Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Television (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Television: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2017-07-07

To do list:
Major discussions/events:
Incubators:

You Wrote It, You Watch It[edit]

Noob here... I have 8 episode names for Jon Stewart's early show on MTV, "You Wrote It, You Watch It". The article on the show is currently a stub. What is the method for adding this information to the article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Wrote_It,_You_Watch_It

I have the episodes on tape so I know the episode names are correct, however, I don't know the air dates, nor does the show appear to have a production code for each episode. This info seems to be common in episode lists for TV shows on Wikipedia. The recordings do have full credits so key production personnel could be listed/tagged.

Articles for every episode[edit]

I think it's time we stop making articles for every episode of popular shows. Some examples include The Mandalorian, The Walking Dead and The Simpsons. There's no reason to have an article for every episode, and some of them just plain out fail WP:GNG. Horacio Vara (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe work should be done to create an actual article out of Wikipedia:Notability (television), instead of it redirecting to Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Programming. A standalone article could cover pilots/series articles (ideally once it is confirmed filming on the actual season has started similarly to WP:NFF), season articles, episode articles, and other articles related to television and are covered by this project and MOS. Wikipedia:Notability (film) could be a good template to follow if we want to undertake this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd say only about 1% of episode articles are actually done right. Amaury • 18:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd be fully in favor of reworking WP:TVSHOW (the "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." line is massively misunderstood to mean "airs nationally = always notable!!", which has become a real problem, esp. for (non-notable) TV movies) as suggested, but that would be a big project. Maybe the best approach would be for somebody to just volunteer ("NOT IT!!") to write up a draft of that, and then have the rest of us comment on it and make suggestions. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
From the episode articles of the shows mentioned I've seen (like The Simpsons) the majority do meet WP:GNG. As long as GNG is meet I have no problem with editors creating these articles if that is what the editors want to work on. The Simpsons is one of the few shows that have a standalone WikiProject and does quite well. They have 344 GA articles with most being episode articles. I don't feel that there is a need to create stronger notability guidelines that would cause a lot of them to be subject to AFD. If someone wants to take on the task of reading each episode article and evaluating it against GNG then be my guest. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 18:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe true for that, probably true for Seinfeld. But should there be an episode article for every episode of "South Park"?! What about SpongeBob SquarePants?! Because that's pretty much the situation we have now. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Checking List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, most episodes actually don't have an article. South Park episodes do though. El Millo (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) South Park is in similar vein of The Simpsons in that every episode generally gets reviewed at this point with topical events covered in the episodes sometimes becoming noteworthy like Band in China which caused the show to be banned in China. I don't read the South Park episode articles much myself but the ones I have seen do meet GNG. Do we need an article for every episode of SpongeBob SquarePants? No we do not and there isn't enough reception to cause the majority of the series episodes to meet GNG. I do agree with you about the bit you quoted IJBall that is taken out of context where people think "aired nationally = Wikipedia article". That needs to be rewritten and clarified because other users could think shows like Keeping Up with the Kardashians or The Only Way Is Essex should have articles for each episode when in fact they do not. Individual episode articles should be treated as any other article in my opinion, evaluated on their own merits not because it is one of the handful of shows that has an article for each episode. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 18:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The standard should not be "gets reviewed by some sites on the web" – the standard should be (as per, for example, WP:NFO: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." (emphasis mine)). Game of Thrones likely easily passes this standard with many of its episodes. I doubt South Park does to the level of pretty much every episode getting its own standalone article. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
It likely would be worthwhile to identify those critics or at least examples of them for English-based television (likely meaning the US set, Canadian set, UK set and Aussie set will be different). --Masem (t) 19:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Multiple episodes from Seinfeld and South Park are WP:PLOTONLY. The Burning (Seinfeld) and Season Finale (South Park) are good examples of why every episode should not have an article. Horacio Vara (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
OK looking at those two articles and evaluating them against WP:GNG The Burning (Seinfeld) would fail WP:GNG and is a clear example of WP:PLOTONLY. In its current form it most likely wouldn't survive an AFD. However before nominating it the best thing to do would be to check the almighty Google or the evil Bing to see if the episode does have reliable, significant coverage from secondary sources that can improve the article. Season Finale (South Park) in its current form is mostly WP:PLOTONLY however it has two reliable, secondary sources providing some reception about the episode. The reception does demonstrate the episode was covered. The episode article in this case (given it aired in 2019) could be improved upon by adding viewership information (which most likely is available) and checking other secondary, reliable general places outside of IGN and The A.V. Club for more coverage that often write about South Park episodes. If by chance IGN & The A.V. Club are the only secondary sources and viewership information is unavailable then it would be a candidate for AFD or redirect to the season article. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 19:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
FTR, The Burning (Seinfeld) should just be converted to a redirect right now. It's been tagged for 3 years! It's had its chance: nuke it to a redirect! --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Alucard 16, after doing some WP:BEFORE for The Burning, I nominated it. --Slashme (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
If episode articles only contain just a plot and/or reception, generally they fail WP:GNG. — YoungForever(talk) 20:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @YoungForever: Thank you! This is what I was trying to say. A plot and two reviews do not grant an article notability. Horacio Vara (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think broad questions like "Do we need an article for every episode of X" will be answered according to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We should have articles on episodes that are discussed in reliable sources. If there is significant coverage of the episode, then it is acceptable to have an article for that episode. Horacio Vara has nominated three large batches of articles for nomination today, for Simpsons episodes, Game of Thrones episodes and Walking Dead episodes. I expect that they will all be kept, because of the individual variations between coverage of each episode. If you want to clean out the non-notable episodes, that should be considered on an individual basis. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually I agree in this case the general question "Should each episode of a popular TV series have its own article?" falls exactly within WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If every episode of a series happens to meet GNG (even barely) there shouldn't be an issue as long as GNG is meet. It seems some forget about the episode coverage task force. Looking at the batch AFD for The Simpson episodes all of these episode articles pass WP:GNG otherwise they wouldn't have escaped the purview of WP:NPP which requires new page patrol reviewers to check the article against WP:GNG and any other associated nobility guidelines we have at en~Wiki. The only article I would take any issue over is I, Carumbus because 4 of the sources out of 10 are Tweets from Al Jean which makes them primary sources. However I would just slap a more sources needed tag on it. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Given current discussions at WT:N there are two ways that the goal I'm seeing here can be achieved. First, to set the stage it would seem that if you look at our subject specific notability guidelines, we have three functions these do 1) set what are criteria for presumed notability for a standalone article 2) set conditions where it is not appropriate to make an article even if the GNG is met, and 3) set what types of sources are good or poor for notability in that area. For this, you are talking a two pronged approach: you can set (1) for episodes to require two reviews from well-established critics (which you should define; eg it sounds like you want your Rolling Stone or NYTimes which do not routine review shows but only focus on critical darlings (Better Call Saul and Watchmen I know personally) but not your IGN or AV Club (which touch everything) as the quality here) as a presumption for notability, which is good. You can also spell out (2) that while you could have a whole host of reviews from weaker sites (The IGNs and AVclubs), that if there is nothing more than those reviews and ratings, that while for any other topic those may be fine for the GNG, there would need to be more coverage in terms of development or legacy to have the episode article to keep the standalone or otherwise these would be merged back to episode lists.
The only only other thing with that is that for shows that are reviewed in low quality sources, you can usually find a RT score, and thus I would try to find a way to include the per-episode RT score into episode lists when shows are merged back. That gives the reader a quick link to check the reviews that were given without us having to give the reviews. --Masem (t) 19:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I can try to dig it up if you want, but I think we've established on a past WPTV discussion (maybe WPFilm) that RT is only worth citing when it lists more than 20 reviews, otherwise there's too much random fluctuation, and if it has 20 reviews then enough of the 20 should be high-quality enough to justify a standalone article. — Bilorv (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: What would the process be if this project wanted to even consider creating a standalone notability article? Can it be started in the draft space? And where would there need to be notifications that this is being crafted/considered? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
As its more a guideline than an article, it can go to WP space, tagging it with {{proposed}}. When you are happy with it (and to that I mean, the TV project is happy with it), then you can advertize getting to promoted to a full guideline via VPP, CENT, and other reasonable places through an RFC. You don't need to notify the whole of en.wiki as it is drafted, only the version you want to become a guideline. --Masem (t) 14:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this should come down to ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT. If an episode is to have its own article, it needs to stand on its own as a notable topic in terms of the WP:GNG, with everything that that entails: significant coverage, reliable secondary sources, independent sources, and not indiscriminate information. --Slashme (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Horacio Vara, Favre1fan93, Amaury, IJBall, Alucard 16, Masem, Young Forever, Toughpigs, and Bilorv: I've been reading the discussion and didn't find a place to jump in because you all seem to generally agree with each other and with my view that 1. not all episodes, even of very notable shows, should have an article, and 2. there are currently a lot of episode articles that do not pass N. A first step, rather than debate a guideline, could be to bring up all the episode articles (from "List of episodes of X" pages and categories like WP episode coverage) and !vote on which are suitable for their own article. That would probably make the criteria for a guideline clearer, and clean-up episode articles at the same time because then someone could take the no votes to AfD. Kingsif (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • My suggestion is to set the notability guideline for television episodes here first (getting global support for that), *then* come at the articles armed with that guideline which should have consensus. It will be a lot easier then to justify the merges of existing episode articles (eg you are doing up against attitudes against AFDs like this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triggerfinger (The Walking Dead) that a consensus-based notability guideline will easy help to get around. --Masem (t) 14:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      • I generally agree with this approach. But there are specific (flagrant) instances, right now, like The Burning (Seinfeld), that clearly fail WP:GNG, and should simply be boldly redirected back to the relevant season article or LoE article, or can be taken (individually) to WP:AfD in the meantime... But I do agree that Horacio Vara's "bulk delete" approach is unlikely to be fruitful, esp. in the absence of a strong and clear 'Notability for television' guideline. --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Do keep in mind that some will likely try to claim sources do exist (eg I found a review on that episode at AV Club but not much more) when just going off the GNG. That's fair to do, you're just going to get a lot of pushback if the project isn't behind it. --Masem (t) 15:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
          • To clarify my position, I do not object to every episode in a series having its own episode article. I object to the general notion that a series can't possibly have most or all the episodes as individual articles which is what the initial post was about. The OP did two small bundles and one massive bundle at AFD but didn't elaborate specifically how the episode articles in question failed the existing GNG guidelines OP just said "failed WP: GNG" which is not enough of a justification to nominate so many articles like the OP did in my opinion. I see no problem with every episode of a series having its own article as long as GNG guidelines are meet. I object to things like "must have at least three reviews and one of them being from Rolling Stone" or something like "reviews from IGN and The A.V. Club can't be used to establish significant coverage" because it would place an undue burden at NPP. (Like how can IGN be good for video games articles but not episodes of a television series?) Also before blindly merging or putting an episode article up for AFD the proposer should do a quick search to see if there are more sources available than currently in the article. Since a lot of articles are created as stubs with the intent to be expanded on later a bit of due diligence should be made. I have no objection for clarification of TV notability guidelines that would clarify something like three or more reviews (or something along those lines) are needed to establish significant coverage along with details about the production, viewership information, cultural impact and/or awards (if applicable). I wasn't able to find more sources on The Burning (Seinfeld) so be bold and merge it like IJBall suggested. Episode articles should be reviewed on a case by case basis just like any other article on Wikipedia not in batches simply because a single TV show shouldn't have episode articles for every episode. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 15:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it's appropriate to nominate GNG fails like IJBall's suggestion for AfD. Seinfeld has some landmark episodes that have been discussed a great deal, and many that haven't; 1990s sitcoms didn't get reviews for every single episode. Modern sci-fi/fantasy shows like The Mandalorian and Game of Thrones are much more likely to have every episode discussed at length, and I think the guidelines need to be clarified for those. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I would have to agree with Rhino131's keep reasoning as the user was able to find a review from The AV Club, an article from The Week that discuss the episode. They also found sources from Uproxx, two interviews (one from Rolling Stone), etc. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 15:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I trimmed the plot description and used the links from the deletion discussion to add some meta-discussion. It's now at least an acceptable start-class article of borderline notability. --Slashme (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Proposing that merge while this discussion and the AFD is happening is not the way to do this. Let this discussion and the AFD finish and then propose your next steps based on the consensus. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Working draft created[edit]

