Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Reception sources

Hello, may TV Overmind, TV Equals, Spoilertv be used to provide reviews in reception sections? I have seen them in a few articles, but I am not sure of their reliability. Is there a list of good and bad sources, similar to the one used in music? The one at WP:TVRECEPTION is fairly limited... --Sofffie7 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Overmind and Equals, but SpoilerTV cannot be used. It's a fansite and user submitted. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for sharing your opinion :) --Sofffie7 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sofffie7, including links to the sites you're talking about would be helpful to other editors. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Here are the links (and I added other websites as well):

--Thanks, Sofffie7 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

TVOVermind: 1-2 person site. "please send to both addresses below to ensure both of us recieve it." Solicits fan contributions. No dice.
TV Equals strikes me as a blog with a few contributors.
SpoilerTV seems like yet another blog. No clear indication of where they get their ratings content for example.

Have you checked the archives at WP:RSN to see if these have been brought up before and if there has already been discussion about these sites? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

From working here a bit, I know SpoilerTV has definitely been deemed an unreliable site by the project. I concur with Cyphoid on the others; you should see if RSN has anything. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb and Favre1fan93: Hi, I've checked WP:RSN and there are no mention of any of these sites except for TVOvermind and in that discussion, somebody basically said to wait lol. --Sofffie7 (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Cast order by opening credits or by programming guide/production notes?

Need some advice on how to handle this [1] where the editor wants to insist on using the order according to the Media Centre of the broadcast company website instead of the order presented on the opening credits. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the Anon is misunderstanding "Broadcast order" to be "Broadcaster order". They should be in the order of appearance in the opening credits. If they don't appear (as not all shows do that), then you go by the broadcaster/studio credit order. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Prose vs. table format for cast lists

Hey, everyone. AlexTheWhovian has been changing the cast section of television articles from table format to prose format, as seen here, here and here. I told AlexTheWhovian at the Teen Wolf (2011 TV series) talk page, in part, "cast lists are commonly an exception; things like this are a case-by-case matter, much like WP:Cite lead. That, and the fact that WP:Prose states 'primarily of prose' and makes no demand that people always use prose format, is why I stated 'cast lists in this regard are an exception.' Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists, which WP:Prose is a part of, is clear that prose format is not always best. And considering that The Walking Dead (TV series) article is of WP:Good article status and editors there prefer the table format, it would be best that you discuss this there before simply changing that cast list's style. Similar goes for other articles as well. Clearly, the prose vs. table aspect needs to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, and relevant WikiProjects need to be alerted to that discussion."

Any opinions on this matter? I might alert some of the relevant WikiProjects to this discussion. If there are a lot to alert, I might forgo that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Cast tables are simply not necessary for series where the number of main cast is too low, such as Teen Wolf, where this apparent issue was brought to attention. A good discussion to take note of is Talk:Arrow (TV series)#Arrow Cast Table, as well as similar discussions of the talk pages of similar projects. While you state that That, and the fact that WP:Prose states 'primarily of prose' and makes no demand that people always use prose format, there's no mention of cast tables there, so no, they are not an exception, only an exception made by users themselves. Alex|The|Whovian 05:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, cast tables are not mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. This means it makes no demand that cast sections should not be of table format. It is, however, clear that prose format is not always best. So those going around changing these cast sections away from table format are doing so based on their own personal preference, not on anything that a guideline states. I will go ahead and alert relevant WikiProjects, The Walking Dead (TV series) talk page, and the talk pages of the articles you recently removed the cast table format from, to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure as to why The Walking Dead is of concern? I haven't touched that article. And well noted that you didn't even touch the discussions I linked to. What further understanding does a table give that prose does not? In fact, table is more disruptive in the fact that you cannot give a character a proper summary without taking up more room, where in prose, it is listed as-is. With it also comes the extremely important point of accessibility for screen readers - prose reads smoothly, tables do not. I will alert users who have contributed to converting to prose as well. Alex|The|Whovian 06:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Per what I stated in my "05:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)" post above, I alerted this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this page to this matter. Included in that is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. And with this edit, I alerted an IP who disagreed with one of your removals of the table format. All of these alerts abide by WP:Canvass. The Walking Dead (TV series) article is relevant because you indicated that you would be changing its cast section; the only reason I think you haven't done that yet is per what I stated about editors at that article preferring the table style and that you should discuss this with them first.

As for me, I don't oppose the prose format for cast lists; bullet-point format, which is usually used for Wikipedia cast sections (meaning television articles, film articles, and so on), is usually considered the opposite of prose format, though. The cast style you prefer can validly be considered a combination of list style and prose style. What I oppose is anyone going around changing every cast list they see so that it doesn't use the table format, when there is no prohibition against the table format. This discussion is meant to form a WP:Consensus on the matter. The table format is also common for other aspects on Wikipedia, such as filmography sections seen in Wikipedia actor and actress articles. I can see that the style you prefer is needed for articles that don't have a "List of [...] characters" article. But why is that style needed when there is a separate article for readers to specifically learn about the characters? The Hell on Wheels (TV series) article currently uses both styles. A WP:Permalink for that is here, in case that is ever changed. And per WP:Too long; didn't read, I am going to let others comment before I respond again in this section. The longer this section is, the more people won't want to respond. Flyer22 (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bullet-point format is far more prose-based than tables, so if you wish, it can be considered "the lesser of two evils". I see no need for consensus on an accessibility-based issue, for those that user screen readers, to make Wikipedia more accessible for them - those that can use Wikipedia normally are not the entirety of the site. It is not what I prefer - you presume before questioning, and you are incorrect. For television series where a separate "List of Characters" page exists, there may exist a table on that page, and hence there is no need for a table on the original page when the list is a mere subsection of the characters page. (I'm personally going to continue to put my arguments across - if other editors do not with to comment based merely upon the length of this discussion, perhaps their arguments were not as necessary as once thought.) Alex|The|Whovian 07:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

If accessability is the issue, the table is made more accessible via the instructions at WP:DTAB. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Finally replying now that others have replied: Yes, WP:Consensus is needed on this matter if you or anyone else expects to enforce this style across Wikipedia. Simply going to an article and stating "we have to use this style because it's best for readers" is not going to consistently work unless you have a solid WP:Consensus on this matter or unless it's a guideline or policy. Flyer22 (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There already is a long-standing consensus that is reflected in the MOS at WP:TVCAST, which I've quoted below. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:TVCAST, which I was already well aware of, has nothing to do with rejecting table format across Wikipedia with regard to television cast sections. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

And as noted below, some articles use the table format in addition to what is outlined at WP:TVCAST. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:TVCAST quite clearly says Information about the cast and characters should be presented in one of two ways. As I've already stated, Neither of the two ways specified in the MOS is a table. That seems a pretty clear rejection and, just because some articles contain tables doesn't mean it's supported. We've discussed these tables previously and they've received little to no support. There has never been support for them in the main article, although there has been a little for the character articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:TVCAST quite clearly doesn't support rejecting table format across Wikipedia with regard to television cast sections. If it did, I wouldn't have started this discussion. A guideline not mentioning another choice doesn't mean that the other choice is prohibited. I have various Wikipedia policies and guidelines on my WP:Watchlist (I help build some of them), and I watch all kinds of debates at these talk pages; so I very much know that a guideline not mentioning another choice doesn't mean that the other choice is prohibited. Furthermore, WP:TVCAST is a guideline, not a policy. And that some television articles, including the aforementioned The Walking Dead (TV series), use the table format quite clearly shows that the table format is supported by some editors. It also has some support below. Flyer22 (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Which to use is an editorial decision that should not be tampered with without first building a consenus on each article. Departures (2008 film) (a recent FA) forgoes a cast list entirely by introducing the cast in the prose of the plot section. Each style has its strengths and weaknesses and none is objectively better than the others. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Has everyone forgotten about WP:TVCAST? We've had numerous discussions about cast tables and they've received little support, which is why TVCAST says

Information about the cast and characters should be presented in one of two ways:
Cast list: In a section labeled "Cast list" or "Cast and characters", we indicate the name of the cast member, followed his or her noteworthy role(s).

Harrison Ford as Han Solo: The pilot of the Millennium Falcon

Characters list: In a section labeled "List of characters", we indicate noteworthy characters, including the name of the portrayer, followed by a brief description of the character.

Han Solo (portrayed by Harrison Ford): The pilot of the Millennium Falcon
To avoid redundancy, use only one method for delivering this information. For series where an actor may portray several characters, it may be more useful to use a character list.

Neither of the two ways specified in the MOS is a table. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Since when is accessibility a justification for making articles hard to read for people who are not using screen readers? The current cast list for Once Upon a Time (TV series) is pretty hard to read. If you can make it readable, I'm all for accessibility, but that's anything but readable. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We've actually been discussing the issue of accessibility in TV articles at Template talk:Infobox television season over the past 6 weeks. I'm going to ping Alakzi who can better elaborate on that issue. I really don't see the issue at Once Upon a Time (TV series)#Cast and characters. Have you also read List of Once Upon a Time characters? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the Once page, I'll probably try and add in some more detail along the lines of Arrow, The Flash and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

However, I don't see the problem with something along the lines of the NCIS page where the table is first and then a prose section for the characters below it. (Although that page could use some copyediting and sourcing.)--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I was talking about how the starring/recurring/guest info is squeezed into the same line. It was much easier to read that in the table since it's all lined up. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

How's this for unreadable? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That isn't really relevant since we are discussing the cast and characters on the Main series page, not the List of Characters page (Although that one does look like a lot of in-universe detail with little out of universe detail).--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. Complex tables do hamper accessibility, and very much so; RexxS has written on this extensively: User:RexxS/Accessibility (make sure to listen to the audio). However, rowspans are more of an issue than colspans and, though [2] would be annoying, in that screen reader users won't know to which season a role corresponds, the table would still be (linearly) navigable. Alakzi (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

here is how to start rewriting that awful TMNT characters list (though both of these pages focus on in-universe detail perhaps too much). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Use a table when it's useful, as at the Walking Dead page, where the table has a lot of, well, tabular data. Don't use a table where it's not useful, but use a list or plain prose, as WP:COMMONSENSE suggests in the context. The cast list at Once Upon a Time (TV series) is not hard to read at all. If it were three times longer, or had three times as much information per cast member, sure. There's not enough data presented there to make a table worth the time investment (not just yours but that of every editor who would add/change anything in it. Tables are a massive pain in the butt to edit, and a barrier to entry for new and and not-very-technical editors, so they shouldn't be used if a list or regular prose will do. Cast lists tend to at least be lists (not sprawling paragraphs) because, well, they're lists. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Well said! I'm getting complaints that the list at Teen Wolf (2011 TV series) is hard to read, when it's even smaller than Once Upon a Time, and the length of The Walking Dead's table is why I haven't even gone near that one yet. When there's so little deviations in the cast between the actors and the statuses, there's absolutely no requirement or benefit of displaying it in a table. Alex|The|Whovian 09:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing at all wrong with the cast list at the Teen Wolf article; a table in that case would be usability-hampering overkill. Anyone who says that's "hard to read" is being hyperbolic in the pursuit of decorative tables. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish essentially stated what I stated above (but with elaboration) -- it's a case-by-case matter. It is not one size fits all. Where are you "getting complaints that the list at Teen Wolf (2011 TV series) is hard to read"? I haven't stated that. Flyer22 (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I said you said it? Please state where I did. Wait. I didn't. Alex|The|Whovian 10:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

And, oh, wait, there is no need for the sour attitude. I asked you where people are stating that because I don't see it stated in the article's edit history, talk page, or on your talk page. So it's only natural to wonder if you are misattributing that matter to me, and to wonder just who you are referring to. Flyer22 (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The main/recurring information is much easier to understand in a table, but it isn't that bad on the Teen Wolf article. Also, I don't want to get personal or anything, but it seems strange that AlexTheWhovian is ignoring accessibility issues elsewhere (Template:Doctor Who episode list). nyuszika7h (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That does seem personal, since it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Episode count templates

I've started a discussion about episode count templates at WT:TV as the result of comments made by the closer at a recent TfD. Since the outcome of the discussion may affect the MOS, comments by editors watching this page would be appreciated. The discussion is here. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Guest lists

This is sort of a spin-off of the above Cast section discussion (which I wasn't aware of before, so I didn't take part). This was hinted at, but not really discussed. Saying not to use episode counts in main and recurring cast lists is fine (especially for series that are currently on-going), but guest lists are a whole other issue. First of all, should they even be included or should they only be mention in prose or in the episode summaries (re: Cyphoidbomb above)? And if a list is used, how do we know who should be listed. We can't feasibly list every guest (re: Bignole). So, what's the criteria? Also, if they are in a cast list and not in the episode summary, then it should include which episode it is that they appear in. And should a guest be listed if they are said to appear in an upcoming episode, and should the episode number be given (if sourced)? One editor insists on using "will portray" (instead of "as") without saying when. I said to him that it would be better not to list the ones who haven't appeared yet than to list them without saying what episode. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess this is two items. First, I would say "no" to have guest lists period. NOt a page of guests and not in a section on a main page. IMDb can list those things. THe reason being is that a guest list can become extremely exhaustive and dominate a page. Arrested Development had this issue, and if you listed ever guest for THe Simpsons after 25 years you'd have multiple pages. I don't think it should be based on the length of the show or the type of show. It should be a blanket rule of not guest lists. Recurring is fine, because they are usually smaller lists and show significance to a character (typically, but not always). You also could not stop people from adding really minor guest stars that don't impact anything. It's best to avoid them.

Second, if we did have guest lists, then I say no to episode counts for them as well. I'm not opposed to listing future appearances, because it's casting information, if listed correctly. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Bignole, but these aren't "episode counts"; it's giving which episode it is. It would be the same difference as including the guest in the episode list summary. But, it would probably be if the series doesn't have a "List of episodes.." or a "List of characters.." (just a thought). But, I think that prose trumps all of these. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Broadcast/TV:INTL section

Can I suggest that the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Broadcast section be re-written to make a few things clearer, mostly in respect to international broadcasts of television programs. There is a real inconsistency across numerous TV show articles with regards to foreign broadcasts. The MoS states "Apart from the channel of origin for the series, editors are encouraged to instead detail noteworthy (see next paragraph) foreign broadcasts, from English-speaking countries, through prose form" but what is noteworthy isn't explicitly stated. Two examples are given but not at the exclusion of all others.

Specifically, I have encounted other editors who have numerous opinions on whether a program's premiere in another country is noteworthy and therefore meets WP:TVINTL. Similarily, some of those who support the addition claim date, timeslot, network and premiere rating is relevent, while some who oppose claim only the premiere date is noteworthy, others claim premiere date and network are fine, and other editors oppose any mention that a series airs outside its country of origin all together, saying only the original broadcaster should be mentioned. For example, Fear the Walking Dead only lists channels of premiere per continent, Madam Secretary and The Flash lists by country with launch date, Reign lists by country with launch date and timeslot, while Code Black and Banished don't mention foreign broadcasts at all.

I strongly believe foreign premiere date and the broadcaster (in countries using English) are notable to be included in prose form (their ratings and timeslot I'm not sure have as wide support) as long as their is a reliable source, and I'm not suggesting a full listing of every episode by date that would breach WP:NOTTVGUIDE. In any case, the current WP:TVINTL doesn't makes this issue clear. Perhaps discussion about this a little further is needed, but either way I don't think it is clearly stated here. -- User:Whats new?^(talk) 00:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've never understood the "English-speaking countries" divide (it's an English-language encyclopedia we're editing but one with global coverage), but at least that's unambiguously written. The section looks like it could do with a bit of copyediting—"(see next paragraph)" is particularly poor—but that's not the main issue. I would personally include premiere date, network and timeslot, but not foreign ratings in the main article for a television show (season / episode articles is a different issue) unless, like the Simpsons example, a particularly high or low rating is suitable for inclusion the "Reception" section. But if others disagree then this needs wider discussion. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We should not be listing the network (other than for the country of origin) or timeslot, because we're not a TV guide and the network and timeslot it airs on in another country is irrelevant. Unless there is something special about the airing (e.g., The first time CTV4 ever broadcasted an American show). I do agree that we should more clearly define "noteworthy", as the mere presence of bring broadcast isn't itself noteworthy. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is notable when a show premieres in a foreign country, and both network and premiere date should be included. I do think it is encyclopedic, the same as Wikipedia articles about a song list their release date by country, or a model of mobile phone is made available overseas for example. This is why I think the definition of "noteworthy" needs to be discussed than clarified in the MoS. -- User:Whats new?^(talk) 03:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

First, we're not the phone WikiProject, we're the TV WikiProject. Secondly, the network isn't relevant. Just using your phone example, that would be equivalent to saying that a particular store releasing the phone overseas was relevant. It isn't. Otherwise, we just get back to where we were, but instead of a giant table of dates and channels, we have a giant paragraph of dates and channels. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I was just using it as an example. I take your points, but respectfully disagree. I don't see why a paragraph of overseas premieres isn't relevant. It is one paragraph in one section, it is hardly taking over. For example, "the series premiered in Canada on Channel 4 on October 1, 2015 [ref1] and in the United Kingdom on the BBC on November 7, 2015 [ref2]" isn't much to add to the article, but if it is omitted it stands to reason for it to be interpreted as though the show has only ever been broadcast within its origin country, which is not only factually wrong but almost discriminates against foreign nations. -- User:Whats new?^(talk) 06:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Except it usually isn't "one paragraph". First, just collecting premier dates falls under indiscriminate information. Secondly, when you just start collecting dates people want to add every one that they can find....that gets to be more than just a paragraph. Again the channels are irrelevant. Knowing that it's on Channel 4 or BBC doesn't make a reader more informed, unless you're trying to help people in Canada and the UK find it. In which case that would be making this a TV Guide. We typically can say that "Show Y has also been broadcast in multiple foreign nations, including the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia." The "where" is irrelevant unless there is significance to it, like breaking a record on the BBC. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The idea that "when you just start collecting dates people want to add every one that they can find" is not a valid argument: although not fully applicable here, WP:SUSCEPTIBLE summarises what I want to say in response to this. Just because some people might add some unencyclopedic content if we do X does not mean that X should not be done—otherwise (for example) I'd be nominating Ninja Warrior for deletion (the page is clearly notable but fancruft, ridiculously trivial stats and IINFO have taken over the page). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue that "when you just start collecting dates people want to add every one that they can find" is not only valid, it's exactly what used to happen before we decided to eliminate tables.[3][4][5] --AussieLegend (✉) 18:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing it's untrue; I'm saying I don't think it's a valid reason to prevent the initial collection of arguably notable dates. By the same token, we could ban any discussion of plot and then say "what used to happen before we decided to delete plot sections was that people added every minute detail they could think of[6][7]". It doesn't discredit the original additions, which should stand on their own merits and not some assumption about what they could turn into if unwatched by people aware of WP:IINFO. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree there shouldn't be a blanket ban just because of the possibility it might get out of hand on some articles. Mrs. Brown's Boys and Agent Carter have paragraphs of just a few lines. If the English language speaking nations only rule holds, there are only a finite number of those. Also, a reputable source would be required and without one should be reverted anyway. It is surely relevent regardless that a program is distributed outside country of origin, and when it happened. -- User:Whats new?^(talk) 21:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Article setup at the Daenerys Targaryen article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Daenerys Targaryen#Article setup. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Addendum to the Cast section

This is stemming out of this discussion over on the project talk, as well as just general "chatter" on the project. I'd like to propose adding wording to the cast section against the use of the "Character (X episodes)" format (here's an example which actually made me start this discussion). I've been seeing this pop up more and more for recurring and guest cast lists on season articles (sometimes main articles too and for main cast members), and not only does it not look very formal, it introduces a slew of biases and other issues instead of listing actors alphabetically. We aren't IMDb, where this is common to see for cast list (and I feel the users doing this are trying to emulate). So I guess I'm just looking for help on how to word this (and a discussion, but I feel there are similar sentiments to mine out there in favor of this addition). Pinging users who commented in the discussion I linked above (@TenTonParasol, Dark Cocoa Frosting, and Ditto51: and some regular editors to the project (@AussieLegend, Bignole, AlexTheWhovian, Cyphoidbomb, and Adamstom.97:). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Cast should be ordered per WP:TVCAST. For season articles, instead of series original broadcast credits, cast should be listed by "season" original broadcast credits. I'm completely against recording the number of episodes because it's far too prone to problems. Take this edit for example. I'm not sure whether the reduction in the episode count was deliberate vandalism, which happens, but the big kicker here is that at the time of the edit, 188 episodes had aired, not 184 and certainly not 183. The Big Bang Theory is a popular program and if it can be inaccurate, what about the less popular programs? I always look on episode counts with great suspicion as they are never sourced and so prone to inaccuracy that they serve no encyclopaedic purpose. As to what to do about this, I think a simple sentence appended to WP:TVCAST is all that is needed. "A running count of the number of episodes in which an actor have appeared is not to be included for any actor unless accompanied by a citation from a reliable source." --AussieLegend (✉) 08:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

First, no to episode counts. That's just plain and simple. The only time I would include them is 1) when there is a reliable source and 2) When it's in prose format (e.g., John Doe portrayed Eddie VanTackle in 12 episodes of "The Stupid Show" because the character was written out through a car accident.) Just listing out episode counts is generally irrelevant because the number of episodes does not in anyway dictate importance, otherwise than "recurring" doctor who has appeared in 20 episodes just to say "It's not Lupus" would be classified as more important than the "special guest" who appeared in 6 episodes and drove a significant plot point for a season/series.

For the order, if it's the main page it should be per TVCAST and ordered based on their ordering in the show. I can see alphabetical being a benefit when there are constant disagreements of placement, but even for list of character pages I generally prefer "first appeared" to dictate the order, as it follows the chronology of the show. I'm not opposed to alphabetical on a cast list though, just not on the main page (unless you don't have a character list page, and even then there should be something noting it for the reader). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Remove episode counts for main characters. If a main cast member does not participate in an episode, then it must be determined first whether that is notable, and if so, requires citation. Wikipedia is not a repository of attendance records, and television shows do not care about Games Played/Started GP/GS as with professional sports teams. Order main characters by TVCAST on the main article, and by TVCAST season broadcast order for the season article. Order recurring characters in whatever way most helps the guide. It can be in order of appearance, grouped by significance, alpha order, or episode count, or a combination. But listing actual episode counts would require citations for all such numbers. If you're lucky and your program provides a count for you on their website or a guidebook, then great, otherwise appearing in 12 episodes would require 12 cite episodes. So I would side against listing such things. The only useful time would be like guest host appearances on "Saturday Night Live" or hosting some major awards show as that tends to get a lot of coverage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC) updated 17:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding episode counts, does anyone wish to comment on this sort of thing? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh sweet Christmas. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Support clarification in MOS, episode counts in cast section is poo poo. I will point out that the MOS says Please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. so ordering by episode count would not be consistent with the MOS anyway (but perhaps could be expanded with "...or episode count"?) The NCIS table Aussie pointed out hurts my brain. It seems like the excessive statistics WP:NOTSTATSBOOK reminds us to avoid. However, I know that some users find value in "Absent: John Doe" additions, so I don't know how this is much different. I also think it's completely unmanageable from an anti-vandal standpoint. If the community decides it does like this sort of data table, I have a controversial suggestion (I once suggested something like this at the Village Pump and was ridiculed by a more senior editor...) The table could be created as a template, and once the community A-OKs the content, it could be indefinitely semi-protected, then transcluded to wherever we wanted it. This would greatly reduce the day-to-day numerical vandalism. It would, however, stray from the "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" philosophy, which would make it controversial. For my favorite data table at Wikipedia, please check out this link. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Support, like I said on the Project talk page, it can cause issues when actors appear on screen briefly and without speaking, especially when the actor is a series regular so the credit can't be used. The NCIS one could very easily be written in prose if it is needed at all, and so can the crossover tables.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Support - I for one will be so happy to see this needless nonsense abolished. Never have understood the appeal. LLArrow (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Just wanted to add that I'm still in 100% support of using TVCAST to order main/starring actors as we have. This was just mainly for any recurring or guest subheadings. Bignole and AngusWOOF provided good alternatives to ordering them along with my alphabetically version. That decision is really a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS thing for each series to decide which works best. Also, I'm not opposed to including information about a characters appearance number if it has a reliable source and in prose (much like what Bignole pointed out in their first paragraph above). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Should the MOS distinguish between the list of main cast and other lists (recurring / guest stars / special guest stars )? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that there should not be episode appearances listed unless there is a specific, notable, cited situation. As for the ordering, I thought I would just explain my thought process when I am editing. If the main cast is separated from the recurring and special guests than it has usually been easiest to order the latter two by the last names of the actors. However, in one big series cast list, I have tended to order the entire thing based on the credits order, which has the main cast first, and then the guest cast basically in order of appearance throughout the series. I don't know what others think about that or if there is even a need to have ordering standardised in the MOS rather than allowing editors to use what they think is best for each series, but I thought I would just put this out there anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

So I think we have a consensus to include wording to avoid the (X appearances) text; maybe some other points too. Could I get some comments on how to actually word this? I just tried writing something and couldn't come up with anything I liked or felt conveyed what we discussed here. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion so far has really been about different points:

There is an agreement that cast list(s) should not contain an episode count, and should not be sorted by screen time or episode count. Suggestion: Thus, add at the end of the second paragraph: "The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g., (# episodes), and should not be sorted by number of episodes in which the character appeared." The second part should really be clear from the rest of what the MOS says, but sometimes things need to be made explicit.
Already included in the MOS: There is an agreement that the main cast list should be sorted by credit order.
Still missing: There is no agreement to sort the other (recurring / guest stars / special guest stars ...) lists by credit order or alphabetical (but not by episode count). Right now, the MOS says by credit order with new characters added subsequently.

-Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I would probably propose that guest stars be included in order they appeared, if we're going to list them at all. In some episode lists, guest stars are mentioned as notes at the end of the episode summary. Not sure this is the best way, but it is one way that it is done. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that if everyone is ordered in credit order as the MOS kind of suggests, then guest stars would be listed pretty much in order of appearance anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless they are recurring guests, I wouldn't include basic guests. That would be an extensive list even just for a single season. You're talking about potentially 2 to 3 guests an episode (sometimes more), so for the average show that's about 60 guests a year. That list would be incredibly long for just a season. I think we have gotten into the habit of just include guests that are "big actors" or if it's an adaptation "a character we know from somewhere else", which places undue weight on those concepts. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bignole: I would agree, still I didn't make up (or wanted to promote) the cast categories myself. I just see them quite regularly on season article pages (see, e.g., Pretty Little Liars (season 6) and before, The Good Wife (season 7) and before, The Vampire Diaries (season 7) and before, and there are many others). Not so much in List of character pages, though. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Dark Cocoa Frosting I like your suggested wording. For the third bullet, I feel we should not specify any particular way, because sorting by credit order, alphabetically, or appearance, are all viable options and each can be beneficial each way. Maybe instead, word something that says "Recurring or guest actors should be sorted alphabetically, as they are credited, or by first appearance." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 My concern is that giving multiple equally valid sorting options again poses a risk of continual resorting.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It could, but anything like that always does. We have that issue everywhere. I think if the community on that page have decided on an order then a hidden note can be placed there. In instances like this, the "re-ordering" often comes because someone doesn't realize what the order is and start ordering based on what they think it should be. If they open it and a note says "this order is based on" or even a visible one like is done with Smallville will usually stop most edit wars. There's never been an issue at the page I linked, except the occasional "this should be in this list". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and add this wording in, based on Dark Cocoa's suggestion. Feel free to amend based on what I add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the outcome of the discussion and the changes to the MOS, should the episode counts be removed from this table? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd say yes, and replace them with {{CMain}}, {{CRecurring}} or {{CGuest}} as appropriate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

This page is on my watchlist, but I'd overlooked your latest change to it. Regarding this edit you made, I didn't like the emphasis on "main"; so I removed it. Having "main" there gives editors too much freedom to do what they want to do with the recurring character list, such as placing their favorite character first. Yes, I know that you also added "Some examples of sorting include, but are not limited to, alphabetically, as they are credited, or by order of appearance.", but that doesn't clarify how best to order a recurring cast list or a guest list; it simply gives some options, and doesn't indicate that ordering the lists in some other way can be a problem. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, regarding this edit, mind explaining your objection? Like I stated, "Where is the WP:Consensus for that edit? Nowhere that I can see. The WP:Consensus is for numbering [I mean episode count]." I was clear with my "07:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)" post above why I reverted. Furthermore, Favre1fan93 stated above, "I'm going to be bold and add this wording in, based on Dark Cocoa's suggestion. Feel free to amend based on what I add." Well, I amended. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

My issue was really that you undid one of the major points of Favre's edit without discussion, when the whole thing was already being heavily debated here. I am happy to continue that discussion though.

