Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

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

Help regarding genre classifications for article's lead sentence[edit]

This is similar to my Saturday Night Live polling above. To keep it short, I would like to do a polling on which genre classification for the lead sentence is preferable for my Late Night with Seth Meyers rewrite project (and possibly other articles) since there doesn't seem to be a consistent genre classification for related articles.

  • Option 1: ... is an American late-night talk show news and political satire variety show, the subject article's current genre classification. I don't like this option because I think it's listing too many genres.
  • Option 2: A form of an American news and political satire talk show, similar to articles such as Gutfeld!, The Daily Show, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and more.
  • Option 3: ... is an American late-night talk show, similar to articles such as Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj and The Amber Ruffin Show. I prefer this one because it's short and concise and the show is not 100% political/news satire.

Other options / variations are more than welcome to include. Thank you! Spinixster (chat!) 03:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would personally pitch American late-night talk and news satire television program (which is what Last Week Tonight currently uses, which I find mildly amusing because I wouldn't call that a talk show). I get the appeal of option 3 to keep things simple, but the show focuses a fair amount on scripted news comedy segments (see here, here for some evidence). Option 2 doesn't do a great job separating "political satire" and "talk show". Option 1 doesn't need "variety show" because that's mostly redundant to the other genres. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a fair point, but I think that implies that the show is fully news satire while only around half of it is (the A Closer Look segments and monologues take up approximately 10-15 minutes or more, also note that A Closer Look does not air every episode and there are also other news-related segments). Even with Patriot Act above, which I would argue is similar to Last Week Tonight, only uses American comedy streaming television talk show. That's why I chose Option 3 because it's hard to clarify it without making the sentence more complex. Spinixster (chat!) 05:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this late-night talk show a television show, a radio show, an online radio show? That also needs to be conveyed in the lead. DA1 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Late-night talk shows are generally television programming. I haven’t seen any non-television shows brand itself as a late-night talk show yet. Spinixster (chat!) 13:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion has been stale for a few days now. I guess I'll have to go with the third option for now until more people decide to join the discussion. Spinixster (chat!) 13:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd go with Option 3, because you can always explain whether the show is a "news and political satire variety show" later in the lead. Lotsw73 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neater series overview examples[edit]

At Talk:List of South Park episodes, there's a disagreement concerning series overview layout at List of South Park episodes. Two South Park specials release every year between seasons on an alternate network (seasons on Comedy Central, two annual specials on Paramount+).

  1. The current version of the series overview alternates the network every time; this is what it will look like once the 14 ordered specials have been released.
    1. There was an alternate solution to remove the network parameter and note the networks in prose for the specials vs. the regular seasons before the series overview, this was briefly considered, but disagreed with by editors who support each other.
  2. This was my proposed alternative, to provide a neater layout, and to match the fact that the specials are grouped together at the end of the episode tables, just as in the suggested overview.

Thoughts? -- Alex_21 TALK 12:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My comment won't really help, but both versions look fine to me. Alex's version seems truer to the page layout seeing as the specials aren't placed between the seasons in the body of the article. Gonnym (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be chronological. Personally, I'm not a fan of the word "specials" at all, seems to make a more grandiose episode. But, without a different name, thats what we have. However, I don't think a table should separate them differently to numbered seasons. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a reader who hasn't seen the show, I would rather they be listed in chronological order so I don't need to compare the different date columns up and down the table to work out which special came out between which seasons. And I don't have a problem with the alternating networks, it is accurate and doesn't look bad imo. If editors are really against it for aesthetic reasons then I think the prose solution would be a good compromise. But from my perspective the current version is fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

E Series (web series)[edit]

It's unclear from the E Series (web series) article if the "Chapters" are separate TV series, seasons or episodes. It also doesn't help that they mix italics and quotation marks. Anyone here by any chance familiar with this? Gonnym (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion about Crave (TV network) original programming[edit]

Please join this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move 'Dream 9 Toriko & One Piece & Dragon Ball Z Super Collaboration Special!!' to 'Dream 9 Toriko x One Piece x Dragon Ball Z Super Collaboration Special!!'[edit]

(Discussion in Active on Talk:Dream 9 Toriko & One Piece & Dragon Ball Z Super Collaboration Special!!)

  • The poster, and few sources like imdb, this fandom, and Crunchyroll use version with x's (however Crunchyroll source uses one with &'s also).
  • Although cbr, some other fandom, this source, and animenewsnewtrok's encyclopedia mention use the name "Dream 9 Toriko & One Piece & Dragon Ball Z Chō Collaboration Special!!", with ann's encyclopedia mentioning one with x's as alternative title.
  • Even if the name with &'s is the English title, there is no definitive source in article to prove this, and Toei Animation's official tweet announced the release in English with name in x's. Also the page shall be about original episode, and Japanese's episode's literal translation is one with x's.
  • So what I suggest:
  1. Either move this page to 'Dream 9 Toriko x One Piece x Dragon Ball Z Super Collaboration Special!!' OR
  2. Still move the page but reason shall be WP:COMMONNAME OR
  3. Mention the version with x's in English too.

Regards, ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 12:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for Digital terrestrial television in Australia[edit]

Digital terrestrial television in Australia 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TV5 (Telugu)#Requested move 16 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi everyone, WikiProject Australian television is currently recruiting more editors to help edit the large project that is Australian TV. If you have a knowledge or interest in Australian TV, than this WikiProject is for you! If interested, please add your name to the list of active participants, view our talk page and our list of open tasks, and start editing. All the best, Lotsw73 (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:So Help Me Todd § Co-starring actors again. Editors are still needed to weigh in on this in order to reach a consensus. This is about co-starring actors. — YoungForever(talk) 14:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linking in ledes for network-owned stations[edit]

This one has been annoying me for awhile, as it is likely that the need to follow established practices are unintentionally winding up with kludge in the introductory paragraphs of articles.

It has usually been general practice in the introductory paragraph for any article about a network-owned station to say, for example, "KTVU is owned and operated by the network's Fox Television Stations division alongside San Jose-licensed independent outlet KICU-TV (channel 36)". Shouldn't it already be intuitive that the station is already network-owned when listing the network-owned station group?

This also presents a more obvious problem for duopoly partners: for example, "[WPSG] is owned by the CBS News and Stations group alongside KYW-TV (channel 3), a CBS owned-and-operated station." My most recent edit to WPSG partially restored an earlier edit by Sammi Brie that addressed this problem; it should be acceptable at the very least to say "alongside CBS outlet KYW-TV" if not more grammatically appropriate. Nathan Obral • he/him • tc • 20:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James Morton (baker) nominated for deletion[edit]

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Morton (baker). George Ho (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started a discussion about how to handle these seemingly overlapping articles. Input appreciated. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for Michael Larson[edit]

Michael Larson 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. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Marvel Studios Animation#Requested move 27 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RuPaul's Drag Race, season 7 episodes[edit]

Sharing a list of recently created entries for Drag Race, season 7 episodes:

Not sure if any qualify for appearance in the Did You Know section of the Main Page, but article improvements are welcome! Thanks ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it stands, most of these don't pass WP:NTVEP and should be redirected back to the season article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd take offense to indiscriminate redirecting, but welcome comments on individual article talk pages if there are notability concerns. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Favre, these articles need to be redirected. Outside of the lead, the last article consists of two two-line paragraphs. There is no reason why those four sentences cannot exist at RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7). -- Alex_21 TALK 20:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, then please state your concerns on a case-by-case basis, on respective pages, thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why does it have to be case-by-case? You created this discussion that would summarize all discussion concerning these episodes. None of the above episodes meet notability standards. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe I'm creating valid stubs, and ask editors to assume good faith instead of trying to squash these immediately. I don't understand the rush, or the resistance to evaluating on a case by case basis. This is not an unreasonable ask. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's certainly no rush, which is why we have the draftspace to incubate stub articles such as these. No article in the above seems any different to the other, they all merit the same action, hence the centralized discussion. Editors telling you that they're too short isn't not acting in good faith, it's informing you of Wikipedia's article sizing guidelines. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't take issue with editors telling me the stubs are short. Stubs are indeed short by definition. I disagree with the assertion that the articles violate WP:NTVEP because the episodes have received sufficient secondary coverage. Each of these can and should be expanded further, not redirected. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Several sentences is not significant coverage. And yes, they can be expanded further - in the draftspace. That's literally what the draftspace is for. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]