Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

Updates to Template:Series overview

I've made some updates to {{Series overview}} in its sandbox and tested them through testcases; after detailing the changes below, and waiting for any opinions, I'll make them live presently. Legacy and new parameter formats will both be supported, until such a time that all live templates have had their parameters updated accordingly, at which point the legacy formats will be removed.

For ease, any parameter listed below with a "1" includes any season numbered parameter; i.e. |start1= being mentioned below means it applies also for |start2=, |start3=, etc.; also specials paramaters such as |end2S=, |end3S=, etc.; also multipart season parameters such as |released2A=, |released3B=, etc.

The changes are:

• Currently, to exclude an end date and make the start date span the whole two columns for first/last aired (i.e. the season was aired/released on the same day), you need to use |start1=[date]|end1=start. This will be updated to simply use |released1=[date] (no |end1= set). The |released1= parameter will span the two columns; separate start/end dates will continue to require |start1= and |end1= parameters. This matches the use of start vs release parameters across a multitude of television-related templates.
  • This applies to seasons and specials. Currently |start1S=[date] (no |end1= set) for a special will make the whole two columns for first/last aired automatically. This will no longer be the case; an end date cell will automatically be included if |start1S= is set, unless (as above), |released1S=[date] is set.
• If any part of a overview uses |released1=[date] for a season (specials not included), the template will automatically change into the format as if the |released=y parameter was set (i.e. "Originally released"/"First released"/"Last released" columns, rather than "Originally aired"/"First aired"/"Last aired" columns). This therefore deprecates the use of |released=y. The parameter |released=y will still be available, for any series that are released through a streaming format but still entirely use |start1= and |end1= parameters.
• If an entire series overview uses |released1=[date] for every season, and no |start1= and |end1= parameters, the template will automatically change into the format as if the |allreleased=y parameter was set (i.e. just one "Originally released" column, no separate "First released"/"Last released" columns). This therefore deprecates the use of |allreleased=y.

Please let me know if anyone has any feedback. If not, I'll update the code and parameters accordingly. Cheers! -- Alex_21 _TALK 14:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That all sounds logical to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Have you set tracking categories for |end1=start so those can be converted? Gonnym (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I have now, it'll be at Category:Articles using Template:Series overview with deprecated end-parameter format. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

How does it work if one season is released (weekly basis) and two seasons are aired (broadcast)? For an example, like Stargirl (TV series)#Episodes. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That particular template doesn't use |released=y and uses its original "Originally aired" columns, but I do see your point. I might need to keep |released=y and still implement the second dotpoint above, so that the header still automatically updates, but |released=y can still be used as an override in a template full of |start1= / |end1=. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes TV series broadcasted one new episode a weekly basis for the first season on one network and then, the second season released all episodes in one day on another network. Or vice versa. Like List of Lucifer episodes#Series overview. Would this mean that we can't change it to Originally aired"/"First aired"/"Last aired" whenever there is a |released1=[date] parameter? — YoungForever^(talk) 23:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

All that is aired is by definition also released, but not all that is released is by definition also aired. So if there's any season that was "released" as opposed to "aired", even if other seasons were aired, "Originally aired" should be listed as "Originally released", as "released" covers it all. "Originally aired" should only be used in seasons that are entirely aired. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Updates made. Documentation also updated. Just quoting again for clarity: Legacy and new parameter formats will both be supported, until such a time that all live templates have had their parameters updated accordingly, at which point the legacy formats will be removed. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are two [1][2] examples of the changes that will occur. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alex 21 Have you considered a PrimeBOT (Task 30) request for these? This is how I handled the radio and TV station infobox updates in 2020 (renames of parameters and later removal of slogans) and may prove immensely useful to you. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Released: Airing vs streaming

