Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

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

Episode article notability

[edit]

Last year I moved Strange New Worlds (Star Trek: Strange New Worlds) to the draftspace because it was basically just a plot summary. It has just been moved back to the mainspace through AfC (ping reviewer @Utopes) but in my opinion it has not been improved enough per our guidelines at WP:NTVEP. I know this has been a controversial topic in the past, but considering this page has been having similar discussions about premature season articles being created through AfC I thought it would be worth asking for opinions here before doing anything about this. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs to be moved back. A plot and a few reviews do not an article make. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @DimensionalFusion as well, they submitted the draft for creation and have now done the same for the similarly unready Draft:Children of the Comet. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamstom.97 This was just declined DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point of AfC is that a reviewer finds it notable. If they had not found it notable it would have been rejected and required further improvement DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, but as can be seen in the #Season article notability section above this is not always the case. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Strange New Worlds" should definitely be moved back. Doesn't pass WP:NTVEP. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see why it should. It was created, pushed back to draftspace, improved and, to ensure it wouldn’t be deleted again, passed through AfC instead of just being published. If you don’t think the article is good enough as is, WP:IMPROVEIT. DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it meets GNG (a guideline), then NTVEP (an essay) doesn't matter. A merger might be relevant regardless of notability, but I personally think it's better to discuss episode-specific reviews in episode-specific articles instead of trying to synthesize them into a season-level review (which could run into OR issues). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: This is a page that was created in 2022, developed in August 2023 as the pilot episode of the Star Trek Original Series prequel Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, and the first episode of ANY Star Trek to air exclusively on Paramount+. (cn)
This page was inappropriately draftified in November 2023, after it had existed for a year in mainspace, which I moved back. WP:DRAFTNO states that only new articles should be draftified; the 2023 move was in violation of this by over 3 months since content began to exist here, and a year since the initial redirect. Another clause is that an article may only be draftified one time only, per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, which is another aspect this proposal would theoretically violate. This page is not eligible to be draftified, but even if it were, there is an editor (in this thread!) who wishes to develop it in mainspace. WP:DRAFTspace is not a permanent holding ground for potentially unwanted articles. WP:AFD is the spot to take it to if there is a strong objection towards this page existing, which at worst would result in a blank-and-redirect outcome (as a likely search term and highly linked episode title). As this article contains substansive history, it should remain out of draftspace at the very least, and stay in mainspace as of this point in 2024, either as an "redirect with history", or as a standalone page. There's no benefit in letting the 2+ year history rot away and get G13'd as a draft; draftification is not a backdoor to deletion. There'll always be something at this title regardless, redirect/article or otherwise, so more prospective eyes driven towards potential future improvement will see this article and its lengthy history in mainspace. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at The Acolyte (TV series)

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Acolyte (TV series) § Survey. A discussion is currently taking place about the inclusion of information relating to an actor who was in consideration to join the show in a starring role. Input from the WikiProject would be greatly appriciated. BarntToust (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newsjunkie added some broadcast information to the article, and I objected to it because it seemed like advertising to me. I can't speak for Newjunkie's experience in these matters, but I know mine is limited, so I invite (I believe with newsjunkie's consent) others to join the discussion so we can reach a consensus whether to add the material, not add it, or some other in-between alternative. Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

[edit]

I have started a discussion about potentially changing the approach to determining the cast lists for this series at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power#Approach to the cast lists. It does not follow the standard Main/Guest/Co-star crediting style so needs a different approach from MOS:TVCAST, and the release of the second season has raised questions about whether the current approach is adequate. Any regular television editors who have thoughts on the best way to determine cast lists for the series are welcome to contribute them at the discussion. Thanks all, adamstom97 (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kevin Spacey § Kevin Spacey sexual misconduct allegations spun off into another article without consensus, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Spinixster (trout me!) 00:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that this category didn't exist recently when I was creating/populating Category:Action Bronson. There are three series in that category, and I think it would make sense to move them to a subcat, but since the tree doesn't exist I'm not just going to create one on its own. Since then, I've thought about why this tree doesn't exist/appears not to have ever been created before, and I couldn't think of any reason why it shouldn't. But given it's such a seemingly obvious gap, I figured it best to ask just in case anyone here has any opposing thoughts. So are there any objections? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decided just to make it per the lack of objections. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists § FLs for television seasons. A discussion regarding whether season articles should go through the GA/FAC or FLC process. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Jeopardy!

[edit]

Jeopardy! 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?) 04:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Michael Tritter

[edit]

I have nominated Michael Tritter 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. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Buerge nominated for deletion

[edit]

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Buerge&nbsp– recently relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Postmodern television#Requested move 11 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:One Piece (2023 TV series) § Recurring cast too long?. A discussion regarding whether the cast list is too long and what threshold of inclusion to use for recurring/guest characters. Input from the WikiProject would be greatly appreciated. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I am requesting a discussion concerning recent edits to The New Yankee Workshop page. WKatastrof (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to Template:Series overview

[edit]

I've made some updates to {{Series overview}} in its sandbox and tested them through testcases; after detailing the changes below, and waiting for any opinions, I'll make them live presently. 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.

For ease, any parameter listed below with a "1" includes any season numbered parameter; i.e. |start1= being mentioned below means it applies also for |start2=, |start3=, etc.; also specials paramaters such as |end2S=, |end3S=, etc.; also multipart season parameters such as |released2A=, |released3B=, etc.

The changes are:

  • Currently, to exclude an end date and make the start date span the whole two columns for first/last aired (i.e. the season was aired/released on the same day), you need to use |start1=[date]|end1=start. This will be updated to simply use |released1=[date] (no |end1= set). The |released1= parameter will span the two columns; separate start/end dates will continue to require |start1= and |end1= parameters. This matches the use of start vs release parameters across a multitude of television-related templates.
    • This applies to seasons and specials. Currently |start1S=[date] (no |end1= set) for a special will make the whole two columns for first/last aired automatically. This will no longer be the case; an end date cell will automatically be included if |start1S= is set, unless (as above), |released1S=[date] is set.
  • If any part of a overview uses |released1=[date] for a season (specials not included), the template will automatically change into the format as if the |released=y parameter was set (i.e. "Originally released"/"First released"/"Last released" columns, rather than "Originally aired"/"First aired"/"Last aired" columns). This therefore deprecates the use of |released=y.
  • If an entire series overview uses |released1=[date] for every season, and no |start1= and |end1= parameters, the template will automatically change into the format as if the |allreleased=y parameter was set (i.e. just one "Originally released" column, no separate "First released"/"Last released" columns). This therefore deprecates the use of |allreleased=y.

Please let me know if anyone has any feedback. If not, I'll update the code and parameters accordingly. Cheers! -- Alex_21 TALK 14:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds logical to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you set tracking categories for |end1=start so those can be converted? Gonnym (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now, it'll be at Category:Articles using Template:Series overview with deprecated end-parameter format. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does it work if one season is released (weekly basis) and two seasons are aired (broadcast)? For an example, like Stargirl (TV series)#Episodes. — YoungForever(talk) 23:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That particular template doesn't use |released=y and uses its original "Originally aired" columns, but I do see your point. I might need to keep |released=y and still implement the second dotpoint above, so that the header still automatically updates, but |released=y can still be used as an override in a template full of |start1= / |end1=. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes TV series broadcasted one new episode a weekly basis for the first season on one network and then, the second season released all episodes in one day on another network. Or vice versa. Like List of Lucifer episodes#Series overview. Would this mean that we can't change it to Originally aired"/"First aired"/"Last aired" whenever there is a |released1=[date] parameter? — YoungForever(talk) 23:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All that is aired is by definition also released, but not all that is released is by definition also aired. So if there's any season that was "released" as opposed to "aired", even if other seasons were aired, "Originally aired" should be listed as "Originally released", as "released" covers it all. "Originally aired" should only be used in seasons that are entirely aired. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Womack nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following link has been relisted just now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Womack. Your input there is welcome. George Ho (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]