Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

Nomination of One Piece season 5 for featured list removal

I have nominated One Piece season 5 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. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tales of the Jedi (TV series)#Requested move 11 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tales of the Jedi (TV series)#Requested move 11 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Alastor (Hazbin Hotel)#Requested move 5 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alastor (Hazbin Hotel)#Requested move 5 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chicago (franchise)#Requested move 6 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chicago (franchise)#Requested move 6 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fated to Love You (2008 TV series)#Requested move 6 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fated to Love You (2008 TV series)#Requested move 6 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Join the Core Contest

In two days, the WP:The Core Contest is starting, which might be of interest here. Plenty of very highly-viewed articles and C-class top important articles to work with in this Wikiproject. Sign-ups are open, and remain open during the 6-week contest. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Interpretations of the rules of balance in describing the critical reception of TV shows.

Good evening! Yesterday I found out that anonymous user removed negative review citation from the article about Devil May Cry (TV series), stating that, since the show has an overwhelmingly positive critical reception, we can't cite any one negative review as an example of other opinions about show, as that would allegedly violate WP:FALSEBALANCE. The anonymous user ignored the discussion (by the way, created by them themselves) and an attempt to address them via the talk page, but their opinion was echoed by several other users who stated that they weren't against the source itself, but felt that it needed to be accompanied by 1-2 more negative reviews to be included in the article and comply with Wikipedia's source balance rules. My opinion is that the application of this rule is not entirely correct, since this review was not positioned as an equal counterpoint to all positive critical reaction and that the rule clearly (in my opinion) described several other situations was largely ignored (especially considering that in the past I have seen the opposite in many articles about media content, and in perfectly decent articles, if that matter). So I want to raise the issue here, to find out the tradition of writing critical sections about TV shows and what other contributors to the project generally think about this case. This is not a matter of life and death, but I have some suspicions that the anonymous person has some conflict of interest around modern films and TV shows, so I am especially interested in the opinion of the project users on this matter. In particular, I was a bit surprised by opinion that adding a negative review violates NPOV when positive reviews dominate, while removing critical reviews based on a conflict with an entirely positive section that doesn't even mention the critical points from the positive reviews somehow does not. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Given the size of the reception section before the review was removed [1] I don't think it was inappropriate to do so; 2 lines of praise versus 5 lines of criticism is overly negative for something with such a high RT score. That doesn't mean the same source can't be added now that the reception section has been expanded. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you think that after a section has been detailed and rewritten, getting a deleted review back won't be a problem anymore? Solaire the knight (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I think so, but this isn't a show/genre that I'm familiar with. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

As one of the editor's who has been contributing to to the article in question and is involved in the current discussion, I have no issue with you readding the previously deleted review. Cheezknight (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and response, I appreciate it. In that case, what do you think about waiting 1 or 2 days to hear some arguments from the anonymous person as the initiator of the dispute and returning the section if they don't mind/continue to remain silent? Of course, if they oppose it, the discussion can be continued here. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Although I'm not sure how long the customary wait time is. I was going to add the missing episode summaries to the article next, but I'll hold off for now. Thanks for leading the discussion in resolving this. Cheezknight (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understood you correctly, but I didn't mean not to edit the whole article for the next couple of days. Just to return the paragraph in a couple of days if there are no new objections. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

National Sports Emmy?

Hey, question: where does a National Sports Emmy fall on the scale of Emmy awards? Is it like a primetime Emmy (notable enough to keep on that alone), is it more like a regional Emmy (can count towards notability but not a keep on that alone), or is it somewhere between the two depending on the category? I have an article (George Bryan Polivka) where the guy's main claim to notability is a National Sports Emmy and was curious. If the guy's article is nominated then this would be good to know. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like it's a Sports Emmy Award if that helps any. I'm not a sports person so I'm not sure where that would be notability-granting-wise. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on adding more characters from Maria-sama ga Miteru to LGBTQ+ characters page

Input is invited at here. I have added a few characters to the page, but I'm hoping to get more thoughts before adding any more to the List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2000–2004 page, since many of these characters, in this Class S & yuri series, are in "sisterly" relationships (i.e. soeurs) so I don't know if that would fall under a lesbian relationship or not. As such, I look forward to your comments. Historyday01 (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Revisiting the same IP address gaming the AFC system from Season article notability

82.46.25.83 is back their old ways by gaming the AFC system with zero improvements again. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

 Update: They have been blocked for 6 months as of few hours ago. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#Long-term abuse (gaming the Article for Creation process) for incident report. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Displaying year information for Television shows in development/references

I was wondering if there was any broader input here for discussion on talk page for the List of programs broadcast by CBS about the possibility of listing the years that in development shows were first announced as a (sortable) column in table form on the relevant page beyond the references. Overall there doesn't seem to be much guidance on how to handle in development shows, though there seems to be an informal practice among some editors of removing them after three years of no updates, but would appreciate some broader input and also when to include references for pending status for shows (when they exist). The article for List of Paramount+ original programming includes in development shows in table form with only two columns. newsjunkie (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Meredith Grey

Meredith Grey has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by CBS has an RfC

List of programs broadcast by CBS has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. newsjunkie (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Movie#Requested move 20 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Movie#Requested move 20 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Ricky Zoom confusion

Honestly, not entirely sure what to do regarding this article. Recently, edits from both IPs and users have been claiming the series as ended in July 2022 or that it is still running, both of which appears to be false. From the limited sources I've been able to find (such as Roku, Apple TV, and YouTube), a second season appears to have been produced and aired, but as far as I can tell, was not aired on TV in the US. The season 2 episodes also have dates ranging from 2020 to 2021, and the FrogBox production website says that season 2 was produced from 2019 to 2021, but I have no idea where it was originally aired and/or streamed.

To add on to all this confusion, Entertainment One has undergone ownership changes the last several years, including being acquired by Hasbro in 2019, and then being sold to and rebranded as 'Lionsgate Canada' in 2023/24. The information in the Ricky Zoom article regarding Hasbro Entertainment being a production company since 2023 appears to have been added back in August 2023, but I've just changed that information back given that as I've previously mentioned, the series appears to have completed production and not been aired since 2021.

Any help figuring out what to do here would be greatly appreciated, as there's so much that appears to have happened with this show, and so little sourcing regarding anything about it outside of the US. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

"TV networks" in Filipino TV filmographies

Most filmographies of Filipino TV and film actors have a separate "TV network" ("film studio"/"production studio" and something else for films). Imagine Calista Flockhart listed this way:

1997–2002

Ally McBeal

Ally McBeal

Fox

Lead Role (112 episodes)

By my understanding, these are not standard, only Filipino filmographies do this, and this should be removed. Is that right? Howard the Duck (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Official website/Amazon release info as Link/References at Thomas & Friends

Could there be some additional input on whether it is appropriate include a link to an official website in one place and to Amazon as a release reference information that were removed by another user citing promotion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_%26_Friends&diff=prev&oldid=1288361605 Some of my additional comments/context are on the Talk page: Talk:Thomas & Friends#c-Newsjunkie-20250502173000-Policies regarding links: newsjunkie (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

(Issue might be resolved for now, but further input might still be helpful) newsjunkie (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I know at the Film project using Amazon for release date information isn't considered appropriate because Amazon often has incorrect information. I would generally assume the same logic would apply here. DonIago (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not about the release date. Just as a reference that certain seasons are available there for streaming currently. newsjunkie (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

If the only way to cite that a show is currently on a given streaming service is to link to that streaming service, it's probably not notable that the show streams there. In other words, it's a WP:DUE issue. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's complicated by there being completely different versions and seasons available in different places. In this discussion the information was found to be legitimate information as long as it was neutrally stated, at least with regards to the promotional issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Merlin_(2008_TV_series)#c-YodaYogaYogurt154-20240908152100-Newsjunkie-20240904032100 newsjunkie (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Expanding on @RunningTiger123's comments, we are not an indiscriminate list of information, and we are not tv guide. There is no need for us to tell people that it's on Amazon - our readers are generally web savvy enough to look there. There is nothing notable about it being streamed on Amazon (or any other streaming service for that matter). Also see MOS:TVINTL. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Under Home Media and Streaming services it does say "The addition or removal of a season or series to a streaming service (Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.) or other on-demand service can also be noted here." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Release newsjunkie (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

can also be noted... does not equate to "must be noted" or even "it's ok to note it". It has to be notable. This isn't notable. You asked for input. Three people have all told you the same thing, yet you're still trying to find a way around it. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The initial issue was "promotion" and I was just trying to be clear about what that specific guideline there said which does not refer to notability, which itself in my understanding is more a guideline for whether things get their own articles, with more different factors weighed for article content. If the style guidelines state that this type of information can be considered for inclusion, then it does not seem to fall under "What Wikipedia is Not." It is also verifiable, neutral and a statement of fact, not original research, the other core elements to consider for content in articles, rather than notability for whether something should have its own article. newsjunkie (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what the "initial issue" was. You asked for input. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, nor does neutrality. Yes, there is a notability guideline for articles, but that doesn't mean that notability isn't considered for article content. It absolutely is. Not everything improves an article. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Would streaming availability on a small streaming service with a small number of subscribers (assuming the number is known) with a secondary source automatically be more notable than availability on a major streaming service with a large audience (which is specifically referred to in the guidelines and already has its own article)? Or in more traditional terms, isn't it automatically more notable to note that something aired in primetime on a major network, rather than say at 3AM on a cable network available in very few homes? The standards I mentioned are just the ones listed explicitly as content guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Content. If it were the kind of subject that was totally unacceptable for inclusion, it doesn't seem like it would be included in the TV style guidelines. It's always good to (also) have secondary sources, but if the general type of information itself is acceptable for inclusion, then it would seem just those other guidelines would apply.newsjunkie (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this diff from that conversation nails the point: Third party reliable sources should ideally be used to support the show broadcasting on these new places, not relying on primary sources. Regarding MOS:TV, "can be noted" ≠ "must be noted" – the main driver of inclusion is whether or not something is encyclopedic and relevant, which is shown by the existence of secondary (third party) sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

This article would be a secondary source with summary/introduction, though in the end it's really just links to the various streaming sites themselves: https://www.thepopverse.com/movies-tv-thomas-tank-engine-and-friends-shows-series-watch-order And then there's the factor that a lot of these types of articles get a commission if you click on the links from there, which would not be the case with a direct link. Not sure how much of a concern that is. newsjunkie (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Inside No. 9

Inside No. 9 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Friday Night Lights (TV series)

Friday Night Lights (TV series) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for I Take Thee Quagmire

I Take Thee Quagmire has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)