Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Television: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:31, 1 August 2016 editAussieLegend (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers173,395 edits →Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.: update← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:14, 23 December 2024 edit undoBoneless Pizza! (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,482 edits →Jeff Sneider 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|WT:TV|WT:WPTV|wp=yes}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|WT:TV|WT:WPTV|wp=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Television}}
}}
{{topic|Television}} {{topic|Television}}
{{WikiProject Television|class=Project|importance=NA}}
{{to do|target=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television}} {{to do|target=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-01-08/WikiProject report|writer=]|
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot II|age=25|small=yes|dounreplied=yes}}
]]||day=8|month=January|year=2014}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2016-09-06/WikiProject report|writer=]|
]]||day=6|month=September|year=2016}}
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television/Navigation}} {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television/Navigation}}
<!-- archive config -->
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-01-08/WikiProject report|writer=]|
]]||day=8|month=January|year=2014}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television/Archive index |target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television/Archive index
Line 13: Line 18:
|indexhere=yes}} |indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 220K |maxarchivesize = 220K
|counter = 23 |counter = 39
|minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(25d) |algo = old(25d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}


== Manual of Style Rewrite == == Why is there no best TV list? ==
*The ] ] '']'' (1989-1998) was named by '']'' as the ] in 2002.<ref name=tvguideTop50>{{cite news|title=TV Guide Names Top 50 Shows|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tv-guide-names-top-50-shows/|agency=Associated Press|date=April 26, 2002|author=Cosgrove-Mather, Bootie|access-date=February 16, 2022|work=CBS News}}</ref><ref name="auto">{{cite magazine |last1=Fretts |first1=Bruce |last2=Roush |first2=Matt |title=The Greatest Shows on Earth |magazine=TV Guide Magazine |volume=61 |issue=3194–3195 |pages=16–19 }}</ref>

