Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Grease: You're the One that I Want!

Hello, everyone. I've just expanded this article. I'd be grateful if folks would take a look and edit my purple prose. Best regards! -- Ssilvers 06:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Broadcasters lists

This discussion is moved to WT:TV#Removing Broadcasters to aid linking, and so it is read by more editors. / edg ☺ ★ 00:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Navbox Television duplicates navbox generic

It looks to me like {{Navbox Television}} does the same job as {{navbox generic}} but with fewer features, a suggestion has been raised in Template talk:Navbox Television to turn it into a wrapper for the more general template. Figured I should drop a note here to draw more input. Bryan Derksen 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Template List

Since the {{Tv-program-logo}} template was deleted over two months ago, shouldn't it be removed from the template list? Collectonian 04:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

DVDs

Is referencing commentaries and features on the DVDs of a show appropriate? If so, how would one do this? <ref> Disc 4, Bonus Features, The Life of Clark Kent </ref>? Howa0082 (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people have made the claim that commentaries are not reliable secondary sources because they are not distanced enough from the episode however it is generally accepted at Featured and Good article reviews for production info. Take a look at Homer's Phobia (a featured article), particularly the production section, to see how the citations can be done. As for featurettes, if they address the topic from an out of universe perspective I don't see a problem with using them but I'm not sure how exactly to cite them. Hope that helps. Stardust8212 18:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Section order

I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Section order regarding the section order displayed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs. --UpDown (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Character description question

copying in: Character, general description, usually contains profession, habits, psychological; character may be explained more indepth later. Played by First Name Last Name
my question: I'd like to know why you ask for psychological info without a request for confirmation/citation through an episode of the show to justify a supposition about their psychological state. It seems to me you'll have more guessing than information that is true to the show and may lead to a character bashing if the editor and or contributor do not like the character. What do the editors think? MissRaye (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)MissRaye

Answer: This guideline is a little out of date, and a rewrite has already been suggested but never been acted upon. There is so much potentially revolutionary discussion going on at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) that almost everything else (usually sub-sub-sub guidelines like this one) cannot be rewritten until the (new) basics are in place.

You are right that every information should be cited (at least) from an episode. You are usually on the safe side if you look at Good and Featured Articles and copy their style of information presentation. At least that's what I do. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Update

Has anyone given any thought to reworking this page and nominating it to be a MOS for the television articles? We have an MOS for film articles, it would be good to have a recognized MOS for television articles as well. I know from my experience with the film articles that the film MOS is always looked to for support when cleaning up articles. I mean, right now the page is bare in its explaination of how to create a better television article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Take some information from WP:EPISODE as to make EPISODE more strictly about notability, and that would make sense. --MASEM 16:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if we can create a style guideline that covers all television related articles then I think that would work best. It would clear out the MOS stuff from EPISODE (removing that need to merge it into the MOS for fiction). I think the first start would be to change the name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines. Then we could have a style guideline for parent articles and sister articles that are subsequently broken off (but making special note to point to the relevant notability guidelines so editors know when to break out an article; but nothing more, because we should be here to talk about once you have gotten to that point, not if you should).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've created a sandbox were we can all refine the page, beef it up and merge relevant information from the other pages in order to get a comprehensive guidelines (built on consensus - we can have discussions here or on the talk page there).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I tried to start an effort months ago, but no one seems to have any interest. I wrote a first draft of guidelines for an episode list that was originally made for the Anime/manga project that would work well here too, if that would be of use. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't compeletly aware of this page, I think I stumbled across it once a long time ago but forgot all about it. I usually use the MOS for the film page, when I'm editing, as a guide. They're virtually the same territory. Anyway, interest is here now so please feel free to jump over to the sandbox I created; I've already gotten it started.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've finished my first draft of the new style guideline. I need some fresh eyes to look over it, tighten prose, include links to relevant policies and guidelines that I may have missed, and question whatever is on the page that they disagree with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the rearranging of sections in the series article. The current ordering is actually one of the few more recent improvements to the current structure, based on feedback and trends with our FA series articles. Also, where do you forsee cancellation/future information going? I was bold and reworked the character section to fit what is actually being done with GAs and FAs of character articles. Hope that's okay. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Because, as a style guideline it isn't set in stone. I've seen article with the production first and articles with the plot of the show first. The ordering isn't always pertinent, as it is based on the subject. To me, Aquaman (TV program) works best with the production info first because it never aired and the plot is the least of importance to the article, while Pilot (Smallville) is structure differently to what works best for it. Both are FA, and both structures work fine for their respective topics.

I disagree with your merging "Appearances" into "Characterization" and calling it "Character history". There are a couple of problems I see. First, I understand how it could be better for say a SOAP character to have all this information put together, given how much the character appears on television, but for general characters that appear once a week it just opens the door to have a character biography. For characters that appear on a weekly series, it is better to separate the IU information from the real world personality information (e.g. stuff critics and scholars interpret). You start blending too much and you lose quality. Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) uses this format, and it's a format also used by film characters. You can name "Appearances" something else, if they've only appeared in the one show, but I believe the two areas are distinct from one another. Troy McClure uses "Role in the Simpsons" instead of "Appearances"; his characterization information is spliced in with the creation information and the reception section. By putting it all under one heading your "History" section, which is misleading since we write everything in present tense, would become odd if the character appears outside of the show..like a comic book. The more new mediums they appear in the more subsections you'll have to create. You'd potentially have "Character history"-->"History"-->"Show"->"Comic"->"Book"->"Film" (I can cite at least one character that has appeared in all these mediums). It's simpler to have their IU info separate when you have these multiple mediums. When you start getting into critical interpreations of characteristics and personalities then it would be better to have that separate. IMO.

As for the future of the series, I included that information in the production section of the article. If a series is going to end, then obviously the production is going to end as well. Otherwise, you'd create an independent section just to state a single line of "The series will end May 12, 2008", or "The series was picked up for an eighth season."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I based the changes to the character section on what we use in the anime/manga project, and its worked extremely well for us (when people follow it, anyway, which is really the main issue with most character articles, people ignoring all style guidelines). I think it is important to emphasize real world info and an out-of-universe perspective. I'm also concerned that having an "appearances" section will result in a lot of character articles with a list of every episode that the character appeared in, even if its every episode in the series. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why it clearly states that it isn't to catalog their every move, or what they did in every episode but provide a summary of their major plot points for the series (or season if they have story arcs). I don't know many Anime characters, and less that are featured articles. My basis has always been on how the film community handles their character articles. To me, saying "Character outline" and then having subsections of "Personality" and "History" gives rise to the idea that it should be filled with IU information. I see those headers and I assume that the stuff going in there should be strictly from the show. "History" really gives me the impression that you want some kind of character biography". Personality, unless explicitly stated is subjective, and not always equivalent to the intentions of the creative team that developed the character. Whereas "Appearances" or even something like Troy McClure with a "Role in Show" title, gives the idea of a more streamlined section. "History" implies more detail than simply "Appearances", though I do think that using "Appearances" when the character has only appeared on the single show, could insinuate that you want a list of the episodes they appeared in...which is why I stated in the opening paragraph for characters that the headers themselves are not mandatory. "Role in Show" or some other relevant title would probably work better, but I think whatever the title, the IU information should probably be separate from the rest. All fictional topic articles boil down to the same structure (plot, production, reception), it's just about how you label them and where they're ordered.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think film is a good model here, as they rarely have character articles at all. But ah well. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you figure that? They have lots of character articles (more than they need, the same can be said for television articles). As far as featured articles go, I think there are more film characters in featured articles than there are television characters. Based on who actually has the TV Project banner on their talk page, I only see 3 television characters that are featured, while the film project (again, based on who has the Film Project banner on their talk page) has at least six featured film characters. That's not a lot for either medium, but it certainly doesn't prove that there are more television characters with articles than film characters with articles, though there are more featured film characters. If anything, it appears that there are a whole lot of Anime characters with individual articles (though, none appear to be featured articles). I see where your article structure is coming from, but Anime is a whole other field in its own right, and not restricted to just television (as you can have Anime films), which is probably why it as its own WikiProject. The purpose of this MOS would be the same as WP:NOTE is to WP:FICT or WP:NOTFILM, and that's a general MOS for most television articles. I personally disagree with the format that project is using, because (and I pulled a random example in Kakashi Hatake to support my fear) it allows for a higher volume of IU information to be used in an article. Look at "Personality", it's cited by what happens in the chapters of the anime. Random sentence, "What is known of Kakashi's personal life is that he spends much of his free time at a memorial site where Obito's name is engraved. He tends to lose track of time when he is there, and is frequently late to his appointments as a result (another trait adopted from Obito)." -- This is plot information. With that set up, you've turned a single section of IU information into 4 sections (3 subsections under "Character outline" and then another section title "Plot overview"). Plot information should be found on the seasons, episode, or series pages. Only a general overview of the character as he pertains to the show is necessary on his page. Based on what I can see, at least half of that article (which is rated as GA as of March 1, 2008 -- so it wasn't that long ago) is nothing but IU information. That goes against WP:WAF, and borders on WP:PLOT. Now, it's presented in a nice, organized manner, but the majority of the info comes from the show itself. To me, I believe that character articles should have a focus, even in the section headers, of real world context.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How about the wording "Character arc" (see Vala Mal Doran, which I intend to take to FAC soon-ish)? The title is a real-world description of in-universe info, and "arc" implies (at least to me) that the in-universe info is kept to the basics. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I read through Bignole's sandbox version, and the advice is good there. However, I wouldn't mix the style advice of single episode and character articles - I have edited both types, and my sectioning of the articles looks extremely different, with the style of the episodes actually closer to the TV series than to the characters. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "Character arc" works well for a character introduced in the middle of a series, but what about a character that's been there from the beginning? They don't really have an "arc", they have the whole show. Like, Clark Kent doesn't have an "arc" in Smallville, he is Smallville. Now, Jason Teague would have an arc, because he was a main character for just one seasons (season 4). That's why I'm beginning to favor Troy's "Role in Show" title if the character has appeared in just the one show, and if they have been there from the beginning (though, I don't believe Troy was there from the beginning of The Simpsons). Another possibility would be "Character storyline(s)".

As for episodes and characters, I wasn't saying the page is the same, but that you're looking for a plot description of the character and behind the scenes information on the character, as well as some kind of character interpretation from critics and scholars. Not much different than any fictional article. We can just scrap the sentence if you think it's going to confuse the readers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So where are we lads?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections, in the coming days I'm going to paste in the new version of the page, change the title to the above, and place a proposed guidelines tag at the time. I'll also notify all of the relavent pages about the proposal.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put in the new material, and put a proposal tag at the top. Not to mention changed the title of the page to be more appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

MOS proposal

A request for comment has also been made at:

• Policies and Guidelines
• Village Pump
• WikiProject TV
• WikiProject Buffyverse
• WikiProject Star Trek
• WP Doctor Who
• WP Stargate
• WP The Simpsons
• Notability (fiction)
• WP Soap Opera
• WAF
• MOS Films
• WP Anime

If I missed a place please notify them and add them to this list so that we can keep a comprehensive list of every location notified in the event that there is any challenge to consensus later on. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I notified the Anime project (went for the whole project rather than Anime MoS as the anime project talk is more heavily trafficked. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just stopping by to say that this MOS proposal has my support. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

The inclusion of a image parameter implies the need for an image, most TV images are non-free, and therefore should only be used in exceptional circumstances, an image should only be used if it's ommision is detrimental to the readers' understanding of the topic being discussed (WP:NFC). Including this parameter encourages editors to include non-free material as a matter of course whether it meets wp:nfc or not, and to engage in behaviour which is the antithesis of the goal of the foundation. If a non-free image must be included it should only be because it is needed(not desired) and cannot be conveyed with pros, and ideally it should be located in the section where it is being discussed. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Including an image of the title card for a show has been a natural part of Wikipedia for a long time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it has and is something to disourage, non-free images are there as a necessity, not as a right! Fasach Nua (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the same principle behind film articles including the film's poster in the infobox. You'd never see a lawsuit against Wikipedia for them using the "non-free" poster in the infobox, but you would see a heavy backlash from editors if you removed them from all film articles. The idea behind limiting "non-free" images has typically gone to the screenshots of the episodes themselves, because you're actually showing a portion of the episode (which could really piss off the company). It's the same principle why we have allowed season pages to have an image of the DVD cover art, because television shows don't typically have seasonal posters that represent the entire season, and the cover art for the box generally substitutes as that. I'm not going to turn around and discourage something that has been a staple of television and film pages for years. It's just like using a logo in the article, as the title cards are the show's "logo". Now, if WP:FURG wants to specifically state the film posters and the like (not referring to general screenshots of events within an episode, which I'm perfectly fine iterating that they are only to be used when there is critical commentary, as the MOS currently doesn't address that) are not to be used at all, as you're not going to find any commentary on a poster for a TV show, or a film, nor one on the intertitles or DVD cover art. I have serious reservations being the first MOS to say "NO. STOP. You can't have that image even though you've had it for years, plus every other MOS says other pages can have like images". Address this issue somewhere else first, as this is an MOS page, and not a page meant to change the way pages have been set up for years.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Second Bignole. There has never been an issue with a single non-free image in an infobox for a television series, so long as it follows the usual fair use requirements: not excessively big, low resolution, and with a proper FUR. A title screen/logo is a visual cue and identifier of a television series. They certainly belong in an article about the television series, same as film articles have a poster or DVD cover, book articles have a cover of the book, music articles have the CD, etc. This certainly isn't the place to argue the issue if you want to strip all infoboxes of non-free images, an argument I strongly suspect would be lost anyway.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have hoped for a more robust arument than WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, there is not a problem with images that meet FU requirements. There is a belief amongst some wikipedians that every article should have a non-free image, even if it fails wp:nfc, a belief that should be discouraged. I feel the WP:FURG are fine, screenshots should be subject to the same requirements as other non-free content. If you look at Torchwood it clearly fails wp:nfc#1, gfdl text could convey the same information as this non-free image in the infobox. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The argument isn't just other crap exists, the argument is that the infobox images do NOT fail NFC at all. Their vast existence, including in every last featured television series article, shows that this is the overwhelming consensus of the project. As you said, it is YOUR belief that there shouldn't be a non-free image in the infobox. It is not an belief anyone else seems to share. As was already said, however, if you want to change existing policies and guidelines regarding their use, you would need to do it at NFC. This MoS, like all others, and our articles are perfectly inline with the existing guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you were to exclude images from the infobox, it would be inline with guidelines too, I see no reason to change existing policies Fasach Nua (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

An aside, based on the precedent at Image:IBM logo.svg, I should imagine the intertitle at Torchwood would be eligible to upload at Commons. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the precept that TV series' intertitles meet muster for the NFCC. 2+ years ago, I uploaded Image:CSI Miami.png for CSI: Miami; but what is it showing a reader? A Miami cityscape with text and greebles; nothing requisite for understanding the article, and how much value of "identification" does it provide? Textual recognition? There may be a few instances where the intertitle actually warrants inclusion based on some reliably sourced importance of some kind, although none come to mind immediately.

That being said, I don't think this is the appropriate venue to dictate this. As said, this has become an unofficial SOP or an "under the table" exemption of the WP:NFCC. This decision would need to be established by consensus at WT:NFCC, and then that decision would influence the MoS/style guidelines being discussed here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. I have no issues with saying "you can't unless you do this...", so long as the policy specifically dictactes that. My experience with the numerous debates that have arisen over posters and images in the infobox has been that the entire article constitutes "critical commentary" for the image that is being used to represent "the entire article". Now, you can continue to debate whether or not that is true (frankly, I don't care, I'm just tired of double standards and inconsistent application all the way around)...but that needs to be done on another page. No other MOS for fiction related articles (as they are typically the only ones this really affects..not counting BLP which clearly states "use a free image") states that there shouldn't be an image in the infobox unless, so I do not feel that this MOS needs to be contridicting so many other guidelines when the policy page itself does not dictate specifics on the image for the infobox. The main argument is always "critical commentary", which always turns into whether or not the article itself represents all the commentary you need, given that the image is supposed to be a representation of the article as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox, Revisited

The infobox listing present in the mainspace doesn't really address episodic content with a mostly revolving cast. If the presumption is that episode articles should conform to the template there, I guess most of my comments below are moot. Please let me know, either way.
I am thinking that addressing the general practice of listing only cast (with linkage, where appropriate) in the infobox and listing them in parentheses within the synopsis (as noted in the FA article for the Lost series episodes Missing Pieces, The Beginning of the End) and virtually all film articles. Note that I point to the Lost articles as they are the only other series (outside of The Simpsons) to have FA articles that list cast only. This avoids in-uiniverse referencing, and allows links to the characters to occur within the Lead and the synopsis of the article. Noting it as an option creates a lack of uniformity that is less than encyclopedic and contributes to in-universe writing. By noting solely the real-world elements in the infobox, we set the tone for the article to remain so. I am not opposed to cast sections, as that is more appropriate than an infobox listing.
As well, setting infobox headings for Stars, Also Starring and then guest stars. This allows us to differentiate between the mainstay characters, the supporting actors and the actors cast for that specific episode.
Lastly, I would propose that for each of those categories, we note the actors in alphabetical order, as that would help address uniformity and favoritism issues. By using the aforementioned cast breakdown in the infobox, it would prevent, say, Spiffy Catnipper (a bit part ) from being listed above that of the main star of the series Knuckles Lovemore. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could formalize this proposal and list it at centralized discussions using one location for the proposal. Right now, this discussion is duplicated on the project talk page. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Added to centralized discussion. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Explain what you mean by a formalized proposal, Viriditas. Discussing the matter right here seems fine, as far as centralized locations go, unless you are suggesting an alternative?. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking that a relatively flexible television epiode template might allow for usage across different television-related Wikiprojects, and provide for a more uniform look to them. I would suggest the addition of two categories (noted in bold) to the basic television episode template currently in place:

Infobox Television episode

| Title = Fluffy Gets Lost

| Series = The Adventures of Knuckles Lovemore

| Image = imageX

| Caption = Fluffy fights off the DT's

| Season = 4

| Episode = 1

| Writer = Clyde McHardon
Chuckleütt von Shtupp

| Director = Pompous O'Bastard

| Starring =

|Guest-Starring =

| Guest =

| Production = Bad Slippy ABC, (February 20, 2001)

| Airdate = February 30, 2001

| Episode list = The Adventures of Knuckles Lovemore (season 4)

| Prev = Fluffy Eats the Red Pill

| Next = Fluffy Gets Found

Additionally, we should note that cast lists (in any of the three categories) be noted in alphabetical order, so as to avoid confusion and/or fan favoritism and recentism.

As well, the infobox should only contain the cast list, and not the characters they portray. As seen in most film articles as well as the Lost articles (particularly those having been elevated to FA status), the characters are noted in the plot/synopsis with the actor's name in parentheses after the character's first mentioning. This eliminates the greater level of repetition present in articles that list the cast and characters in both the infobox, synopsis and other sections like Casting and Production.

Maybe that's what you were looking for? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Starring" is irrelevant for most shows that have a standard, 5 person or so, cast. It's the same people every episode. Anyone looking at the page, unless it's a random search, already knows who stars in the show. When you have a show like Lost with so many "stars", you've going to make the infobox scale all the way down the page (even when you eliminate those "stars" that aren't in the episode). TV episode articles are small enough that having an infobox that runs half the page, or the whole length of it, is rather unsightly. What is the difference between "guest starring" and just "guest"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I imagine it would be a matter of semantics and synonyms, then. When there is a category within an infobox that isn't appropriate or necessary, we don't use it (there are many,many examples of this). Let's use Doctor Who for example. Cast regulars are the Doctor and his companion (most recently, David Tennant and Katherine Noble). Guest stars would be largely unused unless an actor was a recurring cast member, such as Freema Agyeman or Billie Piper, who appear in the episodes often enough to be regulars. Cast covers the different speaking/important roles in each episode. What to call them is the least of the concerns, while categorization is more important.

Currently, a variation of "Cast" (noting the regulars) and Guest Cast (everyone else) is in place, which breeds contentious debate after contentious debate over the placement of former regular cast members in a guest role, and of course favoritism and fancruft. For example, in the current season closer of the fourth season, former cast members are listed in the opening credits, and because therye is no categorization for them, they are being grouped as Companions. Breaking down the cast into categories and alphabetizing those categories largely eliminates this sort of behavior. Offering more choices rather than fewer seems to provide the greatest amount of flexibility for the various television programs. When normal episodes (not season enders or sweeps week episodes) air, of course the guest star entries would remain blank, listing only the cast. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It just brings me back to the point of, why are we listing the people we already know on in the show (i.e. the main cast?) I could understand if it was for say a film article, or a main article on a TV show, because they are so large it's good to get that out there in the beginning. But with TV episode articles, most are generally about 10kb large in readable prose, which is really small. Not much of the article is ever completely out of site. With the infobox bleeding so far down the line, it seems useless to include standard people that are most likely being referenced directly beside the infobox in prose already. I've never really understood why we try and flood infoboxes with so much information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your first question, you are presupposing that the only persons who visit the episodic articles are people who already know the series and the cast. We write out articles for all readers, not just the aficionados. We aren't talking about the Alias or Smallville episodes, that have since been shrunk down to a 1-2 paragraph mention in the season-specific article. Not that I wouldn't mind seeing the episodes evolve into that, mind you, but it takes a series of steps to get there without having a large-scale rebellion screaming for your head. My point in suggesting what is already standard practice within the film project and a great many tv series is to begin this process of making the articles more uniform, so that condensing eventually happens, it happens with a lot more ease. By listing the cast as I have described, the main arguments move from the "but she was important three episodes ago" to "is she notable now?". The cast list can have practical limits, as it pretty much does now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We may write articles for "all readers", but in order to get to those individual episode articles, you generally have to traverse through the other related pages that list the same information already. There are two Smallville episode articles out there, one is FA and the other is GA; neither has any cast listed in the infobox. They do quite fine just listing both actor and character in the plot section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the way that Smallville accomplishes the task, Bignole. What I am questioning is how to help move the different wikiprojects in line with the end-product of Smallville. I think its too much of a leap to expect from some of the fans, who want every little bit discussed. Trust me on this; just getting some wikiprojects to trim out the cruft is like pulling the rotten teeth of a bad-tempered tiger. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as the Doctor Who issue goes, which is what started this all in the first place, I have no more issue with that set up that listing anyone in the infobox. At least, as far as I'm concerned, the "Actor/Character" is in a place that does not allow for in-universe prose to overrun the section (like is prevalent in a lot of film articles that have "Cast and character" sections that contain nothing more than glorified plot information about each character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. Currently in that series of episodic articles, debates rages over the guest starring of a former Companion character, with folk insisting that the actor be given secondary billing after the two regular cast members, and not in any semblance of alphabetical order. This jostling for order is both unseemly, fancrufty and unencyclopedic. Currently, much of the determining factor in determining cast position is a function of recentism, fan devotion and synthesis. Setting things in alphabetical order sidesteps virtually all of that, and refocuses the attention away from the speculation and personal sentiment to a simple 'B goes after A but before C'.

Additionally, listing characters in the same box is unnecessarily redundant. The characters are already listed in the synopsis of the article and elsewhere. By simple noting the actor in the infobox, the first time the character that actor played can list the actor's name in parentheses, keeping the incidence of redundancy to an absolute minimum. For example: 'Batman is secretly Bruce Wayne (Bale). Concise and to the point; in fact more so than the FA article "The Beginning of the End", which inspired this idea.

Lastly, avoiding listing characters in the same infobox, also avoids in-universe comparisons, in that the positional listings of characters depends on how the fans feel at the moment. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's contradictory. You cannot say that it's redundant to list characters in the infobox because they are in the plot section, and then follow that up with the idea that it is NOT redundant to list actors in the infobox when you state that they are also listed in the plot section. Exactly why is one redundant over the other, when it's the same exact thing? Either both are redundant or neither are, you cannot claim one over the other and have a serious argument for it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I believe I pointed out that it was less redundant to list the surnames of the actors after the characters in the synopsis, while listing only the actors' names in the infobox. I think the perative phrase I used was: "keeping the incidence of redundancy to an absolute minimum" If I was at all unclear about that, accept my apologies. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Now it's listing only the surnames in the plot section? Cut all the redundancy. List the actor's full name in the plot seciton, and leave them out of the infobox. Saves all the hassle of trying to say "well, this actor should go here and this actor should go there".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that works for me, though there doesn't seem to be a lot of precedent for it. I also think you are going to have great big bags of difficulty in getting other projects to agree to that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's merely my opinion. I don't think we need to creep this guideline down to exactly "how" editors can place names in the infobox. So long as there are not edit wars going on over the order of the names, or whether the character name should be present or not, then there isn't a big deal as to what is included. WP:WAF already includes a bit about keeping the infobox clear of anything not essential. This is a very subjective styling issue--one that doesn't have a legitimate claim to deny or enforce--and should be determined by the individual WikiProjects or editing community for that series of pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The clean-up has to start somewhere, Bignole. It is already relatively uniform to use the infobox in the way I suggested. Codifying this unspoken consensus is a step in the right direction, not instruction creep. SPOILER started out like that. And there are edit wars over the ordering of characters and actors in infoboxes, so addressing it as a pont of uniformity is to the entire community's advantage. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's CREEP because you are getting really specific in how things can be included. You are saying, "you can include this, but only if you do it this way". Hell, not even WP:MOSFILM is that strict when it comes to cast lists in an article. There should always, emphasis on "always", be alternative means to present information. No two articles are identical. Every article should follow a basic structure, but deviation should be based on whether or not it benefits that particlar article. If the Doctor Who community feel that the way they are presenting the actors in the infobox benefits their articles, and it really has not bearing on the quality of the article, then we shouldn't have a guideline discriminating against that. The only thing this guideline should suggest as far as infoboxes go for actors, is maybe alphabetical order - to prevent constant barrages of edit wars over why so-n-so character should come first. Other than that, if they want to have no actors listed, just actors listed, or actors and character names listed (no matter how redundant any listing actually is), then that should be that particular communities' discretion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And that benefits an encyclopedia how? I mean, "suggesting" a basic structure is all fine and dandy, but there are wikiprojects (not just the DW) that put the IAR well above the encyclopedia intent. This isn't a fan forum or a blog. It;s an encyclopedia.

It isn't CREEP, and the reason why it is not is that I've tossed out least three different suggestions about how to go about creating uniformity, and have even agreed that your suggestions bear merit. I am not here suggesting we chain folk to the oars of the longboat, but some pretty clear information needs to be given so that folk keep pulling the boat in the same direction. The main things I would like to see are infobox uniformity and less in-universe transcription and translation in the aforementioned infoboxes. These seem to be pretty reasonable intentions, not some call to the Lock-step of jackboots. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, which is why I end half my posts with asking for input and ideas. If you know of a better way to encourage an encyclopedic uniformity, I am all ears. However, when I point out one wikiproject that flat-out refuses to follow the format that most of the others follow, suggesting that its instruction creep to even aim for a lessening of that fannish nonsense that colors infoboxes (as had happened with the Harry Potter articles), or treats fictional characters with the same language as that of real people seems phenomenally short-sighted and counterproductive. Again, i am not suggesting the level of specificity you are suggesting. I am seeking methods by which the encyclopedia can be made more uniform and more, well, encyclopedia-like. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple statement, listing the actor and the character in the infobox is not "in-universe" information. You are listing the part the actor plays. Otherwise, a sentence that states "John Doe plays Character Name X" would be considered in-universe, and it isn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. It's not in-universe to list the characters. Arcayne, you want to mandate that we follow strict rules about what to put in the infobox, that is WP:CREEP. You seem to be too hung up about uniformity. While basic uniformity is good, it is bad when you try to micro-manage the exact content of an infobox. Each project has their own way of doing things and they are free to do so; we at DW do not "flat-out refuse" to follow ohter projects, we just do it differently. And that does not "break a bigger consensus" because there is none; consensus only exists between active editors of an article/project... but I have tried to tell you that before. — Edokter • Talk • 14:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have told me before, and had I found that reasoning compelling whatsoever, I wouldn't be here suggesting methods of making hte encyclopedia a bit more uniform. I am not "hung up" on uniformity; there is just so very little of it to be found in DW that a natural action of looking for it occurs. Instead of where's the beef, I keep wondering where'd the uniformity? Is this project part of the same encyclopedia? Fans and fan reasoning should not dominate how a wikiproject is put together. You are allowed to work within the strictures of the encyclopedia, and my proposal is to better define where the fence is. That my suggestions are seen as too "strict" is natural; anything that attempts to restrict behavior meets resistance. Its the reason most people cannot and will not obey posted highway speeds. They don't see anything wrong with going 80 mph until they either cause a thirty-car pileup or more mundanely tank up at the pump a lot more often than those who follow the posted speeds. I am simply suggesting alternatives such as alphabetizing cast lists, and creating flexibility in those lists to cover more situations that occur. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple statement: listing actors and characters in the infobox is overly redundant, and certainly leads to a more in-universe style of writing ('but the character's listed in the infobox! We must go into great detail about how he loves his trademark scarf and fingerless gloves!). It isn't much I suggest. Perhaps folk could stop treating the suggestions like a climb up the Reichstag dressed like Spider-Man. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's BS. No one is going to look at a character in an infobox and say that. It's merely a name associated with the actor so that you know who they are playing. You obviously cannot write in-universe information in the infobox about the character because the infobox is about the episode, not a specific character.

You're alternatives are duelly noted, but when you first started this thread it began more as a quest to say "you cannot do this", and now you are suggesting that what you really meant was "another way of listing cast in the infobox is...". Alphabetizing is cool, and I said that I see no reason why that cannot be implemented in the guideline - it certainly cuts down on the bickering over where a actor/character should be listed. My qualm is over the restriction of the character names. If you restrict the character names, you might as well restrict the actor names. You aren't going to have people begging for more in-universe information about a character who's name appears in the infobox, because the article isn't about the character it's about the episode. Since we have WP:PLOT, that solves any extraneous details being added to that section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cast

I've added the following to the "Cast" subsection:

"When organizing the cast section, please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series."

Presumably, this shouldn't be controversial as it reflects accepted practice in the articles. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. I actually thought I had something about that already in there, but I guess not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment at Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

There is a request for comment at Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), regarding the inclusion of the characters surname in the lead sentence. More opinions are needed. Please read the most recent discussion, Talk:Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)#Name Redux, to understand why each side is opposing/supporting the inclusion of the name in the lead. Thank you. 11:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Country of "origin" debate?

There is some debate as to what "country of origin" is supposed to mean, and neither the infobox, nor this MOS give any other explaination beyond "country of origin". There is debate in the article on MythBusters over whether the show, produced by an Australian production company on location in the USA, starring a US cast filming in the US, for the US market (initially) commissioned by a US network (Discovery Channel) has "origin" in the US, due to all that, or in Australia, because of the location of the production company. I think this needs to be defined clearer, as I've noticed a similar issues arrise in other articles. TheHYPO (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this issue with the Smallville page, as it is filmed in Vancouver, Canada, with mostly Canadian actors...but the concept of the show, distributing company, and network that televises the show are all American. My initialy thought is that who appears in a show, and where the show is filmed, has nothing to do with the "country of origin". I believe that the key concepts to address are who produces the show in all its forms. Sony Pictures Entertainment is owned by a Japanese company (Sony), but the Spider-Man films are "American" films. In the case of Mythbusters, I would have to ask who owns the rights to the show. An Australian company may fund the show, but the Discovery Channel may be the one that actually owns the show. (Oh, before someone turns this around based on my last statement, "Sony Pictures" was formerly known as "Columbia Pictures", which is an American film production company. The only thing that changed was their overt ownership and name, the company itself is still based in America).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on Character articles

I think this opening for character articles:

"When creating an article on a single character of a television show, note that the section headers below are not mandatory, and several featured articles on fictional characters have different section headers (and placement) than one another. Find the structure that works best for the article in question; regardless of whether you use these headers, the information that they discuss is important to establishing an article with real world context."

needs to be reworded. People are using as an excuse to completely disregard the character MoS guidelines to make up their own formats all together when there is no valid reason not to use the existing structure beyond they just don't like it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Form of character name to be used in a navigational template

I am involved in a discussion as to how certain character names should be indicated in a navbox at Template talk:All in the Family. Specifically, the question is whether certain female characters should be listed with hyphenated surnames. If anyone is interested in this issue, I encourage you to offer your suggestions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

cast order

I've seen this on other pages, and it's a discussion that pops up every so often over at Smallville (TV series) (see the current discussion), but I think this page, since we don't really have any MOS for television articles in general (not like the WP:MOSFILMS anyway), should discuss the order of cast members in the article. What I mean is, the discussions that I see are about re-ordering a cast listing whenever a character leaves to represent the "Current" cast of the show. To me, this provides undue weight and recent events in the show, and goes against Wikipedia's stance on being based on historical facts instead of current events. We're supposed to be looking at the information in articles and asking "is this going to be relevant 10 years from now".

Reception section

I would like to amend the reception style guidelines to include the fact that editors should be paraphrasing critics, and avoiding simple, vague statements of approval/disapproval of an episodes. For example, articles should not be riddled with things like, "Critic X thought Actor Y did a horrible job this episode," or "Critic X thought this was the worst episode of Show B, ever". Neither of these things provides any context to the reader as to why the critic didn't like the show or the actor. It also makes the article rely heavily on direct quotes when we should be paraphrasing their opinions into "wikipedia's" own words. This addition could improve the quality of the reception sections of articles; as a draw back it could remove websites like BuddyTV and TVSquad, who's "critics", are often not very analytical in their reviews and stick to basic, vague descriptions to summarize their thoughts about an episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've go ahead and amended the reception section. See here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead section of lists update

I updated the example for the lead section of episode the lists to reflect the type of lead that episode lists should have. For the past half year or so, we (at Featured list candidates) have moved away from the verbatim repetition of the title in the lead, i.e. "This is a list of episodes for the television show..." or something like that. If you have any questions about my change, please leave a message at my talk or at WT:FLC. Thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Character lists

I've been thinking that maybe we should update the "List of" section to discuss character lists as well, given that they exist just as much as episode lists. Thoughts?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was thinking we could include something like:

Television characters are not always notable enough to have their own article, or have enough information to warrant one. When those instances occur, editors often create a list comprising all of the characters that either fail WP:NOTE, or have very limited information on them.

To start, the name of the article can vary from "List of SHOW characters" to "Characters of SHOW", depending on the type of format the primary editors choose. A mere listing of characters would warrant the former title, while a page containing sections of prose for each character would require the latter title. After deciding which format will be best for the subject, it would be good to review the guide for writing about fiction. Although these characters do not have their own page, they must still abide by the same guidelines. That means plot information should be reflective of the real world information you have available. Chances are these characters are covered in the respective season/episode articles that cover their appearances, and repeating that information is not necessary. Plot information should be there to provide context to the reader when they read the real world information.

That said, if a recurring character on a show had absolutely no real world information, then it may be more appropriate to place them (with their character name) in a general list someone else in the article. For a show that often has one-time special guest stars, it may be best to just leave them out completely. Long running shows with special guests every week can create an extremely large, and unnecessary list. IMDb already keeps a listing of every special guest a show has, so it is not necessary to repeat that information here.

This can be tweaked, and copy edited as seen fit, but I figured I'd lay out a basic understanding of what is generally practiced by the GA and FA (not sure there are any FA character lists right now...IDK).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

double-checking

Just double checking real quick: episode titles are double quotated ("Care") and TV miniseries are italicized (Roots), right? Under what circumstances should I instead double-quote miniseries? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a case where a miniseries should use quotation marks. The relevant MOS is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). – sgeureka ^t•c 17:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

THat's right. I cannot think of an instance either. The only time I've ever seen such a thing is when italicizing is not an option (i.e. it's a feature the particular program can perform), in that case quotations are used. But that's not an issue on Wiki.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see your caveat and raise you another question. {{infobox television episode}}'s "next" and "prev" variables automatically double-quote the entries therein. If a TV miniseries were to follow or precede an episode, it would be double-quotated when put in the infobox. Does that meet your qualifier of an unavailable option? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If there was a case, then I would have to say yes that would qualify. Since the vast majority won't have that problem, it's easier to keep the auto quotes in place instead of removing them and having to back in by hand and place them in all the articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Related; does such a miniseries constitute an episode for the purposes of being included in the "Episode chronology"? The example I'm suffering an edit war for is the article "33". Edokter (talk · contribs) has been the first person to continue to edit war over not including the Battlestar Galactica miniseries in the infobox because (a) it automatically formats it incorrectly and (b) is not an episode of the 2004/2005 TV series. Given this information, and the page's talk, what do these guidelines and their participants confer in the way of opinions?

As the article stands now, it's not included; I'm not sure if User:edokter has conceded my point (since he has continued to EW the article over other points), or if he simply forgot his version in his last spate of reversions. Thanks for everybody's time! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, this guideline certainly doesn't tackle such things. When I read the miniseries page, I'd have to side with you on this one. At first I thought that was the original BSG, but then I see that it was actually the "beginning" of the series. I would argue that just because it was not an official episode does not mean it isn't directly connected to the series. To argue this point I would point to The Incredible Hulk (TV series). That series began as 2 made-for-tv movies, but the popularity caused CBS to turn it into a series. These are not "official" pilots, and were not initially meant to be, but they did directly lead to the series and as far as continuity goes (even though I hate pointing to such things), they are "canon".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What I mean though is should the miniseries be listed under the "Episode chronology" when doing so is ambiguous because it aired a year before the TV series ever began. It is part of the same narrative that the actual TV series picked up a year later, but it's not an episode of that series. If the infobox described a "Narrative chronology" (which, actually makes sense, but nobody at the infobox's talk page has replied), then we would italicize it and include it. But it says "Episode chronology" instead, and the article itself leads off with

"33" is the first episode of the reimagined 2004 Battlestar Galactica television series, immediately following the events of the miniseries.

Listing "Battlestar Galactica" as a preceding episode in the infobox is ambiguous and confusing to the readers. This, and the malformatting are my arguments against listing it in the infobox. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

TIH airead in November, and the series wasn't picked up until March of the next year. The reason it says "episode chronology" is because you're using the episode infobox, and thus it's regulated specifically to episodes. Theoretically, you could use one of those make shift boxes, make it look exactly the same, just without the autoformatting and thus get the effect you desire (the miniseries with italics instead of quotes). The article is correct, it is the first "episode", but not the first story in that series. The fact that the series began as a mini-series originally (which, technically, ARE episodes on an individual level) is irrelevant. The only way it would really be a problem would be if they were feature films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Children of the Gods" of Stargate SG-1 completely ties into the events of the feature film, but still lists the film in the infobox. It has been this way since the article's inception in October 2004, i.e. it was never regarded as a problem in 4.5 years. (And I have never given second thoughts to this issue either, although I can see the points of both sides now.) – sgeureka ^t•c 21:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If "Episode chronology" is regarded as the chronology of the article's episode within the story narrative, then there wouldn't be a problem with naming and linking to preceding and following non-episodes. Most regular viewers (who don't participate in online fandom) don't know the technical difference between a miniseries and a TV show anyway and just care about the narrative. If there was a non-complicated template tweak that would fix irregular formatting (like e.g. the RTitle parameter in {{episode list}}), then I would definately support that over banning miniseries and films from the episode chronology section. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess my chief complaint is that the infobox doesn't do what we want it to do, requiring we either not list the story narrative as makes sense, or we use it and be confusing/ambiguous to the end-reader. In the interim, I've done a hack job at User:pd_THOR/infobox televised narrative that seems to do the trick. I think I'll implement it once I've sorted out some other issues.

Thanks for the input everybody, and thanks for the idea, BIGNOLE. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(The jigsaw puzzle narrative of Lost and the interlinked stories of e.g. Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis may pose a problem though if "Narrative chronology" is used. Would using just "Chronology" open a can of worms as well?) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be in the order of air date, not the order of storyline chronology, if that's what you're asking.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

But as is, "Episode chronology" excludes stories not an explicit part of the given TV series as I've encountered. The BSG miniseries wasn't retroactively made the zeroth episode of the TV series, yet it's the preceding story, and editors want it listed in the infobox. /me holds up hands in concession. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not conceding, just tired. Look, it's the same show, same actors, same producers, same TV station, etc. To many, that means it it the same series, just produced earlier. I myself have been thinking about changing the episode infobox to say just 'Chronology' and allow alternative formatting. As it stands, your objection are solely based on the infobox's limitation, and it hampers improving the content. That is my main issue. — Edokter • Talk • 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think if you're going to call it "Chronology", it should be made clear that it should all still be listed in the order it was broadcast (not the order it falls continuity-wise). I've been trying to help the South Park people figure out what episodes are notable and which are not, and in the process reorganize the "List of" page as well as recreate the season pages. As I'm doing this, I'm finding that several episodes are listed out of their broadcasting order, and placed in their "continuity" order (which is not the encyclopedic way of handling an episode guide). If something airs out of order, then it should be noted as such, and not repositioned. It confuses a reader (confused the hell out of me until I figured out what they did) to see an airdate several months earlier than the position of the episode. IMO, so long as it's clear that it should still be presented in the order of airing, retitling/reformatting it is potentially the better option. Just be careful, because if the reformatting involved removing the quote marks for episode titles so that they have to be placed in by hand, you're going to create an exorbitant amount of work to be done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's always the trouble of labeling certain data; it is either too restrained or too open-ended. How about 'Airing chronology'? I do not intend to remove any existing formatting, I was just thinking about adding alternative paramters, ie. rprev= and rnext=, so it does not change the current articles in any way. — Edokter • Talk • 01:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's cool (about the formatting). I'm not really sure about the title (any title, not just the one you suggested :D). Since I cannot think of anything better, I'm fine with that heading (unless someone comes up with something else).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? If you have the chops to edit the template and add a separate (narrative, story, whatever) chronology that doesn't interfere with the one already in place (and won't show unless utilized), that'd be hella awesome and negate any need for my hack job or further argument. Would you elabourate exactly what you're thinking? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The rprev= and rnext= would only be used instead of prev= and/or next= to allow for custom formatting; like italics instead of quotes. I could also add a chronology= parameter to override the word "Episode". (Any ohter default doesn't sit right, so might as well make it customizable.) — Edokter • Talk • 19:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There is currently a discussion taking place over at the List of South Park episodes concerning the notability of the majority of the South Park articles, and the possibility of merging any non-notable articles into newly recreated season pages (with the possibility of being recreated regardless of the episode merge given the length of the "List of" page...see Talk:List of South Park episodes#Reformatting pages for the discussion on simply reformatting the "List of" page). More opinions are wanted and needed at the talk page so that we can get a better idea of the consensus. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tense in lede

Something should be said about the tense of the opening sentence. When a series ends or is canceled, the tense should stay present, as it is a work.

That is, it should always be: "Title is a ..." vs "Title was a ..." BOVINEBOY2008 19:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It should always stay present, as the episodes still exist. The first two sentences should make it clear that it no longer airs, but it is still "Title is a ..." See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 10#Present or past tense in lead?. Also it is noted in WP:MOSTV#Lead paragraphs (and I've added a little bit to help clarify) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize that but it isn't mentioned anywhere in the style guidelines; I'm saying it should be added. BOVINEBOY2008 20:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, you already did it. Thank you! BOVINEBOY2008 20:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

With some exceptions of course. Some stuff has been lost forever of course. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Distribution outside the original country of origin

I'm not seeing anything in the guidelines on this. Most often the section is titled Distribution when the show is simply distributed outside the country it originally aired in and that section will include a table or prose with information about the network it aired on, any relavant history (i.e. season 1 aired on foo network, and seasons 2 on aired on bar network) along with any information about how far behind a particularly country is from the original air dates. A section titled International versions also comes up for shows like Amazing Race, Married with Children, and Survivor (TV Series) where the show was remade in another country. Simiarly that section contains details about these versions. These seem like reasonable conventions to add to these guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a typically common section among FAs, as far as I can remember, unless there was something special about those international releases (as you pointed out above) - though I wouldn't be opposed to having such a section included in the MOS. Arrested Development has one, but it's all completely unsourced (as is most of the article...and it should probably go to WP:FAR, but that's another story); Degrassi: The Next Generation has a one sentence mentioning of the US broadcasting, but primarily focuses on its country of origin (Canada); Firefly has one but it's basically discussing the broadcasting of 11 out of 13 episodes and the DVD release; Lost doesn't have any section for it...but that's probably another that needs FAR; I don't see one at The Simpsons either. There doesn't seem to be a consistency in this information being included, which might suggest that we scope the proposed section to be more of a "you can include" than a "you must include". Beyond Canada, I think it gets difficult to find overseas broadcasting for US television shows. It's not even a typical staple of the FILM project for their articles, unless there's something special about the overseas release of the film (large number of theaters, foreign box office records). If you were to write up a section, how would you make it look?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are some examples of Distribution sections: Friends#Distribution, South Park#Distribution, The Ren and Stimpy Show#Distribution, Knight_Rider_(1982_TV_series)#Distribution, House (TV Series). Referencing varies from okay to not at all. I'll give the section some thought and put up a proposal here.--RadioFan (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Past or present tense?

