Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Television
Get Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Television essential facts below. View Videos or join the Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Television discussion. Add Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Television to your topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Television
WikiProject Television (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve resource articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Resource: WikiProject Television:

To do list:
Major discussions/events:

Turning all inactive TV-show Wikiprojects into WP:WPTV taskforces (Part 2)

Following on from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Turning all inactive TV-show Wikiprojects into WP:WPTV taskforces, here is a list of more TV-show specific WikiProjects that could be converted into task forces:

WP Created Active Turn into taskforce ? Resource: WikiProject British television December 29, 2011? seems to be inactive since 2012 WP:WikiProject Television/British television task force
(similar to Resource: WikiProject Television/American television task force) Resource: WikiProject British TV/Channels September 30, 2004?;
Converted to task force December 29, 2011?
seems to be inactive since 2015 If British television turns into a task force, redirect to it. Resource: WikiProject British television/Shows December 18, 2005?
Converted to task force December 29, 2011?
seems to be inactive with one comment today (2/1/20), one in 2018,
and before that one in 2014.
If British television turns into a task force, redirect to it. Resource: WikiProject Scottish television May 1, 2009? marked {{inactive}} since 2010 WP:WikiProject Television/Scottish television task force Resource: WikiProject Canadian television January 6, 2007? marked {{semi-active}} since 2011 WP:WikiProject Television/Canadian television task force Resource: WikiProject Idol series September 6, 2006? marked {{inactive}} since 2014 WP:WikiProject Television/Idols task force Resource: WikiProject ITC Productions July 23, 2005? marked {{inactive}} since 2018 WP:WikiProject Television/ITC productions task force Resource: WikiProject NCIS August 12, 2013? seems to be inactive since 2013 WP:WikiProject Television/NCIS task force Resource: WikiProject Nickelodeon October 25, 2008? marked {{inactive}} since 2019
last real comment on talk page in 2012.
WP:WikiProject Television/Nickelodeon task force Resource: WikiProject Television Stations March 26, 2004? marked {{semi-active}};
seems to have comments from this year.
WP:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force Resource: WikiProject Television Game Shows July 11, 2006? marked {{semi-active}};
last real comment on talk page in 2016.
WP:WikiProject Television/Television game shows task force Resource: WikiProject Top Model December 15, 2016? seems to be inactive since 2017 WP:WikiProject Television/Top Model task force Resource: WikiProject The X Factor March 22, 2009? seems to be inactive since 2013 WP:WikiProject Television/The X Factor task force

Copying the statement given by User:sgeureka before:

As per Resource: WikiProject Television/Descendant WikiProjects and task forces#Show-specific projects and task forces, We now strongly recommend that new show/topic-specific WikiProjects become task forces of WP:TV. This still allows for greater focus on that show/ topic, but without having to start a whole new project from scratch. Many existing show-specific WikiProjects became projects before the concept of task forces was widely known, and many of them will become task forces in the future. See Resource: WikiProject Council/Guide for more info, or ask for help on WT:TV. (emphasis mine).

  • If someone thinks this move is a bad idea in general, then say so in the Discussion section below.
  • If someone feels a few selected WikiProjects should not become taskforces, please mark that in the above table with {{no X|Opposed}}, so that they can get a separate discussion at a later time.
  • If someone feels that WP:WPTV is not the right parent WikiProject for a certain taskforce, mark it in the above table or say so in the Discussion section below.

Discussion redux

  • Support as nom. --Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per precedent of Resource: WikiProject Television/American television task force. I see all WikiProjects have already been notified. – sgeureka toc 11:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • CommentWP:DISNEY is marked as "semi-active", so why wasn't it included here? --IJBall (contribs o talk) 14:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Possibly because its a media franchise thing, similar to WP:GIJOE before. Per WP:DISNEY, "This WikiProject will attempt to cover the various fields affiliated with Disney: movies, theme parks, merchandise, affiliated actors/actresses and the Disney Channel." TV is mentioned last. – sgeureka toc 15:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Exactly why I didn't include it. I felt that it's too big to be only one type. If the project is not really about the MCU films, Star Wars and parks, but only about the Disney Channel related topics, then it should be added. --Gonnym (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I'd still like to see WP:DISNEY included here, but I won't stop the others for this. --IJBall (contribs o talk) 19:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, at least for WikiProject Television Stations. The work associated with the project is very active, but I'd argue the project as a construct is largely inactive (and I've been involved for more than a decade to observe the decline in activity). I can't see the harm in this change. Mlaffs (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - WikiProject Television Stations has been semi-active for some time now and seeing how everyone of these WikiProjects cover different aspects of this WikiProject as a whole, I think it's perfectly appropriate --even necessary-- to bundle these all into one single WikiProject. I've seen plenty of other WikiProjects get bundled into another WikiProject (their parent WikiProject) due to inactivity. There are too many (inactive) WikiProjects on this site which makes it so much harder to centralize discussion about a certain topic area and the only way to curtail that is the sort of proposal by Gonnym.--Mythdon (talk o contribs) 04:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Almost a month of discussion. If there is no more input, I'll work on this next week. --Gonnym (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    • WikiProjects converted to task forces. Category renames listed at CfD, template banners listed at TfD. --Gonnym (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support makes a lot of sense and certainly helps keep track of things. Agree with the nom Gonnym that Disney, even if semi-active, should remain its own project--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should episode article titles default to the broadcaster's official title?

