Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

Nomination of Bleach season 2 for featured list removal

I have nominated Bleach season 2 for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Bleach season 3 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Bleach season 4 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Bleach season 5 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Use of "&" in infobox credits

At St. Denis Medical, I noticed the infobox uses "Eric Ledgin & Justin Spitzer" in the creator entry (i.e., including the ampersand). I know ampersands have a specific meaning when it comes to writing credits, but I've never seen it enforced in infoboxes – there are plenty of other shows that don't do this despite the credits doing so (Modern Family, Parks and Recreation, and The Leftovers are a few examples I could confirm), and films with writing teams also omit ampersands. Does anyone know if there is a guideline for this? The documentation for {{Infobox television}} says to use a list template for multiple entries but nothing about the use of "&". RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

We go by according to credits, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 34#As credited on screen. Also, per MOS:&, But retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, such as in Up & Down or AT&T. Elsewhere, ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion where space is extremely limited (e.g., tables and infoboxes). — YoungForever^(talk) 05:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think quoting MOS:& like that is a bit misleading. The previous sentence makes it clear this is referring to the use of "&" in place of the longer "and": In normal text and headings, use and instead of the ampersand (&). I wouldn't go so far as to say it requires the use of "&" when a list could be used. As to the prior discussion, it's not super decisive when I read it (several people seemed opposed and simply didn't keep replying). The fact that many other articles don't use this format and that editors try to remove the "&" (at least judging from the hidden comment) would suggest an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS against it. So I'd say there's nothing wrong with using the "&", but there's also no reason to force an infobox to use that if other editors feel it should be removed. (At the very least, I find a hidden comment to justify it as overkill.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually we don't go by credits in the infobox, that is incorrect. We use plainlist to separate entries as is clearly stated in the infobox. We also don't follow what the WGA (or any writing guild in other countries) do per MOS:JARGON. If writing credits need to be explained, it should be done in actual article prose. Gonnym (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

No where on MOS:TV nor {{Infobox television}} nor MOS:AMP say "&" is frown upon to use in the infobox. A team is not multiple entries. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. A team name is a proper noun and the "&" is part of that name. The team entity is who got the credit, not the individuals that make up the team so the team name should be used. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

These teams are not a proper nouns, that isn't their "team name" and that is only the style of how the WGA denotes the credits (again, MOS:JARGON). Actual team names are Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead, Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer (no "&"). If you feel like MOS:JARGON, MOS:& and Template:Infobox television/doc are all incorrect, start a RFC. Gonnym (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with both YF and GP. See MOS:TVCAST. Names per credits also applies to a series' crew, down to the symbols. It doesn't matter whether it's an infobox or the article body. MOS:TVCAST does also say by common name and such, but that is only if for some reason credits aren't available. As an example, using an example name, there have been plenty of people who changed John A. Smith to John Smith because everywhere else he's listed or credited as John Smith; however, for a specific series, he decided he wanted to be credited as John A. Smith, which should be respected. The same applies here. Written by Apple and Orange means that they both worked on the episode, but separately, likely with different ideas, while written by Apple & Orange means they both worked on the episode as a team, likely with the same idea. Amaury • 22:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a distinction to be drawn between the way a person chooses to write their name and the way multiple names are combined in a list. For instance, some actors receive "with"/"and" before their name in the cast credits, but we don't do that here. The "&"/"and" for writers falls into a similar category. (To pull from an above example: Phil Lord chooses to be credited that name instead of, say, Philip Lord, so we reflect that, but he and Miller did not choose to be credited as "Phil Lord & Christopher Miller" – that's just credits jargon.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Just now coming across this discussion after an edit I suggested in an FAC was partially reverted. I have no opinion on whether we do or don't use an ampersand over the word "and", however we do need to come to a consensus even if it requires an RFC. I've seen multiple quotes to MOS:& and while I see the point these editors are making, I don't think I've seen anyone mention MOS:TVEPISODE which specifically says "In the WGA screenwriting credit system, an ampersand (&) is used to indicate a writing team or duo, while "and" is used to separate multiple writers who are not part of a team. Such distinctions, as credited, should be used in tables." It's no wonder we're having a debate over this when two versions of MOS are conflicting with each other. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure MOS:TVEPISODE is specifically for episode lists/tables, not infoboxes, which was the original topic here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The point is the same. It's names per credits, and that means symbols like the ampersand as well—a writing duo, not just two or more separate writers working on the same thing—per MOS:TVCAST. Amaury • 23:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Since the idea of a RFC has been batted around a couple of times, I drafted a version of what a question for such a discussion could look like. Not saying we have to go there, just providing it as an option or starting point. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Updates to Template:Series overview (continued)

Continuing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 39#Updates to Template:Series overview concerning the updates to {{Series overview}}:

• Per my quote legacy and new parameter formats will both be supported, until such a time that all live templates have had their parameters updated accordingly, at which point the legacy formats will be removed, all articles have been updated with the new |released#= paramaters, thus completely deprecating |end#=start from the template.
• The parameters |released=y and |allreleased=y have also been deprecated, and relevant articles are listed under Category:Pages using series overview with unknown parameters; this will be cleared out presently.