All, per Masem's suggestion, Wikipedia:Notability (television) is now a working draft proposal for a guideline. Please feel free to edit thoughts there, as well as continue discussion on that talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Still busy these days, but I will try and look at and comment, on this over the next several days. If we go with a separate WP:NTV guideline, I'll have several concerns/areas of interest: "refining" the "aired nationally" statement so it's clear that "aired nationally" doesn't automatically mean "notable!", TV pilots (so that we can hopefully avoid unfortunate AfD decisions like this one), TV episodes (not every episode of even the most popular TV series is going to justify a standalone article, and many series will have no epiosdes that qualify for an article!), TV movies (unlikely to be notable most of the time if released on a U.S. cable channel over the last 20 years), and as Masem suggests – what "level" of reviewing do we want to set as a benchmark (and, FTR, AV Club should be under what ever reviewing level benchmark we come up with!). --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Also, just as a general concept – how do you know any TV-related topic qualifies for an article? – When there is enough sourcing to properly justify a 'Reception' and a 'Production' section. Too many editors also take the approach that "reviews = notable!!", but if a TV project isn't also getting WP:RS coverage on the 'Production' end, I'm going to suggest that, as a general concept, that topic is probably not robust enough to justify a standalone article. --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Personally not a fan of ever having YANG (yet another notability guideline). It's almost always better to work down the list of articles that you think fail today's guidelines and either improve them or remove them. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
It's actually useful for exactly the reason Masem suggests – there is less likely to be confusion over "what a notable TV program" is, if it's clearly spelled out somewhere how the "WP:GNG test" gets applied to the specific "subject" (TV shows, in this case). --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Honestly I find it a bit shocking at how prominent/active (in my opinion) the TV project is, that a standalone guideline page didn't exist since at the moment, all of the project's notability guidelines are contained to a single section at the general media notability article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Just to note that the finalised SNG will need a full RFC as it affects 1000s of articles, including quite old ones ( Bewitched has 100+ episode articles, or it did the last time I looked), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This is an absurd attempt to undermine community consensus (see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS or the explicit consensus at Talk:The Mandalorian) that these episodes are in fact notable. A group of editors here cannot suddenly decide the GNG is no longer good enough for tv episodes. Remember per WP:PROPOSALS: “Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.” If you think certain episodes don’t meet the GNG, fine, but you cannot make a more difficult threshold to pass because you don’t like the existing consensus and feel there “shouldn’t” be such articles. -- Calidum 20:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree, the stipulations are far too prescriptive and detailed as if it is a manual of style for a featured article. Obviously a production section is preferred but is it really essential? When the article is a fleshed out start class with multiple reliable sources secondary coverage such as national reviews is the absence of a production section really the breaker.The Film Project has defined reviews by national critics as reviews with a large national audience not the reputation of the individual reviewer. There is also the problem that production details often do not come from reliable sources as defined by independence - for example an autobiography of the writer, producer or director, or a source affiliated with the production company. There are GAs that use the dvd documentaries of the film or tv show extensively for the production sections. Overall the qualifications for a episode article as proposed are too onerous in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (television) is a working draft so you are welcome to edits or adjust anything there. Nothing's been finalized yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Favre1fan93 says that edits are welcome, so I took them up on the offer. :) I edited the "Television episodes" section to say that episode-specific reviews contribute to notability.
In the first paragraph, the text said that having reviews "is common to the vast majority of television episodes." This is not true; there are thousands of television episodes that have never been specifically reviewed, especially pre-internet. It also said, "an article composed of just these elements is most likely redundant to the main article." This is also untrue: the main show article does not contain reviews for individual episodes.
I also changed "While having a significant number of reviews is a step towards considering a television episode notable" to "Having a significant number of reviews contributes to considering a television episode notable", and made it more clear that coverage of production aspects is a suggestion for creating a higher-quality article.
I'd be interested to know what other people think about these changes. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
That all looks good to me. (On my end, I'm not taking a look at this until probably next week...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I just created the page to start making edits. It is by no means "closed" or restrictive to anyone for editing. I hope any of my comments regarding that page have not come off that way. Yes, I myself have started making edits there, but I want others to edit this, so it isn't just me, and all can then discuss. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
"A group of editors here cannot suddenly decide the GNG is no longer good enough for tv episodes." - what part of the proposal as it stands at the moment is more restrictive than the GNG? --Slashme (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The advice I'm seeing in the draft is the same type of advice that is at WP:NFF for future films - which is where even if good sourcing exists that could potentially meet the GNG, articles on yet-produced films should not be made. Per the current discussion at WT:N on what functions an SNG can do, this appropriate is fully within practice for the proposed TV SNG. (If/when this becomes a guideline, it will be a wholly separate matter of how we'd go about handling the hundreds of episodes that might run afoul of that). --Masem (t) 18:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Some editors in the above discussion and the one regarding The Mandolorian seem to suggest that reviews alone -- no matter who publishes them or how many reviews there are -- should not establish notability. WP:N suggests no such thing. It's also remember what WP:SNG says about subject notability guidelines. "[Subject notability guidelines] are considered shortcuts to meeting the general notability guideline" and "A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article." -- Calidum 19:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I've added some language that explains that we need to show that to rise beyond IINFO, an article about an episode needs to find sources that discuss the episode at a meta level, not just recount the plot, and need to show that it's had an impact beyond that that any ROTM episode would have. --Slashme (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    What is a "meta level"? — Toughpigs (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As far as reviews go, I do say that reviews grant notability since an outlet is extremely unlikely to review every episode that airs. It's the same premise as with film reviews: there will always be far, far more episodes of any given show than there will be outlets that can or will review them. What I would argue is that rather than argue that reviews shouldn't give notability, the number of reviews needed to establish notability should be raised to say, 3-4. That will eliminate a great many episodes as far as notability goes. Length and in-depth qualities of a review would be harder to concretely nail down, as a good writer can nail down a review in 1-2 paragraphs as long as they're concise and clear.
As far as making the critic nationally known, that's a bit harder to nail down since the criteria is so loose when you consider the reach of the Internet. An article of any type posted on the internet can be seen on a global scale and a review from a well-known, major newspaper that isn't posted online could be seen as non-national. The reason I mention this is that there are multiple countries where Internet coverage is a little harder to gain. South Africa is kind of notorious for this, to the point where one of the keynote speakers at the 2015 WikiConference USA actually went into some detail about how difficult it was for some SA topics to meet notability guidelines because of the lack of web presence of many news outlets. I feel that the best way to establish whether a source is usable is to determine if it's reliable and if the source is in-depth, as otherwise this could have a severe negative impact on non-English or Western media. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 04:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I think the problem is the opposite – anyone in the First World can get a group of friends together and put out a website where they "review" TV episodes. This is rather the current problem – anyone can review U.S. or UK TV shows. This is why the metric needs to be higher than "I found 3 reviews on the internet = notable!!". The issue is that some editors want to define any coverage as "significant coverage" (as per GNG), but the standard should be higher than that. That is why I like WP:NFO's "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" standard, because that at least makes it clear you can't just take any old "review" website you find on the web and use that to try to get "by" GNG. --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Last month, Horacio Vara nominated seven Game of Thrones episodes and an astonishing eighty-nine Walking Dead episodes for deletion, saying that they failed GNG. I looked at a random episode in each bunch, and found that "Kill the Boy" (Game of Thrones) had reviews from The Atlantic, IGN and Vanity Fair, while "Coda" (Walking Dead) had reviews from the Daily Beast, Entertainment Weekly and iO9. I don't think that the Atlantic, Vanity Fair and Entertainment Weekly are run by a group of friends. IJBall, do you have an example of an AfD discussion that ended as Keep because someone in the First World got a group of friends together? — Toughpigs (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • We also need to remember that Wikipedia is meant to cover more than just First World countries, which is why so many of the notability guidelines seem to be so light and easy to pass. Most are written that way because they aren't meant to apply solely to US and other Western-centric topics. They're also meant to help make it easier to have coverage on topics concerning non-First World countries, where coverage may be available but much more difficult to come by. Re-tooling the notability guidelines with First World countries specifically in mind will only have a severely detrimental impact on Wikipedia's coverage of other countries. There's also the issue of coverage of women, minorities, and subcultures that tend to have a dearth of coverage in very mainstream sources. Here are some examples:
  • A South African episode doesn't have South African media coverage that Wikipedia editors can easily discover, however they do have coverage by way of reviews in Western media websites such as iO9 and SlashFilm. The episode was a major release in its area, but the majority of coverage isn't online because the media outlets don't have a major web presence or won't come up in a Western Google search. Google search has a history of not properly crawling the websites of non-Western countries.
  • A director creates an episode for a TV series that touches upon issues that they personally experienced as a transgender individual. The mainstream public generally doesn't cover LGBT shows and episodes the same way they would for say, Game of Thrones, so the coverage is predominantly reviews in places like PinkNews, AfterEllen, and Queerty.
  • An episode of a horror show gets light coverage but gains reviews in places like Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, and the Rue Morgue website. The websites are not well known outside of the horror community but are major within the horror fandom.
If we argue that reviews shouldn't count towards notability that will severely impact Wikipedia's ability to cover non-Western and mainstream topics as a whole, as some episodes of shows that are non-Western and/or deal with specific subcultures or marginalized groups may not gain substantial coverage outside of reviews. As a horror fan I can say that shows like TWD and AHS are definitely outliers and do not represent typical coverage for the average horror themed show. The average horror TV show (as well as film and other media) is unlikely to gain substantial coverage, let alone coverage in places Wikipedia sees as reliable.
Now when it comes to the argument of nationally known critics, this is also an area that can negatively impact coverage on Wikipedia. What do we consider nationally known? It can be argued that if something is online it has the potential for global impact, as long as it is discoverable. We can't judge websites targeted towards subcultures and marginalized groups the same way that we would a website targeted towards the mainstream public. While a horror fan would see Bloody Disgusting or Rue Morgue as obviously major media outlets within the horror community, others may dismiss them as too minor when comparing them to even predominantly online outlets like the Hollywood Reporter or Deadline. The same could be argued for coverage in other countries where the newspaper may not be known to Western readers but be considered a big deal in its country - but just not have an online presence or much of one.
Where this concerns me is that while this deals with specific episodes, this argument has been applied to film articles and could also be very easily applied to articles for entire series. By severely limiting what can make an individual episode notable it makes it very easy to similarly limit what makes an entire series notable as there are many series that rely heavily on review/reception coverage to establish notability and its impact on media. While this may seem like a stretch to some, this would also impact coverage on the creative professionals involved in the production of said media, as there have been arguments that if a person's work doesn't have an article that they are by extension not notable either.
Wikipedia has already been severely criticized when it comes to its coverage of marginalized groups and non-Western countries, to the point where academic and scholarly articles have broached the topic. This is also a frequent topic of conversation at Wikipedia conferences as well. My concern here is that many of the arguments for this are looking at very mainstream media like Game of Thrones, South Park, and The Mandalorian, shows that are already household names and aren't considering that tailoring a guideline to restrict episode articles for those shows will in turn have an impact on articles for non-mainstream, non-Western media. I know that this isn't the intent of the guideline by any stretch, but I think that extreme caution needs to be applied when it comes to reducing or removing the impact of reviews towards notability and limiting what can be seen as a reliable source as it impacts more than just these mainstream media. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 07:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I also want to note that I have actually seen cases where people have argued that horror outlets like Bloody Disgusting and Dread Central are minor and shouldn't count towards notability. It's honestly relatively common, particularly when you have a major outlet that is well respected in the horror community (and has been cited as RS by academic and scholarly sources) but lacks an article on Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 07:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@Toughpigs: What does Horacio Vara AfD activities have to do with the point I was trying to make? Horacio Vara's actions seemed tied to my point as a way to denigrate it. I'm not defending his actions at all, though I agree with his general view that there are far too many "episode" articles on Wikipedia, and that a lot of them obviously fail WP:GNG and WP:ALLPLOT outright (though I don't agree with him that GoT or TWD were likely to be examples of this!)... As to your question, I can't think of a specific AfD where that has been an issue, but I believe I have seen some WP:AfCs that were probably swayed by what I would consider to be "lesser" (i.e. probably not good enough) use of "sourcing". And I can definitely think of instances where articles weren't taken to AfD because the author had strategically placed just enough (what I consider to be crappy) "sourcing" that no one would want to bother with the fight over it at AfD. I would like our standards to be higher than "Well, I'm not going to bother to take this article to AfD because there's just enough crummy sourcing that I'm going to get too much pushback at AfD to make this worth my time to nominate".
"If we argue that reviews shouldn't count towards notability..." @ReaderofthePack: No one is arguing that "reviews shouldn't count towards notability". What some of us are saying is that we'd like to see more than just reviews to consider a TV topic truly notable (in most cases). Add: Also, I think my point is that not all "reviews" are equal (weight/significance) – I don't have a problem with Dread Central, but I might have more a problem with AV Club or TV Tropes. I don't know if TV programs receive coverage of production aspects in a country like South Africa, but I've got to think there's at least some coverage like that even there (though, perhaps mostly in "trade" magazines?...). Certainly at the U.S./UK/Canada/Australia-level, I think a lot of us would like to see reviews+production info, not just reviews, esp. for TV episode articles, which tend to succumb to WP:ALLPLOT without this balance. And that's true for both TV and film. --IJBall (contribstalk) 07:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that not all reviews are the same, and that the LA Times and Entertainment Weekly are better than random blogs. But you said, "anyone in the First World can get a group of friends together and put out a website where they "review" TV episodes. This is rather the current problem – anyone can review U.S. or UK TV shows." If you don't know of any examples where the "group of friends" level of review was used to meet notability, then no, this is not "the current problem." — Toughpigs (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
What else would you call something like A.V. Club? This is the kind of site I'm thinking of. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
might have more a problem with AV Club or TV Tropes - but TV Tropes doesn't publish reviews, or anything. I now consider it to basically be a fan wiki, a world away from A.V. Club (or any other actual publication). Kingsif (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
What you're saying is that reviews shouldn't be enough, however that will effectively end up equating to people not seeing reviews as a source of notability. This could in turn weaken other non-review sources. If say, twenty reviews in all of the major newspapers or subculture websites aren't enough to establish notability then someone could argue that a handful of other types of coverage wouldn't be enough either, particularly if they aren't multiple pages long.
Perhaps what could be a good alternative is to make a guide that would help others learn how to use review type articles more effectively. There are many review articles that discuss elements such as production, themes, and other things that fall outside of the realm of "my opinion is X" (for example, delving into comparisons on the director or writer's work to past works or episodes to comment on character growth). I don't think that many people realize that they can use this information to make an article more than just a review and plot synopsis, not just for film and TV articles, but for most media in general. Not only that, but also help show them what sources in general can be used and which shouldn't. I know that there are some guides out on this, but few that are very user friendly or easily discovered by newbies. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 10:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Comments I agree there are far too many non-notable episode coverages on Wikipedia. Not convinced on a bright line of "20 reviews". One editor seems to think the project may produce "rubbish" and has no authority (no effect) but a large consensus does. The vast majority of episode coverage I have seen fail GNG with no significant coverage, are FANCRUFT with mainly all plot, and I comment those looking into this. Otr500 (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

