Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British TV shows

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Things that need doing..

So, three things need doing:

  • Create a template for talk pages. I'll get to this later today.
  • Infobox.
  • Find out what we're going to do project-wise. Are we going to have a project of the week? Month?

9cds 12:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes

For the infoboxes, we can either use Template:Infobox television or a slightly modified version (currently on my user page User:Smurrayinchester/Infoboxes). Maybe a vote? smurrayinchester(User), (Ho Ho Ho!) 13:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the one you did. Maybe add fields like production company? 9cds 14:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added production company and related shows (spin-offs etc.) and created Template:Infobox British television. This is an example:
Only Fools and Horses
Format Sitcom
Created by John Sullivan
Starring David Jason
No. of episodes 64
Production
Producer(s) BBC Drama
Running time 30 to 90 minutes
Broadcast
Original channel BBC One
Original run 15th September, 1981 – 25th December, 2003
Chronology
Related shows The Green Green Grass

Looks good to me :) I'll make it the project's infobox, and add it to /infobox, if everyone else likes it. 9cds 14:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I like it, but it doesn't seem to accept any width limitations for images (See User:PS2pcGAMER/UKTVTemplate). Any chance you can add this? Or should I just downsize the image? -- PS2pcGAMER 10:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It was a feature I wanted to add, but this is one of my first templates and I wasn't sure how to. If anyone can, please do. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: I've just updated the box so blank fields now don't appear. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I added this to a couple of sitcoms yesterday, and i thought that maybe "Creator" isnt clear enough. Sometimes there isnt anyone that this can be accurately attributed to; should the writer(s) be put here when there isnt a specific creator? -- jeffthejiff (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The field isn't necessary; the infobox will work fine without it (as Top Gear shows). If you can't think of the creator, just leave it. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 12:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
OK then, but do you think it'd be useful to add a Writer(s) row? -- jeffthejiff (talk)
How notible will that be? We could have something like a crew row? -- 9cds(talk) 16:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, writers are more notable than the crew; there are often shows written by popular/notable writers. Mostly i was just suggesting it to provide a better definition when "Creator" is too ambiguous to use. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The main reason I choose creator over writer is that this infobox can be used for reality TV, documentaries or drama; writer didn't feel right in the context of reality TV. I suppose it could be used, but maybe as 'Chief writer(s)', 'Executive writer(s)' etc to distinguish the Matt Lucases from the Joe Bloggs. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
couldn't you have fields for creators and writers? for reality tv, you'd just leave the field blank? and yeah, it could be just principal writers, or chief etc. just my tuppence.--Sammysam 14:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Nah, don't see the point. -- 9cds(talk) 17:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

hope no one minds, but I added a no. of series field to the infobox. also, after about half an hour of struggling with the code (sorry, unfamiliar with html.. *blush*) i managed to add an imdb field.--Sammysam 14:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good - thanks! -- 9cds(talk) 17:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, why do British TV shows need their own infobox ? I see no reason why some of the fields that this Infobox has cannot be added to the higher up Infobox Television. In my eyes this Infobox is an unnecessary case of template forking WP:TV - The DJ 09:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There are subtle, yet important, differences. 'Station' has been replaced with 'Channel', and other such things. -- 9cds(talk) 18:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
{{Infobox Television}} currently uses "Original Network/Channel". Seems to suit UK just fine now I think. I really think it would be better to expand the original Infobox to be more flexible then that we end up with multiple boxes that need to be maintained. Currently the only difference between the two templates that I see are "related" and "no. of series/seasons" - The DJ 19:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
As this template is redundant. If this template was redirected to {{Infobox Television}} would people be willing to help me modify the existing article to change the code.--NeilEvans 15:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Once num-series is implemented, then we'll be able to change them. The JPStalk to me 20:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I've implemented num_series and related fields from the British template into main template. So any articles need to be changed to reflect the new code.--NeilEvans 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project

I think collaboration of the month would be good: means that since there's a lot of articles on there, lots of articles will get worked on. What does everyone think? What about article? I found The Terry and Gaby Show by accident, and it looks like a good one for improvement. - 9cds 20:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems like nobody has anything against it, so we'll say January's collaboration is The Terry and Gaby Show. -- 9cds(talk) 20:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It does need a bit of a cleanup, although im not familiar with the show so i wont be able to add much new content. I think The Smoking Room could be a side collaboration: it needs a bit of cleaning too, to narrow it down from the 32KB of almost pure waffle. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Can make that next month's collaboration? -- 9cds(talk) 17:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know; both these articles are messy, but at least they have content. I'd like to see a pretty major show with a very short article, like My Family (BBC Comedy). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
They still need cleaning up :) -- 9cds(talk) 21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah.. thinking about it again, cleaning up articles isnt as important really; its more of an ongoing thing. I'm for My Family - looks like it needs some serious attention. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Cancel that - its a dupe. Check out My Family (television). Just needs to be merged. -- jeffthejiff (talk)

[edit] Babysitting

Hi folks. Could I ask a favour? I'll be away for a few days (4-7 Jan), so could someone please keep an eye on my user page? I've attracted a particularly hostile vandal who wasn't happy that I reverted his rants to Phil Redmond (OK, I did provoke him, somewhat, through my regrettable edit summaries). He's only made one edit to my talk page, but he could make more while I'm away. He's mainly getting at me through private e-mail, by attempting to subscribe me to gay porn. He's tracked down my work e-mail addy too, so he's becoming rather scary!! Cheers. The JPS 01:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do :) -- 9cds(talk) 11:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions (television)/poll

Were people aware of these discussions? Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/poll I think it would be more productive if people advertised these proposals in relevant projects. I only stmbled across it from a link from someone's talk page. The JPS 17:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

True, we should but I feel that most are not aware of these discussions. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
And that's exactly why i'm trying to push WP:TV and these rules again :D The problem is that the information is all scattered and added as "supplement edits". So i'm trying to force a bit more guidance on the various projects. - The DJ 23:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Future tvshow}}

{{Future tvshow}} has been nominated for deletion (correctly, this time). The template is very useful and also 'traps' unsubstantaited articles (rumoured shows and episodes can be verified and dealt with if they are in one place, but not if they are lost in one of the huge categories). The JPS 18:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parentage

This WikiProject doesn't have a Parentage defined. I think it would be good if it became a daughter of WP:TV. - The DJ 09:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems logical to me. I've added it. WP:TV has us as a related project, but I'm not too concerned with the asymmetry. As long as there is a link to the two projects somehow. The JPS talk to me 10:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks like they've now made us a daughter, which is good :) -- 9cds(talk) 18:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] subcategorisation of Category:BBC television programmes

This category is very large and so far only has the subcategories Category:BBC children's television programmes, Category:BBC television sitcoms and those for individual shows with categories.

Anyone have any ideas for subcategories? Tim! 23:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe by genres (drama, comedy), or even channels? -- 9cds(talk) 23:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, genres should work. What about Category:BBC television documentaries? It would tie in with Category:Television documentaries (a currently under-populated cat, but would become huge if it were used properly, so populating its 'child' first, so to speak, would probably save work later on). I can take care of that, if you like. The JPS talk to me 23:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. ;) Now to find a suitable project for this month :) -- 9cds(talk) 23:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Nice one. How about something like 'BBC television dramas' and 'BBC current affairs programmes'? Tim! 08:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
We now have Category:BBC television comedy. The JPStalk to me 22:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additions to Template:Infobox British television

To make the template consistent with Template:Infobox television I've added picture_format and country tags. The picture format will also be useful once the BBC and Sky high definition services start (a number of programs are already recorded in high definition, e.g. Bleak House (TV serial)). Rnt20 06:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, being a "British TV show", I think we can guess what will be in the country tag. No programs so far have been filmed in HD. Reverting, because they're useless. -- 9cds(talk) 08:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] BBC searchable database

I just discovered http://open.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax which is an experimental database of (nearly) every programme produced by the BBC over the last 75 years. It appears that it went live at the end of April 2006. I have added a link to it to the resources section of this project page. Jooler 00:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! I wonder if it's worth adding links to the infobox? -- 9cds(talk) 01:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I just did a search for David Attenborough -http://open.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax/contributor/1444 interestingly it links back to our David Attenborough article! Jooler 01:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robot Wars

Hullo everyone - after almost a year of editing Wikipedia with not much to show for it I've decided to take on a project and, hopefully, some of you might be able to help me.

I dedicated many years of my life to watching Robot Wars and even appeared on the show once (only as an audience member, alas)! I was therefore disappointed when I saw the shoddy state of the article and have decided to take on the task of improving it from the very foundations upwards, hopefully getting it to at least GA status. I've copied the original article to User:CountdownCrispy/Robot Wars.

Are there any fans of the show out there who would be willing to help me? I'm hoping that some members of a forum I'm on might be up for it, but to have someone experienced in revamping TV articles would obviously be a great help. There's already a lot of information already on the page to work with, though how much is superfluous remains to be seen! If you're up for it, please leave me a message on my talk page. Many thanks. :-) - CountdownCrispy 20:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! Maybe you'd like to make it project of the month next month? -- 9cds(talk) 01:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, how do I go about that? Having looked further there are loads of minor articles that could be merged into the main Robot Wars article - House Robots of Robot Wars (sic) for instance. Lots of other enthusiasts on the aforementioned forum seem up for it so we might well make a start so that, come next month, you guys can us where we've gone wrong! ;-) Regards, CountdownCrispy 14:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Just add it to the end of the list :) Want me to do it? -- 9cds(talk) 14:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Aha, found it! Thanks for your help. :-) CountdownCrispy 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorisation work

Hi. I've done some refactoring work on your Project's categories and templates today (along with several other WikiProjects). I'm confident you'll find that the new organisation a big improvement. For more information and a rationale please see what I've written at Wikipedia:WikiProject/Best_practices#Categorisation or drop me a line on my talk page.

If you're not yet assessing articles for Wikipedia 1.0 and using Mathbot, you might also find Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index of subjects and it's talk page very useful. --kingboyk 17:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Fawlty Towers

Template:Infobox Fawlty Towers 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. The JPStalk to me 16:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme)

Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme) is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coronation Street

Coronation Street is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Infobox Television episode}}

There is difficulty gaining consensus over at {{Infobox Television episode}}. MF wants to add colours to make episodes within a particular show consistent, whilst others comment upon issues of consistency thoughout the project and also of accessibility. I think we've hit a brick wall over how to progess, so more contributions would be appreciated. Cheers. The JPStalk to me 18:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Spooks

Might it be an idea to exploit interest over the new series of Spooks by forming such a project, to create individual episode pages. I'm willing to head it up, if that doesn't sound too egotistical, although it might take a while as we have a 4 series backlog! :-) Please reply here or on the Talk:Spooks. [[User:Neddyseagoon | [[User talk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 21:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead?

Is this projects for all intents and purposes.. dead Template:=(? Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Quatermass Experiment FAR

The Quatermass Experiment 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Star Cops

I opened a peer review for Star Cops recently. I want to submit it for GA following the review. Please come by and make some suggestions. Joe King 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Clue: No

Roll up, roll up! The plot section needs boiling down a bit. Volunteers?Neddyseagoon - talk 19:11, 4 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 13:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive removal of images HELP needed to track them all

Due to the recent merge of Infobox British Television (which apperently no one took the time to verify to be successfull), a lot of Images became unlinked. This resulted in them being semi-automatically deleted after 7 days because they were not in use and were not free images. I'm trying to get them undeleted at the moment, but there are a lot of undeletion logs to go trough, and I can use some help. We will need to go trough all the pages here and fix their infobox to link the images. Then if the image is no longer present, they need to be listed. I have done the first 100 at the moment, but there are MANY more pages that need to be checked to see if the image was deleted. I can use some help. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think i have them all now, but if you notice a program that had it's image apparently removed, report it here please. The once in the above list are up for undeletion however. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Hi, I've just joined the project. Two things, I've added the Project box to Get Some In. Another thing is that I'd like to see an entry on The Vital Spark TV series, but for one thing there were three series, two in the 60's and a later one with Gregor Fisher. Also, information seems sparse as there were only a few surviving episodes of the old series. Anyone here care to give their opinion on the Get Some In entry? Douglasnicol 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making Waves peer review

Remember Making Waves? It's now up for peer review and any comments are welcomed. WindsorFan 16:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Children's TV in UK WikiProject

This is a proposed WikiProject. If the project is a success we'd like to become sister projects. It is dedicated solely to children's tv programs that were first screened or produced in the UK. The articles that need to be improved are mainly ones that were first screened in the 1980s and 1990s, but all need tweaking somewhat. If you are interested in signing up go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and it's the project with the longest name. Just add # then your user name on the list. Thanks, Soopa hoops77 15:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizen Smith entry, opening line NPOV?

moved from main page. --Matthew

Someone has edited the Citizen Smith entry. The first paragraph read...

"Citizen Smith was a British TV sitcom from the 1970s. The show was written by John Sullivan who went on later to write the hugely successful Only Fools and Horses."

To

"Citizen Smith was a British TV sitcom from the 1970s, whose tame revolutionary hero demonstrated the declining prestige of left-wing activism in the British media on the eve of the Margaret Thatcher era. The show was written by John Sullivan who went on later to write the hugely successful Only Fools and Horses."

Is it me, or does this edit seem rather NPOV?

I agree, I've formalised the lead-in and corrected the tense within the article. Matthew 14:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Apprentice (UK) Peer Review

This was started a week-and-a-half ago, and in the meantime, the article has been awarded GA Status. The other editors and I are hoping ultimately to have this promoted to FA, but anticipate that some work will be needed to achieve this. The review is taking place at Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Apprentice_(UK), and any and all comments on this would be much appreciated. Cheers --Fritzpoll 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bill

It looks like user:itv1_the_bill has been making lots of edits to The Bill and related characters, quite a lot of which seem to be reckless editing, or possibly vandalism... May need going through Paulbrock 02:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BBC catalogue numbers being used as production numbers

I thought I'd point out here that some pages (such as List of Gimme Gimme Gimme episodes) are using BBC catalogue numbers in a production number column. These are not the same production numbers as, say, an American series would have -- it is a number assigned by the BBC rather than the production company. For example, the BBC catalogue lists the Simpsons episode "Bart the General" that, when produced in America, was given the production number "7G05". When the rights were bought by the BBC, they gave it the catalogue number "LPCU845D"[1]. You could get around this by changing the column names to "BBC catalogue number", though the purpose of having it in the article would need to be discussed. WindsorFan 15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The example you've given is a proper BBC programe number, and defines a specific editorial entity (e.g. a TV programme). It is not a catalogue number. The reason it looks complicated is because the BBC make a lot of TV. To dissect your example:

  • LPC production unit
  • U production year (by custom)
  • 845 production number
  • D checksum character

This is known as the "core" number. Prefixes to the core define financial entities (cost centres), suffixes define programme entities (programmes, parts of programmes, and versions of programmes). Bought-in programmes require both of these entities, to track costs and play-out. The BBC assigns a core number to enable the management of these tasks within BBC systems. All BBC-produced programmes are all known uniquely and universally by these numbers. Other numbering systems are all arbitrary and local to the individual production office. The number closest to a catalogue number would either be a spool number or a shelf number which identify a tape's physical medium and its physical home respectively, but neither of these would refer directly to the programme. You could get them from the full version of INFAX I expect, but the general public don't get to see those. Claire c4 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode coverage

The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Wikipedia:Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reality TV star noteability guidelines

Hello, I've just created a seperate page proposing guidlines for noteability of Reality TV contestants and if they should have their own articles. I did this due to the mass number of articles being created and deleted on these subjects in recent months, and confusion among editors if they are in fact noteable or not. You can read this here. All edits and comments on the talk page are welcome. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Countdown

Countdown (game show) 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.

[edit] Victoria Wood As Seen On TV

This is an article I've been working on and off for about six months. I'd really appreciate a rating. Any chance of a look? - bingo99 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has now received 'Good Article' status. I'd be keen for it to be peer-reviewed again, in a hope of it reaching A-Class status, then hopefully Featured Article status. Thanks in advance for any advice or help. - bingo99 20:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has been upgraded to A-Class by WIkiproject Television, could it also be upgraded here to keep it in line, thanks bingo99, 15:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blackadder epidodes

See Talk:List_of_Blackadder_episodes#Episode_notability. Tim! 16:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOS?

Is there a MOS related to British TV shows? For instance, Doctor Who uses some combination of the words "series" and "season" in a way only they understand. Today there was a question on Torchwood about "the 2008 series" versus "the 2008 season". Is there a standard? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments

Hello to the members of this project. A discussion has commenced at the talk page for the sitcom The Good Life here [3]. Your input is requested to help reach a consensus on this matter. Thank you in advance for any help that you can give in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 23:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Project Comments

List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes has recently been cleaned up and put into the proper episode list format, using the episode list template, adding a decent intro, etc. An editor is wholescale edit warring over it, insisting that his preferred format is correct. This is now spilled over into List of Goodnight Sweetheart episodes (which is now protected), as well as two ANI filings mine against him and his retaliatory one. I came to the list at the request of another editor as a Television project rep to help when the edit war start, but its continuing to escalate. Several other editors have requested Edito stop, but he continues while hurling insults at anyone (but most especially me) who reverts his changes. At this point, I think some additional help from the two projects this falls under, as he claims the format has no consensus, despite my arguing that it follows the format of many of our recent FLs. Collectonian (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] British TV shows project: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 36 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review request

Hi everyone, the Peer Review page suggests asking for feedback from appropriate Wikiprojects to aid in a Peer Review request. I just put up the ITC Entertainment article for Peer Review and I would greatly appreciate some feedback from members of this Wikiproject as I feel the subject matter is not too dissimilar from British TV channels. The review can be found here: [4]. Many thanks Howie ☎ 23:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Green Wing (series 2) for featured list

The second series of Green Wing was nominated for featured list status but failed, mainly because so few people commented on it. It has been put back up again so if anyone wants to comment on it, please do so. ISD (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)