Talk:Two and a Half Men season 10

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Absences of characters

I really do not see the point in noting the absence of characters, main or recurring, unless the absence is significant to the episode's plot. The absences of main characters in particular is not exactly uncommon, with one frequent example being John Munch on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (And yes, I realize the show has an ensemble cast, but the size of cast isn't part of my argument). So would anyone like to reach a consensus on this? Jake has been absent a few times the last couple years and, in my opinion at least, it was hardly noticeable, and I just think that noting it on its own line is just way too much emphasis. Davejohnsan (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always had a problem with this on every series page I've come across. People who watch the show obviously know someone wasn't in an episode, and, if a viewer misses an episode, I don't think they would care much to see that someone was absent from a few episodes. They only come here to see what happened in the show. As a non-viewer altogether, I think "absences" are fluff. — WylieCoyote (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant captions

There is a perception by editors that MOS:DTT must be followed to the letter in order to comply with access requirements and allow vision impaired readers to use their screen readers correctly. We don't actually have any policy or guideline where this is the case and MOS:DTT is only a guideline, not a policy, so there's even less urgency to comply. Screen readers, like JAWS, essentially render the page as those of us with no problems see it. Where a section contains only a single table, as in the ratings section of the article, including a caption as well as a section heading is redundant. It is the equivalent of following a level 3 heading immediately with a level 4 heading and then following that with a level 2 heading without any more level 4 headings in the section.:

== Reception ==
=== Critical reception ===
The reception to this season ...

=== Ratings===
==== U.S. Nielsen and DVR ratings ====
<table>

== References ==

That's not something we do. In such a case, the L4 heading is redundant and is replaced by a single L3 heading that addresses the content in that section. It doesn't aid the screen reader to add a table caption, it's just more information that a vision impaired reader is bombarded with. When the table is not the only element in the section, and the section heading doesn't adequately describe the table directly, there's certainly a reason for a table caption but that isn't the case here. -- AussieLegend (✉) 07:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's forget about what exactly is under policy and what falls under a guideline. Take a look at these two versions of last season's article. Notice in the former one that four level 4 headers are used for each country's rating table(s). In the latter, those were removed in favor of the captions to help reduce the cluttered table of contents. I realize that this season's article still only has U.S. ratings listed, but if nothing else I still think that we should keep the captions for the sake of consistency, since I assume that foreign ratings will be added eventually. Do you have an issue with the format of last season's page, too? Davejohnsan (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And about redundancy, I think this qualifies a lot more. Davejohnsan (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call the first version cluttered. The purpose of the TOC is to enable quick navigation and removing entries detracts from that. Somebody looking for, say, Australian ratings, now has to scroll down to the ratings section and then scroll to find the table they're looking for, while previously they could go straight to the table. It's far worse for vision impaired readers, as they have to wait for the screen reader to identify each table and then move to the next if that's not the one they want. The screen reader doesn't just read the table, it reads the table details before that. For example, in the current version of Two and a Half Men (season 9)#Ratings JAWS says "Table with eleven columns and twenty-six rows" before it says "U.S. Nielsen and DVR ratings" At this point the reader is forced to manually skip to the next table where they'll hear "Table with four columns and ten rows", after which they hear "Canadian ratings". After deciding that's not the table that they want they have to manually skip to the next table again. In this version, after jumping to the Australian table from the TOC, the table caption was the first thing they heard, as the heading was the caption, and then they were straight into the table. Unfortunately, the changes made to comply with MOS:DTT have made it harder for all readers, especially those who MOS:DTT is supposed to help. Regarding Grey's Anatomy (season 9)#Episodes, I agree that it's redundant. However, it's a lot less of a problem than it is here. Unfortunately, it's a case of what I said in the opening to this discussion, there is a perception by editors that MOS:DTT must be followed to the letter in order to comply with access requirements and allow vision impaired readers to use their screen readers correctly. Like everything, MOS:DTT has to be applied with common sense. It's not helped by the fact that screen reader software is so expensive, I'm lucky that I happen to have access to a copy, although I'm sure you can get one if you look in the right place. -- AussieLegend (✉) 02:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To update, I raised this at MOS:DTT and there is a general agreement that table captions are redundant to section headings. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so as far as removing the captions, you've made your point. I'll remove them for you. Why don't we discuss how to arrange the headings if we disagree on it? Davejohnsan (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

Are you sure Holland Taylor is still part of the main cast? She appeared only once, whereas Courtney Thorne-Smith appeared 9 times and she is considered as a 'recurring'.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes she is, just as Marin Hinkle, they were credited as a main cast in the episodes they appeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rey Keshe (talk • contribs) 10:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]