Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Television and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:TVWT:TV WT:WPTVWT:WPTV

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41Auto-archiving period: 25 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Television 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

Points of interest related to Television on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style – To-do

WikiProject Television was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 8 January 2014.

WikiProject Television was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 6 September 2016.

WikiProject Television

Project main page Project discussion Project assessment talk Television portal talk Descendant WikiProjects and task forces Showcase Project organization Article alerts Deletion sorting Popular pages New articles Project banner talk Project category talk Project templates talk Television stubs Guidelines Project manual of style talk Project notability guidelines talk TV article naming convention talk Broadcasting article naming convention talk Related WikiProjects Actors and Filmmakers Albums Animation Anime and manga Comics Film Literature Media franchises Radio Screenwriters Westerns view · edit · changes

Hi all — I’m requesting a neutral review and, if appropriate, neutral submission for Draft:Justin Rae Barnes to comply with COI/BLP best practices.

I am the subject of the draft and have disclosed COI on my user page. The draft is written neutrally and cites independent trade coverage that names me as showrunner/EP, plus awards pages:

• Deadline – Stacy London & Clinton Kelly To Host ‘Wear Whatever the F You Want’ (names me as showrunner/EP): https://deadline.com/2024/08/stacy-london-clinton-kelly-wear-whatever-the-f-you-want-amazon-1236050264/ • Variety – House of Villains Season 3 cast & executive producers (lists me as EP): https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/house-of-villains-season-3-cast-tom-sandoval-peacock-1236412230/ • Deadline – ‘House of Villains’ Moves From E! To Peacock For Season 3 (lists me as EP): https://deadline.com/2025/05/house-of-villains-peacock-season-3-1236391442/ • Television Academy – bio / nominations page: https://www.televisionacademy.com/bios/justin-rae-barnes • Critics Choice Real TV Awards 2025 – nominations hub: https://www.criticschoice.com/real-tv/

AfC reviewers flagged “autobiography” and requested more independent sourcing. I’d appreciate a neutral editor’s advice and, if it meets WP:NPEOPLE, help moving it forward so it’s not self-submitted.

Thanks so much for your time and guidance. ~~~~ Justinraebarnes (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't dug through all of the sources, but at a quick glance, the main issue is NPEOPLE, not the autobiographical elements. For an article about a person, there should be coverage focused on that person; the provided sources only offer brief, tangential mentions. That won't change regardless of who submits it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for clarifying, that’s really helpful context. I’ll hold off until there’s more independent coverage about my work specifically. 76.88.45.92 (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all. I have a FAC open for The One Where Michael Leaves, and am hoping for at least one more review just so the article meets the non-existent minimum. Any help would be appreciated, the article has a passed source and image review and two supports currently. The FAC can be found here Crystal Drawers (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP now has an article about Battle for Dream Island. Should that article have an episode list? If you have an opinion, please join at Talk:Battle_for_Dream_Island#Edit_request. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: a list was created and is currently the subject of a deletion discussion (link) for those who wish to join the conversation at this point. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dwarf 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) 21:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I want to ask for a general opinion. Take an example of this title, Huey Tum Ajnabi, whilch was originally released as a theatrical film, and so the Wikipedia article is written as per MOS:FILM. But, there is no plot written yet. Now the issue is, that the title is available as TV episodes on YouTube.

• Should the plot be written as per MOS:TV?
• Or, should the article be broken into two separate pages, just like Bin Roye (film) and Bin Roye (TV series)?
• Or, just summarize the TV episodic plot into film style?
• Or, any other opinion?

Personally, I would prefer first option. Hope for a kind and helpful response, thank you! M. Billoo 09:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Are the TV series and the film completely different narrative edits?
   1. If they are not, treat the article as the film, mention the episode edit release.
   2. If they are, are both independently notable?
      1. If not, use same article. Have different level 2 sections for the film and TV series sections.
      2. If they are, do both have enough content for different articles?
         1. If not, use same article. Have different level 2 sections for the film and TV series sections.
         2. If they have, write different articles.

Gonnym (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Iiii I I I and Gonnym: The TV series and the film may have the same basic plot. I cannot say about the film plot due to no access to it. So, expanding the plot section would only be possible after watching its TV series. The production team and timeline is same, only difference is (of course) the runtime, and supposedly the detailed storyline in TV edit. Above, I am only talking about the plot/story section. Because the available information for the other sections are about film and not the TV. M. Billoo 11:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just adding as a bonus point, that previously on Wikipedia, I wrote plot summary for a TV series based on a novel, only because I watched the series but I still have not accessed the novel. I assume that the primary media is considered as the sole reference for the fiction/plot. But, what if there is no access to the primary media? Can the secondary media be used as an inspiration, instead of leaving the section blank? M. Billoo 11:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The YouTube playlist indicates that the total running time of the TV series is around the twenty hour mark, so there will obviously be significant differences between that and a two-and-a-half hour film. Barry Wom (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you want to use the TV series' plot as a substitute for the film's plot, which makes no sense to me. Firstly, you haven't seen the film, so you cannot evaluate whether or not they are the same. Secondly, as Barry Wom said, the different runtimes mean the TV series will (presumably) be much more in depth, so the plots wouldn't be the same anyway. Iiii I I I (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any special exemption, that an article be written in both, MOS:TV and MOS:FILM then? I was involved in one similar discussion few months back, where a film was confused as a TV film and someone tried changing the infobox. Or, any special policy here about a film also released as in TV version? So that all the available info can be used within one article only. M. Billoo 05:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Do not merge unrelated sections. You have two different things here. One TV series and one film. The plot is different, the release is different, the reception of it will obviously also be different. Cast might be different. If you want everything in the same article, split the article, but do not merge the information as it will make for an awful read. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emlyn the Gremlyn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emlyn the Gremlyn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JHD0919 (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stub article consisting of a 4-sentence paragraph and two additional single-sentence paragraphs, alongside potentially questionable sourcing. Probably not a hoax, but still too obscure for an article.

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. JHD0919 (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney's Animation Weekdays#Requested move 7 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated The Office (American TV series) 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. Please note that this nomination also covers seasons 2, 3, 4, and 8 of the show as a bulk nomination. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested that Strictly Come Dancing (franchise) be moved to Dancing with the Stars, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. U-Mos (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:TheGameShowFan123 § Defining what does and doesn't qualify as a "game show". Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Krypto the Superdog#Requested move 13 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 23:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I had suggested a change to the Friends article, which stood for months in the talk page and then in the article without any objection. However there is now one user who keeps reverting this change, and this has become a one-against-one issue (link to discussed version). Third opinions would be welcome to resolve the issue! Place Clichy (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am reaching out for outside input on an AfD discussion related to the article about Cliff Divine. There appear to be several misunderstandings in the discussion, so I am hoping that editors from this project can help review the notability question with a clear look at the sources. First, it is important to note that Cliff Divine and Andrew Cliff Tisba are the same person. This can be verified through interviews, festival programs, public nonprofit documents, and media profiles. Some news outlets use one name while others use the other, but they all refer to the same individual. This clarification is important because it affects how the sources are interpreted. The article includes a large number of independent secondary sources from established news organizations. These include ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Orlando Sentinel, KHON2, KTVB, KUTV, Q2 Billings, and several international outlets. In these reports he is not mentioned briefly. He appears on camera and is the central focus of the stories. Film festivals and award committees have also published material that covers his work in a principal role. A link was provided that contains more than thirty broadcast news segments from major networks where Cliff Divine is clearly identified by name on air. These are public, independent broadcasts, and they show significant coverage that meets the expectations of WP:BIO. Most of the sources cited in the article come from established newsrooms with full editorial oversight. They are not self published and not produced or controlled by the subject. They meet the requirements for independent and reliable sourcing in a biographical article. There is also reporting on his acting awards, his film appearances, and a multistate public initiative that drew repeated coverage. This combination of sources shows significant independent attention over time, which satisfies the criteria for biographical notability. For clarity, I am not the subject of the article. I am participating only to correct factual misunderstandings and to help ensure the discussion stays focused on source quality and policy rather than assumptions about editors. In short, the subject has extensive coverage from reliable independent sources, including dozens of television news reports and multiple print and online publications. These appear to meet the requirements of WP:BIO, and I believe that additional input from this project would be valuable in assessing the article. The AfD discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Divine Thank you for taking the time to look at this. Cdlosangeles (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The company is mentioned in the opening credits of the show as "Paramount+ and CBS Studios present." It is the only company listed (on the top right) as the official distributor page here like all the NCIS shows: https://paramountglobalcontent.com/title/ncis-sydney Official press releases (in many cases adopted by media outlets) describe the show as "Produced by Endemol Shine Australia for CBS Studios and Paramount Australia". The same press release quotes a "Head of International Co-Productions and Development at CBS Studios, Lindsay Martin." Some secondary American and Australian sources refer to it as a co-production or to CBS Studios as a production company. This has been a dispute on the NCIS: Sydney talk page I think primarily due to possible geographic implications, but with it being indisputably listed in the credits there should be an accurate way to document the company's involvement. My suggestion would just be in both cases to quote the full description from the primary source "Produced by Endemol Shine Australia for CBS Studios and Paramount Australia" without trying to label or interpret what that means. newsjunkie (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at the NCIS:Sydney talk page is that this is not a CBS Studios production, and any further discussion should take place there, not here. Note that this user has been asked by multiple editors to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this matter and is continuing to refuse to do so. Barry Wom (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Barry. This is a classic case of DEADHORSE. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, on List of Paramount+ original programming when a series season airs, when the series is moved from "Upcoming programming" to "Current programming", it is stripped of references. An anon editor claimed that "we're supposed to" do this. It seems to me to go against WP:V, so I'm trying to figure out if/where this procedure is codified. Does this process match the wikiproject's expectations, and if so, is there a place where this was decided? Thanks. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender (franchise)#Requested move 11 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 23:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a huge number of Drag Race episodes which to my mind do not meet WP:NEPISODE. I've nominated the UK ones for deletion (found at Category:RuPaul's Drag Race UK episodes), but I'm seeing loads from other national series that also to my mind do not meet notability. Picking a few at random: Not Sorry Aboot It, Float Your Boat (RuPaul's Drag Race), Oh No She Betta Don't!, etc., etc., the coverage here seems trivial and routine. Shouldn't these be draftified or something? My understanding of WP:NEPISODE is that a single episode of a TV series should be exceptional to meet notability guidelines, this is all just WP:ROTM. I mean, I'm sure I could find all sorts of sources for a "Bread Week" episode of The Great British Bake Off, but it's still just another episode of a reality TV series. --woodensuperman 10:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support nominating the others. Not Sorry Aboot It should not be an article and likely the others too. Classic WP:ROTM and perfect examples why WP:NEPISODE exists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think we already had this conversation a while back and the state of these articles didn't get any better. Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, I've redirected these three, but I expect resistance from the creating editor. Will await outcome before looking more carefully at others. --woodensuperman 09:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented in the AfD I found. I think the only solution is to drafty all of the stub ones and having someone other than the author evaluate them before accepting. Gonnym (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the others are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hun Makeover, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lairy Poppins: The Rusical, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rats: The Rusical, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snatch Me Out!. --woodensuperman 09:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected a couple more: Stagecooch, This Is Our Country (RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars) and Legends (RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars) --woodensuperman 10:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And a few more: Drag Tots, The Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve and Talent Monologues, The Fame Games, and Divas Lip Sync Live. --woodensuperman 13:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, as suspected, all redirects have been reverted without any comment. How should we proceed? Nominate for AfD individually, or take a wider stance? It's clear the editor in question has been warned about this before, but has continued to ignore advice here, and has continued to create these useless stubs? Or should we just move them to draft space? --woodensuperman 13:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Afds: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Float Your Boat (RuPaul's Drag Race); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oh No She Betta Don't!; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legends (RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars) (2nd nomination); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Is Our Country (RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars) (2nd nomination); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stagecooch --woodensuperman 13:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Is this the conversation? --woodensuperman 09:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is. In the AfD linked there, they expanded the article during that AfD (as they are doing with the one here), which is good and all, but then we are back here 1 year later with many more articles that are in the same situation, which is why I feel someone else should be the one accepting these articles to mainspace. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good solution. Can we mass nominate for draftification or something? The same issue exists with the individual performers on the franchise also. --woodensuperman 09:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general for *any* reality TV show, seasons are likely notable but it is going to be extremely rare for any single episode to be notable itself; events of that episode specifically must be the subject of significant critical discussion from sources and not just recapping the episode or the few meager reviews that come in with the more popular series. Masem (t) 13:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I meant by "exceptional" in my initial statement. --woodensuperman 13:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see Woodensuperman is determined to essentially nominate every episode article for deletion. We had this discussion before, and I worked hard to promote And the Rest Is Drag to Good article status to show it could be done. Instead of having a measured discussion about this, it is just AFD, AFD, AFD, AFD, AFD. Can we stop with the onslaught of deletion nominations and talk about notability? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to discuss with you, when you refuse interaction with myself and Reywas92 (see this and reactions like this). However, see WP:NEPISODE, the discussion about it Wikipedia talk:Notability (television)#NEPISODE and a previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 39#RuPaul's Drag Race, season 7 episodes where it is clear that you have ignored the requests to not continually create useless stubs. --woodensuperman 14:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But you created so many of them, even after the discussion a year ago concerning notability. Now you are shocked someone takes them to AFD? Mike Allen 14:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I wrong for creating more episode articles after the success of And the Rest Is Drag? Did I not demonstrate that episode articles could be beneficial to Wikipedia? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then keep them in draft space until they are ready? Mike Allen 14:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's one article from that batch, others, The DESPY Awards for example, still do not meet WP:NEPISODE. Rather than improve these, you've just created more and more. --woodensuperman 14:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Are you saying that because of the current state of the article, or because you are sure there's not enough coverage to justify an article? I am confident I could expand The DESPY Awards, and even get it promoted to GA status, like I did for And the Rest Is Drag. Why do you think otherwise? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try in draft space, and see if other editors deem it to meet necessary standards, rather than flood the published Wikipedia with trivia. All there is currently is a description of what happened on the episode. WP:NOTPLOT. --woodensuperman 14:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you proposing moving all Drag Race episode articles to the draft space, or, how can we continue this discussion without the onslaught of AfDs? I get that you and I don't agree here, but I am confident that Wikipedia could have many quality articles about Drag Race episodes, like "And the Rest Is Drag". I thought the whole point of the And the Rest Is Drag challenge was to show this, but I feel like that's being put to the side and there's an assumption all stubs are bad and all reality TV episode entries are invalid. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work, then only the truly exceptional and notable episodes would make it to mainspace. @Gonnym recommended as much above and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop of the Tops - Live: The Rusical, and also suggested that it should only be moved to mainspace by a reviewing editor. I think this is a reasonable approach. --woodensuperman 14:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that this discussion has come up over and over again. You create stub episode articles and leave them like that for years. Only when faced with eminent deletion, you do the token edits of making them barely passable. You clearly are not the right person to decide if your articles are fit for the article namespace and you should leave it for other editors to do so. Gonnym (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this discussion has come up "over and over again". It has come up... twice? As I've said, I am confident many Drag Race articles qualify for entries, but it is clear that editors here don't like that I've essentially started many new articles without fully fleshing them out or providing enough sources to easily demonstrate notability. I would like to do things differently moving forward, but I don't think nominating every episode article for deletion is the most appropriate path forward. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the WP:DRAFTIFY solution suggested above would work, then. Your work is retained for you to improve on, and it's submitted at AfC when you feel it's ready for mainspace, and meanwhile there are not many articles with not demonstrated notability. You can substantiate your confidence with sources that show notability, the articles pass AfC, move to main, and it'll be very difficult for someone to complain that the article shouldn't exist. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking all episode articles related to Drag Race? Some have been promoted to GA status. Some have been nominated at AfD and kept multiple times. Some are more fleshed out than others. I am quite confident almost all of the U.S. episode articles could be fleshed out and even promoted to GA status, but it seems there's little appetite for having any articles not written to GA standards in the main space, which I don't really understand. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking "And the Rest Is Drag" and your example of "Gay's Anatomy" below, my first assumption was that as they were peer reviewed at GA, they were going to pass WP:NEPISODE. I wanted them to. However on closer inspection, I'm not convinced they do. I think the reception sections are still routine and trivial, and a lot in the production sections would be better placed in the season articles. In the former article, the production section seems like padding to flesh out the article, there doesn't seem anything that could be considered "exceptional" about this episode. That said, maybe ones that have been promoted to GA shouldn't automatically get draftified, they could probably be discussed individually. --woodensuperman 15:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite straightforward that bulk-produced pages like This Is Our Country (RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars), which is just a copy-paste from the main article with zero additional information, are not acceptable. Even if a good article could be written doesn't mean every episode needs a low-quality page like that or even longer. There are a lot of TV shows out there that get some recaps the day after they air, but they don't need articles by default – the season article can have plenty of information. You have been asked this before – to do it in draft or not at all – so why do you continue making WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE pages? Even if a topic might be theoretically notable doesn't mean it needs a standalone page if there's little content or it can be covered in the main article. You never go back to the dozens of these that have been left behind: it seems like AFD is the only thing that gets attention. And the Rest Is Drag and others had to be nominated for you to bother to keep writing it. You are the only person interested in writing these, and if you are going to do so, you should actually do it well rather than just make a page for every episode just for the sake of having one. Reywas92^Talk 14:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"You are the only person interested in writing these" -- that's absolutely not true. User:Is it Juan? has promoted "Gay's Anatomy" to GA status and there are other active members at WikiProject Drag Race. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. If others want to collaborate, they can also do so in draft rather than under an assumption that dozens of stubs will be expanded. Reywas92^Talk 15:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I previously nominated some of these articles in this topic for deletion on the basis that many (not all) are simply repetitions of the descriptions that are already on the main season pages. This project has done amazing work based on a cultural phenomenon which is Drag Race, which is of no doubt an important topic to LGBTQ+ communities. As a topic itself its notable but many of these pages fail WP:NEPISODE and WP:GNG. Many of the articles about said drag queens also work on the principle of inherited notability from the parent Drag season or because of something notable in an episode. Similarly, episodes sometimes inherit notability from the main season. I've long said, if the only think an episode or bio page says is a description which could be or is already included on the main season page, it should be a draft. That's the purpose of drafting. I don't agree that Another Believer is the only editor interested in writing the articles, being interested in writing them doesn't indicate notoriety. However, I do agree there's some confusion about how notability has been applied to these articles. I do however agree that whenever there's an AFD some of the older ones get revisited but generally speaking a lot of these have not improved over time. I would welcome some additional principles/standards to be agreed for drafts and when episodes should be created for reality TV shows. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I moved almost all of the U.S. episodes to the draft space. I had left the ones that were kept after previous AfD discussions, but I see Woodensuperman moved those, too. In my opinion, that goes against community consensus, but it is what it is. I see Woodensuperman also moved some All Stars and UK episodes. Are we good here? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the strong views held by nearly everyone here, I'm reading that community consensus might be that standalone articles are not appropriate for any individual episodes, unless there is something incredibly special, notable outside of just being an episode (i.e. if the studio caught fire while filming or something equally catastrophic, or there was something particularly groundbreaking happening, etc.), despite what consensus may have been in the past. I may be wrong, so willing to see what the other participants think, but I would assume that all episodes should be drafitified until that exceptional quality can be established. --woodensuperman 15:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, well I'm certainly not going to move articles kept at AFD to the draft space, as I would consider this inappropriate. Since almost all other episode articles have been moved to the draft space, I'll move on and get back to it! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Loman 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) 16:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about how the seasons of Lists of Power Rangers episodes are laid out. They're listed as consecutive seasons of Power Rangers (which is a franchise article), but then each article uses {{Infobox television}}, used to dictate separate series. The only exception is Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (re-version), which correctly uses {{Infobox television season}}.

For example, reading the lead of Power Rangers Beast Morphers, it explains how they serve as consecutive seasons, but then refer to them as seasons within this "season": Power Rangers Beast Morphers is the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh seasons of the American television program Power Rangers. The first season premiered on Nickelodeon on March 2, 2019, while the second season premiered on February 22, and concluded on December 12, 2020. Sus the headers "Season 1 (2019)" and "Season 2 (2020)". The lead of Power Rangers Zeo is similar: Power Rangers Zeo is a television series and the fourth season.

Do these articles need a complete creative overhaul to conform with our standards? Or are they acceptable as-is? -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They should use the season templates. The series is basically a quasi-anthology series to an extent where certain named seasons are more connected together than others, but they still are seasons within the larger Power Rangers series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just now, I’ve created a draft about an upcoming HBO television series starring Steve Carell. Anyone is welcome to further improve the draft. The Film Creator (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]