The thing with the cast ordering is that it basically used to state that all cast, series regulars and guest stars, should be ordered by broadcast order, something that I don't think many pages actually follow. After some discussion above, Favre changed the section to say that only the main cast has to be in broadcast order, and that guest stars (recurring or not) can be ordered how the page's editors see fit, as long as it isn't based on arbitrary nonsense such as the number of episodes the actor has appeared in. When you removed the earlier main specification without removing the guidelines for guest stars I just laid out, you created a pretty big contradiction by going back to saying that the whole cast must be in broadcast order but that the guests could also be ordered how you want at the same time.

What we need to decide here is whether we want to go back to saying that the whole cast should be in broadcast order, and actually enforce it this time, as you have suggested Flyer; if we want to specify some other sorting method; or if we want to leave it vague for guest stars, as Favre's version does.

If some consensus on that can be made then proceeding should hopefully be easy. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to query this one myself. "Main" was only recently added,[8] and it's a significant change. Until now, even in recent discussions, we have agreed that cast lists in general should follow TVCAST. This now changes that. We order main cast one way, and other cast whatever way we damn well please, as long as we don't include an episode count. I have to support Flyer22 Reborn's amendment,[9] which was simply a restoration to the 25 October version for that part of the paragraph.[10] --AussieLegend (✉) 12:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that you support the first of the three options I outlined, because again we can't remove the word main from there while we list different options for guest star sorting below it. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the three options are, as I lost track of the discussion somewhat due to other commitments. I do think that the existing wording was fine. All we really need to say in addition to that was that we don't include episode counts. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify for this discussion, here is what I believe we are deciding between, along with the addition of not including episode counts:

Keeping the previous wording, that all the cast should be ordered by broadcast credits.
Using Favre's wording, that the main cast should be ordered by broadcast credits and the recurring and guest cast can be ordered how the editors see fit (except for by episode count).
Having the main cast ordered by broadcast credits and the recurring and guest cast ordered some other way, which we would have to then decide.

Hopefully we can come to a decision on this by discussing. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if I brought any confusion to this, but I was always under the impression that TVCAST was strict in how to order the main cast (by broadcast order, with new main cast members added to the end) but this did not necessarily apply to recurring or guest cast, since the order and frequency they appear in the credits usually changes every time. That is why I added "main" that Flyer22 undid. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the original wording was quite vague and therefore confusing, but I always assumed that everyone was ignoring the fact that it was strict for the whole cast to be by broadcast order, since the wording (The cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list) does apply to guest stars as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed "main" per what I stated above. I knew before removing it that I was leaving in the "Sorting styles may include, but are not limited to, alphabetical, as they are credited, or by order of appearance." sentence, but that sentence is not stating that editors should present the recurring and guest lists any way they want to; like I noted above, it "doesn't clarify how best to order a recurring cast list or a guest list; it simply gives some options, and doesn't indicate that ordering the lists in some other way can be a problem." That is a problem to me. I removed "main" for further discussion regarding how best to word the guideline for recurring and guest lists. Obviously, I disagree that editors should order those lists any way they want to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Favre1fan93's claim that the original wording "The cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list." was vague or confusing regarding the order. The paragraph talks about splitting into main and recurring cast before that, so this order obviously applies to all. Yes, credited order (even for main cast, I can give examples) can change within one season, but following the rule from the original wording, it doesn't matter. When an actor is credited for the first time, they are added to the end of the (respective) existing list which already has all actors that were credited before. No subsequent resorting, no subsequent deletion. So far, so unambiguous. And from the view of neutrality I see nothing wrong about this chronology either.

However, this is hardly ever done (I can point out a three digit number of current and previous show or season articles – not "List of characters..." – that deviate from this rule, but where TVCAST clearly applies). Maybe the only confusing point about the original wording is why it is systematically ignored.

Granted, this order – albeit not being confusing – also brings along problems: A common one is verifiability, as there are hardly ever any reliable sources of the credits other than the TV show itself. For example, if there is a cast list which is ordered by popularity, or number of episodes, it requires to watch (the credits of) all episodes (of the season or show) to reconstruct which actor was first credited when. While this is not original research it still poses a practical problem. A rare(?) case is credit without actual appearance (because of edits), but it is not really a problem of making the list according to the credits, rather than if such a list is meaningful. A third problem are ongoing seasons where the cast list already contains actors which have not appeared yet (but are announced and properly sourced), as it is not known where they will go in the list.

–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason I never took the sentence The cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. to mean anymore than the main cast, is you can't really follow this for any cast beyond the main one. The main cast is pretty much a defined order for the entire season, yet recurring and guest cast are different each episode. And even if you have reappearances by the same actor, their order in the credits usually changes based on other actors that appear with them in the episode. So to me, "broadcast credits" is for main, but the similar idea that this is presenting for the other cast members is "order of appearance", which I added in the new text. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If the main cast are credited initially as:

Main actor 1

Main actor 2

Main actor 3

Main actor 4

and then, at any point, the order changes to:

Main actor 1

Main actor 3

Main actor 4

Main actor 2

we wouldn't change the order in which cast are listed because the MOS says cast should be organised according to original broadcast credits. For recurring cast, if they appear in the order

Recurring actor 1 - episode 1

Recurring actor 2 - episode 1

Recurring actor 3 - episode 2

Recurring actor 4 - episode 5

we list them in that order. If "Recurring actor 2" then appears in episode 17, we don't move them to the end of the list. We maintain the original order because the MOS says original broadcast credits. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about main, recurring or guest cast, the original text works. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And then we reach a practicality issue where new lists would follow this pattern, but old seasons and series would require people to watch the entire season/series to check. Especially since not all TV shows release a press release which include guest cast. Which is why we should come up with a more manageable solution to recurring and guest sections. And if people aren't going to watch an entire series then anyone can come along and change it without anyone knowing if it is correct or not. Which is why going for an alphabetical approach would work better as you can't change the alphabet so the list will be less prone to vandalism or users promoting their favorite actor to the top of the list.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a valid concern, but I don't think it is really as big a problem as you think. There should not be exhaustive lists of guest stars, only those that actually recurr throughout the series/season, and any others that are actually notable to the series/season as a whole (anything less belongs in an episode article only). To find out what order to have those in, the editors only have to look at the credits for the episode in which each of them are introduced, something that I believe would not be too difficult to discover. So while it will take some work, as most good things do, it is not too big of an ask, in my opinion, and will make the articles consistent and simple, which benefits future articles as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The reality is that there are plenty of lists, new and old, where cast credits are wrong even for main cast and we're never likely to fix them all. I've had to restore Kelly Hu to The 100 (TV series) several times (she was main cast in only one episode), and Lisa Rieffel to The King of Queens (she was main cast in part of the first season). I had to write a FAQ for The Big Bang Theory to explain why Sara Gilbert is listed as main cast. Regardless of what the MOS says, editors are going to ignore it (here is an example from today)but a clear and consistent direction in the MOS as to the way that cast lists should be ordered is better than vague instructions, and provides backup when you're reordering cast lists. We've had some fairly lengthy discussions here and at article talk pages about the way that cast should be organised (Talk:Person of Interest (TV series) is a notable example) and listing alphabetically really isn't an improvement because it introduces inconsistencies in the way that we list cast. We should be using only one method for all. Adamstom.97 is quite correct that we shouldn't have guest lists at all, I just mentioned those to demonstrate the consistency with which the original wording can be applied. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I support the notion of only one sorting method in the MOS. I have voiced my concern about giving several equally valid options above, but to little avail. Several options create ambiguity. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with one sorting method, but I think our wording just needs to be better. To me (as I've expressed above) "broadcast credits" is terminology only applied to the main cast (because that is generally a set order for the season), where as "in order of appearance" would apply to the the recurring and guest (who don't have a set order as the actors change from episode to episode). Though we would do a generally same sorting (main cast determined by the producers from the first season, with any additions added to the end; recurring/guest as they appear starting with S1E01, with additional ones added below that list for S1E02 etc), I think changing the wording would be clearer for users. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AussieLegend that "It doesn't matter whether you're talking about main, recurring or guest cast, the original text works." and "a clear and consistent direction in the MOS as to the way that cast lists should be ordered is better than vague instructions, and provides backup when you're reordering cast lists." On a side note: Beyond My Ken (BMK) objects to some or all of the new wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

And took the discussion elsewhere. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

So it seems to me that there is some consensus for keeping all the cast ordered by broadcast credits, which I think might require some rewording for clarification given that it has been ignored for so long and there is confusion even among users such as Favre1fan93. I am thinking something like this:

The cast listing should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Please keep in mind that though "main" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count) and generally have a set order in the credits, guest stars will not necessarily be credited in the same order each episode they appear, so their place in the list should be based on the order of credits in the first episode that they appear. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series. The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g., (# episodes), to indicate the number of episodes in which the actor/character appeared. If an actor misses an episode due to a real world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or "Production" section with a reliable source.

What does everyone think about this wording? Any suggestions for improvements? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that part of the confusion also stems from the structure of the TVCAST section, which intermixes different things such as format, sorting, splitting, notability, contents. The whole section might be easier to read when reassembling the different sentences that cover specific issues together into individual paragraphs. I have attempted this below, based on the wording before the changes, with additions in italics and a few omissions in strikethrough (as after the reordering it is otherwise not clear what has been changed). Of course this is open for expansion but I hope that it can be found useful.

Information about the cast and characters should be presented in one of two ways: ~~To avoid redundancy, use only one method for delivering this information.~~

Cast list: In a section labeled "Cast list" or "Cast and characters", we indicate the name of the cast member, his or her noteworthy role(s), followed by a brief description of the character.

Harrison Ford as Han Solo: The pilot of the Millennium Falcon

Characters list: In a section labeled "List of characters", we indicate the name of the noteworthy character, including the name of the portrayer, followed by a brief description of the character. This style may be more useful for shows where actors portray several characters.

Han Solo (portrayed by Harrison Ford): The pilot of the Millennium Falcon

The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g., (# episodes). Also, per Wikipedia's Manual of Style on boldface, actors and roles should not be bolded.

Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: Not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed and even fewer will deserve an individual article. If the series is long running, and has an overwhelming number of recurring guest stars, it may be appropriate to split those into a separate list of characters articles (see below for style guidelines on "List of ..." pages).

The cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list of characters that have appeared before, and their place in the list should be based on the order of credits in the first episode that they appear. In particular, it should not be sorted by screen time or episode count. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on their position in the list even after their departure from the series.

~~For the main article of a series,~~ it may be appropriate to split up the cast listing by "Main characters" and "Recurring characters". Please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity, screen time, or episode count. [here would be a good place for a different ordering of recurring characters, if there should be any.]

Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that really belongs in the plot summary; instead, focus on real world information on the characters and actors. The character descriptions could include main plot points about the character—followed by any relevant real world information that could include, but is not limited to, casting of the actor or how the character was created and developed over the course of the series. The key is to provide real world context to the character through production information, and without simply re-iterating IMDb.

It can sometimes be appropriate to bypass the use of a cast section altogether. To balance this, the relevant in-universe information can be presented in the plot section of the article with actor names listed beside their relevant characters as "(ACTOR)", while the real world information can be presented in a "Casting" subsection under "Production", but avoid redundancy. Of course, some television articles will lend themselves to one style better than others so see what works best, and do not be afraid to discuss it on the article's talk page.

