Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

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.

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, 39, 40: 25 days

WikiProject Television was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 8 January 2014.

WikiProject Television was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 6 September 2016.

	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

Peer review for TechTV

I've put the article for TechTV up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/TechTV/archive1. Any and all suggestions for improving the article can be made there and would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got some valuable input from Sammie Brie that just might've gotten the article up to GA-level quality. I'll be leaving the peer review open until April 6 at the most, and if there's no other input by then, I'll be closing the PR and making that nomination. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Home (Game of Thrones)

Home (Game of Thrones) 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) 17:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Blair Waldorf

Blair Waldorf 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) 17:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Grey's Anatomy

Grey's Anatomy 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) 17:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Listing cast playing same characters in Cast section.

Hi! What is the preferred way to list the cast if an actor replace other actor in a long running television series. For example Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. Sid95Q (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to do something like "[Actor 1] (season #s) and [Actor 2] (season #s) as [Character]". If there for some reason are more than one replacement, then "[Actor 1] (season #s), [Actors 2] (season #s), and [Actor 3] (season #s) as [Character]" etc. If season's aren't a good indicator of when an actor was in the role, year of release would also work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A great example showing the above would be The Crown (TV series). -- Alex_21_TALK 20:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✅: I support Favre1fan93 format as it clearly indicates who played the role and when, using years instead of seasons for Indian shows like Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. It ensures clarity, avoids ambiguity, and aligns with Wikipedia practices, as seen in The Crown (TV series). Tenshi Uisu (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the use of "/" ok? Like used in the above mentioned page Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. There have been several discussions in past to avoid these Like here you can read paragraph "Ambiguous slashes" in "Examples" section. Sid95Q (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem in that example isn’t the slashes but the excessive, confusing information crammed into one line. When used properly, slashes offer a clear, concise way to indicate role replacements without unnecessary repetition. Instead of bloated cast lists repeating character names, a simple Actor A / Actor B along with years format efficiently communicates that one actor replaced another.

Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines would have explicitly prohibited them. WP:TVCAST prioritizes clarity, but it doesn’t forbid slashes when they enhance readability.

At the end of the day, it’s about balance. Tenshi Uisu (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenshi Uisu: I don't think the edits you made provide any clarity. That's why I am here to take suggestions from uninvolved editors. Thanks Sid95Q (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Mashin Sentai Kiramager

There's an ongoing discussion regarding the inclusion of the executive producers on the Mashin Sentai Kiramager article. It can be found at Talk:Mashin Sentai Kiramager#Executive producers. Feedback from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Zap2it closure - what to do?

Earlier today, Zap2it was not loading whatsoever, with error pages coming up when trying to load the website. Fast forward a few hours later, and now https://tvschedule.zap2it.com/ / https://tvlistings.zap2it.com/ redirects to the NewsNation TV schedule.

Obviously hoping this isn't an abrupt end to Zap2it, but if it is, what should be done? Dozens of TV articles here use Zap2it as a source for episode listings, so lots of shows are being impacted here. We still have The Futon Critic, and as of recently, I've seen some users using TV Insider, but from what little I've seen, it's definitely not as good of a source as Zap2it.

The only other thing I have to say before others chime in is that I found someone on Twitter/X mention this: https://tvlistings.gracenote.com/grid-affiliates.html As that same user pointed out however, "it's apparently the result of Nielsen buying the old TMS and Gracenote from Tribune back in 2016 before Nexstar bought the rest of Tribune in 2019. The copyright in the old page footer fooled me into thinking Nexstar still owned it".

Anyways, as this may have a large impact across loads of articles, even if it does miraculously come back at some point in the future, it'd be wise to start figuring out what the next steps are given the current status of this all. Magitroopa (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also know that Showbuzz Daily was moreso regarding ratings, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 34#U.S. TV ratings sources may be of use in finding sites that may/may not be useful for this new dilemma. Magitroopa (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Someone apparently got in contact via email, and was told that Zap2it has been shut down and to use the Gracenote site for TV listings. If this is indeed the case, something still needs to be figured out regarding the numerous articles using Zap2it as a source, that now just redirects to the NewsNation TV listings on their website. No idea how easy (if it all) it would to convert the references to Gracenote links. Magitroopa (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magitroopa If URLs are convertible, consider talking to Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 20:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few URL changes if you want to go to a certain show, for example, for season 1 of Danger Force:

Of note:

Both https://tvschedule.zap2it.com/ and https://tvlistings.zap2it.com/ previously brought you to Zap2it, where as it appears only https://tvlistings.gracenote.com/grid-affiliates.html works, with no 'tvschedule' link.
The 'grid-affiliates' appears necessary for the URL to work. https://tvlistings.gracenote.com/ does not work.
Omitting the '-affiliates' from a specific show URL also does not appear to work.

TL;DR, no idea in the slightest if the URLs are convertible or not. Hopefully someone else will know better regarding all of this than myself... Magitroopa (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @GreenC to this, maybe they have thoughts or ideas how to handle this. Gonnym (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can do this. Only need redirect mapping rules, like the rule discovered by User:Magitroopa. I add the rules into my bot that makes the change. If the rule doesn't resolve for a given URL, it will convert to an archive URL. There are 11,487 pages which is "large". Different types of URLs may have different rules, like for blog, or news, etc.. the more rules patterns you discover will improve conversion rate. I created a request Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests#zap2it.com, feel free to continue using this Project page thread as the main discussion. -- GreenC 22:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done more info at Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests#zap2it.com .. most of the links were already archived, was able to save about 780 using the rule discovered by User:Magitroopa, and the rest treated as normal dead links with archives added. -- GreenC 04:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Disney+ Hotstar#Requested move 29 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney+ Hotstar#Requested move 29 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Brian's Got a Brand New Bag

Brian's Got a Brand New Bag 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) 02:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date errors in articles

The following pages have date errors that I couldn't fix for one reason or another. If anyone is familiar with these pages, please take a look. Search for "error" to find the errors.

Gonnym (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for 24: The Game

24: The Game 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) 18:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters#Requested move 22 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters#Requested move 22 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. AsuGPTNow with 100% more artificial intelligence! 13:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions at Talk:The Rose of Versailles

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Rose of Versailles § Proposal for character and synopsis section merges?, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. There's also a discussion on Talk:The Rose of Versailles § Synopsis section if you are interested. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]