Template talk:Nickelodeon original series

This redirect was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Split, July 18, 2019, see discussion.
Speedy Keep, June 18, 2016, see discussion.
Keep, June 8, 2016, see discussion.

Footer vs. 'See also' section and WP:EGG

Moved from User talk:IJBall § Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons

– --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968: And this still applies for Template:Nickelodeon original series and Template:Former Nickelodeon original series. I've got that IP again showing WP:OWN issues, so going to need ya. Amaury • 13:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaury: I don't see need for book and portal links in the list, though. Link to other template seems sufficient and appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the template is not appropriate, per WP:EGG and WP:SELFREF we should not be pointing casual readers away from mainspace. It can be included as a "See also" for editors already in template space however. The book and portal links should probably not be included either as they do not match the topic of the navbox exactly, but if they are, the cross namespace linking MUST be explicit. These are usually handled in the "below" section. However, probably best to do away with all of them. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I trust whatever Geraldo Perez says on this, so I'm inclined to support what he says. He did suggest getting rid of the cross namespace redirects, so perhaps we should do that. However, I believe strongly that the links between the two templates must remain, or some will be confused... P.S. This discussion should have happened at the Template's Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This goes against WP:SELFREF. We should not be saying "here's a link to a template that will allow you to navigate between some other articles here on Wikipedia". WP:NAVBOX also states that "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia." 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't give a crap – guidelines aren't laws. In this case, not including a link to the other template is just going to invite massive amounts of trouble as clueless IP's will simply keep trying to readd the "former" content to the current programming template, and visa versa. Having the inter-template links in this case is a more than reasonable exception to the guideline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No SELFREF as doesn't link back to itself. NAVBOX met as the two were split out more more for size than anything. The contents of both are still related. Also no WP:EGG issue as long as it is no surprise where reader ends up. This link is necessary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFREF is also about referencing the Wikipedia project itself: (Typically, self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project should be avoided. Taking the reader behind the scenes into template space falls foul of this. WP:EGG is also breached, as a reader would be WP:SURPRISEd to find themself somewhere other than an article unless this is spelled out to them. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This comment sums it up. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish is one editor, whose views on things are hardly universally shared. WP:GUIDES clearly says "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." (emphasis mine) This is clearly a common-sense exception, for the reasons outlined. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the template can clearly be labeled as such in the link, so WP:EGG will not apply. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that neither navbox is at List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon, yet this is the main article for both templates. However, by linking here, finding both navboxes on the bottom would solve the problem, as the navboxes are now visible to the casual reader without taking them into Wikipedia's arcane workings at template space! 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original template that existed before the split was discussed for deletion. Consensus in the discussion was to split it instead of delete it. I personally think deletion was the better choice as a list article is the normal solution for templates that get to big to be useful, but that was not the consensus. Given what was decided, the two templates must refer to each other. They should be in the list article as well. Navbox templates are essentially part of main space as they display in articles pretty much as shown when viewed directly. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are only in mainspace when transcluded. They are not in mainspace when viewed directly, and template space should not be linked to from mainspace. This is why they both need to link to the list article, and the both need to be transcluded at the list article. But yeah, they should have been deleted, and the "former" one most definitely still should be. We have {{NBCNetwork Shows (current and upcoming)}}, not {{NBCNetwork Shows (former)}}, etc. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, why don't you work on that then?! – Put the "former" template up for deletion. I said in the previous discussion, that I will support that. If you can get that done, then we can move on deleting the other "former programming" templates. That is a much more important discussion that the one here, which is a sideshow... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Normally templates are transcluded in articles but it makes no sense to transclude this template in the other one as that essentially undoes the point of the split. I agree the older one should be deleted which would make this whole issue irrelevant. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers

Hi guys: the acquired show Power Rangers: Beast Morphers is on this template. It's the only "Acquired" one from List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon to be here, and no Nick personnel is involved in this show's production. The credits don't mention Nick, even as a source of funding (which is sometimes the case for acquired shows from unconnected companies). I don't see any reason to list it in the "Nickelodeon original series" template when it's not an original...we don't list every acquired program they run since these don't fit the definition of an original series. SBSPfan (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also hoping for a clarification on this. Shows can be "acquired" and still be "(co-)productions" (e.g. Rusty Rivets), but we need some sort of verification that Nick puts up some of the production money here. And I don't think a YouTube clip is good enough to answer this question – we'd need to be sure they were from a Nickelodeon broadcast of the episode for one thing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: Here is a recording of Nickelodeon's premiere broadcast, with no mention of Nick in the credits (unlike Rusty Rivets, which says "with the participation of Nickelodeon" and uses Nick's production card). SBSPfan (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still reserving judgement for now. But I'll ping Amaury here to see if he has more evidence to present. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SBSPfan: Followup: FWIW, I did see a recent Power Rangers episode in the last couple of weeks (it was terrible! even worse than the original series!!), and IIRC there was no "Nickelodeon production card" in the end credits. So I am now leaning in the direction that these shows aren't "Nick productions" and should be removed... But it would be better if we could find some kind of sourcing to confirm this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SBSPfan: Nickelodeon doesn't produce the show. All they do is air it. Before Saban sold the property to Hasbro, they extended that arrangement through 2021. The release identifies Nick only as the "official broadcaster." Nick is the only place PR airs in the US, but it's not a series Nick has any kind of buy-in. Aresef (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I now support the removal of the Power Rangers from these templates, based on the P.R. source that Aresef provides above and the evidence that SBSPfan provided earlier. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or it may be better to re-title this and the former template to remove the "original" part so we can include acquired series as well, like this or Alvin and the Chipmunks, as IPs and other editors will likely continue to reinsert series like this, anyway. Amaury • 17:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer leaving the template(s) as "original series" – anything not at least partly produced by Nickelodeon shouldn't be included. We can simply fight the IPs when they're wrong. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SBSPfan: It looks like there is now probably consensus to remove the Power Rangers series from these templates – do you want to do the honors?... If not, I'll try to do it myself in the next week or so. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks everyone for participating in this discussion. SBSPfan (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

America's Most Musical Family

Just wanting to make sure before doing anything... is there any reason America's Most Musical Family isn't currently listed in this? Magitroopa (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been avoiding it, so I don't know if it has the Nickelodeon production card at the end – if it does, it should be added... And, it's worth noting, that Nick has at least one more "unscripted" show coming up that's set to premiere soon, as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: Here's from the credits of "Semifinals, Part 1" aired on December 13. Guess it can be added then. Magitroopa (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 templates

I don’t think there’s any need to separate the template for current and former series. — Serbian Nickmen (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a WP:TfD discussion which decided exactly that, so it's not going to change. And, FTR, it is the better option. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree. If you are meaning that the former should be with the current, I do not agree, since the former template is VERY large. 2600:1700:DA60:E010:90F1:9E8D:386B:A6D9 (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamp Koral: SpongeBob's Under Years

With the recent news of Kamp Koral going to CBS All Access next year, does it stay here or not? Not entirely sure since technically it is still a 'Nicktoon' made by Nickelodeon, just being made available for viewing elsewhere. Closest example I can think of is Glitch Techs, produced by Nickelodeon Animation Studio, yet is currently not in this template or on List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon. Magitroopa (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: As per this.) Based on previous precedents, if it doesn't premiere on Nick, it doesn't belong here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]