searched for the image I was looking at and couldn't find it. In fact, I couldn't find any image about Twin peaks through a search! I thought all photos here had to be on Commons.

What exactly am I missing here? TIA for the help Movie Mayon (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:TV screenshots are typically fair use and have to be stored here, not on Commons. You should be able to click on the image and find a link to the file page (edit: or just follow the image links you included), where you can add or change categories. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! That makes sense. So can I just hit the "edit source" button on this image and plop the :Category:Twin Peaks images at the very bottom? I don't see the other category :Category:Twin Peaks images in the edit box, so I don't understand where I should be placing the one I want to place. Does that make sense? Movie Mayon (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You should be able to put it at the bottom like a category on any other page; the episode 8 image does this. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Just did it, looks like it worked. Thanks for the help! Movie Mayon (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)