Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Television and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:TV WT:WPTV

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39Auto-archiving period: 25 days

Points of interest related to Television on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style – To-do

Television Project‑class

This 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.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Television and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39Auto-archiving period: 25 days

WikiProject Television

Project main page Project discussion Project assessment talk Television portal talk Descendant WikiProjects and task forces Showcase Project organization Article alerts Deletion sorting Popular pages New articles Project banner talk Project category talk Project templates talk Television stubs Guidelines Project manual of style talk Project notability guidelines talk TV article naming convention talk Broadcasting article naming convention talk Related WikiProjects Actors and Filmmakers Albums Animation Anime and manga Comics Film Literature Media franchises Radio Screenwriters Westerns view · edit · changes

There are related RM discussions at Talk:Vikings (TV series) and Talk:Vikings (TV documentary series) that require input from additional editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my 2 cents. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia we haven't had 1 or 2 cent coins for a long time. 2c is rounded down to zero. ;) --AussieLegend (✉) 04:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Key I am trying to help save an article that is at AFD. This guy has won two Emmy Award for Individual Achievement in Make-up artistry. There are good citations for those. Plus he meets part three under notability for Creative professionals by

Plus he received multiple nominations 4-5 for the same award for at least four other episodes of the same series. So it is not a one episode deal.

So the section of part three:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. is satisfied.

Also this part of #3 work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series

is satisfied because the awards and nominations for his body of work were for multiple episodes of the notable series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. not just one.

Am I reading this wrong? Thank you for any suggestions you might have. Lacypaperclip (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance some interested person could take on the project of improving the references of the pages in Category:United States Saturday morning network television schedules? The older pages have a single end reference to a book but no page number. Most of them have no references at all. Any help would be much appreciated! Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:American Idol (ABC TV series)#Requested move 6 January 2018, regarding a page related to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy Publishing!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the page List of The Magic School Bus episodes it seems there is an inaccuracy with air dates being the wrong ones. Assuming good faith I edited the article to match the correct airdates rather than the fake airdates, and that same user swiftly reverted those edits I made. A user by the name of User:SummerPhDv2.0 had said that this violates the notice at WP:KIDSTVDATES but I feel as if this is unfair and unjust. I am putting this out here before this becomes an edit-war. --8.19.248.31 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this - I just reverted the article back and mentioned the information was accurate per PBS and Scholastic. Could someone look into this? Thanks. --8.19.248.31 (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide a(n inline) source to verify the airdates. If you do not provide sourcing when you do mass changes to a series' airdates, everyone will assume that you are just a date vandal as per WP:KIDSTVDATES. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is recommend that you provide a source, yes, but nothing states that you have to provide it inline - the talk page does just as well. See 90% of television series articles, only a scattering of editors insist on inline sources. Best to take it there and convince editors that your edits are indeed correct and in good faith. Also, you didn't violate WP:KIDSTVDATES, as that is not an essay, guideline or policy, but a user's page. -- Alex^TW 16:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the reverting editors are unaware that the current version is indeed the vandalistic version from this edit. This is the previous version. -- Alex^TW 16:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the current dates are in error, then please restore to the version you think is correct, with an edit summary explaining why – including a date or a diff with the original date vandalism is incredibly useful, and is something I have done myself when I've undone it... But I can't leave one thing you say unchallenged: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. That is straight from WP:V. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided proof of previous vandalism changing the dates to those in error, and I've already provided such links. (After they were changed back initially, SummerPhDv2.0 actually restored the vandalism, and hence contributed to the vandalism themselves.) It's up to you to revert your incorrect edit and apologize to the IP editor for automatically reverting them and assuming they were incorrect, instead of doing your research. -- Alex^TW 16:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Are your fingers broken? When you find an error, it's your responsibility as a Wiki editor to fix it. Why are you asking others to do it? And, no, an apology is not actually necessary here – if the IP had done what you did in their edit summary, and/or provided a source for the correct airdates, there would have been no doubt about the correctness of their edits. In any case, I'm going to also ping SummerPhDv2.0 to this discussion as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. You restored vandalism, and you have been made aware of this and the error of it, so it's your responsibility as a Wiki editor to fix it. Research - it's FUNdamental! SummerPhDv2.0 was pinged in the IP editor's initial post - I look forward to seeing their defense for the restoring of vandalism. If you support this version, then you are now aware of the "error" existing at The Magic School Bus (TV series) with the dates - it's up to you to change it now. -- Alex^TW 16:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I have restored this version from Dec. 16, 2017 (which seems to be the last "good" version), as your wrists appear to be sore, and I would feel awful if you risked any further injury in pursuit of this matter. Cheers. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, that article has other errors, and I'm bored, so I'll be fixing those now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what's the moral of the story today? Not all IP editors are here to disrupt - many are actually here in good faith, so we should assume the same! Great stuff! Now, my wrists are indeed so sore, since it's 3am, so maybe I'll head off. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 16:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Every version is unsourced. "Vandalistic"? If so, it is vary pervasive, single minded form of vandalism: changing dates for episodes of kids' TV shows. Here's a list of several hundred.[1] If you look through the history of that article (and dozens of others), you will find repeated changes to dates -- different sets of dates. Here are two.[2] Which one is "vandalistic"? Who knows. Neither one is sourced.

