Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

After the recent TfD'ing (again :D ) of some of the below templates, I would like to get some more input from users on the issues surrounding the categorization and template banners of some of the television articles with temporal issues. Please also take a look at

Problematic articles and content:

• Running show/season/episode
• Not yet aired episode/season
• Not yet airing television show
• American Idol like programs with a seasonal competition element for which no final result has yet been reached

The question becomes what kind of templates/categories should be used on what kinds of pages? In my eyes:

1. TV shows not yet airing should be using {{Future tvshow}} + Category:Upcoming television shows. The episode part should be remove from the notice, and the template should not be used for individual seasons or episodes
2. American Idol like programs/seasons should carry a template like {{current sport}} but then {{current television}}. perhaps based on {{In-progress tvshow}}, but less obtrusive? I'm unsure about a category name....
3. Television shows that are currently airing, should be added to the category Category:Running television shows or Category:Current television shows, but don't have to use a template denouncing the show is still running and still being produced. The Infobox should make note of this (last_aired=present).
4. Television season/episodes listings/articles that are currently in production, are verifiable, but have not yet aired are allowed if notable, but should make use of a small "section" template banner {{future television}} or something and category (Category:Upcoming television episodes) that mark the content future". Only episodic related sections should use it. It's mutual exclusive with the {{current television}} banner. (there is overlap there. do we want this type of distinction?)
5. In case {{Future tvshow}} keeps it's current wording, Category:Upcoming television shows should be renamed to Category:Upcoming television

The list is numbered for a reason. Please comment.

Discussion on Temperal suggestion 1

• I disagree with the episode part of this. Template forking is bad. The rest is already in use. –
  Talk | contribs
  ) 04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I wanted to make this distinction because of the potential higher risk that future content of seasons and episodes is inaccurate, compared to tv shows that are gonna be on TV. That same risk makes this specific content a higher risk for possible deletion within wikipedia, and categorizing it separately, with a less layout obtrusive banner then the "top banner" for tv shows, would be useful for maintenance and be less annoying to users. See also Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes with more on how episode content is much more sensitive due to notability then tv show. - The DJ 09:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You're still template forking. One template can be used for more than one situation. Most of these episode pages are properly marked so the risk of their deletion is relatively low. –
      Talk | contribs
      ) 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see any need for specifically pointing out that a show is still running. It's basically a given in most cases. –
  Talk | contribs
  ) 04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Same as 2. No point in making a tempate to state the obvious. –
  Talk | contribs
  ) 04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You didn't read this point. i specifically say they should NOT use a template, but should only be categorized. Seems like a useful maintenance system for ongoing shows. We could even do it automatically if "last_date" of the Infobox == "present" perhaps? I'm not sure if template magic allows that. - The DJ 09:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess we could use {{Switch}} for that {{switch | {{{last_aired}}} | case: present=present [[Category:Running television shows]] | default={{{last_aired}}} }}
• Even without a template, you're just adding another category that is basically stating the obvious. There's no real reason to do so. –
  Talk | contribs
  ) 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Following that reasoning all the Genre and Year Categories could be removed from wikipedia as well. - The DJ 22:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Not everything uses a year category and genre is a more specific category set. Running applies to potentially thousands of shows with no real relation other than the fact they happen to be currently running. –
  Talk | contribs
  ) 03:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A relation is a relation in my eyes. I think there are thousands of less useful categories. But we are clearly not gonna agree :D - The DJ 10:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Temperal suggestion 4

• Again, unnecessary template forking. Generalizing is better in this case. –
  Talk | contribs
  ) 04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds fine. –
  Talk | contribs
  ) 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We could also rename future tvshow to future television and give it a paramater type=[show|episode|season], then word the banner and layout of the banner (small vs. large for pages vs. sections) and categorize the articles appropriately. Of course this will have to use {{Switch}} logic and as such be more intensive when calling the page. It's just a thought. - The DJ 14:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

TFD=Keep

Since there was no consensus, does this mean that the "in-progress" template is free to use, or we should shy away from it and let it orphan itself back to tfd?

