Cabbagetown, Atlanta

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Television

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of non-fiction television

Hi. This may have been discussed (repeatedly !) before, but... are there any guidelines on notability criteria for non-fiction television - either individual programmes or series ? WP:FICT won't apply, so is it just the usual third-party/independent coverage per WP:N ? CultureDrone (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:NOTABILITY pretty much serves as the main notability guideline for television shows (fiction and non-fiction). Anyway, the only kind of television programme articles that I have seen getting deleted were 5 minute cartoons or short-run infotainment shows.– sgeureka ^t•c 10:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge soundtrack articles into parent media?

A discussion has been started on the WikiProject Media franchises talk page regarding this topic. Please come over and give your input. Thanks! LA (T) @ 07:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The West Wing FAR

The West Wing has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Manchester United TV → MUTV

Could someone take a look at this and weigh in from a television perspective instead of the biased perspectives of both sides?
Talk:Manchester_United_TV#Requested_move
Thanks, Krocheck (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Red Green Show characters section

Hi everyone. Could I ask for some comments on an issue that seems to be a recurring theme in The Red Green Show - namely, which set of secondary/minor characters to include on the main article page? I've tried a couple of times to start discussion on things like this in Talk:The Red Green Show, but it seems there are so few people watching that article that nobody's really interested in discussing things there.

The current question I have is: Since the show is defined almost entirely by its characters, it seems appropriate to have at least the main characters described on the page. At one point, we had an attempt to list them all - at first on the main page, then splitting out the minor and unseen characters into their own article. (That was later deleted via AfD.) Recently, an anonymous user added a good description of Buzz Sherwood to the Secondary Characters section. Buzz only appeared in about the first six seasons of the show and was never part of any main plot segments (to my knowledge), so I reverted, reasoning that Buzz is a minor character and not a secondary. But it's a fuzzy line there, since other characters that ARE in that section (like Hap Shaughnessy) could also be considered minor. There's no real formula that works for this.

I'm afraid that if we start listing all the characters that might be considered secondary and/or minor, we'll end up back where we started, with a character-heavy article that needs splitting out and then deleting for lack of notability. I'm leaning more towards removing the secondary characters section entirely, but like I said, the show has almost all of its substance in its characters (like many comedy shows).

Would anyone care to comment, either here or on the article talk? Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How many characters are there? If it's just what's on the page, then leave it (it could use clean up though). If it's a lot more, than I'd think about creating a Characters of The Red Green Show, and listing them ALL (including main characters) there. I would then drop all secondary characters from the main article. But that's more if you have a lot more characters. Another thought, you could create a list of all the actors and their roles, and limit the IU information to nothing (or just a sentence describing them). I would certainly do a Google search ("Google News" provides the most reliable sources) for OOU information on the characters of the show, regardless. I think you're right, it does create an awkward line as you're forced to split them off (which creates the possibility of them being deleted for lack of notability). Though, at the moment, the article really isn't large enough to worry about having "too many" listed, though I would worry about having too much plot information for each character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just listing off the ones I know about from memory, I counted 23 characters that have appeared on the show more than once (including one guest star), plus six characters that are frequently mentioned but never seen, and there have been a variety of one-shot guest stars on the show as well. Of all of those, only five stand out as main characters. As I mentioned, we did at one point have a "Characters" article that got deleted by AfD because, at the time, only secondary, minor and unseen characters were listed there and they ALL failed WP:N. If we are going to investigate another Characters article, how can we still fit within the notability policies? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A main list for characters of live-action television shows is pretty much accepted on wikipedia now, but I agree with Bignole that if you want to be on the safe side, you need to move the main characters there also, and add a few reliable refs (five or ten from google or DVD extras should do, if you find some). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Do you think a split discussion is necessary, or should I just go ahead with a split? I'm thinking I could just do the split non-controversially since hardly anyone discusses anything there. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe work the page up in a sandbox first, and then when it's ready move it over. This way, you won't have to fight the notability game from the start, as you'll already have the page well put together. Characters of Smallville is one that I created not too long ago, mainly for some of the same reasons you talked about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I went ahead and started it (just a framework at the moment) at User:KieferSkunk/Red Green characters. As I was putting that list together, I realized there were even more characters and sub-characters than in my original count. Each character I could name and that has played an actual part on the show has a section. A couple of characters have sub-sections under their "main" characters (Dalton's wife, Dougie's brother, etc.). There were a few characters whose names I couldn't remember, listed in a separate section. And then all of the unseen characters are listed in their own section. There's no real content on this page at the moment, but it'll get there eventually. :) If you're interested in helping, I'd certainly welcome it! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good start. I don't know how much help I could personally be, as I have never heard of the show. I'm not sure how much this will help, but here a few search results: Google News and Google web. Be wary of the web search. Places like IMDb, TV.com, and other similar sites are not considered reliable. Whenever you find a web source, read their "about us" section and try and find out how they come across their facts and if they have any editorial oversight.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

NCIS task force?

Hi there, I was just wondering if there was some interest in creating a taskforce for NCIS. I know many people like the show but its articles here need some work and I don't have the time to do it at the moment (I have enough time to check on things and such but I don't have multiple hours at a time to really concentrate on an article). So I thought I'd ask here if some people were willing to help, maybe even creating a new task force for it. Anyone interested? :-) SoWhy 12:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't really see the need for a task force for any single television series. You have a main article, an episode list (maybe with season episode lists) and a character list. Maybe one or two character articles, but I doubt more than that for notability reasons. That doesn't really need a whole task force, just one or two dedicated editors. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 13:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but maybe a task force could create more content. But that's why I asked here. I'd be happy with some more help there, no matter in what form it happens. Regards SoWhy 18:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What kind of "more content" though? The frame works should be in place, I'd think, just need cleaning, referencing, etc (and maybe project support to help if you encounter issues with the fanbase). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, with enough help I think most episodes could merit an article of their own (with production details and such like) and most major characters' articles can be created or vastly improved. But cleaning, referencing and such like is much work as well and I'd appreciate any help (I've been almost alone on those articles for most of the time, with some IPs adding stuff sometimes). I am currently in much real life stress and so I think more interested editors would be nice. Regards SoWhy 14:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with asking for volunteers for collaboration, but can I just say that if you haven't met any interested editors there and are low on time yourself, that creating even more new articles is possibly the worst idea? Summarizing plot and dumping it on wikipedia is quick, but cleaning up that mess from Stub/Start-class to C-class (and higher) will keep you busy enough, so why not devote some time into improving the main article, the character list and the episode list first? – sgeureka ^t•c 15:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on when a TV show warrants a project of its own

I've done some looking around and not seen this specific topic addressed. I figured I'd start the snowball rolling into hell.

I see many requests to start the NameOfShow project. It might be interesting to see some basic ideas as to why a show might support a project of its own. I can't really support a project because it has some arbitrary number of pages on it already. I think with just a little effort I could come up with 45 pages related to Manimal and I really don't think we'll get many people agreeing that this really isn't warranted.

So my question is... What would warrant a television show to have a wikiproject of its own? Some ideas would involve

• specific number of seasons (sufficient material)
• sufficient ties to additional programs (Star Trek Voyager might not warrant a project but it is part of the Star Trek project)
• ties to additional media (books, cartoons, etc)

