Misplaced Pages

Superman X

I don't get it. Is his alter ego "Kell-El" or "Kel-El"? Various sources are using different names. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Attention Admins: IP block request

Hi if there's any admins here, a frequent vandal with the IP address 72.92.4.244 has been vandalising List of DirecTV channels repeatedly. They have been warned multiple times. Please block them permanently.TomCat4680 (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV is where this needs to go. This isn't an administrator noticeboard, just a project board. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Its already there, they won't respond.TomCat4680 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Responses aren't always instant. An admin will response after investigating. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Criminal Minds Infobox Discussion

Criminal Minds's talkpage currently has a discussion regarding which stars to include in the infobox. I believe that it should only include current stars, but you can read my detailed explanation on the talkpage. I was hoping to get some other editors besides me that have knowledge of the infobox to give their inputs. I was also hoping regardless of the decision on Criminal Minds that we could come up with some guidelines regarding the infoboxes, as I believe they should only include current information. Discussion here Thanks --DJS24 21:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinions, please

Hello! I recently started a section for moving the page List of minor characters of Scrubs to List of Scrubs characters, as well as removing many very minor characters from the list and merging in character pages (though the latter would be handled more separately and with consensus on each page) on the discussion page. It's been a few days, and no one has replied, and with a subject such as this, I'd like to get opinions from others. So, would anyone mind replying on Talk:List of minor characters of Scrubs#Move, remove, and merge? Thank you! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal of Merging Toon Disney into Disney XD

A merge of Toon Disney into Disney XD has been proposed. Please see This discussion page for comments. Thank You. --Gman124 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing problem with Dan Conner.

I don't edit TV articles much, so I'm having problems finding sources for the awards. Help? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are four ways to find good sources:

• Go to the homepage of each award body. You find the that link easily in the External links section of the respective wikipedia article. You can also look for FL award lists on wikipedia and look up the major awards sources in their References section.
• Google each award with the actor's name, and you may find some additional Variety or Hollywood Reporter articles.
• http://theenvelope.latimes.com/extras/lostmind/ has a list of many award bodies. It takes some time to figure out how to find the right award in the right year though (and I am not sure whether they give you just the winners or also the nominations).
• Lastly, there is IMDb, where most (all?) shows and most award bodies have an awards page. IMDb should only be used as a last resort though.

I could source every of the major awards this way, but I admit that my TV shows weren't as old as Roseanne. – sgeureka 09:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

BBC Young Musician of the Year

User:Diaa abdelmoneim has nominated BBC Young Musician of the Year for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Cheers

I have nominated Cheers for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Question about character spoofs/satires and non-studio portrayals

Characters notable enough for stand-alone articles sometimes also are subject of SNL et al. spoofs. Is it appropriate to list such spoof/satirical portrayals in a character infobox's list of "portrayals"? Is a spoof of a character the same thing as portraying the character itself? Does this content go in a "portrayal"s section or "reaction/commentary" section?

On a related note, should an infobox/the article include coverage of an amateur (i.e. fan) production if that coverage includes commentary on the actor's performance of that character?

These questions derive from a conversation about James T. Kirk, and the extent to which we include coverage of a fan production's performance (with commentary from a reliable source) and John Belushi's spoof. --EEMIV (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd reserve the "portrayal" field to the (voice) actors who portrayed the character in officially licended works, i.e. no spoofs. Official portrayals and spoofs are completely different beasts because one will always recognized as "the character" and the other one as "spoof of the character". Whether spoofs originate on SNL or a fan project is immaterial. Spoofs can be mentioned in a section called "Cultural impact" or "Influence and legacy". My opinion. – sgeureka 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Sgeureka, and don't need to say much more as I responded similarily on the Film talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd point out that the fan-produced webisodes are not spoofs but serious treatments of the characters in the given example of Cawley for Kirk. If there is citation for the performance (which really is the linchpin for any argument for inclusion), and the performance serves to enhance the understanding of the subject (and not the interpretation of a actor's portrayal - every other spoof example is one wherein someone is spoofing Shatner's portrayal), it should be included. - Arcayne () 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The key is "fan made", which makes it unofficial. You can not it through reliable secondary sources in the "Cultural Impact", because that is what it is, but it is not an official appearance of the character. Fan films are an indication of a fictional elements impact on the culture, hence why it should be mentioned there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is stating that it should not be in a cultural impact section (well, actually, there are folk trying to reinvent the wheel there, but mention of the characterization in the article isn't disputed in and of itself). Thr serious treatment of the character has received recognition and non-fan-related media treatment (aka, citations) discussing the characterization. You are focusing on fan-made, and missing that there are only three serious treatments of the character, of which Cawley is one. As well, the actor's fan-series isn't some low-rent YouTube redo of Jedi Kid or some testosterone-filled Sith battle; it is notable in and of itself. While the latter isn't specific to this discussion, it is germane to the arguments against marginalization. - Arcayne () 19:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of us are on the same page as to what specifically we are referring to. I'll try and lay out my thoughts as to what I believe the discussion to be about and anyone is free to do the same about their own thoughts (as well as critique my stance).

1. As far as the infobox goes, it is my opinion that that should be reserved for official portrayals (i.e. licensed works).
2. An "Appearances" section (e.g., like you would find here) should be reserved, again, for officially licensed appearances.
3. Any fan made, whether notable itself, or notable as a whole (i.e. a specific work being notable, or just the fact that they exist as a whole) should be present in a "Cultural Impact" or similar section.
4. Since Arcayne brought up a new point that I had not thought about, which is the discussion of characterization by a non-licensed portrayal. If reliable, secondary sources discuss this aspect of a character from the POV of the non-licensed portrayal, I'm fine with it in that section. But, to me, those secondary sources have to be beyond specialized sites (e.g. Halloweenmovies.com interviewing the creator of a fan film about his characterization of Michael Myers. Interesting to read, but the coverage is a little bias). It should also be clear that you are talking about an unofficial version of the character that has become notable in its own right, because it should not read as if this was the creator's decisions.

That's my assessment of the issue, take it as you all like.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for enumerating your points of stance, Big. Most fan-film depictions don't deserve mention outside a cultural impact section/subsection. I think that these particular fan-films are different in that they are the only ones being done with purist intent, not for yuks. And there are some non-biased citations from mainstream media. Most of the resistance I am encountering is from those who pooh-pooh any fan-film portrayal on principle. I am guessing most of them haven't even seen the portrayal they are opposing, which is less than intellignet, in my book. - Arcayne () 04:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is that this isn't an appearance of the character, but really someone's portrayal of something they care about. Yes, it's serious and not intended to be some spoof, but when it boils down it is still an unauthorized (technically illegal "appearance" of the character). Does it deserve mentioning somewhere, yes because the sources clearly show so. Is it of equal status as the TV and Film appearances....not in my assessment, which is based solely on the fact that it is not an authorized version of the character, and not because it may or may not be well made.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, the discussion is not whether it belongs in the article body - no one is arguing against that. The snag here is that you are seeing only authorized portrayals as being allowed in the infobox, and I am not seeing a prohibitive caveat about that anywhere. For me, the idea on point is that the infobox is sort of an 'index card' of the article. Serious portrayals - ie, those that develop the character, and not focusing on those mimicking the actor portraying the character - are specific to the subject of the article. We don't work for Paramount (and if we do, I want my paycheck immediately), so they do not determine the notability of our content. I see this move to exclude by others as a thinly-disguised canonicity argument, and canonicity has no place in the wiki. The equality of status is inconsequential here, as determining such is - by definition - non-neutral. - Arcayne () 18:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have seen all of these films and my personal feelings on whether they should be included is the same, regardless of which ones I felt were good or bad. Your suggestion that the resistance is because people want to "pooh-pooh" fan fiction is false. The bottom line for me is that fan fiction is irrelevant when it comes to the primary biography of any fictional character. Today it's Captain Kirk because you feel that New Voyages/ Phase II holds more value than other fan-produced works of derivative fiction. Who will it be tomorrow, based on the precedent you want to set? Let's set this aside for a moment and I want you to think something: what happens if at some point in the future there is a New Voyages episode where "Captain Kirk" is overtaken by aliens who make him think he's Elvis Presley? Would that self-satisfying bit of "burning love" from the Elvis Kirk be enough for you to say, "Gee... maybe these people don't belong in the primary bios?" Now I'm sure you're going to point out how ridiculous that is, but to die hard Trekis out there, all of the time travel, alternate universes, and mixed cast episodes that New Voyages have produced are just as ridiculous. There are great pieces of fan fiction out there (some you will love and hate), but IMHO nobody here can pick and chose which portrayal goes into the primary biographies if those works are unlicensed and not part of an official studio production. Fan fiction cannot and should not be given the same weight as studio produced works, good or bad. It is a slippery slope that could lead to a big problem for any fictional character with a cult following. So we either need to draw a line in the sand and include only serious studio sanctioned portrayals or take a tack from imdb.com and include every single actor to ever portray the character (including spoofs). That's the heart of the issue for me, so please don't misunderstand my intentions as they are quite good and not spurred by my feelings regarding fan films. Erikeltic (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am curious if you are going to cross post most of your posts to one forum or another. This particular post has already been posted, responded to and dismissed in another article discussion. Make a new argument or none at all, as this would appear to be forum-shopping, Erikeltic. It's disingenuous. It grows ever more suspicious when you are socking at the same time. - Arcayne () 18:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, take a look at Doctor (Doctor Who)'s info box. Only the 11 studio actors who have played The Doctor on film or television are listed in the "portrayed by" (the 11th has yet to appear on-screen). None of the voice actors that played The Doctor only' on stage or in the audio dramas are listed in the info box. Instead, there is a wiki List_of_actors_who_have_played_the_Doctor which includes studio actors, spoofs, stage, audio, and even has a nod to a fan film called "The Millennium Trap." Erikeltic (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, what was your point here? - Arcayne () 18:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, anyone could argue that any "fan produced film" is a "serious" portrayal. They are fans, why would they not be serious about it? The fact that this particular series is notable by itself doesn't change the fact that it's still not a licensed portrayal. Should we include anyone who is impersonating Kirk at local conventions where Shatner cannot appear, as well? That's serious portrayal. The idea of what is "serious" is subjective. Misplaced Pages is neutral, and to be neutral we need to be objective. Saying "license portrayals only" is rather objective.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Misplaced Pages:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Misplaced Pages talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:45, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Template:Television colour

I don't know how many people know of this in the first place, but it's possible to give the infoboxes of TV shows a certain color throughout wikipedia by noting the preferred color at Template:Television colour (this template is called by {{Infobox Television episode}}). The TV shows and their colors there are currently

| Angel                    = #5678AC
| Buffy the Vampire Slayer = #5678AC
| Entourage                = #FBBC87
| Firefly                  = #fc9
| Home and Away            = #F9BA5B
| Mad Men                  = #F52B13
| The 4400                 = #B9D0E8
| The O.C.                 = #FFAA44
| The Simpsons             = #FADA00
| The Sopranos             = #CDCCCC
| Veronica Mars            = #C0D883
| Sex and the City         = #EAADEA

Stargate SG-1 was included there as well once, but got removed because of standardization/cleanup attempts in 2008. Now, there is a request at the template's talkpage to include

| Star Wars = #FFD700 
| Battlestar Galactica = #B22222 

I wonder if TV shows should really get their own color because they can, or if we should keep all TV article infoboxes color-standardized to lightblue and attempt to standardize the rest as well. (In my opinion, the only show where a separate color makes some sense would be The Simpsons because they have a very active project with a huge output of quality articles, and the connection to yellow is obvious, but I'd welcome a standardization on a voluntary basis of the respective wikiproject as well.) So, yes or no to standardization? If yes, for all TV shows or just some (and which and why)? – sgeureka 15:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Please read the top of Template talk:Television colour as well. – sgeureka 15:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with either a standardization, or everyone gets their own. I'm not cool with selecting one show and letting them be different just because they're so popular. It's not very neutral on our part, and will definitely cause an uproar with shows with devoted fanbased editors who want to put their show's "colors" in their box as well. I say, it's all or none (fine with either. I just use the default color myself).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that practice should end. The infoboxes should be standardized, without non-neutral preferential treatment being given to a handful of shows. Are any other media areas doing such customization? I know anime/manga doesn't and I'm pretty sure films don't have that option either. Novels/books are colorized by type (i.e. novel, non-fiction, etc). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with standardizing but if you are going to do it, it will require some careful work. For example {{Television colour}} does the "Title" & "Episode chronology" in {{Infobox Television episode}}, but I notice The Simpsons has it's own episode navboxes to to standardise colours in them, so {{Infobox Simpsons season 1 episode list header}} – {{Infobox Simpsons season 20 episode list header}} would need changing too. Are there maybe other shows that do similar things to this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The template was introduced for the exact reasons i listed at the top of the talk page there. Simpsons is a clear case. A color that is deeply associated with the topic. And as such, there is nothing wrong with using that. BSG has no clear associated color in my opinion. Firefly however is clearly coupled to that brownish orange. This should be judged on a case by case basis. (And some weeding needs to occur in the existing list). For instance, i'm quite sure the template still has some colors that I added to prevent edit warring when we did the Infobox Television episode unification drive. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, i note that the bgcolor and textcolor options of {{Infobox Television}} still have not been eradicated. Someone should try to get that fixed. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is something wrong, because we're playing favorites. I could easily argue that red and blue are "deeply associated" with Smallville, or that red and white are "deeply associated" with Monk. Playing favorites is just going to piss people off.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is as much "playing favourites", as that we consider some topics notable, and others not. The idea is to make the encyclopedia visually appealing, without being a kaleidoscope. I don't care how its done, but personally, i would find it weird to stip the yellow color from the simpsons topics. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole, you can't have one rule for your favourite TV show, and one rule for the others. Either every notable TV show should be entitled to have a colour associated with it, or none should. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

First, considering some topics notable and others not, doesn't appear to be as black and white as one might assume, especially given the biased arguments by people who are a fan of th programming. Second, there is a difference between deciding if you warrant an article, and deciding if your page should be "flashy". You're basically saying, "Sorry kid, you're just not cool enough to escape the pale blue of the default color". One thing is establised by significant coverage from reliable sources, and the other is going to be done by popularity vote?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said. I would find it "weird". Primarily I'm providing historical perspective, I don't give a flying-!@*#%$ about what actually happens next, as I'm no longer interested in this project. But you'd better inform the respective wikiprojects if you are gonna change something, and you'd probably better start with bgcolor and textcolor first, since that was contentious enough back then. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to know if I should start an official removal proposal for Sex and the City, The 4400 and Veronica Mars from the list because their episode articles are in the process of getting merged (or already were merged), or if this template is a thing of the past and should be dealt with in one sweep. If the vibe here turns significantly supportive or repudiative soon, I'll know the next step. If not, I'll just leave this template be. – sgeureka 22:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

From my point of view, I have worked a bit with The O.C. articles. It currently uses orange (due to it being Orange County) for its episodes, but I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference if an episode's infobox (e.g. here) were to suddenly lose its orange colour and become the standard blue. The only thing I would object to is if this standardisation was not being made across the board. (i.e. I wouldn't welcome arguments like "The Simpsons should stay yellow because it has been like that for ages".) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the very existence of this template can be problematic in unrelated but identically-named articles; because Angel (TV series) has an assigned colour, the code seeps through into the Angel (1960 TV series) infobox. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Angel seems to be able to merge with Buffy. I see no difference in color, and besides, the series is simply a spin-off. Now, what EXACTLY qualifies as needing a color? What shows are so popular they deserve it? I know that half the ones their do, but some shows don't really seem it. I know nothing of "Mad Men," but it has only 25 episodes and deserves it. It's clear that Josh Weadon shows deserve colors, though as stated above Angel should not be treated separate from Buffy, especially since the colors are the same. As well as this, Star Trek shows only work for the first two, and some series (like LOST) are using custom colors not specified here. It's quite clear some changes are needed. —Excelsior, The Flash - 19:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There is currently a discussion taking place over at the List of South Park episodes concerning the notability of the majority of the South Park articles, and the possibility of merging any non-notable articles into newly recreated season pages (with the possibility of being recreated regardless of the episode merge given the length of the "List of" page...see Talk:List of South Park episodes#Reformatting pages for the discussion on simply reformatting the "List of" page). More opinions are wanted and needed at the talk page so that we can get a better idea of the consensus. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Notabilities for Television and the Related

Please let me know how to put an article about TV and its relationship into Misplaced Pages. Thanks a lot. If searching a TV programme produced by the National Television Network by Google and its hit is over 50,000, then should we create a new article about it in Misplaced Pages English or local Misplaced Pages. User:Es.ntp - 58.186.244.92 (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

In order to create an article on wikipedia, you need to have an account that is several days old and with which you have made several edits before. The main (but not only) inclusion standard on wikipedia is WP:Notability: If a TV programme has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, then it likely deserves an article. – sgeureka 14:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode notability

Project members might be interested in two discussions on-going. One, started at WP:N is a straw poll asking that there be a "policy change" to state that "Any television series that has at least a million viewers, may have an article for every single episode of it." Misplaced Pages talk:Notability#Voting time. Any television series that has at least a million viewers, may have an article for every episode. Over at WP:EPISODE, it has once again been tagged disputed and a discussion started there Misplaced Pages talk:Television episodes# Disputed. Both apparently being spurred by the South Park episode merging discussions noted above (which could also use more views). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How should this be listed in the infobox

How should the number of episodes of a ongoing tv show be listed in the infobox? Me and Mythdon think it should be listed by the number of episodes that aired and then the date of that episode. But Ryulong think it should be listed as ongoing. What do you think? Powergate92Talk 03:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)