→Update: new section |
|||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
Has anyone given any thought to reworking this page and nominating it to be a [[WP:MOS|MOS]] for the television articles? We have an MOS for [[WP:MOSFILMS|film articles]], it would be good to have a recognized MOS for television articles as well. I know from my experience with the film articles that the film MOS is always looked to for support when cleaning up articles. I mean, right now the page is bare in its explaination of how to create a better television article. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 16:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC) |
Has anyone given any thought to reworking this page and nominating it to be a [[WP:MOS|MOS]] for the television articles? We have an MOS for [[WP:MOSFILMS|film articles]], it would be good to have a recognized MOS for television articles as well. I know from my experience with the film articles that the film MOS is always looked to for support when cleaning up articles. I mean, right now the page is bare in its explaination of how to create a better television article. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 16:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Take some information from [[WP:EPISODE]] as to make EPISODE more strictly about notability, and that would make sense. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 16:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:36, 11 May 2008
Hello, everyone. I've just expanded this article. I'd be grateful if folks would take a look and edit my purple prose. Best regards! -- Ssilvers 06:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Broadcasters lists
This discussion is moved to WT:TV#Removing Broadcasters to aid linking, and so it is read by more editors. / edg ☺ ★ 00:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks to me like {{Navbox Television}} does the same job as {{navbox generic}} but with fewer features, a suggestion has been raised in Template talk:Navbox Television to turn it into a wrapper for the more general template. Figured I should drop a note here to draw more input. Bryan Derksen 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Template List
Since the {{Tv-program-logo}} template was deleted over two months ago, shouldn't it be removed from the template list? Collectonian 04:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
DVDs
Is referencing commentaries and features on the DVDs of a show appropriate? If so, how would one do this? <ref> Disc 4, Bonus Features, The Life of Clark Kent </ref>? Howa0082 (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some people have made the claim that commentaries are not reliable secondary sources because they are not distanced enough from the episode however it is generally accepted at Featured and Good article reviews for production info. Take a look at Homer's Phobia (a featured article), particularly the production section, to see how the citations can be done. As for featurettes, if they address the topic from an out of universe perspective I don't see a problem with using them but I'm not sure how exactly to cite them. Hope that helps. Stardust8212 18:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Section order
I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Section order regarding the section order displayed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs. --UpDown (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Character description question
copying in:
Character, general description, usually contains profession, habits, psychological; character may be explained more indepth later. Played by First Name Last Name
my question:
I'd like to know why you ask for psychological info without a request for confirmation/citation through an episode of the show to justify a supposition about their psychological state. It seems to me you'll have more guessing than information that is true to the show and may lead to a character bashing if the editor and or contributor do not like the character.
What do the editors think?
MissRaye (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)MissRaye
- Answer: This guideline is a little out of date, and a rewrite has already been suggested but never been acted upon. There is so much potentially revolutionary discussion going on at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) that almost everything else (usually sub-sub-sub guidelines like this one) cannot be rewritten until the (new) basics are in place.
- You are right that every information should be cited (at least) from an episode. You are usually on the safe side if you look at Good and Featured Articles and copy their style of information presentation. At least that's what I do. – sgeureka t•c 22:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
cast order
I've seen this on other pages, and it's a discussion that pops up every so often over at Smallville (TV series) (see the current discussion), but I think this page, since we don't really have any MOS for television articles in general (not like the WP:MOSFILMS anyway), should discuss the order of cast members in the article. What I mean is, the discussions that I see are about re-ordering a cast listing whenever a character leaves to represent the "Current" cast of the show. To me, this provides undue weight and recent events in the show, and goes against Wikipedia's stance on being based on historical facts instead of current events. We're supposed to be looking at the information in articles and asking "is this going to be relevant 10 years from now".[1]
Update
Has anyone given any thought to reworking this page and nominating it to be a MOS for the television articles? We have an MOS for film articles, it would be good to have a recognized MOS for television articles as well. I know from my experience with the film articles that the film MOS is always looked to for support when cleaning up articles. I mean, right now the page is bare in its explaination of how to create a better television article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Take some information from WP:EPISODE as to make EPISODE more strictly about notability, and that would make sense. --MASEM 16:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- ^ quoted from User:Ebyabe