speaking of items, will there be a tv version of {{film draft notice}}? Starzoner (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Starzoner: If this notability guideline materializes, there will in theory be a "NFF" equivalent that a template could be made to state. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

GSN template[edit]

{{Game Show Network}} has been revamped to be in chronological order, like most other channel/network navboxes such as the slightly larger {{Adult Swim original programming}}. I feel like all the navboxes of this type should be formatted like this, when not subdivided like {{Nickelodeon original series}}/{{Former Nickelodeon original series}}/{{Nickelodeon Network Game Shows}}/{{Nickelodeon Original Movies}}. Should the years also be made small, like in {{BET}}?

Game Show Network (2018–present)

I may experiment with colors as well, to match the channel colors (e.g. white on light blue and reddish-orange for GSN, as seen in the current logo). –LaundryPizza03 (d) 19:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Small text should definitely not be used per MOS:SMALLFONT. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I also think 4-digit years should be used – the template has several instances of "1999–2000" (etc.), which means they should all be 4-digit date ranges for consistency. --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

ANI thread[edit]

There is an ANI report you may be interested in: Disruptive user seemingly not understanding. A lot of their edits need to be reformatted. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Episode formatting[edit]

After starting a cleanup of the episode list on Weinerville, I think a tracking category is needed for episode lists that do not use {{Episode table}} formatting. It would have its own small ambox. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 23:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Alex has a list: User:Alex 21/sandbox/Episodes. I'm not sure if it's manually maintained, or updated by bot (hopefully the later), or how often it's updated... On my end, I convert to {{Episode table}} formatting every time I find an old TV series article that doesn't use the template, but I don't update Alex's list manually on my end. I've converted dozens over the last several months. --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
It's manually updated, but if editors are wanting to clear it out more regularly (as it currently stands at 7,400+ articles), I'll happily update it more regularly as well. Unfortunately, it's not a list that can be turned into a category, as while we can use {{Episode table}} to check for {{Episode list}} usages (based on the episodes parameter), we cannot do it vice versa. -- /Alex/21 01:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there also a way to track which articles have 'Series overview' tables which are not using the {{Series overview}} template? This would also be useful information to have. --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The First TV[edit]

Hey everyone, I work for The First TV (Bill O'Reilly's new network). I've created a draft for The First, which can be found at Draft:The First TV. I don't want to move the draft to mainspace on my own, because I have a conflict of interest and want to respect the process and the community. Would someone consider taking a look at the draft? If you think it merits inclusion, I think it would benefit being moved to mainspace. Thanks! D00dadays (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@D00dadays: thank you for abiding by our paid editor disclosures. You can resubmit the draft by the Articles for Creation process—or do you need instruction on how to do this? It will then be reassessed in much the same way as it was originally asssessed.
I've made a couple of edits to properly represent all of the sources in the draft, including the negative aspects. Neutrality on Wikipedia is about what topics we omit as well as the way we write about topics that are included. You must understand that you can't have it both ways in aiming to use sources with headlines ViacomCBS employees pressure Pluto TV to stop streaming new Bill O'Reilly show and ViacomCBS Put 'I Can't Breathe' on Its Networks, Still Gives New Bill O'Reilly Show a Platform as evidence of notability and also exclude the majority of those sources' information.
Be warned that nobody owns an article, least of all the people the article is about, so that if this topic is found to be notable then you will not be able to prevent edits that conform to our guidelines but not to your employer's interests. — Bilorv (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Series overview template needs a slight redesign[edit]

I'm not one that normally cares about the aesthetics of Wikipedia's templates so long as it is functional and coherent. However, the series overview template has always appeared very unprofessional to me, or at the very least, has some oversights. The issue I see is that it dedicates an entire cell just to be an empty and solid color. If the goal is just to be more aesthetically recognizable for each season, I think there is a better way to convey that than to just create an empty cell. Below, there is an example of making the template more aesthetically pleasing.

Original
SeasonEpisodesOriginally released
18July 15, 2016 (2016-07-15)
29October 27, 2017 (2017-10-27)
38July 4, 2019 (2019-07-04)
48TBA
Proposed redesign
Season Episodes Originally Released
1 8 July 15, 2016 (2016-07-15)
2 9 October 27, 2017 (2017-10-27)
3 8 July 4, 2019 (2019-07-04)
4 8 TBA

What do you think? Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

FTR, I prefer the current format (I think it looks better), though I strongly dislike the "shaded" "TBA" cell (in general, I dislike gray-shading in tables, and think its use should be generally avoided, and the {{N/A}} template should be used sparingly, if at all), and prefer the use of {{TableTBA}} for this. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not against an update to this template if we can come up with a better option, but looking at these two options above, I prefer the current format. The larger block of colour is easier to see in my opinion, and the whole point is to see the colours to help differentiate each season. I also think it makes sense to have the colour under the season header since the colour is associated with the season itself (as seen in {{Episode table}} and {{Infobox television season}}).

If we just want to avoid having a separate cell for the colour, how about something like this?

adamstom97 proposal
Season Episodes Originally Released
1 8 July 15, 2016 (2016-07-15)
2 9 October 27, 2017 (2017-10-27)
3 8 July 4, 2019 (2019-07-04)
4 8 TBA

I think this proposal aligns more with the other templates mentioned than Blue Pumpkin Pie's proposal does. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

This one would put a limit on the color we can use, since many would make it difficult to read the number. Plus, it would be even harder to see in some cases if there's a link to a section or an article, having the number be blue or purple if the link was already clicked. Perhaps the colors are just unnecessary, and could be outright removed. El Millo (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The colour limitations would be the same as the other templates I mentioned, and the colours in this template should already match those anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The OP's proposed table with thin bands makes the colouration hard to discern, and I too have a concern about the contrast ratio if we superimpose numbers onto a coloured BG. If there was a way to automatically ensure accessibility requirements are met, then that might be fine, otherwise, the original table looks fine to me. I tend not to see the need with the shaded cells or "TBA" at all, since it's assumed that something will eventually propagate that cell. I lean toward an em dash — or nothing at all, but I don't know that that's the main topic of discussion here. Psst! "Originally released" not "Originally Released" Face-wink.svg Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Personally, putting "TBA" (or "N/A") in those cells make sense to me. I just agree with you that those cells do not need to be/should not be "shaded", and I'd prefer the "smaller font" variation that {{TableTBA}} yields. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
My current proposal is one of many ideas we can implement to improve the template. The purpose is to have a more professional aesthetic and less chaotic. Although I do believe the color should be used less, i don't think that's going to be a consensus for it. I personally think adamstom97 proposal is good compromise.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 21:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps just making the colored cell a bit smaller (but not as small as Blue Pumpkin Pie's proposal) would make it look more "professional". El Millo (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Can't we just remove the colors? Do they really serve a purpose? El Millo (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they do – each TV season episode table is "color-coded" (in its table header), so the 'Overview' table should repeat that for consistency. For that purpose, I think the current table achieves this purpose the best. The "color bars" could be a little narrower, I guess, but I would not make them too much narrower. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
@Facu-el Millo: the size of the cell isn't what makes it unprofessional, is having a separate cell dedicated to color only. Color isn't unhelpful, if you look at List of Rick and Morty episodes it does help organize data. It just needs to have more restrictions and less dependent on them.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 21:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Respectfully, the notion of a coloured box preceding text of some kind is generations-old. Map legends and charts/graphs have been structured this way in professional environments forever. Although now that I look at the tables, I've never said, "the information I seek is in the salmon and brown-coloured tables", so maybe there is an argument that colour isn't relevant at all, which I think someone pitched above. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: I'm not suggesting that a colored box next to the text is unprofessional across all types of charts and that's not necessarily what's happening in the current table either. We can't compare charts or maps (information being conveyed through visuals graphics) to tables (data that usually doesn't require any additional visuals and it speaks for itself). With the current table, it uses creates a completely separate cell as its own independent piece of data, when it's not, it just there for aesthetic purposes. (it doesn't help that the template's documentation gives examples of Bad Contrast). That's why my original proposal was just to use the borders as visual indicators, not creating more cells.
I'm actually not opposed to removing the color indicators altogether, but I'm afraid of the backlash of WP:ILIKEIT, and I don't think that adding color to tables is a bad thing if done properly. So if there's something that makes most people happy, and makes it more professional, I'd be ok with that. This is why I'm trying my best to explain why it looks unprofessional and I hope it doesn't get oversimplified to "color box next to words is bad".Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't personally feel there's any need for a redesign, and would be against Adam's given it would be difficult to see what is and isn't links. However, if any is being considered, I understand what Blue Pumpkin Pie was going for in their proposal, but to keep things in the same order as now, I would suggest we just reduce the color column size from what it currently is, rather than move it after the season number and as a line width coloring. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Premise and plot?[edit]

Can anyone think of any examples of quality articles that have a short premise summary like what I see at Northern Rescue, but that also have expanded season summaries like what I'd find at Veronica Mars? I am having trouble finding an article that has both. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You generally don't do both – it's more of an "either/or" situation. In general, newer TV series, or TV series that aren't very complex, will have 'Premise' sections which offer a brief overview of the overall series concept. 'Plot' sections (especially ones with season-by-season details) are usually reserved for series with more complete storylines – Veronica Mars would be a good example of that kind of show. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Premise is more for documentary, or reality or game style shows where a plot summary would be inappropriate. If you can go into season detail on a narrative show, you can go into plot detail in a full plot summary. But whether premise/plot summary/season summary or a combination of the three is appropriate comes down to the individual format. Heroes has been back on TV again and it might be a good candidate for short premise and detailed season sections, because of how its arcs were broken up season-wise and the whole show has a unifying motive, but I can't think of another example. Kingsif (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Not just those – in general, I would say most sitcoms would only merit a 'Premise' section. Sitcoms generally aren't "deep" enough to merit actual detailed 'Plot' sections. Some other kinds of scripted series may not merit 'Plot' sections either. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, sitcoms and some soaps, too. Long running + not deep. Kingsif (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

LGBTQ sections[edit]

The user Historyday01 has been going around to various articles on animated TV series and adding large sections about LGBTQ representation and/or views. (typical example) I can see that for some shows that's a big part of the discourse about the show, but for others, it just isn't. If such matters are tangential to the show's general reception, perhaps being only mentioned in niche or low-quality sources, they should not be given WP:Undue weight. The same applies to any minority group, of course. I think for some of these shows it needs to be reverted, and people more familiar with them can take a look for themselves.