In my eyes we should take the best ideas from the TfD proces and redesing the temporal templates appropriatly. Personally i prefer a category for current TV shows instead of a template with a banner (see above), but if we keep a banner then it should be less obtrusive in my eyes. And perhaps the normal {{current}} template is just fine for the cases where active editing is to be anticipated. - The DJ 22:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because there was no consense doesn't mean we should go nuts and throw it everywhere. What this template suggests is usually not applicable to most televisio shows. Once a week hardly makes for rapidly changing details. Use of this should be limited to main articles, not sub lists of episodes. Also, this template should definitely not be included in any character article. I've removed it from a bunch already. Using it on those causes those characters to be added to the category. They certainly aren't TV shows. –

Talk | contribs

) 09:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge
  Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes
  .
• Note or direct people to conventions for articles on actors, characters, crew etc.
• Take on the task of analyzing
  WP:TV-NC
   ??
• Create lists of articles that need to be renamed because of
  WP:TV-NC
• Help
  WP:STUB
  by fixing up out stub categories. Again descriptions etc are needed.
• Add Infoboxes to TV-show articles that don't yet have them
• Help our child wikiprojects
  Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes
  to get their projects on the rails again.
• Define a list of TV genres to be used in the Infobox
• Deal with all the template forks that are not necessary. See Category:Television templates.

I noted that someone placed the project tag on the main franchise article for Star Trek. I removed it from there only because that article is an overall examination of not only the TV series, but the films as well. Better, instead, to just have the tag on the individual series articles IMO. Some had them, some didn't, so I made sure all the Trek series have been tagged (along with the untelecast Phase II, for good measure). 23skidoo 13:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Related to the above, however, I'm a little confused as to handle

Battlestar Galactica (2003) and Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) which appear to be, at first glance, duplicate articles. However the (2003) article appears to fill the same sort of "franchise overview" role as the main Star Trek article does. Should these overview articles be included as well? 23skidoo

18:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe that the article of Mystery Science Theater 3000 can really do with some improving and definately believe a WikiProject thereon would be appropriate for its being a cult classic with a cult following.. Basically, there's a link to a Portal but leads not thereto.. There's also been discussion that there should be an actual listing of episodes on the List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes that's really just a list of the B-movies aired on the show. Any help would be appreciated. DrWho42 06:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just alerting you to the existence of the {{TVep}} template, which is designed to formalise the introduction sentence to a TV episode article (so they're all similar/same format/no funny business). its already in massive use on every Stargate page, and i suggest putting it into full use in general (the point is the standardisation and ease of use/removal of tedium).

Also,

Yeah I think that might be a good idea. I'll try fixing up the single episode WP page, to reflect this. It's good to see that we are finally getting somewhere on this entire issue of TV articles. - The DJ 12:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Whats everyone's opinion on spoilers? I'm starting to get more and more annoyed by {{spoiler}}, especially on Episode pages. I mean if you are giving a description of a single episode you are almost guaranteed to include spoilers, what does anyone expect when reading such a page. I think we should avoid them on episode pages and only include them in TV series mainpages in the sections that describe seasons for instance. - The DJ 12:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. However, one might be only interested in guest stars or airing date or something like this. I think this was already discussed on the Stargate project some time ago. I would prefer keeping the templates for now. --Tone 16:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Maybe we can come up with something less intrusive? Sven Erixon 12:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to propose a a standard for naming episode articles. While checking categories, I found out that there is quite a mess regarding this topic. There are articles that are named either Episode name or Episode name (episode) or Episode name (Show) or Episode name (Show episode). I decided to clean things a little, I renamed Futurama, Rome, Sliders and My name is Earl episode articles to the Episode name (Show episode) variant, that is the most commonly used (see Startrek or Buffy). I took this action because the namings were really messy.

There are two major types of naming, Stargate episodes use Episode name (Show) convention. If different naming conventions are used, it results in a mess so I suggest we rename all these articles following a single convention. Episode name (Show episode) is the one that is used more often. --Tone 21:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You apparently forgot to read the

WP:TV-NC consequently says: "Where an article is created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses if there are other articles by the same name, e.g. Bart the Genius, but The Sting (Futurama). For Star Trek episodes, always add the series name." These are rules which were franktically discussed for over a year before coming to a concensus. - The DJ

09:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I did read the section you mentioned before posting the proposal. It clearly shows where I think the problem is. Different shows use different naming conventions. For example, why having the series name added for Star Trek episodes and not for the Simpsons? It is messy. I would appreciate if you could give me a link to discussions that were going on before, I wasn't around then. My proposal is simply to bring more order to the articles. --Tone 09:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I went through past discussions but they were mostly about whether it was appropriate to have episode articles at all. But I found out that I was not the first one who came up with the idea. Still, I couldn't find the page where the consensus about the current convention was reached. --Tone 10:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It came out of discussions about disambiguation in general (i'm not exactly sure anymore on which Talk page). There are policies about this in Wikipedia which say disambiguation-naming should only be used when required to distinguish something from an identically named other article. The problem is just that ST and Stargate WikiProjects have used the "(show episode)" convention for ages. it would take an enormous amount of editing to fix it everywhere. And beyond that disambiguation policy is different, there is no real reason to do so. Also the naming used by ST and Stargate is used to do some quick linking tricks with some of their special templates. Most other shows don't have such templates. Besides most shows shouldn't write Episode articles at all. In my eyes only the shows which currently have their own Portal (ST, Stargate, Simpsons, South Park, Lost) have been notable enough to warrent such articles. But that is my opinion. It's difficult to get all this sorted out with the large number of fandom edits in the TV pages. - The DJ 14:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A lot of Stargate templates rely entirely on the fact that SG episodes end with (show name) and not (show episode). (e.g. {{sgcite}}). To be honest, I think all episode articles should follow their own convention as long as they keep it standard. The diea of only paranthesising if there's a name clash is silly.. an article called "The Brotherhood" is not about some brotherhood. it's about an episode of Stargate Atlantis. anyway. here's a simple idea:

if the show name is abbreviated in any way (e.g. "Buffy", "TOS", etc) then use "Ep name (TOS episode)". If the show name is not abbreviated (e.g. "Stargate SG-1") then just use "Ep name (Stargate SG-1)". This actually follows the status quo quite well.-- Alfakim --  talk  14:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that the episode articles for just some random show are not to be placed here. And I understand the disambig policy. To fix it all in reverse would take time. Still, I guess it would be possible to use a (semi automated) bot to do the job. I just thought it would be good to act now before there are thousands of episode articles and the thing gets out of control. I would like to hear some more comments, if it is worthy to pursue this debate. Otherwise, when working on episodes, I mostly edit Stargate stuff and there everything is perfectly in order :-) --Tone 19:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed an increasing number of "NBC network show" etc. being added to articles. I don't really see how this adds in categorizing a TV show. In my eyes this information should rather be mentioned in a "List of NBC network shows". What do others think of this? - The DJ 18:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion regarding the tv related stubs which truly are becoming quite a mess. I would love it if people would assist in defining the set of stub templates and categories before we start cleaning this out. - The DJ 09:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just a note, if you are interested, you could list WikiProject The Simpsons under the Descendant Wikiprojects... - Adolphus79 23:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

{{

I was curious to know what people thought of having lists of quotes in articles. It seems obvious to me that its redundant with sister project

I agree... a couple of the more famous or important quotes per episode page or character page, but the rest are on a matching page on WikiQuote... - Adolphus79 08:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it depends. For instance, Seinfeld has the "superman references". Those are just fine in my eyes. Also quotes that help tell the plot are no problem. However the random "lists of quotes" that many articles have (as for most trivia), is a problem because of

WikiProject Television

) 09:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Seinfeld quotes are organised and serve a purpose, in addition to (hopefully) being accompanied by commentary and analysis. However, my real concern is with the articles in

Sean Black

20:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If the quote is used and discussed then there would not really be a problem with it, but a plain list of quotes is better at wikiquote. Tim! 21:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that simply removing things that should be in wikiquote is probably not appreciated :D. If you would actually MOVE them, i don't think there will be many problems. Definetly not by any of the more experienced editors. -

WikiProject Television

) 21:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But is Wikiquote an appropriate place to put television, or even movie, quotes? Here is where I disagree, a rarity indeed, with Wiki's policy. Television/movie quotes are often a very important aspect of the show. Quotes are sometimes even the definition of the show, and usually are culturally important to us all. It is through quotes that we identify with the characters and we tend to repeat our favored ones for years. Many times it's not just the show that makes it good, but the things which are said. While I can completely understand Wiki's stand on encyclopedic information, I still say there needs to be a place for things like this. In fact I was thinking last night about this very subject, and it occurred to me that perhaps there should be an almanac by Wiki, or something along those lines, where we can add lists of items such as these. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem lies in the fact that adding quotes is essentially original research- while the quotes are real and verifiable, I see an issue in deciding which quotes should be mentioned in articles, especially considering users' views of importance or humour will vary greatly. Unless the quote is monumentally famous or defining, I don't think it should be mentioned- however, I wouldn't mind seeing quotes if they were important to the character, such as the first time a character utters a catch phrase. Other examples of quotes that could be included are ones that show Easter Eggs or references from the writers, like the last line in Futurama where Leela asks Fry to keep playing because she doesn't want it to end (referncing the writers wanting to keep the show going).--Wafulz 17:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right that selecting quotes violates NPOV. Wikiquote has lots of quotations from movies and television; it's organized just as Wikipedia is. Make a Wikiquote page and link to it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this. My post, I know, kind of rambled but basically this was what I was wondering. So I need to move the quotes to Wikiquote and organize them there in the same way that Wikipedia organizes the information. Perfect! I'll take a look at organization over there now. Again, thank you. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 23:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Check your fiction
• WikiProject Fictional Series

Both of these are used to disambiguate between TV shows and other things. Could we maybe get a vote on one or the other to standardize ? That is, if it hasn't already been done—I just came by this WikiProject for the first time today.

There already is :D The

WikiProject Television

) 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thx.

 talk 

23:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I note that the Wikiproject says that plot sections should be "relatively brief", although this may refer to summaries of the plot of an entire television series. I've noticed a lot of TV shows that get full articles for each episode end up with long, long, long blow-by-blow accounts of practically every scene, often without much wikification (and even if you did, there might not be that much point, because of repeated uses of the same items such as character names). I guess we can call this the Television-Without-Pity approach. Does anyone want to work on making a stricter guideline that we can point to so that these sorts of things can be trimmed to a reasonable length? In almost no case, for example, do I think that more than 8 paragraphs is encyclopedic; at that point it's fancruft. In terms of being encyclopedic summary for someone who hasn't seen the show, it's lots to wade through. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Television

) 11:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that overly descriptive plot descriptions incfringe upon fair use. --Chris Griswold 15:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, not just any popular show would be in it. Basically, I would like to see an article for things such as:

• Television firsts (first TV show ever, first of a genre, first to do something, etc.)
• Records (longest running, most episodes, highest rated, etc.)

I don't think it should be too hard to do, and as long as all of that shows listed are based on statistics and not opinion, it should keep a good NPOV. There may already be something like this, but I was unable to find it.--

List of notable television programs -- Zanimum 13:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Daughter project,

Television

Television series

Television commercial

Television movie

Television special

Miniseries

Television channel

Television network

Television system

Terrestrial television

Cable television

Satellite television

Digital television

Commercial broadcasting

Public broadcasting

Fairly important articles:

Animated television series

Dramatic television series

Game show

Infomercial

News program

Newsmagazine

Reality television

Situation comedy

Soap operas

Talk show

Television comedy

Variety show

Live television

Videocassette recorder

Videotape

Important articles:

Al-Jazeera

ARD (broadcaster)

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

British Broadcasting Corporation

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

CNN

China Central Television

Deutsche Welle

Disney Channel

MTV

NBC

NHK

Rede Globo

Televisa

Television New Zealand

Astroboy

Blue Peter

Coronation Street

Dallas

The Flintstones

Guiding Light

I Love Lucy

Idol series

Seinfeld

The Simpsons

Star Trek

The Tonight Show

Regis Philbin

Jerry Seinfeld

Aaron Spelling

Thanks a lot, that's extremely helpful! Since this is so extensive, I've created a separate

assessments, and I'll make sure any A-Class are reviewed for Version 0.5. Thanks, Walkerma

05:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)