Should episode article titles default to the broadcaster's official title? czar 01:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


  • Official names only. Whether that's per broadcaster listings or title card, that's another kettle of fish to deal with; this particular RFC concerns the episode's official name over some sort of perceived "common name". If every episode guide lists an episode by its name, then that's automatically it's common name. For example, the finale of Arrow will reside at Fadeout (Arrow), not "Arrow finale episode". There is only one consensus-backed article (that I know of) that uses some form of "common name", and that went through three different titles and a firm consensus formed through discussion; tens of thousands of episode articles use their article title. Who is who to say what a common name is? If someone believes an episode article should exist at a different location then its official name, then they should be holding an RM for it. -- /Alex/21 04:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Official We should not use "names of convenience" for episodes. Yes, many TV episodes nowadays bury the title, perhaps not even in the episode proper, and so you'll get common-speak calling something the "finale". COMMONNAME doesn't mean to go that far into the "lay person slang", but instead what reliable sources say, and most TV RSes will mention the official title. --Masem (t) 04:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Official Once an official name is found, that name should be used. It may be desirable to add a redirect from a common name of the episode to the official name. --Enos733 (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Official names - I really don't have a lot to add to what Alex or Masem said, except that the nom makes an argument as if the "common name" is not the official title. This is a false dichotomy, as in fact the official title is used by every source talking about the episode - from the episode itself, official sources, TV guides, databases, reviewers and award nominations. --Gonnym (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Official names per Alex 21 with his emphasis of "Whether that's per broadcaster listings or title card, that's another kettle of fish to deal with". – sgeureka toc 08:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally, official, with the observation that sometimes the official name is not well known, perhaps unknown - consider An Unearthly Child, The Daleks and The Edge of Destruction to take just three examples from the 1963-66 period of Doctor Who. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Follow Resource: Article titles. Generally, this will mean the official name anyway. But there will always be exceptions, which is what Resource: Article titles already anticipates. For example, perhaps the first episode of a series may be officially named Pilot but may in the future take on another name or there may be an alternate title that is more descriptive and more commonly used. --Bsherr (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No/Follow Resource: Article titles and use common name per the "finale" example discussed below. The official name makes sense when there is no other name of convenience for an episode (over something like S#E# titling, although I do think that warrants a separate discussion), but when few actual sources invoke that official name, I think we do our readers a disservice by failing the principle of least astonishment--no reader is searching for the Mr. Robot finale as "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot". Not looking to convince this group at this point, but I am quite surprised at this local consensus for a policy exception. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    • So a RfC, which you've posted links to in numerous pages, including the VP and WP:AT is now considered a local consensus. --Gonnym (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Official names, in nearly all cases (and instances where there is a an episode title card, it should be that). Bsherr's example of TV episode pilots is a special case: a TV "pilot" is an episode type, not an actual "title", so that's a whole different issue. (IOW, some TV pilots do have actual titles, but many do not, and so are just called "Pilot" - but it's not an episode "title" per se...). --IJBall (contribs o talk) 17:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Episode title discussion

  • For background, this was asserted in a discussion above (#Episode titles) and has been asserted by the same quoted editor on other talk pages, but is not reflected in WP:NCTV. I would like to see formal consensus that this is indeed the rule so that WP:NCTV can be updated accordingly. On its face, this rule seems to me incompatible with WP policy, which prefers the "common name" used in most sources:

    Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five [article titles naming] criteria ...
    — Resource: Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names (policy) a.k.a. WP:COMMONNAME

    People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a resource article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to resource practice and policy.
    — Resource: Official names (explanatory supplement to the Resource: Article titles policy)

    When asked, the only guidance I've seen about defaulting to official titles has been:

    If an article does not already exist with the name of the television show, episode title, or character name for which you are trying to create an article, then simply use the name of the subject as the article title (e.g. Carnivàle, Pauline Fowler or "Cape Feare").
    — Resource: Manual of Style/Television#Naming conventions (MOS:TV guideline)

    But this does not go as far as to assert that the official title overrides the "common name" and even though it is meant to paraphrase WP:NCTV, that page makes no such assertion either.
Aside from having to reconcile policy incompatibility, if the RfC closes as "yes", it would additionally mean that we default to using title cards and/or broadcaster listings for our articles' titles rather than whatever the episode is most commonly known as in the sources. czar 01:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that the example used is not as cut and dry as what the question is about. The question about "official" vs. "common name" typically was not meant to be a battle between a "written number" or the numerical value of said number (e.g., "Part One" vs. "Part 1"). That, to me, is arguing over the taste of a tomato. It's still a tomato. I would think that finding sources that say "Part One" or "Part 1" has more to do with their use of grammatical rules than a "common name" usage. What common name was intended for was things like Madonna or Borat, who have official names (or legal names) but that's not their common name. As such, I would say that the "official" name should be used in a case of spelling or listing a number. In general though, it should be common name. Otherwise, that above arguments about "official" would be arguing that we move Borat to Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The article formerly known as Mr. Robot finale was forcibly renamed as "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot", based on the official names of the double-episode finale. Here is an accounting of the article's sources and how they refer to the episode:
No mention of "whoami" or "Hello, Elliot" titles: New York Times, CNN, TV Guide, Rolling Stone, Deadline, Entertainment Weekly, Showbuzz Daily, TVLine, Paste, Complex, Bustle, Engadget
Single mention of "whoami" or "Hello, Elliot" titles: IGN, Hollywood Reporter, Vulture (not in prose, in headline but not even invoked as the title), AV Club (not in prose, only in callout), Vox (not in prose, only in URL slug)
All sources introduce and repeatedly refer to the episodes as "the finale" and many refer to them as "S4 E12"/13.
There is no reasonably way to conclude that the broadcaster's official title is the "common name" for this episode/topic. There should be no reason why a reader would expect to find the article about the finale at "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot". (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Czar, you have absolutely no editorial support for your position of using the common name. The consensus is clear: stop beating a dead horse. -- /Alex/21 05:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

"Location" parameter in Template:Infobox television

I'm certain I've brought this issue up before but I'm not sure at what venue, but this appears to be the best place right now. This stemmed from an issue at Watchmen (TV series). For as far I remember and currently, the instructions at Template:Infobox television for states, "Production location, i.e. where the show is/was shot. Leave blank if same as country of origin above (emphasis mine). Now, I've been editing TV resource articles for over a decade now, and this instruction has essentially been ignored across every major TV article I am aware of. For one, the instructions aren't very logical; there's not much a point in only including locations for shows where they are filmed outside of its origin country, as that leaves a small number of shows. For comparison, it would be the same as not including "English" as its original language if it's country of origin is the United States. So, can we please simply remove the "Leave blank if same as country of origin above" from the instructions. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason is that we do not want to repeat information, and location is (mostly) trivial to get from country of origin. Language = English cannot be inferred from filmed in the United States in the same way. (Moreover, there are other countries which have multiple languages of interest.) --Izno (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Right, that was just a comparison to be made, not really the issue. All the infobox does is repeat information, it's a basic overiew (along with the lede) of the article itself. The filming location isn't trivial, as it's quite common for filming details to be covered in the body text. There's definitely more trivial items included in the infobox that is generally never covered in the body text, such as audio and picture format. My main point is that from what I've seen, most TV articles (including FA/GA-level) do not follow this instruction, and it's become severely outdated. For the example at Watchmen, to follow the instructions to the letter, would mean we only list Wales as the filming location because it's the only location that is not the same of country of origin, which incorrectly implies that Wales is only filming location. That is illogical. The editor that made the edit removed Georgia (U.S. state) (Watchmen's primary filming location) and simply replaced it with United States, which isn't helpful because there's no point in not being precise. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if you've noticed but on talk shows when the host asks audience members where they are from, Americans will specify their state, while the non-Americans just state their country. For Americans, knowing the specific location outside of the US is unnecessary as they generally won't know where it is. For non-Americans, knowing the US state is unnecessary because most non-Americans probably won't know where the state is. This is similar to the issue you are discussing. For most programs it is unnecessary and generally pointless to use a specific location, which is why we only use countries. It would be rather pointless to, say, include Ararat, Victoria for a US program filmed in Australia. That's why we only use countries in the field. For any program, if it is exclusively shot in the country of origin there is no need to indicate because it is assumed that it was shot in that country. However, where production of a program spans multiple countries, it's necessary to include the country of origin to avoid an assumption that it is only shot in the country listed in the location field. The edit that you are concerned with is valid per the infobox instructions and actually does make sense. --AussieLegend (?) 03:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
If we're only supposed to use countries for that parameter, the instructions should say that. I didn't know this. I thought it would have been OK to note "Bangkok, Thailand" for a US show shot in Bangkok. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
There are competing ideologies in what is considered important. While the infobox guideline (per above) says not to include specific locations, the category tree at Category:American television series by production location does. One can argue that these serve different things, but I disagree. An article should be seen as a consistent and single entity, which to me means that the infobox, categories and article should all say the same thing in the same manner. In this example, if there is a category tree that has "Television shows filmed in Georgia (U.S. state)?", then the infobox should follow and not obstruct that information behind the general "United States" or worse, not show it at all. If on the other hand, one argues that the filming information isn't a core aspect and useful in the infobox, then that's a valid argument, but then it should be removed altogether. As a side comment, in a better system than what we currently have, WP:TEMPLATECAT wouldn't have existed and the template would actually handle these categories. --Gonnym (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth#To display or not to display an "empty" table.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth#To display or not to display an "empty" table.. -- YoungForever(talk) 16:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

TV by the Numbers

So, looks like it's ending. My question is what will happen with shows like Gordon Ramsay's 24 Hours to Hell and Back and The Masked Singer which uses TVbtN for viewership? I'm not really that knowledgeable with what sites get what ratings, but I know Showbuzz Daily doesn't usually report viewership for those two shows. Magitroopa (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This opens up a larger question - do (broadcast) TV ratings even mean anything anymore, in what is now a "time-shifting"/streaming TV universe?! I'd argue that TV ratings are now meaningless (and probably have been for about 5 years now - and not just SAME DAY, but pretty much even LIVE+7). It's unfortunate that a lot of editors continue to be stuck in the past, and insist that we keep including ratings info for current TV shows, when in the modern environment we probably should have stopped tracking/including them quite some time ago... So, if you ask me, we shouldn't even bother to find a replacement for TV by the Numbers. --IJBall (contribs o talk) 03:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I think ratings are still important, but we should be using as broad figures as we can--anything that tracks online streaming and a lengthier window, so that we do not have biases towards certain demographics of viewers (e.g. older people, who are less likely to watch online). The figures are important as they show the popular success (or lack thereof) of a programme and they are statistics still taken seriously in the industry, as far as I'm aware, in terms of what timeslots to give shows and when to renew them. For non-comparable or non-standard viewing figures, footnotes should be used to clarify what is counted as a "view". -- Bilorv (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
The money in TV still comes from ads, the cost of which are still based on ratings. They still mean a ton. --SubSeven (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Batwoman (TV series)

There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Batwoman (TV series)#LaMonica Garrett as starring if Garrett should be considered a main character due to being billed as such, despite only appearing in a crossover episode. JDDJS (talk to me o see what I've done) 22:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Location of notes in List of Ugly Betty episodes

List of Ugly Betty episodes transcludes the episode lists from each season's article (e.g., Ugly Betty (season 1)). However, the notes at the bottom of each list are in the main List of Ugly Betty episodes article. Is there a reason I shouldn't move the notes to the individual season articles, so they appear on those pages as well, answering questions like this?

(Posted here because Talk:List of Ugly Betty episodes has been inactive for 11+ years.) --[AlanM1(talk)]-- 02:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  •  Done – I moved the notes. --[AlanM1(talk)]-- 01:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

List of The Try Guys episodes

Can anyone make sense of List of The Try Guys episodes? I suggest sitting down before you click the link. --AussieLegend (?) 14:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That list is a combination of the series "The Try Guys" and the franchise of series built around the group known as "The Try Guys". It should probably be reconstructed and split. --Gonnym (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

"R from television episode" template wording RfC

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Template talk:R from television episode#RfC: The template wording's accuracy.

I've RfCed this because the page has very few active watchlisters other than the disputing parties. -- SMcCandlish ? ¢ ? 07:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Young Sheldon#Splitting proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Young Sheldon#Splitting proposal . -- YoungForever(talk) 01:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC at Batwoman

I'm trying to get some more editors to participate in the RFC at Talk:Batwoman_(TV_series)#Request_for_comment about listing the monitor as a main character or a guest. JDDJS (talk to me o see what I've done) 01:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

M&L and F415

Requesting to add Gay Rosenthal as Executive Producer and Gay Rosenthal Productions as Production Company for TV Land: Myths and Legends. Source: and -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:DCBD:54C8:E6A8:ADD1 (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC) -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:BD5B:19E2:8701:AFBC (talk)

Requesting to add Gay Rosenthal as Executive Producer and Gay Rosenthal Productions as Production Company to Fame for 15. Source: and -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:DCBD:54C8:E6A8:ADD1 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC) -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:BD5B:19E2:8701:AFBC (talk)

Probably need something better than IMDb before granting the request and adding this. --IJBall (contribs o talk) 03:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Changing the names of transgender staff members

I have come across a problem where transgender members of staff are being listed by their deadnames on tv shows resource pages. I have been told that the WP:TV policy requires staff to be listed how they are credited in an episode, however I believe an exception should be allowed in these such cases as deadnaming transgender people is inherently transphobic. Ndncndln (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

There are going to be two issues at play: how notable the staff person is, and how well know the transition was. A non-notable staff person with no coverage of their transition means we're likely going to keep the name as credited even if that's the dead name. The ur counter-example of course is with the Wachowskis with the Matrix movies: they were already well known, and their transition was well-covered in media, so that's a case where we have retroactively found a solution to avoid the "deadname" situation. A core WP BLP policy with regards to transgendered is that we aren't going to hide their deadname if they were notable under that deadname. If they aren't notable, then we may have wiggle room, but in the case of a TV episode, which the credits are "baked" it may be hard not to mention the deadname. --Masem (t) 14:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I added their new name with a citation and was cordially invited to come here to discuss this:
So, can the edit, which I have sourced, stay? --occono (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The source you gave is a Masters thesis which is nowhere close to reliable for BLP issues. --Masem (t) 22:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
OK. I'd still like to get confirmation of a definite policy to handle these situations is if the citation is reliable though, I will work on a better source. Pointing to broad policy outlines on here without justifying them is not my favourite part of Wikipedia.--occono (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, how did you believe that the thesis linked would support your claim that they had changed their names? -- /Alex/21 22:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not Occono, but I assume the reason Occono thought that that thesis supports the claim that Jesse Zuke changed their name is because the thesis states that that is the case. AJD (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
It is not that the thesis is likely wrong, but simply that it is a masters thesis, and does not meet what we'd consider the basic of a reliable source, particularly for a BLP. In this case, we'd actually take a tweet from the person directly (as long as we have confirmation of their identity) over that, but we'd really prefer a more reliable source, as defined per WP:RS. --Masem (t) 03:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
As Masem stated, this is clearly a BLP issue. Can I open the episode and see their previous name credited in the episode? Yes? Then that's how they should be listed for that episode. Will they be credited in future episodes with their new name? Yes? Then that's how they should be listed for those episodes. Just as we don't hide spoilers, "deadnames", or whatever the term is/means, is a personal issue and not one to take to Wikipedia. That does not make resource or its policies transphobic. Just because it is sourced, does not mean we can change what has already happened. -- /Alex/21 22:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I did include their credited name in the edit, and then sourced the fact that they do not use this name anymore. --occono (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
See my above comment; specifically the last sentence. -- /Alex/21 22:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I did not "change what has already happened". I indicated the name the episode credits, but I updated the information to be reflective of the most up to date information, for the same reason that if someone marries someone and gets renamed, we change their article's name to reflect this too. The list is not a transcript of the episode credits, it's an encyclopedia that reflects up to date knowledge.--occono (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
In such a case, the article might be renamed, but in every article of their listed filmography, is every instance of their name changed? No. Same applies here. -- /Alex/21 22:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is. For instance, every article in Ellen Burstyn's filmography that mentions her as a cast member lists her under the name Ellen Burstyn, even those for which she was credited under the name Ellen McRae. Some of them state that she was "then billed as Ellen McRae", but all of them use "Ellen Burstyn" as the primary name by which she is credited in the article. The same is true for Mahershala Ali, who changed his name in 2010, during the existence of Wikipedia, meaning, yes, someone must have literally gone back to every article in his filmography to update his name. AJD (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
That is not common practice, and I would be interested in seeing who changed those entries under what policy or reasoning. -- /Alex/21 06:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
How sure are you that it's "not common"? I just looked up Phylicia Rashad, Alexander Siddig, and Meredith Baxter; of the three only Baxter is not consistently listed by her current name in articles about shows and films in which she was credited by other names. Out of the first five actors I could think of who have changed their names, four are without exception listed primarily by their current name rather than as credited, and Baxter is about half the time. It seems pretty "common" to me. AJD (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I think Masem gives insight into common practice pretty accurately, but so far as I am aware the only relevant quote from policy here is from MOS:GENDERID: Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. We have other policies that apply to articles about trans people, but that is not the situation here if I understand correctly--we're only talking about people mentioned on articles about things they worked on.
If there is no reliable source describing a person's new name then we're in a very difficult situation as WP:BLP does not permit us to use unsourced information about living persons. If, however, there is a reliable source then my opinion is that we should use their correct name and mention their credited deadname in a footnote. Interestingly, you'll find precedence for this in different circumstances--take the article The Convention Conundrum (one I worked on, but which passed independent reviews). It credits Kaley Cuoco as such but notes under "Production" that the credits read "Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting" at the time. Perhaps a more relevant case to consider is that of Emily VanDerWerff, a trans reviewer who is now credited by "Emily" rather than her deadname, per consensus here, though in her case the bylines of her articles have been changed online, whereas television credits are not changed in the same way.
Masem: I'm not sure whether you meant to write A core WP BLP policy with regards to transgendered is ... as it's not grammatically correct anyway, but that last word is a slur--I think "transgender people" would fit there instead.
Alex 21: you're being quite hostile here. If you don't know what "deadname" means then you can do some research before expressing an opinion. You could start with Healthline's introduction (skip the law-related stuff). You'll see from my examples above (which I wrote before reading your posts here) that your comment about Just because it is sourced, does not mean we can change what has already happened overlooks some actual practice and established consensus. -- Bilorv (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
We had a site-wide WP:RfC about this (which, of course, is now impossible to find), and I believe the result of that RfC was that we leave the former name(s) of the person in those historical contexts in an article in which the former name was used, and don't go back an "retroactively" change them. What has changed since the RfC?... --IJBall (contribs o talk) 03:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)-
I don't know when that RfC was, but of course one possible answer to what has changed might be that it is now more widely recognized that it is inappropriate to deadname a transgender person. But in any event, that policy does not appear to widely applied even in the case of cisgender people (cf. Ellen Burstyn and Mahershala Ali, as mentioned above); all the more reason for it not to be applied for transgender people, for whom it is actively offensive. AJD (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
This RfC? --Gonnym (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