An edit summary saying they are "per information from PBS and Scholastic" is a start, but not verifiable.

Various other editors at various other sources have not required in-line cites? I hope it works out for them in those articles. In these articles, I am challenging all unsourced changes to dates ("any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.")

Starting discussions on my talk page, the article's talk page and here are a good start (though following three discussions on one topic is likely to be confusing). If you have a reliable source for the changes, WP:CITE can help you figure out how to cite them. If that doesn't work, provide the source in any one of these discussions and I would be more than happy to walk you through. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In these articles, I am challenging all unsourced changes to date - a falsity, as presented in the diff links. So, no comment on how you didn't question one editor that changed the dates without source or summary, after which you restored those dates after another editor restored the previous long-standing version of the article? Duly noted. -- Alex^TW 16:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify: I am challenging any unsourced/unexplained changes to these articles that I see. I hope that is sufficiently clear. I did not mean to imply that I am omnipresent. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of quick points here. Please do not assume that I assume that all IP editors are vandals. I do not. (Technical note: I was not pinged by the initial request here. Linking to a user page does not notify the user.)

No, it is not my responsibility to check an editor's changes, search for sources they have not provided, verify that the version they are changing from is correct before restoring it, etc. If an editor makes a change to an article, assuring that the new information is verifiable is their burden.

Through the history of these articles, it is clear there have been thousands of incorrect changes to dates. Some are pure vandalism. Most are likely good faith attempts to correct perceived errors that wind up replacing bad or good information with bad information. Somewhere in there, someone likely added verifiable dates without actually providing sources. Those changes were either reverted or lost to other unsourced changes. Across dozens of articles it is very unlikely that editors will seek out sources to ferret out which of the thousands of edits are correct. If an editor has a source and makes a change, providing the source solves the problem. If an editor does not have a source, they should not be making the change. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which, once again, points up the necessity to source all airdates in all episode tables (regardless of how a few WP:TV editors "feel" on the matter...). And, FTR, I don't feel you merit any blame here, SummerPhDv2.0 – only somebody watchlisting the article might have caught the Dec. 25 edits as date vandalism. And you are quite right in that we still can't be sure that the pre-Dec. 25 dates in the article are in fact "accurate" (as these are unverified as well), even though that is what they've been restored to currently. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the "feeling" of a few editors that they're not needed - I could list hundreds of articles where they're not used. If you wish to change this in the MOS, then you need to hold a discussion and gain a consensus.