-- Alex_21 _TALK 03:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pages using series overview with unknown parameters has now been emptied; no {{Series overview}} template now uses |released=y or |allreleased=y. Thanks to all those that contributed. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

On the same topic, does {{Episode table}} really also need |released=y to differentiate between "Originally aired" and "Originally released"? If we were going by airing vs streaming, it would need to be "Originally aired" and "Originally streamed" - "Originally released" covers every format of release. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm all for being consistent with "released" across the TV templates. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

For the deprecated parameters of {{Episode table}}, I created Category:Pages using episode table with unknown parameters, and added checks for unknown parameters (turns out, there's a lot!). However, unfortunately Ahecht has reverted these necessary checks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21 {{Episode table}} gets abused quite a bit around here, often appearing hundreds or thousands of times on a single page, which can cause the WP:PEIS to balloon. If you integrate these checks into the module itself, rather than the template, you should be able to do the same checks without as large an impact on the include size. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you name any articles where {{Episode table}} appears thousands of times on a page? For example, on the recently-edited List of Law & Order episodes, it appears 24 times. I can think of a few articles where it would appear more, but I can not think of a single example where there's 1,000+ episode tables. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ahecht Sorry, forgot to ping in the above. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21 I must've been thinking of {{episode list}}, but in any case the template gets double-counted when on a transcluded page, such as the above, so it's effectively on that page 48 times. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ahecht Yes, that's a related but separate template, thus episode table is not the issue here. One template transcluded 48 times is extremely minimal; on the above example, there are 566 cite templates (1,132, if they're double-counted). I barely think the episode tables/lists are the issue here. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21 In any case you probably don't want to by bypassing the parameter checks when the module is invoked directly, so including the check there makes more sense. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that there is no need to invoke a minimal template into its respective module, that shouldn't need to happen. I'll restore any invoked episode table, use |dontclose=y, and restore the parameter checks. Problem solved. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented the parameter check in the module. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ahecht This has caused every instance of episode table across 21,000+ articles to error. Could you kindly fix this? Thanks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed. Forgot that that line doesn't get implemented when previewing. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Please make sure new code works directly after implementing; 21,000 articles erroring for over twenty minutes isn't contributive to the encyclopedia, for editors or readers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Anyone removing the deprecated released parameters, please ensure start1 is changed to released1 too so it shows properly, like diff [1]. Don't know how widespread this issue is etc, just noticed there. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

A tracking category can be added to instances of |startN= without |endN=. Gonnym (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Listed at Category:Articles using Template:Series overview with deprecated start-parameter format, for any article that uses instances of |startN= and no instances of |endN=. Thanks for the heads up, @Indagate! -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

What happens if a TV series is still airing a new episode every week and the end date is still TBA? Wouldn't that be an issue for |startN= without |endN=? — YoungForever^(talk) 03:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The category I've created tracks instances of the template where |startN= is used regularly with no instances of |endN= being used (e.g. if The Witcher (a binge-released series) solely used |startN=). I think that should track the issues well enough. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't check how Alex set up the code, but in the infobox we use |endN=present. Hopefully this can work the same. Gonnym (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

File:The Computer Book (BBC 1982).jpg nominated for discussion

Link: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 28#File:The Computer Book (BBC 1982).jpg. George Ho (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:TV6 (1994)#Requested move 23 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TV6 (1994)#Requested move 23 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 18:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

why is burn notice not in this article

It has enough seasons & Episodes to be on the list why is it not there?" 172.59.117.50 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I am unsure of which article you are speaking, since this is not an article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Priscilla (singer, born 1996)#Requested move 16 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Priscilla (singer, born 1996)#Requested move 16 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. LIrala (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

DVD covers of Look Around You listed at FFD

Link: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 January 7. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

GA collaboration?

I believe Number Eight (Battlestar Galactica) is within striking distance of GA status after I rewrote its analysis section some time ago. It needs content on casting and development, which I have no expertise in researching and writing: is anyone interested in working on it with me? Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Episode table/part

It's recently come to my attention that the {{Episode table/part}} template is an accessibility issue per MOS:COLHEAD. Just something I thought I'd bring up, not sure what we can do with this information. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like means should delete that template then, uses would need to be replaced in articles with accessible solution like multiple episode tables for a season, or not specifying the parts. Indagate (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

It just came to my attention today too unfortunately. It's a shame because it was extremely useful, but I understand that we we shouldn't ignore the accessibility issues. There's a better description of how it affects screenreader software at this FLC comment

You can also see how I implemented a fix for that list at List of Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series) episodes#Season 5 (2023–24) and Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series) season 5, for the time being. I assume that's not the best permanent solution though, because I had to wrap an equals sign in the header (=) into "noinclude" tags so that the subsections would transclude to the episode list properly. Even if that wasn't an issue, I understand that splitting into two tables would probably be overkill in some articles, such as for individual specials (re: Doctor Who series pages). TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I actually found what is probably a better solution, when split into two tables. I removed the includeonly tags and used standard section headers (removing the ones with the noinclude tags I implemented earlier). Then, on the episode list, I utilized {{#section-h}} (so in this specific case {{#section-h:Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series) season 5|Part 1}}) to pull the Part 1 and Part 2 tables over from the season article. This avoids having to transclude section headers, which solves a problem where the levels on the season article may not equal the needed level on the episode list, which is what initially happened here. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't say I'm the biggest fan of the layout, but I can respect that it's probably the best solution yet. Nice job! -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I can agree with that, hopefully something better with the layout comes across at a later time. I just needed something I could implement immediately for FLC purposes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, but I'm not sure whether it will work. If the "part" headers now apply to a single table, we could change {{Episode table/part}} to be an initial row with scope="colgroup", above the standard episode table header. That way we could still have the nice formatting that we currently have and I believe it would resolve the accessibility issues. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

So, you're saying that a split layout should look something like this?

List of Magnum P.I. season 5 episodes

Part 1
No. overall	No. in season	Title	Directed by	Written by	Original release date	Prod. code	U.S. viewers (millions)
77	1	"The Passenger"	Bryan Spicer	Eric Guggenheim	February 19, 2023 (2023-02-19)	MPI501	3.87
Magnum and Higgins take a woman's case [...]

List of Magnum P.I. season 5 episodes

Part 2
No. overall	No. in season	Title	Directed by	Written by	Original release date	Prod. code	U.S. viewers (millions)
78	2	"The Breaking Point"	Bryan Spicer	Gene Hong	February 19, 2023 (2023-02-19)	MPI502	3.30
Magnum and Higgins pose as lifeguards [...]

(Whipped up some sandboxing.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I was imagining. I don't think it looks as nice as the current layout, but if it is okay from an accessibility standpoint then it means we can keep the general style and don't have to add unnecessary sub headings. Or at least there would be the option to use this approach or the sub heading approach. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation for episodes and other TV related articles

Last year a suggestion was made at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Episode title disambiguations that I thought would be a good improvement, but there hasn't been much interest in the discussion. Posting here in the hope of getting more eyes on it. Basically, the current approach of using "Episode Title (Series Title)" doesn't make much sense, especially when compared to normal disambiguation rules. The recommendation is to move to "Episode Title (episode)" by default, or "Episode Title (Series Title episode)" if there are multiple episodes with the same name. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I would very much support this, bringing NCTV further in line with Wikipedia's standard for disambiguating. Concerning [w]here the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show, disambiguate further using Article title (Show Title episode/character/element), it would simplify examples such as Serenity (Firefly episode) and Serenity (Firefly vessel) to simply "Serenity (episode)" and "Serenity (vessel)". -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's more useful to have the show name as the disambiguation term and that such an approach is acceptable. While it may not be the most common way, WP:NCDAB does allow parenthetical disambiguation using the subject or context to which the topic applies, as opposed to the generic class. Another example of this would be works of art: some quick examples are Serenity (Clara), The Entombment (Michelangelo), and the list at Self-portrait (disambiguation)#Visual arts. Also, there are a lot of repeated episode titles ("Pilot", "The Finale", "Reunion", etc.), in which case you'd still have to use the show name and you'd just be adding the word "episode" to the title.

Also, since I didn't see it posted, a previous discussion on this topic was held in 2013. (Though obviously consensus can shift over 10+ years.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

We generally disambiguate fictional elements by work or author, so this is a no-go. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the season disambiguation move has yet to be fully completed and still probably has bugs as I encounter additional templates that still needed fixing. Changing the episode disambiguation will probably be a bigger issue. I'll oppose this at least until the season move is completed (including moving all links to the new format). Gonnym (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Where do the rules of a game show fall under MOS:TVPLOT and sourcing?

There has been some discussion lately about whether or not a rules synposis for a game show falls under MOS:TVPLOT or similar guidelines when it comes to summarizing a work. I've seen some pull in both directions as to how sourced a "Rules" or "Gameplay" section should have sourcing. To wit:

• Talk:Pyramid_(franchise)#Rules raised the concern on January 7 regarding Pyramid (franchise), with at least @WhatamIdoing: expressing concern that citations were not mandatory before the discussion fizzled out
• Press Your Luck is GA-class and most of the rules are not sourced to anything other than the show itself
• When Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? was listed at GAR, the fact that the rules did not have sources was not one of the pressing issues
• Catch 21 was kept at a GAR, with no one expressing concern over sourcing of the rules section
• When I nominated Bargain Hunters at DYK, @Departure–: suggested the rules section should be sourced before the article passes DYK (to which I complied)

MOS:FILMPLOT states, Since films are primary sources for their articles, basic descriptions of their plots do not need references to an outside source. MOS:TVPLOT likewise states, Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, such as its credits, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given.

Personally, I would think that if a film or fiction TV series falls under "the show itself is the source", then the same would hold true for explaining the basic rules of a game show. The exceptions I would think of are:

• Shows such as Wheel of Fortune (American game show) (also GA-class), where multiple rules have changed over time and are elaborated on with sources as needed
• Shows such as CBS Television Quiz, where the show is so obscure that specifics of its rules are not known
• Shows where there is a source explaining why a certain rule change was made; again, Wheel of Fortune is an example here, as there is a citation explaining why the rules of the Final Spin were changed

tl;dr: I believe the rules of a game show do generally fall under the "show itself is the source" rule, unless there is a pressing need to do otherwise. What say you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any pre-existing consensus on it, but I've always assumed that MOS:PLOTSOURCE and WP:PLOTCITE can be applied to non-fiction shows as well. I've run into disputes with it on reality television series (On Patrol: Live comes to mind specifically). Regardless of whether it's fiction or not, as long as an overview/rules/synopsis can still be sourced to the work itself, I believe it still meets the spirit and intent of what it was originally written for. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel the difference here is that when we're summarizing fiction, we are (or should be) summarizing exactly what occurs in the work of fiction, without applying any of our own interpretations or such. With game shows or such, unless a specific rule is being brought up during the course of the show (in which case it could be cited to the episode in which it's brought up), how do the various episodes themselves clearly establish the rules? They're not displayed at any point, at least not in the shows I've watched, so to me it seems as though any uncited summary of rules runs the risk of being prone to interpretation. Especially if/when the rules are changed at some point. As an example, it's one thing to say in "Press Your Luck" if you get four whammies (or however many), you're eliminated from the game, a claim which could be fairly be said to come up often enough as to be uncontentious, but what about something like (from the "Pyramid" article), "All versions of the show feature a maximum of seven words and a thirty-second time limit for each category, except for the 2002-04 verison, which used six words and a twenty-second time limit"? I'd like to know what the basis for that statement is (if there's an encyclopedia of game shows that makes that claim, awesome, but then it should be cited). DonIago (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Knowing that game show and reality show rule kudzu is an easy trap that one can fall into on the basis of allowing plots to be primary sourced, I think we néed to apply common sense as well as aspects of sourcability here. The rules should be what is obvious after watching a few episodes at random. If there are more specific rules that are only applicable in a small number of episodes, more as exceptions, that is something that shouldn't be included unless we have secondary source coverage. The kudzu happens when we rely too much on primary sourcing to explain the exceptions that do not come up often.
When a show does have rule changes that persist for multiple seasons, then those can be done via the plshow itself as long as the change is clearly obvious from just a few random episodes. — Masem (t) 18:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Despite what Donlago said above, I don't think it's particularly contentious to say the 2002-04 incarnation had 6 words in 20 seconds versus 7 in 30. I actually found the premiere of the 2002 version on YouTube, and Donny Osmond specifically says "I'm going to give you 20 seconds to describe six words or phrases" at the start of the game. Even if he didn't say that outright, the first round of gameplay shows a timer counting down from :20, and the round ending after the sixth word is successfully guessed. This can be contrasted with a random episode of any other version of the show, where a :30 timer is visible on screen, and a round ends after the timer expires or the seventh word is guessed.

I think it's acceptable to use {{cite episode}} or a secondary source if a rule is not immediately evident, such as some of the Winner's Circle clues on Pyramid that aren't permitted, or the way I did on Bargain Hunters where I used an exact question from the show as an example. But to me, the length of a round on Pyramid is not contentious. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

That type of rule change which persists across a season or more and can be reafily verified by watch 2 or 3 random episodes, that's fine to have as a primary. What would not be expected would be, using Pyramid as the example, exactly how the judges rule when buzzing certain clues during the bonus round; eg we can readily glean from a few random episides that clues must be a noun phrase and can't include the topic word, but there have been many instances of slight problems that were deemed invalid and that gets into the weeds. Masem (t) 19:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)