Also, if one really wants to say anything about guest stars, this could be explicitly suggested in the last paragraph, as they are often given in the episode summary section. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It has been quiet here for a few days, so I am going to be bold and change the section based on Dark Cocoa Frosting's suggestions above and my own wording for the order section. If anyone takes issue with my edit, I am happy to continue the discussion here. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I made a few changes as explained in the edit summaries. The structure and wording as it is now should hopefully be both less ambiguous and less confusing than what we started from. Please object if it isn't.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm okay with the changes. Thanks all for having a healthy discussion after my initial request for a small addition to the section. It turned out we found additional flaws in the wording that needed addressing! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Second section break

Can I get some clarification here? I know that there has been consensus found for excluding episode counts in main cast lists, but I'm not sure if there has for recurring cast. And shouldn't it depend on consensus on the individual article, rather than a blanket statement ("should not") on the MOS -- especially when there's no reason given for why not? --Musdan77 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Having followed the whole discussion from the beginning, I need to clarify your initial statement: there was always a broad consensus not to have episode counts anywhere in the cast list. There was a longer discussion (and a temporary change to the MOS) if there should be different sorting orders between main and all other sorts of cast, but even then there was no support for taking episode counts into account.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

But, part of what was added a month ago was "The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g., (# episodes)". If it wasn't needed before, why now? And if it's needed, then shouldn't there be an explanation as to why? --Musdan77 (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Because we are not IMDb, and there is no easy point of reference for the episode counts, it also encourages people (particularly IPs and new editors) to order cast sections by episode count instead of by first credited appearance. Yes some series do have reliable sources that list the number of episode appearances but not all (hardly any) do. Episode counts also become messy when actors appear breifly without speaking in an episode (particularly main cast members) where by the credits can't help. And there are the actors whose scenes are cut but are still crediting in the episode. Hence episode counts just add confusion and clutter to the articles.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't "why?" I was asking why no reason is given in the MOS. But since you bring it up, I also asked about the recurring list. If we don't give episode counts for recurring actors/characters, what's the point of even listing them -- if there's no evidence of them being recurring? --Musdan77 (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The "evidence" should be that reliable source that's on the page saying they are recurring guest. Recurring status is not just simply appearing multiple times. You could appear 3 times in a specific story arc and be gone. That's not recurring. Or, you could appear 4 times as a guest across multiple seasons, impacting an episode but not part of an overall storyline and that could be recurring. There's a reason we look for reliable sources to identify how they are contracted. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be customary for a number of pages to define recurring characters as having appeared or been credited in at least X episodes of the show/season. And it always leads to dissensus, first, about the proper episode count of characters in the absence of a reliable source, and second, if there is one good number X for all shows, or if X is a good cut off number compared to the total number of episodes of the show/season. Recently here or here but I can probably dig up fiercer examples. It has also been discussed previously to include such a cut off number into the MOS and it did not make it.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Tense for non-fiction episode list summaries

A few days ago, I noticed in some of the season articles for Saturday Night Live that the episode summaries were all written in present tense even when talking about the non-fiction aspects, so I changed it to past tense according to MOS:TENSE. Then an editor (Wikipedical) revert them, with the ES: "present tense to summarize media". I explained to him that MOS:TENSE says, "Generally, do not use past tense except for deceased subjects, past events..." I said, "When it's talking about a character in a sketch, that's one thing, but when it's dealing with a celebrity or musical act, that's like a historical event. We don't tell about history in present tense." I know that there are editors who think that if it's "media", it should be in present tense, no matter what. If that is the case then it should say that in (this) MOS; otherwise we go by what the MOS does say. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a mixed case for SNL: in talking about the show as a whole, one should use past tense ("So-an-so hosted this episode"), while specific skits of interest, as little bits of fictionlets, should be written in present tense (ala The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise). --MASEM (t) 21:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to hear more editors' thoughts on this as well, but I think it's worth mentioning, as I said on Musdan's page, I don't consider an SNL TV performance to be a "past event" that MOS:TENSE is describing. In my opinion, it's similar to watching stand-up comedy or a talk show appearance (which also doesn't qualify as fiction/nonfiction either)- one would describe the plot by saying "[performer] tells a story about..." since a television performance is always consumed in the present. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Masem's post completely and I share the opinion of Wikipedical as expressed in the post immediately above. i.e. I don't consider an SNL TV performance to be a "past event" that MOS:TENSE is describing. In my opinion, it's similar to watching stand-up comedy or a talk show appearance (which also doesn't qualify as fiction/nonfiction either)- one would describe the plot by saying "[performer] tells a story about..." since a television performance is always consumed in the present. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. How can you agree with both Masem and Wikipedical? Of course a stand-up comedy or a talk show appearance is a "past event". Every reality show season article that I've seen (and edit) is written in past tense. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree because they're both correct. Put both posts together and that's the case. Anyway, I'm off to drive 1,000km to see Taylor Swift. Apparently she can't perform anywhere without my daughter being at the concert, so I may not be around for the next few days. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was no help. I agree with Masem but not Wikipedical. It should be "mixed", not all present tense. And no one has given any source or anything that supports saying that all TV is in the present -- or responded to what I said about reality show season articles. Anyone else? --Musdan77 (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Why would a SNL episode summary in the episode list format need to say "X is/was the host" when the title headers of the episode already list the host name and the musical guest? Most of the events within the episode list summary section can be written in historical present as the skits are fictional or are taking place at the time. Same with reality TV shows where "X eliminates Y." If it needs to be documented what songs the bands played, or what skits were presented, it depends on where it is listed. Band X plays "Song" within the narrative would be present tense, while a list at the end of the summary would use past tense "Songs performed: 'song1' and 'song2'" or "Featured songs: 'song1' and 'song2'". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I used SNL as an example where there may be a case where you have to describe it in two different ways.

Thinking of this more, the line I would put is between scripted and unscripted shows; all "fiction" shows are scripted by default, while non-fiction may be either; a documentary like Cosmos is scripted, a reality TV show is unscripted (broadly speaking), and a variety show like SNL or the Tonight Show or the like have a mix. A scripted work has events outside of any present timeline and as such should be presented in a present timeline. An unscripted work should be written in the past tense because they describe events as they happened without a script. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Musdan77:. Wikipedical said I don't consider an SNL TV performance to be a "past event" that MOS:TENSE is describing. When talking about such an episode, what happens within the episode is written in the present tense, while events outside the episode are written in the past. For example, "Actress Jill Smith performs a skit about an obsessed celebrity who steals a handbag and is arrested, a parody of the events that lead to her arrest and jail conviction." Masem said while specific skits of interest, as little bits of fictionlets, should be written in present tense. i.e. the episodes are not treated as past events. So yes, both editors support each other. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't read Masem's latest post before you posted yours. Anyway, it looks like we all agree that there are times when past tense can/should be used. There's just a difference of opinion as to when. But, again, it's just opinion, and no matter how well written it is, if it's not supported by an outside source then it's original research. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of the historical present tense for plot summaries is to mimic the reader's/viewer's experience consuming a movie/book/play, which is always in the present. There is no fiction/nonfiction distinction- nonfiction books are summarized in the present tense because they're read no differently than fiction books ("Gladwell argues..." not "Gladwell argued..." etc.). Similarly, the plot summaries written in the historical present tense at shows like List of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills episodes or List of Nathan for You episodes is correct even though they are not "scripted" shows. So when describing the content of SNL episodes, it should be written in the present tense. But if "Songs performed: [song1] and [song2]" is preferred, that's fine too. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I do edit a couple of those documentary-type "reality shows", and those summaries are written in present tense – even though technically they are "unscripted" (though I still question if that is correct), but that's different from the majority of reality shows that I edit – talent competition shows, which are written (correctly) in past tense. And as I said from the beginning, that's the part of SNL that should be in past tense as well. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification Required

On the MOS:TV page in the info box section it says that for episode count the value is incremented when new episodes air, or have been produced but I have seen some users state and add hidden text that it should not be included until all episodes have aired. Is what's stated on the MOS page for an entire series as a whole or for individual seasons? Thanks and Happy Holidays. Brocicle (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

For replying editors, please see full discussion at User talk:Brocicle#Episode counts. Alex|The|Whovian 13:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex is correct. The main season article, which uses {{Infobox television}} is updated after each episode airs, which usually occurs once a week while a season is aring. Season articles, which use {{Infobox television season}} are only supposed to be updated after each season ends. I don't see that the infobox instructions are ambiguous on this, so I don't see what note is needed. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

To be honest it is kind of vague when it comes to the seasons of a series page with episode count compared to the episode count of the series as a whole. I thought adding in a link with a brief sentence on where to find that information would be helpful to other editors, as I'm sure there are many who have made the same mistake as I have, as not every editor who has not been editing for as long as some would know where to find it. Brocicle (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It isn't vague in the context of the instructions for the particular template. You shouldn't assume that the instructions for one template apply to another. Granted, it may seem inconsistent, but it isn't vague. What information do you mean when you say "a brief sentence on where to find that information"? The episode count? That's best determined at the end of the season for season articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I mean to be able to differentiate between format and structure for a television series page and a television series season page. The MOS:TV article says "The structure of television articles, season/series articles, and episode articles are all relatively identical. The sections below will map out the basic structure for these articles," and by saying that it seems it's saying that the MOS:TV covers seasons as well as series, and episode articles, but it doesn't if there's separate standards for a season compared to a series, for example episode count. That's what is vague about it. Brocicle (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

"Relatively identical" doesn't mean absolutely identical. The MOS can't specify minutiae, which is why it only says "the sections below will map out the basic structure" and not the exact structure. It is up to editors populating individual articles to ensure the edits that they make are appropriate. This includes ensuring that infoboxes are populated according to their specific instructions. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding what my point is so nevermind. Brocicle (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

A "Netflix Original" vs. Netflix original programming

Taking WP:TVINTL and WP:WORLDVIEW into account, any opinions to add at Talk:List of original programs distributed by Netflix#Degrassi: Next Class? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Character descriptions

This is about the character descriptions in series (maybe even season) articles as explained by WP:TVCAST. When describing properties that change during the show, such as age, health, death, relationships, jobs, etc, are they supposed to describe the character

as they are introduced into the series/season?
currently (i.e., whatever the character's state is by the last aired episode of the series/season)?
in a general way that is valid for the entire series/season? (Which would mean to avoid giving character properties that are changing.)
detailing the character changes throughout the series/season?

To give some examples: is the character who starts out as "15-year-old daughter" updated to 16 and 17-year-old as she ages in the series? Is "Amy's boyfriend" changed to "Amy's ex-boyfriend", then to "Betty's boyfriend", and then to "Betty's husband"? What about the "deceased grandfather" who was still alive in the beginning of the show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I've always felt the best way to handle this is to start the description with how the character is at the time of their initial appearance, and then discuss significant changes in prose along with appropriate references to when the change occurs. DonIago (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:TVCAST explains that articles should reflect the entire history of a series so "currently" is inappropriate while "in a general way that is valid for the entire series/season" is what is appropriate. Doniago's comments are pretty much spot on. Generally, exact ages for fictional people are unnecessary. Age and birth date parameters were removed from {{Infobox character}} because of this. "Teenager", "in their 20s", "in their 30s" etc are more appropriate terms that don't need to be constantly updated. In infoboxes, boyfriend and ex-boyfriend aren't needed. Just name the person in the appropriate field and explain any changes throughout a series in the prose. If something is too complicated for the infobox, just leave it out and explain it in the prose. There is no obligation to fill out every infobox field. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

First appearance, along with season number and basic description works pretty well. I did a character list where the main characters start in high school and later attend college together. As for boyfriend, it can be changed to love interest or it can briefly summarize "boyfriend and later husband". I'd use deceased if the character is killed off early in the series or only appears in flashbacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC

Marking Genre as Intended Genre

Thanks to Let's Trim over at List of North Korean Television Series being a comedy show, I'd marked Genre as Intended Genre. We should do something similar for all television series. For example, What Not to Wear is a comedy show, but it is marked as "Reality". We could even have both, marking the television series for both Intended Genre and Genre.203.215.119.183 (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Nielsen ratings

The guidelines on ratings seem to only mention Nielsen, aren't there other rating systems out there in different nations, like BARB? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes there are. BARB for the UK and BBM for Canada should definitely be mentioned, and if there happen to be any for Australia or New Zealand (I'm not aware of these, if there are). Stemming off of this, we've hit sections here and there of the MOS, but I think we, as a project, should do a top to bottom rewrite of the entire MOS soon, because we keep finding things are very outdated and need updating. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Shortcuts to the project page are not working correctly - technical problem?

When I link to a shortcut here, like WP:TVCAST or WP:TVOVERVIEW, it goes to the MOS/TV page, but is directed much farther down the page than where the shortcut is supposed to take you. I tried this in Firefox, Chrome, IE and Opera, so I'm not thinking this is a browser issue. The misdirect may be a problem when informing inexperienced editors to MOS:TV related guidelines. Using full links like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Series overview does the same thing. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a general issue, as I have been having this problem on other articles as well, not just the project page. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a known issue, happens with other pages too. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 141#Firefox and anchors. – nyuszika7h (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, they tagged that Phab as "resolved"?! 'Cos it's not resolved – it's still happening to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: I guess the specific issue mentioned in that task was fixed, but phab:T53736 and phab:T67468 are still open. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Episode counts revisit

An editor has opened a discussion regarding episode counts at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Episode count in TV show franchise articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:TVCAST again

It seems that some editors are still having trouble with this,[11] so I've added a note clarifying that "new cast members" refers to the specific cast list and not just to cast members new to the series.[12] --AussieLegend (✉) 10:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not "having trouble". At the page in question, the actors are listed in the order they appear in the credits for the first season, with the second season additions appended to the bottom of the list, as the guideline suggests. For series such as this, in which all episodes release at the same time, you can consider any of those episodes, since a viewers can start at episode 5. There is no issue that I see in this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I also don't think the new note you added is speaking against this either. This may just have to be imagined in a "broadcast tv" versus "web tv" situation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if the episodes are released at the same time, they have a sequence, in this case as listed at Daredevil (TV series)#Episodes‎.In that article the actors are most certainly not listed in the order that they appear in the credits. As I explained on Adamstom.97's talk page, "series original broadcast credits" were Charlie Cox, Deborah Ann Woll, Elden Henson, Toby Leonard Moore, Bob Gunton and Vincent D'Onofrio, in that order. In episode 2, Rosario Dawson was added. In episode 3, Vondie Curtis-Hall was credited. That should make the list:

However, that is not the order in which cast are listed. That order is:

Charlie Cox - first credited in episode 1
Deborah Ann Woll - first credited in episode 1
Elden Henson - first credited in episode 1
Toby Leonard Moore - first credited in episode 1
Vondie Curtis-Hall - first credited in episode 3
Bob Gunton - first credited in episode 1
Ayelet Zurer - first credited in episode 3
Rosario Dawson - first credited in episode 2
Vincent D'Onofrio - first credited in episode 1

Your claim that "a viewers can start at episode 5" is specious, as this applies to any TV series, and it's not really true of Daredevil. There is an obvious progression in the storyline that follows the episode numbers. As an example, the story for episode 2 starts at the end of episode 1. Regardless, the consensus is that we credit according to "series original broadcast credits", while you are advocating that we abandon this principle just because the series was released all on the same day. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the same rules should apply for web series as TV broadcasts. We say "first aired" for TV, but that isn't true for Netflix. In this case, "first aired" should be "first episode". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. This guideline is for new cast members, either new to the series, or new to series regular status. Here, we are talking about a single project (a Netflix season) that is created and released at once, and so has a set main cast listing. They just happen to only give the names of those main cast members who appear in each episode. So we are still listing them in their original, intended order, and appending new cast members (those added to the series in season two) to the end of the list, just as we would for any series.

For a broadcast series, if someone is cast for the second episode but not added to the end of the cast, we would add them to the end of the cast anyway because the pilot had a set main cast, and this person has been added later. But here, Dawson wasn't added to the cast for the second season after a pilot was made, she was always a part of the show, and always a main cast member, but Netflix doesn't have to have everybody in every episode, they just used the main characters as was appropriate for the story, and so Dawson's name is ultimately not shown until the second episode.

She is always listed as 'with Rosario Dawson', as in 'Starring Charlie Cox, Deborah ... Gunton, Ayelet Zurer, with Rosario Dawson, and Vincent D'Onofrio as Wilson Fisk', because that is Daredevil season one's main cast listing, but when she isn't in the episode, her name isn't either. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not a series is released all at once is irrelevant. Aired TV series are released on DVD and Bluray "at once" but we don't change the cast listing to accommodate the home media release. Even though the episodes may all be released at the same time, they were released as episodes 1 through 13 and follow a sequence in their storylines. For aired episodes we add the cast progressively, starting at episode 1, followed by episodes 2, 3, 4 etc. It makes absolutely no sense not to do the same thing for web series. We should be consistent in our approach and not change the rules willy-nilly. The advantage of following TVCAST is that the cast sequence is easily verifiable. Is there an easily verifiable source that confirms the sequence used in Daredevil? The cast in that series are not credited in every series, so you can't say that it has a "set" cast list. It's not the same for every episode. This is actually not at all unusual. Kevin Sussman is only credited in the episodes of The Big Bang Theory in episodes in which he appears, and this seems to be the same system used for Daredevil. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Since it looks like we're going to have to rehash TVCAST again, we may as well get the gang back together so I'm pinging some editors who participated in previous discussions: @AlexTheWhovian, AngusWOOF, Cyphoidbomb, Dark Cocoa Frosting, and Ditto51:@Flyer22 Reborn, LLArrow, Masem, Musdan77, TenTonParasol, and Wikipedical: The question is, should we be consistent in the way that we apply WP:TVCAST - Should it apply to web series the same way it applies to broadcast series? --AussieLegend (✉) 00:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

But the point I think Adam was trying to make, that I agree with, is even though Dawson was not credited until episode 2, she wasn't not a starring actor for episode 1, even though she didn't appear in it. She didn't have her status upgraded between the two episodes, unlike in broadcasting, where that can happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If she wasn't credited in a starring role in episode 1 and didn't appear in the episode then she wasn't starring in episode 1 any more than I was, or you were, and didn't become starring until episode 2. Vincent D'Onofrio was credited in episode 1, so he should be listed before Dawson (and Curtis-Hall and Zurer). That's the convention we've always followed. It's not anything new. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes absolutely, the same rules should apply to web series as television. A complete no-brainer. LLArrow (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't watched DD, so I have a question. If Rosario isn't credited until episode two, is she credited in the same position for every episode after that? The same for the others that weren't credited as main cast members in the first episode. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The credits for this series are all over the place. There seems to be a core main cast (Charlie Cox, Deborah Ann Woll and Elden Henson), with other actors, including Dawson, only credited in episodes in which they appear. They're the sort of actors that made "Please keep in mind that though "main" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count)" necessary. They're treated more like guest stars than permanent starring cast, although they're included in the opening credits. In episode 2, Toby Leonard Moore, Bob Gunton and Vincent D'Onofrio (who was credited as "with Vincent D'Onofrio") are not credited. Instead they are replaced by "with Rosario Dawson", at the end. In episode 3, it's Cox, Woll and Henson, followed again by Toby Leonard Moore, then Vondie Curtis-Hall, followed by Gunton, new addition Ayelet Zurer, and then "with Vincent D'Onofrio". Episode 4 is again Cox, Woll and Henson, Toby Leonard Moore, Vondie Curtis-Hall, Zurer, and "with Rosario Dawson". Episode 5 is Cox, Woll, Henson, Moore, Gunton, Zurer and "with Rosario Dawson". I could go on for the other 21 episodes, but you get the picture... The standard TVCAST format seems to work best. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It isn't all over the place, it is actually very simple. For season one, the main cast listing is "Starring Charlie Cox, Deborah Ann Woll, Elden Henson, Toby Leonard Moore, Vondie Curtis-Hall, Bob Gunton, Ayelet Zurer, with Rosario Dawson, and Vincent D'Onofrio as Wilson Fisk". For season two, the main cast listing is "Starring Charlie Cox, Deborah Ann Woll, Elden Henson, Jon Bernthal, Elodie Yung, Stephen Rider, with Rosario Dawson, and Vincent D'Onforio as Wilson Fisk". Actors names only appear in an episode's credits if the actor is actually in the episode, and since Netflix just tells a single story over 13 episodes, and so feels less inclined to shoehorn the entire main cast into every one, there are quite a few instances of actors not being named in the starring credits, including the first episode.

So even though D'Onofrio is first credited in the first episode, while Dawson is first credited in the second, according to Daredevil's original starring credits (meaning the listing created for the first season, as opposed to the only other listing, that which was created for the second season) Dawson is credited before D'Onofrio. If Dawson was not part of those original credits, and was added as a new main cast member for the second episode, then it would be correct to list her after D'Onofrio, even if she was credited before him. But that is not the case. Dawson was not added as a new cast member for the second episode, she is and always was a main cast member for the entire season, with a specific place in the starring credits from the very beginning, and so listing her before D'Onofrio, in my opinion, is still following the guidelines established here. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What you have described is indeed all over the place.

Dawson is credited before D'Onofrio - She is not credited before D'Onofrio in the episode, and that is what matters.

with a specific place in the starring credits from the very beginning - She wasn't credited at all in episode one, and she is credited in last position in other episodes, with her actual place in the first 5 episodes being 0,4,0,7 and 7. That's not a specific place at all. It's only specific in the episodes in which she appears, and that doesn't explain why she is credited 8th out of 12 in the article, and before D'Onofrio who is credited before her. "Specific place" is as in other series like The Big Bang Theory where:

Johnny Galecki is always credited 1st

Jim Parsons is always credited 2nd

Kaley Cuoco is always credited 3rd

Simon Helberg is always credited 4th

Kunal Nayyar is always credited 5th

Unless you're a Daredevil fanboi, the current order makes no sense while the TVCAST order is consistent with all other series. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether I like the series or not, and I don't even see how my enjoyment of the series would affect this issue. You are looking at this from an unnecessarily simplistic point of view, and though it is a bit more complicated than usual, it is hardly so complicated as to actually be considered complicated.

You are looking at who is coming in places (first, second, etc.), but because of the Netflix system, which I have already explained several times, you should be looking at the order: Yes, Dawson has been credited in different places (not at all, fourth, seventh, etc.), but when she is credited (meaning when the character is in the episode) she is always credited after Cox, Woll, Henson, Moore, Curtis-Hall, Gunton, and/or Zurer (depending on who is in that episode as well), and she is always credited before D'Onofrio if he is in that episode (otherwise she will be credited last).

That can't be too difficult to understand: there is a set order, but they only show who is in the episode, and so there is no changing or adding of cast members during a single season, to which this guideline would apply. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You are looking at this from an unnecessarily simplistic point of view, and though it is a bit more complicated than usual, it is hardly so complicated as to actually be considered complicated. - Wow, that's an extremely complicated response. No, I am looking at this from the same point of view from which we look at every other series. The way you're explaining it is inconsistent with the way we look at every other series. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You are trying to look at this as if it is a broadcast series, and since we are not, are seeing our inconsistency as an issue. The fact is, the system being used here is not the normal system, and so to apply the guideline to it requires some adjustment in thinking and processing. We are still completely following the guideline, but we are interpreting it in a way that the series requires.

So for a broadcasting series, which makes and airs one episode after another, starting with an initial starring list and updating it in whatever episode a change takes place, series original broadcast credits means the starring list for the first episode of the series. For a series such as Daredevil, which makes and releases an entire season together, and so has a single starring list for an entire season, series original broadcast credits means the starring list for the first season of the series. In both cases, new cast members means the same thing (an actor being added to the main cast following the establishment of the original broadcast credits), but in a broadcast series a new cast member could potentially be added in any episode after the first, while in a series such as Daredevil a new cast member could only potentially be added in a season after the first.

Either way, we are still following the guideline, that the cast listing should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list, just with slightly different definitions of series original broadcast credits, which we can do given that guidelines always appropriately allow room to adjust based upon differences in specific circumstances. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Whether it's a web series or a broadcast series, and whether the series is released all at once or aired over 9 months is completely irrelevant. They're both television series. CBS and Netflix could swap The Big Bang Theory and Daredevil, with TBBT being broadcast on Netflix and Daredevil being broadcast on CBS. There are no different rules that apply. The ONLY difference is that Daredevil was released all on one day and TBBT has been airing weekly for years. Of course we've seen TV networks burn off multiple series episodes in one day and marathons are common. CBS could create a TV series and broadcast all episodes in one season on one day and they wouldn't need a separate set of rules to do so. These differences that you are seeing are not differences at all. It's no different to buying a right-hand drive vehicle for use in the United States. You don't need a new set of road rules - the same rules apply.

Either way, we are still following the guideline - No you are not. You're creating a fictitious set of rules so that you can completely ignore the way that we list actors, which is based on how they are credited in episodes, and which is progressive, starting with the first episode and ending with the final episode.

Earlier I asked if there is an easily verifiable source that confirms the cast order used in the article. I'm still waiting for a response to that. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I don't know where's best to reply, but based on my understanding of WP:TVCAST, where we start with S1 and work outwards, adding new cast to the bottom of the list as we go on, if I were to have started fleshing out this article, I probably would have ordered the credits like this: (I've only checked S1 Episodes 1-3)

Cox
Woll
Henson
Moore
Gunton
D'Onofrio

This is the end of E1 credits. I then would have added:

Dawson

This is the end of the E2 additions (there were only 4 starring roles in the opening credits)

Curtis-Hall (comes before Gunton in the credits)
Zurer (comes before D'Onofrio in the credits)

This the end of the E3 credits.

The alternative is weird--kinda becomes an algebra puzzle--where we start to piece together who comes before whom. "Curtis-Hall is credited before Gunto, who is 1/3 as old as Zurer. How tall is D'Onofrio?" If this ordering is not preferable, then perhaps new guidelines are needed, but this is what I would have done per the existing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You've come up with the same list that I did, based on the TVCAST.[13] The remaining list is:

--AussieLegend (✉) 16:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

First, I'll say that I don't think TVCAST needs to change dramatically. I think we're talking about an odd system of crediting that cannot be easily guided in this MOS. We'll have to do our best. For DD, because I think it IS a little convoluted in how they credit (though I get it...to a degree), I think the best approach would be to look at the cast ordering and if no one jumps another actor in ordering throughout the "season", then you just list the most complete order (as opposed to the traditional "who was listed first"). I get the idea that Netflix is just not listing everyone in every episode because of how they are releasing it. Dumb...but whatever. So, in this case, I would say that Dawson would come first because when they are listed together, she is preceding D'Onfrio in the order.

Although I concede the point to Aussie that it appears to go against the writing language in the MOS. I would argue that shows do not typically re-order cast in the middle of a season. For example, you will not see Erica Durance jump places with Allison Mack (SMallville) in the middle of the season. The role is set at the beginning (we also don't reorganize in later seasons, just saying). So, if you look at the most complete list of crediting, Dawson would be listed first. That's how I'm seeing this particular case. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It isn't really convoluted at all. They just credit cast only in the episodes in which they appear. Even with that, listing the cast as we do for every other series works fine for this series. Only crediting cast members in the episodes in which they appear isn't unusual. As I said, it's done for The Big Bang Theory. Nobody is jumping places as you've suggested, actors are just inserted in front of others, usually when the others aren't in the episode, which again is not unusual. Most shows do this. When Dawson is credited with D'Onfrio, in the two times it happens in season 1 (episodes 6 and 11), she is credited before him, but he was credited in the series before she was so, per WP:TVCAST, D'Onfrio is listed before her. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Apologies for jumping into the middle of an established conversation, and further apologies if this has been covered already (elsewhere? I didn't notice it in the above thread), but would there be any harm in special cases like this, where determining the "proper" order might be problematic, with just falling back to alphabetical order? The names could still be separated by the season in which they first appeared, and it would be easy enough to put a note in to the effect of "starring cast is listed here in alphabetical order by season due to Netflix's nontraditional credit listings for this series", or something. Just an idea... --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There's really no need to change the order at all. If you just follow WP:TVCAST and organise the cast list according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list, everything works fine. Some people just seem to be overcomplicating the process by adding issues that don't exist.

Actors a, b, c and d are credited in episode 1 - list is organised in that order

Actor e appears in episode 22 between actors c and d - Actor e is added to the end of the list

Actor f appears in episode 31 between actors a & b - Actor f is added to the end of the list

Actor c leaves the series after episode 45 - no change to the list

Actor g is added to the cast in episode 47 between actors b & d - Actor g is added to the end of the list

Many episodes later ...'

List is ordered a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j .....

I really don't see why people find this so hard. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest going with the usual WP:TVCAST opening credits order per episode 1, add stars per episode 2 at the bottom, then episode 3, and so forth. It is not a big deal to have a credits order paragraph, as when the full ensemble is known: "For season one, as of episode X, the main cast opening credits ordering is as follows: "Starring Charlie Cox, Deborah Ann Woll, Elden Henson, Toby Leonard Moore, Vondie Curtis-Hall, Bob Gunton, Ayelet Zurer, with Rosario Dawson, and Vincent D'Onofrio as Wilson Fisk" (reference to episode with full order)(second reference if there is never a complete list but that sequence can be synthesized based on this and the first one)."

If it needs even more detail then that then give it plenty of detail as with The Walking Dead (season 4). That can include all that fun stuff about actors being promoted or demoted from the main list or resequenced in billing.

"With" and "And" are typically associated with the final two (or other) main cast. Exceptions can be made if they are regularly labelled as special guest star as with Heather Locklear. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I must say I find this discussion bewildering. I see nothing special about Daredevil that would prevent applying the MOS as it is written. Changes in the main cast list from episode to episode are not an uncommon thing for some shows. And of course the episodes are still – very obviously – ordered in a specific sequence and it doesn't matter that they are released simultaneously for that. AussieLegend is right with everything he wrote. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

We are applying the MOS as it is written. I am sorry if people think that we want to change the MOS or create an exception from the MOS or something, because that just isn't true. Aussie actually provided the perfect metaphor, ironically, that whether you are driving a right-handed car or a left-handed car, the road rules are still the same. However, you can't just drive a right-handed car exactly the same way as you would a left-handed car, as that would literally be impossible. You must make some slight adjustments to how you approach the problem, so that you can both drive the different car and follow the same rules. That is what is happening here. In order to follow TVCAST in terms of Daredevil, we must do a few things that we wouldn't usually do for a broadcast show.