If it is indeed the above RFC, then the consensus is clear: There appears to be a consensus to list credited names only. That RFC was nine months ago, and is thus very much still relevant. To overrule it, another site-wide RFC would have to be held and closed with a clear opposing consensus. -- /Alex/21 06:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The summary of the consensus on that RfC is very clear and specific that "this will not result in deadnaming anyone". That is a highly unusual situation that does not appear to be generalizable beyond Drag Race. There is no reason to consider that the result of that RfC is relevant to any show where listing credited names only would result in deadnaming someone; the fact that no deadnaming would result appears essential to the reasoning that led that RfC to its conclusion. AJD (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Indeed this RfC is deliberately limited in scope and takes not deadnaming people into account in its conclusion. I believe the only policy or consensus to have been correctly presented in this discussion remains my quote from MOS:GENDERID: Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. It's rather frustrating to deal with non-falsifiable claims that some policy or consensus exists somewhere to say something half-remembered. How about we instead follow the only verifiably true part of policy that's been presented and argue what should happen on a case-by-case basis? -- Bilorv (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
No, it was definitely not that RfC - the one I'm thinking of took place around the time that Caitlyn Jenner transitioned, and it was the site as a whole, not on a specific TV series. But, of course, I couldn't find it last night when I was looking for it, because I have no idea what that RfC was titled... --IJBall (contribs o talk) 13:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
That would be mid-2015 then, since Bruce Jenner was moved to Caitlyn Jenner on 1 June 2015. Maybe search the archives of WP:BLPN or WP:VPP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Resource: Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification - just as a tip, searching for "wp:rfc Caitlyn Jenner" brought this up first option. --Gonnym (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
That's the one. The list that Masem point to notes that the result of that RfC was the "narrowing" of MOS:IDENTITY to what is basically the current wording. --IJBall (contribs o talk) 15:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
That appears to have also been a narrow conclusion that doesn't necessarily generalize to other individuals or articles. From the summary: "there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article.... All of which helps us for this particular article but does little to solve the more general problem". AJD (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Resource: Manual of Style/Gender identity has a list of all major RFCs related to gender identity. --Masem (t) 15:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I have always operated on the understanding that how they were credited originally is how the work is listed. We do this when people start their careers as "Tony" and when they become more well known start going by "Anthony", or even misspellings of names in credits. It's part of the record. We haven't retroactively changed that on the work in question. This is different than say changing their personal Wikipage to reflect their current name. I vehemently disagree that not doing so is "transphobic", because the argument has nothing to do with recognizing them as a trans person and everything to do with the fact that their "deadname" is still the listed credit of that work. For a separate example, see Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics, which still lists Bruce Jenner as the winner of the gold medal, even though Bruce (who was widely well known in recent years) very publicly transitioned to Caitlyn Jenner and that was well covered.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
As noted above, the practice you described actually isn't how "we do this", and many individuals' names are "retroactively changed" on articles about works they have been involved with to keep up with changes in their names. In addition to the examples of Mahershala Ali, Ellen Burstyn, Alexander Siddig, and Phylicia Rashad whom I've mentioned above, Masem points out the example of the Wachowskis, whose names and credits have been updated on the articles in their filmography. In any event, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform the reader, not to simply transcribe the credits of TV shows; the reader wants to know what person was involved in this production?. Reporting an incorrect name (including a misspelled name!) is just not giving the reader the information they're looking for. Moreover, though you may "vehemently disagree", you're mistaken; it is widely understood that unnecessarily referring to a transgender person by their former name is a transphobic act unless the person in question has stated otherwise. AJD (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
"Widely understood"...I think not. I've been a therapist for over 10 years, and worked with transgendered individuals, and I've never met anyone that got upset because there were documents that referenced their former name (or sometimes current name, because they had not legally changed it yet but only requested to be referred by a different name---which was done informally, but legal documents are legal documents). Phobia means fear. Even if you were to argue from an "ism" standpoint, no one is denying their identity, they are merely acknowledging that there was a different identifier earlier in their life. It's also not wrong to report on how things were originally listed. Those individuals still link back to their current name. resource is an encyclopedia, which recounts historical events. Ignoring history by saying that Caitlyn Jenner was called "Caitlyn Jenner" in the 1975 Olympics is 100% inaccurate and more detrimental to readers than what you are suggesting. History is history, regardless of what happens currently, it isn't revisionist history. The examples you picked, I would tell you, should not have gone back and changed the name of the actor from what they were originally credited. The reason being, because apparently this has more to do with a social justice issue with you than an encyclopedic one, is because someone going back to look at a page might be a little confused when they don't see the name of the person they saw in the credits. Now, for people that are married you might be able to figure it out. But that's not always the case. Take another sports figure Muhammed Ali, formerly Cassius Clay. You'll notice that Muhammad Ali vs. Sonny Liston has half the article written using "Clay", because that was his name when he first Liston the first time. The article changes to Ali when he changed his name. That's how it should be. There's a difference between how a film or TV article should list the credits (which yes, we've always fallen back on how were they actually credited---which is why "Two-Face" doesn't come up in The Dark Knight), and how we present that person's individual article (which should reflect how they currently identify).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said above Bignole, transgendered is a slur; you simply want the word "transgender" there. You say that: someone going back to look at a page might be a little confused when they don't see the name of the person they saw in the credits. But this has already been addressed in comments above. AJD notes that a person reading the credits is looking for the person who was involved, not the syntactic sequence of characters listed in the credits--it's more confusing to expect a person to be present in the credits but then to find... well, something that isn't a person but a mistake there. My comment above notes that there is precedent for using a person's correct name and having a footnote listing their deadname to avoid confusion, which allays your confusion concern. And additionally, you did not respond to the example of the Wachowskis. I'd also like to add that your understanding of "revisionist history" is rather unnuanced if it prevents any typographical or editorial changes--should we refer to the Roman Empire only as Imperium R?m?num because the former is linguistic revisionism? The important information here is the identifiable object, not the name given to it.

As for your claim that there's a "social justice issue", I'd like to see you actually explain what you mean by "social justice" and justify why it's either a bad thing or a different thing to WP:BLP's statement that material [about living persons] requires a high degree of sensitivity. Perhaps the trans individuals you've known are not showing signs of unease when seeing a deadname in a place they expected to see it, but I would expect a therapist to have a much more nuanced understanding of dysphoria and of where a person reasonably expects to see trauma triggers. -- Bilorv (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me address the last thing first: Trying to somehow insinuate that I'm not understanding of the trans-community simply because I typed "transgendered" is just a backhanded way of personally attacking someone. I understand trauma triggers, I've been trained to work with people who have suffered traumatic events. It seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're implying that someone who is trans is being triggered by the thought that their birth name is on a legal document that is required to have their legal name listed? Sorry, I cannot support that idea if that's what you mean, because I've never seen that happen in all my years. But that's neither here nor there, and I'll get to why in a moment.
When I say "social justice", it isn't meant to be disparaging, it's to separate out a discussion about what is and is not phobic/racist/etc. from a discussion about what should be the proper way to identify historical information. The reason I felt the need to say that was because this section literally started off with an accusation of transphobia: "I believe an exception should be allowed in these such cases as deadnaming transgender people is inherently transphobic." Transphobia is "fear, aversion, hatred, violence, anger, or discomfort felt or expressed towards people who do not conform to society's gender expectation." None of that is taking place here, nor out in the TV or Film community pages. Let me be clear, the item being discuss about these pages is NOT about denying a transperson's preferred gender identity, nor is it about denying them the name they wish to go by. This discussion is about HISTORICAL events. The issue of deadnaming someone being "transphobic" would make sense only if there was record of said individual trying to remove all evidence of said deadname from existence. While this is the case for many in the trans-community, I would like to see said case when it comes to a public figure (not denying it might not, just that it's atypical). The purpose of removing a deadname has typically been to hide who you once were so people only know who you currently are. For someone in the public eye, like say Caitlyn Jenner....everyone already know who she was and who she is. She cannot wipe that out, because she was a public figure and there is too much historical documentation about Caitlyn's life as Bruce Jenner to just wipe it from eternity. That doesn't mean we don't recognize Caitlyn as Caitlyn today, only that we also recognize that Bruce Jenner was an Olympic athlete who later in life transitioned from being a man to a woman.
This will be my final words on this discussion. 1) I believe that tv and film pages should reflect historical names as they were credited. If someone changes their name and are credited with that name going forward, then that name is used going forward. This is not about BLP pages, that's a different discussion. 2) We should not retroactively change anyone's credited name, regardless of them transitioning, them getting married, or them just wanting a new name (ala Meta World Peace) on anything prior to that name change. This is NOT out of disrespect, anger, or bigotry toward any person (that's why I wouldn't do it if you were gay, straight, trans, married, divorced, etc.) but out of respect for the historical content and context of the film or tv show in question. Now, I will leave with one exception to my opinion on how to handle this, and that's documented evidence of said public figure (because we're talking about public figure here, not random citizen of the country) wants all evidence of their deadname removed. They don't have to specifically ask Wikipedia, but if there is evidence that they are trying to have their deadname removed from all documents and only be reference (even from a historical context) as their current name, then I think we can respect that above foundational rules and make those changes. Cheers to all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
My comment about "transgendered" was the first thing I said, not the last, and any moralistic overtones you see are your own interpretation, not my intention. Rather than accuse me of a personal attack, you could have simply owned up to making a small mistake and then the matter would be dropped. I do believe that a birth name no longer used can be a trauma trigger to someone who associates the name with traumatic childhood experiences, yes (I've seen it occur and I'm most certainly not a therapist of 10 years, but different experiences I guess).
WP:BLP applies to all content about living people, not biographical articles only. I believe the examples above (Kaley Cuoco, Emily VanDerWerff, the Wachowskis) which support my opinion are of stronger relevance to television credits than your examples regarding Muhammad Ali, Caitlyn Jenner and Metta World Peace, but I understand I'm not going to change your opinion. -- Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion - Fresh Prince of Bel-Air

A move discussion is taking place at Talk:The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (song)#Requested move 2 February 2020 which may be of interest to watchers of this page. -- Netoholic @ 04:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

TV/film ratings template

Hey, I thought I'd ask for some views on making a template like Template:Album ratings for film and TV ratings, which reviews often give now. I have seen the album ratings template used on film and TV articles, but perhaps one for AV media that has that in the name, and with the purple colors used for TV templates, would be worth it? Kingsif (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Input needed at Template talk:Infobox awards list

This discussion relating to the footnote displayed in Template talk:Infobox awards list has gone a week without participants. Editors of this WikiProject may be interested in commenting. - Teratix ? 03:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Return of the Darksaber (fictional weapon)

Talk:The_Mandalorian#RfC_regarding_Darksaber_mention_in_The_Mandalorian_plot_summary. For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Input needed at Talk:Television in the Republic of Ireland

Hello, I thought this discussion could do with some more views as it concerns quite a significant change of format that could have a knock on effect for other years in television articles. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Corn & Peg episodes

Would this LoE article be enough to warrant being a separate article from Corn & Peg? I just recently reverted the removal of the LoE from the main article, not realizing it was because this separate LoE article was created. Based off of MOS:TVSPLIT, my guess would be no, and that it should be brought to AfD?... Magitroopa (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I'd merge it back, and convert it to a redirect. --IJBall (contribs o talk) 17:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed split discussion at Talk:2010s in Irish television

A discussion is open at Talk:2010s in Irish television#Split proposal. Please feel free to comment. This is Paul (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Changes to project templates messed up categorization

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Gonnym, Ned Scott, Sgeureka, Tom (LT), BrownHairedGirl, and Dthomsen8: As a result of the Various TV-related WikiProject templates TfD, many TV-related WikiProjects were combined into Template:WikiProject Television. This resulted in many pages winding up in many large non-existent categories found at Special:WantedCategories. Most, such as Category:NA-importance Episode coverage articles are probably an artifact of the Template:WikiProject Television template. Modifying the template to put things in existing now-empty categories may solve the problem. Renaming existing categories may be a better solution. Some "Parent" categories with now-empty but probably previously-populated sub-categories include Category:Television game shows task force articles, Category:Episode coverage task force articles, and Category:Television stations task force articles. There may be other empty categories in Special:WantedCategories not related to the 3 parent categories I listed. If there are, these will also need to be dealt with.

So, should the existing categories be renamed to match the populated non-existing ones, or should the template be modified to put pages into the existing categories? If there isn't a permanent decision soon, I recommend modifying the template on a temporary basis, it's the easier decision to undo. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) See also: Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 4#Unwanted side effects of template merge. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@davidwr: Please don't revert. I strongly urge doing whatever's needed to get to the correct titles, and I haven't seen any case where the old titles are better. Most of the glitches are things like capitalisation fixes, which should be pursued rather than reverted.
For example, the existing title Category:List-Class Scottish Television articles is clearly incorrect capitalisation (the project is Resource: WikiProject Television/Scottish television task force), so I have tagged all the categories for speedy renaming to the lower-case T.
Several other sets are also listed at WP:CFDS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) o (contribs) 22:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This is already under discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Television#Still more needed? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:The Mentalist 2008 Intertitle.png

A tag has been placed on File:The Mentalist 2008 Intertitle.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

copyright unused file replace by a free file file:The Mentalist 2008 Intertitle.png

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pierpao (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television - show_name parameter

So it looks like this parameter is no longer relevant or needed, as it looks like the infobox now automatically takes the name from the page title if you leave the parameter blank or remove it entirely.

For example:

WikiProject Television
WikiProject Television

Amaury o 18:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Music Scenes