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:

Guiding Light

Moved to Talk:Guiding Light § Episode count: Topic seems more appropriate at the article Talk page.


If interested, please share your opinion on the Rfc on Character Names in plot summaries. Jauerbackdude?/dude.

Articles for Deletion for Two Upcoming Episodes of the New Series Into the Dark

Thought I would make all who follow this page aware of the deletion discussion occurring over two upcoming episodes of the television series Into the Dark. The discussion is happening here: Resource: Articles for deletion/The Body (Into the Dark).

Thoughts on using Template:Television ratings graph in a season article?

I recently decided to add {{Television ratings graph}} to the article Doctor Who (season 1), as I figured it was an effective way to visualise the season's viewing figures without listing each number in prose (see here for my usage). However, since my addition was reverted, I figured I should discuss it here. What are your thoughts on using {{Television ratings graph}} in a season article such as this, where 42 episodes span across eight different serials? - Rhain ? 11:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

As explained, the use of {{Television ratings graph}} has been rather contentious lately, hence the need for a discussion. If there was a noteworthy change between episodes, then perhaps some sort of graph (not necessarily this one, there are many) could be necessary. However, a number of issues arise from the use of this template for this particular example. The numbers do not match to the numbering scheme of the classic era of Doctor Who; yes, the number of episodes listed is 42, but for example, "The Warriors of Death" is not listed in any article as the 25th episode of the season, simply as the sixth serial's second episode. If I said "what is the 35th episode of the season", that is not the same as something more recognized as "what is the final episode of the fourth serial", the more common usage in outside sources. The average viewer numbers for each serial are unsourced. Beneficial use of it for visualization is decreased when ratings didn't change for multiple consecutive episodes; a graph isn't needed to show me that the rating of 6.9 million for "A Land of Fear" is the same as the rating of 6.9 million for "Guests of Madame Guillotine", which is the same as the rating of 6.9 million for "A Change of Identity". -- AlexTW 11:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your comment on the episode numbering scheme, but I found no way of removing this from the graph, so any alternative suggestions would be appreciated. I figured average viewer numbers fell under WP:NOTOR#Simple calculations and WP:AVRC, but I could be mistaken. I think there's enough variation in audience numbers to warrant the table--five consecutive episodes receiving the same ratings should not immediately discredit the other episodes. The table helps to visualise the peak of viewership in the first half of the season, particularly some of the big jumps. - Rhain ? 12:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Personally I think tables are better than graphs for displaying ratings. See the ratings table for Grey's Anatomy (season 13). That table displays pretty clearly the drop in viewership between episodes 10 (9.59) and 21 (7.02), just like the table for Doctor Who (season 1) displays pretty clearly the jump in viewership from "An Unearthly Child" (4.4) to "The Ordeal" (10.4). Not only is the variation in viewership just as easily conveyed in a table, but the exact number of viewers can actually be displayed in tabular format as opposed to a graph. If there needs to be a separate listing for ratings, I think tables are the direction to go, but since the 40 something episodes of Doctor Who (season 1) are conjoined into just 8 cells, I think things are fine the way they are now and a separate section for ratings (in that particular case) is unnecessary. Usage of a graph may be nice and dandy for some people, but overall, I think they're superfluous to the already existing (and more useful) tables. In other words, visualizing these things does nothing more to convey changes in viewership than by enumerating them. --Mythdon 04:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I find the graphs a lot better for judging how substantial a drop or a jump in viewership is and I really can't imagine anyone who doesn't. It's not intuitively obvious to me that a 4.4 to 10.4 jump is a 136% increase (and I study maths!), but I could give you a ballpark figure somewhere around that number if you showed me a bar chart (it looks something like double and then an extra third). But anyway, this really requires a wider consensus, rather than rehashing this out for dozens of individual cases. 14:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Is it common for there to be such big jumps in ratings between episodes? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't believe it is, but I was using an example from the person I replied to. I would have made the same argument for any jump up or down of at least a quarter, and it's worth noting that a graph allows users to immediately identify where the biggest jumps are, whereas it would take a while of staring at a table, even in the most obvious cases, to work that out. 10:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the only time graphs should be used is for cases like List of Seinfeld episodes#Ratings, which shows the changes in viewership over nine seasons. Although that slightly contradicts my previous comment, it's not like with the episode lists for individual seasons which mostly only show gradual changes over a span of a few episodes. --Mythdon 03:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

+-------------------------+ I think graphs are much better for showing ratings, either within a single season or across multiple seasons. Numbers are harder to read because you need to scan across all the numbers carefully, while you can see from a single glance in a graph what the trajectory of the season ratings is. A graph should not replace a table though since some people might want to see the exact numbers. Hzh (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the way ratings are shown on resource needs to be evolved in some way. For example why do we need 18-49 demo numbers for premium cable networks like HBO, Starz, Showtime? They don't have commercials and they certainly don't care about this demographic. They have always renewed based on Live+SD viewers(Including +3, +7) and streaming. Showtime have been heavy with their PR releases about their new comedy Kidding and have put extra emphasis on how well it performs on non linear platforms. I don't really care about adding the 18-49 demo for show pages on these networks, I'm just saying they're not that important. Esuka323 (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Doctor Doctor

Can a few other editors please keep an eye on Doctor Doctor (season 1) and Doctor Doctor (season 3)? We have an IP, that, without any specific reason, is changing the articles' uses of {{Infobox television season}} to raw Wikicode (see [1][2]). Cheers. -- AlexTW 01:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment from the IP here. Apparently, the only reason they're changing the template to raw code is because of the terminology used. -- AlexTW 01:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Attempting to reason with that IP editor doesn't really achieve anything as they seem to have an agenda when editing on Wikipedia. They would rather war than take the matter to a talk page, as evident on numerous television pages over the course of this year. Frankly how they're able to edit here still is nothing short of astounding considering the number of times they've broken 3RR. Esuka323 (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone reported the IP to AN3? --AussieLegend (?) 08:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Not for this particular case, but I could ping Ad Orientem, who blocked the IP last month for disruptive editing and edit-warring, and they now seem to have gotten straight back into that behaviour after their block expired. -- AlexTW 08:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
In situations like this, where an anonymous editor is persistently disruptive and fails to get the point I tend to be fairly aggressive with warnings as it provides a warning history and makes it easier for admins to see exactly what they've been warned for. Some editors don't get enough warnings and they just go on for a long time. I've had a look through this editor's history and I'm surprised there haven't been more blocks. --AussieLegend (?) 12:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I've had multiple run-ins with the editor, many of their edits include WP:OR on production codes. Looking at their talk page, they're received a pretty heavy number of warnings and they ignore them all. If Ad Orientem is able to help, that'd be great; if not, I might put together a list and file a report. -- AlexTW 13:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you'll probably want to take this to WP:ANI, because it sounds like you're going to want to ask for a longer-than-usual block for an IP. --IJBall (contribs o talk) 14:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that will be what happens, likely in the not too distant future. The IP can't handle not getting their own way on television pages and it's only a matter of time before the next issue. Esuka323 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


Hi all, can anyone link to the policy/MOS/whatever that says references shouldn't be included for episodes that have aired, only for future episodes? I keep getting reverted on The Apprentice (UK series fourteen). Thanks. Matt14451 (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Whoever is telling you that is wrong. Sourcing should be included for anything that cannot reasonably be covered under WP:PRIMARY - that's all airdates, and for most shows it also includes episode titles and prod. codes. IOW, the latter need to be sourced. Period. That's straight out of WP:V, which is a site policy. Now, that said, a lot of that can be handled with a 'column source' in the episode table rather than as an 'RTitle' source. --IJBall (contribs o talk) 18:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, so references should be included for all episodes regardless of whether they've aired? It seems like standard practice to remove the references once the episode airs. Matt14451 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The practice formed because once an episode airs, it becomes a WP:PRIMARY source. The problem is that it's only good for credits, and that's it. Occasionally, series will have the episode titles incorporated into them, but outside of animation, that is pretty rare. However, generally speaking, episodes cannot verify titles and most definitely cannot verify original air dates. As such, sources for those stay, and it's why we use column sources. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes - specific episode (i.e. "row") refs can/should go after an episode airs, but there should also be column sources for airdates, and for titles and prod. codes where necessary. --IJBall (contribs o talk) 18:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see column sources used very much on TV pages, and people generally remove the Rtitle source when an episode airs. I see this on virtually every broadcast television and most cable tv pages. I speak as someone who has edited on probably over 100 tv pages this year. Esuka323 (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE. Basically, this practice is WRONG. Airdates MUST be sourced. WP:PRIMARY doesn't cover this, as Amaury says. WP:TV has been very wrong about this for a very long time. And it needs to change: WP:V >> MOS:TV practices (which are wrong). --IJBall (contribs o talk)
It is, nevertheless, still standard practice to remove the sources after airing, and another discussion would need to be held to change this and actually make it concrete. However, as you said, this can be solved through the use of column references, and thus, they can be both removed from the row and still be sourced though the header. -- AlexTW 01:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Right - that's all that needs to be done. As I said above, the "row" refs can be removed after episodes air, because they source things like directors and writers which are covered under WP:PRIMARY. But airdates, and for most shows episode titles and prod. codes still need to be sourced - and the best way to handle that is with a column source. --IJBall (contribs o talk) 01:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
There's likely thousands of articles that are going to need column refs, if this ends up becoming a requirement. -- AlexTW 01:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
"Requirement"? We can't really "require" anything on Wikipedia. But, "highly advisable"? Sure! (Though, even here, there's a caveat - plenty of older TV shows simply won't have any sourcing available for things like airdates... But where sourcing is available for that, then it's certainly vastly preferable that it be sourced.) --IJBall (contribs o talk) 03:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Ewing family (television)

Posting this to WT:TV, to get more eyes on it... This should be at Ewing family (Dallas), correct? --IJBall (contribs o talk) 17:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Per the WP:NCTV character section, then yes. --Gonnym (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

X Factor (Russian TV series)

The "article" X Factor (Russian TV series) is basically a Disambiguation page, right? So it should be tagged with {{Disambiguation}}, yes?... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs o talk) 13:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a disambiguation page basically, shouldn't be included in navbox either. Matt14451 (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes. And agree about the navbox; the three shows should be there instead. --Izno (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it should probably redirect to X Factor (disambiguation) if not to The X Factor (as the primary DABTOPIC). --Izno (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The three Russian versions are not currently listed at X Factor (disambiguation), and they don't actually seem to use the "X-Factor" title, so I'm at a loss... --IJBall (contribs o talk) 15:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
If you want to have them on a DAB page, that's easy to work around with e.g. "The Russian X Factor, known as X Factor" or some such. That they aren't name X Factor kind of lends itself to a redirect to the DABTOPIC page at X Factor already. --Izno (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Kompas (and other shows) Part 2

So the editor from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 27#Fokus (Indosiar news program) has continued with same style of editing. Liputan 6 was reverted back from draft to main namespace, Kompas (tv program) was recreated (as Draft:Kompas (Kompas TV news program) was protected from being moved back, he just added a pseudo redirect instead), as were new articles such as INews (news program) (notice presenter blue links are all links) and Sergap (TV program). Can't even tell what is notable or not from the spam of list of presenters and segments in each one. Pinging previous discussion participents @AussieLegend, IJBall, AlexTheWhovian, and PaleoNeonate: and also @Amakuru: who page protected Draft:Kompas (Kompas TV news program). --Gonnym (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, last time this happened, I let Amakuru know (at User talk:Amakuru#Kompas (news program)). This is clearly Disruptive editing, and merits immediate deletion and a block from an Admin, IMO. If that doesn't happen, I would simply move these to Draftspace and let that process play out, though the last time we did that this editor simply moved them back to Mainspace... And if that happens, a block will definitely be in order IMO. --IJBall (contribs o talk) 12:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

List of Perry Mason cast members

I'm quite sure I know the answer to this, but I'll ask anyway - List of Perry Mason cast members should be nuked as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, yes?... --IJBall (contribs o talk) 18:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

At its current form? I'd say it's useless. It doesn't even mention the role the person had. I'd say that a list for that shows that is in a format that matches other good quality character list articles would be nice, but this isn't it. --Gonnym (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Legends of Tomorrow about what to list Matt Ryan as

Over at Legends of Tomorrow there is an ongoing debate on whether Matt Ryan is considered a main character or not. Intial news reports indicated that he would be a main cast member for the 4th season. But in the two episodes that have airred, he's credited as "Special Appearance by". JDDJS (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Rome episode nominated for deletion

{{Infobox Rome episode}} has been nominated for deletion again. The discussion may be found here for anyone interested in participating. --AussieLegend (?) 19:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Television tracking categories and lists

Hey all. Just thought I'd post these links here, list of articles that need updating to meet the standard practices of our WikiProject, in case anyone wants to help out with emptying them at any point

-- AlexTW 07:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for collecting TV maintenance categories. I fixed a few of the episode list one yesterday. Matt14451 (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Have we got a consolidated list of all the cats anywhere? Two that I have to continually empty are:
These can have 5 or more articles added each day, primarily by Indian, Pakistani and other Asian editors who never seem to read instructions and just make up fields. --AussieLegend (?) 08:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, not a list, but I've placed all tracking categories (except the one in Alex's userspace) in Category:Television articles needing attention (and its sub-pages). --Gonnym (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I've got a list complied at User:AlexTheWhovian/Categories that I have linked at the top of the page so I can check and empty it often. I've noticed exactly the same concerning those particular editors/articles. -- AlexTW 10:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Alex, is there a way to turn User:AlexTheWhovian/sandbox/Episodes into a tracking category that dynamically updates?... 'Cos I've gotten a number of those lately, but I generally forget to go to your page to update the list there. But if it were a tracking cat., I could simply remove the category from the article after fixing an episodes table, as I do when I fix entries in Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style... --IJBall (contribs o talk) 13:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
That'd be a great idea, but I'm not honestly sure. A tracking category could be added to the episode list module, but I'm not sure how to determine in the code if the episode table template has already been used or not, to add the category... -- AlexTW 13:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
If I recall, when the list was created in Alex's subspace, there was a reasoning why it couldn't be a category. Something with how it is checking if an article was indeed incorrectly formatted? Because isn't it just checking if the article has "Episode list" and then checking if it has "Episode table"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The other option would be for a bot to check, say, weekly, and update User:AlexTheWhovian/sandbox/Episodes accordingly. But "manually updating" that this isn't really working... --IJBall (contribs o talk) 21:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I might see if I can get a bot to go through and actually make the changes, based on, perhaps, what is included in each occurrence of {{Episode list}}, and generate the episode table code out of that... Because doing 9,000 articles by hand seems a bit too much. -- AlexTW 23:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Splitting Episodes

It has been suggested a broad consensus be reached for splitting episodes to their own article at Talk:Taskmaster (TV series). Matt14451 (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we already had it and that's why we have WP:MOSTV#Multiple episodes. 17:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Categories by television series

Recently, two similar categories were discussed at CfD with opposite outcomes:

Both only had a "list of" episodes and an article on one of its episodes.

For musician categories, a bottom-up approach has been enacted in which an artist's songs and albums are placed in a "Foo songs" and "Foo albums", regardless of how many songs and albums the artist has released (considered an exception to WP:SMALLCAT as "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"), and the general "Category:Foo" scheme is discouraged unless otherwise warranted (see Category:The Beatles, Category:Britney Spears). For television series categories, it appears a top-down approach is the accepted norm and I would like to get clarification on that here. This can then lead to a consistent categorization scheme for how and when seasons, episodes, and characters are categorized for any TV series.

For any television series Foo, Category:Foo may be created when there are a significant number of related articles that would appropriately fit into the category. These could be articles or lists on individual seasons, episodes, characters, spin-offs, etc. Only when there are a specified number of articles on these seasons, episodes, or characters exist should subcategories be created (ie. Category:Foo seasons, Category:Foo episodes, Category:Foo characters).

Question How many articles on a related subject to the television should exist before a subcategory on that subject for the show be considered? Should a SMALLCAT exception be established for seasons, episodes, and characters by series?
For example, these all exist but should they be upmerged?

Thank you for your time. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

In my experience the general rule of thumb has been a minimum of 5 articles for a category, although I have seen some editors say 4. By contrast, the people at stub-sorting regard 60 as a minimum. The aim of SMALLCAT in saying "except" is to cater for more general categories, not cats aimed at specific targets like a single TV series. I opposed keeping the King of Queens subcats because there were only 6 articles for the entire series and that is barely enough to justify the single category that was created let alone the 2 others. That many cats makes it hard for readers to find directly related articles. It's like having a real filing cabinet and having a folder for each item that you put in it. A lot of TV series have a single article and some have only two. SMALLCAT should most definitely have an exception since common sense clearly doesn't work. --AussieLegend (?) 19:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, SMALLCAT aim is to avoid small categories, especially those that aren't likely to grow. Category:Traveling Wilburys albums, with only 3 articles and little chance for expansion, is considered an exception as part of an accepted sub-categorization scheme under Category:Albums by artist. My understanding here is that similar sub-categorization for TV shows should not be exceptions. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, SMALLCAT aim is to avoid small categories, especially those that aren't likely to grow. - That clearly applies to The King of Queens and even many TV series that are still airing. TV categories should be allowed to grow naturally as most other category trees do. New cats shouldn't be forced on us as it doesn't help. If a series has a category and there are 5 episode articles then consideration should be given to creating an episode cat. The same applies for character categories. Common sense dictates that if all the articles in a category fit comfortably on one page then there's not a lot to be gained by splitting them into tiny categories just because you can. The TV project has had this issue with episode lists being split out far too early. Now we're more in tune with WP:SIZESPLIT. I completely agree with the deletion of Category:The Good Place episodes. There are only two episode articles and there is potential for more but it's completely unnecessary to create a cat at this time. Whether or not episode articles will be created depends on number of factors. If you look at {{The Big Bang Theory}} you'll see that there are episodes for seasons 1-8 but nothing for 9-12. There are far more for season 5 than any other season because one editor got keen and decided to create a whole pile of season 5 articles. This is not uncommon with TV programs. You can see something similar at {{NCIS television}}. By contrast, Two and a Half Men, which was a popular program, has articles for only 6 out of 262 episodes. When creating TV categories it's best to create the categories when they're needed, not just because they can be, as there is no consistency with how articles are created.
Regarding the examples you presented, The Cleveland Show has 4 season articles which, based on the organisation of the 106 related articles, seems to justify keeping Category:The Cleveland Show seasons although I wouldn't oppose an upmerge as the titles are unambiguous. That said, I notice that most of the episode articles are just redirects so they can probably be removed. A cleanup might even result in a few categories being emptied. Similarly, The Good Wife has an established tree so Category:The Good Wife episodes should probably stay. On the other hand, Veronic Mars has a single character article aside for the larger list of characters so Category:Veronica Mars characters? should probably be upmerged. --AussieLegend (?) 07:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you then agree with the statement above regarding the proposed criteria.

For any television series Foo, Category:Foo may be created when there are a significant number of related articles that would appropriately fit into the category. These could be articles or lists on individual seasons, episodes, characters, spin-offs, etc. Only when there are a specified number of articles on these seasons, episodes, or characters that exist should subcategories be created (ie. Category:Foo seasons, Category:Foo episodes, Category:Foo characters).

Say we set that specified number at 4 or 5, I can nominate a few existing categories with less than that attempt to set a precedent. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Lists of episodes

Taskmaster is a panelshow with 51 episodes. After this discussion, List of Taskmaster episodes was recently merged to Taskmaster (TV series), based on the main page's readable prose size and a blatant misreading of WP:MOSTV#Multiple pages. Is this following policy? If so, we need to start merging basically everything in Category:Lists of British comedy television series episodes. If not, the merge needs to be reversed. 11:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The size of readable prose is more relevant than number of episodes, in this case it was 11 kb before merge and 13 kb now after the merge. Matt14451 (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
No, exactly the opposite, because the list was composed of tables, which do not count a single byte towards readable prose. 11:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Considering the length of many UK TV series, esp. the comedies, yes, it's quite possible that many of them have LoE articles that should be merged back to the parent TV series article. Now, that said, this isn't a "burning issue", so I don't think we need an "organized" effort to look into this. But, if others are found, a Talk page discussion on a merge proposal can certainly be opened to gauge consensus for a merge. --IJBall (contribs o talk) 16:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Help me to decide

Hello, I need help to decide something. There is a tv channel called Bangla TV, based on uk. Recently their owner started another tv channel in Bangladesh with same name. Both tv channel have same logo but their program are different. Should i create another article or should i include information about new channel in the existing articles? --? (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't answer that question (though I suspect the answer is "two different articles" if the new channel is covered in enough WP:RS's to be "notable"). But if you do go to two articles, you will probably have to move the UK one to Bangla TV (UK TV channel), while the Bangladeshi one will have to go at Bangla TV (Bangladeshi TV channel), as per WP:NCBC. --IJBall (contribs o talk) 14:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on the notability of Joan Kelley Walker

Hi. Please comment on the notability of actress Joan Kelley Walker. Thanks! --Thinker78 (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Resource: Articles for deletion/1960-61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

FYI. postdlf (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


So, I was reading MOS:SECTION recently, and under the guidelines for headings, it states that headers should be unique within a page (otherwise section links may lead to the wrong place, and edit summaries may be ambiguous). While reading this, I thought about how a lot of television articles (especially episode lists with ratings) don't follow this. For example, List of Riverdale episodes, which has two links to each of "Season 1 (2017)", "Season 2 (2017-18)" and "Season 3 (2018)". Given that we often request that editors follow our MoS as strongly as possible, shouldn't we follow other such MoS's? -- AlexTW 07:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a solution that might work? Another bullet says Not redundantly refer [..] to a higher-level heading, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. so using "Season 3 (2018) ratings" would also not be in line with that MoS. --Gonnym (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I think there's a "trick" than can be used, so that each header is "unqiue" for linking purposes, even if they're "visually the same"... I want to say that I saw a conversation about this in WP:VPT within the last month or two... Amaury may have been the one who asked the question, I'm not sure... --IJBall (contribs o talk) 13:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
There is; the third season's ratings is List of Riverdale episodes#Season 3 (2018) 2. However, the Section MoS still states that section headers should be be unique within a page, given that edit summaries may be ambiguous. -- AlexTW 13:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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



Top US Cities was developed using's knowledge management platform. It allows users to manage learning and research. Visit defaultLogic's other partner sites below: : Music Genres | Musicians | Musical Instruments | Music Industry