Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Fiction/entertainment guideline notices
More issues and discussions at the fiction notice board		 v • d • e • w
  • [6/03/08] A new RFC on the global acceptance for WP:FICT is underway.
  • [3/10/08] The recent ArbCom case on television characters and episodes has been closed; concerned editors are strongly urged to review the final decisions of the case.

Contents
Archive
Archives

Add archive
Old WP:TVE:
  1. 04/04 - 06/07

Old WP:LOE:

  1. August 2005 - April 2006
  2. May 2005 - June 2006
  3. June 2006 - January 2007
  4. Feb 2007 - June 2007
  5. /structure

Current:

  1. 7-12 June 2007
  2. Deletion-related


[edit] Inviting discussion

I've archived the old talk (but made a mess of the navigation box, which I hope Ned Scott or someone will sort for me) and will drop a note on Wikiproject pages to get some more comments. I think general discussion might happen here, but we should invite specific comments to be made at Wikipedia:Television article review process and WP:EPISODE.

Things still to do: develop some sort of template message to put on talk pages of parent articles to explain what is happening/needs to happen to the individual episode pgaes, and direct them to the review page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage/Articles for review. Gwinva 09:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I've found all the related WikiProjects.. lets see what response we get. Gwinva 19:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder of notability template use

(Copied from archive for easy reference):

{{Episode-notability}} (which is technically now Template:Dated episode notability) has now been updated to automatically add a timer. To use it you subst the template, {{subst:episode-notability}}, and after 14 days the page in question will automatically be added to a category (for now I've named it Category:Episode articles not asserting notability). -- Ned Scott 06:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that above category has been deleted (because it was unused). I don't know if that's going to be a problem. Gwinva 17:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No, when you tag it will still put all the episodes there (if the tag is still directed there). Once they are there we can recreate the category. You can have articles that are present in a category that has not been officially created. When you create it, they don't change. Bignole 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there a tag to indicate that it is a clean-up category and shouldn't be deleted just for being empty? Jay32183 18:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Not sure, but that would be a good idea to have if it exists. Bignole 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't recall exactly what I wrote for the category's description, but I'm pretty sure it at least mentioned the template and the 14 days. I guess it just wasn't clear it was a maintenance / clean-up category. -- Ned Scott 19:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this good to go yet?

This seems to have died down, but is the tag(s?) ready to be used? We may not have the whole review thing up yet, but only a couple dozen series are probably going to need it. TTN 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say start using the tags and see how it goes. Best way to test the process is see if it works. Gwinva 09:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Futurama episodes and general concerns

After this project's tags have been added to ALL Futurama episode articles by User TTN, somewhat of a discussion over this has started on hist talk page. As I said there, I will repeat it here: I don't think the adding of episode-notability templates without any further comment comes across as a very harsh and thoughtless, almost random attack on a big group of articles that have meant a great deal of work to many people (not me, though). I invite you to take an unbiased look at the way episode articles like this one are now appearing. The only further comment was the non-specific edit summary of "Notability not asserted" by TTN. (Basically) Accusing an entire group of articles of non-notability without any further clarification or justification is a false presumption of guilt if you will. Of course this is not a legal case, I think that this is a concept of manners and Wikipedia netiquette, that has to be upheld here too.

Now, I readily concede that a great many episode articles are in a not particularly good state, which is true for Futurama as for any other show. However you are not asserting the articles' quality but their notability, and you are doing that according to the proposed (I cannot stress this enough) guideline "Television article review process". Well, excuse me, but considering the thriving of projects like WikiProject Pokédex and similar projects bordering on non-notability, I think that is pretty rich, especially when talking about a show like Futurama which has an immense following in internet and "geek" subcultures. If you are adding this to all episodes, you are questioning the notability of Futurama episode articles as a whole, and a thing like this, I believe you should really achieve a consensus on.

Please note that I am in no way in opposition to your goals. There certainly is a mind-numbingly huge amount of fancruft on Wikipedia, but in order to do something against it, you have to respect and work together with the people who added it in the first place, and will probably keep re-adding it again and again — you probably know what it is like to remove the same goof over and over again that different people keep adding to the same article. In fact I wouldn't be surprised or annoyed if most Futurama episode articles turned out to be non-notable. But if this is to be a default process against the Futurama articles, then this really should go on the Futurama project page. I ask that the disfiguring templates be removed from the Futurama articles, or at least moved to the talk pages. Maybe the addition of them to the talk pages should be part of your guideline. Also, a rewording of the template would seem in order.

I hope we can settle this peacefully and constructively. — Mütze 18:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like people are taking it personal, as if they own the article or something? I can find many problems with the first episode you listed above. There are links to how to write a good article on an episode (if it can be done at all, as not every episode can accomplish that), and there are other places which any good WikiProject should link to: WP:WAF and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) for example. There there is the WP:EPISODE. Plus there are are about half a dozen featured episode articles, and I don't know how many GA Season 8 Simpsons articles (however many in that season, as everyone is at least GA). The tag provides a link and explains what is going on. Wikipedia is not TV.com, and episodes do not inherit notability from their parents. Like everything else, you have to establish notability, the prime example would be professionals writing about the episodes (i.e. Reception section). If an article doesn't have that section then it doesn't meet the criteria. That doesn't mean it cannot, it just means it currently does not. Also, let me correct that the guideline is not proposed, it is sure enough a guideline. The only proposal we have is for the review process of each episode. The guideline has merely been expanded to give examples and clarified on several points that were a little vague in their definitions. There is also a tag for the parent articles to alert them to what is going on, and it should be used when tagging episode articles. This way it alerts the larger community to the problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have seen many crap articles saved at AFD on the basis that they could improve. I can't help thinking that time would be much better spent improving the articles and adding real world context than arbitrarily adding these tags to billions of articles (which can easily be removed, by the way). The JPStalk to me 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The existence of crap shouldn't mean that we keep more crap. The point of the tags is to get people to search for the information. It's not like we can just go "Oh, Google, yep, there are the sources!" People need to find them first. If the tags are removed, they'll be readded like any other relevant cleanup tag. TTN 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I agree that we shouldn't keep crap. I guess editors need to remember that the articles are not being deleted: they will still be accessible through the history. I'd be more comfortable if I saw evidence that certain people were helping to improve these articles rather than simplistically going through them like a bulldozer. Surely that is a more fitting task for the human brain. If tags are readded, then they can be removed again, so long as 3RR is not broken. This is a guideline, not policy. The JPStalk to me 22:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Once these go up for "review", we will help sort out any possible sources people have come up with. At this point, no work has actually been done, so there isn't much to help with, and if we could just go find sources, they wouldn't be tagged in the first place. "It's just a guideline" is a very bad excuse to ignore it. I would expect an admin to know that. Even then, a cleanup tag is a cleanup tag. You can't just remove them because you disagree with them. TTN 22:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I say show me mutiple, professional writers commenting on the articles (i.e. Reception) and I'll show you an article that has the potential to be expanded. If you can't, I'll show you an article that needs to be merged. Notability is not based on the objectionable material found (e.g. production information), but on the subjective material (e.g. criticism). Production is important yes, but it's irrelevant if the article has how outside commentary. You couldn't have a GA or FA film article that doesn't have a reception section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I think I'll withdraw my complaint. It seems you are working in the best interests of Wikipedia, and all the guidelines and policies you cite make sense and are applied correctly by you. I mostly got bummed by the sudden appearance of hundreds of templates and overreacted a bit. Sorry.
I will still ask you to mind your attitude a bit, though. A more relaxed way of doing things and a nice tone will do a lot more for you then all determination ever could. — Mütze 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for my tone, like you said of yourself, I overreacted because it seems like we are explaining the same thing over and over again. I mean, people are trying to delete the template, but their reasoning is "they are trying to delete all the episode articles", which we are by no means trying. The majority will most likely (if it works properly) be merged with a parent article, but there are certain ones that will be able to establish their notability (Pilot episodes usually have the best chance of doing that with ease than others, as they are the starting point for a series). I understand how "crummy" it appears to watch your work (anyone's) be challenged, but I think there was a lot of hostility toward the removal of all those non-free images from articles. I know I was bummed at that, but now that I look at them, I don't see a real downside. I don't feel like I'm missing something, and I have a new respect for what a non-free image should be used for. I hope that that can be said about television articles, in the end. It's a long shot, but it's a hope that people will look back and go, "you know, it does look better this way".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's hoping. :-) — Mütze 16:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines

For a long time now, the guideline on lists of episodes (LOEs) has been to follow the example of featured LOEs. But I think it would be a good idea to outline more precisely a structure that should be present in an LOE. WP:NOVELS has something like this—and seeing it sparked my thoughts on the addition of something like that here. I have prepared something for this purpose, and I could present it here for those who would like to see it. Cliff smith 16:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Go for it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible LOE Structure

<!--This is an '''episode list''' for the (genre of TV program) '''''(Name of TV program)'''''.
The series premiered on (channel of debut) on (date of debut) in (country of origin),
and is in its # season / and its finale aired on (date of finale in country of origin).
More info about each season, i.e. midseason recap shows and specials, etc.
Optional 2-3 sentence synopsis of general program plot. Optional sentence on DVD release.-->

== Seasons ==
<!--Color-coded season table as seen at featured LOEs incorporating DVD release dates by region.-->

== Season # (date of season) ==
<!--Use of {{Episode list}} template for each episode. As many seasons as were or have been aired, of course.-->

== References ==
<!--Sources used for airdates, directing/writing credits.-->

=== Notes ===
<!--Footnote citations.-->

[[Category:List of (genre) television series episodes]]

Cliff smith 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't want to make it look like book or magazine refs are discouraged. Jay32183 22:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I see what you mean. I have changed this. Cliff smith 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review

Resolved.

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Template:Dated episode notability -- Ned Scott 07:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Outcome: Deletion overturned 2007-07-06; template restored. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] video clips

is it appropriate to post links to video clips of the episode from youtube, in the trivia section or any section for that matter, on the episode page?

my initial thought tells me no but i just thought i'd ask.--Numberwang 13:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there shouldn't be a "trivia" section (see WP:AVTRIV), any encyclopedic information in there should be written as prose and worked into other sections. As far as clips go, no, you shouldn't. That is clear copyright violation. The only way a "clip" could be used would be if it was only 10% of the entire episode, or no more than 30 seconds and it had some encyclopedic nature can couldn't be explained with a simply image or just text.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review update

I've done some revisions to the review process that should address many concerns in the TfDs and MfD. For starters, the page has now been moved to Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review with Wikipedia:Television article review process moved to an instructions subpage and transcluded on the review page. Instructions could be cleaned up some more, but discussion themselves are now held on the talk page of a parent article, with a link to that discussion being listed on the review page. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 20:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lengthy discussion regarding episode articles

There is a lengthy discussion regarding the redirection of episode articles to series articles at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Potential problem conerning episode articles (sic) which people from this WikiProject are likely already participating in, but which also should be referenced from here in case interested parties are not aware. (historical reference: this version at time of comment). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List page idea

I like this idea I saw on the Degrassi Next Generation page (don't care for the show, but this caught my attention). Suggestion mentioned WAVY 10 Fan 22:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Season articles, a very good suggestion, and an option that doesn't seem to be considered often. -- Ned Scott 00:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion: Ghost Whisperer episodes

Resolved.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Whisperer episodes — outcome = delete all and redirect (2007-11-06)

this is a multi-article AFD, covering 13 episodes
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK Airdate Sources

Can anyone recommend a good source for finding out the original UK airdates of a show? Since it is primarily a UK show, I think it would be important to include in the episode list, but the show's site is rather lacking in episode details. Collectonian 16:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion: 12 Miles of Bad Road

Resolved.

12 Miles of Bad Road (via WP:PROD on 2007-11-11) Kept

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion: As You Were (M*A*S*H)

Resolved.

As You Were (M*A*S*H) (via WP:PROD on 2007-11-11) Kept

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion: Babble On (Dead Zone)

Resolved.