A lot of this material appears to be largely copied from specialized articles they have basically written, like LGBTQ representation in adult animation. If an article like that has a paragraph or two about a show, that makes sense, but lifting that amount of material into the article on the show itself is not appropriate. Crossroads -talk- 23:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I added those sections because I wanted to improve those articles. My actions are completely justified. Besides, if someone wants to get rid of the sections, that's their prerogative. Usually I've only been adding in a paragraph at most, then linking back to the page. There are a number of shows on the LGBTQ representation in adult animation page which I did not add sections to articles, as the content was pretty minimal, like Brickleberry or any of those under "Other networks." I would not say that any of the additions I made give "minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects" as is stated on WP:UNDUE. Not in the slightest. The sections I had added for Futurama, Drawn Together, The Venture Bros., Archer, and The Simpsons have already been removed to address your request. The only one that remains is on the "South Park" page, which is is only four sentences long (and one paragraph), which is minuscule compared to the section above it, which is four paragraphs long. So, @Crossroads, your argument is now moot. So, just drop it. Historyday01 (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate you reconsidering and removing sections where it doesn't really fit. I don't appreciate that in doing so you said it was because of an "annoying editor", but you didn't name me and did in fact go back to the status quo, so I'll let it go for now. The fact is I only reverted at Futurama and brought the matter here for wider input. But it seems you already kind of know which shows it was undue on. Crossroads -talk- 23:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't as much a "reconsideration" but whatever. There's no need to have this discussion at this point, as your complaint has been addressed. Every other page I have added sections to, like Hazbin Hotel, Helluva Boss, Magical Girl Friendship Squad, Harley Quinn, Adventure Time: Distant Lands, RWBY, Adventure Time, Steven Universe, and Steven Universe Future all have prominent LGBTQ characters, almost all in the main cast, which is why they have sections. --Historyday01 (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Historyday01:, your attitude in this isn't appropriate: starting your first comment "here we go again" and referring to someone trying to have discussion as an "annoying editor". Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF on that note. As for the article sections; I'm more concerned with the new articles created, which are less about representation and more just a simple prose-version of the "List of LGBT characters in" whatever media list articles. The content is just "X show has these queer characters", and sometimes unsourced. Burn it all, I say. I say this coming from WikiProject LGBT Studies, too. The information just already exists in a better form on Wikipedia. And even when the show has lots of prominent queer characters, you have to look at the article and see if, in the whole article, a random paragraph listing queer characters is appropriate for the length, level of detail, structure, etc. Because it's not going to be one of the first things added (basic information first), and depending on how much it's relevant to the show's notability in other media, does not deserve such a large %age of the article's text. Given the current content is less than a character list, have you considered making a character list instead? @Crossroads: I agree we need more discussion on these new articles and additions to other articles. Kingsif (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif, as for the first sentence, I have dealt with many annoying people on here since I started editing similar pages, so I saw the OP as falling into the same category. I'm not going to apologize for what I said in that regard. As for the rest of your comment, the new articles were created because the old articles were not workable. I reorganized the content in the way that made sense. The content was already in those old articles for about half a year and no one objected, so it made sense to put them in a better format. And yes, I already have character lists, and the history pages are an extension of those lists. There can be list pages AND history pages. I disagree with you and Crossroads that there needs to be more discussion about the articles, which are valid under existing Wikipedia rules and procedures. If you are that concerned about the new articles, why don't you edit them and make changes on them rather than just complaining about it? Because if you aren't, then your words are basically worthless. I can't maintain those articles on my own, as I had been doing in the past. Historyday01 (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif and @Crossroads, can we please end this discussion? I don't want to say anything I regret, after pulling back my past comments from yesterday and today which I shouldn't have said, and I see this as not worth any of our time. This is just getting way too toxic for my taste, and I think we should adjourn this discussion permanently and move on. Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
We can continue it without you? You don't have to stick around and talk, but, no, nobody is going to close a discussion and drop genuine concerns because an article creator doesn't like it. Kingsif (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. I just think this discussion isn't productive anymore. That's all. But since it won't be closed, I guess I have no choice but to participate, since I was mentioned in the first place. If you have suggestions for recombining the pages or whatnot, then propose them here and we can work together to consider each option on its merits. I guess I have no choice but to choose that option. Historyday01 (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Just want to drop a li’l note here to say that your comment about “burn[ing] it all” comes across as incredibly tone-deaf, considering that LGBTQ+ topics have systemically been under-represented on Wikipedia. I also want to publicly note that I believe Historyday01’s contributions are excellent and sorely needed. Wikipedia has mega problems with systemic bias, and Historyday01’s work collectively represents a step in the right direction. I don't understand all the drama here, tbh.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gen. Quon: as an active member of the LGBT project, I know the issues. Sorry if you don't like my humorous expressions, but "burn it all" sounds friendlier than "let's delete every contribution this user has made in the last 2 months", no? Most of which are duplicate articles or UNDUE prose lists. The drama was their very uncivil attitude that seems to have been tempered, but they still like to delete every comment they don't like, so I don't know where it's all going. The work may be a step towards getting more mention of LGBT characters on Wikipedia, but that isn't Wikipedia's purpose if the coverage isn't appropriate. I'll kindly ask you to not join a discussion just to say you don't like me, especially when it's for no reason at all, and when you don't seem to have understood the discussion in the first place. Kingsif (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Gen. Quon came here to say that to me after Historyday01 decided to start shit-talking me and Crossroads to him. This isn't a playground where you can gossip with your friends then run over to be mean to the kids they don't like. Kingsif (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it gossip, but just talking to one of my friends on here. Anyway, if you are taking seriously the idea of deleting "every contribution" that I have made "in the last 2 months," then that would be awful. Without a doubt, there is duplication, but I see no problem with that. And I revised the pages today to make them a little more succinct, moving content BACK to the History pages. I'm willing to say that some of the pages are text-heavy, but I would say that should be addressed on a page-by-page basis. In terms of deleting "every comment" I don't like, I have done that in the past, but I can say I will not do that in the future. I can't go back and reverse my previous actions, but I can get better. I am glad to see you say that the "work may be a step towards getting more mention of LGBT characters on Wikipedia." I would agree that the information should only be added if the coverage is appropriate and I would say the current sections (not including the ones I removed to address the concerns of Crossroads) I have added to articles are appropriate. With that, I have to agree with Gen. Quon that "LGBTQ+ topics have systemically been under-represented on Wikipedia" and the fact that my "contributions are excellent and sorely needed." I further agree with their assessment that "Wikipedia has mega problems with systemic bias" and their contention that my work, "collectively represents a step in the right direction." Similarly, I don't understand all the drama here either. It seems highly unnecessary, to be honest. Kingsif, if you have suggestions for each of the pages, please make them on the specific pages. I would be glad to hear your suggestions and am open to them. Otherwise, your comments are broad and prone to problems. Historyday01 (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Holy bananas. I don't even know where to start. I reached out to Historyday01 to let them know they were doing some good work, and then they expressed some frustrations they were having. They then pointed me here. I read the discussion, agreeing with Historyday01 that your comment was not very friendly nor was it constructive (and for the record, "let's delete every contribution this user has made in the last 2 months" isn't much better). I therefore noted my thoughts on this matter. It doesn't matter if you're "an active member of the LGBT project"—your comment was mean-spirited and completely inappropriate given Wikipedia's commitment to civility, not to mention its admonition to not bite newcomers. It invalidated hard work, and very well could drive away a new editor whose future on here looks bright. This isn't gossip. This isn't "shit-talk". It's me—a seasoned Wikipedia editor who is hoping to counter systemic bias and cyber-gatekeeping—expressing my observations.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Gen Quon has it right. Kingsif, you keep throwing the commitment to civility at me, but have you been that civil yourself? Again, I repeat, despite your conduct, I remain open to your suggestions. If you would like to propose any suggestions to what I have proposed, I am all ears. I am constantly making changes to the pages all the time, going through them with a fine tooth comb. In fact, if you look at the history of the LGBTQ representation in animated web series page today, you will see that I moved content BACK to History of LGBTQ characters in animation: 2020s page, doing the same on the Netflix and LGBTQ representation in animation page as well, trying to only keep content on there which specifically related to the shows (in this case She-Ra and the Princesses of Power and Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts), while general content went to the 2020s page I just mentioned and the History of LGBTQ characters in animation: 2010s page. Similarly, I reduced the number of sections on the LGBTQ representation in adult animation page, slimming it down a bit, moving a good deal of content to the History of LGBTQ characters in animation: 2000s and History of LGBTQ characters in animated series: 1990s pages. Also, with the Cartoon Network and LGBTQ representation page, I revised the format again, moving some content to the 2000s and 2010s page I mentioned earlier. Of course, I have, on the talk pages of each of those pages I created, attribution to other pages, making clear when content has been moved or split off. I'm not a genius, even though I have a graduate school education (I graduated over a year ago with a MLIS degree which I am still very proud of) and I'm always learning more. I do not know everything, and Kingsif, you don't either. Each of us has pages we edit and update on specific subjects...and that's ok! That's the joy of Wikipedia! I once complained to a friend, back in grad school about how Wikipedia was awful and that it did no one any good, as part of a school project in Spring 2019. Since then, I've grown to appreciate Wikipedia as a living, breathing organism of sorts. Of course, there are still unsourced content, toxicity, gender imbalance in the number of editors, corporations and governments coming into Wikipedia to influence public perceptions, and other problems. Even so, I see believe I can do positive things for this community and I stand by that, no matter what gets in my way. Like many fellow humans, I do not wish for confrontation or conflict. Rather I just want to edit Wikipedia without any drama, which you are causing. In sum, No one on here knows everything, even if they think they do. But, I can't do this alone, which is why I posted about it on the LGBT studies page to begin with. While I somewhat regret that and the actions that led to this, and as much as I would like to keep pages on the "down low," as I call it, that's not really productive for improving Wikipedia, so I have been trying to reach out more. I admit I've made mistakes in the past, but creating these pages was NOT a mistake and I will not apologize for my stewardship of the pages. I do not own the pages, but I would like and position myself so I am a big part of them. I do hope this discussion leads to a productive result, ultimately. However, I am seriously doubting that, sad to say. I am truly sorry for everyone on this project which has to witness this discussion. I wish it could have been better and perhaps I could have worded things differently. But, we are where we are now, so we just have to bury the hatchet, make up, and move forward. It is the only way.--Historyday01 (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, the trash-talking other editors you did was definitely improper. But, sure, we'll bury the hatchet on that; just don't resume that behavior. I am all for reducing systemic bias against LGBTQ topics (and other topics about other minorities), but that is still done in accord with WP:Due weight. As I said, I do appreciate that you recognized which shows are hardly about LGBTQ and removed the undue weight. When it comes to articles that are focused on LGBTQ topics, please also be sure to avoid poorly sourced speculations or non-canon publicity-mongering about characters that are not clearly LGBTQ (as I removed here [1][2]). Crossroads -talk- 22:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok then. I'm not going to address your first sentences, as I don't want to get into any more drama on that subject, but I will agree with you that "reducing systemic bias against LGBTQ topics (and other topics about other minorities)" is justified, especially with specific pages on the topic, which I'm creating all the time. In terms of those shows, its not as much as "undue weight," a term which is used by some users on here, against LGBTQ articles and pages, or sections about LGBTQ character or themes, but rather that it made more sense for those pages specifically. Whether certain sections are undue weight applies on a case-by-case basis, page by page. In terms of that "non-canon publicity-mongering," in regard to Lisa Simpson, I would say your removal made sense. I'm fine with it because The Simpsons (I mean, Smithers was in the closet for over 20 years as a gay character, not coming out until 2016!) has not been very good with LGBTQ representation anyway and there are many other canon characters on that page. But, sure I'll try to "avoid poorly sourced speculations" too, although I doubt there are many, or any, of those, considering I try to use the best sources I can, with some exceptions to that, of course.Historyday01 (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Spongebob episode articles[edit]

Further to the discussion of individual episode article notability above, I thought I'd bring to discussion the episode articles for SpongeBob SquarePants which are either not Wikiproject-tagged or only WP Animation-tagged, so they wouldn't necessarily be noticed. But for the purposes of episode broadcast, they come under television guidelines.

"Survival of the Idiots" was recently created and I PROD'ed it for non-notability through new page review, since it is almost entirely a plot summary and at the time the only other sources was direct from Nickelodeon saying it was broadcast and included on a DVD. This is basically saying that it exists, which is not notable. The article creator removed the PROD with the reason that it was notable, no evidence provided (I know anyone can remove a PROD, but when they are so obviously ignoring concerns just to stop a speedy delete that doesn't come under an easy category it's plain insulting to Wikipedia process). They then seem to have scoured the internet for any other source and added IMDb ratings and appearance on a Screen Rant list. We all know the IMDb guidelines. SR is an RS, a little more reliable than Buzzfeed but in the same realm - I use it, but as supplemental, and I think anyone who knows media sources would agree that coverage on SR doesn't automatically denote notability, and, moreover, that an episode only being covered outside of publication on a rank list of its season's episodes, unless it's an exceptionally good source, isn't a metric of notability. Most recently, a note was added that the entire plot description is copied from Fandom wiki. If this is the case for all the Spongebob episodes, which are almost all WP:ALLPLOT, then we are now just hosting non-notable duplicates.

I then checked the previous episode listed in the SotI infobox, which is this Christmas episode. It was nominated for deletion, the AfD closed as redirect to the season article/episode list, but it was recreated not long after. I actually thought this episode might be more notable, as it serves as the introduction of a recurring character, but there are no sources about it. The patent lack of notability and the behavior of multiple editors blatantly ignoring Wikipedia process to ensure these episode articles continue to exist when they know they should not concerns me. Given the subject matter, I also consider that the editors may be young children who simply don't care about rules, and intervention is needed.

Maybe discussion could be had, because several of Spongebob's first season episode articles are GAs (though some of those I would definitely consider for review), but after a point there is no external coverage and so no notability and burning them all seems obvious. The Christmas episode is an interesting case: it falls between some of the GA episodes, making the lack of coverage and notability much more obvious. Link to the navbox for easy access to all episode articles. Kingsif (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah one of them is at reassessment for possibly delisting from GA, To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants, and I recommended wider discussion. By their nature, kids' shows receive less coverage (e.g. in professional reviews) than adults' shows with the same impact, but I don't think we have any policies/guidelines which aim to counteract this balance (and there are good reasons we might not want to).
Young editors are often a net positive but can cause issues when it comes to non-notable and non-reliable information. Wherever possible we should be directing them to Wikia—judging by its size there's a big community at Wikia for SpongeBob.
I think we should have a bulk AfD or RfC or something about mass redirecting the SpongeBob articles, because it seems that even the GAs have little more than a plot, routine details about credits/release and a couple of borderline-reliability reviews. However, it would be good to check if there are any book sources that might make exceptional episodes notable. I'm sure the pilot is but I'm not even convinced its Reception section demonstrates that at the moment. — Bilorv (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up the reassessment. Good point; the pilot has other issues in its development that I would like to address, too, but I think it much more easily passes notability. I might post a link to this discussion at the Animation and Nickelodeon projects, but mass AfD could be the way to go. Since there are likely GAs that would be deleted, I'll link there, too. Kingsif (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
One more point I meant to make: I've been seeing a lot more of Screen Rant lately and I consider it reliable, but not necessarily significant. It has a lot of listicles and even quotes IMDb or other user-generated sources a lot, so "X was 18th on a Screen Rant list" is not necessarily significant literary criticism, but it can be fine to quote for a specific piece of critical analysis or a real-world production detail. I would consider it almost never relevant for determining notability. — Bilorv (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Support taking to AFD, although I have concerns that a mass AFD might fail on procedural grounds. I've mainly been looking at To Squarepants or not to Squarepants, and the sourcing is very weak and there doesn't seem to be anything better available that I can find. Coverage of a lot of these episodes seems to be limited to plot recaps with small chunks or analysis is pretty marginal sources. Hog Farm Bacon 20:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Pardon me for barging in, but I agree. Episode articles like "Family Gay" and "You Only Move Twice" stay because they have analyses of the content, and development information, so you get a better idea of what went into making the episode. SpongeBob doesn't do many DVD commentaries or interviews, so articles like "Krusty Krab Training Video" and "Squid Noir" have nothing to say besides "this aired and some random people liked it." Children's literature and TV is usually a problem on Wikipedia, ripe with plagiarism and unreliable sources. Scrooge200 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I also support taking these episodes to AFD. Pages like "The Legend of Boo-Kini Bottom" and "Squid Noir" are WP:PLOTONLY, containing only a plot section and a premiere date that doesn't pass WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 20:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

David Salzman[edit]

Could anyone offer an addition set of eyes on this article? I have concerns regarding material not being supported by the citations provided, but my efforts to tag or resolve these issues have been reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt episodes[edit]

An editor decided to make episode articles for every episode of season 1 so far. I skimmed through each of the episode articles and none of them even pass WP:GNG, maybe just the first episode. Everything is already covered on the Episode table. The production section of each of the individual episode article only consist who wrote and directed the episode. Reception only include WP:UGC, specifically IMDb which isn't even appropriate to use. I see nothing new on the individual episode articles. Can editors who are familiar with individual episode articles weigh in on this? — YoungForever(talk) 01:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@YoungForever: Never seen the show but I do deal with episode articles from time to time. I glanced at a few episode articles at random and casting sources (just a list of guest stars in all the ones I viewed) are from IMDb, which isn't reliable. Also on the ones I viewed the critical response section solely lists IMDb user ratings as the entirety of the section which is a problem because we don't list user ratings and again IMDb is not a reliable source. Finally the plot sections on the articles I viewed are way too long going over the maximum word count allowed at MOS:TVPLOT. I recommend redirecting all of them and reinstating the table with compliant episode summaries at the LoE page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I did glance at the first episodes article (which I didn't do originally) and the sources seem valid (Deadline Hollywood, TFC, A.V. Club) so it could probably stay as is unless all of the information is already duplicated at the series article in which case it should be redirected. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I am getting so tired of editors creating useless episode articles like this. We need a firm guideline on the minimum to include in an article, as the discussion on separate episode articles has come up at least four times in the past couple of months (Mandalorian, Into the Dark, Spongebob, now UKS). All these articles need redirecting and the summaries restored (and since when do we not include an inline table summary if the episode has an article?). I will happily draftify the 13 articles (so the content isn't deleted) and restore the LoE article to how it was. -- /Alex/21 02:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I have no objection having the 13 episode articles draftify as they are not even close to pass WP:GNG. — YoungForever(talk) 04:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the course of action here, and wanted to add we have to make sure discussion does not die down either above or at Wikipedia:Notability (television) to ensure we actual make a notability guideline. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: I went ahead and draftified all of the 13 episode articles. Even the first episode article was copied and pasted from the main article and List of episodes article. — YoungForever(talk) 23:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
These are of course not appropriate for mainspace. I've encouraged the author to add these synopses to Wikia. The information is not "useless", but just not part of Wikipedia's goal. We shouldn't just bin useful work like this. We should always be encouraging people to repurpose the content for another venue when hard work has gone into it, even if that work is misguided with respect to Wikipedia's goal. — Bilorv (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. — YoungForever(talk) 00:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll add that more rules and guidelines would be no help in such cases, because the article clearly makes no attempt at passing the existing texts WP:GNG, WP:IRS etc. What is needed is patience and engagement in discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems that every few weeks some fairly new editor would make episode articles for episodes of a TV series and the episode articles only the plot and/or copied and pasted information from the main article. — YoungForever(talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Episode notability suggestions[edit]

While WP:NTV is still being worked out, and given the ever-increasing discussions as more and more episode articles are created, I have some suggestions for criteria. I don't intend this as an RfC, but to see if the ideas have general support before an RfC on adding them to the guidelines.

  1. Principle: an episode should demonstrate notability on its own; that is, the article would pass GNG regardless of the series. Therefore, it should include:
    1. Reliable sources* documenting its production, with more than a passing mention, and
    2. Reliable sources* documenting its reception, with more than a passing mention
    3. If an episode meets GNG, but not all of the NTV criteria, it may still get an article if...
  2. An episode article should normally have both production and reception sections to be considered notable, in line with MOS:TVPRODUCTION and MOS:TVRECEPTION, unless it was unreleased (see 4 & 5)
  3. If the episode belongs to a commissioned series, the show will normally have an article for any of its episodes to be considered notable. The episode is not considered notable enough for its own article if:
    1. It will only duplicate information that is sufficiently DUE at the series article or a relevant season article or a relevant episode list; or
    2. There is no season article or episode list covering the relevant span due to lack of coverage. Extremely notable individual episodes may be exceptions
  4. If the episode does not belong to a commissioned series, i.e. an orphaned pilot or unproduced pilot, it should demonstrate sufficient production coverage and lasting impact in reliable sources*
  5. If the episode belongs to a commissioned series but was unaired, or not completed, it should demonstrate sufficient notability for unproduced works as if it did not belong to any series. This includes production coverage and lasting impact in reliable sources*
  6. An episode that may not meet all of the individual criteria can be deemed notable if it is part of a season of television that is extensively studied and of significant historic notability; that is, the season is the subject of lasting academic criticism and extensive lasting popular culture coverage of sufficient depth. In these cases, a majority of the season's episodes must also meet independent notability criteria (see discussion)
  7. Plot, release and casting details are considered trivial and non-notable coverage, as they are all evident and able to be confirmed through an episode's mere existence; however, they should be included in episode articles that are otherwise notable
  8. Being nominated for or winning awards, even Emmys and BAFTAs, does not automatically denote episode notability; these can be covered at a season or series article (see discussion)
  9. Some variation upon saying episodes released as part of a streaming block, with the exception of anthology series, (probably) may not get enough coverage to be independently notable

*Reliable sources refers to those relevant to the TV WikiProject, and independent to the production of the episode. These do not have to be in English.

Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this. On the specific topic of TV pilots, I really think we need to clamp down on this area especially, and we should be clear that "significant coverage" actually means more than short-term coverage (and/or sourcing demonstrating a "lasting impact"), so we avoid outcomes like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Times (TV pilot) where the "keep" outcome at AfD was truly a travesty. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Changed "popular impact" to "lasting impact" above Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, you want to avoid words like "must". A guideline will instead generally say something like, "Notable television series and series episodes will generally receive significant coverage on both their production aspects and their critical response and/or cultural impact." I'm not saying the wording will be exactly this – but it shouldn't use words like "must", as there will always be exceptions. That's actually why I have a problem with the current first sentence of WP:TVSHOW – saying "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." just isn't clear enough that there are definitely exceptions to this, and "airing nationally" on its own isn't enough. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I'm hoping this will be prose-ified before becoming a guideline, as well. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The wording An episode article should normally have both production and reception sections to be considered notable" reads as more to do with article quality than notability. Notability on those points are things like an overly long production period e.g. took three times as long to shoot as a normal episode, had 12 directors, was scheduled for series 3 but didn't surface until series 5 etc, and reception is, it was universally praised/trashed. I don't think notability should be dictated by having a section, that would invite padding. - X201 (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@X201: There's a discussion below about what qualifies as suitable production/reception sections. Perhaps if the wording explains that it should have such sections that meet the TV MOS? Kingsif (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Thanks for all these suggestions. I just want to point out (at least in my view), the text currently being drafted at WP:NTV in regards to television pilots/unaired pilots, and television episodes is more or less "accepted" for what it is, and probably should be used as a basis to expand upon with anything else discussed here. I'm not saying what's at Wikipedia:Notability (television)#Television pilots, future series or seasons, and unreleased series and Wikipedia:Notability (television)#Television episodes are the be all end all, just that there's a good foundation there and that text shouldn't be disregarded when considering any further changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh also, anything that is seemingly agreed upon can just be added right to the proposed NTV because it's just in a drafting stage. Based on how it was described to me, once this project/concerned editors agree on something as drafted, then we should have RfCs to get wider input. We aren't there yet, so as I said, we can just make changes right to the proposal. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Season crit[edit]

There needs to be some version of criteria 5 from WP:BOOKCRIT: The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. Some TV shows or franchises are so notable that their entire history is studied. On the other hand, we don't want this to be a license to having every episode of a long-running, studied-in-academic-circles soap opera have individual articles "because WP:TVEPISODECRIT." To prevent "runaway article creation" I would recommend that the criteria be limited to episodes that are part of a season or series in which over half of the members already qualify for and already have articles (not redirects). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 21:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion, so the TV season is so historically significant that any of its episode can be considered notable? How about a variation on (added as #6):
  1. An episode that may not meet all of the individual criteria can be deemed notable if it is part of a season of television that is extensively studied and of significant historic notability; that is, the season is the subject of lasting academic criticism and extensive lasting popular culture coverage of sufficient depth. In these cases, a majority of the season's episodes must also meet independent notability criteria.
I really agree on that last point; I know a season that would theoretically qualify but I don't think any of its episodes are really notable enough and wouldn't like to see the exception be used to have them created and kept. Kingsif (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, let's break down the process: in terms of articles, it's TV series -> LoE -> season -> episode(s) in order (sometimes the LoE step is skipped). Why do I bring this up? Because some TV series will not qualify for separate "season" articles, and just because a "season" article exists/is justified doesn't mean that individual TV episode articles are justified. So I would be leery of the idea that having a well-studied TV "season" necessarily implies that individual episodes will qualify for standalone articles. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
If most of the episodes are notable, and the season is notable, does that make all of the other episodes to some level notable as default? When David mentioned it, I looked from the reader's perspective; that if a season seems so significant, and I find an article for most of its episodes, I want to read about the rest of them and would find it strange that some seemed randomly excluded. On the other hand, if a series is that well-studied and most of its episodes notable, then episodes that can't procure enough independent notability may very well be not significant at all or it would have at least some coverage. Kingsif (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Let the coverage dictate it. First, this hypothetical episode will still be covered – in the season article. But I would have a problem with creating an article for an episode like The Burning (Seinfeld) just because "all the other episodes in that season have articles", because "The Burning" doesn't have the requisite production or even "review" level coverage... So, I think I have a problem with the idea that a "well-studied" season in which most of the episodes have standalone articles should "require" the other episodes to get articles even when the coverage doesn't justify it. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I would avoid this. Take, for example, most of the streaming services original programming which release new seasons of a show in one block. Because of that model, the season is clearly notable (eg Stranger Things (season 3)) but none of the individual episodes would be. --Masem (t) 21:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh no, you've reminded me of streaming blocks. Are episodes released all at once non-notable by default? I feel like that's the case and it would take some good sources to show otherwise. Kingsif (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Most of the time, yes, since all the media before and after release focus on the season. You may get individual episode reviews but rarely a single episode in a bloc gets the development or production-type details that a normal broadcast episode may get (comparing how Stranger Things was reported on to how Watchmen or Westworld had been handled). So I'd definitely make sure to account for this. I agree that in a normal case, if 50%+ of a season's episodes are notable, the rest likely are, so given that rarely a streaming bloc episode is notable, this may not be an issue. --Masem (t) 22:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
It probably doesn't need to be noted, then. Unless we want a whole section on streaming at the eventual guideline. Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
In regards to this and #9 above, I think the tone of the statement should be lessened, or that number removed all together. We just need to state something like "episodes released in a block may not get the individual coverage to warrant individual articles" because it is still possible for a singular episode in a block (perhaps the first or last) to get significant coverage. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Black Mirror (series 3 to 5) is an exception but anthologies are more likely to receive individual episode attention. — Bilorv (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify My original suggestion was NOT to say "you can create a [non-list-article] page about a season" (or "series" for things like the new Doctor Who) but rather "if the series/season qualified under general notability guidelines, whether it had an article or not, and where half or more of the episodes in the series/season already qualify for an article outside of this special "it's part of a notable season/season" exemption, then in order to "complete the set" all other episodes in that season will be "given a pass" on notability, much as otherwise-non-notable works by famous authors do not have to show they are notable in and of themselves." In other words, as with the books by famous authors, and for that matter songs and albums by famous musicians, sometimes "notability IS inherited" WP:NOTINHERITED notwithstanding. As for shows without distinct "seasons" things like "identifiable story arcs or other definable large contiguous sequences of episodes" or "the whole run of the show" can be used to substitute for "season/series." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 22:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we understood what you meant, but are not sure if we actually want to "complete the set" or not: from a reader perspective, we surely would, but episodes of a single season (or series) are much more closely connected than books by the same author (some of which may be much older and/or more obscure), so we can reasonably expect that if most of the episodes meet GNG, all of them will, and those that don't are exceptionally not-notable. Kingsif (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Awards[edit]

For those already part of the discussion @IJBall, Masem, and Davidwr:, I've now added #8, about awards. I think this seems an obvious point of notability, but that it might be controversial. Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. But also on the flip side, depending on the type of award nomination, by getting such it in theory could be believed that there's enough coverage out there to make an article. But an article shouldn't be created solely because of such nominations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing ideas[edit]

