Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

International broadcasting discussion

I've collected all the current discussion of international broadcasting on this page in this section. I would ask that further discussions on this topic be kept in this section so long as it remains on this page. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we gain anything from grouping threads by the coincidental fact that they happened to mention the same section of the policy in different contexts. (I restored them all to top level, but Dogmaticelectric reverted me.) I arrived with a question about article categories, someone else had a question about article notability and a third editor wanted to know why prose was better than tables. Grouping these together into an "International broadcasting discussion" makes it look like they're all part of a larger debate about the policy, but they are almost entirely unrelated. --McGeddon (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

They are all connected since they all discuss one or more aspects of WP:TVINTL. In any case, how can you justify having six completely separate discussions about a single guideline section on one page? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I would ask that you at least try to get my username right next time. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that an RFC has been raised for outside opinions, we should not waste people's time by suggesting that it is somehow a culmination of six other threads. I'll bump out anything that isn't directly connected to the removal of "don't list all stations" from WP:TVINTL. --McGeddon (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS section removal proposal

I propose that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Broadcast be removed. Neither of the two arguments I've seen cited for what it states are actually valid. WP:DATED doesn't work, because it is actually quite rare that broadcasters for shows - except perhaps certain major shows - change; what is more common is that broadcasters change their branding, but this isn't much of a problem since redirects exist. Neither does WP:NOTTVGUIDE: a TV guide lists what times shows are on. The type of information in question in this case, on the other hand, is something I haven't been able to find anywhere else to date, including any TV guide. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I find these sections are often very length given the small amount of information they convey, often badly maintained or inaccurate, and rather trivial. If a show is very popular globally, it can be noted in narrative that it's shown in x# of countries or in Y# of languages or some such thing, and be done with it. --Drmargi (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Er, I was referring to removing the section here - i.e. exactly the opposite of what you "agree" with. I've now clarified this. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I did misunderstand. Actually it's still not clear -- where is the section you want to remove? From this discussion or from individual articles? --Drmargi (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've clarified my proposal further. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

A TV Guide is not just about times, it's also about blanket channel listings. Just since we're also not an indiscriminate collection of information, just blanket listing every country and channel a show appears on is neither useful nor encyclopedic. No one coming here is going to care that a show appears in Ireland unless there is a significance to it. It's common place for shows to appear across the world. It's all about significance, and just listing channels and countries supplies no significance whatsoever.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you show me an example of a TV guide that includes listings from several countries? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between understanding the spirit of the statement and trying to take a strawman stance with it. What is a TV Guide, but a place that lists when and where shows appear in a list form. Hence, the spirit of a TV Guide is what you get when you're just listing places a show is broadcast. It's the same principal, and something that Wikipedia is not. As I pointed out, it's also not an indiscriminate collection of information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you of WP:AGF... anyways, that's not even remotely a straw man stance - this information cannot be found anywhere else at all, so removing it removes valuable information from Wikipedia and thus does a disservice to Wikipedia readers. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

First, it has to be somewhere else, because otherwise we'd be creating original research. Wikipedia collects information that has significance to a topic, which means someone else must be reporting on it first. Thus, it does exist somewhere else. That said, just because something exists does not mean that it is noteworthy or relevant. What is the relevance, if I might ask, of knowing that The Mentalist premiered in India on September 3, 2008 (making up date)?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because something isn't relevant to you doesn't mean it's not relevant to others. Wikipedia probably has millions of articles that are of no relevance to you whatsoever. I therefore suggest not bringing up that silly relevance "argument" again.

It wouldn't be WP:OR if each broadcast was sourced. Admittedly, this often isn't the case, but that doesn't mean that the lists should necessarily be removed. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is our duty to determine what has significance to an article in question, as well as articles in general. We have criteria for articles and we have guidelines for information within articles. They are our Manuals of Style. So....one can say something is relevant or not. It's the duty of all the editors to determine as a whole if that opinion should be translated into a guideline or a policy. Also, what I said was if the information originated with us, then it would be OR. You claimed the information isn't anywhere else, and I say that it is, otherwise it would have originated with us and been OR. Simple enough. As for what is relevant, you didn't answer my question about what is the relevance of knowing when a show airs in another country? We're not here to tell people when to program their DVRs, we're here to provide encyclopedic content to readers. So, what is the significance? It must be more than, "they'll know when it airs in country Y", otherwise you wouldn't be arguing to keep it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify my point. The information itself - by which I mean which channel a particular show airs on in which country - is indeed available in TV guides, as well as many other sources. However, there is no aggregate that I know of of this information. Consider the potential problems for someone who tries to find this information if it's not on Wikipedia:

• Other countries may use different languages, making it virtually impossible to find anything that's not online, and even making finding online TV guide information difficult.
• Even if the language is the same, full TV guide information is not always available online, and travelling to another country to find it... yeah.
• It's often unclear how to find this information anyways, for various reasons.

The most important reason of all, though, is none of these. It's historical data: in many cases, it is virtually impossible, without some serious sleuthing and even then only if there happen to be archives available, to find out on what channels a TV show used to air. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You haven't actually provided a reason as to why that is useful or significant. You've attempted to provide a reason for why it shouldn't be deleted, not for why it's important to have in the first place. Why would someone need to know what channel or specific country a show appeared on? Knowing my favorite show airs in India or Ireland is of no consequence to me, because I cannot watching there because I'm in the United States. The same is true for someone that lives in the UK and listing those channels and countries for them. It serves no real purpose. I could make the same argument for any piece of trivia about a show, but we expressly forbid trivia sections and trivial information about shows that serve no purpose. So, why is it important to a reader?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few reasons for this. For example, not all TV channel websites do geoblocking, so having a list of channels is quite helpful if you want to watch a show that doesn't air in your country. Even if you can't find a website that isn't geoblocked, it helps in searching for DVD and/or Blu-ray releases that, again, may not be available in your country.

Also, there's the simple matter of historical research. What if you're writing a paper on something related to the TV industry, and you need to look up how popular certain shows were, or what their popularity was in certain regions? Having readily available channel lists is invaluable in this respect. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

First, you just described a TV Guide in your first bit; which is something we aren't. You cannot say, "it's not really a TV guide" (paraphrasing), and then describe the need to locate a show on a particular channel, which is what a tv guide provides. As for DVD and Blu-Ray info, that has nothing to do with this section anyway. As for the last bit, knowing what channel a show appeared on does not indicate how popular it was. Especially since different countries use different means of tracking show popularity. Nielsen is not a global form of viewership measurement. Other countries have their own and those places would keep track of the channel a show appeared in their country. I won't even get into the idea of people doing their research through Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You keep resorting to arguments I've already debunked (and correcting your paragraph indentation is starting to get annoying, by the way), so I don't think there's much point in continuing this discussion unless someone else wants to step in. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The section seems in line with WP:IINFO - we shouldn't overwhelm the reader with minutiae simply because they happen to be true, and listing all the mundane broadcast details will drown out any significant ones. The observation that we should include this information because it is "virtually impossible" to find it otherwise suggests that we would have trouble sourcing it in the first place, and is not in itself a reason to include a particular type of content. --McGeddon (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess you didn't read my arguments thoroughly. I didn't say you can't find the data - in fact, the situation is quite the opposite, and sourcing shouldn't be a problem at all. What I said was that it is virtually impossible to find a compiled form of this data - you would almost certainly have to look at television data from all the various countries a show may have aired in... come to think of it, how would you even know where to look if these tables are not present? Would you literally search through channel information from every country in the world? (By the way, none of the points at WP:IINFO apply... you were probably thinking of WP:NOTTVGUIDE, which I already debunked above as it relates to this discussion.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't "debunk" anything, as your reasoning for why we need the list was basically to describe a TV guide. You haven't actually provided a reason for why a reader would need to know that a show appears in any other country, or the channel/network it appears on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? I provided a significant number of reasons above, which you clearly ignored. I suggest looking for bullet points and/or bolded text if you're not sure what I'm referring to. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw your "bullets". You described why someone would need a list, which was to know where a show airs in a certain country. That's a TV Guide's job. To just point it out, you even say, "full TV guide information is not always available online". You're actually arguing that we be a TV Guide for people, and Wikipedia is not used for that. The only channel that is important is the channel of origin, and we'll always be able to find that (thus "debunking" your bolded point). Unless a show set some sort of precedence, a record, or did something special on a foreign channel, it is not relevant what those channels or countries were. You can summarize a show's broadcast by pointing out that it airs in various countries around the world. You're also trying to argue that someone Wikipedia should be a source is someone's research paper, or article, or whatever. I would think that if a source exists for a foreign country broadcast, the person doing the research should be able to find it just as easy as us. You cannot hide behind "historical data", when the data itself is trivial. Not every bit of information is truly relevant.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Enough. Your argument is basically that since Wikipedia isn't a TV guide (or rather your incorrect interpretation of the term), the tables shouldn't be included no matter how useful they are. This is really a postulate, which cannot be reasoned with no matter how strong the opposing arguments are, and restating it over and over is pointless. I therefore once again ask that you let someone else continue this discussion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

So, you're counter-argument is that since you don't like that your position can be easily boiled down into an argument that we be a TV Guide (it's not an incorrect interpretation of the term, you're just trying to take the term very literally so that your argument has a leg to stand on), you think that I shouldn't be discussing any further? Are you going to end your pointless debating as well, because all you do is restate the same thing over and over again as well. I believe someone new came in and basically said the same thing as a me and you had to dismiss them as "not reading your argument thoroughly". I think you believe that being articulate in an argument someone means that it cannot be simplified to one basic point: you want permission to create a TV guide (doesn't matter the rationale you use for wanting it, it still boils down to being a TV guide). Enough said.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A table listing channels is not a TV guide. That is the fundamental point here. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for misreading, but I wasn't thinking of WP:NOTTVGUIDE, I did actually mean WP:IINFO: something "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". That people would find it useful to have a collection of information gathered in one place does not mean that Wikipedia should be that place. --McGeddon (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Except that, as I mentioned, WP:IINFO lists specific points, and this does not fall under any of them. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that writing something like "M*A*S*H aired on CBS in the United States, CBC in Canada, the BBC in the United Kingdom, TF1 in France, ARD in Germany, AzTV in Azerbaijan..." for a full, exhaustive paragraph would fit IINFO's "excessive listings of statistics" which "may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles". --McGeddon (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That's an argument for using lists instead of prose, not removal. In fact, WP:IINFO makes clear that even lists of statistics (which this is not and therefore is a point under which this does not actually fall) may sometimes be necessary. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it is an argument for deciding whether the material is "necessary", and whether to factor it as a table or "omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely". I think the current MOS:TV is correct in deciding that it is unnecessary to give the reader an exhaustive list, and better to summarise noteworthy broadcast issues. --McGeddon (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Your "argument" is basically the same as that of the other user's - you're stating that such lists a priori fall under WP:NOT no matter how useful they may be. In other words, you're both deletionists. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I am with Bignole and McGeddon on this one. Two months ago, I actually decided it was best to remove such a list from an article I was working on, but didn't knew of WP:TVINTL then (nor could I articulate what's so bothersome about them, but Bignole did that perfectly above). Dogmaticeclectic, I have read your views above but I believe that Bignole and McGeddon already addressed them sufficiently, so I am not interested in dragging out this discussion further. I'll point out though that in the rare case a reader actually needs information for where around a world a show airs, the "Languages" links below the toolbar will give him that information quickly. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that readers be forced to resort to online translation of Wikipedia because you're too much of a deletionist to see past your horribly flawed ideology? (Come to think of it, I find it unlikely that there isn't some policy against purposely forcing users to go to other language versions of Wikipedia to obtain information...) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:sgeureka, a response of some sort would be appreciated. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't have called the editor a "deletionist" with a "horribly flawed ideology"? If you're trying to build consensus for a change, assuming good faith will get you a lot further than aggressively dismissing the editors who disagree with you. --McGeddon (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What does stating a user's obvious ideology have to do with WP:AGF? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, how about responding in our discussion above? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your choice of words certainly doesn't invite a response, but here it is: As I predicted, I don't see this discussion going anywhere new, so I have nothing to add. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory guidelines

I removed the controversial statements from the guideline not only for the reason specified in the edit summary, but also because the recommended course of action is a clear violation of WP:PROSE other guidelines. Guidelines are not allowed to contradict each other. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

First, I've restored it because it has been there far long enough that consensus was established. You cannot remove something because YOU don't like it. Especially when multiple editors have disagreed with you in the above discussions. Please feel free to explain how this violates WP:PROSE? It doesn't. The MOS doesn't say that no lists can appear, it merely says that a collection of indiscriminate facts is not to be included, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE (a policy, which supercededs any guideline). This is not about deleting a list over prose, we're telling you that neither is appropriate. If you're just identifying a few things of international broadcast in prose, that's fine. It's when people want to chronicle every possible broadcast that it becomes an indiscriminate collection of information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

My mistake - I was really referring to guidelines like WP:WHENTABLE and other sections in WP:EMBED itself. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, where exactly is the contradiction? Those are guides for when it is appropriate to use a list and/or table in a prose article. The section of this guideline that you are claiming is in violation is not about how to include them, but that including this type of information is not appropriate per the policy on what Wikipedia is not. The policy supercedes the guidelines.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"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." This is essentially an invitation to violate WP:WHENTABLE and other sections like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Long sequences.

By the way, contrary to what you claimed in your edit summary, guidelines most certainly do not supersede each other (and one of the links you provided is WP:RED). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

First, that does not encourage the violation of another guideline. It is encouraging how to present certain information. What it is really doing is saying that we only include English-speaking countries, and we don't just list every english-speaking country. Second, you need to learn the difference between a guideline and a policy. I said "POLICY" supercedes "GUIDELINE", not "Guideline supercede guideline". It's "red" because I typed "TVGUIDE" instead of just WP:NOTGUIDE. Per INDISCRIMINATE: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's say you include only English-speaking countries' channels and a few others that are deemed notable in the context of that show's article. The number of channels could easily go up into double digits, right? Now, what the section currently recommends is, instead of making a convenient, compact list or table, to use sprawling prose and thus clutter up the article. (I got confused with which pages are deemed policy and which ones guidelines, so don't mind that.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

First, ti isn't talking about "channels", it specifically says "simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged"; it actually says "countries". There is a difference, as many countries could have multiple channels airing a show, depending on how old the show is and if it is in syndication by that point (e.g., at one point Smallville appeared on The CW, ABC Family, TNT, and a few others, at the same time). Given that we're not an indiscriminate collection of information, if you're just "collecting" different countries, then you're going to be in violation of that policy (whether you do a list form or a prose form, it's the same problem). Take Arrow, it's a grand total of 7 different countries, on different dates. That said, it doesn't discourage lists or tables, but encourages prose. Prose can work quite nicely, and look better, if written professionally. That said, there are plenty of times when tables are appropriate (many articles list awards and nominations in that format because of how quickly they can grow to enormous lengths when a show is long running). Now, let's take The Good Wife. Not only do it ignore the "only english-speaking countries", but lists channels (see how some countries have more than 1 channel listed), days of the week, broadcast time, is unsourced, and is generally unsightly to look at because that table is just as cluttered as prose could. I wouldn't get into how indiscriminate the list is (i.e., that's one of the reasons why we limit to "english-only").  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point I'm making again and to such an extent that I suppose I should leave a discussion of ours for a third time. However, I'll reiterate a different point I previously made above (since, for some reason, you keep bringing up an opposing point despite it having no direct connection to my current point): "A table listing channels is not a TV guide. That is the fundamental point here." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:TVINTL only says that editors are "encouraged" to write broadcast details in prose, and the linked policies are equally flabby (lists "may be preferable" for long sequences, tables "might" be used for complex discographies). I see no hard and fast contradictions here. --McGeddon (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Instead of confusing editors with "flabby" guidelines (not policies), how about simply modifying WP:TVINTL by removing the statements that I previously removed? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems more or less equivalent to your earlier proposal to remove the whole section, which I've already responded to - your removal would only leave the oddly-floating statements of the obvious "mention when a show does something noteworthy", "call the section 'Broadcast'" and "provide sources". --McGeddon (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Those latter parts are the only ones that could be deemed to have and/or have had consensus anyways. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting this "doesn't have consensus" stuff, because it does. Just because you disagree with it does not mean that there was not consensus. That said, I'll be happy to remove the 'encourage prose' bit, when we tighten up the other stuff to be, "only include international broadcast history when it is deemed noteworthy in reliable sources". Meaning, unless someone is discussing is more than simply a "The Good Wife appears in Germany" reference, then it isn't relevant to the article. How does that sound? Forget the "TV Guide" stuff; we'll just stick to the policy on indiscriminate collection of information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the broadcast section of this page be removed?

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

---

Should Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Broadcast be removed? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nominator: "Neither of the two arguments I've seen cited for what it states are actually valid. WP:DATED doesn't work, because it is actually quite rare that broadcasters for shows - except perhaps certain major shows - change; what is more common is that broadcasters change their branding, but this isn't much of a problem since redirects exist. Neither does WP:NOTTVGUIDE: a TV guide lists what times shows are on. The type of information in question in this case, on the other hand, is something I haven't been able to find anywhere else to date, including any TV guide." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per my previously lengthy remarks above. Wikipedia is not a TV guide, NOR is it an indiscriminate collection of information. First, a TV guide collections a list of shows and when they air. So, allowing people to list a show's international broadcast channel, country, and airing time IS doing just that...being a TV guide. Knowing that a show appeared on Channel X in Canada serves no real encyclopedic value about the show. The people in Canada know when the show airs, and since the people in India cannot watch the show on the Canadian channel it doesn't help them out. It also doesn't serve as some "collection" for researchers, as any good researcher isn't using Wikipedia as their resource anyway. At the end of the day, whether you think it's a TV guide-esque set up or not, it is still an indiscriminate collection of information, for which we have a policy against.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Indiscriminate list. Additionally, I can't wrap my head around how we would maintain lists of international broadcast information. As the nominator says a few sections up "In many cases, it is virtually impossible, without some serious sleuthing and even then only if there happen to be archives available, to find out on what channels a TV show used to air." Changes and additions to this list, if they cannot be easily verified, are sure to render each list worthless for their proposed historical value. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose: Unless there is something absolutely notable about how it is being broadcast internationally (i.e. day and date? co-producing?), this is just indiscriminate information. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:IINFO, since listing potentially dozens of international channels that a show aired on would be "confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles". That the nominator describes this information as "something I haven't been able to find anywhere else to date" is not in itself a reason for Wikipedia to include it. --McGeddon (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, in full agreement with the other oppose rationales above, mainly because of WP:IINFO. No arguments in support of such lists have convinced me otherwise. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I have seen several such sections which are unsourced trivia. In the case of some programs (e.g. The Simpsons), well-documented sections can be created which discuss relevant information about how these shows were broadcast elsewhere (e.g. how Homer drinks soda in the Middle East). Either way, long lists (again, generally with no sources) are discouraged unless the articles are lists themselves. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• User:Bignole, I would ask that you provide evidence for all of your statements. For instance, you wrote: "It also doesn't serve as some 'collection' for researchers". What evidence, if any, is there for this? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • First, the "Survey" section is not for discussion. Second, you and I have "discussed" plenty. You make plenty of unfounded claims. My comment about "researchers" is based on yours that "What if you're writing a paper on something related to the TV industry, and you need to look up how popular certain shows were, or what their popularity was in certain regions." Again, any serious researchers aren't using us as sources, and even so, if we can find it then so can that. That's all I'm going to say further. Remember, this isn't the section for discussion and counter-arguments, it's a basic "survey". So, please allow people the chance to voice their opinions in peace. The details of my argument can be read above in the previous discussions. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Fine - moved. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• User:Cyphoidbomb, do not twist my words by quoting them out of context. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No twist intended, but I apologize if it came across that way. As difficult as it is to find, it's equally as difficult to verify. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not at all difficult to find! Here's what I actually wrote on the matter: "I didn't say you can't find the data - in fact, the situation is quite the opposite, and sourcing shouldn't be a problem at all. What I said was that it is virtually impossible to find a compiled form of this data - you would almost certainly have to look at television data from all the various countries a show may have aired in... come to think of it, how would you even know where to look if these tables are not present? Would you literally search through channel information from every country in the world?" Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You say "here's what I actually wrote" as if I made a mistake, but the sentence I quoted is something you thought important enough to "actually" write in bolded italic text. So I don't know if I can be faulted for not knowing what you actually wrote, when you also actually wrote the big hairy thing on the page. Moving along, some of your unbolded, unitalicized statements seem contradictory, especially about how the international broadcast data is easy to find, except when different languages are used, and/or when traveling to another country proves difficult, but then you reassure the reader that the data is not all difficult to find. It's all so needlessly confusing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

What about the reverse?

There are plenty of lists of programs broadcast by channels that are neither in the English language nor in English-speaking countries here. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're actually asking.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Bignole, according to the opinions above, there is significant opposition to including foreign broadcasters in articles on TV shows, yet I know of no such opposition to including TV shows in articles on foreign broadcasters. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about a page like List of programs broadcast by The CW Television Network, but instead of the CW, it's CTV4 or some other channel?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Bignole, I would appreciate it if you provided links in all appropriate cases in the future - I'm not quite sure what channel you're referring to in the second instance - but I think so. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Try not to assume the worst, I don't know of any page for CTV4 (it's a Canadian station). I had to search for The CW one, because I knew it existed, but I didn't know the name of it. Anyway, what is your question actually about? I'm still not sure what you're specifically asking (if you are asking anything, because your first comment is a statement and not a question)).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Bignole, I don't think such a broadcaster exists - perhaps you are referring to CTV Two (or CTV Television Network)? (I'm not quite sure why you think I wasn't assuming good faith, by the way.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

CTV then. I don't live there, so I don't know what it's actually called. Either way, I'm still not sure what your question is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:Bignole: Okay, I'll try to explain my point again: yes, you are correct that I am referring to "List of programs broadcast by" articles. What I mean is that they contain the exact same information that several users opposed the inclusion of above, just presented differently. Surely WP:IINFO applies regardless of presentation, and as such, each and every single "List of programs broadcast by" article for a foreign broadcaster should be deleted if taking these views as consensus? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily saying that they should or should not exist, but at the same time most of those pages are merely listing all the shows that appear on them. They are not listing (at least the CW page isn't, as I have not looked at the others) dates, times, etc. In addition, they are one page listing their own shows, and not one page listing 1 show's appearance on every known station.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:Bignole: See, that's the thing... from a WP:IINFO viewpoint, I just don't really see the difference between "one page listing their own shows" and "one page listing 1 show's appearance on every known station". I've seen airdates in multiple such articles, by the way. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not debating their existence. I don't know that we need them, and I thought a long time ago we did away with all of them. That said, whether you view it as still indiscriminate information, it's not the same information. To me, there is a difference between announcing an air date, and displaying time and day of when a show airs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Bignole, none of the tables on TV show pages - I repeat, none! - that I have seen to date included anything like the "time and day of when a show airs". Can you provide an example of this? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't monitor "pages". I edit the ones you've seen me on and you're free to go back in those histories and see where I've removed them as soon as they appeared. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Bignole, I looked through your contributions and was unable to find such an example. I would therefore ask once again that you please provide one. (Also, please stop making assumptions about me - to my knowledge, I haven't seen you editing anywhere but here.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia since 2006, so I highly doubt you've been through all my contributions. Like I said, feel free to go through them, it's about 60,000 edits. As for this particular discussion, there isn't much to it. The consensus was clear.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Bignole, please stop avoiding discussion - as far as I am aware, doing so in a content dispute such as this one is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please fulfill my request to provide an example instead of expecting me (or any other editor, for that matter) to go through that number of contributions. There has been no consensus on this particular issue as nobody but yourself has responded in this section (and I am not aware of this specific point having been brought up before). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue in question was about broadcast listings on pages, and the consensus was to follow the MOS and NOT delete the section. I don't personally care that a TV channel might have a program listing, because I don't edit those pages. I was merely humoring you by inclining what your "question" (which took half the page to decipher) was about. I have that now, and as I said, in my opinion it's not the same issue as you originally proposed. To me, it seems like this section is about finding a work-around to the consensus above. As far as "avoiding", I'm not "avoiding" anything within the "content dispute". As there is no "content" dispute, because, as I said, I don't care about TV channel pages themselves. Secondly, not wanting to go through my own 60k edits is hardly avoiding. I just know how tedious it will be and have no intention of doing so. There is no policy that mandates that I continue discussions that I have already spoken my peace about. Good luck trying to find that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"YYYY television seasons" category in main episode list

In the episode list article List of 2 Broke Girls episodes, it has the following categories: Category:2011 television seasons, Category:2012 television seasons and Category:2013 television seasons. Since the article encompasses the entire series, not independent seasons, is this correct? If so, will similar categories have to be placed on all episode list articles (ones that have been split into sublists not included)? — Whisternefet (t · c) 03:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

(For the record I doubt the second outcome will happen.) — Whisternefet (t · c) 04:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Help request regarding SourceFed GA review

Hi, I'm currently reviewing the GAN for SourceFed and wondered if I could get some eyes on it from someone well versed in the television MOS. Mostly I'm not sure about the Hosts section of the article. Is it too broad, should it be there, does it need to be entirely sourced or not, etc. Thanks, Samwalton9 (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Series Finale

Hey all, I'm curious about the usage of "Series Finale". I see it get added often to children's television articles (usually in boldface, and usually in episode lists, for example here) to indicate that the episode at the bottom of the list is the last episode. While I understand the literal meaning of "Series Finale" as the end of a series, I wonder if we could do without these designations, since it seems fairly clear that the last episode of a series is the last episode. Also, "Series Finale" has an implication of being a planned event (a la Friends, Seinfeld, Breaking Bad), as opposed to a de facto end due to sudden cancellation, or non-renewal of the series, or whatever. Does the community have a perspective on this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps "series finale" should be used in the event of a planned final episode, while in other cases we should stick to phrases like "final episode of the series". Just my two cents. DonIago (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It has no business being put arbitrarily in the episode lists like it is in Rocko's Modern Life. It's implied, whether intentional or not when a series ends. We don't need to say, "Series finale" or anything of the sort. It's like saying "Series premiere" for a pilot episode. It's obvious. The page a reader is on should say in the lead whether or not a series is still running or if it has ended.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are articles about TV series always written in present tense?

Why is it that articles about TV series are always written as if the show is still running? Articles about things like deceased people, past award ceremonies, as well as past sport events are all written in past tense, because they were things that occurred for an extended amount of time and stopped at some point. How are TV series any different? Scarce2 (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

First, tv series are not people, thus they cannot die. TV series are perpetual. Even when the show is over, it still exists. I can view it as I want. For instance, The Cosby Show will always be a television show, it just is not a show that currently airs anymore. Being a television show is not determined by whether you are still on tv, but whether or not you ever were. Unless the evidence for a show is completely destroyed, it will always exist. Bill Cosby will always be Heathcliff Huxtable on the show, that doesn't change. Anything about fiction is always present tense, because it will forever exist. People view it in the present tense, they don't view it in the past tense. If you need further clarification, see WP:WAF and WP:TENSE.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, to some regard. There are some shows, as currently being discussed with The Early Show, that literally do not exist anymore, in any way. There is no way to watch a complete episode, as it is a first run, live television news show. Things like these literally do not exist anymore, for public consumption. Sure, if you work at CBS you could probably find an aircheck somewhere, but that is not what we are talking about here, we are talking about mass consumption ability. I believe that the tense part of this manual of style needs to be taken a look at, as it is very broad and seemingly only covers television shows which have the potential to be syndicated or otherwise preserved. What you said above is exactly what I mean, "Anything about fiction is always present tense." Well, news isn't fiction. I think Scarce2 brings up a great point and this should be discussed further. There needs to be clearer definitions as to which show the "is" tense applies to. Taylor2646 (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Taylor. There are some circumstances where using the present tense for ended shows is justified, but there are many cases where it is not. —Will^(B) 17:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, news isn't fiction and isn't what this guideline is meant for. It's about fiction, not news programs. Those are different mediums, and non-fiction news programs are not chronicled in DVD format or some other form that can be easily re-viewed. Thus, it does not have the same standards. A show that is destroyed and can never be viewed again will be a "was" and not an "is" in the lead (or anywhere else). The MOS does not need to change, as it specifically says "still exists". If that's not the case, then obviously the rule does not apply. If you really need clarification on this, then a simple line of "shows that no longer exist in any medium, and have been basically destroyed will be written about in past tense".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Bignole. There are definitely exceptions. If we made this a community discussion, would there be any chance of change? —Will^(B) 19:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Series" or "show"?

This is not a question of much consequence, but I often wonder which of those two terms is preferred. I've tried to find an answer, but without luck, so I thought that here might be a good place to ask.

They seem to be used interchangeably throughout Wikipedia, and I assume that the policy is that both are acceptable, but is either preferred at all? Are there circumstances which determine which one is better in specific cases?

I personally think that it would be best if there was a clear decision (for either term, I don't really care which) in order to increase consistency throughout Wikipedia and within individual articles. BreakfastJr (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"Series" is generally considered a more professional and accurate term for what you're writing about. "Show" can be a lot of things, and is a little more laymen. Most importantly, in the lead we say "X is a television series ...." and not "X is a television show". "Show" might pop up around the body of the article, but "series" should generally be used. We don't outline that here because it's a writing standard, and other guidelines take care of that (not necessarily specifically, because you could take all day to list every word that should be used for another; e.g., "film" instead of "movie").  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought generically referring to a "show" was better, because a "Season" in the US is called a "series" in the UK. I suppose it might depend on context. -- 109.78.203.40 (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"Show" is generally not used anywhere. For American shows, we use American terms (like "television series" or "season 1"), whereas in the UK they would say "television programme" and "series 1". Articles are always written with their country of origin as the primary terminology, spelling, etc.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

DVD release

I notice the style guidelines use the section heading "DVD release" whereas WP:MOSFILM recommends "Home media" since shows are not always released on DVD, older shows were released on Video, and shows are often also released on Bluray. Have you considered changing the guidelines? (If so a link to previous discussions would be interesting.) Greater consistency between Wikpedia TV and Wikipedia Film seems like a good idea to me. -- 109.78.203.40 (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It probably should say "Home media", in all honesty. I think we got in the habit of only saying "DVD" because it replaced everything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Nickelodeon (international) channels

Do you think that we should delete international channels? Most are pure listings of programs that are the same as the original channel. There are usually no references; nothing but fancruft. These are the ones I think should be deleted: Nickelodeon (Europe), Nickelodeon (Mainland China), Nickelodeon (Central & Eastern Europe), Nickelodeon (Denmark), Nickelodeon (Finland), Nickelodeon (France & Wallonia), Nickelodeon (Germany), Nickelodeon (Greece), Nickelodeon India, Nickelodeon Indonesia, Nickelodeon (Israel), Nickelodeon (Italy), Nickelodeon (Malaysia), Nickelodeon (Netherlands), Nickelodeon (Norway), Nickelodeon (Portugal), Nickelodeon (Spain), Nickelodeon (Switzerland), Nickelodeon (Sweden), and Nickelodeon (Taiwan). Finealt (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I would centralize as much as possible, and then delete. We don't need foreign listings like that, as they have their own Wikipedia. If they are nothing more than program listings, then yes, delete them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Series overview tables and the like

I think we need to finally address, one way or the other, these "series overview" tables on articles, most specifically "List of episode" pages. I see them all the time on pages, including when people are adding them to pages that have not typically had them because other pages currently do. My personally opinion is that they are unnecessary on List of Episode pages (I don't think they are needed period, but most importantly, not on a page that does nothing but summarize episodes). It seems redundant to me to have a table collect number of episodes and air dates for every season, for a page that is literally providing that information in the tables below. I can understand how people might like "quick references", but it's unnecessary redundancy when it takes a grand total of 2 seconds to scroll a page with your mouse and collect this info.

I also believe that DVD information has no business being placed in these tables, let alone being placed at the top of the page. DVD information is probably the least important aspect of an article, whether it's a main article or a LoE page. We're not here to sell a product or announce that a product is available for sale, so why are we placing undue weight on this information by putting it as the first thing on the page? This is my opinion on the subject matter, and I think it needs to be officially decided for the Manual one way or the other, as there is too much inconsistency (even in information presented within the table).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, episode list pages should be just that - episode lists and nothing else. Series overviews are in fact precisely the type of thing that a main article should contain in the section linking to the episode list for that article. As for DVDs, my view is that this information should generally only be included in an entirely separate section in main articles, but exceptions apply in which some DVD information may be placed directly into the episode lists (but still not separately on episode list pages). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Overall, it sounds like you do not think there should be a separate table summarizing the episode tables. Am I correct?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that there should be such tables, but that they should only be present in main articles and not episode list pages. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The series overview tables are a useful way to summarise season information in the "List of <foo> episodes" articles, providing a very quick comparison of season start and end dates and total episodes per season. I think Bignole is being a bit optimistic claiming "it takes a grand total of 2 seconds to scroll a page with your mouse and collect this info" as it's rarely that simple, especially when a series has multiple seasons. For example, see List of Castle episodes and List of The Beverly Hillbillies episodes, which do not have separate season articles. I agree with Dogmaticeclectic that such a table should exist in the main article. The main article should have more than a section with just a {{main}} link, as some do. The easiest way to ensure that the table in the main article accurately reflects the episode list article, based on experience, is to create it in the episode list article and transclude it to the main article. Prior to the practice of transclusion, it was generally the case that the table in the episode list article was accurate but the one in the main list was rarely accurate. The reason for this seemed to be that the episodes were not in the main article, so people editing one article didn't think to update the table in the other article, which happens at non-TV articles too. Regarding the DVDs, I do tend to agree they aren't really needed in the episode list article but, there are some articles that include DVD information in the episode list articles so this really should be summarised. We need to take note that {{Infobox television season}} includes multiple fields for DVD and Blu-ray release dates, which performs the function of summarising individual seasons. In such a case there's no need to summarise in the episode list article. Other series include a separate "Home media" section in the main article, so including the information in the series overview table can be redundant. Where the DVD/Blu-ray information is in the individual season articles it probably should be summarised in either the main article or the episode list article (since DVDs and Blu-rays deal with episodes). It really comes down to editorial discretion as to whether or not to include the information in the series overview table, but the series overview table should exist regardless. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of using transclusion in this way, but it does seem to be the logical way to handle series overview tables. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are some issues I see with this Legend. First, if the total episodes per season stay pretty consistent, there isn't a reason to "compare" them. If the show is a 20+ episode season show, then that's pretty evident. Why do I need to see that 1 season out of 10 had 22 episodes and not 23 episodes? It tells me nothing other than they just didn't need that 23rd. There is no context to it on the LoE page. Even when you take the Writer's Strike into the equation, there is no context to explain that on the LoE page, thus it has no necessity. The same for season premiere and finale dates. What exactly are you trying to compare? They won't be the exact same day because the day shifts each year. See that a show start on October 10 one year and October 12 the next year doesn't really tell me anything. And if a show starts October 10 and then the next it doesn't start until Dec. 1, we don't have context on the LoE page to explain why that is. It means nothing to a reader because they won't find the answer on the LoE page. As for the DVD info. You say if it's on the page it should be summarized, except if it's on the page it's in a table and you aren't "summarizing" it in an overview table, you're duplicating it. All the DVD tables have are dates of release in each region, which is exactly what they have in the overview table. Why would you 1) duplicate it and 2) put it at the top like it's important information about the article/list. It isn't. Most importantly, given that we have a lead section, which has a sole purpose of summarizing the article, we're promoting a table to summarize a list immediately after a section designed to summarize the same page. How does that make sense? I think people are use to having them, but when you break them down there is no real value to them (at least on the LoE pages). People once argued that Trivia sections has "use" as well. Transcluding the table doesn't solve that problem either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

A lot of programs don't have a consistent number of episodes per season. While it's an extreme case, List of Anger Management episodes has 10 episodes in the first season, and 90 in the second, the second extending over two years. Sherlock (TV series) does have a consistent number, but the seasons are 2 years apart and seasons 2 and 3 are in different months to season 1. The three seasons of Are We There Yet? have different numbers of episodes in each season and aired at different times of the year. Lost Girl had a different number of episodes in season 2 to the other 3, seasons 1 & 2 started at roughly the same time (September) but finished in December and April respectively, and seasons 3 & 4 have both aired in 2013. There are a lot of programs that don't fit the traditional US airing schedule mould. You talk about context but we could apply that to air dates as well. There's no explanation as to why certain shows didn't air this week, yet we still show air dates. Episode lists that have DVD information on them don't always just have raw air dates in a table, some are complex and the series overview table does summarise those. If there is a Level 2 headed DVD section then it is a main point so it should be summarised. In most cases it's not practical to summarise episode lists in prose form, so the table supplements what is in the lead, in some cases it's even used as a pseudo TOC. Everyone comes to Wikipedia for different reasons. Yo really can't argue the table is of little use without surveying readers to find out what they think about them. Personally, I think production codes and ratings figures are generally pointless, but I acknowledge that some people have a different opinion so I'll continue to support their inclusion. The series overview table is bound to be useful to some people and not others, just like everything else. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't need the context for the primary episode table, especially since there is a basic understanding that shows don't always air on consecutive weeks. You're arguing that you need to "compare" these across seasons, which requires context if there is a reason to compare. You don't get that context on an LoE page. The point of summarizing should be just that, to summarize, NOT to try and introduce information (as you're trying to do with the debate point that you need it to "compare"). Given that Ratings tables contain the same information, you don't need overview tables. Also, the DVD info isn't being "summarized", it's being straight duplicated. Not to mention, it's about "summarizing" a page, and summary does not mean that you mention everything. Just key points. DVD info is not "key" to anything. The fact that section exists doesn't mean that it is necessary to understanding the article. We have "See also" sections on articles, but we don't include them in the lead for summary purposes. At the end, you're arguing about needing to "summarize" a page full of tables, with a table. That's completely unnecessary. It's one thing to put it in a main article full of prose, and another to argue that you need a table to summarize a table. Think about that logic. Where else, other than LoE pages, have you ever seen tables used to summarize a page that is nothing but tables?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You argued "if a show starts October 10 and then the next it doesn't start until Dec. 1, we don't have context on the LoE page to explain why that is" but we really don't need context in order to simply summarise the tables on the page. Ratings tables aren't always present on LoE pages, so series overview tables aren't duplicating them. And no, the DVD information isn't "being straight duplicated" either. As I indicated, a lot of DVD tables contain a lot more than just the dates and episode quantities. "See also" sections contain links that aren't in the prose and generally, those links are not significant to the article so there's no need to summarise them. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"we really don't need context in order to simply summarize the tables on the page" - If we don't need "context" then clearly the comparison isn't necessary. You are arguing that we need the table to "compare" for readers that there may be a difference. But, in order for a reader to even understand the difference (which would not likely be explained on an LoE page anyway), you need context. Otherwise, to a reader it's just a difference in dates and it's inconsequential. You cannot argue that something is significant and needs to be pointed out, then say "we don't need the context for it". Of course you do, especially when you're arguing that there is a significance. Otherwise, you're just summarizing a set of tables with a another table. That's completely unnecessary. What exactly is the series overview table providing that the reader is not getting on the page already? It seems its only real purpose is to "save time" in counting episodes or seeing when a series started or ended. To me, that's hardly a reason to justify the redundancy. As for DVD info, you cannot being to argue that the "special features" that appear in the DVD tables are of significance. I repeat, we're not here to sell a product.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason why not to include such a table on the show's main page for a show lasting more than two seasons, as long as it lists the season #, episode count, and and air dates; depending on the show, other details may be appropriate (such as noting major cast changes, regulat timeslot shifts, etc.) which are subsequently spelled out elsewhere on the main page. On a "list of episodes" pages, a similar table can exist , but this should considered only a means to index the list of episodes so one can jump to a specific season on that page as a navigation aide, and the extra information may be inappropriate. Mind you, I also believe editor discretion plays in here too; as suggested a series that ran for 10+ seasons, no year-long breaks, no change in format, same number of episodes each season, may not need this table since the broadcast history can be explained in text, but be aware that if there are both overall and by-episode season lists, readers will need a way to jump from the main show page to the by-season episode list easily. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Reigniting this since it was never actually ended, but more or least abandoned. Masem, when you say "On a "list of episodes" pages, a similar table can exist , but this should considered only a means to index the list of episodes so one can jump to a specific season on that page as a navigation aide," could you explain this further? If there is a table of contents, wouldn't that act as the specific season jumping point? I don't understand how specific episodes would play into that for a series overview table.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

So, for example, Fringe (TV series) has a season table which also includes Nielson data, with links to individual season pages. List of Fringe episodes not only re-summarizes the season list, but it also lists each episode by season, but the details on each episode are light (title, director, airdate, etc.), so one can get to a specific season or episode from this page. An individual season page like Fringe (season 1) lists the individual episodes with more detail (short summaries, etc.). This type of arrangement seems to be the most effective for longer-running shows (more than 2 seasons, roughly) to break out seasons and episodes, while providing a minimum amount of detail on the broader topic pages. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Masem, could you please provide an argument as to why there should be an arbitrary cutoff at a certain number of seasons - after all, wouldn't your logic still apply even for a show with only a small number of seasons? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you have one (and only one before ending) season, a table's not going to help (and you would likely have the episode list in the article itself. With 2 (and only two) seasons, maybe the seasons can be discussed in prose ("Season 1 started broadcast on such-and-such, and ran until such-and-such..."), but maybe a table is better - that's borderline. When you get to three or more seasons, the prose structure to describe each season in terms of broadcast data will start to become repetitive so here's where a table is definitely better. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I think we're talking about two different things. I'm not proposing prose over table. I'm saying that 1 table summarizing a list of tables is not necessary. The "Overview table" on the List of Fringe episodes would be the table that has the DVD information (in the section, "Series overview"). Everything else on that page is just considered a regular episode table (which is suitable for the type of page). My stance is that that table is not necessary because the table of contents will take you to the respective seasons (which have a link to the season pages), and the DVD information shouldn't be at the top of the page. It's the least important info in the article. My issue is that on a List of Episodes page, we have tables devoted to each respective season (listing episode titles, directors, etc.), and then these "overview" tables above them that restate the same info in a more abridged version (season premiere/finale, DVD, etc.). To me, these are unnecessary when you're just dealing with a page of tables already. On the main page, I can understand an "overview" table, but not a page that is nothing but tables of episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

After reading this conversation, I'm in favor of putting the series overview tables only in the main articles. It's redundant the way it is now. On adding DVD info: The current setup works for shows with just season DVD releases. It excludes series which have episodes released on several volumes, and there certainly isn't a column for VHS. What about Laserdisc, UMD, or HDDVD releases? Should we be including those too? When I think about it, it doesn't really seem logical to include DVD/Blu-ray info in these overview tables if it's already stated in another section in greater detail. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 22:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with including the tables only in the main article is that history has shown that these are rarely updated and therefore end up out of sync with the episode lists. It's far more efficient, and I've found far less problematic, to create the table in the episode list and transclude it to the main article. In the episode list it effectively forms part of the lead as it summarises the rest of the article and does so in a much less redundant manner than prose achieves. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bignole, do you think that seasons should simply use level 2 headings on episode list pages? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not percieving what the claimed "harm" there is in having the season table on a List of X episodes article. Yes, navigation-wise, it duplicates the TOC, but the table's not just there for navigation. It gives - while reviewing the list of episodes - the broadcast history of the show and the release schedule. This may be uninteresting in some cases where the show runs for so many years and ends, but where there are gaps or strange schedule jumps, this may help. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Dogmatic, the seasons use the level 3 heading in most cases, generally because something like "Episodes" uses the level 2 heading. For navigational purposes, you have a heading of "Season X (year - year)".

Masem, most shows don't have strange gaps, and if they did it wouldn't help a reader to stare at a table that shows 2 dates to pick up on the gap and understand why it was there. Most List of Episode pages don't keep broadcast histories, because that is typically kept on the main article. Without prose to explain it (if there is an explanation around), it wouldn't serve any purpose other than to confuse a reader who might see a year gap with no explanation. Given that readers are reading a page that contains nothing but tables of information, seeing another table that summarizes the tables seems unnecessarily redundant. The value behind it is far less than the redundancy it creates considering it doesn't take much to scan through a season table (especially when there are season pages and thus plot information is removed from the List of Episode page).

Aussie, if they aren't updating the main page, then why would they be updating the LoE page? I don't think, "they might not update it" is an argument to keep it on the LoE page. People that frequent one page are likely to frequent the other if they are editing it. You seem to be arguing that we should have it simply so we can transclude it to another page, where people may or may not update it regularly. Given that an overview table is only going to ever really include a season number, premiere and finale date, and maybe Nielsen season averages, you're really only going to need to update it like twice a year.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

LoE pages are much more frequently updated than the main TV series article, particularly while a season is in mid-broadcast. Additionally, the table on the series page is usually going to include more secondary information like nielson ratings and awards for that season, while on the LoE table is more a data table regarding the broadcast. And if a show does have an unusual broadcast history, this would be explained on the LoE page alongside the table. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are more frequently updated, but that's because of weekly episodes. An overview table is NOT frequently updated. It contains season start and season end information. Nothing else. Overview tables have never included awards, because you'd never be able to fit them on the table. They have typically been premiere and finale dates (only), Nielsen season ending average, and DVD dates. The latter is irrelevant to the article, and the other stuff is not updated till a show starts and ends. An unusual broadcast history is really not going to be reflected on an overview table because it only contains 2 dates for each season. It will be on an season episode list, but not the overview table. If I'm just looking at an overview table, like List of Stoked episodes#Series overview or List of Southland episodes#Series overview, I wouldn't tell that there was something terrible unusual about their broadcast history. Nothing in the Southland table tells me that the second season was ended and intended to be picked up again in October but subsequently cancelled. It actually just looks like they only had 6 episodes (which isn't unusual since the first season only had 7). Then it changes networks and they get 10 episodes, still airing in the second half of the TV season. I get a better idea of usual broadcast histories from the season tables, not the overview table. The overview tables largely tell us nothing more than episode counts and begin and ending dates of seasons. The TOC tells us the latter at a fast glance, and episode counts are easy to see on each season list.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I really think you're glossing over the data that these season summary tables contain. If you look at them just as a navigation aid and thus duplicate to the TOC, sure. But the data summarized there is appropriate date to describe the broadcast history (not home release, not reviews, etc.) alongside the list of articles. This is data that is not always readily apparent from the individual season sections. For example, if I wanted to see what the effect was of 9/11 on various shows that table helps me figure out which season at a glance to look at. It's another way to slice the broadcast history for readers to track down the details they need. --MASEM (t) 06:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I really feel like you're looking at this part of an article, while I'm referring only to this part. There is no way that you could tell how 9/11 impacted C.S.I. based on a single series overview table. If I'm "glossing over" data, I feel like you're imparting value to it where it doesn't exist.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to tell immediately, no, but I now know to look at Season 2 and perhaps 3 to see there was an effect (which I would have to link through to learn more, I don't expect that to be spelled out on that list page). --MASEM (t) 14:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Where are you seeing an effect? There is nothing in the overview table that indicated an impact. What exactly are you looking at?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bignole - Editors tend to update the LOE pages more because of weekly episodes but this has nothing to do with why they don't update overview tables in the main article. When seasons begin and end, editors don't generally go to the main article, they go to the main episode list and the season articles because those articles deal specifically with episodes. While it's reasonable to think that "people that frequent one page are likely to frequent the other if they are editing it" this just doesn't seem to be the case based on edit histories. Since the season start and end dates are significant dates, they really should be summarised in the lead, but summarising dates using prose is often unwieldy and repetitive. It's really better done with a table and the series overview table performs that function. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Aussie, there is not need to "summarize" season start and end dates when the page your own is nothing but a summary of dates for each season. The TOC contains the season number and year(s) of broadcast. There is no need to have another table just summarizing again, what's easy to read. The page is not losing anything with it not being there (I've never seen a reader come to a talk page and say, "I wish there was something summarizing the season dates for me"). Yet, the page looks unnecessarily redundant when you read the same things twice within the eye view of the screen. Do we put "overview tables" on actor filmographies that are nothing but lists? Do we put them on Award list pages that contain nothing but tables? No, because that is the purpose of the page, to provide a table to summarize information. As for the main page, again, "it won't get updated" is not an argument to have it on another page, nor have you shown that that is even an issue. You're argument is based on the idea that you don't see editors going to the main page as much as an LoE page, but there is no evidence that something that requires updating on the main page is being missed for extensive periods of time. Every page that I edit sees editors (not the same ones each week) making sure that episode counts are updated on the main page when a new episode airs. We aren't transcluding those into the infobox simply because "there are less edits".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Where are we here? I've heard different reasons for wanting to keep the overview table on the List of Episodes pages, but to me they don't make sense. I've heard we need it for a quick glance of a show's start and end. The table of contents has years and gives us that. I've heard it tells us when there were issues. IMO, it doesn't, because it's just dates with no context, and thus cannot tell you anything without you going to a season page to hope that someone documented something to explain why a season started a week later than normal (when there may not be an actual reason). I've heard we need it to transclude between the LOE page and the main page because editors don't frequent the main page. Every page I work they do, so I don't actually see this as true. I watch every week while editors update the episode count on all pages that contain it, and other than season start and end dates, and then season ratings averages (at the end of the season) there isn't a need for weekly updates for the overview table. To me, it makes sense to have it on the main page, just not a page that is itself an overview. There becomes multiple levels of redundancy (the lead, the overview, the tables themselves, the Nielsen ratings, and the DVD release (though I have generally removed the season premiere/finale dates from the DVD tables because that has no bearing on DVDs)). If you remove the overview table from the List of Episodes, then you really haven't lost any information, and there are still places giving quick pictures of the dates (with more valuable information attached and in appropriate places).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Requesting clarification about episode synopses and copyrights

I see users copy/paste episode synopses from various sources. I would like to request an addition to the MOS that clarifies if and how we can use such synopses. My hypothesis is: users don't consider the copy/pasting of synopses to be theft since episode synopses are so widely published, and synopses are typically short. So copying a snippet like that might appear as "fair use". A clarification would be helpful since this is somewhat of a unique situation, but pervasive. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Are we talking about future episodes, or ones that have past?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A one-sentence future-episode synopsis (like on Zap2It) is not likely to be an issue to copy-and-paste, as we have no idea how to paraphrase it. A 2-4 sentence paragraph, even for a future episode, is ripe to be paraphrased and shortened to reduce how much text we take. Once the episode airs, we should be using our own words to describe the episode. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should include future episode synopses at all per WP:FUTURE, especially considering how many times I've seen them turn out at least partially incorrect once episodes actually air. I agree with your other points - and your last point actually seems to strengthen the position I'm taking on future episode synopses, since you're essentially stating that they should always be replaced anyways and encouraging temporary content just doesn't seem to be in line with Wikipedia's goals. Also, note that even if future episode synopses from other sources are included they are required to be in quotation marks per WP:INTEXT - and I don't think I've seen a single case of this type in which quotation marks were present. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As long as it's a reliable source giving a future episode synopsis, FUTURE doesn't cover that. For one, these appear, at most, a month out, so the likelihood the episode will air pretty near 100%. If the direct Zap2It one-sentence summary is used, then it definitely should be quoted, but in either case the future synopsis sourced. I will say that no one is required to add a future episode synopsis, but there's no reason to prevent one from adding them if they are following sourcing and fair use aspects. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Masem and Bignole: Well, my request is intended to be all-encompassing, so I guess I'm talking about all of these. The one-sentence deals that get casually added to articles typically remain after the articles air, which means that the majority of the prose content in some of these articles wind up being lifted from other sources, which strikes me as sketchy. I'm also talking about longer synopses like many of the ones that get submitted to List of M.I. High episodes. Example: "During a successful MI9 mission to secure Samantha Stiletto, the world's most deadly assassin, a series of unfortunate events lead to KORPS mistaking Keri for the assassin! She must take Stiletto's place in the world's most deadly tournament, the Shadow Games. Will Keri stay safe long enough to be rescued?" which is lifted from here. That synopsis is both copied and contains tagline-style language, which I presume to be unencyclopedic. Since synopses are so widely used I think there should be some coverage that explains what the community expects and dissuades. Thanks y'all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, once the episode publicly airs, we would reasonably expect editors-own-words to be used. Direct lifting and in an unencyclopedic style is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Masem I don't quite understand the practical application of this philosophy, though. A lifted synopsis will remain until another user rewrites it. That requires another editor to A) wonder if the synopsis was copied. B) research whether or not the synopsis was copied and from where, C) re-write the synopsis, in many cases without ever having seen the show in question. Considering Wikipedia has no deadline, and the amount of work we have as volunteers to help maintain the thousands of articles that don't get a lot of traffic, it seems more practical to say definitively, "don't copy synopses, write 'em yerself." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Arguably the pages where future synopsis are included properly are the ones that a proper editor-written episode synopsis will be substituted in shortly after the episode airs. Further, there's zero harm in the paraphrased episode summary that was added for a future episode that is not changed when the episode airs, as we're still using our own words; the synopsis might be wrong but that's fixable and the number of times the synopsis is that far off from the actual episode is rather small. The only harm is when unedited synopsis of that length like your example are used at all - whether for a future or aired episode. We simply don't quote that much (working on the assumption it is a quote and not an editor created one), and if you see these, wiping them is better than nothing. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me restate this in a similar way: If one chooses to include description of future episodes (as obtained from reliable sources), they should not be copy-paste (including full direct quotes), but instead should paraphrase in an encyclopedic style, such that if no one ever touches the synopsis again even after episode airing, we have something that at least isn't laughably silly. If you personally don't plan to update these, it might be better to not include them at all. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the first statement in the paragraph above: absolutely not - there is no meaningful difference between paraphrasing and quoting directly, except that direct quotations are easier to detect and therefore preferable. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that' doesn't work under how we handle copyright and fair use. Reusing the entire 3-4 sentence synopsis of an upcoming episode even with quoting is too much. That's why we want paraphrasing. That also removes the nonsense that Cyphoidbomb identified in how some show synopsis are presented. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Masem, perhaps I didn't phrase my view precisely, so I'll try again... For future episodes, external sources almost always only have one-line descriptions, as far as I am aware. I'm arguing that such descriptions should not be included at all, in any form, but also that the only acceptable form if they are included is that in quotation marks. For past episodes, my view is that Wikipedia should have entirely original summaries based exclusively on the episodes themselves (with exceptions, such as if a summary elsewhere happens to note a particularly unusual aspect of an episode, being permissible per WP:IAR). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, yes. Single line (aka the type at Zap2IT) should be quoted and sourced but can be used in full since paraphrasing will be nearly impossible, if used. I would say that they should not be added if no one has the intent of actually writing a full synopsis after airing (why do this work if you're not going to follow up on it?) Show's I've been tracking recently have put out pressers with 2-4 sentence summaries which I have seen some people try to quote in full and that's the main issue I worry about. --MASEM (t) 04:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Masem I respectfully disagree with you on this point primarily because it does not seem to consider shows that are not high-profile. Any kids' show, for example, which is where many of my personal headaches occur, will contain synopses that are straight-up copied. Not just once, not just twice, but for the entire article if nobody looks. I do not think I've ever seen a synopsis for a kids' TV show that was "quoted" and properly cited. Since we can't really create unique rules for the kiddos, it seems that more practical and enforceable concept is, "Don't copy synopses." What's the hurry? We are not in the late-breaking news biz. By allowing editors to submit "quoted" and referenced synopses, particularly of the "one-line only" variety, we are supporting that "gotta get the scoop" mindset. Most people don't seem too slick with the rules, so establishing rules, then weird exceptions that only a few editors might know, is not ideal. Now maybe my perspective doesn't take into consideration the benefit of this editing style across the entire community, so please enlighten me where I might be shortsighted. :) Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There's really no strange rules going on. As long as the plot summary is from a reliable source, cited to that, and quoted appropriate if any context is borrowed (but not the full 2-4 sentence version), there's no policy issues with this. If you do find an unsourced/uncited summary of a future episode, or in the case of an aired episode, a synopsis that screens that it was pulled from marketing literature, that's right there grounds to remove with no question, but that's all based on our quoting/citation policy. Now the only thing that we really can change is to tell uses that if you, the editor, do not plan to edit a paraphrased summary of the episode once it airs, it's probably not wise to fill in the future episode summary so that we don't have lingering issues. But we can't stop editors from doing this as the information is completely fine otherwise. --MASEM (t) 06:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and in the case of pulling from sources for future episodes, even if you quote then it still should not contain that "tagline style" language you refer to. Quoting something isn't carte blanche to include stuff that makes it appear as though we're trying to sell the episode ourselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Tense towards fictional characters

The specific article in which I am referring to is Edna Krabappel. Since the voice actress has passed away and the shows producers have confirmed that they will "retire" the character in the future, many users have begun changing the tense of the article. Such as "Edna Krabappel was a character...." And "She was voiced by Marcia Wallace."

Since the character still appears on the show and will appear in future episodes since the voice recordings are done way in advance of the actual episodes production, the tense should not be changed to "past tense". I have reverted many attempts to change the tense, but I wanted to get some feedback to see what others thought. JOJ ^Hutton 22:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes; until the show actually shows the character is no more, the tense should remain in the present. I doubt they will do this for Krabappel, but a character's VA may pass on, and the character isn't used for years, and then brought back with a new VA, so all that "past" tense is no longer true. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Fictional characters will always be present tense unless the show itself no longer exists in any form.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Should inanimate objects be considered "main cast" in the infobox?

The article that does this, MythBusters, includes the name of one of the props, Buster, despite the fact that "Buster" is not an actor, not a cast member, and is not even alive. One editor feels that since the producers feel that the "prop" is a main cast member, the name of the prop should be in the infobox, despite the fact that this editor has provided no source or proof that the producers feel this way. [This link from the shows official web site http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/bios] does not include any actor or person, living or not by the name of Buster. Neither do these sites [1], [2]. I feel that any incidental reference to "Buster" being a part of the "main cast" is done so as a publicity stunt and not so much as an actual official listing. I also feel that the info box list of main characters should only be reserved for living actors, either human or animal, because they are not only working on the show because they possess a certain degree of talent for the art, but that they are actual living breathing organisms and not simply props used to enhance the show.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

For a reality-based show like Mythbusters, it is completely inappropriate to call an inanimate objects as "cast". It can be noted as a recurrent show element, but not as equivalent to an actor for an encyclopedic discussion of the work. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, more than one editor has supported inclusion as a main cast member. I cited MOS:TV#Cast information, which says that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers. We're not the producers and it shouldn't be up to Wikipedia editors to decide who, or what, is or is not a main cast member. We've actually rallied against doing that in the past. Another editor posted this link, which lists Buster as one of the MythBusters and he has been credited as a main cast member in episodes. Whole episodes have been dedicated to Busters and there were a series of episodes titled "Buster's Cut". Since the producers treat Buster as a main cast member, we're obliged to, or we're going to have to rewrite the MOS. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, but just not in the infobox. Infobox should be reserved for actors, not props. And you still have not provided proof of any opt your claims. All rhetoric until confirmed with a source.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeaaaah, that's not really how we write encyclopedias , specifically in a box designed to be "actual information at a glance". Buster being included as a cast member is fine to note in the body, but the infobox should be accurate. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec x 2)I just posted this link to the MythBusters exhibition showing Buster listed as one of the Mythbusters. The links Jojhutton provided were to imdb and tv.com, neither of which is considered to be a reliable source. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The link you provide is for a museum exhibit and not for the TV show. Please try again.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a really silly statement. The website is clearly marked copyright Discovery Channel so it's far more authoritative than imdb or tv.com. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The MOS says that the producers determine main cast status and we use the producers' determination to populate the infobox. Since the producers have determined that Buster is a main cast member, listing Buster in the infobox is accurate. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's common sense. Buster is not an actor or a living person, and therefore cannot be cast, no matter how much the producers say it should be. We're grounded in reality here. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying we should ignore the MOS. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying IAR and common sense. It makes us as an attempt to write a reputable encyclopedia look silly to acknowledge that a crash test dummy is a "cast member" without the ability to clarify that further. In the lead, it's perfectly fine to say something that "The show frequently relays on its inanimate cast member "Buster" a crash test dummy for various demonstrations." but you can't say that where space is limited. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

IAR could be used to justify inclusion as well, so it doesn't work here. There's no need to include any explanations in an infobox, that's what the prose is for, so lack of space is not justification for exclusion either. Listing Buster in the infobox with clarification in the prose that Buster is treated as a main cast member even though Buster isn't a person is appropriate. It's no different, for example, to listing Sara Gilbert in the infobox for The Big Bang Theory but explaining in the prose that she was only a main cast member for a few episodes in season 2. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

(EC)Where is your source? No source to back up your claim. Say it a thousand times more and maybe it will be true, but without a source, its not true. And besides, only live actors and not go in the infobox and not props.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, please see the information provided by Discovery Channel that I've linked to above. Where does the MOS limit the contents of the infobox? --AussieLegend (✉) 20:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

And again, that link you provided is for a traveling museum exhibit currently in Tampa Florida, not for the television show. You should pay more attention to the details of the websites that you provide.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

And again, it's information that is provided by Discovery. You're arguing that because Buster isn't included on two notoriously unreliable sites he shouldn't be included. Here we have a reliable source showing Buster as a MythBuster. If that's not good enough for you, you could try this MythBusters cast list on a Discovery Channel website. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm a arguing that there is no source that says that there is any official cast member with the name of Buster. There is a prop named Buster that is sometime listed with the real cast members as a gag, but its not the same thing because only living creatures can be actors. Thats why no other website includes and actor named "Buster" and why there is no actor listed in the opening credits with the name "Buster". And if there is some kind of loop hole in this MOS that allows the name Buster to be included in the info box because of some silly marketing tactic, its needs to be closed as of right now so that we can stop having these juvenile arguments--JOJ ^Hutton 21:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm really not feeling the inclusion of Buster as a tongue-in-cheek member of the cast as encyclopedic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we're taking the MOS a little too literally. When it says look to the show itself, it isn't meant to be when the show's producers are having fun with a show prop. Buster should not be listed as a "main cast" member. It's a joke on the show, not reality as Buster is not real.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There are sources that list Buster as a cast member. Here is another Discovery website listing Buster. It's not up to any editor to determine that Buster's inclusion is a gag. That's classic original research which isn't permitted. We have to go with what is verifiable. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well its time to close the "loophole" that Aussielegend is using. I would think that it would be common sense to most people, but maybe not.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole. Don't we typically go with series credits for inclusion of cast? The individuals are credited as hosts. There is no host credit for Buster. Further, I would point out that Adult Swim aired an interstitial card with the claim that the animated show The Problem Solverz was cancelled "for being mind-blowingly cute". Should we include that phrase as a fact in that article's prose if we could source it or if it appeared on their website? When we evaluate articles for marketing content, we are applying a judgment about the content, and cutting the content appropriately. This is no different. It's a tongue-in-cheek marketing jewel. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not true that Buster is not credited. Buster has been credited in episodes as well as the cast list. The credits in the MythBusters episodes are inconsistent so it's necessary to go through a lot of episodes before finding them, and they're usually at the end, much like Disney programs. When you think about it, it's quite notable that Buster is considered to be a cast member. As already pointed out there have been Buster episodes including those titled "Buster's Cut", which were aired as special episodes. On numerous occasions the cast and crew have said they consider Buster to be just as much a cast member as any of the human hosts so it's not simply a tngue-in-cheek inclusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I've never seen them list anyone or anything named Buster in the end credits at all. I only have Aussie's word that they have done so on "some" occasions, but he has yet to provide proof of that. No cast member named Buster has ever been included in the opening credits as starring in the show. This cast members are already linked in the article. Aussie has only provided sources that say that a "Buster" is part of the cast, but these are obviously meant as a marketing gimmick. Seems that everyone here agrees with that as well. It also appears that several others agree that inanimate objects do not belong in the info box. I'll remove it soon enough.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that "these are obviously meant as a marketing gimmick". This program doesn't have typical opening credits, they're verbal only. Remember, The Stig isn't included in the opening credits of Top Gear, but he is credited in the end credits. There have been 249 episodes of MythBusters to date. It's a big job to go through them to find Buster in the closing credits, as he's only mentioned in a few. I started but stopped because I assumed you had lost interest in the previous discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

First off, WP:OTHERSTUFF, but you already know that. Second, we don't need a source in order to keep something out of an article, we need a source to keep it in. You find your own source and provide an episode where they credit a character or cast member named Buster. Until then, it seems consensus has turned against mentioning the prop as common sense outweighs is the defining factor here, not a misread or misinterpreted MOS.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply, as I was just giving examples for those who may not be familiar. There are authoritative, reliable sources showing Buster as a cast member. In order to disprove these sources you need an authoritative, reliable source that shows "these are obviously meant as a marketing gimmick" or you're just relying on OR. We have to abide by WP:V here as it's a core policy. We can't put our own spin on things because we don't like something. And please, don't try to declare consensus only 3 hours into a discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So do you have anything new to add? Otherwise I'm going to remove it from the infobox per consensus.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing it while it is under discussion would be disruptive. The discussion is only a few hours old and there is no declared consensus. Wikipedia discussions typically take days (generally 7 at least), even weeks and sometimes months. All editors should be given the opportunity to participate. You did this at Terra Nova (TV series), please don't do it here. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Or discussions can be just a few minutes. There's no set time on how long discussions have to take, and I don't think that anyone here is going to let you drag this out for months. Now that's disruptive. So unless you have something new to add, the discussion is pretty much over. You lost, just as I predicted a few weeks ago. I'm a patient guy but your being pretty disruptive with your comments. So anything new to add? JOJ ^Hutton 02:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes they can be a few minutes but we generally err on the side of caution unless something is cut and dried. Other editors who weighed in at the other discussion have not had the opportunity to do so here and it would be inappropriate not to allow them to comment. I don't intend dragging this out for months but a few hours is woefully inadequate. I'm also waiting on your source that "these are obviously meant as a marketing gimmick". That claim, without a source is original research. There are reliable sources showing that Buster is considered to be a cast member and you can't remove sourced information based on OR and "I don't like it" arguments. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Aussie that we shouldn't rush to make the change. His argument is a sound one, even if at present it seems counterintuitive to me. I think we should allow others to comment. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Opppose inclusion per the arguments that have already been presented. I reserve the right to change my opinion, but would likely only do so if a reliable source is presented listing "Buster" in the credits in a clearly non-gag context. I stipulate the last as this would not be the first nor last time credits included information "obviously" not intended to be taken seriously (see the credits for Airplane!). DonIago (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As I've already demonstrated, there are multiple online sources listing Buster as one of the MythBusters, including two that are straight from Discovery Channel websites.[3][4] The series does not typically include Buster in the text credits for the main cast. These are present only in a small number of episodes. This is why we have to rely on the websites. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You have failed to establish that when Buster is credited that it isn't a gag...as you say yourself, it's atypical that Buster is listed at all. DonIago (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The Discovery Channel websites should do that and itt hasn't been established that when he is credited that it is a gag by the producers. That he isn't listed in every episode is irrelevant. This happens to human main cast, for example in Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Might I ask how the websites establish that the credit isn't a gag? Without clear evidence that the credit isn't a gag, I'm going to assume it is, since I'm unaware of anything other than humans and animals being listed in the cast for television or films to this point with any degree of seriousness. That Buster isn't listed in every episode is relevant to me; as it at minimum establishes that "he" isn't a regular. DonIago (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It's rather simple. The MOS says that the producers determine main cast status and the producers have chosen to list Buster as one of the MythBusters, who are the main cast. We don't need clear evidence that the listing is a gag, we don't require that of any program. We need evidence that Buster's inclusion is a gag or we have to accept that it isn't. Top Gear credits list "The Stig" as a presenter but the Stig isn't an actor. The Stig is a character who has been portrayed by several people including Perry McCarthy, Ben Collins and a host of unknown individuals. Even Michael Schumacher has appeared as the Stig. According to the MOS they should be listed in the infobox yet we list "The Stig", who actually has jokes made about him every week. We don't require proof that the Stig's inclusion as a presenter is a gag, even though he doesn't actually present and has only appeared in the studio twice (one of those times was when Schumacher portrayed the Stig) By contrast, Buster is treated as one of the cast members by the other cast and the cast and crew have confirmed this in interviews and at live events. We're following the MOS by including the Stig because he's credited as main cast but ignoring the MOS when it comes to Buster by treating his inclusion as a gag when no available evidence supports that. That Buster isn't listed in every episode is completely irrelevant. A lot of main cast aren't listed in every episode but they are still considered to be listed under "starring" in the infobox, which has provisions for main cast who haven't been listed in every episode. I've given two prominent examples of those, Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

So your argument is that other articles do it so we should too? If the producers chose to list Clippy the Paper Clip as a cast member for one episode, should we do so as well? I doubt that's how the guidelines (and they are guidelines, not binding policy) were meant to be interpreted. Fail. The fact that no other editors are lending your argument serious support is not helping your case, and I would recommend stepping away from the dead horse. DonIago (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not my argument at all. I said your argument that because Buster isn't credited in every episode he's not a regular, is wrong. Quite apart from the fact that it simply does not make sense - Buster has appeared so many times that he easily meets any definition of regular - a cast member can be a regular without being main cast and since this discussion is about main cast, arguments about who or who is not a regular is irrelevant here. Until now, the MOS said that main cast status is determined by the producers and we've worked on the principle that if the producers have stated a character to be main cast, either by advertising them as such or crediting them in an episode at least once, then they were considered to be main cast. The two series that I pointed two are just two examples of how the MOS has been applied. The Big Bang Theory includes cast members who were credited as main cast only in episodes in which they appeared, i.e. not in every episode, as well as one who was only ever credited as main cast in four episodes and only ever appeared in eight episodes in total. She was a regular in season 2 but is no longer either regular or main cast, yet she is still credited as main cst, because that's what the MOS says. Certain cast members of Two and a Half Men were credited in episodes but still referred to in press releases separately from other credited cast, being referred to as "recurring" rather than main cast. WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't come into it at all. These are simply examples of how the MOS has been applied until now. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Seriously, this is where common sense is needed; this is why at times WP is joked at because of editors being so pedantic to the source material without thinking about it. It's a gag credit and should be treated as such even if the MOS states that we should included. All guidelines are to be applied with common sense. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a source saying that it's a gag credit. The series is unique in that it often requires a human substitute for tasks that are too difficult or dangerous for a human and it hasn't been a gag when the cast and crew have seriously said that they consider Buster to be a valuable cast member. This is why the links that I posted exist. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I refuse to, because I'm using common sense. Inanimate objects cannot be cast members, period. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, a compromise proposition: what if we go with another definition of "cast"? Buster is often tossed, thus, he is the main cast member. (just a dangerous attempt to lighten the mood...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "I'm using common sense" doesn't trump Wikipedia:Verifiability. Application of supposed common sense means different things to different people. Some people think it's common sense that when a series ends the lead should change from "This program is" to "This program was", but the MOS says that's wrong. Others think that Sara Gilbert shouldn't be listed as a main cast member of The Big Bang Theory because she was only credited as main cast for four episodes but the MOS specifically says "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by screen time. Others believe it's common sense to include The Stig as a main cast member in the infobox when the stig is not an actor, but a character who has been played by several people. You've made a bold claim but your claim is simply an opinion that isn't supported by reliable source. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not a violation of WP:V. You've clearly shown that the show lists Buster in its cast, but we are not required to include all WP:V information in WP. (Note I agree with what you also say on the other two cases, with BBT and Top Gear - neither should be listed because they don't fit the norm of what a cast member is. But OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all... those are separate issues to be fixed). --MASEM (t) 15:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Opposition to Inclusion - I stated on the Talk page when this first came out that I thought it was somewhat humorous that Buster is listed as a cast member and it seems like an obvious joke. Just because it's listed on the Discovery Channel webpage doesn't make it any less so. That being said, if Buster ended up in the infobox, I'm not sure I'd have a major case of heartburn over it as I think people coming to the page would see it and assume it was just as much a joke as seeing it in the credits after the show. It certainly wouldn't be indicative of how screwed up Wikipedia is - there are multiple other pages that are so jacked up that they are unsavable and these pages ARE those indications. As such, the Mythbusters page is the least of my worries... Ckruschke (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

But the catch is that we're not here to reinforce jokes from a show, but present encyclopedic information. How ridiculous do we look that we include Buster as a "main cast member", when he's an inanimate object? Wikipedia is already looked at itself as a joke, and now it appears that editors cannot distinguish actual cast members from test dummies.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

But we're not reinforcing jokes from a show. Well, maybe we are in Top Gear (2002 series), but there's no evidence that Buster's inclusion is a joke. All available evidence points to the contrary. Buster's inclusion is because he contributes to the series in a way that humans can't. The same can't be said for the Stig. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Contributes to the series? What talent would that be? Answer is none. Just because it's in the shape of a person and is used a a valuable prop on the show does not indicate that "Buster" contributes to the series. An actor would need a valuable talent for that. And this is just foam rubber in the shape if a man. Not really a valuable talent. JOJ ^Hutton 13:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Buster is not foam rubber. Buster is a crash test dummy fitted with various sensors use to collect data in situations that are too dangerous for a human. No actor can provide the information that Buster supplies, and is therefore as, if not more, important than a human, which is what the cast and crew have said on numerous occasions and why he is credited as one of the MythBusters. Effectively no actor has the talents that Buster has.. have you actually watched an episode? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Buster is a joke on the show. Whether he's used to "contribute to the series" is irrelevant to the fact that they pretend that he is real. He is NOT real. He is foam, steel, and hinges. Would you include KITT as a main cast member of Knight Rider if he appeared in the opening credits? And I am distinguishing "KITT" from William Daniels, who voiced the character. For example, The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. features "Comet the Wonder Horse" in the credits. No one would include the horse as an actual cast member. It's not an actor.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Buster is not a joke on the series, for the reasons that I've explained in response to Jojhutton. Of course noone would include the horse as an actual cast member, unless of course unless the horse was the famous Mister Ed. They wouldn't include dogs either, would they? Don't look at Lassie Come Home, Son of Lassie, Courage of Lassie, Hills of Home (film) or Lassie (1954 TV series). Certainly don't look at File:Forbiddenplanetposter.jpg, The Invisible Boy or several other movie posters that all include Robby the Robot. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, let's just say for arguments sake that the inanimate object and crash test dummy referred to by in the series as "Buster" and used as a prop on the show, is considered a cast member by the producers and that it's not a joke. Even if that was true, it would seem that the consensus reached here is that Wikipedia articles should not include inanimate objects in the infobox, which is the question that I posed at top. Even if there are previous discussions that confirm that the producers decide who the main cast members in a series are, it's clear that, for the sake if Wikipedia infoboxes, we are not going to include props. That seems to be the general consensus at this time and you appear to be the only one who disagrees. JOJ ^Hutton 17:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That is the way that I interpret it Joj, and I would say that includes animals and robots as well. I think WP:COMMONSENSE needs to be applied.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Benji (1974 film) doesn't list Benji?! WTH?! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It actually does list Higgins, the dog that plays Benji. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Clearly I'm not very bright. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well said JOJ ^Hutton - agree completely. Ckruschke (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Infobox television episode

There are some issues with proposed parameters for {{Infobox television episode}}. I've left a message at WT:TV about this but unfortunately the templates used in the TV project draw little interest, even though they often cause us grief. Because of this I'm notififying here as well, as it seems that there are different groups watching the MOS and WT:TV, with a view to getting some more input. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Infobox television episode provides an introduction to the issues. Attention would be greatly appreciated at the discussions. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Network categories

Is it worth making a generic header template for the "programmes on network X" categories, to reflect WP:TVCATS, given that the categories seem to be applied inconsistently? Category:Cartoon Network programs has a clear "Do not add shows that were shown on a different network before the Cartoon Network." message, but Category:Channel 4 television programmes just says "This is a list of television programmes shown on Channel 4 in the United Kingdom.", and many others say nothing. --McGeddon (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

McGeddon Any attempt to standardize the information around here is likely to get my support. But yeah, the categories are often questionably applied and definitely inconsistent. I witnessed a problem between two editors over that very same template (see: Category talk:Cartoon Network programs) because the category description didn't explicitly say one way or another if the category was intended to list all United States Cartoon Network programming, or ALL programming shown on Cartoon Network channels internationally. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a template, so that this can be easily modified if consensus changes later? I'd suggest something based on the current Category:Cartoon Network programs wording - how about "This category lists shows that have regularly aired their first-run episodes on the [name of category] schedule. It does not list shows which first appeared on a different network."? --McGeddon (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've now gone ahead and created this at Template:Network-category. Feel free to start using it. --McGeddon (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Character Section on Page

Is the shortcut in the Character Infomation part of the page really necessary when it is just a redirect to the same section?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not meant to be a shortcut for this page, but an alert to what shortcut you can use if you were on another page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory template instructions

I've started a discussion about contradictory instructions at {{Infobox television}}. The discussion is here. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Years in season headings on list of episode pages

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

---

There has been an ongoing discussion on the List of Person of Interest episodes talk page regarding adding years to the season heading before air dates have been announced. This has gone dormant the past week or two, and I very much want a resolution to this debate, lest we deal with it once again next year. Based on the discussion, and given all the known info we get from the upfront events (for US television), here are two options that I am proposing be added to the MOS in the ""List of ..." structure". These options are the ones stated in the linked talk page discussion above, with slight formatting changes to show how it would be added to the MOS. (This can be tweaked to not seem as though it is biased to US shows only.)

• Option 1: When a new season is announced, a section heading for the upcoming season is used, however, no years are included in the heading. In the created section some form of the following sentence is acceptable to include, depending on when and what info is revealed: "In [month year], [network] renewed [show] for a [#] season.[ref] In [month year], it was announced the series would return in 2014 as part of the 2014–15 television season.[ref]", with the return year and television season link changing depending on when this is happening. For series airing on networks outside of the US that may not have network television schedule pages, that part from "as part..." on can be omitted. Again, this is using all information that has been revealed. When an episode table can be created for the season, citing reliable information that air dates are happening, a single year (ie a 22 episode show beginning in September 2014, would just get 2014 in the heading, until episodes air in 2015) can be added to the heading. Also, per WP:LEAD, the same prose sentence, or a variant, should be added to the lead.

• Option 2: When a new season is announced, a section heading is not used for the upcoming season. The following sentence is used in the lead, depending on when and what info is revealed: "In [month year], [network] renewed [show] for a [#] season.[ref] In [month year], it was announced the series would return in 2014 as part of the 2014–15 television season.[ref]", with the return year and television season link changing depending on when this is happening. A section heading, with a single year (ie a 22 episode show beginning in September 2014, would just get 2014 in the heading, until episodes air in 2015) can be added to the page once an episode table can be created for the season, citing reliable information that air dates are happening.

As a note, when these options were on the Person of Interest talk page, I had notified all the users in the discussion there to state an opinion on these options, and AussieLegend was the only to respond. Musdan77 also found the discussion and responded. Both chose Option 2, with Musdan77 not opposed to Option 1. I encourage both to restate their opinions here as well if they choose, as well as all those other users in the previous discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Option 1

Option 2

• Support per creator of RFC, and it removes redundancy, as option 1 would be featuring very similar info in the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support as mentioned. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support, due to reducing redundancy. Having a section for a new season lets editors add the same basic info to the season section that has already been mentioned in the lead, usually verbatim. Unless more info other than the generic "renewed for X episodes for the X season" is released, this is redundancy. — Wyliepedia 03:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Sorry, I lost track of this conversation. I'm fine with Option 2. I now understand the aversion to having a section that duplicates content in the lead. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Option 3

• Support - The same as option 2, except, dates are not added to the section header until the episode as actually aired.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• I can see the benefit of option 2, but both say that you put a year in the header when episodes are announced for the current year, but only add the second year when they actually air in the second year. To me, no year should be present until they actually air in those years.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• My brain might be fried today; I'm having difficulty spotting the fundamental difference between the two proposals. What makes sense to me is this. When a season is picked up, add a new section header for that season, with a sourced write-up about the pickup. When a sourced premiere date is announced (even if rough), a year can be added to section header. (I may have changed my stance on this based on my realization that we create articles like The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) when the anticipated year is confirmed.) Adding an end year to the subject header before the series has ended seems like WP:CRYSTAL to me. My preferred evolution of the section would look like this:

Season 2

"February 12, 2014, NBC announced that the series had been picked up for a second season.^[12]

Season 2 (2014)

February 12, 2014, NBC announced that the series had been picked up for a second season.^[12] The season is slated for release Fall 2014.^[13]

Season 2 (2014)

February 12, 2014, NBC announced that the series had been picked up for a second season.^[12] The season premiered August 22, 2014.^[13]

Season 2 (2014-2015)

February 12, 2014, NBC announced that the series had been picked up for a second season.^[12] The season premiered August 22, 2014^[13] and concluded July 30, 2015.^[14]

Which of the two proposals is closest to what I've written? Did I just propose a third option? Are we making considerations for the insanely problematic world of children's TV, which is subject to inconsistency, lack of predictability, and which doesn't have "seasons" the way other networks do. I suppose I could be persuaded to yield on the point that the season has to end before the closing year is added. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, we create titles for pages with years because we have to disambiguate from other titles of the same name, and we cannot just up and move pages all the time (especially if they were multiple histories that have to be moved for different titles). Sections headers are different. You shouldn't be identifying a date in a header unless that date has actually occurred. It defeats the idea of this being an encyclopedia based on historical events (meaning they have already transpired). It pushes us to be more of a current events reporter. We have already pushed a lot in that direction with film and tv, because we chronicle events as they are announced (more than we should if you look at some pages that just go "X was announced on Date Y" every line. At some point, we have to recognize that that isn't the purpose of our information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Season renewals constitute significant information and therefore should be mentioned in the lead. Because season renewal content typically only consists of one or two cited sentences, as in the examples above, creating a separate section that effectively just duplicates content from the lead is redundant. Sections for upcoming seasons shouldn't be created unless they substantially expand on what is in the lead, and this generally doesn't happen until episodes are scheduled for the new season. I don't see a lot of harm in adding the season premiere year once episodes are scheduled, although Bignole does have a point when he says "You shouldn't be identifying a date in a header unless that date has actually occurred." In recent years there have been several cases where scheduled episodes have been cancelled or held over, so scheduling is not a guarantee that episodes will air, so perhaps we should err on the side of caution and do as Bignole suggests. Adding an end year to the subject header before the season has ended isn't WP:CRYSTAL if episodes have aired in the year. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Your suggestion was basically Option 1. Aussie and Big, I have always agreed with you in regards to not adding a year until eps actually air, but based on what we were discussing in the previous thread, this might have been more neutral ground I thought. But I would most definitely strong support the wording to be for once episodes actually air. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Series overview edits "per WP:TVUPCOMING"

User:Favre1fan93 has been removing cited information from the series overview tables about upcoming seasons. Nowhere that I can find was that discussed in the above RfC, which was about section headings. It seems like an extrapolation to a different consensus that was added to WP:TVUPCOMING, which was added as a "minor edit" here. While I can live with the section headings being removed, I very much disagree with removing cited information from the general overview summary table. I have begun reverting changes on the series overview areas. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Well if you don't have a section for the season, what is a table row going to do? The info is presented in the lead and not all shows have their information released at the same time. So without this, we will have some series that have a row that just says say Season 2 with no other info and no section, ones that do not have the row, and ones that make a good use of it when the section is necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Not that I'm for blanket removal, knowing that we did not specifically discuss that area, I would say that an upcoming season has no business being mentioned in an overview table. An overview table is meant to summarize BOTH the series as a whole and the article (in much the same way that the lead does). If a series has not actually entered a new season, then said information should not be presented as if it has. It's the same principle behind the section headers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If we need to rework that wording, or more that somewhere else, we should, but I have the same mindset as Bignole, and feel it should be included as it is in the section created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

For one thing, these tables are transcluded to the respective show articles. I am more than certain that readers often jump down to these tables because they so nearly summarize the dates of seasons, past and upcoming. Removing cited information from these tables just because there is no section heading seems silly and arbitrary, even if the information is presented in the lede. Yeah, if a show has been merely renewed and there is no information about episode counts or premiere dates, perhaps they should be left out of the table. But the fact that this prohibition was slipped into the new section heading guideline without discussion was troubling to me. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

And I just don't agree with Bignole's assertion that it's the same principle as section headers outright. Almost all series overview tables list DVD release dates. No prohibition against listing future DVD dates per WP:CRYSTAL has ever been raised . And that would be a bad idea. How is that any different than listing upcoming season premieres? -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Then shall we clarify? Perhaps make a section for the series overview tables? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. My relevant position is that an upcoming season row should be added when there is a season premiere date and/or episode count backed by a citation from a reliable source, not just a renewal. Then, a link to a section heading can be added when the list meets the section heading guideline criteria. Beyond that, banning ANY AND ALL upcoming dates from the table per WP:CRYSTAL is an extreme reading of that policy. Having future dates in a table alongside past ones, especially in an article about a current television series, does not present them as past tense. If readers are supposed to presume that spoilers are in Wikipedia articles without warning, I think it's fair for them to expect that a cited future date refers to said future date. Otherwise hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedia articles, not just in the TV realm, would currently be violating policy. And they're not. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I can accept that. I feel that in regards to adding the row, it should be more the season premiere date than the episode count that should be obtained to add it. So based on this, List of The Blacklist episodes I feel would be okay, where as Crossing Lines#Episodes would not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the argument about DVD release dates is not a very strong one for me. There has been many discussions about the DVD information having no business in a "series" overview table. It's nothing but marketing information and serves not purpose on Wikipedia (we're not here to sell a product, and that type of information shouldn't be at the top of the page; i.e. the more important area). As for cited information. No one is arguing not to include the information. The argument is that the section headings and the series overview tables are meant to be historical representations of the shows, and "future" events are not really historical. Especially when you're citing specific dates. You end up with a very empty row on the series overview table.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've argued against Bignole in the past when it comes to DVD dates in the series overview table, but the more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with him. I also agree that the same principle applies to adding a new series overview table row as it does to adding a new section. We don't need a new section unless it substantially expands on what is in the lead. Similarly, we don't need a new table row unless it substantially expands on what is in the lead. Typically the new rows contain the following:

1. Colour for the new season - clearly not important information
2. A number for the new season - Again, clearly not important information since this can be determined by anyone who can count.
3. A link to the new season's section - If the section doesn't exist, this serves no purpose
4. A cell that may or may not contain an episode count for the season - typically the cell is empty but even if it isn't, this is something that should already be in the lead - "On May 23, 2014, the series was renewed for a season of 21 episodes that is scheduled to premiere on September 22, 2014"
5. A cell that may or may not contain the season premiere date - typically, this too is empty, but like the episode count, it should already be in the lead. (see the above example)
6. 1-5 empty cells for season finale and DVD/Blu-ray release dates. These serve no encyclopaedic purpose until filled.

So, there we have only 2 pieces of data, the same pieces of data that we don't create a new section for. Why should we create a table row for the same information? It's inconsistent at best. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Future DVD release dates aside, which specific policy are we referring to that says these tables are "meant to be historical representations" of past seasons only, even when a series is ongoing? As opposed to a full overview of the series, as referenced by reliable sources. I can't stress enough that it's certainly not the letter or spirit of WP:CRYSTAL, which warns against unverifiable speculation, not banning mention of the future altogether. Are we saying that films/television shows can only be added to 2014 in film#2014 films / 2014 in American television#Programs debuting in 2014 once they premiere? I think that's unreasonable and a disservice to Wikipedia readers. Similarly, it seems weird to call the sections an "overview" if not all information is included. That is, unless it's mentioned that the tables are not fully comprehensive. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The series overview table is generally a summary of the "episodes" section. If there is no section for an upcoming season then a table row isn't summarising anything so it shouldn't be there. If it doesn't expand on the lead, it shouldn't be there. No matter which way you look at it, it shouldn't be there. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Historical information" is Wikipedia's most basic philosophy, not a policy. You wouldn't write a policy about that. The closest thing would be WP:NOTNEWS, though we're not telling you the information shouldn't be included, only that you shouldn't be placing such value on a basic announcement. Calling it an "overview" is not weird. It's not a "PAGE OVERVIEW", it's a "SERIES OVERVIEW". That's things related to the series that have taken place. Premiere dates, finale dates, Neilsen Ratings, etc. (DVD info is not related to the series itself, it doesn't impact the continuation of the show and thus shouldn't be there). Future seasons have not taken place (hence "future"), and thus are not actually part of the series (yet).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

While I still disagree, AussieLegend's position seems more tenable to me. It's one thing to say the series overview table should be summarizing the episodes section (though I believe the overview should prioritize being comprehensive as opposed to just navigational, repetition of info notwithstanding). But it's another to say that information about upcoming episodes is inappropriate for the series overview table because it's not historical. By that same logic, shouldn't we have to remove that same information from the lede? I sincerely don't understand why info presented in a tabular format should always be assumed to be historical (again, 2014 in film#2014 films is one of countless examples of that being not the case), whereas prose is acceptable. That's an original assumption that doesn't originate from WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, MOS:TABLE, etc. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of it, where is the objection to including future episodes in a current TV season's episode table along with episodes that have already aired? How is the practice of citing upcoming air dates and titles from The Futon Critic any more "historical" than linking to season announcements in the series overview table? -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, we're not talking about including information period (we recognize the need to include future events on media related articles). We're talking about the location of that information in relation to other like information and what it all represents.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

["the need"?] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What encyclopedias give info about upcoming events? They don't because it's non-encyclopedic. References have been given (in this discussion) for WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS -- which are valid, but I think one that's even more relevant is WP:NOTDIRECTORY (aka WP:NOTTVGUIDE), which states that articles "should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc." it also says "historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." A key word there is "historically" -- meaning what has happened (not WP:FUTURE). There's a continuous barrage of "fanboys" and "fangirls" who are so eager to add new info of their favorite shows. I have no problem with a mention of an upcoming season in prose, but on WP, tables are really only for what has already occurred. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Production codes? Do we care?

In this edit I added some clarity to the episode list, that if production codes are included, they must be reliably sourced. Do we care about production codes? They're typically not sourced, they are really more for the benefit of a production company's internal management, and in the case of cartoons, production codes are not the same thing as episode codes, because an 11 minute cart might have a unique production code from the final 22 minute episode. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I had a situation come up this past TV season for The Big Bang Theory (season 7), where for a while there, production codes could not be found. Granted, the show usually uses codes that increment, but this season actually had eps air out of production order. I did an edit at one point where I went through to cross check all the codes with the episodes to find the ones we knew (the RS'd ones) and then left the ones I could not find, blank, because adding any, would be WP:OR on my part, assuming they were the same as the season air number. Granted, if a show does not use them, there should be no need to put them, and if you are not added them via a reliable source (from before it airs or after), I'd say don't bother. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Married names in the lead of fictional character articles

Hey, everyone. Can we all agree to add something to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television about appropriate or inappropriate inclusion of married names in the lead of fictional character articles? I'll invite WP:TV to this discussion as well, but getting to the point: This recent matter and this recent reply with regard to the Peyton Sawyer article has spurred me on to seek some kind of guideline about married names in the lead. Like I stated in this discussion (now archived)... When it comes to the married names, unless the married name is a notable aspect to include, especially if it has become the WP:Common name, I don't think that it's good to have that WP:Spoiler material in the lead; this is because fiction is always in the present for readers/viewers and many people who have not watched the series or watched to a specific season will not be aware of that married name (unless they have come across a spoiler on that matter). We are supposed to stick to the common name for article titles in the case of fictional characters (and in general), and I feel the same about sticking to the common name in the lead. The infobox is for letting us know if a character was married.

This married name business is usually a fictional female character matter, and is usually WP:Inuniverse (editors treating these fictional women as though they are real). Take a look at the current state of the Susan Mayer or even at this link, where I recently changed Kelly Kapowski-Morris back to Kelly Kapowski at List of Saved by the Bell characters; I highly doubt that many people are going to think of her with the married name "Morris" when they think of her name. Something needs to be done about this rampant type of WP:Fancruft. It's just as bad when editors change the female character article's title to the married name because the character got married; this happened more than once with the Susan Mayer article, other Desperate Housewives female character articles, and various other Wikipedia articles; luckily, in those cases, we have the WP:Common name policy to defer to. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: It seems intuitive to use the name that they are best known by, or that they are introduced as. This type of renaming has been problematic in other articles as well. I thought to see how it is handled at MacGyver, but alas, they call him Angus MacGyver, which is inconsistent with Common Name. I probably wouldn't worry too much about the spoiler aspect though, what with WP:SPOILER and WP:NOTCENSORED and all. Maybe the way to go is to list the character as she was introduced to us (Kelly Kapowski), then explain in her character write-up that she later marries Morris and becomes Kelly Kapowsky-Morris. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned the WP:Spoiler aspect partly because of what I stated above and partly because, like WP:Spoiler states (currently anyway), "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." I also mentioned at that guideline talk page that there are certainly cases where a spoiler should not be in the lead; if the story hinges on that spoiler (as in that aspect of the story not being spoiled), as it does in the case of The Sixth Sense, for example, then it is my opinion that including that spoiler in the lead is not at all beneficial. But spoilers aside, this married name mess needs to stop. And specifically in the case of the Peyton Sawyer article, where Sahyadrisingh is IP-hopping everywhere in a WP:Disruptive manner (leading to the article being WP:Semi-protected twice now), there is no WP:Reliable source (not even the show as a WP:Primary source) showing that Peyton Sawyer ever goes by the name "Peyton Elizabeth Sawyer Scott." She definitely takes Lucas Scott's last name, but I don't know where it's reliably stated that she kept her maiden name (Sawyer). I can't stress enough that we need to add something to the guideline about the married name issue. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've seen some edit warring related to this in the past on pages that cross over into other projects (Comics, film, books, most commonly) and I've always wondered if this would work as a guideline. Make the article title (if a standalone) and character name what the character was introduced as (possible exception; if a later name change becomes more common, see it on soaps a fair amount). Leave other names out of lead and but use them to create redirects to the target article (so list of or standalone, whichever) and write them up in the character history (or whatever sub-section works best, will likely vary). I'm not sure if I'm explaining that well but it feels concrete and yet flexible enough to account for guidelines in other projects that cross over (imagine the potential for edit warring based on this if the Buffy comics start marrying off characters from the TV show). But I wonder if those redirects could become problematic. Millahnna (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Millahnna, what wording would you propose? I think that one or more of us in this discussion should propose wording and then be WP:Bold and add it after agreement if no one objects to the wording. Flyer22 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Livelikemusic, regarding this, perhaps you have something to state on the married names matter before I propose wording for it to be added to the guideline? Flyer22 (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think married names, especially in a fictional world, should not be included. Mainly in dealing with my editing in soap opera articles, soap characters marry more often than not, so continually changing the name would violate the terms of WP:COMMONNAME and would result in potential page moves to violate said-policy, as I've seen in the past. As for its inclusion in the lead, I say we should include it, especially if it's a significant amount of time; most times the change is fancruft with editors believing that just because they're married, the woman takes their husband's last name, when sometimes it isn't always the case. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Livelikemusic, I'm confused about you stating that we shouldn't include the married names and then stating that we should. WP:COMMONNAME more so applies to article titles. I'm more so referring to the article lead vs. the infobox. I generally don't think that the married name should be in the lead; this is per what I've stated above. And specifically in the case of soap opera characters, including the married name in the lead has (as you've acknowledged above) proven to be a substantial problem; in addition to what you stated, it has proven to be a substantial problem because editors want to include all of the married names in the lead, as in this recent case where I reverted an IP's addition of all of Erica Kane's married names to the lead. That is ugly-looking, ugly-flowing WP:Fancruft. We have the infobox for the men Erica Kane has married, where an editor can see what may have been her married name; we don't need that in the lead. The only case where I think that the married name should be in the lead is where it has become as much of a common name as the maiden name or is more common than the maiden name, as in the case of Sharon Newman, or is otherwise notable. Flyer22 (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Placeholder. Flyer22 (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Anybody object to me adding anything to the guideline about this? Or should I propose wording here on the talk page first? Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I say post it here; give the community a chance to crush it! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Will do. Flyer22 (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Broadcast

Hi, I think we're going to have to allow sections asides, they say are made; "international releases." Because many users do not accept that wikipedia is not a programming guide. Each time a new edit war starts, for these reasons, and truth is unbearable. I say so, and that. and each time is the same in each article telenovela. I think that should be allowed to add such information, or to do something. Because users do something that's impossible. Nothing but just look at the history of the article La impostora. Please I need opinions, for what to do in these cases.--Damián ^(talk) 13:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:TVINTL. Currently, users can create a section called Broadcast and add broadcast information for English-speaking nations only (Australia, New Zealand, US, UK, India, Bermuda, etc). Usually this information is presented like this: "In the United States, the series aired on NBC from June 5, 2006 to August 22, 2014." The content must be presented in prose (not in a data table). Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is is that these two soap operas were broadcast for the first time in America. Then all, no need to add more emissions per country, which makes the whole world; start adding such countries like; Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, among other countries where other languages ​​spoken.--Damián ^(talk) 14:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... WP:TVINTL is a failure of common sense, as is the WP:RFC that overwhelmingly argued to keep it. We're fighting against the masses who just want to see where the TV show they're looking for is aired in their country without too much hassle. How many editors have now been blocked for repeatedly violating this section, at least in part? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As was undoubtedly stated a number of ways during the RFC, if these TV-starved masses want to know where a TV show is airing in their country, they can check their local cable lineup or print TV listings just like anybody else. If their nation doesn't have a press capable or willing to produce TV listings, that would make it virtually impossible to meet WP:V and instead we would be basing the entirety of our international broadcast knowledge in their region on primary sources, or worse, the word of anonymous editors. Thankfully, Wikipedia is not the only place this unsourced information could exist; that's why we have blogs and cruft dens like Wikia. In my experience, the editors who have been blocked for violating TVINTL tend to have difficulty grasping that this is a community project, not an individual hobby or a place to force a POV. And then there are the impish ones, the cognitively impaired, the unsupervised children, the ones who think a flag icon is appropriate for every occasion, the sock operators, etc etc... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)