The fact is, the original broadcast credits for Daredevil are not the same as the credits in the first episode of Daredevil. That is how a broadcast show works, but it is not how this Netflix series does. In order to list the original broadcast credits for Daredevil, we have to look at the entirety of Daredevil season one, purely because of the way Netflix works. And that is exactly what we did. It isn't complicated, it isn't ignoring the MOS, and it isn't inconsistent with other series. But it does require us to look at a slightly different medium in a slightly different way. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have a quick question, and I might've missed it or misunderstood due to the length of this thread, but this idea that Netflix has everyone as starring in the first episode (but not listing those who don't appear), is there a reliable source for that, the everyone is starring as of the first episode part (the second part is apparent)? Or, is it simply an inference? ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, here's Netflix: AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

episode 1, 8 minutes in: Starring: Charlie Cox, Deborah Ann Woll, Elden Henson, Toby Leonard Moore, Bob Gunton, and Vincent D'Onofrio as Wilson Fisk.

episode 2, early in the show: Starring: Charlie Cox, Deborah Ann Woll, Elden Henson, with Rosario Dawson.

episode 3, around 3:52 in: Starring: Charlie Cox, Deborah Ann Woll, Elden Henson, Toby Leonard Moore, Vondie Curtis-Hall, Bob Gunton, Ayflet Zurer, and Vincent D'Onofrio as Wilson Fisk.

episode 4, around 3 minutes in: Starring: Charlie Cox, Deborah Ann Woll, Elden Henson, Toby Leonard Moore, Vondie Curtis-Hall, Ayflet Zurer, with Rosario Dawson, and Vincent D'Onofrio as Wilson Fisk

episode 5, around 8:40 minutes in: Starring: Charlie Cox, Deborah Ann Woll, Elden Henson, Toby Leonard Moore, Bob Gunton, Ayflet Zurer, with Rosario Dawson, and Vincent D'Onofrio as Wilson Fisk

I like the added footnote, though clarified it to avoid a list-it-both-ways loophole. I have to say that wording like "For season one, as of episode X, the main cast opening credits ordering is as follows" is not very encyclopedic and comes off has fan- and media-student-cruft. We don't treat other works this way. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, we shouldn't be discussing the progression in the opening credits like that, and there really is no need. I don't see why it is so hard to understand that each season just has one listing, but they only show the names of those in the episode. And we took that original broadcast credits and added the new cast members (those added for the second season) to the end of the list, per the guidelines here. We are following TVCAST. It doesn't make sense to insist that we are not.

TenTonParasol, as is pretty common for TV series, the press releases and other online sources are all over the place and generally unreliable for exact starring listings, order, etc. Another example is Agent Carter, for which press releases listed two new additions for the second season as well as a different order, but the onscreen credits had the same order and did not include those additions. That is why we always go with what is actually on screen.

However, we don't just use what the credits say onscreen because they are the onscreen credits, we use them because they give us an accurate source for the actual credits (which are a very particular, contractual thing). So every body who is focusing on exactly what the opening credits say because we always do, you are looking at it wrong. Onscreen broadcast credits always give the exact listing, because at the time that the episode was produced and then released, that was the state of the behind-the-scenes crediting. And then they might change the crediting for the next episode, or any other subsequent episode, and at that time the onscreen credits are updated to represent that behind-the-scenes change. Likewise, at the time that a Daredevil episode was produced and then released, the behind-the-scenes crediting was in a certain state. It just so happens that every episode of Daredevil was produced and released as a single entity, and so if the behind-the-scenes crediting changed, the change would be reflected in every episode, not just those going forward.

So though we do not get a helpful complete listing straight up, we can look at the season as a whole and figure out the exact order (using some pretty simple logic—Cox is always credited first, Woll is always credited after Cox and before anyone else, Henson is always credited after Cox and Woll and before anyone else, etc.—which is allowed on Wikipedia, just like basic counting is) for that single entity, which logically will then be the exact representation of the behind-the-scenes state that we require. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Where are the "original broadcast credits"? Is that from a press release? Or is it the listing on Netflix when you select the title? (Actually that one has a completely different order after the first three) If you want to use the logically assembled order which always has Dawson second to last and D'Onofrio last when they are both present, I suggest you use my opening credits listings as the reference and then everyone who questions that order can reconstruct the list. If more episodes need to be listed to complete the list, add them there. This is why I suggested the paragraph following the TVCAST-ordered list. You can define the sequencing and there wouldn't be any complaints. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

As I just said, the press releases and online listings have proven to be reasonably unreliable so far, so we have to go off of what is on screen. But I definitely think we should avoid ordering based on the introduction of names to the credits with a paragraph explaining that there is a clear, different order that has been created by Netflix. That seems pretty obviously ridiculous and unencyclopaedic to me. What we have is two orders, the surface level order, and the deeper, logically formed order. The latter follows the TVCAST guidelines; it is the crediting order, and adds new cast members to the end. The former only looks like it follows the TVCAST guidelines, but when you actually look at it you see that it has been altered by aesthetic choices, and moves characters (that are not new to the series) out of order because of this. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If all we have is "to go off of what is on screen", then we have to apply TVCAST as we do everywhere else. Anything else is original research. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

More credits:

ep 6: 2 minutes in: cox, woll, henson, moore, hall, dawson, d'onofrio
ep 7: 2 minutes in: cox, woll, henson, hall, gunton. Special guest star: scott glenn
ep 8: 3 minutes in: cox, woll, henson, moore, hall, gunton, zurer, d'onofrio
ep 9: 2 minutes in: cox, woll, henson, moore, hall, zurer, d'onofrio
ep 10: 2 minutes in: cox, woll, henson, moore, hall, gunton, zurer, d'onofrio
ep 11: 1:45 minutes in: cox, woll, henson, moore, hall, gunton, zurer, dawson, d'onofrio
ep 12: 3:47 minutes in: cox, woll, henson, hall, gunton, zurer, d'onofrio
ep 13: 1:50 minutes in: cox, woll, henson, gunton, zurer, d'onofrio

Of these, ep 11 is the most complete listing with 9 stars. So if you want to go by logical order, just cite ep 11. Every one of those main actors has been present within the first 3 episodes so it's fair to go either way: 1) With Adamstom.97's claim that they've been there since the start 2) With strict episode sequencing which is expected for a broadcast weekly series. Regardless, season 2 characters would be introduced afterwards, and the complete order should most definitely be cited to ep 11. There aren't weird circumstances such as episodes airing out of order, or no credits listing at all. Regardless, the season 2 new stars would be placed at the end of the list, and in the Season 2 article, they would have to go through the same exercise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is what we know: Each season of Daredevil is made all at once, so from a real world stand point there is no progression in the cast from episode to episode (even if we do watch the final episodes sequentially)—if the producers were to come out and explain that a certain actor was added later in production, or a decision was made to elevate a certain actor to the main cast during production, then it would be different, but that hasn't happened—and the opening credits clearly have a set order, which we can see here thanks to AngusWOOF—episode 11 has the full order, and the only differences in the others is that names have been hidden when those actors do not appear, but the names that do appear, appear in the same order. Going off of that information, and applying TVCAST, we get the listing that we already have on the page; the original order created for season one, with new cast members for season two added on the end. That is all we can do, it is all that we should do, and it is all that we have done. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is what we know: Each season of Daredevil is made all at once - Do you have a source that we confirms that we know that? Just because episodes are all released on the same day doesn't mean they're all made at the same time. In fact that is pretty much impossible. There has to be a period of time over which episodes are made. No episode is ever made at the same time. Scenes are often filmed out of sequence and we see everyday through production codes that episodes are often aired in a different order to that in which they are produced. That's possible because many series don't air an episode and then spend the next week producing the next. They produce several episodes in a run and then air them a week apart. Often a scene from one episode is filmed at a different time to other scenes in an episode because of location or equipment availability. Daredevil is really no different to other series when it comes to how it's produced and production has no bearing on how we credit cast. That is based on the airing sequence of the episodes. You keep arguing that the "differences" justify a different way of crediting cast but there is no difference. You claim that Daredevil has a set cast but the majority of TV series have a set cast. You claim that Netflix is different because it only credits main cast in the episodes in which they appear. Kevin Sussman is a main cast member of The Big Bang Theory, but he is only credited in the episodes in which he appears. Daredevil really doesn't do anything different to any other series so we shouldn't be crediting characters differently. As I've pointed out previously, verifiability is a core policy and in the absence of any reliable sources supporting your claims we can't resort to original research in determining how cast should be credited. We have to follow TVCAST. Please don't argue that the article does do that because clearly it does not. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This guideline was created back in 2011, before which there was no set way to order TV series cast lists. It was proposed and eventually agreed with that The producers have already decided who the rankings of their "stars", thus dictating the importance of the characters as they see it. This eliminates us having to decide any organization, as our "decision" is actually to follow the series' producers' decision. As for when new characters are added and old characters leave, I believe in the first come first serve policy. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a historical perspective and not based on recent events, then new characters should be added to the end of the list.

So I don't believe that "production has no bearing on how we credit cast", just as I don't believe that TVCAST exists to make us follow the onscreen credits of each individual episode, especially when a series has been produced and focused on with the entire season as its scope. The inherent ideas to this rule are (A) we should follow what the producers decide, not anybody else, and the easiest way to do that is to read the onscreen credits; (B) when someone new joins the cast, no matter where they are credited, they should be added to the end; and (C) when someone leaves the cast, they should be kept where they are in the ordering.

The producers decided the main cast for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. with its pilot (which was confirmed for us through the onscreen credits), and that didn't change until Nick Blood joined the show with the premiere of the second season. At that point we added him to the end of the main cast list. The producers decided the main cast for The Vampire Diaries with its pilot (which was confirmed for us through the onscreen credits), and that didn't change until Kayla Ewell left after episode eight. At that point, she was kept where she was listed, even though she was no longer part of the show. The producers decided the main cast for Daredevil with the first season (which was confirmed for us through the onscreen credits), and that didn't change until Toby Leonard Moore, Vondie Curtis-Hall, Bob Gunton, and Ayelet Zurer left while Jon Bernthal, Elodie Yung, and Stephen Rider joined for the second season. At that point, the former group were kept where they were listed, even though they were no longer part of the show, and the latter group were added to the end of the main cast list, even though they were not credited onscreen as such.

That all seems like common sense to me, and not too difficult to follow, and so the only reason I can think for there being an issue is the fact that Netflix only credits those main cast members who appear, and so the individual episode onscreen credits don't necessarily reflect the producers listing (this is why I bring up this point; not because it is unique to Daredevil, as I know it isn't, but because it is causing all the trouble). But that's alright, because we are looking at Daredevil in the scope of a season, not individual episodes, and it immediately becomes clear when you look at every episode's credits (helpfully listed just above for us to check) that there is indeed only one order used for the entire season.

This has nothing to do with sources or verifiability or original research (although, if you do want proof that each season of Daredevil has been filmed at once and then released at once, then there are some helpful articles all about them right here on Wikipedia that I believe are very well sourced), this has to do with your fundamental misunderstanding of this guideline and the idea of giving due weight and scope. But that sort of misunderstanding is not really surprising, given that you apparently can't see the difference between a set order having some different names hidden for each episode and a set order having a new name added to it later on. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This guideline was created back in 2011, before which there was no set way to order TV series cast lists - And it has been revised since then, most recently in a legthy discussion in October-December 2015, only 4 months ago. At that time we decided to continue crediting as we had been doing, while expanding the coverage of that method of ordering. That we expanded the process reinforces the validity of the method.

So I don't believe that "production has no bearing on how we credit cast" You appear to have misinterpreted what I have said. Your argument was essentially that all of the cast should be listed in the order that you deem correct because all of the episodes were produced at the same time. My response was that how the episodes are produced is irrelevant, and I explained why the method used by Daredevil is not different to other series. The producers have clearly decided on a credit order, just as they do for other series, and that is relevant. The credit order that is used in Daredevil does not respect WP:TVCAST.

the only reason I can think for there being an issue is the fact that Netflix only credits those main cast members who appear, and so the individual episode onscreen credits don't necessarily reflect the producers listing - In the absence of any verifiable sources to the contrary, we have to assume that the on-screen credits are ordered the way that the producers intended. Do you really think that Netflix reorders the credits before release?

there is indeed only one order used for the entire season. - That's true for any series though. Daredevil is no different.

This has nothing to do with sources or verifiability or original research - Yes it absolutely does! If you can't provide sources to the contrary then we have to go with what is verifiable, and that is the onscreen credits. Nothing you've said in this latest post in any way supports not following TVCAST. --11:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I was a part of that discussion last year, as it was a pet peeve of mine that many people did not order guest actors by onscreen billing like TVCAST instructed. At no point did we discuss the reasoning for using onscreen credits (as a reliable source of the producers intentions), as that was never an issue then, only now. And please, stop using this "not following TVCAST" argument. As I have said numerous times, I am following TVCAST. You don't have to agree, but if you don't, then say that. I am telling you that the way we are listing the Daredevil cast follows TVCAST. You are telling me that it doesn't. This discussion is about debating that fact, and that is what I intend to do.

You say that the way Daredevil has been produced is irrelevant. I understand that. I'm not misinterpreting anything. I'm just telling you that I disagree, because the way Daredevil has been produced is a pretty major factor in this discussion. I say that, because your are trying to tell us that Rosario Dawson, who is first credited in the second episode of Daredevil, is at that point a new main cast member to the series, having been added to the season's main cast for the second episode. But that just isn't true. Dawson was cast before any of the show was filmed; she was always a part of the cast. The reason she isn't credited in the first episode is because her character wasn't needed/wanted yet, and Netflix only lists the names of those that actually appear.

Regardless, if a character is introduced in the second episode of a series that uses this no-show, no-name approach, then they could either have been in the cast from the start with their name hidden or just added to the cast with the second episode. Proof must be provided for either, and there is no proof that any of these main characters were added to the series later on. However, there is proof that the series has and always had a single cast listing, as, like a film, the series was cast and then filmed all at once (from July to December 2014), and filmed by location rather than by episode. The whole season was worked on until it was completed, and then the whole thing was released, with the cast listing in every episode using the exact same ordering.

That is all that we know, and this idea that these actors could have been added to the series with the episodes that they first appear in does not only not make sense—given what I have just explained that we know about how the season was produced—but also is completely unfounded. And so, unless you can provide proof that the producers added new characters to the series after having completed all the previous episodes, then I can confidently state that all of the evidence we have points to the base cast listing for Daredevil episode one being the same as that for episode 11, and so, per TVCAST, the only order that we can and should use (the series original broadcast credits) is the same as the one from episode 11 (the one that we are currently using). That is why the current version of the article does indeed follow TVCAST. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

it was a pet peeve of mine that many people did not order guest actors by onscreen billing like TVCAST instructed ... At no point did we discuss the reasoning for using onscreen credits (as a reliable source of the producers intentions), as that was never an issue then, only now - That's what I can't understand. You wanted it then, but don't want to do it now. Why?

I have said numerous times, I am following TVCAST - No, you are not, because TVCAST says to use original broadcast credits and then add new cast members to the end of the list. That means listing those actors shown in the credits of the first broadcast/released episode in the order that they are credited (i.e. Cox, Woll, Henson, Moore, Gunton and D'Onofrio) and then adding actors who are credited in subsequent episodes in the order that they are added (Dawson, Hall etc). It is not crediting them as they are eventually listed in episode 11 and then adding some more, some time in season 2.

because your are trying to tell us that Rosario Dawson, who is first credited in the second episode of Daredevil, is at that point a new main cast member to the series - No, not at all. You're reading far too much into what TVCAST does. All that listing per TVCAST does is give us an objective way of listing cast in accordance with easily verifiable onscreen credits. Using your POV, you would argue that TVCAST is saying that, in The Big Bang Theory, Johnny Galecki was added to the series before Jim Parsons and that's not the case. Galecki is simply (verifiably) credited before Parsons. Continuing, TVCAST is not saying that Simon Helberg was added before Kunal Nayyar, it's just saying Helberg was credited before Nayyar.

there is no proof that any of these main characters were added to the series later on - Again, TVCAST doesn't say that. It's just an easily verifiable and objective way of listing characters.

"the only order that we can and should use (the series original broadcast credits) is the same as the one from episode 11 (the one that we are currently using). That is why the current version of the article does indeed follow TVCAST." - No. "Original" means the first, not the 11th. The "series original broadcast credits" are the credits in the first episode, and the first episode only, not the 11th episode.

The credit order being used now is as Cyphoidbomb described it: a weird--kinda becomes an algebra puzzle--where we start to piece together who comes before whom. "Curtis-Hall is credited before Gunto, who is 1/3 as old as Zurer. How tall is D'Onofrio?" It just doesn't make sense. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

And as I have previously stated, should it go by strict broadcast order, there's no problem with adding a paragraph right afterwards to present the logical broadcast order cited to episode 11. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Angus, I do think there is a problem with that. We shouldn't be explaining different credit orderings, or drawing attention to the order we use in any way. People don't come to learn about the order, they come to learn about the cast and characters themselves. It just so happens that we need an order if we are going to have a list. All we need to do is agree on what the series original broadcast credits order is for Daredevil, and stick to it.

Aussie, I had a friend when I was doing first year Maths at university who, rather than being able to understand the principles that we were being tested on, just came up with we formulas and tricks that were easy to remember and got him to the correct answer. And this worked, for all the easy questions, and he passed the paper. However, if he had tried to answer one of the harder questions, which are more complicated, he wouldn't be able to, because the question wouldn't fit the template that he would need it too, and because he didn't actually understand the underlying principles, he didn't have the knowledge to alter the template or work it out himself. On the other hand, I learned the principles of the topics were covering, and in the exam was able to use this knowledge to work out the correct answer for both the easy question and the hard ones.

You, and us all really, have got by until now with the simple formula of reading the credits onscreen; it has always got the right result. But now we've got to a harder question, one that doesn't quite fit the formula, and to get to the right answer requires some knowledge of the underlying principles that we are dealing with here, namely that the whole point of this guideline is that we want to be using the producers' crediting order. Because when we look at Daredevil, we see that it only names onscreen those who are in the episode, and some of the main cast members are not in the first episode. Suddenly, we must ask the question, are the visible credits as they are because those characters had not yet been added to the series, or because of the hiding-of-names-system? That is important, because if it is the latter, then the visible onscreen credits will no longer be an accurate representation of how the producers order the cast, which is the order that we want.

Seeing as how you are completely avoiding this question and saying that I'm "reading far too much into what TVCAST does", you clearly don't understand these underlying principles and why this case is more complicated than usual. And so what you have ended up doing is smashing a square peg into a round hole, and hoping that if you smash it hard enough and for long enough that it will go in anyway. Which it might. But it will never fit, never look right...because it isn't right. And you can pretend that it is, and pretend that the world never gets a bit more complicated than your simple solutions, but I will always know that it is wrong, and it is wrong because you just didn't care enough to figure out how to do it properly. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need to address the cast listing in the prose. We have a set way of listing cast and it works for every series, including Daredevil. I've demonstrated that.[14]

But now we've got to a harder question, one that doesn't quite fit the formula - No, it fits the formula perfectly. As I've already pointed out, I've demonstrated that.

Because when we look at Daredevil, we see that it only names onscreen those who are in the episode ... some of the main cast members are not in the first episode. - Again, this is not unusual, as already explained.

Seeing as how you are completely avoiding this question - What question? That I provide sources for my claims? Oh no. That's right. That's what I asked you, several times to no avail.

What you have ended up doing is smashing a square peg into a round hole - Absolute rubbish. You only think this because you're overcomplicating things unnecessarily and just can't, or won't, see that the problems and differences that you see are not there at all.

I had a friend when I was doing first year Maths at university who, (etc) - OK, this is digressing slightly, but this is something a lot of professionals do. I can remember being called in to check a fault on a search radar that resulted in 30 degree angle marks appearing randomly around the screen, radar plots to be out of position - long story short it was a mess. The computer diagnostic said "RADAR input rate too fast to process", which made no sense as the radar input rate was determined from counting azimuth change pulses. These were generated by a glass disc with 4,096 lines drawn on it that was mounted on the radar pedestal. An optical chopper provided a pulse every time one of the lines on the the rotating glass disc passed. The only way that the radar input rate could be too fast was if the radar antenna was rotating too fast, but that was impossible as the antenna was driven by a 400Hz synchronous motor, and I'm sure you know why a mains synced motor couldn't be fast. While the mathematicians were busy working out phase angles and such like, I looked at the antenna and used my watch to work out that it was actually spinning too fast, so I walked into the generator shed and turned the knob on the rotary converter to reduce the frequency from 408Hz to 400Hz. When I walked inside the mathematicians were still scratching their heads. Shortcuts work even in complicated situations. And don't get me started on the satellite telemetry board that I had to build in 1979 and which is still orbiting the planet. That said, we're not working with a shortcut here. TVCAST is a valid way of verifiably listing cast without violating WP:NPOV, which your method does. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Shortcuts work even in complicated situations. - Not necessarily! If you seriously think that statement is true, then how is every complicated problem not easily solved with shortcuts? I just gave you an example of a real world situation where shortcuts weren't enough to solve the complicated problems. It happens sometimes, and this is one of those times.

TVCAST is a valid way of verifiably listing cast without violating WP:NPOV - Yes, and you are using a shortcut to follow it, as we all usually do: This guideline was established to ensure that we use the producers cast listing and not anyone elses. Reading the onscreen credits to get that is a shortcut, and a very helpful one, but if you read the onscreen credits for this series in the normal way then you DO NOT GET THE PRODUCER'S LISTING (we don't have any proof that it is the producer's listing, but we certainly have plenty of proof that it is not).

This is a no-brainer. I have explained numerous times how this inherently follows TVCAST, how we have the sources to back it up but not to oppose it, and how this is just the right thing to do, but you are insistently claiming that you can cure someone by helping them with their symptoms—Yes, for some people (such as someone with a cold) becoming symptom-free also means that they have been cured, but for someone with heart failure, for example, helping them with their symptoms allows them to have better quality of life, but doesn't change the fact that underneath, their heart has failed!

Does the reason we do things honestly mean nothing to you? Are you always just content to take easy answers only at face value? Because those mathematicians would have looked at how you solved the problem, they would have studied the situation so that they could understand it, and then used that new found knowledge to try and prevent it from happening again. The world can be more complicated than you think it does. That doesn't make it overcomplicated, it just makes it what it is. Sometimes you have to look a little deeper to see the true meaning, but once you do, you can use that knowledge in the future.

When you understand what I am trying to say here, you can move forward knowing that you are doing the right thing, not because you are reading the onscreen credits and that is what we always do, but because in general by reading the onscreen credits we get to the order that we want. And if you ever do come across a situation that is more complicated than usual, for which the normal method doesn't provide the answer that we actually need, then you can use your knowledge of the underlying principles of this guideline to solve that problem, just as I did with those harder maths questions. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Agent Carter

An issue has come up at Talk:Agent Carter (TV series)#Why do barely-active accounts keep randomly showing up and reverting me? A user is insisting on removing a main cast member from the cast list because they are not in the second season, and believes that MOS:TVCAST does not prohibit this sort of behaviour (even though I quoted the passage that literally says not to do this). I don't really seem to be getting anywhere, so help from other regulars would be much appreciated. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:TVINTL/WP:TVRECEPTION

Previous discussions:

Broadcast/TV:INTL section - November 2015

International Broadcasts - January-March 2015

Broadcast - September 2014

International broadcasting discussion - October-December 2013

Broadcast section - What exactly is meant by "English-speaking countries"? - July 2013

It seems that editors have found the ability to place information about international viewers from non-English-speaking countries (in contrast to WP:TVINTL, where it clearly states editors are encouraged to instead detail noteworthy (see next paragraph) foreign broadcasts, from English-speaking countries, through prose form) in the Reception section of a television series article rather than the Broadcast section (per WP:TVRECEPTION, which states [a]s Wikipedia is not the American Wikipedia, it would also be beneficial to the article to find international reception). These two guidelines seem to be conflicting with each other; should the latter be modified to reflect the specifics of the former? Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I personally disagree with this guideline as I feel that the international reception should be mentioned in TV articles if well-sourced and noteworthy. The guidelines on broadcasts are for the noteworthiness of the broadcast itself, not the noteworthiness of reception of the series. These are separate issues and don't conflict with one another. SamWilson989 (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, I find the original guideline of only detailing noteworth foreign broadcasts in English-speaking countries as odd and should also be changed, and would like to add this proposal to the discussion. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the section of WP:TVINTL that prohibits broadcaster information, and do think there is American bias as the reason for that rule. Much like a program's reception internationally being relevant, I'd argue if one needed to change it should be TVINTL to reflect specifics of TVRECEPTION purely on what I'd call geographic bias. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Broadcast and reception are different. There is nothing wrong with international reception. The problem with broadcast info is that we're not a TV guide, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. If you start adding channels, airdates, and countries for a show, you'll find people that want to just list everyone single one. Given that the fact that a show airs in Germany is not relevant, unless there is something special about the broadcast, we don't need to include it. It isn't about "American" centric, as the same rule would apply to British shows, Canadian shows, Indian shows, etc. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I take your points about not becoming a huge collection of TV guide-esque info, all I would argue is that international premiere date and channel in prose form with reliable source is not an overwhelming amount of information, and relevent to display the program airs not just domestically. For example, adding "internationally the series premiered in the United Kingdom on 1 April 2016 on BBC Two^[1] and in Australia on 3 April 2016 on FOX8^[2]" doesn't take up an overwhelming amount of space, and any unsourced or poorly sourced international dates can and should be removed anyway. Articles on music singles, albums, films, tech products, etc. all list international release dates, yet somehow TV programs are different? It doesn't seem consistent to me. Furthermore, if it is OK to list the premiere ratings for every country, the reception section will balloon; so if it is accepted in one section it should be for broadcast premieres too in my opinion. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, 2 dates don't take up a lot of space. But when you start thinking that most primetime shows air in more than just 2 locations internationally, that's a lot. I've seen tables that just contain nothing but international releases. That adds up. It becomes indiscriminate because you remove the ability to say "enough is enough". You open a floodgate of locations. Not to mention that the channel is irrelevant because we're not here to tell people where to tune in for the their show. It's only relevant to the country of origin, because they typically own the show. We're actually less likely to get premiere "ratings" from other countries, one because not all countries keep that record (unlike a date of release), and two because not everyone measures "ratings" the same way that we do (i.e., Not everyone uses Nielsen). So, that argument isn't the same. Also, when we talk about "noteworthy" that would be saying, "Show Y broke the premiere ratings record for a new show in China...". That's noteworth. Not something as basic as "Show Y premiered as the 150th most watched program in China.". Kind of irrelevant. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is discriminatory to exclude premiere dates based on language, region, geography, etc. even if it leads to a lengthy paragraph. I agree a table would be too overwhelming, but in prose form - date and channel - and only those that can be sourced, I think is acceptable. I include channel only because on the channel's wikipedia article the program would likely be listed, so it makes sense to me to also put it on the program's article. In any result, WP:TVINTL as it stands is not clear about what is and isn't acceptible in regards to this, but perhaps that's a bit off topic here. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think a compromise could be found where we continue to state that broadcast sections should naturally only include broadcasts in English-speaking countries, but unless they're noteworthy broadcasts. The section on reception can continue in the same way, as then the two sections would not contradict each other. SamWilson989 (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've seen tables that just contain nothing but international releases. @Bignole: By any chance do you mean something like this? Ahhh, those were the ~~good~~ bad old days. Who wants to go back there? Anyone? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW can someone define "English-speaking country"? Is it about being one of the official language? Or about countries where they would broadcast the TV program in English without dubbing? Or is it about languages that don't have localized Wikipedias so they would come to this English one to read about the TV program? Because that's three different things. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