General question. open for comments. Lordandrei (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. As you hinted at in your example, the key with Projects is the size of them. A WikiProject on "Simpsons season 8" would probably be too small. A Wikiproject on "The Simpsons" wouldn't (hence why we have one already), as there are dozens of articles attached to that topic, not all limited to just television. So, it really depends on the particular topic you're thinking about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, size is pretty much the only indicator. But for the sake of argument, taskforces can also do a superb job (see the video game wikiproject at WP:VG), and a whole bunch of Good and Featured fiction Topics were created without any show-specific wikiproject for back-up. My experience with show-specific wikiprojects is that they can do great work with a few dedicated and experienced editors, but if they lack the guidance, they tend to produce (and vehemently defend) an elaborate mess, which can only really be cleaned up after the wikiproject has become inactive because fandom has moved on. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that with the Buffyverse WikiProject...unfortunately. I think taskforces are much better ideas if you're looking for some assistance on a set of articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Template thoughts

I have thought about creating templates for topics such as Template:Current ABC prime time schedule using http://epguides.com/grid/fall.shtml . Maybe we could also produce templates such as Template:2008-09 ABC prime time shows, which would include all shows that were part of the prime time schedule over the course of the year. The latter could be a substitute for the former and by having the current schedule and the cancelled shows, shows on hiatus, and future pilots. Additionally, we could have templates for Template:2008-09 United States Tuesday night prime time shows, which could also have the current regular schedule, cancelled shows, shows on hiatus and future shows.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Defensor page

The page Defensor (Transformers) is up for deletion, feel free to go voice your opinion on it and save the page. Mathewignash (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

TV Infobox color

I've been seeing a few infoboxes on the tv articles that don't have the purple banner (or whatever it is) in the box. In some instances, people are inserting their own color like in the Girlfriends article here (I changed it awhile back) and on The Game here (again, changed it). In other instances (ie Entourage & Sex and the City) the boxes have different colors than the template that can't be changed. Do different genre of shows get their own color, should they all be the same or does it even matter? Pinkadelica (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters, so long as it isn't distrating and the text can be read. So, I wouldn't allow some bright yellow to be there, but the pink for Girlfriends and whatever The Game had in those links is probably ok. The MOS for TV articles doesn't really talk about color of the infobox, becuase it really isn't a big deal.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Pinkadelica (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Lassie headaches

There has been mild drama over the various Lassie television articles of late, which are almost exclusively being edited by Lassie fan User:ItsLassieTime. The newest bone of contention deals with Timmy Martin (television character). ItsLassieTime has done tons of edits to the article, adding lots of plot stuff, and only a few references. To me, I find she shows a great deal of ownership over the articles, reverting almost anyone else's edits (valid or not) if she doesn't like them. We edit warred recently over the use of an image that was violating WP:NONFREE, and it took three editors removing it and a warning from an admin before she stopped putting it back. Tonight, I reformatted the article to follow the MoS, remove small tags she had placed around most of the references (apparently not liking their standard appearance), and do some rewording in some areas[3]. She immediately reverted, claiming that the MoS could be completely ignored because it says to do what works best for "you" (which is incorrect), and rejecting all of the edits.[4] I reverted, blah blah, and the article is now protected. Discussion efforts very quickly feel, as its one against one, so asking the project to take a look at both versions to see which it feels is the "best for the article" (per what the MoS actually says).

I firmly believe this article (as well as the series article could easily be FA with some work, so I'm finding it very frustrating dealing with this kind of thing. The show has a ton of sources, and yet both are start class, and I honestly feel it is because the whole thing is "controlled" by a single fan instead of experienced editors.