So these ideas are just supposed to be standalone distinct ideas we could either get consensus for or against? Mentioned in discussion above (and with precedents at WP:NFO and WP:NBOOK) would be variations upon "X reviews", such as: (a) at least two reviews in reliable (inter-)national sources; (b) at least two reviews in reliable (inter-)national sources excluding those known for an extremely large number of reviews (IGN, A.V. Club have been given as examples); (c) at least five reviews in reliable (inter-)national sources. I would also add a possibility "winning an award can count towards this threshold" or just an option "winning a major award" that automatically qualifies as notability (in direct contradiction to criterion #8). Also maybe I'm missing it but I'd like a way for supporters of the following claim to have the potential for it to become consensus: "if a season/program has received extremely detailed coverage and the majority of episodes in the season/program are notable then the episode is considered notable" (targeted at people who think it would be an undesirable outcome to have 21 articles and 3 redirects for a season of a show). — Bilorv (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
To the first point, I didn't want to detail what a decent reception section would be. I think we all agree a reception section is needed, but what constitutes a notable reception section is debated. Perhaps a fixed number of reception articles (not necessarily reviews), with an award (that has a Wikipedia article for it/awarding body) counting towards that number, is the way to go. Should that be hashed out before RfC?
And please continue discussing the merits of the extremely detailed coverage part, more than three views on the matter would be great.
Kingsif (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I can tell you what doesn't constitute a "proper" 'Response' section – one that only cites Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic! I would actually like to see it written in the guideline that a "proper" 'Response' section must (and here I would use "must"!) have more than just Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and must include proper individual reviews, and that sections consisting of just Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can be removed from the article. I come across this fairly often. Right now, MOS:TV doesn't specifically speak to this, but it should. --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, what constitutes a "proper" production section should probably also be worked out, but these are more likely needed at MOS:TV, which you mention. And then linked from the notability criteria. I.e. NTV should say we expect "proper" production and reception sections, and see the MOS for what that means. Kingsif (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a much higher bar for notability than is currently being used in AfD discussions. How are you planning on establishing a wider consensus for that meaningful change, outside of a few people talking and drafting on this page? — Toughpigs (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
That's good. AfDs are being closed as keep with reasons like "they said they're looking for sources and it exists so that's good enough for now", but it isn't good enough; there's a lower bar for notability of films than books and even then that's higher than the current acceptable level of TV episodes. There has to be a good reason to not just give the episode routine coverage at a season/show article to justify an individual article - because the more individual articles exist the more it prompts people to create them for every episode ever - but editors who have caught the creation bug want to give that routine coverage in a stubby episode article. The TV project can decide on TV notability criteria, then start an RfC for guideline inclusion (as I mentioned in the first sentence). But even if this discussion is just something referenced in AfDs as the intention of editors who are focusing on TV articles, it's something of a win. Kingsif (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I said in the previous discussion: RT/Metacritic are only worth citing when they list more than 20 reviews, otherwise there's too much random fluctuation, and if it has 20 reviews then enough of the 20 should be high-quality enough to justify a standalone article. If you see a "Reception" that just cites RT and/or Metacritic then replace them with the set of reviews cited that are reliable/good for Wikipedia's purpose. If there are then not enough for notability then it's time for WP:BEFORE and if that fails then AfD or redirect (and for consistency it's best to look at all episode articles for that show/season as well if you can). — Bilorv (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
My problem with using RT/Metacritic as a metric is that lots of non-American shows are not included, or get much less coverage. I think saying that only RT/Metacritic is not a suitable reception section is fine, but we shouldn't say an episode needs X amount on either, because some will never reach that no matter their notability. Kingsif (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps you've misunderstood. I don't support any requirement that RT or Metacritic pages even exist for an episode to be notable. My comment above is intended to imply that RT/Metacritic are unrelated to notability—it is only the reviews that they list that could be useful in assessing this. — Bilorv (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Good idea. Should that be at the MOS? (MOS:TVRECEPTION) Kingsif (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Be explicit that if WP:GNG or any other applicable notability criteria is met, it is considered notable even if it fails this criteria due to things like missing production information or missing audience information from its initial airing. This can easily happen if old, previously obscure/forgotten episodes are "re-discovered" and heavily commented on by journalists. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Started a line at 1.3 to this effect Kingsif (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Be explicit that Wikipedia is not obligated to have an article about a TV episode that meets this or any other notability criteria IF there is an existing consensus against it or if the standard practice for that particular TV show is to not have stand-alone episode articles (see also: WP:SPLIT).
Is that really a notability issue? Or just a "don't make an article that we've agreed not to make" issue? Kingsif (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It's the latter but I've seen enough arguments over things like this over the years that it's worth putting in any special notability guideline, even if it's just in an appendix-type section that doesn't carry the "weight" of a policy or guideline near the bottom. The controlling guidelines/policies are probably those that address WP:CONSENSUS and other behavioral guidelines, along with a dash of WP:BOLD and WP:BRD for cases where there is no firm consensus against per-episode articles but some indication of a standard practice of not having them for this series/season despite notable examples being available. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Outstanding Comedy Series?[edit]

Hey all, I'm looking at Dan Levy (Canadian actor). Do individuals usually have "Outstanding Comedy Series" in their award listings? I mean, obviously he was a contributor, but it seems like the award belongs to the show, not the individual. Similarly, do show articles get to brag about Best Actor awards? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

To the first question: yes. The Best Series award, like Best Picture at the Oscars, is awarded to the producers. Dan and Eugene Levy were both producers, and both have this award listed. The show could also list acting awards, and many do, but sometimes it can get excessive and they're moved off/chopped. Kingsif (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, Best Actor awards should always be mentioned at show articles (and if that causes a split then sobeit). Agreed with the first question: if someone won a Best Series award as producer then that's a good reason to mention it on their article. — Bilorv (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm in the camp that disagrees and does not think TV show articles should include awards for individual actors in the Awards table. I'm fine with that being mentioned in prose – but awards for actors are more for the actors than for the works they are in. Writing and directing, etc. awards? Yes. But not actor awards, which are more for the actors themselves. --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

NFL on Nickelodeon[edit]

Is this an appropriate standalone article?! It was a one-off broadcast (at least, as of now). I could see merging some of that content to Nickelodeon, but I really can't see the justification for an entire article on a single broadcast like this... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Skimmed through the article earlier and thought the same myself. As the lead puts it clearly, "The NFL on Nickelodeon is the branding used for broadcasts of National Football League (NFL) games..." And then the infobox lists that there has been 1 season/1 episode of this? Definitely not, a 'branding' would not be using seasons or episodes. I'm sure the information could be used elsewhere, and maybe being a separate article (like it currently is) if there were to be plenty more NFL on Nickelodeon games, but as a one-off, a standalone article doesn't seem necessary.
I really wouldn't be surprised if there were more NFL games aired on Nickelodeon in the future with the positive reception I've seen regarding this game, but nothing has been announced in regards to the future and a one-time branding shouldn't justify a standalone article at this point (unless it were to be SUPER notable for whatever reason(s)). Magitroopa (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
There is also a separate article just for this game, to which the NFL on Nickelodeon redirects. I think this is getting a little out of hand. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I created the redirect mainly because, as a one-off at the moment, it's a better and relevant location. I also declined the speedy deletion request because A7 is not about notability, but not having an indication of importance, which is a lower standard than notability. The amount of notoriety/coverage this game received because of the Nickelodeon involvement does meet this, in my opinion. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
If anything then keep the NFL on Nickelodeon page and get rid of the game page. The game itself was not notable (except maybe the first application of the "no PAT on a game ending score that doesn't matter" rule). Make a page for the coverage, and mention the game. Jdavi333 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
No, that seems completely backwards – the game is more likely notable than a one-off programming stunt. --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I concur with IJBall here. The game is more notable as it aired on several different networks simultaneously. — YoungForever(talk) 23:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills[edit]

There seems to be a disagreement on noted guest appearance on this page history. According to IMDB, before they were main cast members, Lisa Rinna had a credited guest appearance on season 4 episode 10, and Denise Richards had a credited guest appearance on season 5 episode 11. A user keeps deleting this source and removing the appearance from the cast timeline. They say this is not IMDB and these should not be included. If they were credited, then we should note that. Any advise on where to go from here? Thanks! Ev Thom (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Is TVPassport a reliable source?[edit]

Awikiuserintheworld brought the website [3] to my attention. I'm curious what folks think about it as RS. From what I can tell, it's based in Canada and is not WP:SPS. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I've found no issue with it. I've used it for The Next Step and we're currently using it for Vikings season 6, and it's always been correct. -- /Alex/21 23:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The dates may be wrong, but otherwise the episodes are correct. Oh, and the seasons are wrong. Awikiuserintheworld (talk)

That sounds like it's anything but reliable... At the least, I wouldn't use this if any other reliable sourcing is available for the same info. --IJBall (contribstalk) 03:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you provide examples of this, Awikiuserintheworld? -- /Alex/21 11:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Beyond the Break episodes[edit]

Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I'm soliciting opinion here – Is this a viable standalone article? Or should it be merged into Beyond the Break. TIA. --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

See as there's hardly anything on the main article, it should probably be merged back. There's no real justification to split off the content, at least for page size. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Whose Line Is It Anyway? episode tables[edit]

I had previously raised this concern at Talk:List of Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American TV series) episodes#Episode table parameters back in October. Basically, the problem in short, all the table parameters are being entirely misused. For example...:

  • RTitle is being used to show episode airdates
  • ProdCode is being used to show Performer #4
  • Viewers is being used to show special guests in episodes (if there are any in a certain episode)
  • Aux4 is being used to show episode viewership data

I had tried to see ways it could be fixed on User:Magitroopa/sandbox/Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American season 16), but gave up. Revisiting this, I feel like the easiest/best way to fix this would be moving performers/special guests to the summary section, so then the summaries would show performers/special guests and the games performed, then allowing all the parameters to be in the correct locations. Then, the actual episode titles (that can be viewed here) can be used, since titles are not being shown at all (those same episode titles are how episodes are listed on the official website).

Please feel free to let me know if that idea is good, or if there's some better way at handling this. I'll see if I can attempt to fix the tables at some point, but anyone can feel free to themselves if they wish to. One of my main issues with tackling this is that it encompasses all 17 seasons of the American series, not just one season. It also seems like the issue is present at List of Whose Line Is It Anyway? (British TV series) episodes. Magitroopa (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I've commented at Talk:List of Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American TV series) episodes, and given one possible alternative table set-up. --IJBall (contribstalk) 01:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)