This page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
I am not sure how
The Rookie season 5 and
The Rookie season 6 passed
WP:AFC when there is only 1–2 sentences under Production with 1–2 reliable sources (rest are just ratings) and no critical response. Wasn't there a general consensus on this project that season articles need to pass
WP:GNG and
WP:NFTV to warrant a season article? —
YoungForever(talk) 13:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I
brought this up a while ago on the MOS:TV talkpage when I found six season articles that all passed the AFC process with only a cast list, episode summaries, and ratings. I'd say that The Rookie article you linked definitely don't pass
WP:NTV. I'd even go as far to say that 1-3 don't pass it either. Although they do contain more than just a few sentences, it's just a duplication of information that already exists in the parent article which isn't large enough in it's current state to meet the requirements of
MOS:TVSPLIT and could easily continue to exist in the parent article only.
TheDoctorWho(talk) 16:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd assume to the average AFC reviewer the amount of sources makes the seasons look notable, but the television ratings themselves should vary rarely be included in determining that unless they're independently notable (i.e. they set a viewing figure record, etc.)
TheDoctorWho(talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yep, television ratings with just ratings on the episode table and ratings table are not enough to pass notability. —
YoungForever(talk) 17:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
In this case the mover was not an actual AfC reviewer but the point is still valid. I personally would not have accepted but I can see how someone would think the amount of sources built up to notability. Generally if I see a spin out I decline unless they have tried to get a consensus on the article talk page, and I know others do similar but not all. Cheers
KylieTastic (
talk) 17:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't even know what to say at this point. I declined
one of the submission and
marked the other for review. Both drafts are all missing a production section. I'm sure the IP user and Pete are doing this in good faith but they really need to read the guidelines from
MOS:TV before resubmitting those season article drafts.
kpgamingz (
rant me) 19:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
IP users, I mostly understand. They're not fully part of the Wiki community so knowledge of notability and MOS isn't 100% a concern for them. As for Pete, it's really whether or not if they'll eventually follow the guidelines and, hopefully, become a big helper for
WP:TV, or continue in this path and keep getting declined. @
IAmJustPete: If you would like to get the drafts accepted, please listen to the feedbacks that me and the many users here given you here and in the draft submission comments.
kpgamingz (
rant me) 21:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I just declined the season 4 page for the series which was also submitted through AFC.
TheDoctorWho(talk) 03:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
They may get resubmitted again without fixing the problems in an attempt to get another reviewer to accept AFC. I seen this happened before. Not a season article, but an article about an actress:
Draft:Raegan Revord. —
YoungForever(talk) 03:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I did make a note of NTV and what we generally expect to see at a season article in my decline comments. Hopefully any future reviewers, would note the previous reason.
TheDoctorWho(talk) 04:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The IP address removed your comments, but was reverted. The IP address have been resubmitting multiple Drafts without any improvements. They are trying to remove any indication of having them declined before. Little that they know, when editors' View history can see them. —
YoungForever(talk) 08:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Apologies, your earlier message must have slipped my watchlist or I would have declined them myself last night and saved myself a bit of time. Reading your message the first time, I originally thought that you had a technical error in moving the pages. I was able to move them using the regular move feature. After re-reading it, you may have been referencing
WP:DONTDRAFTIFY/
WP:DRAFTOBJECT? If so, I may have accidentally violated that and won't object if someone reverts the move based on that. Either way they're back in the draft space for the moment. If the draft moves are reverted, I suppose are next option is
WP:AFD.
TheDoctorWhoPublic(talk) 16:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I just declined the All American article since it was still under review.
TheDoctorWhoPublic(talk) 16:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There is also
Draft:List of All American characters which is mostly plot points that belong on episode summaries, not character descriptions. No improvements since the last time it was submitted. —
YoungForever(talk) 23:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
At this point, just keep declining the submissions and get admin help with the AfCs.
kpgamingz (
rant me) 18:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
They will probably get resubmitted in a few weeks with zero improvements again. May want to use this {{AfC submission/rejected}} with the STOP icon. —
YoungForever(talk) 04:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Rejecting the draft won't solve the problem because there's still room for improvements in the drafts. The problem is the submitters not following the guidelines, taking the advice and improving the draft for submission.
kpgamingz (
rant me) 18:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I have tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation.
Bgsu98(Talk) 14:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It was declined by an admin. I don't think it qualifies speedy deletion because it is a Draft for now. —
YoungForever(talk) 20:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I talked to the administrator; it was a little more complicated than I'd thought.
Bgsu98(Talk) 22:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi there. In the first place, it feels that there are all fine. However I should be considering stopping reviews of TV seasons.
ToadetteEdit! 17:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I would be in favor of returning them back to draftspace or nominating tnem to AfD.
ToadetteEdit! 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not necessarily asking that you stop reviewing them, just that you familiarize yourself with
MOS:TV (specifically,
MOS:TVSPLIT) and
WP:NTV.
Grey's Anatomy season 17 is a great example of the information that an exceptional season article should contain. Now that is a featured article and I know not all television seasons receive that type of coverage, so on the slightly lower end of good articles there's
Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series) season 1. At the absolute bare minimum, articles like
Law & Order season 21 and
Cobra Kai season 1 (providing a permaalink because I do plan on eventually getting that to GA status) are examples of Start to C-class articles that still manage to prove notability with the information available.
TheDoctorWho(talk) 20:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There should be real world content to accompany any additional split that is not simply a duplication of the main page's content (e.g., reception specifically for that season, or that episode; production information for the season or the episode), or duplication of the season page's content (e.g., an episode article that contains one or two reviews, and used the overall production information about the season that isn't specific to any one episode). This is because notability is not inherited from a parent article, and all articles must stand on their own. So be careful when splitting pages too soon; if the material for the new article is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject, or would simply duplicate the summary that would be left behind, then it may be too soon to move.
I have nominated
Bernard Quatermass 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. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔) 13:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I have seen this done at different times in the past but it never made any sense to me. If there are reliable sources telling us who has been cast in the upcoming season then there is no reason to leave them out of the article. Otherwise there would be no cast list until a series starts airing which is clearly not the case for any TV show article. -
adamstom97 (
talk) 09:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I have no position in this. --
Alex_21TALK 10:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I pinged you because you were following the article and seem to know TV season guidelines well. Kailash29792(talk) 02:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Any assistance would be appreciated.
Iljhgtn (
talk) 14:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Take a look at
WP:INACTIVEWP—I don't think the task force page is doing any harm.(On this note, anyone with knowledge of the show could help out
at URFA by giving the third review to
Pilot (House) or taking on
Michael Tritter.) —
Bilorv (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm in favor of closing any dead task force, removing it from the project banner and deleting categories. Also, they do cause "harm" as they require active maintenance (look at the amount of edits that
Template:WikiProject Television requires each time it needs updating) and populate categories that no one is ever going to care for. Ever. As as aside, there is also no reason to have task forces for single TV shows. Anyways Iljhgtn, you have my support of this ever goes anywhere.
Gonnym (
talk) 16:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I just do not know how to actually do the deed of deleting it or whatever we need to actually do.
Iljhgtn (
talk) 16:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
First step is this, getting consensus. The rest is easy.
Gonnym (
talk) 16:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
While updating the filmography of an actor, on the series The Boy, it has a list of guests. Now, with other TV series articles such as The Good Doctor and The Neighbourhood, the guest sections have been removed as they've gotten too expansive. The article for this series, the guest section is just that. There are too many listed. Main and recurring cast is fine. Having guests listed is
WP:FAN. I can't find where it says no guests listed on TV series articles. If it's not, it should be. Unnecessary. I'm going to remove it either way. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no "rule" saying that guests can't be listed at TV articles. You should review
MOS:TVCAST for the current guidelines on how cast lists are generally expected to work for TV series articles. Essentially, cast lists should not be indiscriminate and that means not all actors are necessarily going to be noteworthy enough for inclusion. A common approach is to only include guest stars who have recurring roles plus potentially a few other notable guest stars. That sort of criteria should be determined through local consensus and will be different from series to series. -
adamstom97 (
talk) 19:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Guest section is for special guest stars/special appearances as in the credited as such on the on-screen credits, part of the main cast (past or in the present) in another series in the same network, a famous non-actor such as musician or athlete. Guest section is not for listing every single guest star. —
YoungForever(talk) 22:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:PAW Patrol (franchise) has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the
categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the
categories for discussion page. Thank you. The category is missing a parent category, and is the only parent of the merge target. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 05:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply