Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is there no best TV list?

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Cosgrove-Mather, Bootie (April 26, 2002). "TV Guide Names Top 50 Shows". CBS News. Associated Press. Retrieved February 16, 2022.
  2. ^ Fretts, Bruce; Roush, Matt. "The Greatest Shows on Earth". TV Guide Magazine. Vol. 61, no. 3194–3195. pp. 16–19.
  3. ^ Fretts, Bruce; Roush, Matt (December 23, 2013). "TV Guide Magazine's 60 Best Series of All Time". TV Guide. Archived from the original on December 24, 2013. Retrieved December 23, 2013.
  4. ^ Sheffield, Rob (September 21, 2016). "100 Greatest TV Shows of All Time". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on September 23, 2016. Retrieved September 22, 2016.
  5. ^ Why The Wire is the greatest TV series of the 21st Century – BBC Culture
  6. ^ "The Final Top Ten Sitcoms". bbcattic.org. London: BBC. 2004. Archived from the original on 13 October 2014. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Primary source for episode titles and release dates

[edit]

Hello, I am not certain if it is correct tag the episode section of Voltes V: Legacy with Template:Third-party for something that involve cold facts such as episode titles and release date. It just happens that the episode information are not neatly collated in a single cite. Am I incorrect with my assessment, cause the whole point of third party sources is to combat bias or establish general notability for the article as a who;e. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Lupin the 3rd Part V: Misadventures in France episodes#Requested move 26 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bluey (2018 TV series)#Requested move 9 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Trunk (TV series)#Requested move 20 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Sneider

[edit]

There is a discussion about whether Sneider should be considered a reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/noticeboard#Jeff Sneider / The InSneider which impacts multiple articles within the scope of this WikiProject. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Homer Simpson 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. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for American Horror Story

[edit]

American Horror Story 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) 23:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"situation based comedy show"?

[edit]

A recent edit to Honestly, Celeste! changed "situation comedy" to "situation based comedy show". Is that terminology preferred? I don't remember seeing it used before, and it seems a bit wordy. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not sitcom? DonIago (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sitcom is a simpler way of saying the same thing and made the edit in the article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Doniago and @RunningTiger123! Eddie Blick (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Television ratings graph

[edit]

Hey all. I've updated {{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)[reply]

Amazing, thank you 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Let me dabble with some examples and I'll figure it out! -- Alex_21 TALK 22:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the limit is 112 bars. However, I recommend a maximum of 99, else the numbers start overlapping like this. -- Alex_21 TALK 22:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
 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)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Disney Star#First sentence & infobox that may be of interest to participants of this WikiProject. RachelTensions (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney XD (British and Irish TV channel)#Requested move 13 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RachelTensions (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney Channel (British and Irish TV channel)#Requested move 13 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RachelTensions (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Starfleet Academy articles

[edit]

I have started a discussion at Talk:Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series)#Possible move regarding several similarly titled articles and some recent undiscussed moves for them. I am hoping to confirm what the best approach is so those moves can be reverted or cleaned-up appropriately. All input is welcome. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "&" in infobox credits

[edit]

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 {{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)[reply]

We go by according to credits, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 34#As credited on screen. Also, per MOS:&, 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)[reply]
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": 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 a hidden comment to justify it as overkill.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No where on MOS:TV nor {{Infobox television}} nor MOS:AMP say "&" is frown upon to use in the infobox. A team is not multiple entries. — YoungForever(talk) 18:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
These teams are not a proper nouns, that isn't their "team name" and that is only the 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)[reply]
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. Amaury22:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Slayage as a reliable source

[edit]

Slayage, a journal of Buffy studies, is currently under discussion as a reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Slayage, in case anyone has and would like to give input. Daranios (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]