It appears Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines doesn't address the issue of which tense to use when writing about a television series. I write mostly film articles, and in those you always say "XYZ is a 1950 American drama film . . ." because once a film is made it exists forever. But what about a series from the 1950s such as Producers' Showcase? It seems silly to say "The series is packaged and produced by Showcase Productions, Inc." when Showcase Productions probably doesn't exist anymore. I think if a show like I Love Lucy or The Golden Girls is seen regularly in reruns, the present tense makes sense. But what about an old series that hasn't been broadcast in 52 years? Thanks for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Works of fiction should always be in present tense. So anytime you refer to what happens in the series or who appears, then it should be in present tense. Real world happenings, like when the DVD was released or when the show was canceled should be in past tense. I think... BOVINEBOY2008 15:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The same is true with TV series, in terms of "XYZ is a X year Television series" (it still exists), but when talking about distribution of a series it "was packaged and produced by Showcase Productions." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

One can say, "This is a play by Tennessee Williams" and "This play by Tennessee Williams was produced..." Live television of the 1950s was like theater. So, "This teleplay is by JP Miller" or "This Tad Mosel teleplay was produced..." The day after the show one could say, "That was quite a production last night on U.S. Steel Hour." Years later, one might say, "Remember when U.S. Steel Hour was on? It was a live series, and only a few kinescopes survived. It was a great show though." Pepso2 (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't address it because it's addressed at Writing about Fiction - which is a more appropriate home. Maybe we could mention something somewhere. That said, I think that Bovine and Collectonian addressed the uses pretty well. Basically, since we can always watch the show, the events are always present tense. The only time this would change for the show itself would be if all copies of the show were deleted and it does not air or have any possible verification in the present day beyond secondary sources. Even then, you could probably find a way to write it in present tense. So, rule of thumb is if you are restating events in a TV show they should be in present tense.

OH! I just thought of another instance of "past" tense. If the show itself is discussing something that took place in the past off camera (e.g., The people of Gossip Girl talking about what their grandparents did when they were younger, which is never actually seen), then that would be put in past tense.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A "kinescope" can be mentioned in present tense because it exists. Back to the theater/live tv comparison: Suppose I said to someone, "Did you see Henry Fonda in the opening night of Mr. Roberts? I understand this is one of the greatest opening nights on Broadway." How confusing is that? Pepso2 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If a series such as Producers' Showcase was broadcast live, and there are no existing tapes of any of the episodes, is it a series or was it a series? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It still is a series. A nearly impossible one to find, but it possibly still "exists" as live broadcasts are almost always recorded, and people may have made personal copies. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this what you are talking about Maven?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Those were the two episodes devoted to classical music, so apparently some of them were preserved. Thank you all for your feedback! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost everything is gone. The Paley Center claims a collection of 120,000 items, but they count individual episodes, radio programs, tv commercials and interviews. What is missing falls into several categories: accidentally wiped (as the BBC did with early Dennis Potter plays), intentionally wiped for reuse of videotape, intentionally wiped to gain storage space, lost because of poor record-keeping, materials stolen and shows never recorded. Here's the List of lost television broadcasts. Here are 10 missing-feared-lost TV shows. ABC had people turning rewinds to deposit 16mm prints directly into a trash barrel. Steve Allen got some media coverage when he announced that NBC had thrown out almost every kinescope from the 1950s. In many cases, the Paley Center only has two or three episodes of major TV shows that ran for several seasons. In radio, of 3500 episodes of Vic and Sade, only 330 survived. The comic strip Our Boarding House was adapted into a 1942-43 radio series with Arthur Q. Bryan and Mel Blanc, but no episodes are known to exist. Over 27 years, One Man's Family ran on NBC for 3,256 episodes of which only 380 episodes apparently exist. Pepso2 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok...what exactly does this have to do with how to write a plot summary? If you don't know what happens because there isn't anything to view, then you cannot write anything to begin with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify things, my original question had nothing to do with how to write a plot summary. I simply wanted to know if the opening sentence about an old television series should describe it as is or was. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 21:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so that's just where we ended up. My bad on that one. Then, in that case if you can prove there are absolutely no copies left (i.e. no way to view this show), then it "was" a TV show. If there are copies somewhere, even if they just are not available to the public, then it is "is" a TV show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Could we mention that in the style guideline? Changing "is" to "was" seems to be a frequent mistake made by people editing articles about recently cancelled shows. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is in there: "References to the show should be in the present tense since shows no longer airing still exist, including in the lead (i.e. Title is a...)." Maybe we should add something like, "even for canceled shows". BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use correct and incorrect examples like WP:MOS does.

Incorrect:	Seinfeld was an American television sitcom that aired on NBC
Correct:	Seinfeld is an American television sitcom that aired on NBC

Somehow the tense usage needs to be more prominent in the guidelines since editors keep asking about it. Sarilox (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We could probably incorporate some details from, and a link to, Wikipedia:TENSE#Check_your_fiction. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I like this presentation. It is essentially saying the same thing, but is more clear. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the Seinfeld example above would be a great inclusion to the guideline page. I'm forever encountering the problem regarding tense (most recently at T. J. Hooker). Citing WP:TENSE in edit summaries rarely works so I've resorted to placing a hidden note right next to the "is" in the lede if the article is forever popping up on my watchlist. The people that want to edit war over the tense think I'm either really behind on the status of television shows or am interpreting the guideline wrong. It's getting old, that's for sure. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Bolding

This seems to conflict with WP:MOSBOLD: "Another means of displaying the information would be in a "ACTOR as CHARACTER" format. Here, the actor and character's names are bolded, and then followed by a colon". Does one trump the other? Copana2002 (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you think is being conflicted? MOSBOLD does not address the issue of using boldface in the body of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It does say "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only for a few special uses etc." I am just confused if MOSTV cancels out MOSBOLD. Copana2002 (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't cancel it out, but at the same time the use of boldface "in few special uses" is exactly what MOSTV is suggesting. The "ACTOR as CHARACTER" format is a "special case", it only exists in one section of the article (and not all articles follow that setup), and it's also a standard followed by WP:MOSFILMS.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. :) 02:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Bold_formatting_in_.22Cast.22_section The film style guidelines discourage the use of Bold for fictional character names in "ACTOR as CHARACTER" which this style guide recommends, and I had assumed the same style applied to television articles and was surprised to find the WP:MOSTV guidelines actually encouraged it, especially since WP:BOLD recommends using bold sparingly. The above comment from June seems to suggest the film guidelines have moved on to a new consensus since June 2009 and it has created this inconsistency. I'd like to see Project Television follow their lead but right or wrong the guideline should be consistent to both Projects Film and Project Television. -- Horkana (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

MOSFILMS has not always discouraged it. That was something done in the recent history. If it's not the trend anymore, then it can be corrected.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The recent series of edit around my revert of Leverage (TV series) brought me here. I would be fine with character names being bolded if there was a corresponding associated redirect to the article. Just bolding character names as a rote matter of TV style conflicts with the simplicity and minimal use in MOS:BOLD. —EncMstr (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm bringing this up again because Bovineboy2008 changed this without discussing it. I agree with what Bignole said "It doesn't cancel it out, but at the same time the use of boldface "in few special uses" is exactly what MOSTV is suggesting. The "ACTOR as CHARACTER" format is a "special case"". I feel that whenever a discussion comes up, everybody states WP:MOSFILMS (and other guidelines for films), this falls under other stuff exists. Just because in an other place they do it that way, shouldn't mean that it's blindly accepted here. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 21:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

He also later noted this is no longer the case. Bolding is not appropriate and the cast/actor format is not a "special case". The guideline lists very explicitly what the special cases are, and actor/cast falls under none of them. WP:MOSFILMS is not the only MoS that has since updated their guidelines to properly follow the guidelines. Films is a larger, more active and established project and as the two media are similar enough in nature, following their guidance is certainly not harmful, just as many projects take cues from the Military History project because it is considered one of the most organized and advanced out there. Further, this bolding is not seen in most of our featured articles, which should be a large clue that it really is not considered best practice. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, would be nice if when these thing are "decided" they are actually implemented on the main page. Like you suggested I took a look at the featured articles and unlike you claimed there are still a bunch of television articles that use bolding (Aquaman, But I'm a Cheerleader,…) as well as movies (Blade Runner, Casablanca, Casino Royale, Jurassic Park, Latter Days,…) (I stopped halfway-down). Those that don't either don't have a cast section, and use the "(ACTOR)"-format in the plot, or use an all prose format. Which gives me clues in the opposite direction. Am I correct in reading the text correct, that when the cast section is left out and it is implemented in the plot the format is "(ACTOR)" behind the characters name and when it is in its own section in a list format "ACTOR as CHARACTER" is used? _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 17:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

List format is acceptable (not preferred) for cast sections. However, the only rationale there was for bolding would be so that information stands out. That is an aesthetic reason which does not fall under MOS:BOLD's "special cases". BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Check when those particular ones' passed. While it has changed, it doesn't mean the change has been implemented fully across the board yet - its difficult to do with AWB or a bot, so it has to be done as its found. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about navigation boxes

A discussion concerning the navigation boxes at the bottom of articles has started at WT:TV#Navigation boxes. Please join and weigh your opinion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ordering

There was a discussion a little while ago about making the order of sections consistent across the board for all articles. It was determined that we needed some concrete language put into the MOS to let editors know the basic order of an article. In other words, specifically state that the first thing after the lead should be the plot section. I know there is a current trend in the season list pages to put the episode list last, but from a comprehension standpoint this make little sense. The page is about the episodes; real world info is put into context by the plot summaries, and generally the first thing people want to read when they come to these pages is the plot. Thus, it makes sense that it should be the first thing on the page (after the lead). Otherwise, the plot doesn't provide any context to the real world info that follows--not even listy info like awards/reception--and it makes the page less about the episodes themselves. Granted, we'll need to go through the season FLs and readjust the order, which should be simple enough. Any objections?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox template confusion

As a newbie, I recently ended up here and tried to use the info box template shown at WP:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Infobox. I had problems with it working. After pulling my hair out for a bit, I followed the link within that paragraph (duh!), which led to a second version at Template:Infobox Television. I am assuming the first infobox listing is an old one, because I had success when I switched to second version. (For example, I noticed “exec_producer” no longer works, but “executive_producer” does.

Shouldn’t the example here be replaced with a current version? If you notice, the Smallville infobox which is shown as an example is not using the coding on the left of it, rather it uses the template from the second page. Or am I missing something here? Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Woops, yep the docs here were out of date and were referring to an older version of the template. I've corrected the example, and for now I've removed Smallville as a rather poor example to use, due to its having some unique aspects. We really should also have an FA level example for this page, I think. Will see what I can find. Thanks for the heads up!-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Another tense point . . .

Reading the discussion on tense above, I see that a basic concept has been missed. It seems that the good editors have been mistaking the series with the fiction. Seinfeld is not a work of fiction, anymore than Look was a work of fiction. You're confusing the courier with the message. You see, while a "work of fiction" comes alive, the vehicle through which it is transmitted does not. While a story published in a magazine comes alive, its vehicle, the magazine, does not. I am sure that there will be readable copies of magazines available from the 1880s, centuries after there are no longer viewable VHS cassettes from the 1980s. Yet you will note that on Wikipedia, magazines that are no longer published are referred to in the past tense. "Scribners was . . . " , not "is". "Look was, not "is". And to the majority of people, that's just common sense.

When The Simpsons stops airing in 2189, its individual episodes will continue as living works of fiction, but the series will be dead. While the distinction may be hard for some to grasp, it is significant. If you're going to refer to cancelled TV series in the present tense, just because there are copies of them lying around somewhere, then why shouldn't this dinosaur be present-tensed as well; some of their programs are still lying around. (Okay, the DuMont analogy is imperfect, but it makes as much sense as referring to this in the present tense.) I mean, I know a lot of people who watched Howdy Doody, and none of them say it "is" a good show, they say it was a good show. They might say that an episode of Seinfeld "is" one of their favorites, but they say Seinfeld "was" a good show. See the difference?

This change to the guideline, to include TV series, was made less than three months ago, and given the fact that it did not include this for over five years, I don't feel I'm being to brash to excise it now. 65.80.247.100 (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As I stated on Talk:The Arsenio Hall Show‎, you not agreeing with a guideline or policy is not reason to ignore it. Since you have taken it upon yourself to edit war over this very lame issue, I don't see any reason to indulge you in discussion. I invite others from the community to weigh in on this issue once again. I'm really tired of having to explain this one guideline and argue with someone's interpretation of it. It says what it says in plain black and white. If you don't agree with it, don't read the damn ledes of television show articles. Pinkadelica^♣ 22:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

67.80.247.100: Your explanation is the clearest one I've seen so far. I think a version of it should be in the guideline. —EncMstr (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, kind editor. Despite your compliments, I do have to acknowledge that I did act too hasty in my exchange with Pinkadelica. I hope that she and others will, like you, judge the cogency of my comments on their own merits, and not dismiss them due to my poor breeding. 65.80.247.100 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

All television series exist, period. The series is not "was" and never will be as long as it was created. There is a difference between referring to something in casual conversation and in an encyclopedic magazine. All media exist. A film is not "was a film" just because it leaves the theater. A book is not "was" just because it is out of print. Television series are not "was" just because they currently are not aired. Nor was this change made "three months ago", it has been consensus for years, it was simply codified to deal with folks, like yourself, who mistakenly believed such shows "were" series instead of "are" series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? 65.80.247.100 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why what? Why is instead of was? Because they still exist. You seem to have already seen the discussion above and of course you've seen WP:TENSE as you tried to change it to match your view. More discussions: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 10#Present or past tense in lead?, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_12#Correct_tense, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)/Archive_3#Tense, -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As does Lincoln's body. Shall we change the opening sentence of Abraham Lincoln? 65.80.247.100 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hah! I got caught with my pants down! How about this, instead? 65.80.247.100 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Same difference. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln's body IS entombed, Lincoln himself IS dead so he WAS a person. Meerkat Manor IS a television series that WAS aired on Animal Planet. Now if you want to actually make logical arguments, feel free, but if you are going to run around and just throw out nonsensical comparisons, please don't waste the time of other editors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A TV show is, just like The Sting is a movie and the Bible is a book. your analogy with DuMont Television Network is flawed, the company doesn't exist anymore so it was a network, it ins't around anymore now, unlike a TV show, a movie, a book. How someone refers to it is a flawed argument, when I walk out of the theater I say that was a good movie, but it still is a movie just because my view of it was in the past doesn't make it not that anymore. TV series are TV series, unlike people who were musician, actors, … they are not anymore now. But that TV show still is a TV show. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 23:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledged the imperfection of the DuMont analogy in the same post that I made it. But no one has replied to the magazine analogy, except indirectly the one editor who endorsed it.

This looks like a typical example of Wikipedia group think, where everyone has been convinced of the truth of some point for so long that they think that merely re-asserting its veracity constitutes proof. I am making an argument that I have not seen stated elsewhere: The show is a separate entity than the art it provided, and that that art is living, but that the show is not, just as magazines that are no longer published are not living, even as the stories that appeared in them are. Can someone please address that?

Speaking of groupthink, I do understand that it's a necessary thing. We couldn't move forward without it. But sometimes you do have to question it.65.80.247.100 (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, Shojo Beat IS a magazine that WAS published. Yes, they still exist so yes they also "are" not "was". It has nothing to do with "group think" but common sense and consensus through discussion. It is not group think to endorse nor agree with consensus. The show is a show. You can not claim it doesn't exist anymore, because it does. Magazines also still exist, weather they are still published or not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would respectfully ask that you cease impugning the intelligence of those who disagree with you. This is something that honest people can intelligently disagree on, and to state that it's just "common sense" calls into question your own ability or willingness to engage in rationale discourse. You keep repeating that it "is" because it "is". It almost appears as if you are either not seeing the point of those who disagree with you, or you are trying to avoid their arguments. 65.80.247.100 (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems the problem is conceptually whether a TV program is a work or a production. That is, whether it is a noun or a verb. Perhaps if the lead were reworded like Seinfeld is/was a TV series produced from 19xx to 19yy, then it might be clearer which is correct. —EncMstr (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You've got me thinking, EncMstr. How about this: Seinfeld, a TV series starring comedian Jerry Seinfeld, was produced from 19xx to 19yy?65.80.247.100 (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You could think of it as this, if you can actively view it or interact with it now, than it exists (use is). So you can watch television shows that are no longer being produced, books no longer printed, films no longer in theatres, and magazines no longer circulated. They are not dead things, even though they can be thought of as "ended". BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that, Bovineboy, is a helpful argument. You successfully draw a distinction that separates some of my examples from others in a way that supports current policy. No arguments come to mind, immediately, to oppose your point. I still don't feel satisfied by current policy (which would be my ultimate desire, as a self-centered human, like all of us), but if I can't come up with any logical holes in it, I may be able to accept this. I'm going to mull it over for a few days. Good show, ma vache. 65.80.247.100 (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Cherry picking

In Category:Publications disestablished in 2009, there are 30 magazines listed that are no longer published, including Shojo Beat, the example used above to refute the arguement that magazines no longer published are referred to in Wikipedia in the past tense. (There are also two or three that have resumed publishing, and are therefore immaterial to this argument). Of those 30, 2 of them use the present tense "is", 27 of them use the past tense "was", and 1 of them skirts the issue altogether. So the use of Shojo Beat was not particularly representative. _{I'm just sayin'.} 65.80.247.100 (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, of those only one is a featured article (SJ). Guess which one has more standing? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is significant. First time you've said anything in this debate that even remotely resembled a cogent point, even if it was delivered in a snarky manner. Congratulations. 65.80.246.7 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

End of debate

Well, I will be leaving this debate, for two reasons. First of all, User:Bovineboy2008 has made a point that, as of yet, I cannot provide any reasoned objection to. Secondly, my participation in this discussion has resulted in accusations that I am a vandal and have been I am harrassing another editor. So if anyone wishes to discuss this further (I am thinking, in particular, of User:EncMstr, who indicated that he felt that I was making some sense, please come post on my talk page, and we can discuss the matter further without causing any emotional distress to anyone who frequents these pages. I enjoy an open and honest discussion, and am not afraid of people disagreeing with me. 65.80.246.7 (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

excuse my ignorance but most of the family guy articles Seem to use the show as point of reference. For example to suport statement "Also, perverted neighbor Glenn Quagmire has shown a repeated interest in her, mostly due to his very low standards, asking if she has reached the age of consent (which would be 16 in Rhode Island, but he always asks if she is 18, which is what many people assume is the nation-wide age of consent)." it uses the citation "The Thin White Line". Family Guy. Fox. 2001-11-07. No. 1, season 3. “Are you 18 yet?”" is this not a primary source? Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that an episode is the primary source. You must use an independent third party source that is verifiable on a reliable website to make such citations. So, I think this could be considered original research. The age of consent part definitely needs a source. —Mike Allen 03:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of {{Episode list}} template

I feel that this page should be updated to include the preferred use of the {{Episode list}}, I scanned the featured episode lists, only four lists don't use the {{Episode list}} template or a variation of it ({{Japanese episode list}}, {{S-Episode list}} or {{S-Japanese episode list}}). From the featured lists that are split in multiple season article only four don't use the transclusion, all do use {{Episode list}} format on the individual pages, so that would be quickly adjusted. The {{Episode list}} template is in frequent use, I see it as generally accepted among episode lists editors. The use of {{Episode list/sublist}} is also in frequent use and it complies with what MOSTV currently says, not including the summaries. I would perhaps suggest to also encourage to put the message <!--Dear editor: Please go to [[SHOWNAME (season X)]] to edit the episode list.--> as in use on some transcludded episode list, because it seems some editors and mostly new and IP users don't understand that {{:SHOWNAME (season X)}} is a transclusion of everyting on that page between <onlyinclude></onlyinclude> tags (or outside <noinclude></noinclude>) and to edit the list they have to go to that page. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 17:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you write up a proposed wording, so that we can see what it would look like and figure out what, if anything, needs tweaking?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way..

Is there a way to link to episode titles within an "episode list" so that it shows in the table of contents? —Mike Allen 23:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but why would you want to? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So it could potentially be easier to jump to a certain episode within the TOC, especially when there is more than 20 episodes. —Mike Allen 00:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea. For a 13 episode series, it might not be so bad, but can you imagine what the TOC would look like with 24 eps? Or 50? 100? 600? It would be way too unwieldy. I suspect that's one reason the episode template doesn't do that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you put it that way, probably not. I just had a brainstorm on how could I make it easier to find an episode without scrolling a mile down the page (1024×768 screen). I didn't think about it adding that much to the TOC, but I guess that would be an extra mile to have to go through. Disregard. :P —Mike Allen 01:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

*grin* No worries. Usually I suggest if someone really needs to find a specific ep and don't know what season to look in, use CTRL+F :-D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh.. I should have been clear, I meant only on season pages. Still would make the TOC too long, and it's probably not even possible. —Mike Allen 05:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot section

In my view, the part of the "plot section" that allows television shows to be used as primary sources for plot summaries should explicitly state that this does not apply to reality TV; only fictional TV. The reasons for this are:

• Reality TV is about real people. Consistent with WP:BLP, material about living persons should be cited to reliable secondary sources. I think using the TV show as a primary source for clear factual matters such as show outcomes and voting summaries is fine, but not descriptions of contestants or their activities. Such descriptions are inherently contentious.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) only applies to fictional works, so to the extent that this guideline covers non-fictional TV programs, it doesn't find support in the MOS. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. While "reality" shows feature real people, the summary is still just a summary of the episode (and we all know they are half made up anyway :-P). That does not need any secondary source to say that in episode ABC, contest "X did this, Y did this, Z did this, X and Z fought, D was voted off" or whatever. The same applies with summarizing documentaries, and what not. Nor is it a BLP issue as you are still summarizing a television episode - i.e. summarizing a reliable source about itself. If people are arguing over what happens in a television episode, then I'd question who actually watched the episode. And no, WAF doesn't apply to the plot (which would be a synopsis for non-fiction), though its basic guidelines are still useful. That does not mean that this guideline doesn't cover non-fiction shows. All that said, I do think the plot section could be reworked a bit to offer some basic guidance for those non-fiction and semi-non-fictional shows. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AnmaFinotera. The Plot section should be what's in the show, as inaccurately and bended as it may be, the article is about the show, same for the characters section, they still "play" a character on the show. The only issue I can come up with is if users start to use "reality show" as a source for the actors article. But then again I don't think that a "reality show", which, in most cases is scripted and not really reality, is considered a reliable source for facts about an actor. And that's not really an issue for here. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with those two posts above me. Survivor, unlike some other reality shows, is a pre-recorded series. If you listen closely (sometimes it's quite obvious, though) you can hear the start-and-stops of voices. Sometimes, you can hear lapses. This is all because of editing. CBS goes through extensive editing to make the show tell a story, in which there's a "good guy" and a "bad guy". A lot of the stuff you see on that is actually a plot line that is made when the editors show certain clips to develop the characters. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC which could affect this MOS

It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

American POV in the MOS

"In the case of the general public, we use Nielsen Ratings to determine popularity of a show, as it would be extremely difficult to find an accurate representation of fan opinion."

Maybe noöne noticed this but stating to use Nielsen ratings by name actually instructs to use American ratings, even on a show that is foreign to (aka imported into) the USA. In most cases this would not be much of an issue but for those shows which are popular domestically and are also popular imports to the USA it makes for a significant clash of guidelines and instructions. More often than not this is simply ignored as in Spooks and Doctor Who but for those shows which air in the USA concurrent to their domestic airing things become a mess. That is where the American POV found in the MOSTV can actually be cited as cause to use foreign ratings over the domestic ratings for a show.

I noticed this just today whilst looking into policy and guidelines due to the disagreement regarding ratings and mixed use of domestic and foreign information as principal on Rookie Blue. Anything else i looked into said to use domestic or made no mention. I did find it a bit odd to see instruction to use Nielsen on the MOS. What is not really too well known is that the Canadian ratings are a joint venture with Nielsen but they do not use the Nielsen name. Semantics but still contributing to the problem. This issue would also affect shows such as Flashpoint and The Listener, as well as future shows to come from the up-trend in Canadian shows airing in the US or any coming from anywhere outside of the US (such as Merlin, which thankfully does not suffer from this issue), and editing of various shows already ended.

What i am proposing is a revision something more like, "In the case of the general public, we use the ratings information from companies such as Nielsen or BARB to determine popularity of a show, as it would be extremely difficult to find an accurate representation of fan opinion." It is a rather tiny change but this opens it up to acknowledge use of ratings beyond the American market whilst clearly demonstrating what is acceptable and what is not. Cheers delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 13:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree with that change, though I think we should use something more specific than companies and maybe rework the opening a bit as it seems out of place with the rest of the paragraph. Maybe something like, "In determining viewership and the 'popularity' of a program, ratings information must come from authoritative sources, such as Nielsen or BARB, rather than from user polls and fan sites." What do you think? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

LOE pages and 'Series Overview' tables

Should we continue to be including "Series overview" tables, which basically list the start and end date for each season, when we follow them up with tables that list the start and end date for each season? These "overview" tables seem redundant to me, because they don't really add anything to the page. They basically summarize already existing summaries. The season tables themselves are summaries of season pages, or episode pages (or both). The lead section should contain any relevant dates (start of the series, end of the series, start of a new season), and each season section header should include broadcasting years for readers to easily locate a season if they knew what year it was aired. So, do we actually need these series overview tables that appear to repeat the same summarized information that already exists on the LOE pages?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally think they can go. The lead should have the summary of the season information, and as you note the header includes the years. The "ep counts" are unnecessary, really. That said, I've seen people fight tooth and nail over keeping them, particularly if they have DVD release dates as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the DVD release info should be last anyway. It isn't like the series was sold before it aired on television.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I do think its fairly minor, comparatively, though I like to just summarize it in the lead unless its a very big series (i.e. 8+ seasons) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Most LOE pages are bland with no prose. So I would say a "Summary" table is sufficient if it lists the airdates and most importantly the DVD releases. When the page develops, if ever, it can hit the road AFAIC. Also, I read the discussion on BIGNOLE's page about an editor suggesting transculded episode tables should now be used, since it's the "norm". That's great, something else to learn to do. The Nip/Tuck page now uses it, and when I went to edit the page, nothing was there but a {{Nip/Tuck season 1}}, etc. It took me a minute to figure out what was going on (though I still don't. lol). —Mike Allen 20:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For long lists, like AnmaFinotera says, this is very handy, I think it's even handy for lesser seasons. The overview does what it's supposed to do, it gives a quick overview of the series, nothing more, because that's all that's supposed to do. Yes it reiterates what's on the page, but then just remove all the infobox templates because that's what they are supposed to do. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 16:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera actually said, "I personally think they should go". They aren't handy in any way. What purpose do they actually serve that isn't served already on the page? None. You haven't actually provided any reason to have them, and you admit that they just reiterate the same material. Infoboxes typically don't repeat a list of information that is already listed. An infobox contains a list of actors, but the section for the actors is supposed to contain prose (since we're not IMDb). What you're wanting is a list of a list. It's not the same thing. It seems like you feel the average reader is either too stupid, or just too lazy, to realize that everything in your "overview" list is repeated, verbatim, in the very next section(s) underneath the "overview". That's like summarizing the lead paragraphs, before providing the actual lead paragraphs. With a TOC, and section headers that should include broadcasting years, you don't need an "overview". There is no prose on the page to be summarized, why would you need to summarize air dates?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera also said, "though I like to just summarize it in the lead unless its a very big series (i.e. 8+ seasons)". There purpose it to give an overview of the seasons, when they started, ended and how many episodes they have and in many cases this is combined with DVD releases. Again its purpose is to give an overview. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 17:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I mostly use the overview tables to jump to the correct season, although I could technically also use the TOC. But, especially with longer-running shows, it can be very helpful to immediately see the year of production, the episode count, and when special TV movies aired between seasons. E.g. List of Stargate SG-1 episodes or List of Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) episodes. I don't care where the DVD info is listed, but if there is a table for the above, it only makes sense to include the DVD info there also. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

In my understanding of what she wrote, AnmaFinotera was referring to including DVD information first if it's a big series, not including a needless table that says how many episodes and what the season premiere/finales are. Though I could be wrong, I'm pretty sure that's what she was saying. It makes little sense to include the DVD info first. That's like putting the critical reception first. You need to have a series before you have a DVD release...typically. As for the overview topic. Again, you're repeating the information that is already summarized. So, what valid reason is there to summarize already summarized information? If the TOC takes care of a "jump to season", and the section headers list the years of broadcast...what other necessity is the overview table? Especially when the DVD info should be separate and at the end of the page (with the lead pointing out that the seasons were released on DVD).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I was saying the table might be useful for a longer length series, where having eight+ sentences of "season X ran from Y to Z" would make for an unweildy lead. In such a case, the lead would already be a proper length without the season by season summary and the table would replace the lead. I was also saying that, again except for longer series, there should be no DVD section at the end, just a simple summary in the lead. If the conditions are right for having a series overview table, then including the DVD releases in there is fine. There are, of course, exceptions on the DVD release as well. For example, List of Meerkat Manor episodes is an FL episode list. It is only four seasons long, so it has no series overview table (though it did once). The seasons are nicely summarized in the lead. It does have a distribution section for the online and DVD release summary (note, no tables), however I am strongly thinking about merging those into the lead as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

But what is the point of the overview? You are not summarizing anything. You're just listing dates that are already listed just below the table. Unless you're talking about Law & Order type of length--which has been on for 20 years--then it's really unnecessary to have. We aren't telling the reader anything important. The different season premiere/finales are just minutia. You might as well have a table that lists the directors/writers, because they're just as important as some random date for the season premiere/finale. You're acting like there is a significance to those dates, when there isn't. The only significant dates are when the show first aired, and when it finally went off the air. A true "overview" of the "seasons" would be the brief blurb that each LOE page should have in the lead that summarizes the show itself across all of the seasons. The overview table does not hold any actual value, especially when you have the TOC sitting literally right next to it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Overview break

I have to agree with Bignole with this situation. Why include a table listing EXACTLY everything that is listed a few inches below? All you need to do is scroll down. It is incredibly redundant. I was pointed here by User:Begoon because of a disagreement on List of V (2009 TV series) episodes. The user suggested that whatever format is used, should be used on all episode lists. I agree with this also. My main issue, first and foremost, is with neatness. The difference between Law & Order, "V", the X-Files, and Smallville is purely neatness. Smallville, being the "most neat", doesn't have a series overview. X files then gets into a whole buch of "-"s, "V" gets messed up with the table of contents and the overview, while Law and Order is honestly the only "neat" one with the overview (but then again, there is still quite a few "n/a"s). The second problem is: isn't the overview a total redundancy with the lead and table of contents? The lead is supposed to give an overview of the whole series's episodes with the table of contents allowing you to click on different sections (whether its ratings or season 5) and give you a more elaborate explination of what was "overviewed" in the lead. If an "overview" is added, this defeats the purpose of both. The lead is basically the series overview in prose format. Also, I noticed that 90% of episode lists on wikipedia are inconsistant with the MOS of the date. Instead of listing two full years 2001-2002, it should be presented as 2001-02 (unless it is 1999-2000). Firthermore, half the articles list each season as "Season 1 (2001-02)", when in fact it would be less confusing to list that as "Season 1: 2001-02". ChaosMaster_Chat 02:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential changes to WP:WAF

There is currently a discussion over at WP:BIO with regard to how we present fictional characters' names in the lead paragraph of their articles (i.e. whether they should be listing commonly used names, or any full variation that is reliably sourced as they do for real people). It would be good for the WAF guideline to be an accurate reflection of the community consensus on this issue so that we can identify it as such in the actual guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images in "List of ... episodes"

At Wikipedia:MOSTV#.22List_of_....22_structure, it advocates the use of title screens on lists of episodes articles; "Ideally, this image will be the title screen from the series". There's several problems with that. First that isn't common practice. Going through the first 50 articles in Category:Lists of television series episodes, not one has a non-free title screen from the series. The only featured list of those first 50 is List of Brotherhood episodes, and it does not have a title screen on it. Second WP:NFCC implores us to restrict non-free images to minimal use, and to pay respect to significance. Also, it's highly unlikely that a person going to a "List of ... episodes" is going to be confused about what article they have landed on without the title screen. This use fails at least two criteria of the WP:NFCC requirements. Third a similar range of articles, that of discographies for music artists, does not permit the use of band logos on discographies, instead preferring a link back to the band's article if someone needs to see the logo of the band. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style#Fair_use_materials. I believe the advice being given in this MOS is at odds with common practice, WP:NFCC, and MOS for other related article groupings.

I don't think it's inappropriate to be including a DVD cover for a DVD release comprising an entire season if that article is about the season. But, including the title screen is redundant to the main article, violates NFCC, and isn't common practice. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes; exactly what you said. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was removed awhile ago....I know that for many shows a non-free version of the title card can be created since you cannot copyright basic text and font (i.e. see List of Smallville episodes).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Repeat ratings

Hello, I was wandering if somebody could help me. I have a lot of trouble trying to keep certain pages notable. So I have a ratings section and include repeat ratings in this section. Are repeat ratings notable and allowed? Jayy008 (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they are not allowed, but most of the time they aren't really noteworthy. Typically, if a repeat rating is noteworthy it's usually accompanied by prose that details why this repeat is special enough to be mentioned.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I didn't mean a table, by the way. I meant a prose section with the original ratings and a sentence next to it saying "A further (number) tuned in for a repeat on..." Jayy008 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Awards and nominations, or accolades: table, list, or prose?

I have started a discussion on Talk:Hellcats about the section formerly named "Awards and Nominations," which had been formatted as a table (contents: exactly one award.) The section was renamed to "Accolades," and the contents were reformatted as prose. I disagreed with this decision and reverted, however, the change was reinstated, so per WP:BRD I have started discussion. It was stated that there is a rule that awards be presented as prose. I could find no such rule stating either way, whether table or prose, or even a bulleted list. I did a quick survey by searching "accolades" and found that many pages named "List of <so-and-so> accolades and nominations" are redirects to "List of awards and nominations for <so-and-so>." To me, this says that 'Accolades' is a secondary, non-standard term. The contents of the searched pages I found were fairly uniform in presenting awards in a tabular format, and when not in tables, they were bulleted lists. I could not find one example of prose in a dedicated awards article. I realize that this is comparing one extreme to another -- Hellcats received one nomination; List of awards and nominations received by Brad Pitt is exhaustive, so perhaps presenting a single accolade as prose is preferable. It might depend on balancing ease of reading with ease of editing and I can see where the reader will win out. Those are my thoughts - what about yours? Elizium23 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Accolades" is the new term being used by the Film Project. This project has not started discussions about its use at this time. The Film project also believes that unless you're dealing with an exceptionally large number of awards (see The Dark Knight (film) for an example), then prose is going to look better. Right now, there is no indication that Hellcats is going to be an award hound, and I don't see any problem with having a sentence over a single line table to convey the message of being nominated for something. As far as this page goes, I don't think it's ever been discussed one way or the other. It's certainly something that should be addressed here (BTW, please visit above discussions for other changes to this MOS that are still pending).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Cast lists and is/was

Over the past year or two I've seen an increasing number of editors who always ask "where is that written down" when a policy or standard practice is mentioned. Two such cases that apply here are cast lists and use of "is" and "was" in the lede of articles about discontinued TV programs. "We always treat fiction in the present" is often stated but it doesn't seem to be addressed here. This leads to both of the issues mentioned. TV articles often split characters into "current" and "former" sections and often, as soon as a TV series ends is changed to "Foo was a television program....". While common-sense should prevail, unfortunately it seems that it is becoming rare these days. "May contain traces of peanuts" is something that you never used to see but now it appears everywhere, sometimes even on jars/bags of peanuts. It just seems that people need to be told as they can't work it out for themselves. So, my question is, shouldn't we include the following in the MOS:

• Fiction is always treated in the present
• TV articles start with "Foo is a television program...." and not "Foo was a television program...." even if the article has ended/been cancelled
• Cast lists should not be split into current/former sections.

Obviously, this is not the actual wording but I feel these really need to be written down for the benefit of the increasing number of people who need the "may contain traces of peanuts" warning. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, beat me to it. Here are some existing sections that partially address these points:

"References to the show should be in the present tense since shows no longer airing still exist, including in the lead (i.e. Title is a...)." (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television)#Lead paragraphs)

"When organizing the cast section, please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television)#Cast information)

Might be worth clarifying where needed, and perhaps add a summary? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read the MOS a few times and somehow completely missed the sentence in WP:TVLEAD. oops! Thanks for pointing it out. Still, the issue with the cast remains. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea of "current" and "former" becomes irrelevant when the show ends and to list it before it ends would be playing into recentism. It's best to just list the cast in the order that they first appeared on the show and then indicate in prose somewhere that certain cast members have left. Some editors want to do "former" and "current" with a reasoning of "it is less confusing to the reader", but readers are not stupid (well, most aren't). If they're reading, then they can read prose that explains the cast situation. By just listing in the order of first appearance you stay objective and do not apply more prestige to newer cast members just because they are newer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Also (after what Bignole said), the definition of current/former is very hard if a show airs world-wide. What may be "former character" in the US, may still be "current" in the UK, and vice versa. Therefore, as a general rule, character lists should not be split into current/former. However, I can imagine that there are some soap operas that ran for 20 years plus and where 90% of the (current and former) main cast is no longer on the show. There it would make sense to split into "current" and "former". I wouldn't mind spelling out the general rule in the MOS though. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Both of you present valid points, which is why I think we need to spell it out. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Consistency with WP:FILM

As IMDb is essentially a wiki, WP:FILM does not consider it a reliable source. For consistency in this sister project, and under WP:RS in general, I propose that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television) adopt this language verbatim (with change in brackets) from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources

Questionable resources

IMDb

The IMDb should be regarded as a questionable source, especially for future [programming]. Its content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged. Reliable sourcing from established publications cannot be stressed enough. Anonymous or pseudonymous sources from online fansites are generally not acceptable. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This MOS doesn't talk about sources at all, with exception to brief mentioning of where not to get information for a particular section. Overall, we let WP:RS provide the information about what is and is not a reliable source. Otherwise, We'd have to have an entire page (like WP:FILM does) devoted entirely to discuss all appropriate and inappropriate sources. Singling out IMDb on this page I think would be inappropriate. It would merely create a constant "well you didn't say this source was unacceptable" and then we'd have to put that source in as well. If you're willing/wanting/etc. to create a Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Resources page for this project then it would certainly be appreciated.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see why it is used in film, being the Internet Movie Database the name rather invites use on film articles. It isn't as inaccurate as most people here like to make it out to be. I am rather not fond of creating a list of acceptable resources for articles. See all of my micro/mega-rants about some handful of shows actually being Canadian despite the claims of reliable American media. I do fear creating an 'acceptable sources list' would create more issue in these matters i work with than it could ever possibly help and in general i don't see a use for such a list given the extreme variety of information the hollywood reporters give to the usa today and yester-year. the futon critic typically doesn't look to have their work used as a reference on WP. ;) In the Canadian TV section there are a couple of those evil blogs that are used because of whom the authors are and because in the Canadian entertainment media there just does not exist sources like Variety, Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, The Futon Critic, or Deadline & TVLine. Australia and India and Scotland all have different sources for their programming too. How global the acceptable sources you include are will depend on whether you garner my appreciation or not, if you make such a list. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 23:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we're getting a thoughtful discussion going. Given what you're both saying, would you agree that we should at least remove from the current page the couple of references that seem to recommend using IMDb. Given the general consensus about its unreliability, what do you think about at least making the page neutral about it? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We should definitely take those out. I am all in favor of discouraging its use - and its inaccuracy has led to several disputes in my short time here editing - but the points above about creating a list of resources are well taken. I will personally continue to delete it on sight from articles I watch. I can still cite WP:RS/IMDB - just because it's only in WP Film doesn't mean it's bad advice. Elizium23 (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is it supporting its use? The only instances that I can see of its mentioning are: "The key is to provide real world context to the character through production information, and without simply re-iterating IMDb." - "IMDb keeps a comprehensive list of the crew members for each television show; as such, most of the key crew members are already listed in the infobox and do not need to be listed in the article." - " This means that IMDb, TV.com, and the other similar websites that give "fan polls" are not reliable sources of information." - "Links to the Official Website, TV.com, or IMDb profile pages should go in the external links section of the article."

Nothing there suggests a recommendation of use. The first is pointing out that people try and recreate the cast list from IMDb for TV articles that that should not be done. The next points out that IMDb already keeps an extensive list of crew members so we don't need to keep such a list (said lists are never controversial after production to begin with). The third explicitely states "not reliable sources of information". The last thing just says that any link to IMDb should be in the EL section of the article....which is the accepted location for IMDb. I'm not really seeing any other mentioning that "recommends" its usage. Everything here actually discourages its use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

IMDB shouldn't be singled out as the only unreliable source in this MOS. I am not in favor of a new Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Resources either, as it likely wouldn't be maintained as well as the FILM MOSes. Either link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources as a good guide, or simply point to WP:RS. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with most previous posts here, yes IMDb is an unreliable source, and it pops up fairly frequently, especially for episode titles. Every once in a while there's someone who sticks to the "IMDb isn't reliable? What are you talking about?" stance. I see no reason to single out IMDb here.

Although the current wording mentions IMDb which vaguely implies that it is reliable for cast and crew members (but just not to simply re-itterate it), or just not for "fan polls". This might need adjustment or simply removal of mention. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the only thing that would need rewording would be the addition of "previously aired episodes" to the mentioning of cast and crew, because IMDb is reliable when it comes to listing the cast and crew of films/TV shows that have been released, just not for unreleased shows. Otherwise, you'd probably need to start a discussion for its removal from pages entirely.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Big. It's actually not — I work as a journalist who writes about television, among other things, and frankly I'm appalled by how many things I find wrong on IMDb even on current shows for which information is readily available, much less older shows. In any case, the issue is the "Crew" subsection, which does indeed recommend IMDb, and for neutrality's sake in addition to accuracy concerns probably shouldn't, as most of the those posting seem to agree.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't recommend using it, it states that IMDb lists the crew and so the crew does not need to be listed on Wikipedia. It's not saying use IMDb, it's not judging IMDb's reliability, it's simply stating the list of crew members can be found outside of Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's how I read it: By saying something can be found on IMDb, it's saying we can use IMDb for that. That's a recommendation. In any case, using IMDb as a reference source contradicts the guideline that we only include it as an EL. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation is that it says "dont include it here because it's indiscriminate and can be found elsewhere". Even if it was interpreted as "you can use IMDb for that" there are other places here that says "IMDb is not a reliable source for information".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be saying that "key crew members are already listed in the infobox" because "IMDb keeps a comprehensive list of the crew members for each television show." That's the reason I interpret it as saying that IMDb is used to provide crew-member names in the infobox. It's the "as such" that clinches it for me.

I'm not sure at this point what the argument is in favor of keeping that IMDb mention here. Most of the other editors above seem in favor of removing it. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't intended to be mentioned as a "we got this from IMDB". It's a discouragement from just listing every crew member possible because every crew member is not worth mentioning in the article. As such, IMDB already keeps a comprehensive listing of all crew members, and so we don't need to list every possible crew member. That's all it's intended to say. It's a section whose only purpose is to dissuade editors from creating an indiscriminate listing of all the people that worked on the show. The section isn't about the infobox, but about the "Crew" sections you find on some season pages that just reiterate a listing of crew members. It's there to point out what I just said, that simply listing all crew members is not recommended, and if a reader needs a comprehensive list then IMDb can provide that list. That's all that section is intended to say. Personally, I think identifying a location of where said information can be found can be helpful. It's the same reason why we say we have Wikias for overly detailed plot summaries. We're not advocating their use, just simply pointing out where that information can be found. If there is a better way to word it, then please suggest so. I'm more than happy to discuss a better way to say the same thing. I don't think simply removing the word "IMDB" is going to do that though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we simply can't say: "Key crew members for each television show are listed in the infobox and do not need to be listed in the article. Generally, if there are any important people associated with the show they will be mentioned somewhere in the production information." I've genuinely been trying to think of a reason why we would not use IMDb as a reference source and yet tell people they should go there for reference information.

We seem to be the only ones discussing this today. Not that I don't like your company  :-)  but I'm wondering if others might weigh in on the points we're bringing up. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Let them comment if they want, but I've come to the realization that I don't really care if it's in that statement or not. It's not really going to change how we operate in articles anyway, because we delete anything from IMDb basically on sight anyway. :P I think the argument was based more on a difference in how something was interpreted and not based on any actual difference in how things should operate. I'm happy with your proposed wording.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's true: We agreed on the essence, which is the more important thing. I've waited a day to see if others in the discussion had any objection, so I'll go ahead and adjust the wording as given here. I appreciate the opportunity we had to discuss this. As you know, I have great regard for your as an editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Naming of characters.

Hi

I have been copy-editing an article and wondered whether the policy was different form normal MoS policy on names.

Normal MoS says to use a name in full, Fred Bloggs, and following should be "Bloggs said", "Bloggs was" etc

In many TV articles on characters the articles use "Fred Bloggs" and then almost all use "Fred" throughout the articles.

Anyone help me here?

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the normal MOS is geared toward real life people. In such a case, it's professional writing to refer to them by their surname. For most fictional characters, they either do not have a surname or it was given to them later and is not common knowledge. So, it flip flops on how we use it. For instance, I would not say "Voorhees kills camp counselor". I would say "Jason kills camp counselor" because Jason is not a real person and most people do not identify him as "Mr. Voorhees". On the flip side, I would say "Ripley destroys all of the alien eggs" and not "Ellen ....." because in this case the most commonly identified name for the character is actually her surname. So, for fictional characters we typically use the commonly known name as the identifier. That would be like "Buffy, "Spongebob", "Freddy", "Lois", "House", "Kirk", "Spock", etc. It just depends on what is commonly used to identify the fictional character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you, or someone, write that into the TV MoS then please?