Babble On (Dead Zone) (via WP:PROD on 2007-11-09) Redirected→List of The Dead Zone episodes#Season 4

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion: Antonia Ramos

Antonia Ramos (via WP:PROD) Season 1, Episode 12, Nip/Tuck

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:50, 16 November 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 [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 30 Rock episodes

I know the 30 Rock episode pages all got redirected a few months back (due to notability issues) but if I could redo them with notable information, reviews, nielsen ratings, production/broadcasting notes (not trivia), real world info, ect. I could make one for "Episode 210" as a tester and if it is not notable, it can be deleted. Also, if I do create the page, would a cultural references section be allowed? I only ask because 30 Rock tends to have many cultural references, I can't see reason why not (as it is used on a featured article "A Streetcar Named Marge") but they are sometimes unwanted, it will not be in bullet point form. -- Jamie jca (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You'd be better off making the test article in a sub-page of your user space. If it fails the deletion is a lot simpler, it could be speedied by user request. As for making a cultural reference section, it would have to be properly sourced and written as flowing prose. Jay32183 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
As long as you make a note about what's going on, on the talk page, it would probably be ok to do this to the article itself, but a user sandbox might be better simply because some people are on edge about the whole episode redirection thing. Either way, go for it, definitely go for it. Even if you don't have a perfect product in the end, as long as you can show reasonable potential, that will go a long way towards some of those episodes getting articles again. -- Ned Scott 09:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. I see far too many people complaining about episodes being redirected and too few actually doing something about it. --Maitch (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is the article I have written in my user space, User:Jamie jca/Episode 210 (30 Rock). I feel I have covered all required information and I have included notable information. I think the plot section may need a rewrite but that isn't a problem (The plot is 197 words of a maximum 220). I will probably add the proposed Cultural References section at a later time, after I have rewatched the episode and noted any references down. A screenshot will also be added if it gets moved into an article so that it qualifies under fair use. -- Jamie jca (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not see anything in the article that establishes notability. You may want to hold off while discussions in WP:EPISODE are underway, or take a look at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes/Proposed Objective Criteria which is a list of proposed criteria for what makes an episode notable. Collectonian (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Not bad, but a bit thin. I'd lose the TV Buddy references and find something better to source the production info, and lose the TV Buddy part in the reception section. I would keep hunting for sources regarding 30 Rock and the writers strike to fill it out some more. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just half way through making a few edits (Reception mostly). Also, I didn't use Buddy TV as a reference, I know a used (AOL owned) TV Squad. If that is what is being refared to, it is used a reference on one of the example articles, "Through the Looking Glass (Lost)", BuddyTV is also used on that page. I know you're not allowed to use "but it's used on another page" as an excuse, but that is a featured article which is listed as an example page in the wikiproject. Also, the lake of production details is due to the episode only aired on January 10 so, obviously, no DVD has been released with commentary and due to the strike, I doubt any crew/cast members will be that willing to conduct indepth interviews. -- Jamie jca (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I've tracked down some more references. Could anyone help me find some more please? -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake about the Squad/Buddy mix up. TV Squad's article says they use a core group of bloggers, instead of just letting anyone submit a review, so I guess that does make for a stronger argument to use it. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know how much is needed until this page can be moved? 17 references (15 outside of NBC) have been used with 6 reviews. -- Jamie jca (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Namespace default

I'm curious if there's any sort of consensus on what to do with the names of articles, to make them more consistent. See, for example, Entropy (Buffy episode) vs. I Do (Lost). Any thoughts? Nedlum (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be I Do (Lost) and not I Do (Lost episode) per naming conventions. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I would also spell out the series, to prevent any possible future conflicts as well, eg "Entropy (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)". --MASEM 05:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Several new proposals for Template:Episode list and other notes

I've made a bunch of proposals for the episode templates {{Episode list}} and {{Japanese episode list}} (such as dedicated "Director" and "Writer" fields), as well as a method of translcuding season pages onto main LOE pages, plus other notes. Input from anyone interested would be greatly appreciated. See Template talk:Episode list#Revamp -- Ned Scott 06:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode articles in the notability backlog

Hello,

In the notability backlog, particularly that from June 2007, there are several articles (probably 100+) about TV episodes and characters, often containing not more than a plot summary. Some of these are assigned to WikiProjects, others are not. (I had already posted a notice regarding some of these articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television.)

The notability project is slowly approaching the June backlog, so we are wondering what to do with these articles. In view of the recent developments, we are not planning any unilateral action to cleanup these articles in masses. But are there any activities here at the TV project to improve or merge those episode articles in the near future? It would also be an option to postpone the cleanup work further until a general consensus has emerged, but of course postponing forever does not really solve any problems. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments welcome at Template talk:Episode list

At Template talk:Episode list#Please add a new field called "ProductionNotes" there's an new discussion about a proposed new optional field for the template. Your comments are welcome. 68.165.76.170 (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC).