Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Television: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
To do list: edit - history - watch - purge
  • Assess an article once in a while.
  • Add Infoboxes to TV-show articles that don't yet have them
  • Note or direct people to biography conventions for articles on actors, crew. Similar for characters and episodes etc.
  • Take on the task of analyzing Category:Television and its subcats. What categories do we think should be added to the articles, and which should go (Overcategorization) ? We also need to better explain on the category pages what they are intended for and weed out the articles that do not belong there. Some categories might need renaming because of WP:TV-NC ??
  • Define a list of TV genres to be used in the Infobox
  • Setup guidelines for trivia, ratings, filmography
Archive
Archives
Archive 1(July 2004 - April 2006)
Archive 2(April 2006 - September 2006)
Archive 3(September 2006 - December 2006)
Archive 4(December 2006 - January 2007)

Contents

[edit] Shows with reruns vs shows without reruns - Verification issue

User:Samuel Blanning made an excellent point on an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records (second nomination) regarding verification of shows without reruns. This sounded like it might be a useful thought to consider for afd discussions on episode articles.

The issue is that verification should be reproducable by other editors. For most television series, you can use the actual episode itself as a reference for basic information because the episode is normally viewable in reruns, either as syndicated reruns or from a DVD. For example, if you wanted to verify information about an episode of The Sopranos, you could simply look up that episode on The Sopranos DVD collection for that season and watch it.

However, certain types of shows don't air regular reruns, such as soap operas, game shows and professional wrestling shows. So you can't simply point an editor to watch a rerun of an episode because that might not be possible. Therefore, instead, you need to refer the person to something that they can find, such as a news article about that particular episode. Some episodes or parts of episodes might be included on a DVD, such as a wrestling pay-per-view or a "best of" collection for a game show or soap opera. In those cases, referring to the DVD as a source probably would work.

So do you guys think it would be worth including a note in a TV-related guideline that "shows which do not air regular repeats require references to accessible information", or something like that? This would possibly give some consistency in how to handle afds for television episode articles and things like articles about soap opera or wrestling storylines. Dugwiki 20:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to explore. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Television program candidate for Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

The above referenced article is being considered as a candidate for the Article Improvement Drive. Any editor who would be interested in helping to improve this article should indicate their support there. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 15:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment request

Where would I make a request for a rating of a TV series article to get it on the assessment scale? Theres doesnt seem to be a clear page to do so, as there is for biographies - • The Giant Puffin • 16:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment, but I'm still in the process of setting it up, so it might take a while before it gets done. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Any developments? World's Wildest Police Videos could do with a rating - • The Giant Puffin • 10:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Is there a page that deals with reliable sources for television shows? I'm having a debate about what's "reliable", and the other individual dismisses all personal interviews with actors and creators; so, I was wondering if there was a place that actually discussed this. Maybe I'm missing something about not using interviews, or maybe I can direct them somewhere. Sorry if this isn't the correct place for that type of question. Any help is directing me will be appreciated. Thank. Bignole 17:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:VERIFIABILITY - Addendum: Interviews are perfectly fine as long as they are cited to a reliable source, user submitted (TV.com, IMDB are *not* reliable, they are user submitted!) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I had an interview conducted by Kryptonsite's Craig Burne with Phil Morris, and Al Gough. Then I had an interview with Phil Morris and TV Guide. I also cited The CW network, the owner of smallville. I've read RS and Ver., but they don't seem to get into details involving fictional articles for television shows. Is an official website for the show unreliable? The user says it is, but then says IMDb is "a reliable mainstream entertainment source". I actually said that IMDb was user submitted, but their response was that it was an unbiased media outlet, and said that I was confusing the articles with the forums. All this is happening on Talk:Smallville (TV series)#Martian Manhunter if you want to take a look. It's gotten rather personal between the two of us, so I'm trying to step back from that and get some outside thoughts on the "reliability" of sources for a television article. I know you work on a lot of those articles, so I'm curious as to what is "reliable" when it comes to television shows. Bignole 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
IMDB is not "user-submitted". It gets information directly from industry sources. Information which isn't available through industry sources can be updated through user input, however, that is vetted by an editorial board to check accuracy. Which is not dissimilar from the way many news organizations function. IMDB is generally reliable as a database for information contained in move or television credits. Editors must always apply judgement. There are circumstances where I would not consider CNN or an official government web site to be a reliable source, while there are medium-quality information sources that are acceptable for uncontroversial information. Avt tor 18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course not, the unverifiable (and at times totally wrong) stuff I see on there pages is just in my head oh and the fields to submit information (and the wikilink "Trivia" system) are in my head as well, riiiiiight. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think IMDb lost my faith, and several other editors that I know, when they published that Aunt May was Carnage. I just couldn't imagine how they could justify and allow such a change, and from then on it changed my opinion on their reliability to verify information. That is why I question why the other user acknowledges IMDb as a "reliable mainstream entertainment" source, but that the studio that produces the show would be "biased" and unreliable. I just wish there was a subsection, or separate page devoted to what is "reliable" for fictional articles like television shows and films. I don't think that the WP:RS adequately covers that information. Either way, I do appreciate all the help in trying to determine a "reliable" source for this type of information. Bignole 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Much of IMDB is user submitted, and it has a reputation for inaccuracy for upcoming shows and movies and especially individual TV episodes. I would generally avoid using it as a source if at all possible, especially for television. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's generally safe to use IMDB as a reference specifically for cast lists and air dates. Biographical information and trivia, though, appear to be less reliable. Of course, having additional sources can't hurt. Dugwiki 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd only use it for cast lists of things that have already been released (or movies darn close to release), it's bad for future stuff. And I'd only use it for cast of movies and TV shows overall, it's pretty terrible for individual episodes. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think any source is 100% reliable in every context. Editors have to apply judgement. As editors sometimes don't agree, consensus is sometimes a required step. Obviously an important consideration in evaluating reliability is looking at error rate as a proportion of total data. Avt tor 20:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV ratings

On the main page we have the {{Infobox TV ratings}} template. It's used on a number of TV show articles, but it is fundamentally problematic ( the reason why the information wasn't allowed in the Infobox Television). I was thinking about adding something like this to the WP:TV recommendations.

Rating information in the article should be marked as being an indication of the rating. Rating can change per episode, network, rerun and more importantly per country. As such it's impossible to note correctly in the article as a fact and to do so might even be considered "unencyclopedic". A description as "An animated show targeted at young children (+/- 7 and older), with little to no bad language. Although originally targeted at a young audience it has also garnered a large group of adulescent and adult enthousiastic followers of the show The show is often rated as TV-Y7 in the USA" for instance is usually a better idea. (Always needs WP:V of course). Some articles use the template {{Infobox TV ratings}}, however this again can only give an indication about the rating of the show and should not be considered a factual rating.

I'm also thinking we should change the caption of that template to show that it's an indication and add a similar warning to the "usage description" of the template. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia issues with Family Guy episode articles

Can an expert on Family Guy help clean up these cruft lists? I realize Family Guy refers to many popular things (known as pop culture references, or simply cultural references), but it's not notable to list them all. I've tagged many of the articles for too much trivia: which the references clearly are. For a full list of episodes (which I'm sure most have huge lists of cultural references/trivia): Category:Family Guy episodes. This is a good example of why television episode articles shouldn't be on Wikipedia: cluttered lists of fan cruft that doesn't get cleaned, just added on to. RobJ1981 07:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crew of Square One TV

I found this article randomly; I don't know what to do with it (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, delete? not-notable?) So I thought someone here should have a look. Thanks - Ozzykhan 23:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what "Square One TV" is. If you're feeling generous, ask in the talk page what the page is about. If you don't think it warrants that, just put a prod tag on it, see if anybody reacts. If it's orphaned, maybe nobody cares. Avt tor 07:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Nielsen ratings

Does anyone know where I can find old Nielsen ratings for TV episodes? - Peregrine Fisher 04:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Individual episodes or series? Some of the highest-rated episodes are listed at List of most-watched television episodes, though it is currently Amerocentric. Nielsen Ratings for each TV season can be found in many books. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Which book? Is there anywhere on the net I can find, say, Nielsen ratings for a 2003 House episode, or whatever? - Peregrine Fisher 17:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Zap2it.com lists overnight Neilsen ratings, and they have (had?) an archive going back several years at one point. Fan sites often contain Nielsen data, as the site's readers may find that information interesting. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Spoiler-season"

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Spoiler-season

Template:Spoiler-season has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville (TV series)

Smallville has just had a peer review request, and I'm sure that all regular editors for that article would appreciate any feedback from the Wikiproject TV editors. Thank you.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we were too slow for the peer review, sorry! I have just done an article assessment and offered a few suggestions.--Opark 77 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That's ok, the article isn't going anywhere. I'll look at your suggestions and see what I can do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FAR

Abyssinia, Henry has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Gnangarra 14:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cold Feet peer review

I've just started a peer review for Cold Feet. Any helpful comments and suggestions are welcomed. WindsorFan 13:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video Justice

Hello. I was wondering whether someone from the project could help untangle the mess at Video Justice. There seems to be a conflict as to whether this is a Spike TV or a Court TV show. Unclear to me whether both stations have different versions of the same show or whether there are two completely distinct shows. The latter would probably require a split and a disambig page. In any case, if anyone takes 15 minutes to work this out I'd be grateful (especially if you also categorize the article properly). Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 02:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allusions

How can we add obvious allusions in TV shows? What if it is really obvious? Are there reliable sources that list allusions? - Peregrine Fisher 08:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I know we try to do the whole sourcing thing for everything, but there are some stuff that is just pretty dang obvious.. even with only the primary source. -- Ned Scott 08:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Television needs serious paring down

I've suggested a number of changes to the {{Infobox Television}} on its talk page because it has far too many arguments, IMO. Thoughts? -Elizabennet | talk 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's opinion of Television (episode) articles

This was due to a recent AfD in which someone asked Jimbo what he thought of episode articles. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_17#Television_episodes It's just a comment, not a guideline or veto or anything, but i think it's good to keep in mind and usefull to archive in this project. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is an essay somewhere about Jimbo's messages. Should also point out that "Salad Days" isn't even a contributor, since they joined all they've done is prod, and look how many of their prods have been objected/denied, so yea, their record speakith for it thein self. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Salad Days could easily be an allowed secondary account because of all those prods. Sometimes people don't want to associate their main account with deleting articles that other people like. -- Ned Scott 19:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Road Not Taken

I point you in the direction of this pages history, the editor seems to be under the impression that IMDb is a reliable source and speculation is acceptable. I can only put this down to naiveness and failure to read quoted guidelines/policies. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restructure the project page

Ned Scott recently move WP:LOE into this project and made it a task force. I guess we should do the same for WP:TVE. I suggest to reorder the main project page. My proposal:

Expand the lead a bit, then:

  • Descendant Wikiprojects
  • Similar Wikiprojects
  • Show-specific WikiProjects
  • Participants
    • Move Userbox to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Userbox per the new convention on userboxes
  • Writing television related articles
  • Guidelines
  • Tasks
    • Todo list
    • Assessment taskforce
    • Project banner

Move the list of templates and categories to be used to the various relevant "subpages" of the project. Condense all the Project banners into one. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Not sure if we really need to move the userbox, though, since a big part of the userbox thing was to "userfy" boxes that were mostly unrelated to Wikipedia and editing it. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Step 2 is now taken --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Present tense vs past tense in introductory sentences of canceled shows

I know this seems like a small issue but there are currently two different trends of dealing with canceled shows, either in past tense (Seinfeld was an American sitcom etc) or present tense (Seinfeld is an American sitcom etc) and I think it would be good to reach consensus either way since I've seen discussions of it on several talk pages (sometimes referring to a consensus/established convention). Personally I think it should be present tense. First, "was" connotes that the series has ceased to be a television show/has become something else. Second, because we still refer to other media in the present tense even after they have completed production (films, books, plays, albums, etc). Please let me know if this has already been discussed in the archives. Thanks. --TM 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there is something in the Manual of Style about this, somewhere, but i cannot find it. However normally yes, it's in present tense for as long as you describe the work. However when describing an event related to the work (it was originally broadcast), then you use past tense of course. I just found the governing article here. See these guiding rules --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CfD Notice

The related Category:TV crew by series has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.


Note: Although the above category doesn't in fact exist, it is the header under which the discussion is located, so the discussion link will work. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nigel Kneale peer review

Hello all. I currently have the article on Nigel Kneale, an important and prolific British television writer, up on peer review, where it hasn't attracted many responses thus far. I'm hoping to put it up for featured article candidacy after the review ends, and would very much appreciate any feedback on how I could improve it before that. So I thought I'd post here to see if anybody's willing to give it the once over and post some feedback on the review? Cheers. Angmering 12:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unexpected!

A user re-added a trivia section of two bullets after the first point had been merged to the lead-in and the second removed per the talk page. Anyone got any comments on this? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Your instincts to delete the trivia section and merge information into the main article, where possible, were right on. Check out the official WP trivia guidelines. For additional guidance, see the essay on trivia. Then consider explaining your edits on the user's talk page or embed a note in the article (let me know if you don't know how to do that). Oh yeah, be bold and re-do your edit.--Vbd | (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
And add html comments to tell people not to do it again. Unfortunately such a thing is just necessary. You have my support for removal. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass deletion nomination of Amazing Race contestants

--evrik (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

They are not being deleted, they are listified into a single article. I don't see the problem. See also widely accepted concensus on television articles. And gameshow contestants are no acception to such a thing, they are usually on the same notability level as characters in television series. (With small exceptions of course). --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for making a page for reality contestants. Especially in Survivor, then you wouldn't feel pressured to have pages for every notable player, you could just merge them all. There has been a recent wave of afds for many contestants, and although I opposed deletion on some (due to making final 3), I'm all for making single page for reality contestants. -- Scorpion 19:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Random observation: Some of these contestants may be notable enough -- apart from their appearance on Survivor -- to merit their own articles (e.g. Tyler MacNiven). Others may not (e.g. James Branaman).--Vbd | (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As with everything in wikipedia, there have been and always will be exceptions. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The comment I normally make on all these sorts of nominations is that it's not important for Wiki purposes whether or not the person won or lost the competition, or if they're "famous" for something other than the game show. The question is "Are the independently published references about the person sufficient enough to demonstrate an adequate level of verifiability and notability as described in WP:N?" Most of these articles only listed a single reference or no references at all, or the only reference provided was a publicity press release bio from the show itself (which isn't quite independently published). So those sorts of articles are clearly up for likely deletion. The articles which are more likely to be exceptions and be kept are those people which received multiple independently published articles and interviews about themselves in reliable publications (and not simply cut-and-paste wire stories). Those articles do meet the minimal notability requirements, so should probably be kept.
So my advice on these types of discussions is not to focus on whether or not the person won or lost a game show, or even whether or not they did anything "important" besides the show itself. Look instead at the verifiable references provided and consider whether they are 1) independently published from the person or the show, 2) from reliable publications, and 3) there are multiple such references written seperately on different dates. If the article satisfies those criteria, it's probably ok to keep. Dugwiki 17:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dugwiki, and with TheDJ's observation about exceptions. For that reason, I take issue with the idea of the "mass deletion" nomination. Each of these individual articles needs to be considered on its own merits.--Vbd (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Vote: Present or Past tense after cancellation?

A small battle has developed around The O.C. over whether TV show articles should refer to a cancelled show as present or past tense. See Talk:The O.C.#Is not Was!.

The intro sentence choices from The O.C. are ... or were? :-) :

  1. The O.C. is an American television comedy-drama program
  2. The O.C. was an American television comedy-drama program

Therefore, some consensus is sought on what verb tense should apply to articles for TV shows that are no longer in production. If there is consensus, the end state should result in a guideline on the project page.

Please cast votes and comments under the appropriate WAS, IS or OTHER subheadings. Examples of TV show articles using either usage can also be added under the appropriate headings. As always, please sign your entries with the magic ~~~~.

Dl2000 15:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We do not decide on things through votes, for the record it's several new users and IPs who wish to use past-tense. (I've thus removed the vote as well.. - m:Voting is evil) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Straw votes can indeed happen as per WP:VOTE to gauge opinions. For the "voting is evil" essay, there is the equally authoritative document, Voting is not evil. However, the poll portion can be considered withdrawn as WP:VOTE calls for consensus on the nature of a survey first, my bad for jumping the gun on that.
However, the issue of verb tense should still be examined, with proper references cited for previous claims, discussions and policies on the subject. Input from newbies and anons should not be automatically discounted, either (WP:AGF, WP:BITE). Dl2000 22:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like it's pretty much a subjective style choice, so it's really a matter of editorial opinion. My personal opinion is that "is" would make more sense, though, since most of these shows still exist and are watched in reruns and on DvD collections, etc. True, there aren't any new episodes being produced, but the old episodes are still around for public viewing. Reruns are still considered part of the series even after their original air date, so my guess is it's good style to use present tense when talking about them. Dugwiki 17:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are Nielsen Ratings indiscriminate information?

I was assessing articles for WikiProject Baseball when I came across Ratings for Major League Baseball on ABC telecasts. Similar articles exist for each major American network. My instinct was to AfD them, but I thought I'd post here first and see if there was a precedent for this sort of article.

My thought is that they're indiscriminate information because they don't have a context. For instance, a discussion of the decline in Lost's ratings would be appropriate in the show's article, but an article consisting of nothing but a ratings chart would be unencyclopedic. If it were an article containing nothing but a chart of baseball stats, I'd AfD it without question, but I'd like some outside opinion, since I don't regularly edit TV articles. Thanks, and sorry if this is a silly question that's been dealt with thoroughly somewhere else. --Djrobgordon 11:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

no commentary, no context so yes, i think it would fall under indiscriminate. A good idea might be to contact the original author and advice him to condense the articles into a "MJ Baseball Nielsen ratings" which would contain critical commentary from verifiable sources about the rating trends of MJ baseball. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, a ratings list without any attempt to provide context or a reason why week-by-week collections of ratings data are useful isn't necessary, and such a list is probably better suited as freely available source material at Wikisource. Wikipedia articles should normally, by contrast, provide the reader some relevancy as opposed to just raw numbers. Dugwiki 17:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I wouldn't have thought of Wikisource, but it seems like a good idea. --Djrobgordon 10:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject reform

Thought I would mention the WikiProject reform proposal out now, as it would greatly help us better organize all those show-specific WikiProjects with WP:TV. So feel free to take a look, give feedback, and spread the word. -- Ned Scott 09:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order

Which should go first, the Cast and Crew or the Plot/Season overview go first on a show page? Rabbethan 07:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's supposed to say at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Television programs but it doesn't. I would say put the plot before the cast/crew. Anyone know if we've decided this already? - Peregrine Fisher 07:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Which ever structures best in the article imo. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creating a task force?

I'm looking to creatng a Task Force for both The Amazing Race and for Survivor seasons (as opposed to a separate WP), and while the main WP TV page strongly suggests this, I don't see any instructions for how to propose one or start one in the various documentation off of it (unless I'm missing something obvious). Any pointers for where to start to look into this? --Masem 01:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The basic, stripped down idea, is pretty close to what you see on normal WikiProject pages, but the page will be a sub-page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. (For example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/The Amazing Race or Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Reality game shows, etc) We'll update {{TelevisionWikiProject}} so that it can identify individual articles within the task force's scope, (allowing you to keep specific track of article's ratings and importance) and so it can place a link on those pages that points back to the task force (to help others find it). The task force can also set up it's own to-do lists and sub pages.
We'll also link and describe the task force from the main page of WP:TV. We're a bit new at this, too, so we'll probably play a lot of things by ear ;). I'll take a look at WP:MIL and get some ideas, since they're one of the projects that have good, pre-existing task force system. I have to work later today, but after that I'll be available to help set things up. -- Ned Scott 15:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to set up a page where people can request a new task force. A member from this project can then set up what is necessary. Basically should it be easier to create a task force than creating a new WikiProject. --Maitch 14:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sortable filmographies

I'm interested in making a standard sortable filmography table to be used for actors, directors, etc. Someone tried to do this before, and it failed at Wikipedia:Filmographies, although I'm not sure why. I wanted to see if I could make one that looks like imdb, and I did here. It could be made to look like whatever, I just think standardization would be a good idea. I created an RfC about this a while ago at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Filmography, so I'm starting to have a good idea of what people want in general, but I don't know how they would like the actual table to look. So, how should it look? -Peregrine Fisher 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Works in IE 7, does not work in Firefox 1.5. -- Dhartung | Talk 23:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Nor Firefox 2.0. -- Dhartung | Talk 17:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current primetime television schedules

I note that many US television station articles have primetime television schedules, and I believe that is also true for articles on tv stations of some other countries, such as Australia. I have been removing such material from NZ tv stations, after putting up such material for AfD about six months ago. See this archive. Given that WP:NOT#DIR, point 3 explicitly disallows such material, why do we have it. Do I have support to remove it. An example is NBC#Current_schedule.

This has certainly been discussed before, but part of the discussion has been around copyright issues. See, for example, this AN/I discussion. I'd like to get feedback on whether we should have this material assuming no copyright issues arise.-gadfium 08:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To make clear what I'm suggesting; we remove the current section of TV station/network articles giving the program schedule, and replace it with an external link to the appropriate subpage of the TV station.-gadfium 08:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap that NBC page looks ugly. I indeed think that such information is a "not a directory"-case. But i have to think about it a bit more as to what is appropriate in such a page and what is not. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more examples: USA: ABC, CBS, Fox, Australia: ABC, Channel Nine.-gadfium 20:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would delete them due to sheer uglyness. If someone can clean them up to look pretty, I might feel more ambivalent. In a state of ambivalence, I might delete them anyway, but you can never tell :) Kaldari 21:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:EL, which someone just hurled at me, we're not supposed to link to sites which exist primarily to sell products or services, and it looks to me like this is exactly what those sites are doing: selling television product. Cryptonymius 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong about telling what products a company is selling. The primary intention of this WP:EL rule is not to link to ebay, applestore and similar BUY NOW sites. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the problem of simple maintenance, I can't see any reason why we can't display all the regularly scheduled primetime programs on television networks. I would oppose displaying ad-hoc programming however. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Stevietheman here. (In fact, personally, I don't see why we couldn't have an archive of historical schedules (maximum two per year) for each US network or any satellite channel. But I think the balance of opinion is against me on this one. There should be a Wikigazeteer or something.) -- Dhartung | Talk 05:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You can't make an archive of it, because without critical commentary, it's not encyclopedic material in wikipedia. wikipedia is not an archive of tv guides. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Case in point. I disagree about what is "encyclopedic"; I feel this has significance in terms of cultural history and is the sort of thing that Wikipedia is good at. --Dhartung | Talk 01:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur that there is little wrong with reporting which programs are currently airing primetime. Past problems have been with pages that showed the schedule of all channels, without commentary, not with representing a channels current airing routines. However, I do have a problem with the way this is currently presented on these network pages. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think these tables are key information that should be included in a network article. I've seen seperate pages that only have this kind of info deleted per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, but I don't think that applies here. - Peregrine Fisher 19:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I meant I have a problem with how it's currently visually presented. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing consensus here. This leaves me in an awkward position. I've been removing such tables from New Zealand television network articles, citing the WP:NOT#DIR policy as above, and when the tables are in templates, putting those templates up for MFD (see the archive link above if you want details). Those MFD's resulted in the templates being deleted. I feel I have strong precedent to remove such material from New Zealand tv articles, but I'd like a better counter argument than WP:ALLORNOTHING when people object to me removing what they've added when they can see similar schedules in other articles.

Should I just give up on this issue, and stop removing such schedules; maybe even reinstate those that weren't deleted via MFD? Should I continue to enforce policy as I see it on the NZ articles, and ignore the contradictions? The third alternative, to go and remove the schedules from other articles, would clearly start a battle, and I don't feel nearly strongly enough about the issue to do that.-gadfium 22:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the templates, since they're gone and I can't see what they looked like or how they were used. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_22#Template:TV3 .28New_Zealand.29 Primetime_Schedule almost looks like it should have its deletion reviewed. The rest were pretty firm deletes. If an article is the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule, they should probably be kept. If you're removing tables like American_Broadcasting_Company#Current_schedule, I would say put them back. Overall though, I would say leave the templates deleted, and leave the tables that are in the articles. - Peregrine Fisher 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Peregrine here. I think the templates are overkill and add little to articles on a particular show, nor are people likely in all but a few cases to use them for navigation. Well, maybe the odd person who just can't remember the name of that show with Jonathan Silverman that was on after Friends ... readers are much more likely to navigate within a particular show's milieu such as actors or topics than from show to show. But this information is pertinent to articles on a network/channel. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a TV guide. We could well link to a TV station's website that lists their schedule, but we should not copy it here because (1) it's trivia, (2) it tends to become outdated, and (3) it potentially violates copyright. >Radiant< 12:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bring up an old topic, but to be encyclopedic shouldn't airing times be placed on the program/series pages, i.e. "House airs Tuesdays at 2030 on TV3 (New Zealand), ???? at ???? on ???? (United Kingdom), (I believe this is common practise already) it's fair enough listing "Popular programs that have aired recently on 'channel'", but not a weekly EPG. --NigelJ talk 10:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Network television schedules change regularly. That means that pages like ABC, CBS, Fox, Australia: ABC, have to be updated constantly. I don't see how this is encyclopedic; it looks and feels very much like a TV Guide. I would strongly support deleting these sections from the television network articles, per WP:NOT#DIR.--Vbd (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally designed and the Australian and New Zealand schedules, and I also maintain and update them when necassary. The previous schedule on Australian television channel schedules contained episodic content and also one-off event programming. However in February this year the schedules where altered to enhance their encyclopedic value, this was achieved by removing episodic content and also one-off event programming, and replacing it with simple programming timeslot information with links to the official schedule. In my opinion the United States television network schedules contain too much non-encyclopic information and are too specific. They also contain future programming timeslots and programming times to-the-minute. These schedules should be altered similarly to Australian schedules. In regards to the design of the schedule, the design for the Australian schedule was so that it aesthetically matched infoboxes. Also the use of subtle pastels helps reduce its presense in an article, and allows for simpler distinct contrasts in colours. Also, the genres of programs with the Australian schedules is another feature that is distinct to the American schedule. The American schedule uses over-specific genre information (i.e. returning reality shows are in yellow). This is in contrast to Australian schedules which emphasise less on timing. In conclusion the schedules are useful as they add encyclopedic content that also refers readers back to the main programming sections of article. They also give the reader a sense of the target audience of the channel, and also its genre prodominance. Stickeylabel 08:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV program debut/cancellation categories

Categories were established to define the "life span" of television programs:

  1. Category:Television program debuts by year
  2. Category:Television program cancellations by year

For example, a program whose original episodes ran from 1972 to 1983 would be categorised:

The cancellation categories recently survived a deletion vote at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_9#Category:Television_program_cancellations_by_year. However, some objections have been raised since some series such as Star Trek: Deep Space Nine or M*A*S*H (TV series) were not cancelled by broadcasters as commonly done, but rather cancelled by the producers.

The definition as seen in Category:Television program cancellations by year allows inclusion of producer-cancelled shows as well as the usual programmer-cancelled ones, strictly intended as an end of series marker without debating how and by whom a series was terminated.

We should get consensus regarding these category names (Keep or Rename). Dl2000 00:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Rename from "cancellations" to "finales" - i.e. to Category:Television program finales by year et. al. Illyria's original suggestion is a better category wording and more likely to achieve consensus. Dl2000 02:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename I support a rename from television program cancellations to television program finales, because finale can mean either way, actual cancelled, or producer finished.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 00:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You providing your definition as to what should go in a category does not make it gospel, a show running it's natural course is not a cancellations, not to mention any editor may remove these categories per WP:ATT unless it's sourced in the article it was cancelled. Matthew 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I've changed my stance, I vote for deletion of all of these categories, and I will also remove the cats from programmes that were not cancelled.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 18:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Reply Do not remove these categories from any articles. The category description in Category:Television program cancellations by year makes clear their purpose is to tag the end-of-series year for all series regardless of the reason for the series ending. I do agree with the proposed rename, but deleting these categories from articles simply means those changes will end up being reverted shortly afterward. Dugwiki 15:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think these categories can be very useful. NorthernThunder 03:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename, but I'm not so sure about the term "finale". Not every series ends in a "finale", just as not every show is "canceled". In some extreme cases, shows have lasted only one episode. I suggest a term like "conclusion", or simply "programs that ended": Category:Television program conclusions by year, Category:1965 television program conclusions, Category:Television programs that ended in 1965. This solution would cover all possible reasons for a show to end. szyslak (t, c) 03:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I stand by the comments I made during the referenced CfD: both category families provide an inherent picture of viewing and production trends. This is a relatively useful piece of information. Splitting the end point cats by 3 (network cancels without giving the producer a chance to put together a final show; network cancels the show but is "nice" about it giving the producer a chance to wrap it up; and a producer wrapping a show naturally without pressure from a network) defeats that. Even renaming puts up a problem, "finale" is just as awkward as "cancelled", as others have pointed out.
    If a rename is indeed warranted, then I think "ceased production" is a better fit. It's a relatively neutral term and leaves it up to the user to read the articles listed to see how the show left the air. — J Greb 04:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename to finales I do not support deleting the categories, as it is important to include a category indicating the year end of the series. However, I would support renaming the category to "finales" per the nom's suggestion to make it clearer that the category includes both network cancellations and voluntary series ends by the producers. I also strongly recommend that Illyria05 not remove these categories from any articles.Dugwiki 15:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment just a minor point: Star Trek: The Next Generation had a finale, Star Trek did not. "Finale" implies that the series had some sort of conclusion as opposed to just ending. — J Greb 17:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • How about "final original air date" then, or something similar? Dugwiki 17:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        • That would match up with my suggestion of "...ceased production". — J Greb 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Don't worry, I had only removed the cats from Mash and TNG, as they were not cancelled.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 17:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

I've nominated Template:TVep for deletion, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_12#Template:TVep. Matthew 16:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of fictional characters by series

Please comment in the discussion created at Wikipedia talk:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of fictional characters by series.--SeizureDog 08:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Time Tunnel Task Force

Like user Masem above I'm interested in and considering setting up a new Wikiproject or task force - in my own case concerning the 1960's era science fiction television series 'The Time Tunnel'. Like Masem I'n not quite sure how to proceed, though from the info on WP:TV it would seem the favored way to do this would be a task force under WP:TV or perhaps WP Project:Science Fiction. Probably one of the first items would be to assess the interest in such a project by other editors as I won't waste the time tackling it if there is none. Any information or comments would be appreciated as would expressions of interest from possible TT task force editors. thank you. Wikidenizen 14:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there is enough interest to make creating a task force worthwhile. I would use the effort to improve the article itself. Asking for help here, like you've kind of done, is probably the best idea. I could be wrong, though. - Peregrine Fisher 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2nd'ed I think it will be very hard to make this specific taskforce "viable", and that it would probably be a better idea to focus on the article itself. A course of advice I often find useful in these cases, is to look trought the history of the articles for contributors that made useful contributions to the related articles. Contact them on their Talk page, and ask them specifically about improving the article. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion debate on Lost article

I've put Untitled 16th episode of Lost season 3 up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Untitled_16th_episode_of_Lost_season_3 I'm sure i'll get flamed into the ground by some people, but I believe that this is just a bad idea for wikipedia, and that any such thing should be speedy deleted in the future. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tenses (7.0)

There is currently a dispute on multiple fronts in regards to tenses, per WP:MOS creative works are (WP:TENSE). Applicable pages: The Vicar of Dibley, Only Fools and Horses, Triangle (TV series), Eldorado (TV series), Crossroads (TV series) and Ever Decreasing Circles. --Matthew

[edit] Proposal to added the I Spy Forum link to the I Spy article

A link to the I Spy Forum recently was deleted from the I Spy article by ST47. Per ST47's comment here, I set up a proposal to added the I Spy Forum link to the I Spy article here. That talk page does not get any traffic so please consider participating in this proposal. -- Jreferee 21:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI, cfd to rename Category:Television program cancellations by year to "...series endings by year"

Just a heads up that, due to some complaints about the ambiguity in the title, I have put up an umbrella cfd rename nomination for Category:Television program cancellations by year to become "Television program series endings by year". The reason is that even though the category's description clearly indicates it is intended to include all program ending years regardless of the reason, some people are taking the category title to mean "involuntary cancellation" and refusing to include the category in certain articles.

So in the interest of clarity and compromise the category and all its subcategories are up for renaming at cfd. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 22#Category:Television program cancellations by year for the cfd discussion and please feel free to voice your approval or disapproval or other comments at that thread. So far the response has been positive, so hopefully once the rename occurs it will resolve the issue to everybody's satisfaction. Dugwiki 18:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Note that this change was also discussed a little bit ago on this thread, but apparently nobody followed up and actually made the cfd nominations to actually do it. This makes the rename proposal "official". Dugwiki 18:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Television Links

Discussion preceeded at the Infobox Television talk section.

I propose that the IMDb and TV.com sections of Infobox Television should be removed. The reasoning is that the infobox should not favour IMDb or TV.com as credible external links. The amount of traffic that television show articles receive is high, and linking to commercial entities in infoboxes is a form of advertising. It is also anti-competitive for these two commercial websites to receive high amounts of traffic via wikipedia, as opposed to competitors that provide similar services. There is also no justification for the links' existance in the main infobox, when they also appear in the external links section. Please continue discussion below. Thanks. Stickeylabel 11:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stickeylabel. Not only are they commercial, but there are also deemed unreliable when you use them as a source. IMDb has in fact admitted that their TV section might be in flux the next year or so as they introduced pages for individual episodes. Another thing is that even when the links are in the infobox, you will still find the same links in the "External links" section. The last problem is that the infobox in its current state is ratter long. Even if you don't use all of the options it still takes up a lot of space. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was internal links, but I think it is unnecessary to use that space for external links. --Maitch 18:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I think this is something that should be carried over to the film articles as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Are we talking about removing, or about moving ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's about the removal of TV.com and IMDb.com from the infobox, not the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the IMDb and TV.com sections of Infobox Television due to the concensus reached. Stickeylabel 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have some sort of external link at the bottom of the infobox, besides any official sites. - Peregrine Fisher 15:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Why??--Vbd (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It's easier to access imdb and tv.com (or whatever sites) there, instead of at the bottom of a possibly enormous page. Because of our OR rules, there's almost no way to include if a show is good, or rather, if people like it. These links lead to that info. When I want info about a show, one of the most important things I want to know about is, should I watch it. I know we're not a tv guide, but a couple of links at the bottom of the infobox doesn't seem too much. - Peregrine Fisher 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It may be useful, but it's not appropriate since the 'box is supposed to include data snippets (cast, run time, production staff, initial air date, etc) for the episode or show. Websites don't fit there. As for ease of use... Having the external links consistently between the reference/footnotes section and categories makes it easy to just hit <End> and find the sites that are either official organs for the show and/or those that would rate it either by professionals or by the casual viewers. — J Greb 17:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've said on the other talk page, we should move these links out of the infobox and put them in the EL section. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do film infoboxes get external links sections? - Peregrine Fisher 06:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the large consensus? - Peregrine Fisher 06:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Film will be discussed separately at a later stage. External links do not belong in infoboxes they belong in the External links section. Also, there is a large concensus on this page, you are the only Wikipedian oppossed to the removal of the IMDb and TV.com sections. Please remember that it may be useful to you, but that is not a valid reason for the sections existance. Please state something other than your personal opinion in this matter. Stickeylabel 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Think of it this way:
  1. WP:MOS says we should put that kind of stuff in the EL section (Wikipedia:External links)
  2. often I see disputes on which links to include in an infobox, and we obviously can't have them all.
  3. an EL section is linked at the TOC, it's pretty easy to get at.
  4. Most infoboxes, or even nav boxes, include ELs
  5. another thing to cut from our infoboxes, which can be very bloated at times
  6. Infoboxes are generally for quick, at-a-glance-facts and not navigation
On the other hand we have "they're handy".
In all fairness, though, PF and Matthew are not the only ones who feel this way. We shouldn't ignore the other talk page simply because we're on this talk page. Even with that said, I believe the logical consensus (given the MOS-backing) would point to yanking them. We can continue to discuss this, if people really wish. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Good synopsis, Ned. Switching thoughts, I think this is ignoring what consensus really is. I see this over and over on WP. People start a conversation, get 5 or 15 (if they're lucky) people to agree, then declare they have a consensus. In this case, the consensus is probably ignoring millions of people who've visited the pages, and 1000's of experienced editors who have edited the pages. It's easy to take over a talk page; it's hard to really judge how people feel. If you were to count every 1/10 person who added the imdb and tv.com IDs as objections, there would be a consensus to keep these links. I'm not wed to imdb and tv.com being the links, but we need easily accessed links. Until we find something better, leave the links. - Peregrine Fisher 07:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

I'm a little confused about the proper name for an article. Currently, the 70s television series about the Incredible Hulk, starring Bill Bixby, is named The Incredible Hulk (1978 TV series). There are 2 other series articles, both are animated. So I'm curious as to whether the live action series should be delegated by year, or if it should be named The Incredible Hulk (TV series). If it needs a year, should it get the year of the pilot or the year in which it became "a show". The thing about this program was that it started out as a television movie in 1977, followed by another 2 hour show a week after that one aired. Then, "the series" began on March 10, 1978. Should it be referred to by the date the first show aired, or by the date that it became an official television series?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are multiple series that share the same name, disambiguation by debutyear is indeed common. WP:TV-NC is the governing guideline. Also TV miniseries usually are a seperate article, but if the relation is close enough, they can share the same page. In that case i would go with just TV Series, and add years to the "newer" series. Also be sure to mention the sequals in the lead in of the article in that case. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well that's the thing. They are tv-movies, in the meaning that they were originally intended as films, but later they served as the pilot for the series, and that is how the first season of the DVD is set up. The first 2 episodes are really 2 hours long, but they serve as the "pilot" and "second episode" for the first season. So, should the series be titled "1977" for when the pilot came out, or "1978" for when the first regular series episode was released?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
2¢... If I'm reading the guidelines right, the Bixby/Ferrigno show, including the 2 initial 2 hour productions, should be The Incredible Hulk (TV series) with the cartoons being named The Incredible Hulk (1982 animated TV series) and The Incredible Hulk (1996 animated TV series). The live action would only need a year is an article for a second live action TV series existed. — J Greb 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that was one assumption that I had when I saw one of the "animated" pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Unassessed television articles

As per the to do list I've been assessing some of the articles in. I've found that some categories like Category talk:1940s American television series are tagged with {{TelevisionWikiProject}}. Is the tag appropriate as these categories are not strictly articles? Should we have a separate tag template for the talk pages of categories that relate to the project?--Opark 77 22:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You could use "class=NA|type=cat" --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've assessed all the categories on that were in Category:Unassessed television articles.--Opark 77 22:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Television_3fcc.html"