Proposal: Thinking about the use of "Originally aired" vs "Originally released", I'd actually like to propose that we just permanently stick with the latter, for both {{Series overview}} and {{Episode table}}. As I stated above, all that is aired is by definition also released, but not all that is released is by definition also aired. This would conform with {{Infobox television}}; even when we use |first_aired=, the row it still titled "Release" (this applies to {{Infobox television season}} and "Original release" too). Thoughts? -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that makes sense, and simplifies things. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Does this mean everything will be just first released and/or last released as no more first aired and/or last aired? — YoungForever^(talk) 08:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm intending, unless there's any opposition to it. I just feel that "release" covers everything. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Sometimes a TV series a co-production with two different countries have one country that broadcast a new episode on a weekly basis and another country release all episodes on one day. Having options avoid confusion to average readers. First aired/last aired on {{Series overview}} and Original air date on {{Episode table}} apply to Broadcast. Also, {{Infobox television}} still uses |first_aired= and |last_aired=. Sometimes TV series that broadcast a new episode, release the same episode on their official website and app the very next day.— YoungForever^(talk) 19:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

And no matter whether it's published through streaming sites, or broadcast on television, or any other way - is that series still not by definition released? Since when has "released" only applied to streaming series? To release something is to make it available.

I note that {{Infobox television}} still uses |first_aired= and |last_aired= - YoungForever, can I ask you, what is the row header for these parameters when they are used? What is the recommended header to use for any release information per MOS:TVRELEASE? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

"Release", but that is different as it is the very top header on the {{Infobox television}}. First aired/last aired on {{Series overview}} and Original air date on {{Episode table}} are not the top header. Release is available online/on demand and aired is broadcast/not on demand. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying the top header, I'm saying the label right next to the dates in the infobox. Release is available online/on demand and aired is broadcast/not on demand. There is nothing to actually support this. Anything aired or broadcast is, dy definition, released to the public. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Not everything air/broadcast is available to watch immediately. Back in the days, when everything was just aired/broadcasted on TV, we don't really used "released" on TV. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

If it has been aired or broadcast then it has been released, even if it is not available to be watched after that point. We didn't use to say "released", but there really isn't any reason why we shouldn't now. "released" covers anything that has been broadcast and anything released for streaming. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

For an example, an American TV series released all episodes on a Canadian streaming network on one day ahead of the American broadcast whereas the same TV series broadcast a new episode every week on an American TV network. Not the same thing. The original air date is still U.S. air date, not the Canadian release date because the U.S. TV network is the primary network. Another example, an HBO TV series released the first episode of the TV series on Max two days before the original air date on HBO. The original air date is still the HBO air date not Max release date because it is a HBO TV series, not a Max TV series. HBO is still the primary network. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those examples are about what we are talking about here, we are not talking about the "original" network or release date which is determined based on other factors. We are talking about using the term "released" regardless of how a series is released. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is what we are talking about. Aired/broadcasted on a network is not the same thing as released on a network. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

For an example, an American TV series released all episodes on a Canadian streaming network Then those episodes have been streamed.

whereas the same TV series broadcast a new episode every week on an American TV network Then those episodes have been broadcast.

They have both been released to the public. There is nothing to support that "Release" means streaming-only, as both infobox templates have proved - they both list any release date under "Release", as does MOS:TVRELEASE. I think you may be confusing the general definition of the word "release" with "streamed".

Let's use List of Lucifer episodes as an example. Its first three seasons were aired, its last three seasons were streamed. All six seasons have been released. What would you propse using as the series overview header? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Local consensus can determine that. If it is release, then release. If it is aired, then it is aired. At least, you have options. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question for the given example. As far as I can see, there is no such local consensus concerning this. "Released" as never meant solely streaming, and there has been no agreement with you on that here. There has, however, been agreement that streaming and broadcasting are the separate types of release, "release" being the term that covers all types of distribution, which is supported by established guidelines and infoboxes. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Original air date and Original release date are not the same thing. List of Lucifer episodes is different because 3 seasons were streamed and 3 seasons were broadcasted. For an example, List of Arrow episodes are all aired because they were broadcasted on The CW, not released on The CW. You don't say The first season "was released" from October 10, 2012 through May 15, 2013. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

They were indeed released on The CW. They weren't streamed, is what you mean. At Arrow (TV series), can you tell me what the infobox header above the Network row reads as, and what the label next to "October 10, 2012 – January 28, 2020" is? Using your own example, what is the label next to "October 10, 2012 – May 15, 2013" in the infobox at Arrow season 1? -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Original release and Release on Arrow (TV series); Release and Original release on Arrow season 1.

So, why is that it is not acceptable to leave as it is then? I see nothing wrong with using aired when it is appropriate to use. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Limiting to no options is making it worse than before because you are forcing editors to just use "Release". — YoungForever^(talk) 16:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying to leave those examples as they are, and update others templates to conform with them.

Anyways, this is going in circles and there seems to be a misunderstanding with you as to the general definition of "releasing" media, so I'll await any further opposition or comments; if there are no further comments, then we have a solution. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not have any misunderstanding. So, why it is not acceptable to continue using original air date, originally aired, first aired, and last aired? Why are editors forced to conform when it is perfectly acceptable to use "aired" when it is appropriate? Also, when templates are updated, they are automatically conform, hence, forced to conform. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going in circles with you. I've explained that difference between "released" and "streamed". Everything made available to the public is, by definition, released to the public. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You did not answer my questions. We have the options of using aired and released for years and flat out removing "aired" is detrimental because you are taking away the option to choose. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It remains meaning the same thing. We haven't had that choice for infoboxes - is that an issue that's been plaguing anyone? -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes are different though, they didn't have a choice to begin with. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

So, it's not an actual issue at all. Okay, cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not twist my words. Having options to begin with and having them taking away are not the same thing as having no options to begin with. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I have nothing further to add to this discussions, besides simplifying templates. If there is no further opposition, or if there is no further support for keeping the separate headers... -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

YoungForever your argument is that we should keep it because it is an option, not that we need it. That is not a good argument. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

We do need it because we have been using it. Currently, there are actually still a lot of TV series use original air date, originally aired, first aired, and last aired. Are many broadcasting TV series only using "release" right now? I do not think so, many are still using "aired". — YoungForever^(talk) 16:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The whole point of this discussion is that we can change them all to use "released". - adamstom97 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The whole point of this discussion is forcing everyone to use "released" and claiming no one is actually using "aired". When the truth is that the majority of the broadcasting TV series are still using "aired". — YoungForever^(talk) 18:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

And yet, if it was being "forced", nobody else has claimed that this is an issue, why?

Are many broadcasting TV series only using "release" right now? Yes - every television series article that exists on Wikipedia.

However, now, this is just back-and-forth now, no part of this discussion has been constructive. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It is because it has only been few days, frequent WikiProject Television editors may not have seen this discussion. The separate proposal only started a few days ago.

That is just incorrect, it is just what you to want to believe. The fact is most broadcasting TV series are still using "aired". Claiming no one is using "aired" is completely false. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That's why I'm not implementing it and said we'll see if there's any actual opposition. And nope, every television article is already using the term "release", that's a fact I've already shown above. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not true because you are only counting the infobox and nothing else. If you actually read broadcasted TV series articles, you would notice that the majority would still used "aired" throughout those kind of articles overall. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying those articles can't continue to use "aired" in the prose. Way to make a mountain out of a molehill much? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Majority of broadcasted TV series still use "aired" on Series overview and Episode table. That is a fact. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it's an option that is not needed. Once I remove them, then your argument is redundant. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Passato e Presente

I am currently gathering my independent sources of this TV show titled Passato e Presente (Italian TV program that airs in Italy), which is a historical analysis talk show that discuss the past and comparing it to the present.

While I have not created the article yet as I am seeing if there are sufficient independent sources beside press releases from RAI Ufficio Stampa (press office) to see if it deserves an article on this language Wikipedia or not.

My question is this - Should a title be translated?

For example, one of the episodes of Passato e Presente (which is in it eight season) is titled "L'assassinio di Alessandro I". Should this episode title be translated or left alone? If yes that it has to be translated, where would I insert it in Template:Episode list? I got confused as there RTitle, AltTitle, RAltTitle and TranslitTitle. Soafy234 (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Television Oita#Requested move 5 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Television Oita#Requested move 5 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Star Wars: Clone Wars (2003 TV series)#Requested move 6 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Star Wars: Clone Wars (2003 TV series)#Requested move 6 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge

There is a merger discussion at Talk:The_Daily_Wire#Proposed_merge_of_Mr._Birchum_into_The_Daily_Wire, suggesting a merge of Mr. Birchum to The Daily Wire. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Survivors (2008 TV series)

Survivors (2008 TV series) 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. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

List of Television Episodes Notable for Negative Reception?

Can this be a new article/list? There are many television series that have been on for decades that have had notoriously bad episodes. For example, One Coarse Meal (SpongeBob SquarePants), Lisa Goes Gaga (The Simpsons), Skibidi Biden (The Late Show with Stephen Colbert), Seahorse Seashell Party (Family Guy), Arnold Betrays Iggy (Hey Arnold!), American Fung (American Dad), IMeet Fred (iCarly), Last Forever: Part Two (How I Met Your Mother), etc. Most of these episodes ruined the reputation of their series, are no longer aired on TV, or the writers have apologised for the episodes in interviews or on social medias. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

How are these notable together? Or is it just a list for the sake of a list? -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

They are all considered to be the worst of their respective series by many casual viewers and critics or ruined their series reputation to a degree and in some cases, the writers apologised for how bad these episodes are. For example, the aforementioned Skibidi Biden from Stephen Colbert, Shark Week's Megalodon episode, and Everyone Knows it's Bendy (Fosters Home for Imaginary Friends). There are lists for TV shows considered to be the worst and sitcoms considered the worst. So, I do not see anything wrong with this list, provided that there are Wikipedia-trusted sources outside of IMDB and YouTubers that cite these episodes as the worst and multiple entries aside from the ones I mentioned as examples. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Then if you would like to create a draft for the article and submit it through WP:AFC, go for it. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions outside of the ten that I mentioned? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It stands out to me a bit that even as you're claiming these are considered the worst episodes of their series, the episodes you mention in your second post lack articles of their own. Meanwhile, I looked at "Lisa Goes Gaga", which you cited in your initial post, and the article for that episode claims that it received "mixed to negative" reception, which implies it's far from being notoriously bad. "Skibidi Biden" similarly seems to lack the level of condemnation that you're ascribing to it. DonIago (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Polygon cited Skibidi BIden as "the worst thing that Stephen Colbert has ever done" and many casual viewers hated it. Some described it as "the 9/11 of television." If Lisa Goes Gaga is not considered to be notably bad by Wikipedia-trusted sources outside of IMDB, then I suppose that The Principal and The Pauper could be in place of it as a Simpsons episode on the list. Even Matt Groening, the series creator disliked the episode. The Megalodon episode from Shark Week has its own article, and it is featured on the list for notably bad television series.

Skibidi Biden Is The Worst Thing Stephen Colbert Has Done

obamaatredrobin en X: "the 9/11 of television https://t.co/xqkbg2hg0n" / X

Stephen Colbert's "Skibidi Biden" Segment | Know Your Meme Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

From a video game side we have List of video games notable for negative reception but key for being on that list is not only an established critic aggregate less than 50/100 or 50%, but that there are long-term aspects of being that critically bad (that is, documented in reliable sources not associated with being a review), as to avoid simply just being a list of games with poor review scores. I think if applied to TV shows, you are definitely going to need a pretty strong criteria beyond just lower review scores, and unlike video games, where one bad game can cost a studio, episodes are generally part of a package so one bad episode is not going to have that great an impact. In other words, I think this would be highly difficult to create in the first place for episodes. --Masem (t) 12:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I started the draft and have a decent number of sources ranging from news articles and books covering the negative receptions of episodes such as Principal and The Pauper and Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives. Principal and The Pauper is often cited to be the start of The Simpsons' decline in quality by both critics and fans, and the megalodon special caused many to lose faith in Discovery and Shark Week in addition to perpetuating the erroneous belief of the megalodon still being extant in an unexplored part of the ocean. As I stated above, these episodes either ruined the reputations of their series or were so bad that the writers or series creators apologised or expressed disdain for them. Such as Matt Groening and Lauren Faust expressing disdain for Principal and The Pauper and Everyone Knows it's Bendy.

The criteria is that one MUST provide a source detailing how poorly the episode is received, entries that solely use IMDB or fanmade lists as sources will be removed. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the article in draftspace? I think other editors (myself included) could provide better feedback if they could see an actual work-in-progress instead of speculating about how it could look. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

How do I provide the link? I have made decent progress on the draft with 12 entries so far.

The Principal and The Pauper (The Simpsons)

Seahorse Seashell Party (Family Guy)

American Fung (American Dad!)

Last Forever: Part Two (How I Met Your Mother)

One Coarse Meal (SpongeBob SquarePants)

Everyone Knows it's Bendy (Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends)

The Great Divide (Avatar: The Last Air Bender)

Ren Seeks Help (Ren and Stimpy: Adult Party Cartoon)

Angel One (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Skibidi Biden (Stephen Colbert)

Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives (Shark Week)

The Bells (Game of Thrones)

I could use some help in finding sources for claims on how bad some of these episodes were received though. I was able to find sources for Matt Groening, the creators of Avatar, and Lauren Faust apologising and expressing regret for their respective episodes, However, I have read claims on many sites such as TV Tropes and SpongeBuddy Mania of Clancy Brown, the voice actor for Mr. Krabs expressing hate and discomfort for One Coarse Meal due to the episode depicting Krabs as a phycological abuser that tortures Plankton to the point of attempted suicide. I cannot find a source on either the English, French, Italian, or Spanish internet that describes Brown's opinions on the episode unlike I was able to find sources for the three previously mentioned. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Listing items here doesn't help. You should start writing this information down in article form using a draft. See Wikipedia:Drafts, particularly the section "Creating and editing drafts". RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Split proposal for Talent agent

I have proposed splitting Talent agent into a new article Talent agency. Members of this WikiProject are welcome to contribute at Talk:Talent agent#Proposed split. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for The Bill

The Bill 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) 21:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The Next Line

The Next Line has been unsourced since 2009. "Next Line" + "Kevin Frank" turned up zero results on newspapers.com and GBooks. Google itself even asked "did you mean Kevin Franke" while giving only fan forums, Wikipedia mirrors, and the like. Throwing this out there to see if maybe someone could find something I missed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Splitting contestants by season

Is it appropriate to split a contestant category into subcategories based on which season they were on? For example Category:America's Got Talent contestants or Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants. Assume that each season has at least 5 contestants with articles...Naraht (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be in WP:NARROWCAT territory. It would actually be worse than some of the examples given; at least there's a chance for "Sportsmen from Brisbane" to organically grow over the years. At most, "Season X America's Got Talent contestants" is going to muster 48 articles (assuming everyone taking part becomes a notable person). - X201 (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Film Music Reporter

I have started a discussion about the reliability of this website, which is widely used in articles that fall within the scope of this WikiProject, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Film Music Reporter. All thoughts are welcome. My hope is to come to a definitive consensus on the matter which can be recorded at WP:RS/PS. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of PixL

The article PixL has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Stub article with just 3 sentences and 2 sources, and has had the Notability template since 2020. I believe this article fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I couldn't find great sources from a quick google, but I am UK based, so that might not be the best. I find it hard to believe a channel associated with Amazon that makes original movies, and has run for almost 15 years is non-notable though. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski, it's merely something Amazon sells subscriptions to, not something Amazon runs. The reason for its GNG obscurity likely lies in its Christian orientation. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not religious, I don't really know a great deal about that side of the world. There would presumably be Christian based reliable sources that talk about this sort of thing though, right? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Bleach season 1 for featured list removal

I have nominated Bleach season 1 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) 00:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Bart Simpson

I have nominated Bart 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!🍕 (🔔) 06:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)