And I get it - you believe that you don't need to do research into edits you see, and believe that all IPs are vandals so you get to revert them without checking. Sorry - that's not how Wikipedia works. Especially when the information was not "new" - they were restoring a version that you yourself have restored previously. You say If an editor does not have a source, they should not be making the change. What about you? Best to change that outlook. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 02:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change yours, sport – MOS's are guideline; WP:V is a policy. The latter trumps the former. By a lot. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So is WP:CONSENSUS. Nice try, though, brownie points for the attempt. -- Alex^TW 03:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is effectively the foundational principle of this project. It continually amazes me how you continually try to get around it when it comes to airdates. I don't get it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have wanted to ask why it is that after an episode airs we remove its airdate citation. What harm is there in keeping it (especially if we make sure it's archived)? Once an episode has aired, it's pretty difficult to figure out when it first aired absent that kind of documentation. Also, and AlexTheWhovian correct me if I'm wrong (which I might be), but I think you've argued for keeping citations for cast list additions/membership (when there's a certain group that does the same thing: removes citations that back up that person's inclusion in the cast once episodes in which they appear have aired). If it's not Alex, I've definitely seen some editors argue for keeping them. I don't think it hurts to keep the citations in either case, but at least with cast membership you can figure that out simply by getting your hands on a copy of the episode(s) in question, because then you have a primary source (although the older and/or less popular a series is, the harder that route becomes). The airdates, though, aren't embedded in the episodes themselves, so I feel like keeping citations for them is a pretty sensible idea. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes a near necessity 10, 20, 30 years later, that's for sure. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why the citations are removed after an episode airs, but i believe the problem is that they don't look good in tables, right next to an episode title. This is the reason why in many other tables (example), the citation is placed by itself in the last cell of a row. Is this something we could do with the episode table as well? Another reason why i suspect the citation is removed after an episode has aired, is to make it easier to see which episode airs next, without looking at the air dates column. On the other hand, though rare, airdates-related vandalism is something that i have experienced (example), so i don't think references for episode titles and airdates are redundant in any other way. -- Radiphus 05:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Radiphus: Many of us prefer 'column references' in episode tables over 'row references' for precisely this reason – column refs cover everything in the column: both aired, and yet-to-air, episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i prefer column references when possible as well, but it's not always possible and this is a problem. Are we going to have some series or season articles using column references and others row references? -- Radiphus 05:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Row-references seem to sometimes be necessary for yet-to-air episodes, but it's rarer that they're needed for aired episodes. It does happen sometimes (I've sometimes needed to, say, source an episode title to the WGAW database for an old TV series), but it doesn't seem to happen often enough to be a problem – usually column-refs are good enough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Television ratings graph#Suggestions. This discussion regards some changes i have suggested that should be made in the table formatting of the {{Television ratings graph}} template. -- Radiphus 06:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

i want to be a part of wikiproject television and biography but can't figure out. please advice. xo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah312x (talk • contribs) 06:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarah312x: WikiProjects are actually quite informal affairs, and you don't really even need to "join" one. As you were told over at WT:BIO, "joining" basically just means adding your name to the list of participants, as spelled out here. In WP:TV, that involves just adding {{User WikiProject Television}} template to your Userpage somewhere. But, really, simply editing and improving TV-related articles on Wikipedia means you're pretty much a "member" of WP:TV... Good luck! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has added this distinction to numerous tv series articles in the awards section, for example Star Trek: Discovery. In my opinion this is not a notable award as it's essentially a blog writer's personal opinion as opposed to say the Emmys or Guild awards which are given out by notable organizations. I know that MOS:FILM has criteria for awards that say online only entities should not be included and though this project doesnt seem to have an awards section it should probably be compatible. Thoughts? Spanneraol (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's totally non-notable, with the weight of a blog post. MOS:TV refers more than once to "major" awards but that's about it. I fail to see how it would qualify as "major" in light of the Golden Globes, Academy Awards, etc. We should definitely address this explicitly to avoid people adding every single publication's/website's "shoutouts". —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I have seen, we tend to allow awards from the major reliable sources like IGN and Gold Derby, and TVLine is just as notable and reliable as them, if not more so in this context since they are TV specific. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The general "practice" seems to be if the award has its own Wikipedia article then it is considered "notable" and is included, and if it doesn't have its own article then the "award" is considered not notable enough to include. In this specific instance, a "Performer of the Week Award" seems quite silly, and should probably not be included... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was notability dependent on an article existing in Wikipedia already? That doesn't make sense. We should be looking to reliable sources like normal. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS – just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it should be included. The "Wikipedia article test" is a decent method to determine whether an award is truly notable or not, subject to further discussions and consensus on the appropriateness of an award's inclusion or exclusion. An "Award of the Week"-type award, just on its face, does not seem like something we should be covering in a general encyclopedia... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having a WP page as the standard is a pretty low bar. IMO, if it doesn't merit a mention in a major media outlet (NY Times, CNN, major OTA TV network, major radio network), it's not notable. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For entertainment-type awards, Variety or THR would probably be the standards to go by... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Variety would suit me fine. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the major media outlet mention, and also feel an award/honour should be referenced in multiple of said publications/sources before we include it, and definitely it needs to be mentioned in sources that are not solely the originating publication. For instance, I've seen it argued that because TVLine is a reliable source, then its "Performer of the Week" nod is then somehow a notable award worthy of inclusion. This is false and a clear confusion of the reliability of a source with the notability of a subject. TVLine, as a publication, is clearly reliable. Its "Performer of the Week" designation is clearly not notable. And as for "we do this for other made-up, self-published, non-notable 'honours' from other publications/sources", well that is clearly WP:OTHER and those entries in accolades/awards sections should also be stricken. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with guidelines that mention major publications, as long as we are not using Wikipedia as our guide for whether something should be added to Wikipedia. That is obviously stupid; if we actually followed that paradox, Wikipedia would have no information in it. Also, if we do reach a consensus on this, I would strongly encourage users to NOT just go around deleting items from awards tables that they believe to not meet the new guideline. That has never gone well in the past, and can definitely be handled in a far more graceful manner. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue one way or another, but if consensus is to not highlight (as it seems), maybe instead of including in normal awards table, for the episode in which the actor was given the distinction, it can be included in that episode's article (if one exists) or on the relevant season article in prose form. Because I don't think an outright removal is needed. Just a reformat to show it isn't the same as say a Primetime Emmy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and that kind of solution is why I would honestly prefer if individual episodes of TV shows didn't get their own articles, except for exceptional cases that are considered standalone cultural milestones like the MASH finale. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how WP:Notability works. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, you recently linked me to the article on multiverse (the real-world scientific hypothesis, not the comic book concept) to explain how the show Legends of Tomorrow is set in the same fictional "universe" as Arrow and Flash but not Supergirl (set in the same fictional "multiverse") which implied to me that you had not read or understood our multiverse article. (I shouldn't need to explain this, but a show can't be set in the "future" of "one universe" but not the future of other "universes" in the same "multiverse" under multiverse theory, which is the subject of the article you linked me to.) Given this, I don't really want you lecturing me on the fine points of WP:N, so we will have to disagree. In my opinion, WP:N means we need to have enough reliable sources on a topic to write something that looks like an encyclopedia, with real-world context, no original analysis, and all the necessary nuance. The vast, vast majority of standalone episode articles I have seen on Wikipedia (many of them written entirely or mostly by you, although it was not you I had in mind writing the above) are based entirely on primary (promotional) sources of dubious quality, and I think the project would be better off without such pages. I am certainly entitled to hold this opinion, and even to express it publicly, am I not? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good move, bringing up a separate, irrelevant discussion to confuse this one. I never said you aren't allowed to dislike episode articles or think that bad ones should not be kept. But you just said that there should be almost no episode articles at all just because they are episode articles, and so I stand by my comment regarding WP:N. Any article, regardless of what it is about, should be kept or deleted based on the merits of the sources provided for it. So yes, you are certainly entitled to hold the opinion that we should not have articles that don't meet WP:N (that is common sense), but campaigning for the deletion of almost all articles based on an episode of television is just nonsensical. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that every time I write a comment like my initial one above I get a bunch of "Thank"s from random editors who apparently have this page on their watchlists but don't want to chime in directly for whatever reason, and that the vast majority of AFDs I have opened has ended in the result I anticipated, says otherwise. Most of our individual episode articles, including not a few that passed GA review, are in my experience garbage fluff pieces cited (almost?) exclusively to primary sources. WP:N says that any topic notable enough to have a standalone article must necessarily have enough reliable secondary sources covering it enough detail that we can actually write a good article on it. This standard is universally agreed upon among Wikipedians, except for certain editors of pop culture articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

#FakeNews, you don't just get to claim the opposite of the truth to "win" an argument. Everybody here knows what they are doing just as much as you think you do, so that's a silly angle to take. If you have a specific issue with an article that you think should not exist, then you are of course free to open an AfD discussion, but claiming that you know better than every other editor who has ever worked on an episode article or GA review of an episode article (even those articles that you have not assessed yourself, as you have surely not personally checked every single episode article to support your position here) is just childish. Unfortunately, it is not unexpected. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civil to the last. I don't much appreciate how you say you know what you are doing but I only think I know what I'm doing: I've been editing Wikipedia a lot longer than you have and I have learned a thing or two, including in literally every single one of my content disputes with you where either consensus was on my side because I was right on the policy (or what the sources said). I have checked a bunch of episode articles, and with a very rare exception here and there they are primary-sourced fluff pieces. How many individual episode articles do you know that don't cite the Rotten Tomatoes score as though that was a remotely relevant statistic for an episode of an ongoing TV series? Or that don't cite a significant portion of their "development" sections to interviews and press releases? I've seen very few, and almost none on TV shows from the past ten years. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not list, this would be like listing placements on Total Request Live or music show "wins" in K-pop variety shows. Leave the notability for year-end major awards where they have a ceremony and the recipient actually gets something physical. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems pretty clear that there is a consensus to not have this award listed but Adam refuses to let me remove it... can someone smite him for insolence? Spanneraol (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spanneraol: Since this is Adam's issue now and no longer a normal content dispute, I would recommend WP:ANI or maybe WP:ANEW. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repinging because I botched it above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted – as I said in the edit summary, a consensus has been demonstrated here, and if that belongs anywhere, it belongs at Sonequa Martin-Green, not at Star Trek: Discovery. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody needs to calm down, especially Hijiri (as usual). The last thing said before Hijiri took us way off topic was an acknowledgement that we may have consensus to remove mention from the awards tables, as well as some proposals for where the information could go instead. So why did everybody all of a sudden decide that this meant a definite consensus to delete the information from articles entirely?! That's just ridiculous. I am not trying to pretend that there is support for my position where there is none (and I clearly no longer support that position myself entirely, which everyone has also decided to conveniently forget), I am just pointing out that we are still in the middle of the discussion with no decision as of yet on what to do, so the actions of Spanneraol and IJBall are frankly insulting and inappropriate. There is no need to make a big deal out of this, so can we please just finish the conversation before making brash edits claiming consensus? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There had been no further discussion on it for several days and no support for your opinion.. sure seemed like the conversation had died down and the consensus was pretty clear. Spanneraol (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, this is a very serious, recurring problem with you. Every time there is a broad discussion and consensus disagrees with what you personally think should be in this or that -- or those or these -- articles, you just ignore the consensus and continue to revert with impugnity, but when one or two of your friends agree with you on an article talk page you insist that "consensus" is on your side (even when a dozen editors have spontaneously expressed the same concerns multiple times over several months or years). And then when other editors tell you off you get extremely defensive and start insulting them personally (or get one of your friends to do it -- you can definitely be held responsible for continuing to host this). It has to stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with including such awards in article tables. IGN Awards, IndieWire Critics Poll, Golden Tomato Awards are all allowed so why not this as well? I do like Favre1fan93's suggestion that at the very least it should be included in prose on the season and episode articles since these nominations/accolades are followed by critical commentary. For example: Pilot (The Flash)#Accolades. - Brojam (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are weekly awards and all of them are more than just the opinion of one blogger and get reported on by trade papers. I have no objection to it being listed on episode pages if such pages exist but clearly not notable for a series. Spanneraol (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment above Spanneraol, I have already made it clear that I no longer completely support my original position, so stop saying that I do. You are not the first user to put words in my mouth like that, and it never ends well. Just because there appears to be consensus to not keep these awards in the tables does not mean you should. Going around deleting content when we are discussing possible places to move it to is very problematic and cannot be justified by "There had been no further discussion on it for several days". If you want to finish the discussion on what is to be done now that Favre and I started above, then that would be nice. And Hijiri, I will respond to your comments at your talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to cleanup the infoboxes at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 7) and related season articles but I've been getting some pushback from two editors there. I've reached three reverts for today so I'd appreciate some extra eyes on the articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this again, but I would be very grateful if to many more eyes on Adventures of the Little Koala again. The unregistered user traced to North Carolina is slowly resuming to remove CBS and Cookie Jar without hard evidence from the page. If that person cannot come up with a good compromise, our only opinion is to have the page protected indefinitely. I already lost my interest on the show because of that ridiculous problem and just got back to it and I don't want to lose again. I feel so alone. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion about a challenged split of List of Star Wars characters into multiple smaller articles based on individual Star Wars films and works, which involved the creation of eleven new articles. Currently, it is felt that the list is too long, especially after many past discussions to address this have gone unimplemented, and does not meet guidelines. However, it is also felt that the split structure is not effective and fails to improve. There is also a discussion about notability as it applies to character lists, whether all characters listed must meet a full threshold of notability expected for standalone articles or if there is a lesser threshold for inclusion on lists. Please see the discussion at Talk:List of Star Wars characters#This list doesn't meet the list selection criteria ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Friends, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]