It would be of great assistance in the future if needed to be referenced and to ensure copy-editors can easily understand that this is the way it is done on TV articles.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, but not right this second. I want to make sure that my view on how we handle that matches the same view as others in the community. I mean, that is certainly how I handle it but I want to make sure I'm not sitting alone here. So, let's let others weigh in and if they agree then we can add something in the character section of this page regarding that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

BIGNOLE and i somewhat agree :) Personally i never use just a surname but rather title and surname or given and surname as i find surname alone to be the pinnacle of bad style. Summers, Squarepants, Krueger, Laine, Gregory, James, < unpronounceable >. Forcing use of surnames when the characters are not known as such if their surnames are even known is not really practical. Just as there are many people who don't know Mr Belvedere's given name or that Dr House has any other name. It gets even worse when the show is about a family and a majority of the characters are named Davies or Cleaver. Ted, Marshall, Barney, Robin, & Lily. Mosby, Eriksen, Stinson, Sparkles, & Aldrin. One of these just sounds messa and wrong if you have any idea what you are reading or writing about. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 19:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What Bignole and Delirous said. Mention the first+last name somewhere for context, and then name the character how he is most often called on the show. Though, if a character is referred to by his first and last name equally (like Samantha Carter on Stargate SG-1), I'd prefer to read the last name. It sounds more professional and less fanboy-like that way. That may depend on the kind of show though. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, be careful on what you put in the lead sentence. Just because a character has a surname does not mean that that was the original name for the character. For example, Faith Lehane was only ever "Faith" during her appearances on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The surname of "Lehane" did not come about until a role-playing game later. Though it's important to note, it's not part of her original name, nor is it her most commonly known name. So, if you got a character who was only ever known by one name for most of a series then then one episode they "reveal" a surname or something then it's good to note but that article title and the lead sentence should reflect historical accuracy and not recent events. We don't treat characters like they've always had the characteristics they display if they have not always had them. Since they are not real, the argument of "well it was always there they just didn't show it" isn't accurate and does not apply.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is a case of one or two characters having both first and last names used freely within the fiction itself, I would consider staying as consistent with all other characters: if they all normally go by first name, then use the first name of this characters, and etc., that simply keeps all the characters in the same degree of formality. Of course, that depends on the work too. If it's a show where the characters are ranking (stargate, star trek, etc.), it is almost always that the last name is used more often. It's consistency within the article/set of articles that is important. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Updates to the MOS

Progress on consensus

• rearrange episode list, placement of episode table ( no. 7 accepted, discussion)

• removal of "Series Overview" table ( denied, see discussion)
• removal of DVD release dates in series overview table (pending, see ongoing discussion)
• removal of unsourced future dates in headers ( no. 6 accepted, see discussion)

• conversion of DVD information to prose format ( no. 2 accepted, see discussion)
• removal of broadcasting lists ( no. 1 accepted, see discussion)
• removal of interlanguage links ( no. 5 accepted, see discussion)
• cast section format ( no. 3 accepted, see discussion)
• ratings section format (pending, see ongoing discussion)
• removal of excessive coloring in tables ( no. 4 accepted, see discussion)

There is currently a discussion above (see #LOE pages and 'Series Overview' tables) regarding "overview" tables in List of Episode pages. First, I'd like to find out where we are in that discussion. Secondly, I'd like to have us discuss two more areas of interest.

The first being the order in which a page should be layed out. Currently, season pages and some episode articles are starting to put the episode table dead last, or at least behind production info. I think this is being done based on a chronological order concept (i.e., you make the show then you air it, then it's received, and last released on DVD). I think we need a standard style across the board because this isn't reflective everwhere. My personal stance is that episodes should come first, primarily because their entire existence (per WP:WAF) is to provide context to the real world information. If they come last, or are in the middle, then they fail to provide that context. If you're reading about how they came up with a character, or did some effects, yet you have to scroll down to find the corresponding episode just to find out exactly what happened then you're missing the point of the episode summaries providing that context. If the table came first you'd read the summaries and already have a basic idea of what happens in each episode, so when you come across that OOU info you better understand it. TV is closely related to Film, and this order is the standard way in which film articles are written.

The second area of interest is in the DVD release section. Recently in reviews, I've started noticing that the DVD release section becomes less about discussing when a DVD was released, or how much it sold, and more about detailing every minute special feature the box sets have. This strikes me more like we're a vender trying to sell something and less like we're a encyclopedia trying to educate. I could see if the information was more prose based, and we discuss the importance of certain features, but what I've seeing is merely a table that bullet lists the features and looks like the back of a box set.

What are other's opinions on this matter?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Order of the episode table

Accepted and implemented

I agree completely on the episode table issue; I tend to think of it as the equivalent of the "Plot" section in a film article so I see a direct parallel in the order you propose. Millahnna (mouse)talk 18:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC) I think I agree about the episode list coming first because that's what the article is about. But, I can see an argument made for chronological. Either way, I think consistency is very important, so they should always be the same. One thing to remember is that top down mandates like that can drive editors away (remember the argument over adding (Whatever episode) to the end of every episode article? I lost a wikifriend over that, so we need to be careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine Fisher (talk • contribs) I don't really know how the movement came to start working away from Plot first and everything else after. I'm not sure there is real consensus for it to be around other than the argument of "it's what the other FL pages are doing". I don't think I've seen someone argue any real reason as to why episode lists were being placed either behind production or at the end of the article altogether (seen a few of those). I see an argument for "chronological order of events", but to me the flip side as more arguments against that reasoning: "Context for real world information should come first", "the page is about those episodes, it wouldn't make sense to downplay their importance", or even "Most readers are probably coming to read up no plot summaries before they read up on anything else".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC) While I agree that the episode list should be more at the top, although when the lead is short and the infobox has info and an image this can create giant blocks of whitespace. Next to that, some articles include a Plot section in addition to the episode list. Definitely not at the end of the page, but not sure about the very top either. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC) As far as the order of the page goes. I think the "white gap" issue is a browser issue coupled with the fact that the leads are often not completely fleshed out, and images may be presented too large in the infobox itself. For example, here I tested it out with the first season of Lost. I moved the episode table up, lowered the image size down to 175px, and it all fit. Now, granted if the explanation section for what each "#" field represents was not there then it would have a gap, but I also consider the lead of that page to be a little inadequate. It doesn't mention who created the series, any executive producers that run the series, main cast members, the fact that it was nominated for any awards, etc. In fact, that is a really crappy lead for a featured list. Anyway, if that lead was written the way it should be, then the issue of blank space is significantly reduced.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC) The white gap isn't a browser error, there used to be an error that caused the episode table to overlap with the infobox, that has since been resolved, that's why some pages still have a {{Clear}} or {{-}} before the episode list. The "fitting" still depends on the size of your browser window though. More basic seasonal pages include a cast list before the episode list. It really isn't that big of an issue though. I do support the removal of them at the very end of the page. Xeworlebi (talk) 09:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I really don't know about this. I think that Lost (season 1) is a very well laid out article. It provides a good overview of the information about the season, and that information would be lost if it was dropped below the table. If there's not a lot of information above the table, yes, it can make things look a bit bare, so I'd say an article by article idea would be better, rather than a chronological or episode-centric be-all-and-end-all approach. -- WORMMЯOW  09:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC) But the page is about the season one episodes, and they are dead last of the page (pardon, they're just above the DVD release). You lose the context of the plot info when it's last. IMO, it needs to be above the production info for the production info to have the context necessary to completely understand it. There is a reason that film pages and episode pages put plot summaries first.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Hmmm, I do find this a difficult one. The way I see it, this isn't just a list of episodes, it's a summary of the season from a real world perspective, which includes the list of episodes. I wish a lot more list of episodes were so in depth from a real world perspective. I don't see that this draws a parallel with the single episodes, as there is a large difference between a prose summary of an episode and a big table of episodes. I suppose it would make sense to move the Cast and Crew down, but if there is real world information about the production of a season in general, I don't see any problem with having it in an article about the season above the list of episodes. -- WORMMЯOW  14:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC) In the case of the article you linked, there is no production info. The "Cast" and "Crew" sections are merely prose-based list of the people involved. this is a season page with production info. If I read all of that before I ever saw the episodes page, I would probably be a bit confused because I wouldn't understand what episode X was about when they discuss it in the production section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Since we have some agreement here, does anyone propose a standard of wording to be added to the appropriate section?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC) To the top of the "Parent, season, and episode" section, we could add something like: "The basic order of these pages tends to follow: Lead, episode plot, production, and critical reception; with any other miscellaneous sections coming afterward. This is because Wikipedia uses plot information as context for the real world information in the article. Often, the details about a particular episode's production make more sense when the reader already knows what happened in the episode. For this to occur, the plot information should come before the production information. This is the same setup as followed on film articles, which have the same structure as television articles." It's a bit wordy, but the gist is there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Shorter: "The basic order of these pages tends to follow: Lead, episode plot, production, and critical reception; with any other miscellaneous sections coming afterward. This is because Wikipedia uses plot information as context for understanding the real world information in the article. Often, the details about a particular episode's production make more sense when the reader already knows what happened in the episode. For this to occur, the plot information should come before the production information. This is the same setup as followed on [F]ilm articles, which have the same structure as television articles, have the same setup." – sgeureka t•c 16:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I'm fine withthat. I assumed the extra explanation was the wordy part that could get cut.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC) So, shall we go ahead and add this to the MOS?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 08:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

DVD information

Accepted and implemented

I think I basically agree on the DVD features issue. The bulleted lists and tables come out looking exactly as you describe and we don't need to list every bonus on the DVD. At the same time, I'd be a little bit concerned if we were too limiting on what features we chose to leave out. Again, I find myself comparing it to film articles (though both projects do many things differently, there is certainly plenty of crossover). In most film articles I've seen where DVD extras are discussed, the method seems to be along the lines of: "Bonus features on the box set includes deleted scenes, several making of featurettes (including one specific to the [insert random groundbreaking visual effect here]), and an alternate ending where some other guy died instead of the guy who died in the above plot summary. Additionally, early concept art by [misc. awesome effects designer] is included with notes on the development process." Then sometimes there will be specific detail on things like deleted scenes or alternate endings if there are interviews out there discussing the changes. I don't see why the same approach wouldn't work here at WP:TV. Millahnna (mouse)talk 18:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC) The approach you're talking about is pretty much what I was referring to. I think important stuff can be stated in prose form. I don't think we need to identify every episode that has an audio commentary on it. I think just pointing that out is enough. I think the "Ratio scope" is irrelevant as far as the DVD is concerned. It's probably not too different than the scope the show is filmed/aired in and that's on the main page anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC) A good example of a tv page that needs an overhaul in this area is the True Blood series on HBO. The whole article is littered with tables that are more visually problematic than helpful to my eye. While some of the tables there are potentially useful, I see no reason why the DVD releases can't be switched easily to prose. Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I agree that DVD stuff shouldn't be too detailed (it should be used for episode pages ;-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine Fisher (talk • contribs) For the DVD info, do you think we should utilize more of a prose setup, and less in the table? I'm not saying no tables at all, but maybe limit tables to basic info like release dates, number of episodes provided, etc? Then allow prose information to cover any important, if anything, special features on said discs?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC) On the DVD issue, Lost (TV_series)#DVD and Blu-ray Disc releases is a great example of prose (minus the citation flags).... though I think, looking at it now, that the header name should be switched to Home media. Smallville#Home release is also a good example of the section in table format with prose above. Personally, I don't see how we can make a stand alone section saying everything that can be explained in a table as prose. Then again, do we really need to know that season 1 had 4 discs? By getting rid of the series overview and adding some DVD info to the lead, having the section in prose would be beneficial. Furthermore, the featured article Supernatural season one has a very good section, not too long, not too short. Hopefully my input help. ChaosMasterChat 22:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC) I really dislike those silly DVD tables in the season pages. As you said, they just list extraneous details which aren't even important to the average reader. I've been converting all DVD tables to prose in articles that I've been working on, like at Veronica Mars (season 1)#Distribution. I also don't understand the obsession with listing the release date in numerous countries. The region release dates are understandable, but listing dates of specific countries starts to get a bit over detailed. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 11:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC) DVD release section: I don't really have a problem with the DVD tables, but it could be just as well be presented as prose. The DVD extras are what most people buy DVD's for these day. Peregrine Fisher suggest moving more info to the episode page. While I agree with that a lot of shows don't have episodic articles because they get deleted and that type of information is then lost instead of moved to other sections where it could be appropriate. Additionally, moving info to episode articles can degrade the quality of the main article and create dozens of mediocre articles instead of a few good ones. I don't really have a preference either way, as long as it doesn't go with mass deletion of information. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I don't think the solution would be to move anything to the episode page--I've already seen multiple Family Guy episode pages that were GA status and they all regurgitated the exact same DVD and production info down the line for that particular season--I think that when you look at the current setup, there is a lot of stuff that can be cut without loss of true information. For instance, in the page I linked you could technically cut everything on the left side. We don't need to know the languages it comes in, or the Dolby sound quality, the number of episodes, or the disc count. Unless the number of episodes is different than what aired in the season (i.e. they did not package a controversial episode for some reason), then it should be automatically assumed that all episodes are present and accounted for. The stuff on the right could be easily transitioned to prose content. What we need to ask ourselves is, "Do we need to identify every episode with a commentary, or can we simply say there are multiple episodes with commentaries from People X, Y, and Z?" - Can we give a brief explanation of what the featurette is about? That kind of stuff.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC) In my experience, prose works better than overdetailed DVD info tables. Wikipedia is not amazon. Special Features should be summarized and unique things should still be mentioned. – sgeureka t•c 07:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Another person agreeing about prose here. I don't see that we need every feature listed, that information is available on shopping sites. I'd go so far as to say that a feature should be notable to be mentioned, for example the alternate endings on 24 which were used to stop leaks of the final cut, but if it's just trivia, does it need to be there at all? -- WORMMЯOW  08:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Could we say: "Features listed about a DVD should be presented in prose format, with focus only going to unique features. Listing of every episode with a commentary track or deleted scenes is discouraged--this is typically found on every television DVD set--this type of information can be readily provided by any sales vendor. Instead, focusing on special featurettes that discuss something unique about the season would be appropriate." --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC) IMO perfect. – sgeureka t•c 16:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Reception/reviews of home media

Accepted and implemented

How about adding something about including reviews for the DVD/Blu-ray and it's special features/quality etc. in this section? Xeworlebi (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC) In general, I don't think there would be anything wrong with it, so long as there was something with substance. I think one-liners shouldn't be used, and silly things like "Critic X did not like the fact that there was no blooper reel" are probably irrelevant. The good stuff is probably going to come from people actually discussing the extras themselves, like commenting on how detailed or non-detailed a particular featurette is, or the fact that the commentary on the episodes was less about what went into making the episode and more about random jokes while watching the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I didn't really think there would be anything wrong with it, but is it something we should include in the MOS? (I think it should) As for reviews http://www.blu-ray.com does some really in-dept reviews of the quality of sound and audio, not so much on extra's although it goes over the quality/quantity of those as well. And for example Veronica Mars (season 1) has some stuff about the lack of special features and that it was released after the second season premiered. More in-dept reviews of special features would be nice, but not that easy to come by as most reviews are about the show itself and discuss special features as "it's nice, or not". Xeworlebi (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC) My thoughts exactly. I think we can add something to the MOS along the lines of, "If reviews on special features are available, and provide more than a simple passing mention (e.g., Veronica Mars season two DVD lacks a blooper reel and deleted scenes), then it would be appropriate to add that information the Home Media section of the article." - It can be worded however, this is just a quick example.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC) That implies to only include reviews of the special features' content. Take for example Human Target were I added a review from blu-ray.com talking about video and sound quality and that the reviewer found it a bit expensive for just 12 episodes. It doesn't go into the special features themselves, but I still think it's valuable to the reader. Xeworlebi (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC) No, no...I agree. I wasn't intended to isolate special features by themselves. Like I said, that was just a quick example of what we could include. Instead of saying "special features" we could leave it as simply, "reviews about the DVD (e.g., special features, sound and video quality, etc.) are available...." - Or something like that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Ah, I thought your comment had a weird contradiction in it, my mistake. How about adding "Ideally this section also includes reviews about the DVD (e.g., special features, sound and video quality, price/quality-quantity, etc.)." at the end of the Media information section. Xeworlebi (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC) I'm fine with that addition.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Series overview table

What are your thoughts on the overview tables that most articles have? In the discussion at the top of the talk page, it largely seemed like most are fine with them being removed as they were primarily used for navigational purposes (e.g., skipping to a season section or seeing the year of production), which the table of contents takes care of since we've been implementing the production years into the section headers of each season. To me, it's always been overly redundant information, because you're just repeating what an already summarized list is saying on the same page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If we want to resolve the DVD issue, whether prose or table format (more on that later), we should also resolve the overview situation. This issue, in my opinion, should be resolved. Why include a table listing EXACTLY everything that is listed a few inches below? All you need to do is scroll down. It is incredibly redundant. Begoon suggested that whatever format is used, should be used on all episode lists. I agree with this also. My main issue, first and foremost, is with neatness. The difference between Law & Order, "V", the X-Files, and Smallville is purely neatness. Smallville, being the "most neat", doesn't have a series overview. X files then gets into a whole buch of "-"s, "V" gets messed up with the table of contents and the overview, while Law and Order is honestly the only "neat" one with the overview (but then again, there is still quite a few "n/a"s). The second problem is: isn't the overview a total redundancy with the lead and table of contents? The lead is supposed to give an overview of the whole series's episodes with the table of contents allowing you to click on different sections (whether its ratings or season 5) and give you a more elaborate explanation of what was "over-viewed" in the lead. If an "overview" is added, this defeats the purpose of both. The lead is basically the series overview in prose format. ChaosMaster_Chat 22:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the points brought up by Bignole as well as some other ones.

Series overview: I did a quick count and this is what I found: from the 62 featured episode lists, 25 have a series overview, from those 37 that don't have one, 22 (60%) have only one season, 4 have two seasons and 11 episode lists have more than 3 seasons without a series overview. The "neatness" ChaosMaster talk about is entirely POV, which I disagree with and a whole bunch of editors seem to as well, looking at a large quantity of episode lists including a series overview table. And ChaosMaster16's removal of them has been objected by multiple editors across multiple articles.

The series overview is in widespread use and on 40% of the featured episode lists, 63% if you don't count the single season lists. Adding a blatant "no overview tables" on the MOS would be a definite no-no. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What would you think of a space on this MOS that simply stated "Overview tables are neither mandated nor restricted, and should be decided upon by the community of editors that work on the corresponding articles as to whether or not they should be used"? This way, it's addressed, but there isn't a specifc restriction one way or the other. My main concern, and this is something that has ocurred in the past, is that some editors see them and think they must be in every article and thus go ahead and start mass adding them to every article regardless of whether the people that edit those articles agree with their inclusion. There isn't agreement over whether they are necessary or not, but I don't really like it when something is simply added to other articles "because X articles have them". Every article is different. This is the same reason why we suggest that common sense be used when approaching the DVD information. I think that most people here at least agree that those huge boxes that seem to mirror the back of a DVD boxset are a little unnecessary and the info can be better presented in probably a more terse manner. How it's presented might just require that same topic consensus as the series overview tables. What I'm looking for more is that for things like that, at least have this MOS detail them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I like you're thinking. Everything we can't decide on, we should still mention it and say it's neither mandated nor prohibited. That way, we'll have a spot for later mandating or prohibiting it if we want. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I'd say they're worth keeping on some articles, especially when the number of seasons becomes unruly, but the "every article is different" arguement is certainly one I agree with. -- WORMMЯOW  08:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems the most reasonable, I don't see this getting a one way solution any time soon. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I like series overview tables; however, there really is no point if there's only one season. I support leaving it up to the editors, as every article is different. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 10:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(←) So, we agree that it should be left up the editors working those specific pages, but the question now becomes what should be included. Personally, I don't agree with the inclusion of DVD information in these "series overview" tables. They have nothing to do with the series itself. This is the way House does it, and I think this is fine (minus the "Ratings/Share" info that is completely confusing. I don't think DVD/Blu-Ray info should be listed in the series overview section. It's a separate topic IMO.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've already said in the other section, I don't feel that more sections such as ratings and DVD's belong on in the episode list, these should go on the main page or on the seasonal pages. Adding DVD's them to the overview is, again, wide spread use. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's widespread, but that doesn't mean it should be that way. All that means is that one person saw another page use it that way and it eventually trickled down into "standard". Trivia pages did this as well. The DVD info has no place at the top of the page like that. It's not part of the "series". It's ancillary merchandising.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It means it's perfectly acceptable, and most FL who have a series overview include them, moving them into there own section at the bottom of the episode list article is even less the place for it. And it is part of the series, in fact it is the series. I think it was correct to stop this discussion because this will just like the inclusion of the table itself go nowhere. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't actually "part" of the series. It's merchandise. You cannot have an American series (or a series broadcast in America) without Nielsen Ratings. It may be hard to find less popular shows, but they are still monitored for viewership. It's standard. Not every show is released on DVD, and know the release date of a DVD box set doesn't provide any real information other than I know I can go to my local store and buy it. Nielsen ratings at least provide info on how well a series performed. There's no reason to "stop" the discussion. Right now, it's just been me and you. No one else has weighed in on their opinion about what should be included in the overview table. No reason not to listen to others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ratings in the series overview is the exception not the standard. Ratings don't really provide that much info about how well the series did, it's all about context, a show with an average of 2.5 million viewers on Syfy is the greatest show ever, on Fox it would get canned after 5 minutes. Smallville has DVD's in a table, Ratings in a table on the episode list. I find that ratings should go on the main page and the DVD's can be added in an overview or also move to the main page. You basically support more even tables.

I believe your main reason against the overview is it's redundancy, with DVD info this is not the case. Also the series overview is the infobox of the episode list, it summarized the page, just like the infobox, and it's next to the lead, which also summarized the page. They do pretty mush the same thing. But I don't see you going against infoboxes. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no standard. There are there is merely the current practice. There was never consensus for inclusion or how it should look. There was merely silent following. Silence is consensus in one form, but this is why we are discussing this now. For a formalized consensus. If you think that ratings "don't really provide much info", then how much info does a release date for a DVD provide? It's just a date, that is far less important than the other dates in the table (i.e. premiere and finale). Yes, Smallville has a DVD table and a Ratings table....in what I see as the appropriate place - the end of the article. There are plenty of times when I feel that infoboxes are unnecessary as well. My issue with overview tables is that the lead summarizes the page, then you have the overview table that summarizes the page, then you have the page which is itself a summary. How much to we have to repeat for a reader that they can simply look at an already summarized page? Regardless, I already agreed to a compromise of let the editors choose for that specific page. My concern now is that we need language for this MOS discussing that, and discussing what should be in these overview tables. Personally, I just think it's weird to put DVD information as the first thing on the page. We're not here to sell a product, so why should the DVD release info be the first thing we read about? That's all I'm asking.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't exactly see why we should include the overview in the first place. This is what the lead is for. If we have a table stating exactly what is stated above in prose format (Season one premiere, ending, ratings, DVDs, cancellations, exc.) there would be no reason for the lead. Plus, you scroll down, and you see more precise listings and dates, ratings, exc. Its a total redundancy. I understand Bignole's opinion, and if worse comes to worse, I agree with an article being its own. But then, if we include just the premiere and finale, or just the ratings or DVD, whatever is decided upon, it would become more redundant than it already is. And overview is meant to overview the series, a plot synopsis. This is meant for the main page of the article and shouldn't exceed a paragraph (or less in some smaller series') in the lead of the episodes. The lead is there to summarize the page. Thats standard on all of wikipedia's articles, and isn't something I'm making up because of arguments sake. Therefore I think we should keep the purpose of the lead on episode page to be a breif overview of the whole series with sections like ratings and DVD info that I can click on and get more elaborite information. The list shouldn't be a lead, followed by a lead in table format, followed by just episodes. That's not the series. Smallville is the best example of what we should follow. I can go to the episode list and get a pretty thuro understanding of the series without clicking on anything else. ChaosMaster_Chat 02:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(←) Proposal text "While some episode lists include a series overview table these are neither mandated nor restricted, and should be decided upon by the community of editors that work on the corresponding articles as to whether or not they should be used.", to be added to the Episode listing section. (also how about renaming this "Episode/cast listing" as half of that section is about cast articles? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. I like the addition of "editors that work on the articles", because it accounts for editors that prefer to include them from coming in and just redoing pages where those editors elected not to use it. That said, do you think we should also organize what these tables should look like so that there is at least consistency when they are used?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Broadcasting lists

Accepted and implemented

International broadcasters: a lot of articles contain a huge list of international broadcasters, containing info from just which country and which channel to some containing the premiere date for every season for a ton of countries. And frankly it's getting quite ridiculous on some articles. When someone removes this info it usually trickles back, and a month later it's pretty much all back. Most of it is unsourced, Eureka has one of the most excessive International distribution sections. If believe this information if better suited on each countries main language wikipedia. And only include the countries in prose which main language is English; U.S.A., Canada, Australia, UK, New Zealand, …  Xeworlebi (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Personally, I think that unless there is something significant about the broadcast info in other countries, it's just more minutia. I think acknowleding the broadcasting in Australia, UK, etc. is all that is needed. We don't need to be listing what channels they appear on, because frankly they could appear on multiple channels. Smallville, at one time, appeared on 3 different channels in the U.S. - though only one received the original airings.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC) This one's tough. We're supposed to not just provide a euro centric view, and this is about the only foreign info a US show has. While it may not usually be cited, it would be trivial to find an RS saying "Smallville airs at 8pm on X channel in paraguay" or whatever. Every country with regular TV is going to have a reliable source for TV air times. While I couldn't care less about viewers in Chile, it is encyclopedic. The problem is that the sections easily get too large. Not sure what to do here, because a spin out article will be deleted, but we really should include all foreign info we can. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC) The only reason we mention the channel that it airs in the U.S. is because that's typically the channel that owns the show. The same is true for any British TV or Australian TV shows. It's not that we're mentioning it in an effort to say "Hey, it's on this channel", but really because ABC owns Desperate Housewives. My problem with these types of things is that it turns the page into a TV Guide, which is not something we're supposed to be. And I say that understanding that it's just as true for the information from a U.S. viewpoint. In other words, what is the purpose of just listing channels and air times? A part from actings as a means to promote when to view a show, there isn't. Typically, when there is a significance to it, we explain it with prose. For example, when a series is moved from a Tuesday timeslot to a Friday night death slot is something that would require some prose to explain the significance, as typically there is quite a bit of coverage about show X going to it's death because of that type of move. Or, when a change from Wednesdays to Thursdays results in a decrease or increase in ratings.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC) International broadcasting information is usually the worst part of articles. I propose we remove them almost entirely as they are nothing but trivial. For example, Heroes used to have a huge list of broadcasters, like at Eureka, but I managed to cut it down and source information about Canada, Australia and the UK (the main English-speaking countries). It looks a lot better now (Heroes (TV series)#International, but I still don't think that much of the information is all that important/relevant. In 20 years time, who is going to want to know the timeslot changes in Australia? I also wrote a small, well-sourced section at Veronica Mars#International. Is it any good? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I hate-hate-hate such broadcasting lists nowadays because they usually turn into massive blocks of MOS:FLAG-violating trivia. If someone (e.g. me) wants to find out where and when a show airs in their country, they should look it up their native wikipedia. en.wp should restrict broadcast information to the major English-speaking countries, i.e. the US, the UK, Australia and Canada. The rest can be summarized in prose, e.g. (made up) "Heroes aired in over 50 countries, e.g. in Europe except for some Balkan states." – sgeureka t•c 06:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC) ABSOLUTELY agree with sgeureka, the list in Heroes was a terrible bug-bear of mine when it was in it's first season, and aa few lines of prose summarising is definitely the way to go. -- WORMMЯOW  08:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Flashforward's International distribution section is a prose of this. I don't see this as particularly interesting. 3rd Rock from the Sun has a table which includes multiple channels for every country, which aired the reruns. I mush rather have this info moved to reception than have it in these type of lists/tables/long lines of statistics. For example, "In Belgium show aired on channel were it received awesome ratings blablabla" this is the more non-U.S. type of info articles should have, just a list of all the channels a show airs on is to excessive in my opinion, and not really the world view articles are looking for. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC) That Flashforward section is horrible, and the 3rd Rock even worse. I don't agree with moving the info to reception, because that section is usually reserved for reviews. An "international ratings" section under reception makes sense, but that always leads to mass amounts of unsourced information about random countries. Actually this raises the question, should this info be under "reception" or "broadcasting"? Broadcasting makes more sense to me, but a "ratings" section is also plausible. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 10:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I meant removing the info and only add it when a review or some type of notable info from that country is added, like, "In country where the show aired on channel it was watched by 90% of the population, had 50 million viewers" etc. Only if it's actually notable like for example The Mentalist was like the most watched show ever in France and always. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Sounds good, but would that be under "reception" or "broadcasting"? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I guess that depends on the significance for inclusion, if there's something notable about the reception in a country, lets say some kind of record or controversy it would go under reception. If for some reason the broadcast was especially notable for example Germany aired the last two episodes of Stargate Universe a month before they did in the U.S. it would go under broadcast. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Reception is not international broadcasts. This information should be incorperated into the broadcast section with references. Smallville is again a good example. I don't think there are international broadcasts in the article, but if we get sources stating what channel and county it is airing on, we can add a paragraph about international. For example; Smallville also currently airs on The CW in the USA and in Canada. (ref) In Mexico, it I'd broadcast on the Mexico1 channel. (ref) Furthermore, it was broadcast in The United Kingdom on UK1 from Jan 1 and ended on Jan 31. (ref) That can easily be added without making anything a table or unorganized and unsourced. ChaosMasterChat 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC) (←) Please read the discussion. That's exactly what most (if not all who already spoken) here are against. International broadcasts should not be added unless it is somehow notable, either the broadcast itself was notable or the reception in that country was notable. If not it should not be added. That's the proposal here. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Then how do you determine what's notable and what's not? I can agree with just the country of origin and the first broadcasted country. But other than that, nothing else would seem notable except if there is sources saying otherwise, which is basically what everyone has said. ChaosMasterChat 15:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC) I'd rather the broadcasters section be limited. I think we should only really include the English speaking countries, since this is an English Wikipedia. I also think that most readers don't generally care which channel a certain show airs in certain countries; I certainly don't. Some of those lists can go on forever, and I believe they are trivial at best. I have no problem if they are sourced though, but still, rather it be limited to UK, IRE, US, Canada, Australia, NZ. -- Matthew RD 15:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Well, as I proposed only the main English countries, notable would be some type of record or controversy, premiere for certain episodes. Where it would just be included as context. Others can be added at there respective wikipedias. Which is pretty much what I already said. I guess that the MOS should state: don't add other countries and there channels but those of English speaking countries (U.S.A. Canada, UK, Australia, NZ, …), as this falls under WP:NOT#STATS, unless a notable event happened in said country or on said channel revolving around the broadcast. The world view is already covered in the MOS under Reception. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC) I think that the channels themselves are irrelevant. I think noting that it airs in New Zealand is important for showing a shows international coverage. What channel in New Zealand is of no consequence. Again, the only reason we mention the fact Desperate Housewives, Lost, or whatever air on ABC is because ABC owns that show. They are the ones responsible for producing it (though, there are exceptions where independent firms produce it and big networks merely purchase the distribution rights and have no say in what actually goes into the show). That isn't the case for most series though. I think it might be notable to mention a channel if something significant occurred. For example, (and I"m sure Xe is tired of reading about Smallville...lol) the entire seventh season of Smallville aired 1 day early on Canada's Channel 1. That is the only season to do that before or since. That's kind of noteworthy to mention that for some reason that particular channel received the show a day early that year. Maybe a series changes broadcasting stations (ala Buffy the Vampire Slayer going from the WB to UPN). That would be noteworthy. But I think that general channel identifiers are irrelevant.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC) I'm reluctant to delete thing but this section is particularly poor quality and strong guidelines are needed, or these sections should be removed. It really is not very encyclopedic and more like tv guide, the unloved subspecies of news that pads out so many magazines. It's a shame we can't encourage projects like TVIV that are not trying to be an encyclopedia to cover this kind of information instead, and at least have somewhere to redirect the misguided but good faith efforts of so many editors. If we contrast with other media, project film includes very little information about secondary releases. The include the place of first release and one or two other notable releases. As for books there is a barcode lookup tool if you want to know where to buy but that is fairly unobtrusive and does not seem comparable to Project Television. International broadcast information seems difficult to WP:VERIFY even if the citations are actually in English the information is often dated and useless. More importantly the information is rarely WP:NOTABLE. It is tempting not to have the section at all since it is difficult to do well and so many editors keep creating lists but we can see some Featured Articles manage to have a paragraph or two of prose on the subject of International Broadcasters. Take for example Friends or The Simpsons* as guideline on existing best practice, they only include broadcast information that has been shown to be notable as it has been covered by secondary sources. (* Used to, doesn't seem to included international broadcast section at the moment.) It seems reasonable to mention the channel where a show gets first run, and if that changes. As for other international broadcasters' any information about them should not only be verified but also shown to be notable. That seems to me to be in line with the existing consensus, although admittedly with some people less interested in keeping the section at all. -- Horkana (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC) What about this: (Amended) "When detailing a show's international broadcasting, simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged. Wikipedia is not a television guide. Apart from the channel of origin for the series, editors are encouraged to instead detail English-speaking countries that the series appears through prose form. Special mentionings can be used where a show does something noteworthy for a country/international channel (e.g., The Simpsons break the viewership records for ProSieben in Germany on MM DD, YYYY). All information must be verified by reliable sources." ---  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC) IMO, there absolutely needs to be a note that only the English-speaking countries matter for the purpose of en.wiki (or we continue having sprawling listy-sounding, just in prose form). All other countries should only be mentioned if there is something special about them, or be grouped with other countries (e.g. "most of Europe"). Insisting on reliable sources for where a show airs would be stupid because every random national TV magazine already works as a reliable print source for that country ({{cite magazine}} doesn't require URLs), and still no-one outside the country could check it.– sgeureka t•c 16:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC) When talking about sources, not all American shows are airead outside of the U.S. (or at least North America), so some source identifying if it's aired anywhere else would be necessary (I'm not saying a web-based source is necessary, because a TV magazine is just as good). Specific channels are irrelevant unless there is something special about its airing there, in which case you'd probably have a source discussing it's specialness anyway. As for note about English-speaking, I amended the above proposed wording to include "English-speaking". Do you think that is enough?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC) My point was, if I claimed that The Simpsons aired on Pro 7 in Germany (and I know it does because I've seen it there hundreds of times), I could just add the ref {{cite magazine |date=2010-10-09 |journal=[[Hörzu]] |publisher=[[Axel Springer]] |language=German}} although I have never held a Hörzu in my hands in my life, and almost no non-German reader will ever have the opportunity to hold one in his hands either to check it. So whom would this ref help? Other non-trivial claims need sources of course, so I propose a rewording to "All non-trivial information must be verified by reliable sources." – sgeureka t•c 07:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Non internet sources are perfectly acceptable, that a part or majority of readers can't check that in 2 seconds is not an issue. WP:V is pretty clear on this. All information (also non-trivial) must be verified by reliable sources and offline and print sources are perfectly acceptable. But since only notable info should be presented, like viewer records etc. finding sources for this shouldn't be all that difficult. If not, is it notable enough? If you think the information is false you can always tag the reference wit {{Verify source}} or {{Request quotation}} so someone with access to the material can verify it. Best to link Wikipedia is not a television guide. to WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Xeworlebi (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I guess the difference of opinion here if this MOS demands that something should be verified or veryfiable. Wikipedia:Verifiability generally demands the second, and the first only if something is challenged or likely to be challenged. As we can assume that every "Show X airs in country Y" sentence is verifiable by the existance of random national TV guides for that country, we don't need to insist that that sentence actually needs to be verified with an accompanied ref. – sgeureka t•c 10:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC) (←) This entire discussion is about removing this information, and only add notable information, and that non notable information is automatically challenged and should be removed. The "Show X airs in country Y" isn't really what needs sources, it's the notable part, which is required for inclusion, that needs the references. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed by anyone, so the request for references is perfectly justified, especially in this case because this information is "likely to be challenged". But I guess changing the line to "All information must be verifiable by reliable sources" would be sufficient, and more inline with WP:V. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC) It technically already says "all info must be verified". As to Sgeureka's claim of why cite something like a show's appearance in another country, like I said, most shows do not air everywhere nor do they air outside of their own country of origin. The Simpsons may air in the UK, but not in India, yet what is to stop someone from just adding that without a source? Most vandalism aren't going to add something with a "fake" source, unless said fake source is simply a copy/paste job from another source which is probably located in that section already. As such, it's easy to identify a source (even a paper one you or I cannot access) used to cite the UK existence when it is used to cite the existence of the India broadcast given that that source wouldn't appear in that country. Regardless, just sticking to "verify all information" is probably the best way to go anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I'm late to the party here, but as Horkana said, just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean it's notable. Verified information can be removed if it's not notable. Typing "Show X airs in country Y" and citing it means nothing. Unless it actually means something, it shouldn't be included. I have often removed cited information of this kind because it has no relevance. And now a couple of questions. Can South Africa and India be included in the list of English speaking countries? There's a pretty large population in both countries of English speakers. All that's been covered here is shows that are produced in an English-speaking country. What about our articles about shows that are made in foreign speaking countries for that country's audience, but is also exported? Do we not mention the foreign country, and only mention whether it's aired in the US, UK, AUS or CAN? I'm thinking of something like Tatort, a German-Austrian-Swiss production that aired in the US on MHz WorldView. It's not the best example, but the only one I can think of right now. Bignole, you said, "Again, the only reason we mention the fact Desperate Housewives, Lost, or whatever air on ABC is because ABC owns that show. They are the ones responsible for producing it (though, there are exceptions where independent firms produce it and big networks merely purchase the distribution rights and have no say in what actually goes into the show). That isn't the case for most series though." Are you therefore saying that in cases when a different company to the broadcaster makes a show (such as with Medium, which is produced by CBS and aired on NBC; the first season of JAG, a CBS production, aired on NBC. Lois and Clark, a WB production, aired on ABC; Buffy and Angel, Fox for WB; Friends and ER, WB for NBC; I'm not even getting into Freemantle or Shed etc) then it's not suitable to mention the channel? If I have my facts straight, there's some sort of rule in the UK that a certain percentage of the BBC's stuff not be in-house. Should we not say that Hotel Babylon, X Factor, and Wife Swap, aired on the BBC, ITV or Channel 4? What about situations like what often occurs in the UK with American shows when the terrestrial channels don't bid enough and lose broadcasting rights of later seasons to Sky or Living? (Thinking specifically of 24, which the BBC lost to Sky; The Simpsons, which the BBC lost to Channel 4; Friends and ER, which Channel 4 lost to Sky for a while -- to be honest though, most of these did gain coverage in newspapers and certain magazines because many viewers didn't have Sky and were angry) An extension to that, although I'm not sure if it applies because I don't know if we have articles on this, but what about when Formula 1 went from the BBC to ITV and back to BBC, the BBC lost cricket coverage to Channel 4, the BBC lost Premiership football coverage to ITV, or the BBC lost all its sports programming to rivals. Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC) If English is the primary, or one of the primary languages spoken then the country is included. You can usually find out what the primary language is by just going to the Wiki page because there's typically a section in the infobox and a section in the body of the article discussing the languages spoken in a country. For Foreign Language shows, I would say it's the same but just in the reverse. The focus should be on the country of origin, and if that isn't an English speaking country then so be it. I disagree that we shouldn't acknowledge broadcasts in other countries just because there isn't anything "notable" about said broadcast. One could argue that airing anywhere outside of the country of origin would by itself be a noteworthy feat considering most shows don't make it outside of their country of origins. Well, in the case of "Lois & Clark", The WB didn't exist at the time that Warner Bros. was producing that show. :D My statement was geared toward the inclusion of any random channel of broadcast, and not toward the primary channel of broadcast. For instance, Buffy is an American television show that aired on The WB (exception of final season) but was produced by FOX. In this case, it would be nice to note both of these facts given that FOX opted to sell the distribution rights to the show instead of just putting it on its own channel. As for the other issues you brought up, again those seem like noteworthy dilemmas that would require prose. I believe that the original point of all of this was that we should be avoiding these tabular lists of channel/country broadcasts, and stick with prose that is reliably sourced and really just covers the fact that the shows are being broadcast outside of their country of origin. If something noteworthy occurs (e.g., a show is sold from Channel 4 in Canada to Sky) then note it in prose if there is a significance to it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 08:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC) I find the argument that "the broadcast history of a show (to keep neutrality and make sure that Wikipedia is not seen as the American Wikipedia, it would be beneficial to the article to have any international broadcasters listed as well" illogical. It implies that all TV shows are made in America, or that other countries don't have a history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC) (←) Proposal, altered from Bignole's one with some additions like calling it simply "Broadcast", to more depreciate the notion that the section should be all international broadcasters: "When detailing a show's international broadcasting, simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged, Wikipedia is not a television guide. Apart from the channel of origin for the series, editors are encouraged to instead detail English-speaking countries that the series appears through prose form. Special mentions can be used where a show does something noteworthy for a country/international channel, and are best addressed in the appropriate sections (e.g., Stargate Universe airing the final three episodes of the first season a month before they aired in the U.S. would be added to the "Broadcast" section while The Simpsons breaking the viewership records for ProSieben in Germany on MM DD, YYYY would be addressed in the "Reception" section). This section is best named simply "Broadcast" and also address broadcasting in the country of origin. All information must be verifiable by reliable sources." Xeworlebi (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Awesome. I love it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Latecomer

Yuck. I hate it. This page is so damn huge i completely missed this entire discussion on censoring. The NOTSTATS actually says to make things like this into tables. That a show was purchased for broadcast in all of however-many-countries is establishing the real world notability of the show itself because non-notable crap shows don't get distributed. "Apart from the channel of origin for the series, editors are encouraged to instead detail English-speaking countries that the series appears through prose form." English-only !!!! Really? So when a small company produces a show that get picked up for broadcast in Canada, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Germany, Hong Kong, India, France, Brasil, and Australia then the manual of style censors what can be said of it because it is predominantly shown in non-English countries? NO. This is a bad proposal to its very core. It caters to the American shows to further highlight them at the expense of everything else. What about the shows which are dubbed or subtitled for distribution in predominantly English speaking countries? This proposal goes so far as to imply there should not be an article on these shows in English but rather only on FRWP or DEWP. No. As to 124.197.15.138 (talk · contribs)'s claims that it is illogical to argue that removing all of this information makes Wikipedia more American and destroys the neutral point of view, i completely disagree - it is a most logical point. Removing non-English broadcasters alone destroys the neutrality of the content because people who read the English Wikipedia may live in Finland or Germany. Telling them to go read it in some other language is rather an offensive stance to take, especially when the articles i have seen are mostly stub-at-best in most other languages even if they are featured articles in English. There are many who edit the English Wikipedia who inherently believe that all shows shown in the USA are Made In The USA. It doesn't help that their USA broadcasters present the shows as such even when completely not true, which results in a massive pile of sources from reliable publications (ignorantly) disseminating lies which are then used to claim shows are American even if they are made it Scotland. If a Canadian show gets picked up for broadcast in USA there is always going to be at least one person who says it is an American show because USA Today / NY Times / Modesto Bee said it is American crap tv. Syfy claims Haven is American event tough it is made in Canada for broadcast by its production company. Syfy claims Merlin even though it is made in the UK. MTV claims Skins even tough it is made in Canada for distribution on it's production company's channel and in the US on MTV. Rookie Blue was initially claimed on Wikipedia to be an American show despite being entirely a Canadian import which the media eventually picked up on. Fairly Legal is made in Canada by Canadians but it airs on USA Network in the US and minimal mention of its Canadian. The articles on Episodes somewhat plays up its distribution on Showtime at the expense of acknowledging it is a co-production with BBC. The remake of Being Human is made in Canada by Canadians for distribution in both Canada and the USA but some people on Wikipedia want there to be no mention at all of its Canadian-ness. Every single episode of the short-lived Outlaw was broadcast in Canada before it was broadcast in the USA; the episode list kinda acknowledges this now but the infobox doesn't and so the article conflicts itself. Mr Sunshine airs in Canada 2 days before it does in USA but the infobox still says it premiered on a Wednesday instead of a Monday and that its original channel is ABC instead of CTV. Hot In Cleveland is broadcast in HD in Canada and is only SD on cable in the USA which is in the infobox but for some reason says 720p instead of CTV's 1080i. When The CW acquired rights to 18 to Life some very reputable American critics called it the American version of the show though the guy from the Miami Herald made no subtleness about blaming Canada for the crap he had to review. Undercover Boss was described as an American show despite it being a remake of a British show which had a whole 2 episodes to its first series and thus was barely known to exist (and was very very hard to find to download). Sanctuary admits to being a Canadian show but makes no mention whatsoever about its Canadian distribution favouring entirely focusing on the Syfy schedule. Degrassi is one of the few Canadian shows which are shown in the USA which openly give information on their Canadian and American broadcast. Back to the comments by 124.197.15.138, "It implies that all TV shows are made in America, or that other countries don't have a history!" They most certainly do have a history but on Wikipedia it is a huge struggle to get the American claims and their plentiful supply of sources to be dismissed for maybe a single source saying the show is not actually made in America. Due to its premiere in the USA concurrent to its domestic premiere in Canada Rookie Blue has ABC co-listed as the original channel because it is a bias Canadian POV of mine to not want to list ABC but it is also my bias Canadian POV to thus say that Outlaw should list Global as the channel of origin since it premiered there 27 hours before it premiered on NBC in the USA. If premiere date/time determines origin then Outlaw, Mr Sunshine, and a few others need to change. If it is national then Rookie Blue and some others need to change. Right now each show has it however it works to ensure an American channel gets listed in the infobox, series overview, etc. How is that not pushing Americanism? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTSTATS says that if the information is notable putting it in a table might be a better presentation method, not that the information should be added but in a table format. Presenting information in a table format can be a better way, but it doesn't make the information itself more notable or interesting. The issue here is (like ratings) not how to present them, but to present them at all. And at what point it just becomes to much.

"This proposal goes so far as to imply there should not be an article on these shows in English but rather only on FRWP or DEWP" It doesn't at all. It's merely an attempt to stop the mindless drones of non-informative lists of muck.

An article about a show should be about the show: what it is about, who's in it, who made / how/when it was made, how it was received. At a certain point it's just enough, why do some want to add there country so much? Is it really that interesting that Leverage (TV series) airs on AXN in Sri Lanka? I believe this is (like the original air date issue) people using Wikipedia as a television guide, rather than an encyclopedia.

Your entire rant on US/Canada is valid in my opinion. If a show is made in Canada it should be said so, so yes this has to change, but that's an entirely different discussion. And I agree that that is Americanism. This is more Englishism, and an attempt to keep this flood of info in check.

This is actually the same as is for movies and their premiere dates, were they have done away with it almost entirely. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure of everything you're arguing because it's a little too long winded for me to read. The addition was agreed upon by the people that have been taking part in this discussion. If there is an amendment you would like, then I suggest posing it (in brevity please) and we'll review it and see if we agree with its inclusion. Otherwise, this was the version that found consensus.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bignole, if it is too long to read then too bad. I had to find out about this proposal by seeing it implemented and reading the entire collapsed section.
My amendment would be something like, undoing the whole of it. Read what i wrote the first time. I was responding here but i find myself copy & pasting what i already wrote to such a degree it will probably end up larger and less coherent than what is already there.
As for Xeworlebi's point that this is more about Englishism as a language than any nationalism i would say i generally agree save for the comment tossed in near the end which explicitly was of a nationalistic nature and somewhat very insulting. These small market Canadian shows' greatest claim to real world notability is when they are sold to non-English speaking markets where additional work is done to dub them. The non-English rights-buyers really want the shows rather than being summer schedule filler trash for American networks. The most obvious example is Shaftesbury's The Listener which is rather a massive success internationally, a modest success domestically, and was a complete failure in the USA. Most of these Canadian shows picked up by American networks are doing very well in international markets of any language they are available in, except for Flashpoint in Australia. Rejecting all non-English distribution is rather counter-productive to these shows which have their real-world notability found in their non-English distribution. Crappy shows don't get dubbed and sold to France or Germany or Portugal because noöne wants them. They are not so notable. Sure NBC Universal bought rights to Rookie Blue and Shattered for all of the international markets where they have a channel but what about the little, relatively unknown-to-North-Americans Finnish network that bought rights to the show and had it dubbed into Finnish. Or how for Wonderfalls the lead actress did her own dubbing for the broadcast in Quebec, France, and other French-speaking markets. Though i lost the reference for it that show had its first complete broadcast in French even though it was made in English and started to be shown in English before being cancelled. If people in Germany or Italy want to know about this new imported show and they speak English they are going to likely come to the English WP to learn about the show. The German or Italian WP will likely have a stub with more detailed information on the German or Italian broadcast but not much else and what is there will be a summarised translation of the English article. You call it an indiscriminate list of trivia and mindless drones of non-informative lists of muck that functions as a tv guide. Listing any channel at all can then be seen as functioning as a tv guide. If you really think it is used as a tv guide then all mention of any channel in any country of first-run or repeat-/syndication should be summarily removed from all articles. Little Men (TV series) is another of those small-market Canadian shows that achieved greater prominence in other lands than it did in Canada on CTV or on PAX in the USA. If you try to find the show you will end up with TVrips from Sri Lanka of all places.
For the big hits like NCIS and The Mentalist and Desperate Housewives they have achieved substantial notability in their domestic English distribution and so this is not quite the same concern. It mostly lies with non-American shows and American shows that get cancelled but find more receptive audience internationally. Young Americans had 8 eps in the summer of 2000 on The WB. The fan forum for the show has been going for more than 10 years since it was cancelled and is still very much active. It is available in French in 1440x1080 HD. It is from what i have seen the most widely bootlegged-by-fans show of the 21st century. I personally have 3 unique recordings from various stations of The WB, a British transmission, Swedish, and French too. And still, despite my best efforts the WP article on the show is rather lacking due to the nature of the notability of the show and the not-gonna-happen official home video release. I call it substantiating the claim of real-world notability of the show. Not just the American notability or the English-speaking-portion-of-the-world notability of the show.
As for what becomes too much, there is most everything i write. There is the size of this talk page even excluding my comments, there is WT:RFA which at times can be massive. Too much is sooo subjective and arguing that this is enough and that makes it too much is a form of censoring and last i checked the info never was technically prohibitive to my reading even if i chose to skip that section of an article. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're long winded responses are a bit much to read. Maybe if you at least broke them up into sections it would be easier but as is I don't have the time and patience to read what looks like the worlds longest run-on sentence (yes, I'm aware it's not a single sentence but without breaks and pauses for the eyes it's too much for me personally). I get the basic idea of your argument though, and I'll say that this was something that was discussed for awhile. It was announced on multiple pages and if you're just now joining the party then I'm sorry. The community of editors that participated agreed on what was added to the MOS. If you disagree, then really that isn't enough to change consensus. The fact that you "just now saw it", when it's been open to discussion since August 2010 (6 months, more than most MOS's give for changes) means you're too little too late. I understand that you disagree with the changes, but the consensus is against you unfortunately. The consensus was that we're not here to be a TV Guide. Listing every change a show appears on is indiscriminate. That's why we have IMDb linked in the article. Listing every channel provides no actual value to the article. It doesn't tell me anything about the show in that area except that it's in that area (supposedly, because I cannot view that channel to verify it...no one outside of the country can...that's why we require sources for even the prose broadcast info), and we're not here to be a TV Guide. If there is significance to it then there's bound to be prose information to go alongside it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"save for the comment tossed in near the end which explicitly was of a nationalistic nature and somewhat very insulting." Huh, what?

"Or how for Wonderfalls the lead actress did her own dubbing for the broadcast in Quebec, France, and other French-speaking markets." Yes! this is notable information and should be added in the article, and the MOS currently says that such information should be added in there respective sections, this could probably be added in the production section.

"If you really think it is used as a tv guide then all mention of any channel in any country of first-run or repeat-/syndication should be summarily removed from all articles." Sure, I just tried to reach a compromise here, and since this is the English Wikipedia this seemed (and turned out to be) an acceptable one, I would support a full removal of any non-special broadcasters if you would propose that.

"Little Men (TV series) is another of those small-market Canadian shows that achieved greater prominence in other lands than it did in Canada on CTV or on PAX in the USA." etc.; Yes here to, such information could be addressed in the reception section.

Most of the points you brought up are perfectly acceptable under the updated MOS. If something notable happens elsewhere, by all means, add it. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I still have great issue with the exclusion of all non-English broadcasters. It is inherently censorship to make anything not in English not worthy of mention, which is what Xeworlebi put into the MOS and is doing. Be it in prose or point or table Xeworlebi is removing anything not from a predominantly English-speaking country as inherently Not Notable. Detroit 1-8-7 was sold to broadcasters in France and Spain. My mentioning it here will likely have Xeworlebi remove the entire section because the show was dubbed into French and Spanish. The show has so far zero international English distribution - it is not even broadcast in Canada. Xeworlebi did it a little while ago with the Spanish broadcast of Outlaw, removing it not for lacking of reference but for non-English Not Notable.
As for the break my comments into pieces and pick at them, i prefer to respond to proper paragraphs not points.
If you can't find the nationalistic comment with me telling you where to look then try harder.
I think you missed my point. Removal of all channels means the parameter in the infobox is removed, all mention of any broadcast network or channel is removed in its entirety from the whole of the article for domestic and international because retaining domestic information serves to function as a tv guide for the domestic broadcaster. It is the principle argument you make for removing international yet it is just as valid for domestic. The channel of broadcast in Canada for Murdoch Mysteries is no more notable than the channel of broadcast in the UK. What makes it notable that Mr Sunshine is broadcast on ABC in the USA when it is broadcast 2 days previous in Canada on CTV? The Mr Sunshine episode list says the first episode was on 7 February and yet the series overview says the premiere was on 9 February. If you think that isn't confusing to read then... Or how about Body Of Proof which has already debuted in Italy, Russia, Poland and so many other countries many weeks or months ago and is eventually going to premiere in the USA and Canada in 24 days (pending no further rescheduling). That would make by my reckoning the USA broadcast pretty much not-notable because the channel of origin is an Italian channel (FOX Life) and the broadcast was originally in Italian and the show's most notable in the USA for being repeatedly delayed and rescheduled. But all that is being sloughed off as immaterial to its eventual American broadcast in English. Now do tell how that is not an English POV and an American POV being put forward and justified for it being enshrined in the Manual Of Style? I just fixed the BoP ep list which dared to call the US broadcast the original air dates. What a slippery slope you have stepped on.
A Spanish broadcaster buying rights to an-already-and-abruptly-cancelled-American-show is itself something i would consider notable but which you label inherently not notable. If itv where to have bought rights to Outlaw it would have been really quick and easy to put it on either daily or once per week for 2 months. The Spanish broadcaster, AXN, is going to have to record new dialogue in Spanish and remix the audio tracks which takes a lot more investment and time. I contest that in this scenario the more notable broadcast would be the Spanish AXN rather than the British itv. If AXN simply subtitles in Spain then substitute a few Italian or Russian channels which do record new dialogue. Ever watch The Mentalist in Italian? Take a guess why i disagree with this big revision to the MOS.
Bignole, are you so sure there is not some discussion that you haven't seen that when it is closed and implemented you would not be saying at least to yourself, "O shit, how the hell did i not notice that?!!!!" How many talk pages are there? Noticeboards? Project pages? Are you 100% up-to-date on all of them all of the time? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't discourage non-English broadcasting, what is discourages is creating what would amount to a TV Guide listing where all we're doing is listing TV channels that a show appears in all over the world. That has no value, and goes against Wikipedia policy on What it is not. Wikipedia is not a directory. If there is something significant about Show X appearing on Channel Y of Country Z, then there is most likely prose information associated with that. Otherwise, simply stating (with sources) that a show is also broadcasted in China, New Zealand, and Ireland is all that is necessary. The individual channels it appears on has no encyclopedic merit, and the only reason that we would indicate the channel of origin is because typically that's also the channel that is producing the show. There are exceptions to this, which by default makes that something to write about in prose content. All the section states is that we do not want a list of TV channels because Wikipedia is not a TV Guide and it's not a directory. If you have a reliable source that says a show appears in the Neatherlands, then state just that, but the channel it appears on it irrelevant.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Interlanguage Links

• Interlanguage links: there is a flood of wrong Interlanguage links, especially from the French wikipedia. This is caused due to the French wikipedia almost always having seasonal articles. These are then wrongly linked to the entire episode list and can be linked by multiple articles at once. I've seen as much as five different links to the French wikipedia in a single article. This is especially worsened by bots, who sometimes redo this linking, out of the blue, even when no-one re-added a link on either page. I find this especially problematic when a bot makes 10 edits in a row changing the link from season 1 till season 10 on the one English episode list.
  • I think there should be something in the MOS encouraging the removal of these wrong language links. Due to the sheer number of bots who do interwiki linking this isn't easy to address. Although there might be a better place to address the core of this issue. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there an interwiki page that discusses interwiki linking specifically?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of this. Examples? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You've never heard of the interwiki links, any possible MOS page for the interwiki links, or the issue with a bot putting multiple links to the wrong page on a season page? By interwiki links, we're talking about things like da:Jason Voorhees, es:Jason Voorhees, fr:Jason Voorhees, and it:Jason Voorhees. As far as the abuse of those links on pages, I am not familiar with it primarily because I typically ignore those types of edits unless they are vandalism.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I know what an interwiki link is (we've both been on wiki for a long time, after all). What I haven't' seen, and am curious to see, is multiple interwiki links. I don't fully understand if it's several links on the left side of the page, or if it's bots doing a bunch of unnecessary edits, or what. Anyways, I'd like to learn more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen, it's both. An example from memory for Stargate SG-1: the German wikipedia keeps all in-universe info in the main TV show article. So when somebody wanted to link from the English fictional-element article to the German section, he added the interwiki link e.g. de:Stargate_–_Kommando_SG-1#NID (note the anchor) to NID (Stargate), de:Stargate_–_Kommando_SG-1#IOA to IOA (Stargate), and de:Stargate_–_Kommando_SG-1#TRUST to Trust (Stargate) etc. Then a balance-checking bot found an imbalance in interwiki links between de:Stargate_–_Kommando_SG-1 and Stargate SG-1. So that bot added 20 links from de:Stargate_–_Kommando_SG-1 to Stargate SG-1. Of course this is nonsense, but the bots weren't (aren't) always that smart. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There are several issues, from section links like sgeureka says to multiple articles linking to the same article. For example List of Dollhouse episodes links to fr:Saison 1 de Dollhouse, it:Episodi di Dollhouse (prima stagione). Both fr:Saison 1 de Dollhouse, fr:Saison 2 de Dollhouse and it:Episodi di Dollhouse (prima stagione), it:Episodi di Dollhouse (seconda stagione) links to the english episode list. This often creates bot-fests were they cycle through the pages replacing each article once. I believe wikipedia can only handle 1 interlanguage on the article, secondary links just get ignored.

I have no idea were to bring this up elsewhere, so I brought it up here, since it's a episode list/seasonal list TV centric problem. It covers pretty much every bot that resonates interlanguage links. When there is both an episode list and a seasonal page on the English wikipedia this mostly goes away. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

How to present a Cast section

• Cast section: There are some different formats in place, from full prose to the more common list.
  • I propose to use [actor] as [character] in list format and [character] ([actor]) in prose for uniformity. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with almost any setup. For Smallville, I use the "Actor as Character", but the information that follows is all prose content. It's more of a combo list/prose. I don't think we should be simply listing actors and their characters like a film credit, because that's kind of why we have IMDb. I think we should be encouraging less "listy" cast sections.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the lists best myself, but we promote prose here. In any case, either order is fine, but it would be great to standardize it. Why not do the same for both? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't this MOS already talk about how to present cast sections?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Different setups work for different articles. If one character is played by several actors, it would be very weird to read Clayton Norcross, Jeff Trachta and Winsor Harmon as Thorne Forrester. By another reasoning, the character played by actor format is more appropriate for character lists, and in cast member lists (even though I don't support their existance) it should be actor as character. Short character summaries work best in a bulleted format, whereas longer summaries should use headers. The MOS should let the authors decide which format works best for their articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as it's consistent through the article, I don't really see the need to regulate it. Having said that, I've seen some articles where the '[character] ([actor])' format gets very silly when you have 5 or 6 characters in the first scene, and they all get mentioned - creating a sea of blue. I'll try to find an example of that, but it really doesn't look good! -- WORMMЯOW  08:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is another section where I think we abuse tables sometimes. Beyond making sure we don't use tables for a cast list when they aren't really warranted; addressing the overbolding potential that happensl and the unfailing in-universe-ness that invades cast sections; I'm pretty easy on how they are formatted. Some articles seem to work better one way while other articles will work best completely differently. Millahnna (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the MOS is already vague enough on this issue. It talks about the use of "Actor as Character" and "Character (Actor)" in that section of it. Do we just need to spruce up the wording and add a few "in case of this, don't use..." type of statements?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That was my proposal, to make it more clear, for lists use actor as character, for prose use the inline character (actor). As Sgeureka in case of multiple actors portraying the same character this can become weird. But that's were WP:SENSE comes in, could always be mentioned as well. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Presenting ratings info

• Ratings: As of recent more and more ratings tables show up on the episode lists, I think this is not the appropriate place, seasonal ratings should be on the main article under reception. Episodic ratings have also gotten out of hand on some articles, creating giant tables with basically statistics. I have no problem with the total number of viewers in the episode list itself and possibly the weekly rank as well, but info like Rating and Share, while being some abstract numbers, this information is borderline statistic filler.
  • Seasonal ratings should go on the main article in Reception, or possibly as a prose line in each seasons section. Episodic ratings should be limited to viewers and possibly rank, and in the episode list itself.

I've tried to keep it as overview-able as possible. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. One of the things I hate the most is when you have an episode table on a page, and then later there is a separate table just to list all of the ratings for each individual episode. It seems completely unnecessary when the ratings can easily fit on the episode table. I also agree about the "Rating/Share". I think this type of info is largely over the average reader's head. I've read up on and it and it's confusing to me. I cannot imagine when the average reader who probably has no idea whatsoever as to what these figures represent is actually thinking. I say, keep it basic: "total viewers". You cannot misinterpret what "total viewers" means. It's self-explanatory.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

While I still don't understand rating and share, I do think it's encyclopedic, so I have to disagree on this one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's all probably encyclopedic, but probably a bit much for the average reader. If you don't understand what you're reading then the information itself probably doesn't hold much value afterward. Even the Wiki page on rating/share is slightly confusing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's encyclopedic. It's a collection of non-notable abstract numbers which a large majority of the readers don't actually know what they mean. I believe WP:NOT#STATS applies here. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What I don't like is the prose dedicated to explaining the ratings over the course of the series in the main article. At Lost (TV Series)#Ratings, the table is a great summary. But then there's two paragraphs of prose going into detail about what happened in specific seasons. I think all this prose should be removed, as the episodic ratings are shown in the "list of episodes" page. There's some interesting information at the Lost article, ie the first paragraph and the statistic about it being the second most popular TV show, but these could be easily transfered to the season articles. Also, in the "list of episodes" page, I think we should just have an extra column for the total viewers. Extra tables are useless and usually unsourced. Finally, I've noticed graphs being created to show the episodic ratings in various seasons (see right). Should this be encouraged? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen those graphs before but I love them. They are compact, and the refs could be listed in the image file and don't overwhelm the main article/list. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The graphs certainly make more sense, I do like them. I'd personally suggest toning down the amount of ratings information shown because it's rather US-centric. AFAIK other countries don't publish quite the same levels of television statistics. That combined with the fact that they can be regarded as complex to the majority of readers suggests that they should be reduced. A paragraph or two on the trends should be sufficient on the top-page, rather than lots of information on every episode/season list -- WORMMЯOW  09:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Graphs for longer running shows are quite nice, although the few I've seen use a line graph, which is actually the wrong type of graph, since there is no relationship between episodes, meaning there is nothing between the episodes which is what a connection line suggests. A bar graph is far more appropriate for this type of information. For example Heroes has a graph (not the greatest with a gray background though) which displays the season over season drop in viewers. FlashForward has one for its single season which displays the gradual decline to only half of the premier viewers. While audio-visual aids are always nice, adding them on every show might be over the top. When the show has a stable viewership this isn't something that would much help the reader, it would just be a straight line. When something notable happens like the type of drops in viewers this type of visualization is quite helpful. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the graphs are cool and useful for shows with more than 3 or so seasons. To be able to look at a chart and see how The Simpsons have fluctuated over 20+ years would be interesting. Does it need to be done for shows with just a few seasons, I'd say no because that's probably easily covered by prose. I understand that other countries don't publish a lot of TV statistics like the US does (we're media whores, what can we say), but I think that it's important to have total viewers and at least end of the season rankings for each TV series. If something can be found internationally, awesome, but it's harder to try and create equal balance across the world with this type of info because we put more pride into such things than most other cultures.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've requested an additional parameter for viewers in {{Episode list}} to standardize its position, which if additional ratings tables are depreciated would push more ratings in the episode lists, and this would aid it's placement. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ratings on US shows is US-centric because they are from US. I dare anyone to put ratings from TVO on the Doctor Who articles. If you understand rating & share and viewers you would know that by actual consequence the total viewers is the least important of the numbers for any episode. American broadcast network shows are cancelled and renewed primarily based upon their rating and share in the 18-49 year old demographic, regardless of how many people in total watch a show. Close to Home won its time slot in total viewers almost every week and often was a top-3 show on Friday nights yet it was cancelled after 2 seasons, has barely any content to its article, and is listed as a victim of the Friday night death slot because it skewed to an older demographic who also do not frequently edit Wikipedia. Numbers for 5 November 2010 are not yet available but to compare the 6th episode of Close To Home to the 6th episode of Blue Bloods you would find Close To Home comes out on top in every category and demographic except maybe m18-34, yet Blue Bloods is considered a success on Fridays. The straight up total viewers doesn't really give any indication why a show that won its time slot in that category was cancelled while Ghost Whisperer, which did worse in total viewers got 3 additional seasons with progressively lower total viewers. Dumbing things down for the "average reader" should not be the goal. Wikipedia is not for Kindergarten. Assuming people are too dumb to understand a table is an insult to them and deprives those who do understand or who are wanting to learn from having the information readily available to them. The tables following the episode list provide the actual details. Pretty charts are pretty but they hide the actual information forcing you to estimate the actual numbers in a field where a difference 0.1 is of significance. Still, as in the one shown above, the pretty chart only lists the viewers. The No Stats clause says to specifically make use of tables as has been done in including the viewer data for shows. Use of a pretty chart is against the No Stats clause. If you want to cite No Stats here then you ought to get that changed to reflect how you wish to use it here. The total viewers is a nice, neat number that is easy to put into an episode list or chart, but it means almost nothing in the "tv world". Where more data is available it only makes sense to use it so as to not misrepresent things.