*The ] ] series '']'' (1999-2007) was named the greatest TV show of all time in 2013 by '']''<ref name="2013 TV Guide Great">{{cite magazine |last1=Fretts |first1=Bruce |last2=Roush |first2=Matt |url=https://www.tvguide.com/News/TV-Guide-Magazine-60-Best-Series-1074962.aspx |date=December 23, 2013 |title=TV Guide Magazine's 60 Best Series of All Time |magazine=TV Guide |access-date=December 23, 2013 |archive-date=December 24, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131224111355/http://www.tvguide.com/News/TV-Guide-Magazine-60-Best-Series-1074962.aspx |url-status=live }}</ref> and in 2016 by ].<ref name="rollingstone">{{cite magazine |url=https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/lists/100-greatest-tv-shows-of-all-time-w439520/the-sopranos-w439641 |title=100 Greatest TV Shows of All Time |magazine=Rolling Stone |first=Rob |last=Sheffield |date=September 21, 2016 |access-date=September 22, 2016 |archive-date=September 23, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160923092816/http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/lists/100-greatest-tv-shows-of-all-time-w439520/the-sopranos-w439641 |url-status=live }}</ref>
So I've been thinking about this for a bit, and wanted to present this idea. Members of this project have been slowly updating parts of the MOS here and there over the good part of a year/year and a half now, but I think it would behoove the project to give a very long thorough look at the MOS to update it. This post is to garner interest from project users who would be interested in participating in such a project (which I was thinking of starting in August, should people want). The thought is to go through every single section of the MOS as it stands, and have a discussion about it if any users see any text that needs to be updated, added, or removed. I know for sure there are certain things that happen on article through convention that may benefit from being written in the MOS, or things in it that are very outdated. We could potentially make it a subsection of the MOS talk page to keep it housed nicely (ie ] or something. See ] for how I'm thinking of formatting it all). I started this discussion here in the hopes of having more users become aware of the idea, in case not all participants here watch the MOS. If you would be interested in participating in this, please comment below so I can be sure to notify you when I get this started. And if you have any suggestions on how we could go about this, I'm all ears. - ] (]) 18:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
*Another HBO crime drama series, '']'' (2002-2008) was ] in 2021.<ref></ref>
:I've been wanting to clarify parts of the MOS for years now. The problem is keeping the attention of involved editors. As it stands, parts of the MOS are open to interpretation, even things like ] and ], which we have already addressed. We even have editors trying to get around ] with efforts like . We really need to tighten things up a bit. --] (]) 19:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
*The ] sitcom '']'' was voted by viewers as ] in 2004.<ref name="top10">{{Cite web |year=2004 |title=The Final Top Ten Sitcoms |url=http://www.bbcattic.org/sitcom/winner.shtml |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141013160237/http://www.bbcattic.org/sitcom/winner.shtml |archive-date=13 October 2014 |access-date=8 October 2014 |website=bbcattic.org |publisher=] |location=London}}</ref>
::I think that an update is in order. I think there are things that need to be included that aren't outlined, as well as things that are outlined but not followed because they don't give clear direction on it. I would also say that focusing on one section at a time should be key and not moving on till that section is done and there is consensus. To try our best not to belabor any points because I've seen discussion in the past die regarding updates both the MOSTV and MOSFILM because you get vocal individuals that one let go of an idea, for no rational reason, and drag a discussion out like it's a filibuster and then everyone just leaves. ] ] 20:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
==== References ====
:::{{tq|I would also say that focusing on one section at a time should be key and not moving on till that section is done and there is consensus.}} That was exactly my plan for this, Big. Do either of you have any suggestions to get more project editors aware of our intentions? I know both of you, {{u|AlexTheWhovian}}, {{u|Adamstom.97}}, maybe {{u|Geraldo Perez}}, {{u|EvergreenFir}}, {{u|Cyphoidbomb}}, {{u|Robsinden}} and others would be interested/involved, but I want to make sure we can get other voices from across the project if needed. Would a mass message be an option, or would it be just posting to noticeboards? And again, I'm planning to start this in August, when I'll have a bit more time to start dedicating to the endeavor. - ] (]) 21:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
::::If you mass message, I would mass message various projects and the like, not individual editors. They're likely watching those pages already. ] ] 21:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
:::::Sounds great to me. I'm gonna be busy the next couple days here, but will be happy to give input. Sections that come to mind are TVUP and naming conventions. Also wouldn't mind if we could come to some consensus on a guide to choosing colors for seasons on episode pages. Either try to match image if there is one, or try to match prominent colors in the show or on main characters (e.g., Daria's green shirt, Spongebob's yellow or Patrick's pink). ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 21:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
::::::Thanks Evergreen. Just seeing if users are interested. Won't be starting anything major until August, so don't worry about being busy over the next couple of days. - ] (]) 21:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
:::::::This is a good idea, and I'm happy to be involved when you get started. And I don't know how much more you should be doing than just messaging other projects and the like. Perhaps checking the archives here to see if anyone has shown interest in this sort of thing before, and leaving them a note in case they are interested? - ] (]) 22:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
::::::::I've also notified ] about this discussion as well. ] (] - ]) 23:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::We have our own MOS though. - ] (]) 23:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, but guidelines should certainly not create conflict with each other and given that the TVMOS would in effect be the parent to the Anime MOS, it should be in-line. And if the Anime includes film or other media, then those MOSs would be the parent MOS to that as well. ] ] 03:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::Sorry all. Just for my sake, if you're interested, would you mind just signing below? We can of course keep discussing anything regarding the plan/implementation. Just want to have an easy place to see all interested users from this discussion when I come back to it in a month+ time. Thanks. - ] (]) 04:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::Since this is a Misplaced Pages guideline the discussion should be moved to the ] to get the community's input. This MOS effects many wiki-projects not just WP:Television. - ] (]) 16:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::The guideline's own talk page is probably sufficient, with notice at ], ], and the talk pages of an other potentially affected guidelines (e.g. ] if a change to airdate formatting is proposed, etc.) But {{em|this}} is not the right venue at all. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
{{od|10}} As stated above, this should be done one section at a time, with thorough discussion either here, or at ], each time. And it should be done in such a way so as not to upend long-standing TV article practices without thorough consensus first. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
:I would agree with the last part, so long as those "long standing practices" were not things that were already in contradiction to the MOS but never dealt with. Not saying we would do anything with consensus, but we also have a habit of saying things are "long standing" as a means to justify things that shouldn't be going on, when it's a matter of us not being able to police every article. ] ] 20:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
:: All I'm trying to say, and this often gets lost in discussions like this, is that Guidelines should "reflect" current practices, not "dictate rules". Now, when it's something like deprecating "episode counts", there was a good policy-based reason for doing that. But these discussions can get problematic when the most active editors "decide" things should be done a "certain way" when the other 80% of less active editors have been doing things another way for a long time, and there's no strong policy-backed argument for a style switch. As long as we don't lose sight of this, I'm thinking the MOSTV revisions should go smoothly. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
:::I have added notices to the ] and ] talk pages, for any users who would like to join when we start. Thanks all who added their sigs below for interest. - ] (]) 01:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
::::{{tq|Guidelines should "reflect" current practices}} - That should be current "best" practices. If {{tq|the other 80% of less active editors have been doing things another way for a long time}} and those practices are not "best" then we shouldn't do them. If we do we'd pretty much be mandating episode counts, cast tables (and tables in general), unnecessary use of colour in ratings tables, a complete ignorance of ] and we'd have writing credits like "Tom, Jerry, Dick & Harry, Fred, Ginger, Maryanne & Gilligan" or, even worse "Tom & Jerry & Dick & Harry & Fred & Ginger & Maryanne & Gilligan". Over the past weeks I've fixed hundreds of articles that were added to error categories by "the other 80% of less active editors". --] (]) 03:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
::::: {{re|AussieLegend}} Though that example is unrealistic, things like "Tom & Jerry & Dick" can and do actually happen (and even "Tom, Jerry & Dick" for non-U.S. shows, though that is often incorrectly used where the actual separator is just something like "and" or a line break). ] (]) 12:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
::::::I wish those examples were unrealistic, but I have actually fixed examples just like those. --] (]) 13:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
::::: Cast tables are actually a prefect example of what I'm getting at – cast tables should not be deprecated simply because some active editors on this project "don't like them". There may things about how cast tables should be done that should be stipulated on ] grounds (again, policy-based). But, say, "banning" cast tables is exactly the kind of thing that would simply lead to needless editing conflicts, and is not at all necessary on policy-grounds. That's the kind of thing that needs to be avoided while doing the MOSTV revisions. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 14:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
:::::Except in that instance, it's more than just active editors that don't like them. There's a functionality issue with them, not to mention that increase of information that we have specifically said should not be included. Once you remove that, you're left with information that doesn't require a table to present it. ] ] 17:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
::::I strongly concur with AussieLegend's commentary on the general nature of the specifics in the guideline and anti-] approaches to addressing it: {{"'}}Guidelines should "reflect" current practices' - That should be current 'best' practices. If 'the other 80% of less active editors have been doing things another way for a long time' and those practices are not 'best' then we shouldn't do them." The ] failure to understand this basic principle of humans making progress has a great deal to do with a large number of Misplaced Pages's weaknesses, failures, and looming future problems. ] and more the point is not ]. Consensus ultimately comes down to what makes the most sense to the community, for this project and its audience, not what the largest number of noobs happen to be doing willy-nilly by chance, extraneous habit, laziness, ignorance, or inexperience. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
::::: Except, 1) I never said or implied any of that (I said "long-standing practices that did ''not'' have a strong-policy based reason argument for a style switch"...), and 2) you seem to contradict yourself above elsewhere in the implication that a WP:TV "cabal" will impose differing MOS practices on everyone (including said "noobs"). I think the latter concern is a real one, which is why this needs to be done carefully and with widespread consensus demonstrated before making changes, esp. big or radical ones. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 08:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
:I would not be agreeable to having a separate draft written. If updates are needed, they should be made to the main guideline as consensus comes to agree with them on the talk page of the guideline. This also allows for easier tracing in the history of changes. --] (]) 11:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
::Agreed. Given the long history of wikiprojects engaging in insular, territorial behaviour and discounting the views of non-"members", trying to rewrite a site-wide actual ] – not a ] – from a topical wikiproject's talk page is very likely to result in ] problems, discouraging significant feedback from the rest of the editorship, and failing to actually come to a consensus on how to change a long-stable MoS guideline. The discussion above appears to already be heading unwittingly in this very direction, with comments like "We have our own MOS" (no, you don't) and "garner interest from project users" (i.e., users of this wikiproject, not Wikipedians broadly).<p>I agree the guideline's advice has some issues, but there's a high risk of unintentional PoV-forking from ] and various other guidelines without the participation of MoS regulars, who work hard and continually to keep the MoS pages from contradicting each other (this is quite difficult). This thread is entirely a) TV-focused editors talking amongst themselves in a vacuum, and b) non-WPTV people saying this is a poor approach. At very least, I would suggest taking what's being discussed here and proposing it more formally at the MOSTV talk page, and if it could affect any other MoS page, notifying that one's talk page, and the main MoS talk page. It took something like four years to clean up the guideline-forking mess caused by a single biology project within fairly recent memory and we don't need a repeat of that kind of situation, which ended up spreading out of the MoS into naming convention guidelines, and affecting a large number of articles. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)</p>

===Interest===
* ] (]) 04:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
* ] (]) 07:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
* ] (]) 07:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
* ]<sup>]</sup> 07:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
* ] ] 12:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
* ] (]) 14:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
*] (] • ]) 22:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
* ] (]) 16:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
* ] (]) 16:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
* ] (] - ]) 21:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
* '''-- ]<sup>]</sup>''' 06:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
* I'm in, but this should be happening at ], ], or ], not in a wikiproject talk page. At very least, any change proposals emerging from this discussion should be proosed at MOSTV's own talk page and the main MOS talk page given a pointer to it, to prevent conflicts between MOSTV and other parts of MOS. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
::As I have explained at ], this is just a preliminary discussion and when work on the MOS actually starts, the discussion ''will'' be at ], just as it has been every other time we've discussed sections of the MOS. --] (]) 15:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
:::Yes, as Aussie said, this was noted here to start the discussion and gain interest, as more users follow and watch this page, than the MOS talk page. All work will be done at the MOS/TV talk once we commence the project of reworking. - ] (]) 16:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
::::It's counterproductive to not just centralize the discussion the first time. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 20:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

===Update===
Hi all. Just want to let everyone know that I'm planning to get this up and running by the middle of the month, when I will have more time to devote to it on and off Wiki. Thanks for all your patience. I will ping all of you again when I'll be starting as well as addressing the necessary talk pages regarding the formal start of the discussions. - ] (]) 00:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

== Original airdates overseas ==

There's some ridiculous edit warring on ] and related pages regarding original airdates. Many episodes of this season first aired in Germany. One editor insists the airdates must be USA ones. I see no problem with including the original airdate and noting the country as long it's not too cluttered in the table. Am I mistaken? Please ping in reply. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 20:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
:Luckily in this case the name of the TV station and nation it first broadcast in is brief enough that it doesn't extend the table's box into a new line. It's present there mostly because people were objecting that it might give people the impression it had broadcast in the US at that time. The same thing is done for the earlier Japanese debuts of ]. I don't mind catering to some people's fixation that we ought to include the US debuts of episodes whose series began in the US, but it is incorrect to imply they are original airdates if the episodes originally televised earlier, even if it was in a language or location foreign to those in which the first season began. Being the English wikipedia I would say the next most notable date (appropriate for AltDate) would be the English language debut, which was in Canada on YTV. The extremely delayed American dates are basically tertiary considerations appropriate for a footnote on the episode table, or explanations in a 'broadcast' section. ] (]) 20:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
::Personally, ] is what I did with the British series ''The Musketeers'' when it was aired earlier in a different country - include both the first airing ever, and the first airing in the series' country of production. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

:::Now, there is no hope on returning the missing US airdates for ] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)</span></small>

:::: I prefer listing the air date in the country of origin in the episode list and add a footnote if it premiered first in another country. A small issue recently came up at ] where the U.S. viewership info was showing up as "N/A" for an episode that hasn't aired there yet because the episode list had the French air date listed first and it's over a month ago. Though that could have been fixed by explicitly putting {{tlx|TableTBA|TBD}} in the {{para|Viewers}} field, too. In either case, we definitely should '''not''' just list a foreign air date without any parentheticals, that would be deceiving readers. They usually expect air dates for the country of origin unless otherwise noted. ] (]) 16:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
::::: Provided we bear in mind that there are some series that are multi-national productions which may necessitate multiple "airing date" columns (e.g. '']''). But I agree that examples like that are rare, and in general the TV series airing dates should correspond to the "country of origin" (even in those rare cases where TV series episodes actually premiere ''first'' in another country besides the originating country – I agree in those cases a 'note', or text in the article body, should suffice). --] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
::::::I don't think anyone is saying we don't note that the country of the premiere was different than the country of origin when it occurs. But there's nothing wrong with noting the premiere should it occur in another country. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 03:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like something very similar happened to Steven Universe as what happened to Kung Fu Panda just this month. The episode lists for both Steven Universe and Kung Fu Panda had international airdates included, leading to edit warring to remove the international airdates, and then semi protection. Also, the international airdates were in Season 3 on both, and the user Evergreen Fir was involved in both edit wars. But there were a few differences though. 1. The protection periods are different. Steven Universe got 3 months, while Kung Fu Panda only got 1 week. 2. The Steven Universe list included both French and American airdates, while Kung Fu Panda only included German airdates. 3. Kung Fu Panda had 2 wrong airdates, while Steven Universe had all airdates correct. Now, Let's do what Nyuszika7H and IJ Ball said on Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness, as its already been done on Steven Universe. Let's add the missing US dates. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:What happened to "we must put USA only"? ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 03:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

KFP S3 edit war 2 has started.] (]) 18:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

== ChiBi Crush Rangers ==

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at ] and assessing it. Thanks in advance. -- ] (]) 06:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
:{{done}} Assessed, along with some additional clean up. - ] (]) 16:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
:: Thank you {{u|Favre1fan93}}. -- ] (]) 00:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
::: Seems like we're all good one {{u|Marchjuly}}, as the article was just deleted as a hoax. - ] (]) 19:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
::::Thanks again for checking. The creator was blocked for 48 hours and also seems to also have been uploading copyvios to Commons as well. -- ] (]) 22:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

== RfC for DATERANGE change ==

There's currently an RfC at the village pump regarding proposed changes to ]. Since this would impact most pages related to this project, I'm letting project members and page watchers know about it. See ]. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 04:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

==A can of worms==

Two closely-connected issues, which need looking into by someone who knows more about TV than I do.

] and ] are almost identical. That was noted on both Talk Pages in 2011, but seems not to have been pursued. The main differences are that (1) Colson is credited as an actor who played ] in '']'' and that (2) Cherrill links to Colson (but not the reverse). I've looked at the External Links in both articles, and where appropriate tagged them.

Colson did play Tom Hughes 1973-1978 - see and , both good-looking sources. However, those seemed to be the only relevant results in a Google search for "David Colson television". The sole David Colson in IMDb was a scriptwriter active only in 1951, and is surely not the same person.

I'd be tempted to list Colson as ] for failing ], except that it's just conceivable that Colson and Cherrill are one and the same: Cherrill wrote three episodes for ''AtWT'' 1985-1989. If so, then (subject to the notability of Cherrill) merge-and-redirect would seem in order rather than deletion.

I strongly suspect that the bulk of the Cherrill article is a hoax. From this side of the Pond, I at once recognised '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'' and '']'' as '''''British''''' TV programmes. This makes me wonder if anything in the "Awards and Nominations" section (totally unsourced) can be relied on. Without those, it looks to me that Cherrill may fail WP:ANYBIO.

Over to you ... ] (]) 13:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
:I pulled the AMPMGT.com dead link and the NY Times bio out of Wayback Machine. But, unfortunately, Wayback doesn't have the other portions of the NYT link archived, so that overview page is all we've got. AMPMGT has a . I'm going to go back through the Emmy section in a minute (after I run to the store), but it isn't necessarily easy as it seems the Emmy website only goes back to the 30th annual, 2003. Conveniently, the section doesn't mention any noms ''after'' that. However! He was linked from ] and from that I can confirm he was a script writer for ''Days of Our Lives'' and was nom'd for two Emmys as part of the writing team per and . ~Cheers, ]]] 14:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
:I found that IMBD lists two David Cherrill entries. One for a and the ~Cheers, ]]] 16:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
:So, the very least I can confirm is that a David Cherrill was writing on ''Days of Our Lives'' in at least 2014 and 2015, and he is possibly the same guy who was on the writing team on ''Days of Our Lives'' in 1994 (). As a member of those writing teams, he received at least two Daytime Emmys nominations, and at least one Daytime Emmy win. At the same time, ''The Soap Opera Encyclopedia'' seems to assert in its index that a "Colson, C. Dsvid" (''sic'') is the same as David Cherrill. . Note that the ] article says that the Colson actor was "C. David Colson" (I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the ). Past that, I can't really confirm anything. I'm personally sure that the Cherrill article is actually listing two men as if they were a single person, and there's a possibility that the David Colson is actually one of those Cherrill men.
:In the end, I'm not sure how to go about this because at this point, it's like... involving possibly four men, who might actually be only two men? I can't even figure out if the soap writer Cherrill is notable because I can't get the writers lists for the other Emmy years. ~Cheers, ]]] 17:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

::{{ping|TenTonParasol}} I ''did'' say can of worms, didn't I?
::That ''Playbill'' ref you found also gives 1941 as birthdate - if it can be trusted. Still, I'd bet it's the same man as Colson/Cherrill (US), the dates fit - but that's no more than my guess.
::You could well be right that there's both David Cherrill (UK) and David Cherrill (US). Actually, I'm sure you're right. The dates are just ''wrong'' for one man to be doing everything, and some of those UK TV programmes are very British and would not travel. Those weird-looking links to UK-only TV programmes look to me more than just sampled at random; I can see a possible career pattern (and no notability for the UK <s>director</s> tea-boy).
::Why can't these people set up their own FB and LinkedIn pages pointing at ] sources which we can check? Pfft. ] (]) 21:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