Anyway, thoughts on the two versions and which is "best practices", and anyone else want to task of going for the FA so I can get away from this area? Much as I love the show, I don't think I'll be the editor to take it there because of the discord with this other editor.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's very difficult to edit the Lassie articles. Collectonian apparently has them on her watchlist and zips to any article the moment someone touches it. I recently lost tons of information, sources, references, etc. when she entered the Timmy Martin article to "rearrange" it by applying the "Rules" from the MoS, thus creating an edit conflict for me and the loss of tons of material. She knew I was editing the article because her watchlist told her so. She never enters the Lassie articles unless I'm working on them. And then enters only to revert. She recently nominated for deletion two articles about two major characters from Lassie and was shot down by consensus. Her only support was from a teenage reformed WP vandal. Why she wants Paul and Ruth Martin deleted, and then tries to "upgrade" Timmy Martin by rearranging the article is something I cannot fathom. After the embarassing deletion debacle I should think she'd want nothing to do with Lassie. I've done a ton of work on the Lassie articles, and I'm proud of my work. But I cannot correct simple typos, add a line or two, rephrase for clarity, nor add new material while sweating over the fact that someone is prowling around behind me with her finger on a "revert" key. Collectonian is reverting simply for the sake of reverting. Per WP, she should be discussing on the talk page before slashing away like Attila the Hun. Anyway, it would be a good idea for someone else to take on these articles, my stomach lurches every day when logging into WP knowing Collectonian is waiting for me. I cannot make progress. On her talk page and archives I notice she antagonizes other editors with the same sort of thing. Good luck and love to all! ItsLassieTime (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are telling out right lies. YOU didn't lose tons of information, sources, or anything else when I rearranged the article. I removed a single damn line. At lesat tell the truth. Paul and Ruth are not notable characters IMHO, and there is nothing embarrassing about the deletion discussions except your attitude and attacks. And no, I do not have to start a discussion on the talk page to come in apply project standards nor enforce Wikipedia guidelines or policies (those things you rampantly ignore). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I note that both of you have ownership issues (not necessarily bad; I have them at times too)? As I am mostly unfamiliar with Lassie, I can't and don't want to comment on what representation works best. However - and this doesn't mean I am siding with anyone - Collectionian has FA experience and thus has much experience dealing with various issues that come up during editing (including MOS issues), while ItsLassieTime seemingly doesn't, so this is an opportunity for ItsLassieTime to watch and learn. If I remember correctly, Collectonian has also expressed an interest in Lassie articles at least half a year ago, and I doubt that this had anything to do with ItsLassieTime's interests. So ItsLassieTime, please assume good faith that Collectionian is not after you; she is just watching out/trying to prevent poor editing choices to article she cares about just as much as you do (again, experience tells you what is likely poor). And although bad decisions happen to be made by everyone at times, even by established editors (I recently nominated a list for deletion for my favorite fiction and was shot down there, then I improved the list to Featured List Candidate status), this doesn't mean their general judgment is always off. Edit conflicts happen to everyone, and the back-button in some/most browsers can restore the edit-conflict edit that got "lost". If my attempted advice here doesn't help you to get along, I'd suggest that both of you make a copy of said article in your userspaces to take off the imagined [WP:DEADLINE]] pressure. If one userspace version is close to GAN quality, I figure you'll get along much better with further proceedings. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit, I can be a little protective of articles when they are high quality (i.e. GAs, FAs, and FLs), or if they are being improved to such a point that they are headed that way. However, despite certain claims, I simply came behind to help clean up and tweak existing edits, but doing so apparently is insulting to ItsLassieTime, who disregards all existing guidelines and has reverted any other editor who tried to tell her the same. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly" does not seem to apply to her (though I felt my edits were certainly fair and appropriate. I tweaked the wording of the lead and one section (even ADDING information), fixed the MoS (both from TV MoS and the Wikipedia MoS which certainly frowns on trying to hide references with small tags), and removed a single redundant section. Earlier I removed a non-free image being used inappropriate, and unlike ItsLassieTime I had just AGFed that she didn't understand non-free image policies until she reverted its removal by myself and two other editors 5-6 times, stopping only when an admin warned her that her next revert would result in her being blocked and the article was temporarily locked. I admit, I have little patience when I'm being attacked personally at every turn by this editor (who has thus far accused me sockpuppetry, collusion, and now stalking and embarrassment). *sigh* This is why I walked away from those articles months ago, though if I had known she had done the same I could have been busy taking them to FA in the peace and quiet.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I walked away from the articles months ago because I simply got sick of being reverted, deleted, rephrased, and repositioned at every turn. The Lassie articles have lain in sad shape and untouched since I left and I returned thinking Collectonian had taken said articles off her watchlist or had found something else to hover over with "ownership" claws bared. A close examination of the history pages will reveal Collectonian has contributed little other than reverts, rephrasings, repositionings, and deletions -- all done to establish ownership over the Lassie articles. "Touch it if you dare!" What very little information she has contributed apparently is sourced from a slim souvenir booklet included with a Lassie DVD collection published by the Lassie trademark holder and (by her own admission) ineligible as a source. The information in the booklet is replicated elsewhere in reliable sources. Why someone whose interest is manga / anime has chosen to sit on an old black and white children's TV show scaring sincere and willing-to-reliably-source WP editors is difficult to fathom. Collectonian has provoked edit warring by conducting her business without discussion on the Talk Page FIRST. New information added to an article is deleted, reverted, repositioned or rephrased by Collectonian before discussion and usually within seconds of the material being entered. The attitude revealed is, "There's no sense discussing this. I'm an experienced editor, I have a gold star (you don't), I own this article, and your contribution is unwanted. Good-bye!" ZIP! The delete/revert key is hit without so much as reading the the contribution first. An examination of her user pages will reveal she has made enemies at WP with her rude and overbearing "I am royalty, you are not" 'tude. Don't encourage her. ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, you are misstating what I said. I never said the DVD booklet is not a valid source. I said it can not be used to establish notability of the characters or series because it is a primary work, not a secondary one. The rest I'm ignoring per the request of the administrator attempting to arbitrate this. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See how quickly Collectonian has responded to my post -- all of 5 minutes! My contributions to the Lassie articles are dealt with in the same swift manner -- only there my contributions are rephrased, repositioned, reverted, or deleted. Collectonian makes a big show of wanting to bring the Lassie articles up to FA status. The articles have lain dormant for months but she has done nothing to bring them up to FA status. I look askance at her sincerity. Of course, it's all my fault. She can't work the articles because of me. As noted, the articles have lain dormant for months, she has done nothing to bring any article to FA status, and the moment I return, she provokes an editing war by not discussing reverts, deletions, rephrasings, and repositionings on the TALK PAGE FIRST with the result that the article has been locked. ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I already said I left the articles before you did. Also, please stop misrepresenting facts. "The moment you return" is a false statement. Per your own contribs, you have been "back" for weeks, and I came back to the articles I'd given up on later without realizing you had returned until after doing so. I gave up trying to take the articles to FA months ago because of the constant disagreements between us and a seeming lack of project interest and removed them all from my watch list. Rephrasing and reorganizing are part of the editing and improving process and do not require anyone to get your permission first when those edits are in line with existing guidelines and policies. Your words are not sacred texts that are not open to editing. I did not even know you had left, so please stop claiming I was some monster waiting for you to return. Master of Puppets has asked that both of us stop with the personal attacks. I have done so. I'm waiting for you to do the same. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, of course, it's all MY FAULT you can't bring the articles to FA status. Of course, of course. I stay away from the articles for months after being scared off with your "ownership" fangs and when I return it's just a VERY. STRANGE. COINCIDENCE. that you decide to return at the same time. Of course. I think the most telling evidence of your WP character is your user page on which many WP editors express exasperation, frustration, and anger with your reverts, deletions, and other "editorials". While no one questions any editor correcting typos, spelling, etc. most editors question one person's "right" to make radical and undiscussed changes to ANY article without reaching a consensus first. In spite of your cited WP guidelines and "rules" that you believe permit experienced editors to run riot over the work of lesser mortals, it would be more than considerate to take your concerns to the article Talk Page first before smashing into the work of others. ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Game show naming conventions (cross-post from WT:NC)

I have noticed that most game show articles use (game show) at the end instead of (TV series) (e.g. Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (U.S. game show)). Is this acceptable? I thought all TV shows were supposed to use (TV series) in the case of ambiguous titles (e.g. Chowder (TV series)). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)