Latest comment: 27 September1 comment1 person in discussion
This list appears to draw on a variety of online sources for programme descriptions. A number of the entries seem to follow the phrasing of press releases or network synopses quite closely. Editors should verify that all content is either properly attributed, quoted, or sufficiently rewritten in our own words per WP:CWW and WP:COPYVIO. Unsourced or closely paraphrased material may need to be tagged or removed. SimMoneyTrees (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I suggest we tag specific entries that appear closely paraphrased with
and add [citation needed] where sourcing is missing. Per TL:V and S2 we should drop or rewrite any unsourced or primary-dependent descriptions rather than rely on network synopses. If better independent secondary sources are found they can be added inline. Simon 15:31, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
I agree that network synopses are primary and should not be the basis for descriptions per TL:V and S2. We can tag the worst cases with
and [citation needed] then rewrite or remove unsupported text. Better independent secondary sources would allow inline citations. Felicette Felicette 15:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