In previous discussions the consensus has been that an English speaking country is one where English is the main spoken language or is recognised as an official language. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think what we need here is to come up with a few clear solutions and try to build a consensus for one of them, and perhaps request for comments. I'd argue that we need to change the MoS in some way, as it is currently contradictory, and therefore the options should be: remove any reference to English-speaking countries and only require notability as a criterion in both Broadcasts and Reception sections; only require notability as a criterion for non-English-speaking countries' broadcasts and reception; or only allow mention of broadcasts and reception in English-speaking countries despite notability of any foreign broadcasts or receptions. We could write these up as a list and add any other solutions we think of and then RfC. Thoughts? SamWilson989 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree, it needs to be explicitly stated. -- Whats new?^(talk) 11:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Should I start the RfC process then? SamWilson989 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do we need an RfC? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well there's no consensus, and we've got only a few editors involved with different viewpoints. We need to decide a course of action, so asking for more opinions seemed a fair method of building a consensus for one. If you feel we have enough support for any one of the options I listed in my previous comment or another solution, feel free to amend the article then. SamWilson989 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This has only been under discussion for two days, so it's a little premature to dive into an RfC this early in the discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

We're not going to have other active editors bringing opinions in if they are not aware of the discussion, hence I think we should decide on a couple of options and ask for comments. Also, thanks for adding in previous discussions. I'd just like to clarify/re-iterate the discussion here is whether there should be an exception for noteworthy international broadcasts from non-English-speaking countries and the same in the Reception section, not on what English-speaking means or whether we should allow all broadcasts in any countries to be added. SamWilson989 (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you look at some of the previous discussions regarding this (I've listed them above). The latest was only in November. People will come but you can't expect a result in only two days. That's unrealistic. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The November discusion, which I started, never attracted much or varied viewpoints/debate, and didn't end up in a decision. Need a wide range of voices to give opinion. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How are movie premieres handled? Are the paragraphs for broadcast and reception manageable? I would think that reception should be similar, where the show would have to had broken records to be notable. I'm getting more lines for each new country in shows that have already been sold to broadcast for 100+ countries and territories. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: For you're first question, I'm assuming you are referencing release info for films and how the film project handles it? If so, the first date of release is mentioned (be it a screening at a festival, or a premiere), the release date for the production country, and any other "notable" release dates. For an American film, additional "notable" release dates could be the first date of international release, if it differs from the American release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The English-speaking countries restriction is ludicrous for Wikipedia, and something needs to be done about it. However, while attempting to keep this as civil as possible, the fact is that User:Bignole and User:AussieLegend have together taken up ownership of this guideline, and thus it will remain as-is for as long as both of these users deem necessary despite its obvious incompatibility with fundamental policy. I suggest dropping this issue until such time as at least one of them changes their mind. Mdrnpndr (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mdrnpndr: We are not an indiscriminate collection of information. So why would information on broadcasts outside of English-speaking countries need to be mentioned? The guideline is worded in a way to allow notable non-English broadcast information if it exists. Additionally, Bignole and Aussie are not taking "ownership" of the guideline. They are simply following it as it currently stands if the see the need to address it in articles. And both are very apt to engage in discussions regarding it, be it for or against changing it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot, under any circumstances, be discriminatory. Note that this is distinct from discriminating, as in selecting from a choice of topics to cover. Mdrnpndr (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

But again. What notability is there in including every country of broadcast? We are also not a TV guide, which adding any country of choosing would make us. That is why the guideline has bounded the inclusion to just English-speaking countries since this is the English Wikipedia, and any notable non-English broadcasts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The language of the encyclopedia cannot ever be a reason for discrimination! Barring differences in the notability policy itself, if a subject is notable on one language's Wikipedia it must be notable on all.

If you want to ban having a broadcast section entirely, I could consider that. The current "consensus" (which has never actually existed), being in stark violation of core policy, cannot be allowed to stand. Mdrnpndr (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Anime episode length

An issue has come up on WT:ANIME#Condensing/lengthening episode summaries more efficiently regarding the possible length of an episode word count as per WP:MOS-AM. A couple of users have said that the current episode word count should be expanded to 450-500 words, but it is a little too much. Since this involves WP:MOS-TV, input from regulars here would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel that a 250-300 word limit is a reasonable compromise here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

MOS:TV "overhaul" planned?

Below is a copy of a notice, and my response to it, posted at WP:Village pump (policy). I think this should involve considerable input from MoS watchers in general, or all kinds of unintended effects could result, most likely WP:LOCALCONSENSUS-based forking of advice – on things like date formatting, WP:CRYSTAL treatment of future episodes/seasons, in-universe writing, etc. – from various sections in the main MoS, its subpages, and other guidelines. I doubt there would be any intent to do that, but we've seen it happen repeatedly before with regard to comics and several other media.

This is just a notice that members of the Television project are considering overhauling and rewriting our MOS, headed up by myself. Nothing is happening until August 2016, but there is a discussion regarding interest in the endeavor which you can find here, and add your signature if you would like to be a part of the effort. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but please note that MOS:TV is a Wikipedia guideline, not an owned page, a wikiproject advice essay, of WikiProject Television, so it's not appropriate to call it "[y]our MOS". It's part of the MoS. What it says affects a large number of articles that are not entirely within the scope of WikiProject Television, and it's important that it not start PoV-forking away from things like MOS:NUM, etc.. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

So, what is the nature of this "overhaul"? What is proposed to be changed and why? Why do we need someone in particular to "lead" it? I would think that specific problems need to be identified and addressed by normal consensus formation process. It would be highly irregular to make sweeping changes to a whole guideline that has been more or less stable, as part of MoS, since mid-2010. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

There is already a significant discussion in progress at WT:TV and that discussion is linked in the content that you copied. Your questions are already mostly answered there. This is all just preliminary discussion at this time and it makes sense to keep it all in one place for now. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I'm pretty sure that "our MOS" was just a figure of speech, since all of us on this page are heavily involved in the TV WikiProject, so we know how editors act with articles related to the project somewhat more than those who edit more on other topics and WPs. No need to go overboard and accuse us with WP:OWN. Just saying. The overhaul is a collaborative project, and having someone "lead" it and summarize all the points put across makes it organized, instead of just a random jumble of points scattered throughout a massive discussion. It's been "stable" because barely anyone has addressed the irregularities in the MoS, and when they have, a general consensus is the only thing established. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Changing the content of a guideline should be discussed on the talk page of the guideline, its parent guideline, or at WP:VPPOL, not buried on some wikiproject talk page, where people who are not listed participants in the project are apt to have their views discounted. It's nothing personal about that particular project, it's just experience with how wikiproject-led attempts at guideline change usually run off the rails into WP:LOCALCONSENSUS nightmares. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

When the time comes to discuss the changes, they will be discussed here. For now, as I've already pointed out, the discussions are just preliminary, aimed at gauging interest in the proposal to overhaul the MOS. You may have had experience with other MOS discussions but if you had experience with this MOS you'd see that the nightmares you seem to expect, haven't happened in the numerous discussions that we have had over the past couple of years. Anyone who wants to voice their opinion has always been welcomed, whether they are a WP:TV participant or not. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: The time to discuss them here was never not now, as it were. I've reviewed the discussion at WT:TV, and it is precisely what I suspected it was, a call for WP:TV editors in particular to rewrite a site-wide guideline, but in their own semi-private sub-namespace, because it's considered "[WT:TV's] own MOS". Well, no. I see multiple other editors there objecting to this approach, so please consider that consensus for such an insular tactic is already not going to happen. The standard operating procedure of discussing guideline changes at the guideline's own talk page should be followed. PS: I agree with your take on the best practices model of approaching the content of the guideline, and also agree that the current wording has problems; my and Izno's and others' objections are about the territorial venue, and I don't see anyone suggesting that the current wording should be untouched. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. The MOS is not watched by many, and first point of contact for anything MOS:TV related is generally WT:TV, because the television project is the project that has most dealings with the MOS. The introduction to the WT:TV discussion clearly explains the situation: "I've been thinking about this for a bit, and wanted to present this idea. Members of this project have been slowly updating parts of the MOS here and there over the good part of a year/year and a half now, but I think it would behoove the project to give a very long thorough look at the MOS to update it." (emphasis added) Of course WP:TV is going to be more heavily involved in working on MOS:TV; it's the part of the MOS that deals with articles edited by that project, so members of WP:TV have an interest in it. You're not likely to see WP:FOOTBALL editors interested. As I keep saying, it's a preliminary discussion, with no action planned until August, so there was no need to discuss it here at all. Even this discussion is just wasting space unnecessarily. I don't see "multiple other editors there objecting to this approach". One suggested moving the discussion the village pump, while Izno merely opposed a "separate draft", quite correctly suggesting changes "should be made to the main guideline as consensus comes to agree with them". When discussion starts in August (if at all - I've seen this before) editors who have specifically indicated interest will be notified via their talk page and others will be notified at WT:TV, WP:VPP and other noticeboards that may be relevant. We always make changes to the MOS, and TV related templates, with consideration to policies and other guidelines. For example, we've modified {{infobox television season}} and {{infobox television}} to comply with WP:COLOR, MOS:DATES and WP:IMAGESIZE and we've created templates like {{series overview}} and {{episode table}} so that tables in TV articles comply with MOS:ACCESS and WP:COLOR. You're really seeing problems where we have had none in the past and likely won't in the future. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: You are really assuming the worst of us here, interpreting a casual, informal "our MOS" as a breach of WP:OWN, or a harmless suggestion to create a dedicated space for such a large undertaking as an attempt to hide from the rest of the site and do whatever we want regardless of consensus, etc. That is frankly ridiculous. We have shown that we do not think we own this MOS, and are going out of our way to get as many editors involved as possible, not just us few who regularly watch over it. In fact, did you not learn of this discussion by coming across a notice inviting interested editors at a different page to the project? And are we not currently discussing this here, on a completely different page again, where more people can see it and learn of our plans? And are we not planning for this all to take place in August, so there is plenty of time for more people to learn of this effort and get involved? I'm not saying that the current proposed plan (and that is all it is at the moment, a proposal) is perfect or the right way to go, but I do think that we don't deserve this lack of faith. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

This particular MoS sub-guideline is not well watched. The MoS proper and its talk page are among the most-watchlisted projectpages in the entire system. No one or virtually no one watches WP:TV but its direct participants. So, obviously, the place to make proposals about this guideline is WT:MOS, with notice here and elsewhere, since all MoS pages are within WT:MOS's scope. Regarding all the above chest-beating and feather-puffying, no it is not "frankly ridiculous" to read the plain wording and planning at WT:TV at face value: It's a very clear proposal to write a replacement page, drafted as a subpage of the wikiproject, by participants in the wikiproject; this is then followed by territorial statements by participants in the wikiproject, and multiple MoS-watching editors strenuously objecting for reasons that at least three have explained clearly to y you. There is no "accusation" in this at all, it's a plain statement of self-evident fact, which anyone can go verify in under a minute of reading. I decline to go around in circles about this or treat it like it some kind of personality dispute. It is not. Its a procedural one. There is already sufficient opposition to the way you are doing this that it endangers any acceptance of the what and why of what you want to accomplish. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sufficient opposition from the one person. We get it. We get your point. Carry on. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

ChiBi Crush Rangers

Would someone from MOS:TV mind taking a look at ChiBi Crush Rangers, particularly the infobox. There were some non-free files were being inappropiately used in the article and I have removed those, but there are still some freely licensed logos being used in the infobox which seem out of place. Moreover, the |network= for Template:Infobox television seems to be only for the original network for the show, not every network worldwide it has appeared on. Anyway, no WikiProject banners are listed on it's talk page, but it seems to be related to a TV program which I why I am asking for assistance here. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Wow. I helped a bit, but without known much about the series (ie what's original, reairs, etc.) there's not much else I can do based on what's on the page. If you have this knowledge, feel free to share and myself or another editor can help tidy the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look Favre1fan93. I no pretty much nothing about that particular series and only came upon the article because of some non-free images being used in it, which is why I did not remove the other logos from the infobox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Special Guest Star

I wanted to include a special guest star bill for a TV show's season because there is one but one user is totally against it because special guests are still guest according to the MoS article.S hannon434 (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"Special" guests are just guests that the producers seem to think are slightly more noteworthy than usual. Therefore, they should be listed with all the other guests, and if there really is a notable reason (in encyclopaedic terms) for why they are a special guest, then that can be mentioned with reliable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

My point exactly. If it's really necessary, a note can be added while they are under the Guest section, noting what they were credited as. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Are we talking Heather Locklear on Melrose Place type of special guest star or Nancy Reagan on Diff'rent Strokes? The former is actually recurring. Or ones that are actually guests like with the Saturday Night Live host and band. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Colours for future seasons

I know that colours is a minor topic compared to the rest of the MOS, but it does create issues between editors establishing them. Colours in the Television WikiProject are always based on posters, intertitles and/or DVD releases, but what about seasons that have no such content released yet? For example: Game of Thrones (season 7), Teen Wolf (season 6), or Once Upon a Time (season 6). No posters have been released, and yet colours exist on the page (in just the infobox for the first two, and the episode table/series overview for the third). Who picks these colours? Based on what? Are they just arbitrarily chosen? We're not here to make the site colourful. What's to stop other editors coming along and changing them? Or should they be left as default (which for the infoboxes is #CCCCFF) until such content is available? Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd say either the default, or the main colour for the series (for example, our draft for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 4 is currently using what we call "S.H.I.E.L.D. grey", which was the initial colour we used for the series before we got the current season colours from the posters/DVDs). And per this page, you have the right to revert any arbitrary colour change made without discussion once an appropriate colour has been chosen. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I started a discussion here last year with the aim of coming up with some WP:COLOR compliant colours for use in season articles but the discussion fizzled out. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this is something that needs to be addressed in the mos overhaul. My personal (rather strong) preference is to match show colors when clear color themes are present (E.g., the yellow star and salmon shirt in Steven Universe). If no clear colors, match image. For pages where you match show colors, picking a future season color isn't an issue really so long as it's a show color. But for posters/images that's harder. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm making a mental note to readdress this when we get to the MOS changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)