Close To Home	episode 6	Blue Bloods
11.87m	Total viewers	11.616m
7.8/13	Households rating/share	7.3/13
3.2/10	18-49 rating/share	1.8/6
2.3/8	18-34 rating/share	n/a
4.5/12	25-54 rating/share	2.7/8
TheFutonCritic.com copy of CBS Press Express release "A New 'Home' Found?", 14 November 2005	References	TV By The Numbers, finals for 29 October 2010CBS Press Express, weekly ratings press release, 1 November 2010

I'm not going to write up the entire table but that would be the explanation of why Close To Home was cancelled; it was too popular among people long since finished high school. You would be really confused if you read the article which said it was cancelled due to poor ratings while at the same time reading that it won its time slot for total viewers. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 13:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you'd have to spend your time trying to explain to the average reader what the "share" actually means. Most people, including most editors, do not understand "share". They understand "total viewers" because that's pretty obvious. You shouldn't have to turn an article into a class on statistics just for a reader to understand what all the extra "shares" mean. That is why we say just stick to "total viewers". If you need to explain later that a show was cancelled (and I'd like to see actual evidence that shows are always cancelled because of low "share" numbers) because of low figures in certain demographics, then that is what you do because that requires prose explanation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, there are to many different types of ratings, it's to much. Whichever is picked it still is a poor representative for comparing it to canceled due to low ratings. Comparing viewers, in whatever category, is ultimately flawed, for one shows cost different amounts of money to produce, a show that has half the viewers but only costs a third to make would be considered a more successful show. But even then it's not just that, different shows get different types of advertisement, and different advertisers means networks can ask different amounts money for different types of advertisement. So while show A can have 10 million viewers it can earn more money through advertisement than show B with only 8 million viewers. But even then it's not over, especially for science fiction, marketability is a big deal, so while a show could have fewer viewers they can make more money from merchandizing. And I'm sure there are other influences as well. I believe a lot of network use C3 ratings, which only counts the advertisements watched for the first three days. But I've never seen C3 ratings anywhere.

In essence whatever rating-figure you use it's really not a good one, and definitely not a complete one. The explaining it really isn't that big of a deal, you can just link to Nielsen ratings. The problem is that you get ginormous tables full of ratings, which is WP:NOT#STATS, and should not be done. Using seasonal averages of all these figures in prose, especially in the case of explaining "low viewership" should not be a problem, as long as you don't start spewing statistics just for the sake of it. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

C3 is the determining data for most every show. You are also correct that it is almost never made public. I for one rarely watch any commercials. Thanks to the time zone i am in and the channels available from my service provider i can record shows from Detroit and when i go to watch i fast forward through the commercials while concurrently recording whatever from Seattle or Calgary to view afterward. Since i am not in the US my skipping of commercials has no influence on the ratings. In Canada some shows will have ratings and share info included in press releases by the broadcasters but 99.763% of the time the only info available is total viewers. US tv mostly lives and dies by the 18-49 rating/share while in Canada it is total viewers that determines success or failure. There actually is a nice post at tvbythenumbers.com from a few days ago which addresses total viewers vs demographics.[1] NCIS is watched by about 20 million Americans each week. Over 70% of viewers of the show are old but the show is still popular enough among younger viewers that advertisers still pay well for a 30 second spot during the show. Where Xeworlebi and i differ is in application of NOT#STATS. I read it and i see it actually telling me that a table is ok - "consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." Further, i most certainly do not consider a show's ratings to be "an indiscriminate collection of information". Key word there being "indiscriminate". As the show has gained popularity around the world the seasons of NCIS have come to include ratings info for US, Canada, Australia, and i want to include the UK but have hit some roadblocks to getting that info and sourcing it. It verifies that the show is not just a hit in the US. A greater percentage of Canada watches than the US. Since CBS both is the domestic broadcaster and the producer of the show they have interest in its international success and so long as Canadians and Australians keep watching it there is reason to keep it going even if the US viewers start to diminish a bit, which coïncidentally is not the way the trend is going. Actually the show is watched by a greater percentage of Australians than Americans or Canadians. Tables of data have some use. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Coloring in tables

Perhaps this is silly of me but one thing I'm concerned about with tables and infoboxes (like for list of characters type pages) are the colors that sometimes make them real eye sores. List of Wipeout episodes is the worst offender I know of but I've seen some really awkward usage of greying out boxes (and to be fair this crosses over to articles outside of TV) and random colors that can be really hard to sort out at first glance. I know that there are guidelines for color usage in tables that encourage people to not go crazy unless it's thematically relevant (I believe Simpsons related pages are the example given as an exception). But there is actually a reason behind the crazy colors on the Wipeout page; it just doesn't make it any less difficult to read knowing that. Millahnna (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There is just way too much going on in that Wipeout page. I think I need 3-D goggles to see what is really going on there. I agree, that is probably the best example of what not to do. I don't think it helps them that they have separated every episode into it's own distinct subsection, thus creating a TOC that's almost 50 items long. My extent for color cording goes more in line with creating basic edgings so that these standard whites/grays/blacks aren't destroying eyes because of a lack of contrast.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah cotton candy with a splash of skittles. Love it. :-| I think WP:COLOR is pretty clear on this issue. Personally, I don't see why each season's table must have a different color. Mike Allen 06:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Also another issue with colors is with these "episode progression" tables. (See List of Scream Queens episodes) Mike Allen 06:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That Wipeout article is a work of art. In general, I support each season table having its own colour just because it makes the "list of episodes" page more appealing. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that the episode progression issue in that example is part of the problem in the Wipeout tables too. I'm starting to sense we're going to end up with a whole thread devoted to just episode tables on reality shows where we run around and post "please come talk here" messages on a bunch of article talk pages. One thing the Scream Queens table is doing that is helpful is the greyed out portions that represent an "eliminated" designation. By having the grey stretch across like that, it's a lot easier at a glance than leaving the contrasting borders in the cells. So good on them for that, I guess. Millahnna (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There was actually a reason for splitting off each episode like that, though the result is obviously... eclectic. One of the tings people reading the page kept wanting to know was the details of each round of competition on the different obstacle courses. There were a few other issues that fed into it, but there was some reasoning behind the massive episode splits like that. Honestly, I'm not sure what to do to fix the page. I threw my hands up in 2008. Millahnna (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Whipeout page is pretty bad, Jack Merridew would have a massive heart attack if he saw that. Colors are actually encouraged as making the page more visually appealing in the featured article criteria. Do you have a problem with the common colors in the episode list itself, meaning header and lines between episodes? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope; no problems there. No problems with each season table on more standard shows having separate colors either, per Conucopia's comment above you. But the pink and blue for males versus females (when a parenthetical notation or extra column would suffice for that show), and gold for winners and wait, what the hell is dark grey again, etc., really hurts my eyes. That page was actually one of the very first on my watchlist back when I first registered for an account but I just can't stand to look at it. I recently asked on the talk page if anyone else got eyebleed on it but I guess it was just me. I mean, pink and blue? Come on guys.

As for the other color issue I mentioned (character infoboxes), the only example I can think of off the top of my head is the List of True Blood characters page, but I recently killed the example in question and I think it was an accident anyway (there's been a lot of shuffling there and a minor characters page was recently merged). If you dig in the history for one of my contributions, you should find it. One of the characters had a lovely splash of teal while everyone else there is generic grey. I could actually see that page using red, a la the Simpson's use of yellow. But then color is the least of the problems with that page so I'll probably attack that when I finally get around to addressing the in-universe "plot summary the sequel" problems with it. I just know I've seen that before on list of pages, in spite of the fact that our current color guidelines (but TV and site wide) recommend consistency. Millahnna (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that it's really bad. I think that page should probably be converted to using {{Episode list}} and the tables into summary prose. It's pretty much all statistics. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I can see colors in character infoboxes being useful. I find it nice to have a common theme (ala The Simpsons) utilized, so long as it doesn't burn the eyes. If red is the big theme of the show, then there are tons of reds that aren't as loud to use. Speaking of those character lists, we're not really supposed to be using infoboxes for each individual section. Should this be mentioned on this MOS?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

For the love of my sanity, yes please. I got the impression that those character boxes are strictly for standalone character pages but The True blood pages are not the only list of characters article I've seen it on. So I'm assuming it's vague enough to give people the idea it's a good idea when it isn't. The article wouldn't be nearly so problematic in the aesthetic sense without them. I would love to just go in there and wipe out those boxes; they aren't adding any constructive info to the page that couldn't be addressed in prose (relationships and the like), and addressed more easily, at that (some of those relationships change practically week to week). I've held off because the season is almost over, so that fangirl editing will die down, and I know the films MOS better than the TV one so I'm still researching. Millahnna (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I took care of it. It needs to be removed from any other character list article. Infoboxes are designed to summarize and you don't need to summarize the 2 paragraphs of information that appear directly to the left of the box. I think we need to briefly touch on this in the character list section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I could hug you. Now all I need to do is hunt down my massive list of bookmarks to interviews so I can yank all the plot sumamry and replace it with real world info and that page will be shaping up. Arg. Heh. The next time I see the infobox thing I'll go ahead and fix it myself, now that I have confirmation. Millahnna (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Related to the color scheme issue for whole seasons; I tried making the True Blood pages more uniform (and make the red we use for season one less eye bleedy) but 1) can't change the text color for the main show infobox (and can't figure out how to request it at the color version of the template) and 2) got shot down on the grounds that "different seasons need their own colors to differentiate." So clearly this needs to be more clear in the MOS since my understanding is that this is not true (each season in this case has its own page). I'll leave it for others to fight out. Millahnna (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The color used in the infobox is usually the same as the episode list, which has for each season its own color. Normally the DVD box's main color. The text color for the seasonal infobox is |fgcolour= (with # before hexcode), for {{Infobox television}} it's |color text=. The one color for all is usually for the other infoboxes, character pages and episode pages. You can request that at the talk page of {{Infobox television/colour}}. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah I misunderstood. Although, I don't really see the need for each season to have its own color when each also has its own page. I guess it looks better in those little tables that people use to link to the separate seasons but that's another thing I don't understand the existence of; they often seem like they would be fine as prose with subsections that serve as links to the season pages to me. Wikipedia: the learning experience. Heh. Millahnna (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The color scheme for season page is used primarily so the page isn't the same drab gray and white (if you've ever worked in an office, that white/black/gray combo that is standard in everything is horrible on the eyes). The colors, which should not be distracting by themselves (i.e. not crazy bright or so dark you cannot read anything), are just used for contrast. The colors are picked, as X pointed out, by the color of the DVD box sets. This helps with the LOE page as well, since we transclude them to that page in shortened form.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think 20 different colors is just too much. Having it all in one default color works just the same, IMO. Wikitables are already confusing without adding additional HTML markup. Mike Allen 23:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Law & Order is pretty poorly setup, it should be using the {{Episode list/sublist}} format and use transcusions. Besides that, the separate articles include a lot of trivia in the episode summaries; guest stars, first/last appearance, … _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the colors, not the format. Mike Allen 00:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Dates/years

I have seen this on many pages. It seems silly to me that an upcoming season is listed as (2010-11) when no episode has even aired. From the moment its listed as such, it can be delayed, canceled, or indefinitely on hold for numerous and unstated reasons beyond anyone's control on here. I think this would also work for the seasons of TV programs. If there is no episode in the second season that has aired, how can there be two seasons? It breaches WP:CRYSTAL; how do we know it will actually air on the given date? Are there any opinions on this out there? ChaosMaster_Chat 02:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is about calling something by year based on repetition, for example naming a season for two years when only episodes in the first year have been sourced, and assuming that due to the length of the show it will cross in the next year. Reporting verified information does not breach this. Quote: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." Note the "unverifiable", when it's sourced that it will air in that year it doesn't violate this policy. An example given is 2020 Summer Olympics, it's sourced and thus perfectly correct to name it 2020. By your "how do we know it will actually air on the given date?" every episode not aired should not include and air date because something might always happen. Take a look at some articles about upcoming TV shows and movies. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 07:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Then by your logic, every upcoming film and tv show will not change it's year or date? The best example would be Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film). It had a planed 2008 release but was delayed until 2009. Another example would be TerraNova planned for the fall of 2010 but got delayed until 2011 for the time being. By what your saying, we should just assume that nothing will delay any other show just because of logic and what has happened in the past as well as sources? Then I might as well edit President Obama's article with sources that state he is Muslim and assume they will remain true because of what happened in the past. There is no definite that Smallville will air exactly on Sept 24. It can be delayed until 2011 or 2012, despite my assumtion that it won't. With that, why not assume everything on wikipedia? The world will end in 2012 because it's sourced. The moon is made out of cheese because it's sourced. I assume that these are both true so why not keep them in the article? None of it males sense. ChaosMaster_Chat 14:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What? You're right, nothing you just said makes any sense. Yes you report what is sourced by reliable sources, if there are sources contradicting each other it goes up for discussion on which is the more reliable source, Obama being a muslim is contradicted by sources stating he's a Christian, same for the two other ridiculous arguments you gave (and "2012 phenomenon" is an actual article). If a movie is scheduled for 2011 and it needs a dab for having the same name as another movie then it would be named "[name movie] (2011 film)", if it gets delayed the page will be moved to reflect the new information brought up by reliable sources. By your logic we should not add anything that talks about the future because maybe the world will end tomorrow and none of it would happen. There is no assumption here, we report what sources say, assuming it will be delayed without any reason and sources stating it might be delayed is original research. You are entirely misreading WP:CRYSTAL which is about —unsourced— information based on the assumption it will happen because it falls under a —pattern—. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, this is getting a bit heated. :/ I think the issue is more when we're looking at tables and headers that identify a full TV season as if it is already completed when it hasn't. It's misleading to say that Show X airs 2010/2011, when we haven't entered into 2011 yet. Yes, it's assumed that it will air then, but something could happen to get the series canceled before that ever happens (I don't know how many shows on the major networks don't make it past a few episodes each year). We should be sticking to what is logically accurate. We haven't entered into 2011 yet, so tables and section headers that identify a show's run for the upcoming season shouldn't be stating that it ended its run in the future because that's impossible. There is a reason that in TV infoboxes when we list the "Original run" we say stuff like "2005 - present" or "2005 - ", to indicate that it is still on going.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So why do we add a "Season X" in the first place, you know it might get canceled before it starts, and Season X might never happen. We report and name things based on reliable references. The infobox is because the infobox reports the current status, same for the episode count, this is not the case in the article itself, were also the future is reported on. How is it misleading to say season 1 will air in 2010–2011 when this is sourced? So is it wrong to say the original air date of episode X will air in September? There might happen something? There is nothing wrong or misleading about naming things based on sources. What is accurate is what is sourced. Not to insult anyone, but I think the "It might never happen" is one of the lamest reasons I've ever heard, yes something might happen, that doesn't mean we don't state what is currently known. Take the example given at WP:CRYSTAL: 2020 Summer Olympics, it hasn't happened yet, it could get canceled, but is sourced and thus correct in naming it so. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A page shouldn't exist if it hasn't started production in the first place. Once it has, it's still "season X" no matter if it airs or not. It may be sourced that it will air, but it isn't sourced that it has aired and that is what the headers represent. A historical account. You cannot have a historical future account. You can have a planned future, but when the header in this case is representing the current state and not a future state, it's misleading and inaccurate to suggest otherwise. It's the same reason we don't actually change the "Season" status in the infobox over to the next season until it actually airs that season. The info on that season might exist and they may have filmed some episodes, but if they never air then the show was never broadcast in that year. You're applying the naming of an article to the naming of a section header. This is two separate things. The article is the topic. The section header in the case of TV show seasons indicates when a season aired. It cannot air in the future, only in the present. There can be a plan for it, but until it actually airs there are no 2011 episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(←) The infobox gives a representation of the current status of the show, the rest of the article doesn't, it also talks about the future. It's sourced and that's basically it, verifiable information. The section header doesn't indicate when the season has aired, it represents sourced information, if the show has aired in 1999 is says that, if the show is scheduled to air in 2050 it also says that. You're basically saying that a section title has somehow higher standards than an article title. And that no section can be named after lets say a book or comic spinoff by name when it hasn't been released, because of the assumption it might change. So in your opinion the section #Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2010/2011) is double wrong, once for stating both 2010 and 2011 when the movies haven't been released yet and once for naming the movie, because they might change it? As well as every section on wikipedia naming an upcoming movie/album/song by name? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It amazes me how much of a big deal you are making about dates in a section header. It's your opinion that it should represent what is planned. That is not the opinion that I share. Simple as that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand, because your logic makes no sense to me. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My logic is that the headers on an LOE page (which is primarily what we're speaking about here, I assume, since Chaos brought this up) are used to represent when a season aired (past tense intended). A show cannot air in the future. This isn't the same situation like when in film you're naming an article, or the 2020 Olympics. We're speaking about a specific section of a specific type of article. It is my opinion that those header dates are used to represent the current state of the season. For a show that has an upcoming season, which either has not aired yet or has not aired any episodes in the next year, the header should reflect that. It's as simple as that. There's not illogic behind it. It's an opinion. Just like yours is an opinion that if a show is expected to air in the future that the header should reflect what is expected.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I prefer Bignole's way, although I don't think it's a huge deal. I also think it's a little bit funky depending on how you look at it. For instance, consider the 2010–11 NBA season. Maybe we call it that because we think there's no way it won't happen. But, it's also it's name. Even if something happened, and the current season stopped in December, it might still be called that. Could a 2010 season still be a 2010 season even if it was never aired? Maybe. "The 2010 season of Beverly Hillbillies was filmed but never aired. Because of a copyright dispute, the 24 episodes were shelved with an agreement they would never be aired or released on DVD." Maybe I'm reaching. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, if new sources come up that state different information that the currently known, the page is updated to reflect those changes in dates. So if 2010 gets canceled it would be removed from the page, just like everything else on wikipedia. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 08:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Bignole, I am only talking about on LOE articles. This is a perfect example of how we cannot predict the future. Last August, if you were to ask me if The Beautiful Life would have at least 13 episodes to span from September 2009 to early 2010 on The CW, I would have said yes. But, due to low ratings, the show was pulled just after two episodes. Looking at TV.com (I know its not the most reliable site) Four episodes had descriptions released and looking at MSN TV, Five were released. This show has six produced epiosodes, two of which were aired on TV, that make up one season. The heading "Season One (2009-2010)" would make absolute sense in August, but in October, it would be quite foolish.

On a series main article, the infobox would read Number of seasons, followed by episodes, followed down the line by the air date. If a network goes ahead and orders 20 episodes, says "Yes, we will air them from 2010 to 2011", and Wikipedia lists 20 episodes Season One 2010-2011 before or during its run, how in the world do we know for an absolute fact that it will not be canceled after its second episode? The air date period states the month day and year the series started, but does not predict its ending. It states in the determined field "present". Why don't we take this logic and apply it to the headings of LOE pages? Yes, Xeworlebi, it is not an infobox and is merely a heading, but I am sure that you can handle applying it to the header. When it airs, then you can adjust the year. "The section header doesn't indicate when the season has aired, it represents sourced information, if the show has aired in 1999 is says that, if the show is scheduled to air in 2050 it also says that." If the show has indeed aired in 1999, it does say that. If however it is planned for 2050, then listing that as such would be illogical, especially given the 40 years in between now and then. The situation is completely different from the 2020 Olympics, an event meant to take place that year, and a film that is planned for release. The film article, which is most similar to TV, such as Harry Potter 7, parts 1 and 2, is a film, and yes, while it can be delayed, it is not an ongoing situation. With film, once something is planned, it is usually 99% of the time, made. And although a date can easily change, it is not as flamboyant as an episode on a TV show which has constant uncertainty 99% of the time on whether it will make it to the TV screen. Another example of the easy changes to a TV schedule would be the Hope for Haiti telethon, which moved several scheduled telecasts of TV shows that had been scheduled weeks, and in some cases, months before (take that from an angry Smallville fan that night :P ). Smallville, which was scheduled to air its first episode of 2010, pushed the mid-season premiere off a week and re-ordered some episodes as well to incorporate its TV movie. Everything with TV is not as solid as it is with a film or a four year, world-wide event. ChaosMaster_Chat 21:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(←) So basically you base your reasoning on the unsubstantiated assumption it might not air rather than the sourced information it will? And reporting sourced information is not "predict[ing] the future", Sometimes references are wrong because things change but I don't understand how updating an article as new references are released became so controversial all of a sudden. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a little problem in and of itself. Sources typically say, "The studio has ordered X number of episodes". What they do not say is, "The studio will air X number of episodes". The difference is that they have contracted to produce, not to air and should they choose to cancel said contract that any remaining episodes will not air. So, in reality we are not reporting sourced fact when we make a header "2010 - 2011", but actually reporting an assumption on our part based on previous experience. There is no source that is backing our claim, we're merely going by what a TV show typically runs. That is where the issue lies, and why my particular stance is that we report what we can show. We cannot show that an episode will air in the future. We can show that they plan to produce future episodes, but all we can very when it comes to broadcasting is what has actually occurred. We may get to the midway point of a TV season (which is about November) and get a source providing an air date for a new episode in January, but that's about as close as we get to verification that an episode will air in the succeeding year.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We do report the sourced, if a show is sourced to have episode 1 air on december 31, 2010. we add 2010 to the section, if a week later episode 2 info is released and it says it airs in 2011, then we add 2011 to the section header. Again, we report what dates have been sourced, not assuming it will cross over in the next year. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 07:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that means you wouldn't be changing any headers until about November/December when most shows officially release the air dates for episodes in the second half of the season. Until then, what you typically get is "It may air in October 2010". That's not a date, that's an estimation that can (and I've seen many times) change. When they actually set a date for broadcast, then you'd have an argument for changing a header if it needed changing. But when a season is just starting, you're not likely to actually have any idea when an episode will air in the following year until almost the end of the first half of the TV season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! Everywhere ChaosMaster16 has been removing these dates, that I've seen, have already set air dates in 2010. Take Smallville, already two date have been confirmed for season 10, so the section would accordingly be named #Season 10 (2010), when sources have information about episodes airing in 2011 then you add 2011 to it. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So long as we have an actual date confirmed for airing (my personal opinion of a date is Month Day, Year and not simply Month Year), then it's fine. And I thought Smallville already said "2010"? When did it get removed?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It did, ChaosMaster16 removed it in this edit. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xeworlebi's logic. Except for maybe one or two shows each season, all shows will proceed to air episodes the next year. If the show is cancelled, we can change the heading to just the year that it aired in. It makes more sense to go with the norm (shows airing it two years), rather than the exception (shows being cancelled and limited to just one year). Just my opinion, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(←) Proposal: "If the episode lists includes episodes from multiple seasons, give them appropriate section headers such as "Season 1 (1999–2000)", "Season 2 (2000–2001)", or "Series 1 (1999–2000)", "Series 2 (2000–2001)" if that is the identifier for the show. Do not include unsourced years to the section headers, assuming a show will continue into the next year should not be done per WP:CRYSTAL." _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we don't need the full date for the ending year (e.g., just "2001-02" should be fine). I would also tweak it to include something about sources for specific dates into the next year, because early when shows start you'll see news places saying "it'll air in the 2010 and 2011 season", which is no indication that it will actually make it to 2011 if there isn't already a date set.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Plot in episode lists

The MOS should be more precise on what the plot section should contain, mention WP:SPOILER and say it should be concise but still complete. Especially the |ShortSummary= which is often thought to be more of a teaser box than contain the full plot of the episode. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Difference between "teaser" and "full plot"? There are many TV pages where they don't have or warrant episode pages, thus a "full plot" (as far as my understanding of it goes) would be necessary. Except, a "full plot" that is much shorter than would appear on an individual episode page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. TV shows that don't have seperate pages for each episode should be allowed 100 to 200 words per 25 minutes of air time (ads not included) in their summaries. More words for complex episodes.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)