== Series overview update ==

This post is to inform members of the Television WikiProject that {{tl|Series overview}} is becoming modularized at ], based on the amount of repetition in the template, per the initiative of {{u|Mr. Stradivarius}}, and the ]. This will result in {{tl|Series overview/split}} and {{tl|Series overview/special}} becoming deprecated as they part of the main template, which means replacements will take place as listed in the collapsed section below (test cases available at ]). Once the module is tested and confirmed as working, then implemented, I'll have AWB go through and update/replace the occurrences of the sub-templates. The documentation will also be updated accordingly. If you've any issues or concerns, please raise them here. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Replacements}}
; Replace:
<pre>{{Series overview/special
| color =
| link =
| linkT =
| episodes =
| start =
| end =
}}</pre>
; With:
<pre>{{Series overview
| color* =
| link* =
| link*T =
| episodes* =
| start* =
| end* =
}}</pre>
; Replace:
<pre>{{Series overview/split
| num =
| link =
| episodes =
| color1 =
| episodes1 =
| start1 =
| end1 =
| color2 =
| episodes2 =
| start2 =
| end2 =
}}</pre>
; With:
<pre>{{Series overview
| link* =
| episodes* =
| color*A =
| episodes*A =
| start*A =
| end*A =
| color*B =
| episodes*B =
| start*B =
| end*B =
}}</pre>
{{collapse bottom}}
:I'm assuming the '*' means a number? - ] (]) 23:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
:And the only other test case I can think of that isn't there, is if a Special is the first row, and then it goes into season 1 (so I guess 0). - ] (]) 23:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
::Yes. The updated documentation is (currently) at ], where the meaning of he asterisks is noted. And I did note the issue of the special as the first row on my talk page, <s>but never tested it... I'll get on that.</s>so I added the scenario to the test-cases page, and it works when listed with {parameter}0S. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
::Also noted is that when the module is implemented within the template, usages of {{tl|Series overview/split}} and {{tl|Series overview/special}} ''will'' still work while they're being replaced. The sub-templates (as well as {{tl|Series overview/row}}) will then be requested for deletion. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

{{done}} Module implemented, bugs fixed, documentation updated, /split and /special templates replaced, listed /split, /special, /row and separate documentations for deletion since they're deprecated, now-unused parameters (extra* and network*length) cleared out, info parameters updated. Now onto {{tl|Episode table}}<s>...</s> which is now also done. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

== Competitive TV Shows - Listing Winners ==

Hopefully I am posting this in the correct place. I'd like a standard to be put into place for not listing the outcome of a TV show in bold font when a user is just trying to see the title of the episode. For the ] page, I have no way of referencing who is competing each week without having the winner spoiled by being listed first in bold font.

It has made the page unusable without it being one big spoiler. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Please read ] for more information. Per that, this request will not be considered. For reality episodes such as this, the formatting as seen at Lip Sync Battle is generally the best, as including a whole additional cell (which would still be visible if looking for the title) is repetitive. If you want to just look for episode titles, ]. - ] (]) 23:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

== FL removal ==

I have nominated ] for ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the ]. 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 ].<!-- Template:FLRCMessage --> - ] (]) 07:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

== Move request from High-dynamic-range imaging to High dynamic range ==

For anyone interested comments would be appreciated for ] --] (]) 23:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

== Professional wrestling RfC ==

There's an RfC at ] regarding a disclaimer for those that are unaware of its scripted nature. Any input would be appreciated.] (]) 14:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

== Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King? - featured article candidate ==

I've nominated the article about the episode "]" for Featured Article consideration. The article is about about an episode from the American television ] '']'' that received critical acclaim and attention for its representation of rape.

Comments would be appreciated, at ''']'''. Thank you for your time. ] (]) 22:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

== I have unblocked HoshiNoKaabii2000 ==

Hey all, as an FYI and so nobody's running needlessly to SPI, I've unblocked HoshiNoKaabii2000. He has apologized for his past behavior several times and has convinced me to my satisfaction that he intends to edit constructively from now on. (See our agreement .) I believe he got into a pattern of bad behavior and self-alienation, which was difficult to get out of, but I ultimately think he is a smart kid in need of a clean start. Since blocks are not intended to be punitive, I think it's worth a shot to allow him to demonstrate that he's reformed. Thanks, ] (]) 04:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

== Article on special episode ==

I have founded a special episode "Indian Idol" of TV series '']'' aired on 30 May 2015 (the day when '']'' premiered). . It's not a reliable source but . There is no reliable source on this special episode. I hope someone would definitely say "yes" to it because the title of the episode is quite interesting. Indian Idol is episode and '']'' is TV series. ] ⋠]]⋡ 04:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
:Hi Wikiproject members, I suggested that Mr. Smart LION come here to ask the community about the notability criteria for standalone episodes. If any of you could help to fill him in, it would be appreciated. Thanks! ] (]) 07:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

== "Future"-class assessments ==

Does anyone know why, when ] an upcoming-TV series article as '''Future''', it gives '''???''' as the Class and gives the ]? When it clearly should be as classed and in the ]. — ''']]''' 05:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
:Should this even really be a class? Any upcoming article can still be classifed as "Start" or maybe "C", which would be better. - ] (]) 21:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

== How to refer to fictional characters - opinions needed ==

There is a discussion at ] regarding how we should refer to fictional characters. Participation by more editors is needed and would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --] (]) 11:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
:After some more back and forth, the discussion doesn't seem to be really going anywhere. ~Cheers, ]]] 16:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

== '']'' genre ==

There has been a dispute regarding the lead at '']'' for the last month. More comments would be useful at ]. - ] (]) 05:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

==] has been nominated for discussion==

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''', which you created, has been nominated for merging to ]. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 12:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

== ] ==
Hello, in 1979 Pickup played Giuseppe Verdi in an Italian TV production but I noticed that the information needed a source. I added it, couuld you please check whether I did in the ? -- ''']''' ]</span> 14:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
:Brava! Nicely done! I couldn't check the reference link because I am on a device without ], but the format is perfect. I removed some whitespace within, though. — ''']]''' 15:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
:: Ok, well done. -- ''']''' ]</span> 21:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

== ] ==

I've came across an IPv6 editor adding ] to a number of articles that did not have any documentation of any obscenity controversies. I then when on to check the anime/manga articles that were previously added to this category and found no such documentation. The only article that had any documented obscenity controversy was '']'' which was actually over the manga's English licensing and predated the the anime adaptation. Since the entries in this category is extremely dubious, I would recommend someone sort through it and remove articles where there are no reliable sources to verify membership in the category. —''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 17:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

== Opinions in a discussion ==

There is a discussion at ] regarding the use of cast tables at ]; opinions of editors who have worked in the television project are required. These have been deprecated per multiple and many discussions, and yet the user refuses to accept this. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
:I have commented on Alex's talk page but this discussion is more properly located at ]. --] (]) 12:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

==Pending awards==
Is there a guideline here or any related project relating to how to list pending awards? For example, the Primetime Emmy nominations are out, but have yet to be awarded. In the last year or so I have seen a rash if edits like , where a nomination is moved to a "pending" section or otherwise separated. To me, it's still a nomination, it can be changed to a win if necessary, but this just creates more potential maintenance. Of course I suppose it's different in articles like '']'' which contain tables with separate cells for nom/pending/win.— ]<sup>]</sup> 19:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

:That rash needs some ointment, in my opinion. It seems television/film articles are evolving somewhat to suit certain editors' needs. I've never seen the Tyrion example, and most biography awards sections are either in prose, a year/work/role/notes (with award mentions), or the ''Winterthorne'' setup (with "pending" and a yellow background). There is no standard format, I presume, since it now varies from actor, work, and character; and if changed will be reverted. — ''']]''' 23:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


== Nomination of ] for featured list removal ==
== Input requested on an article ==


I have nominated ] for featured list removal. Please ] on whether this article meets the ]. 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 ].<!-- Template:FLRCMessage --> ] (]) 01:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion at ] regarding the inclusion of contestants in episode tables. Your input and thoughts are requested. Thank you. ] (]) 19:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


:] has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to ]. ] (]) 02:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
==] and ]==
I think it would be appropriate to list EoA under the "followed by" field for Sofia, and StF under the "preceded by" field for Elena.


== Jock Ewing ==
Does anyone agree or disagree with this? They are more than related because Elena opens episode one of her series by reflecting back upon how she was freed from the amulet after 41 years, and the freeing of Elena is a yet-to-be-aired episode of Sofia the first sheduled for Autumn. ] (]) 21:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


I think we should ''delete'' the entire Wes Parmalee section from the ] page. It's basically original research. ] (]) 00:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Discussion at ]. — ''']]''' 00:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
== Input requested on use of cast/crew names in navboxes for TV/film ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 01:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)


== Primary source for episode titles and release dates ==
I've started a discussion on the inclusion of cast/crew names on TV/film navboxes ]. --] (]) 15:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I am not certain if it is correct tag the episode section of '']'' with ] for something that involve cold facts such as episode titles and release date. It just happens that the episode information are not neatly collated in a single cite. Am I incorrect with my assessment, cause the whole point of third party sources is to combat bias or establish general notability for the article as a who;e. ] (]) 03:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
== Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included. ==


== Requested move at ] ==
I think this error might have defeated me. ] is displaying it and the last few templates are not showing up. I've had a look at ] and that article doesn't appear to have a problem, despite having more seasons/templates on the page. Could someone help sort out the Casualty page, please? - ] ] 17:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 17:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:There are so many pages being transcluded to the page that the post-expand include size is greater than the maximum of 2MB. This is the same problem that we had at ], and required that article to be split out to ]. See ]. I'll ping {{ping|Wbm1058}} as he may find this interesting. I haven't got time to fix the article right now, but I, or someone else will get around to it. --] (]) 17:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
::Ah, thank you! - ] ] 19:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|JuneGloom07}} - This has now been fixed. --] (]) 13:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
== General ] assessment question ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
{{Small|(Note: Posting this here, as it's likely to get more eyes than at ].)}}
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] ] 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== Jeff Sneider ==
Are episode-list articles (e.g. ]; though I noticed someone assessed ] as "Mid" importance...), character-list articles (e.g. ]) and season-specific articles (e.g. ]) nearly always going to be properly assessed as "Low" importance to ]?... Can anyone think of any examples where such articles should be rated "Mid" or even "High" importance?... A number of these articles are currently unassessed (at least in terms of importance), and it would help me when I'm browsing through these articles if I could just generally go ahead and assess them as "Low" importance, or failing just that assess them with the same importance as the "parent" TV series article itself. TIA. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


There is a discussion about whether Sneider should be considered a reliable source at ] which impacts multiple articles within the scope of this WikiProject. - ] (]) 09:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:In looking at those in ] and ], it looks like some episodes have been awarded, which to me is the only reason to give importance and not on article quality. I mean ] is a High somehow, and its episodes were recognized in Young Artist award categories. Personally, I think list pages should be NA-importance and let notable season ones get the upper ones. — ''']]''' 17:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
:: I just reassessed ] as "Low" myself – "High" importance should only be reserved for basically "seminal" TV series, and while something like "Corie" or "Doctor Who" might qualify, ] definitely does ''not''!... As to your point, I think it's better if even the 'list' articles get assessed – I just think that most of the time they should be assessed as "Low", unless there's some very compelling reason to assess them as "Mid" or "High". --] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
:::My problem with people slapping the WPTV tag in talkpages is they don't add classes or importance. Heck, most times it's just <nowiki>{{WPTV}}</nowiki>. But I digress. — ''']]''' 18:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


== Love, Inc. for peer review == == FAR for ] ==


I have nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. 🍕]🍕 (]) 11:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I've listed '']'' for ]. Comments would be greatly appreciated, at ]. Thank you in advance! ] (]) 06:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:14, 23 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Television and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcuts
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 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconTelevision
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages 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
Points of interest related to Television on Misplaced Pages:
History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style – To-do

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2021-05-04

To do list:
Major discussions/events:
Incubators:
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

Why is there no best TV list?

References

  1. Cosgrove-Mather, Bootie (April 26, 2002). "TV Guide Names Top 50 Shows". CBS News. Associated Press. Retrieved February 16, 2022.
  2. Fretts, Bruce; Roush, Matt. "The Greatest Shows on Earth". TV Guide Magazine. Vol. 61, no. 3194–3195. pp. 16–19.
  3. Fretts, Bruce; Roush, Matt (December 23, 2013). "TV Guide Magazine's 60 Best Series of All Time". TV Guide. Archived from the original on December 24, 2013. Retrieved December 23, 2013.
  4. Sheffield, Rob (September 21, 2016). "100 Greatest TV Shows of All Time". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on September 23, 2016. Retrieved September 22, 2016.
  5. Why The Wire is the greatest TV series of the 21st Century – BBC Culture
  6. "The Final Top Ten Sitcoms". bbcattic.org. London: BBC. 2004. Archived from the original on 13 October 2014. Retrieved 8 October 2014.

Nomination of Bleach season 2 for featured list removal

I have nominated Bleach season 2 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. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Bleach season 3 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Jock Ewing

I think we should delete the entire Wes Parmalee section from the Jock Ewing page. It's basically original research. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Live Show

Live Show 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) 01:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Primary source for episode titles and release dates

Hello, I am not certain if it is correct tag the episode section of Voltes V: Legacy with Template:Third-party for something that involve cold facts such as episode titles and release date. It just happens that the episode information are not neatly collated in a single cite. Am I incorrect with my assessment, cause the whole point of third party sources is to combat bias or establish general notability for the article as a who;e. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Lupin the 3rd Part V: Misadventures in France episodes#Requested move 26 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Lupin the 3rd Part V: Misadventures in France episodes#Requested move 26 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bluey (2018 TV series)#Requested move 9 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bluey (2018 TV series)#Requested move 9 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Trunk (TV series)#Requested move 20 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Trunk (TV series)#Requested move 20 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Jeff Sneider

There is a discussion about whether Sneider should be considered a reliable source at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/noticeboard#Jeff Sneider / The InSneider which impacts multiple articles within the scope of this WikiProject. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Homer Simpson

I have nominated Homer Simpson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: