Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 6
 | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
TVPLOT is confusingly written
I find these two paragraphs of WP:TVPLOT confusingly structured.
Extended content
|
|---|
|
As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words. Complicated plots may take more space to present than simpler plots. For articles on the main work, this section should be brief, only discussing the important plot elements for each season (though, if the article is becoming overly long it may be best to trim it to over-arching plots for the entire series) that steered the course of characters' lives, or the course of the show. For season articles, there are a couple of ways to present plot information: in a basic prose section that gives season story arcs and main plot points or a tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section (approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines, with the provision that articles using {{episode list}} should not exceed 200 words in accordance with the instructions for that template). See the following for examples: "Confirmed Dead", Smallville and comparatively, Smallville (season 1). |
I think what they intend to do is give three (or four?) different rules for the different article types, but the text seems to jumps back and forth. It is also not very clear what type of summary is referred to for the 350 words storylines (just not an episode table). Or does it may mean that one can use upwards of 350 words for an episode in a tabular format as long as one doesn't use {{episode list}} to make the table? Another puzzling point is if season articles may have both a prose plot section and an episode table with summaries. Also, does this section give minimal plot lengths: at least 200 for an episode article, at least 100 in a table, and complex storylines must have more than 350?
My attempt to interpret and rephrase this information less ambiguously is:
Extended content
|
|---|
See the following for examples: "Confirmed Dead", Smallville, and Smallville (season 1). |
Is that the correct interpretation of these paragraphs? Is this found to be less ambiguous? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- The season one isn't meant to have two separate plot sections. Either you have one section in entirely prose format, or you have the episode table. You don't need both because the lead is already going to summarize the overall plot. Your suggested change seems to say that we should have two. I've seen some articles do this, but they really shouldn't. You end up with plot in the lead, plot in its own section and episode summaries. Tends to go against the idea of WP:NONFREE. Other than that, I don't see a problem with the rest of your suggested change. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- The lead is not supposed to summarize the plot; it's supposed to summarize the article. If the plot isn't in prose format in the plot section, it's difficult to summarize that in the lead without running into serious WP:OR problems.
- WP:NONFREE has nothing to do with what's being discussed now. Only direct text quotations and fair-use images are non-free content. Paraphrasing the plot, even if you recount it over and over again in the article, isn't non-free content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- The season one isn't meant to have two separate plot sections. Either you have one section in entirely prose format, or you have the episode table. You don't need both because the lead is already going to summarize the overall plot. Your suggested change seems to say that we should have two. I've seen some articles do this, but they really shouldn't. You end up with plot in the lead, plot in its own section and episode summaries. Tends to go against the idea of WP:NONFREE. Other than that, I don't see a problem with the rest of your suggested change. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Spartacus: Blood and Sand, Beauty & the Beast (season 1), 24 (season 5), Pretty Little Liars (season 5), Teen Wolf (season 3), Vikings (season 2), The Walking Dead (season 4)... See? Obviously confusing. Next try:
Extended content
|
|---|
See the following for examples: "Confirmed Dead", Smallville, and Smallville (season 1). For series without season articles, the main article or a List of Episodes may contain the tabular episode summaries. |
- Is that what it means, then? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I still find this quite confusing. I looked at some diffs to find out in which context the 200 and 350 words were introduced. Here the MOS from 2008: Special:Diff/216825173, Special:Diff/227529313, Special:Diff/227532949, and Special:Diff/227533092. I think it is clear that in 2008 the 350 words were introduced for the tabular format, and that is almost the wording used currently. For the {{episode list}}, the limits were introduced later in 2010 Special:Diff/355574169 as 300, and adjusted in 2013 Special:Diff/557179428 to 200, referring to the MOS, but the MOS did not change the word limits during that time. Something doesn't match up. (Alternatively, the template doc could be changed to match the MOS.) –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I changed 100–300 to 100–200 because 100–300 was not the wording used in the MOS. We have to place limitations on the length of summaries in articles using {{Episode list}} for technical reasons. When episode lists are transcluded to an LoE page, what you see is not all that has been transcluded. All of the content on the season pages is copied, but only part of the episode table is seen. The transluded content increases the post-expand include size, which has a limit of 2MB. If the post-expand include size exceeds 2MB, then the LoE page will not display correctly. This has been been a huge problem at List of The Simpsons episodes, where it was necessary to comment out navboxes and reformat citations on the page so that it would display almost properly. In order to fix the problem it has been necessary to split the first 10 seasons (for the time being) to another article to get the size down to something manageable. Even at articles where we aren't dealing with 27 seasons, the post-expand include size needs to be kept down to minimise page load times, and that means keeping episode summaries short. 100–200 was initially proposed, but changed to 100-350 based on featured list discussions. I wasn't party to any of these discussions in 2008, but I was heavily involved in one in 2012 that lead to changes to {{Episode list}}. List of Friends episodes was nominated as a featured list candidate and, as part of the discussion it was decided to replace the transcluded version with a version that used manually formatted tables.[1] This version looked the same but essentially duplicated the season articles, raising the distinct likelihood that the LoE page and season articles would eventually get way out of sync. It had a post-expand include size of only 174,048 bytes, so episode summaries could really be any size you wanted them to be. That's the advantage of not transcluding, but the duplication errors with such a format can be problematic. Bignole's edit to the MOS seems to have been a compromise, but we really should keep episode summaries in {{episode list}} to 100–200 words to avoid slow page loads. If an episode is so complicated that it needs anything more, there are probably good grounds for an episode article. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- After re-reading the MOS, and the diffs provided by Dark Cocoa Frosting, I believe the main problem was the 2008 edit based on featured list discussions.[2] I think any issues can be resolved with this amendment:
For season articles, there are a couple of ways to present plot information: in a basic prose section that gives season story arcs and main plot points or a tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section (approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines, with the provision that articles using {{episode list}} should not exceed 200 words in accordance with the instructions for that template).
- As I've said above, if 350 words are really needed for the average episode, an episode article is probably justified. If reliable sources don't see the need to discuss an episode, then 350 words is likely way too much. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I believe the issue still stands though for how large prose plot sections used on main articles that summarize each season's plot or (more rarely) on season articles, which where the 350 comes back into play. In those instances, I believe a 200-400 word range for each season's plot is better to give enough word limit to summarize the whole season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, deleting the 350 words for more complicated single episode plots in a the tabular form makes the MOS much clearer (still this wording is unclear if you can have both prose and table), but it is also a change to the MOS. The same 350 words limit is in the section on List of Episodes. In principle, when the episode tables are not transcluded, there is no technical reason for a further limitation of summary length, but having the length depend on the transclusion is also confusing. (The size limit for transclusions is something that should be changeable in principle but it appears to be difficult to do so.)
- The 350 words is clearly not the intended (upper or lower) limit for the prose plot sections of season pages, and so far, there is none. Introducing one would be another change to the MOS (while I was mainly trying to understand what the MOS means in its current state without changing it). –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- The 350 word mention in the "List of Episodes" section should also be removed. The same reasoning for limiting episode summaries that I stated earlier (if 350 words are really needed for the average episode, an episode article is probably justified. If reliable sources don't see the need to discuss an episode, then 350 words is likely way too much.) still applies. The other issue is that, if we allow 350 words on non-transcluded pages, then if we split the pages the summaries need to be pruned. Let's be consistent. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Even a change in meaning would be better than the current state because it is confusing and maybe even contradicting to the template doc.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- The 350 word mention in the "List of Episodes" section should also be removed. The same reasoning for limiting episode summaries that I stated earlier (if 350 words are really needed for the average episode, an episode article is probably justified. If reliable sources don't see the need to discuss an episode, then 350 words is likely way too much.) still applies. The other issue is that, if we allow 350 words on non-transcluded pages, then if we split the pages the summaries need to be pruned. Let's be consistent. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I believe the issue still stands though for how large prose plot sections used on main articles that summarize each season's plot or (more rarely) on season articles, which where the 350 comes back into play. In those instances, I believe a 200-400 word range for each season's plot is better to give enough word limit to summarize the whole season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
There has been no further discussion regarding this in over a month. Does anyone have any issues with the 350 word specification being removed as mentioned above? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't, I believe it should be removed. Alex|The|Whovian? 09:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- It would make that paragraph of the MOS less confusing, although it is a change in meaning. I won't object.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- And I've also removed it from the episode listing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- It would make that paragraph of the MOS less confusing, although it is a change in meaning. I won't object.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Season plot limit
Was a limit ever determined for the plot section for the entire season? As it currently stands, WP:TVPLOT states: "For season articles, there are a couple of ways to present plot information: in a basic prose section that gives season story arcs and main plot points and/or a tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section
". (Note, I added the "and/or" part rather than "or" as it is common practice to include both, per the multiple articles listed above the third collapse content.) There is a limit on the summaries for episode articles, and a limit for the summaries displayed in {{episode list}}. However, there is no limit for "Plot" sections for summaries of the entire season (e.g. the season summary at Game of Thrones (season 6) recently got tagged for being too long. Should there be such a limit? Alex|The|Whovian? 06:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- We definitely should have at least some sort of guideline for this. But I don't think we should be encouraging both episode tables and plot summaries. I know that Game of Thrones example is pretty extreme, but it still epitomises the problem: we are breaking down the entire plot of the season episode-by-episode, which is already a much more in-depth "summary" than you would normally want for a season's plot summary. So why do we need anything else? I can understand that some people may want to have a short premise section if there isn't room to establish that info in the episode table (e.g. for a pretty episodic show it may be best to set up the premise of the show in its own section, and then focus on the individual episode's events in the episode table, but this likely wouldn't be necessary for a more serialised show). Anything else is just excessive. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- A short premise would be perfectly fine, in my opinion. For example, what's listed at Game of Thrones (season 1) would be sufficient. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- A couple short paragraphs like that would be fine (and Game of Thrones is pretty complicated, so I can understand wanting to try and explain it a bit more). I just think we should be saying that you can use a plot summary (with whatever limit we decide) or an episode table (with the normal limit), with the option of a short premise section with the latter if required. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that you need a "plot" section and a table of episodes that has the plots. I feel like that is overkill. You can easily (as you should) summarize a season in a small paragraph in the lead. That's about all you really need. Like Smallville (season 1). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with this concept as with Supernatural (season 4) and Lost (season 4) the latter of which at FL-level there isn't even a single paragraph to summarize but descriptions throughout that explain what the season is mainly about. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that you need a "plot" section and a table of episodes that has the plots. I feel like that is overkill. You can easily (as you should) summarize a season in a small paragraph in the lead. That's about all you really need. Like Smallville (season 1). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- A couple short paragraphs like that would be fine (and Game of Thrones is pretty complicated, so I can understand wanting to try and explain it a bit more). I just think we should be saying that you can use a plot summary (with whatever limit we decide) or an episode table (with the normal limit), with the option of a short premise section with the latter if required. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- A short premise would be perfectly fine, in my opinion. For example, what's listed at Game of Thrones (season 1) would be sufficient. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- For serial shows like GoT and TWD, where there is a strong cohesive narrative episode to episode, a longer season plot summary may make more sense than longer episode plots, using two-three sentences to establish where each episode is in the larger narrative. For less cohesive works, like, say, ST:TNG, a brief season plot summary should be used, if needed, with episode summaries more detailed, keeping in mind that if the episode itself has an episode page, the plot need not be fully detailed, just enough to allow a reader to go "hey, that was the episode I was thinking about" when scanning the tables. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate having both a season plot summary and short plot summaries in the episode list. The prose section allows a writer to describe the big plot arcs of the season subject by subject (or in the case of Game of Thrones region by region) which is more intelligible in fewer words. The short summaries in the episode list, however, are necessarily broken episode-to-episode which requires a much larger word count to convey the same information, and even then the plot arcs may not be as apparent. The season plot summary gives a good lead-in, then the episode list for more detail (or to direct to an episode article, if one exists). Also, with complex shows, it may take a higher word count to describe season plots as seasons progress -- is there anything so unexpected or wrong about that? I do agree with Masem that episodic shows would tend to focus on the episode summaries. But even with a sitcom, I feel it could be informative to have a plot summary for season arcs in addition to short summaries with the episode list. - Reidgreg (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would keep in mind that not all sit-coms or other genres necessarily had overarching plots in a season, eg Gilligan's Island. It's more common today, the formula of a season-long theme keeps viewership coming back, but it's not always the case and we should be careful to have editors going all OR to find a season plot just to fill a space. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate having both a season plot summary and short plot summaries in the episode list. The prose section allows a writer to describe the big plot arcs of the season subject by subject (or in the case of Game of Thrones region by region) which is more intelligible in fewer words. The short summaries in the episode list, however, are necessarily broken episode-to-episode which requires a much larger word count to convey the same information, and even then the plot arcs may not be as apparent. The season plot summary gives a good lead-in, then the episode list for more detail (or to direct to an episode article, if one exists). Also, with complex shows, it may take a higher word count to describe season plots as seasons progress -- is there anything so unexpected or wrong about that? I do agree with Masem that episodic shows would tend to focus on the episode summaries. But even with a sitcom, I feel it could be informative to have a plot summary for season arcs in addition to short summaries with the episode list. - Reidgreg (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
General Plot limit for episode articles
A recent discussion regarding plot lengths in episode tables prompted me to relook at the plot length guide. We say 100 - 200 words for episode tables, really whether it's an LoE page or a season page. Then we allow up to 500 words for an episode article. I have a slight problem with this. We're saying that a 42 min episode needs 500 words to be summarized, yet film articles for 90 to 120 (and beyond) get about 700 words to summarize. First, there's rarely a huge stink about film plots meeting this 700 word requirement, and most stay pretty close even when they go over. I would argue that films are general more complicated by nature because they have to cram more into their allotted time than a show that has multiple episodes to cover.
If you broke this down, you can see about 10 movies across the span of a 21 episode TV series. Summarizing them, you would use about 7000 words, following the MOSFILM guide. Again, for films that are cramming more into their time slots. That same season of a TV that has episode articles (granted, not every episode is, but many shows do have that) could go up to 500 words, which would be 10,000 words. That's a 3000 word difference across the same amount of time. That's insanely disproportionate when you look at it.
If films suggest 400 to 700 words for a film plot, I don't think that episode article should be above 400 words. If you cannot summarize a 42 minute show into 400 words (we're already summarizing the same 42 minute show into 200 words), then something is seriously wrong here. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- A 400 word upper limit seems reasonable for episode articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I guess my question is whether it matters whether the count is 400 words or 500 words, but it's not ultimately that big a deal to me either way beyond knowing the count I should be aiming for when editing. DonIago (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- 100 words is a lot when you think about it. The point is less about violating some fair use issue, and more about this odd push to treat TV so differently than Film. The argument was merely a "Film and TV are virtually the same, with Film arguably having tons of more real world content, yet proportionally we allow for longer plots of a 42 minute show than we do a 90 or 120 minute film. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- 400 as an upper limit seems fine to me, especially given your point how we are already condensing summaries to 200 words for the episode tables. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't go much lower than 400, because one thing that becomes an issue with episode articles that doesn't so much with season articles or episode lists is explaining what has come before. Films are much more standalone and their stories can be summarised without much reference to previous films (generally), but often an episode of TV will be part of a larger arc, which is fine when you have all the episode summaries together, but requires a bit of extra explaining when the summary is on its own. 400 seems fine to me though. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- It really shouldn't have to though. If someone comes into read an episode article, they have most likely read or seen the prior episodes. The article should stand on its own. If you have to go back explain something then we're probably missing a bigger problem when writing. The idea that films are stand alone isn't enough of an argument. We don't recap the previous Harry Potter films on each page, yet we still hold them to the same 700 word count limit. The same for Star Wars, James Bond, Jason Bourne, etc. There are a ton of films with numerous sequels that pick up where another film leaves off, or has events that were impacted by a prior film, but we don't overly explain what happened in a previous film. If we did, we would still hold the film article to the same limit. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- We can't assume that the reader has "most likely read or seen the prior episodes", that is what "the article should stand on its own" means. A film is made to be seen on its own, even when it is part of a series, and so should explain anything the audience needs to know itself (like the crawl for Star Wars, or more subtly in other franchises). Therefore, we don't need to do any extra explaining in the summary. An episode, however, is generally meant to be seen as part of the whole, which is why they do the 'previously on' segments for viewers who haven't been following. When we are writing the short episode summaries, we know that the reader has access to all the 'previously on' stuff because it is in the same table or article. But for the bigger summaries, we can't assume that the reader has been to all the appropriate articles first, and so we may need to add in some of that 'previously on' stuff ourselves, plus the bigger summaries should really be introducing the characters, locations, etc. to the reader, again because we can't assume that they have been to all the necessary articles to already understand all that. I'm not saying we should make a big deal about it, or that every TV episode is written so poorly that we have to explain everything to the reader. I'm just suggesting we don't "go much lower than 400" because we do still need room to do all that extra stuff on top of the slight expansion we are already giving to the 200 word summary. That's all. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Even if previous episodes don't have standalone articles, the episode in question that does still shouldn't take the time to resumarize previous events, as the reader can go to the previous episode article, or cell in the episode table. We should be conscious of the reader's knowledge, but we don't have to spoon feed a whole previous summary to them. That is what proper linking in the infobox, article and nav boxes is useful for. Additionally, if episode X in question is part of a larger arc, what else do we have to say in its article, beyond something like "Continuing from previous episode" at the top of the summary, if at all? That isn't worth a difference of 100 words. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I seriously didn't mean to make this big a deal about this. All I meant is that the summary is going to be a bit more complicated in an episode article then in an episode table by necessity, so I don't think we should "go much lower than 400" words. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Even if previous episodes don't have standalone articles, the episode in question that does still shouldn't take the time to resumarize previous events, as the reader can go to the previous episode article, or cell in the episode table. We should be conscious of the reader's knowledge, but we don't have to spoon feed a whole previous summary to them. That is what proper linking in the infobox, article and nav boxes is useful for. Additionally, if episode X in question is part of a larger arc, what else do we have to say in its article, beyond something like "Continuing from previous episode" at the top of the summary, if at all? That isn't worth a difference of 100 words. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- We can't assume that the reader has "most likely read or seen the prior episodes", that is what "the article should stand on its own" means. A film is made to be seen on its own, even when it is part of a series, and so should explain anything the audience needs to know itself (like the crawl for Star Wars, or more subtly in other franchises). Therefore, we don't need to do any extra explaining in the summary. An episode, however, is generally meant to be seen as part of the whole, which is why they do the 'previously on' segments for viewers who haven't been following. When we are writing the short episode summaries, we know that the reader has access to all the 'previously on' stuff because it is in the same table or article. But for the bigger summaries, we can't assume that the reader has been to all the appropriate articles first, and so we may need to add in some of that 'previously on' stuff ourselves, plus the bigger summaries should really be introducing the characters, locations, etc. to the reader, again because we can't assume that they have been to all the necessary articles to already understand all that. I'm not saying we should make a big deal about it, or that every TV episode is written so poorly that we have to explain everything to the reader. I'm just suggesting we don't "go much lower than 400" because we do still need room to do all that extra stuff on top of the slight expansion we are already giving to the 200 word summary. That's all. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- It really shouldn't have to though. If someone comes into read an episode article, they have most likely read or seen the prior episodes. The article should stand on its own. If you have to go back explain something then we're probably missing a bigger problem when writing. The idea that films are stand alone isn't enough of an argument. We don't recap the previous Harry Potter films on each page, yet we still hold them to the same 700 word count limit. The same for Star Wars, James Bond, Jason Bourne, etc. There are a ton of films with numerous sequels that pick up where another film leaves off, or has events that were impacted by a prior film, but we don't overly explain what happened in a previous film. If we did, we would still hold the film article to the same limit. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't go much lower than 400, because one thing that becomes an issue with episode articles that doesn't so much with season articles or episode lists is explaining what has come before. Films are much more standalone and their stories can be summarised without much reference to previous films (generally), but often an episode of TV will be part of a larger arc, which is fine when you have all the episode summaries together, but requires a bit of extra explaining when the summary is on its own. 400 seems fine to me though. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- 400 as an upper limit seems fine to me, especially given your point how we are already condensing summaries to 200 words for the episode tables. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- 100 words is a lot when you think about it. The point is less about violating some fair use issue, and more about this odd push to treat TV so differently than Film. The argument was merely a "Film and TV are virtually the same, with Film arguably having tons of more real world content, yet proportionally we allow for longer plots of a 42 minute show than we do a 90 or 120 minute film. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I guess my question is whether it matters whether the count is 400 words or 500 words, but it's not ultimately that big a deal to me either way beyond knowing the count I should be aiming for when editing. DonIago (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't advocate for much lower, but I wouldn't be opposed to a 350 limit, as that would be half of a film limit (which starts at 400 itself), and TV shows are at best half the size. If there isn't agreement for 350, but for 400, then I'm ok. Just stating what my thought patterns are regarding it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think we may have lost a few people when we went off track a bit there, so hopefully we can get everyone back to wrap this up now. @Favre1fan93, AussieLegend, and Doniago: is there support for a 350 limit per Bignole's reasoning, or do you want to stick with 400? Either way, I think we should go ahead and update this sooner rather than later. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- As already stated, we say 100-200 words for episode tables. We give a bit of leeway, but that allows for up to 15-20 words over that. To eliminate that sort of creep, let's say "350-400 words with 400 being the absolute upper limit". Unfortunately we really have to be specific, as editors try to get around everything in the MOS. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm fine with this, though I'd borrow a page from WP:FILMPLOT and say 300-400 words instead. But either one is fine. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm totally against this, and I feel the conversation is working from a flawed premise. TV and film are apples and oranges. I would note that television plots can be much "denser" than films (otherwise they wouldn't stop every 7 minutes so you could absorb the material). Please stick with the 500 word count. Honestly, how many FA is this going to knock down, and for what? Is this really supposed to be an improvement? Shouldn't an RfC be called on matters like this instead of having six people decide on a talk page? (BTW, for TV episodes where I feel the reader needs some more information before they can understand the plot, I've followed the example of The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and included a "Background" section before "Plot" to describe plot/character/setting information from previous episodes.) - Reidgreg (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- They stop every 10 minutes so they can pay the bills, not absorb the material. TV is generally less dense per episode, because they have 20+ episodes to say what films have to say in 120 minutes. Second, the 500 count isn't even a thing. Why is it that people find it easy enough to write an episode summary in 200 words on an episode table, but somehow they think that an extra 200 words is not enough for an episode article? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- (side note) We'll definitely hit this when we get to it in the rewrite as we kinda, sorta, not really came to a good conclusion. But I agree with Big's comment above mine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps because the episode list in a season article doesn't have to support anything else? (I often find 100 words are sufficient for those.) Whereas in an episode article, the Plot section needs to convey enough information to support the sections of the article that follow. I took a quick look at plot sections for 10 featured articles for episodes from different shows: only 2 were 400 words or under, while half were from 500-600 words. For featured articles on films, I similarly found 4 of 10 were more than 700 words. When half (or nearly half) of the best articles exceed these limits, shouldn't we be talking about raising the limits instead of lowering them? Honestly, though, why not just treat Plot like any other section? If it's of a length that doesn't need to be broken into subsections, it should be fine. - Reidgreg (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC) P.S.: I only considered shows of a one-hour format. - Reidgreg (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- The problem with that argument is that if you give people 800 words for a plot summary, then they will use it. It isn't about needing 200 or 300 more words for an episode article to convey context. Context still exists with 200 or 400 words. If you give them more, they will use it. If you take it away, shocker, they will survive and use that. Film plots used to be upwards of 900 to 1000 words. We restructured and lowered to 700 words. Amazingly, people adapted and now write them within 700 words without complaint. There is no amount of context that can be created at 500 words that would not survive at 400 words. All you're doing is cutting out minor details in the wording. Wikipedia is not a substitute for watching the show. In addition, when you need actual context for the real world section, it is appropriate and encouraged to provide that plot context within the relevant section. You don't have to give the detail in the plot when describing a scene in more detail in say the writing section of a production area would not only suffice but be better for a reader that does not want to know the entire plot. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps because the episode list in a season article doesn't have to support anything else? (I often find 100 words are sufficient for those.) Whereas in an episode article, the Plot section needs to convey enough information to support the sections of the article that follow. I took a quick look at plot sections for 10 featured articles for episodes from different shows: only 2 were 400 words or under, while half were from 500-600 words. For featured articles on films, I similarly found 4 of 10 were more than 700 words. When half (or nearly half) of the best articles exceed these limits, shouldn't we be talking about raising the limits instead of lowering them? Honestly, though, why not just treat Plot like any other section? If it's of a length that doesn't need to be broken into subsections, it should be fine. - Reidgreg (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC) P.S.: I only considered shows of a one-hour format. - Reidgreg (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- (side note) We'll definitely hit this when we get to it in the rewrite as we kinda, sorta, not really came to a good conclusion. But I agree with Big's comment above mine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- They stop every 10 minutes so they can pay the bills, not absorb the material. TV is generally less dense per episode, because they have 20+ episodes to say what films have to say in 120 minutes. Second, the 500 count isn't even a thing. Why is it that people find it easy enough to write an episode summary in 200 words on an episode table, but somehow they think that an extra 200 words is not enough for an episode article? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm totally against this, and I feel the conversation is working from a flawed premise. TV and film are apples and oranges. I would note that television plots can be much "denser" than films (otherwise they wouldn't stop every 7 minutes so you could absorb the material). Please stick with the 500 word count. Honestly, how many FA is this going to knock down, and for what? Is this really supposed to be an improvement? Shouldn't an RfC be called on matters like this instead of having six people decide on a talk page? (BTW, for TV episodes where I feel the reader needs some more information before they can understand the plot, I've followed the example of The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and included a "Background" section before "Plot" to describe plot/character/setting information from previous episodes.) - Reidgreg (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm fine with this, though I'd borrow a page from WP:FILMPLOT and say 300-400 words instead. But either one is fine. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- As already stated, we say 100-200 words for episode tables. We give a bit of leeway, but that allows for up to 15-20 words over that. To eliminate that sort of creep, let's say "350-400 words with 400 being the absolute upper limit". Unfortunately we really have to be specific, as editors try to get around everything in the MOS. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think we may have lost a few people when we went off track a bit there, so hopefully we can get everyone back to wrap this up now. @Favre1fan93, AussieLegend, and Doniago: is there support for a 350 limit per Bignole's reasoning, or do you want to stick with 400? Either way, I think we should go ahead and update this sooner rather than later. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Opinions in a discussion
There is a discussion at User talk:AlexTheWhovian#Quantico page regarding the use of cast tables at Quantico (TV series); opinions of editors who have worked in the television project are required. These have been deprecated per multiple and many discussions, and yet the user refuses to accept this. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have commented on Alex's talk page but this discussion is more properly located at Talk:Quantico (TV series)#Cast table. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Early TV series articles
How can we tell people to stop making TV series articles so early? I just realized that I just wasted my time for nothing, I did a whole article for a new drama series that is scheduled to air during this fall and when I was going to create the article I noticed that a guy already created the article literally the same day the series was picked up. Borikén (talk · ctb) 09:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should have checked first, so the fault is yours. And there's no need to stop making them "so early". And why is it different for you, if they already made the article and you were making it right now? If there is enough information to make a page about it, stub or not, then anyone is allowed to. Alex|The|Whovian? 09:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- RE: This edit Apologies that someone had more initiative than you to create an article for it before you did. And I certainly don't act like I own it, I'm accepting that other people create other content. Another editor creating the article is wasting time, but you creating the article before even search for it is perfectly alright. I fail to see your "logic". Alex|The|Whovian? 09:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Is this "initiative"? And how the hell I'm supposed to check first when the stupid series is ordered the same day and is supposed to not have any articles? Your intelligence surprises me wow... Borikén (talk · ctb) 10:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is, because they're bothering to create the article in the first place. Besides, that article is not related to this. And does it hurt to look up the article before you create it? Google "Frequency TV series"? There's nothing that states that the article should not be created when it is ordered to series. Nothing at all. Don't revert to personal attacks, you're leading this conversation nowhere. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't do any "personal attacks." And yes, that article is related to this conversation. I searched for the Frequency article before creating the article with the titles "Frequency (2016 TV series)" and "Frequency (TV series)" and I didn't found anything so I decided to create it but as you already saw someone did it. By the way, you're the one that started this with your "You don't own Wikipedia." Borikén (talk · ctb) 10:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Really? You searched for "Frequency (TV series)"? Sorry, but you definitely didn't look hard enough, since it has existed for two months. It's the first (or one of the first) results in Google. You could have entered in your address bar [3] and then added "Frequency (TV series)" to the end. All of those would have got you there. This is, unfortunately for you, no-one else's fault. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't do any "personal attacks." And yes, that article is related to this conversation. I searched for the Frequency article before creating the article with the titles "Frequency (2016 TV series)" and "Frequency (TV series)" and I didn't found anything so I decided to create it but as you already saw someone did it. By the way, you're the one that started this with your "You don't own Wikipedia." Borikén (talk · ctb) 10:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is, because they're bothering to create the article in the first place. Besides, that article is not related to this. And does it hurt to look up the article before you create it? Google "Frequency TV series"? There's nothing that states that the article should not be created when it is ordered to series. Nothing at all. Don't revert to personal attacks, you're leading this conversation nowhere. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Is this "initiative"? And how the hell I'm supposed to check first when the stupid series is ordered the same day and is supposed to not have any articles? Your intelligence surprises me wow... Borikén (talk · ctb) 10:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- RE: This edit Apologies that someone had more initiative than you to create an article for it before you did. And I certainly don't act like I own it, I'm accepting that other people create other content. Another editor creating the article is wasting time, but you creating the article before even search for it is perfectly alright. I fail to see your "logic". Alex|The|Whovian? 09:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Borikén: You seem more upset that somebody else beat you to creating the article than anything else. Had you searched fro "Frequency (TV series)" you would most definitely have found it. I just tried. You could even have found it by following the link to the disambiguation page at the top of Frequency. Even a search for Frequency (2016 TV series) shows the correct article title as the first title found. And yes,
Your intelligence surprises me wow
is a personal attack. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)- As I already said, I did that before creating the article and that was months ago. By the way, when that has become a personal attack? Yeah, I'm upset because this is not the first time that this happens to me and I'm tired of that. I spend time trying to do articles that aren't a stub. Borikén (talk · ctb) 11:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Borikén: You seem more upset that somebody else beat you to creating the article than anything else. Had you searched fro "Frequency (TV series)" you would most definitely have found it. I just tried. You could even have found it by following the link to the disambiguation page at the top of Frequency. Even a search for Frequency (2016 TV series) shows the correct article title as the first title found. And yes,
Boriken, your hard work developing a stub articles that has already been created does not mean that it was done in vain. Go through the article and see what is more developed in your work and just move it over. I'm not sure if you're upset that the article's history doesn't say "created by Boriken", or if most of your work just will not be necessary because it was already done. But, you're not going to be able to stop people from creating articles before you. Whether they should have been created or not. Could be worse. I have worked on articles in a sandbox before and had people come to my sandbox and just move things without my "permission" to the mainspace because they wanted more information there. Even though I wasn't ready to move it to the mainspace because it still needed cleaning up. Can't stop it. All you can do is move with it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not complaining about if it says "Created by Borikén" or not. I'm complaining about users like Robberey1705 that make stubs he doesn't even make an Infobox he just puts a text and that's it. That's what upsets me, this thing has happened to me in lots of articles. Borikén (talk · ctb) 13:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- That comes with the territory. You'll always find editors that are new, or inexperienced, or maybe don't care to learn. You cannot change that, and I would encourage you not to take it personally or let it stress you out. That is an issue across all of Wikipedia, not just TV articles. What I would encourage is that when it happens, take the time to (cordially) educate them on how to create an article. The things that they need. Understanding WP:GNG, WP:MOSTV, or other relevant guidelines/policies. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please give me an example, where I made a stub WITHOUT an infobox. I always give as much information as I am possible to get. I can't remember where i haven't put an infobox in the text? Please give at least twot examples.
- That comes with the territory. You'll always find editors that are new, or inexperienced, or maybe don't care to learn. You cannot change that, and I would encourage you not to take it personally or let it stress you out. That is an issue across all of Wikipedia, not just TV articles. What I would encourage is that when it happens, take the time to (cordially) educate them on how to create an article. The things that they need. Understanding WP:GNG, WP:MOSTV, or other relevant guidelines/policies. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
--Robberey1705 (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- 1 Borikén (talk · ctb) 20:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- To be fair, two diffs and half an hour later. (Not everyone does everything in one fell swoop, saving only when finished. Some do it in little steps, saving every little piece of progress. I can't definitively say the latter is Robberey1705's style as I'm not familiar with their editing history, but it's something to keep in mind.) Really, I'm not seeing what the problem is overall. Rather than feeling like you "wasted [your] time for nothing" a better use of your energy would be migrating what isn't already on the article and tending to and developing the article. Countless times, I've done the same, started a draft or started an overhaul, only for someone else to get there first. It's the nature of the beast. If anything, if a series isn't picked up and it eventually gets deleted. Fine. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Another thing to do is to create Draft: articles. Sometimes, having those will throw up a note at the top saying "article already exists" (paraphrasing). Then, if said article already exists but doesn't have the same amount of work you just spent hours doing, you can still copy that over to the existing article and write it off as being late to the party yet still improving Wikipedia. — Wyliepedia 11:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Plot length for series arc?
Hey all, I encountered this article's plot summary. It's a daily serial with over 370 episodes, so there's a big temptation to get verbose. I've seen other soap operas with huge summaries. The 2800+ words there seemed fantastically excessive, but we don't have a clear guideline for summaries of an entire season or entire series. What's reasonable? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think with Soap Operas and the like, a simple synopsis should be all that is included and maybe the major story lines that effect all the characters rather than jotting down every sub-plot, otherwise that will end up just being added to with each new episode and grow even bigger, especially with the daily episode schedule.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 09:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Common sense would dictate that we use the 500 word limit that we specify for episode articles. This is really the ultimate limit to any single plot summary in an article regardless of whether it is about an episode, a season or an entire series. We can't accept War and Peace size summaries matter how many episodes a series has. If there is a need to detail individual minutiae then a season or episode article should be created. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Except that soaps aren't typically separated into seasons and individual episodes rarely ever warrant their own pages. One solution would to do a story line page for the larger story lines that are reviewed and have plenty of behind the scenes information but to otherwise keep the main page to a simple synopsis.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 12:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Common sense would dictate that we use the 500 word limit that we specify for episode articles. This is really the ultimate limit to any single plot summary in an article regardless of whether it is about an episode, a season or an entire series. We can't accept War and Peace size summaries matter how many episodes a series has. If there is a need to detail individual minutiae then a season or episode article should be created. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Guiding Light (1980–89)#Plot development - +6500 words just for 1980–83 and +9000 for the whole shebang. Wow! In contrast, Guiding Light (1937–49) at 255. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#"Infobox television season" for parted seasons. Alex|The|Whovian? 05:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Reliable viewership numbers
Do you have a list of vetted sources for episode viewership numbers? Some of the sites I've seen look sketchy, but it would be easier to evaluate if the rationale for using such sites were put on a project page. (For instance, see WP:VG/RS or the equivalent for the Albums project) czar 19:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar: The ones I know of are TV by the Numbers, Showbuzz Daily, and TV Media Insights (the latter now defunct, but many old links which are usually available archived). nyuszika7h (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have any info on their background and what makes them reliable? Do they fact-check? Do other sources use them, or do they have a reputation in the industry? czar 20:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- TV by the Numbers pulls the data directly from Nielsen and are considered the "industry" site for viewer information. I'm not entirely sure about Showbuzz Daily, as I've never had to use them to cite ratings info. What article are you looking for the viewership numbers Czar? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, we have some general info on reliable sources at WP:TVFAQ. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent—just what I was looking for. I made a shortcut at WP:TV/RS. No one article in particular, just browsing over the years and wanted to improve my literacy. (Showbuzz's about page is here Archived 2020-09-09 at the Wayback Machine, by the way) czar 16:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have any info on their background and what makes them reliable? Do they fact-check? Do other sources use them, or do they have a reputation in the industry? czar 20:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Revision of "Cast & Characters" Section
NOTE: This post refers to Section 2.5 of MOS:TV. For the most part, I think this section gives useful guidance on how to format the relevant information in articles, and traps to avoid. The 3rd full paragraph (beginning with "The cast list should be organized..."), however, I think could use a re-write. It requires listing cast "according to the original broadcast credits." In my opinion, that causes several difficulties:
First, it's not clear if that means the credits as they actually ran, or if it means as per a central, widely recognized source, that is, IMdb. Those are usually the same, but there are definitely important exceptions.
Second, the standard warns that "...'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..." I think that's a useful warning against editors who may be partisan fans of one actor/character or another, and thus may write a skewed article. However, I think it's a mistake to interpret that caution as an absolute requirement. I suggest that this warning be re-written in a softer way, with some language that takes legitimate, real-world exceptions into account. Here are my reasons for thinking so:
1) When determining cast-list order, producers have other priorities besides giving the most accurate and objective account of the relative importance of cast members. Nowadays, the most common example is the "and" cast member, listed last. Often, this is the most experienced and highly-paid cast member (sometimes more so than the first-billed "star.") Obvious example: Alec Baldwin was the "and" cast member on "30 Rock." Not only was he the highest-paid, but (more relevant) his character, Jack Donaghy, was virtually always more central to episode plots than were characters played by Scott Adsit, Judah Friedlander, or Jack McBrayer.
2) I checked a few Wikipedia articles on TV shows I know well; in the majority of cases, the articles did NOT list cast in the producers' given order. Usually, that was for perfectly common-sense reasons. Perhaps all of those articles should be edited to conform to the standard. But maybe the standard should be loosened to acknowledge the inherent sensibility of the articles.
3) As written, the standard doesn't give enough flexibility for unusual situations. Example: In the Talk page on the show "Person of Interest" article, the longest single thread is about whether the dog, "Bear", should be listed as a main character. In my opinion the most relevant argument was made by editor Drmargi, who wrote as follows: "Bear appears in every episode, interacts with the main human characters, plays a role in the various missions they undertake at times, and plays a significant enough role in advancing the narrative that he should be listed as a character. He's also included in show publicity. That he's not mentioned in the character article could be viewed as an oversight. It's unorthodox, I'll grant you, but warranted." That's a sensible argument, which takes into account both the integrity of Wikipedia, and the merits of the particular situation. By contrast, the counterargument consisted mostly of (pardon me) dogmatic appeals to the "producers' cast list" standard. This case shows that sometimes, strict adherence to the standard would reduce Wikipedia TV articles to little more than verbal elaborations of IMdb lists. Information about the dog is readily available in published sources--it would not be "original research," which was another objection mentioned. If the standard is being used in ways that make Wikipedia articles less informative, truthful, and interesting than they should be, then the standard should be modified.
Finally, the standard should offer more guidance for the increasingly common situation (mostly in animated shows) where it's usual for cast members to play multiple roles. Editors could usefully review and discuss, e.g., the main article on "The Simpsons." Notice that neither the main article, nor the most relevant "daughter" article, "List of The Simpsons cast members," strictly adheres to the standard. Again, the deviations are probably wise. For example, Hank Azaria was not in the cast at all for the first few episodes of Season 1, and I don't think he was listed as "main cast" until Season 2. Wisely, the article simply ignores that: after all, it's been 27 frikkin' years, right?
Bottom line: The standard should acknowledge the importance of editors' prudent judgment in tailoring each article to fit its unique subject. Apruzan (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Credits billing order followed by season/episode order seems to work well, especially shows that open with actor names. Granted, sometimes their biggest star gets the "and" credit, so they are listed after a bunch of the others, but it seems to work fine. They can always be bumped up if the situation warrants it as with film posters.
- Cartoons are a different beast in that characters tend to be organized by importance or by character sub-groupings rather than by voice actor. There's still a sense of who is a main though. What shouldn't be done is when you have listings like "Tara Strong as Timmy Turner, Poof, Fairy Woman B" in the cast section. When Timmy and Poof are clearly the main characters, but other roles she might have voiced as incidentals or utility voices don't belong there.
- As for Bear in Person of Interest, does Bear ever get star billing on the show? If not, Bear goes under Supporting characters or perhaps under one of the characters, like how Roscoe in The Dukes of Hazzard has a dog named Flash. Curiously though Flash gets his own entry under Main characters on that article, but isn't in the table. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The standard should acknowledge the importance of editors' prudent judgment
- That would constitute original research, which is not permitted by policy. It is one reason that we order cast as we do. By following credit order, we avoid original research and comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
TVINTL
Fully noting the TVINTL issue has been discussed many times before, and is due to come up for discussion shortly as part of the ongoing discussions on changes to the MOS, but I am currently engaged in discussion with another user who repeatedly reverted my edits to Divorce (TV series) whereby I added a Broadcast section with details of the Australian premiere. I've explained at the user's talk page that reliably sourced premieres of programs in English-speaking nations (as well as the country of origin) are included per the MOS as well as in previous discussions on the matter, some which I linked too. The second user continues to disagree, arguing different interpretations of TVINTL, a lack of consensus and that no other editor agrees with my position. So, without getting into a discussion of what TVINTL should or shouldn't be, am I correct in my assessment of the issue as it currently stands, that is, debuts in English-speaking nations consistitute inclusion in the Broadcast section of television program articles? -- Whats new?(talk) 00:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- It can probably do with some clarification when we get to it, but my interpretation of the guideline as it stands is that a user probably has grounds to contest a country's inclusion if there is nothing particularly noteworthy of its listing beyond being an English-speaking country. I personally don't have a problem with including Australian broadcasts, I just don't think the guideline is actually backing you up in this. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed with need for clarification which we'll get too, but consensus discussions elsewhere appeared to have reached a decision on this. Another editor has just restored my edit to the page [4] as "Acceptable content" I've just noticed, so this discussion may be closed anyway. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've seen articles with far less "notable" countries listed, all English-speaking. While the guideline does need further clarification, and it's up for that relatively soon, I see nothing wrong with listing these countries. GA's such as Agent Carter (TV series) § Broadcast also list them country-by-country without any explanation on "notability". Alex|The|Whovian? 01:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed with that. I have a lot of issues with that section and look forward to the discussion on it in due course, as it stands a premiere in an English-speaking country is a notable broadcast in that section. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. Now, if were were listing off the dates for every episode in every other country, when it took breaks and when the finales occurred, that would be extending it too far. But we don't. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely with you there. Just the premiere date and channel should get a mention in my book. My issue is with where the limitation on country inclusion is, but as I say, that'll come up when that section is discussed. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Like I said, I don't disagree, so that all sounds good. Further discussion, when we get to the section, will certainly be beneficial. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Will definitely try to keep the other discussions on point and moving so we don't end up hitting the TVINTL section in a year ;) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Haha good point, lot of sections to go! -- Whats new?(talk) 03:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Will definitely try to keep the other discussions on point and moving so we don't end up hitting the TVINTL section in a year ;) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Like I said, I don't disagree, so that all sounds good. Further discussion, when we get to the section, will certainly be beneficial. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely with you there. Just the premiere date and channel should get a mention in my book. My issue is with where the limitation on country inclusion is, but as I say, that'll come up when that section is discussed. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. Now, if were were listing off the dates for every episode in every other country, when it took breaks and when the finales occurred, that would be extending it too far. But we don't. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed with that. I have a lot of issues with that section and look forward to the discussion on it in due course, as it stands a premiere in an English-speaking country is a notable broadcast in that section. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've seen articles with far less "notable" countries listed, all English-speaking. While the guideline does need further clarification, and it's up for that relatively soon, I see nothing wrong with listing these countries. GA's such as Agent Carter (TV series) § Broadcast also list them country-by-country without any explanation on "notability". Alex|The|Whovian? 01:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed with need for clarification which we'll get too, but consensus discussions elsewhere appeared to have reached a decision on this. Another editor has just restored my edit to the page [4] as "Acceptable content" I've just noticed, so this discussion may be closed anyway. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Collapsible boxes break links in Chrome
Per this diff, opening a discussion on how to better display the code snippets in the Infobox section without destroying page links for all of the anchors and shortcuts lower on the page. Speaking technically, I don't know of a better way to display code that doesn't introduce this problem. My proposed solution is still to add the expand=yes parameter to each box. For an example of the problem, try clicking MOS:TVCAST and see where it takes you—several scrolls away from the target section.
@Favre1fan93: please comment your thoughts. Thanks! AlexEng(TALK) 04:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh is that why stuff has been jumping around on me? Is it a Chrome problem or a wikipedia problem? Joeyconnick (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's definitely a Wikipedia problem. I specified Chrome in my post because that's the browser I tested it on. I just tested on Firefox with the same result, though. The problem is that the boxes don't actually render as collapsed on page-load. They render as expanded boxes and then quickly collapse. So your browser's position was originally correct when it loaded the page, but due to the collapsing boxes, shifted downward. AlexEng(TALK) 09:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. I completely see the issue you are presenting AlexEng. As I said shortly in the edit summary, this code really shouldn't be expanded by default; a user should look at it if they are looking to copy the code. I am completely open to another technical work around to prevent the issue we're currently having, but the content really shouldn't be visible, especially since it is three infoboxes, which are a bit lengthy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- The linking issue has been a known problem with Firefox for quite some time. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have any information on a workaround or fix for this? Given that Firefox and Chrome together make up roughly 60-70% of browser share and given that the MOS sees frequent section-level linkage, I think this is an issue that merits some sort of action. AlexEng(TALK) 04:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- @AlexTheWhovian: Might you have some technical know-how to help out with this issue? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, I'm good at coding, but I'm not really sure on this one. I'll see if I can figure something out, though. Alex|The|Whovian? 08:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't know if the collapse templates have a suppresser of sorts to not load open, and then collapse. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, I'm good at coding, but I'm not really sure on this one. I'll see if I can figure something out, though. Alex|The|Whovian? 08:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- @AlexTheWhovian: Might you have some technical know-how to help out with this issue? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have any information on a workaround or fix for this? Given that Firefox and Chrome together make up roughly 60-70% of browser share and given that the MOS sees frequent section-level linkage, I think this is an issue that merits some sort of action. AlexEng(TALK) 04:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- The linking issue has been a known problem with Firefox for quite some time. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. I completely see the issue you are presenting AlexEng. As I said shortly in the edit summary, this code really shouldn't be expanded by default; a user should look at it if they are looking to copy the code. I am completely open to another technical work around to prevent the issue we're currently having, but the content really shouldn't be visible, especially since it is three infoboxes, which are a bit lengthy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's definitely a Wikipedia problem. I specified Chrome in my post because that's the browser I tested it on. I just tested on Firefox with the same result, though. The problem is that the boxes don't actually render as collapsed on page-load. They render as expanded boxes and then quickly collapse. So your browser's position was originally correct when it loaded the page, but due to the collapsing boxes, shifted downward. AlexEng(TALK) 09:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
What exactly is the problem here? I don't see anything wrong. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- When you visit the TV MOS from a shortcut link (e.g. MOS:TVCAST), does your browser go directly to that section for you, or does it go to the section and then jump so that you have to scroll back to it? Alex|The|Whovian? 01:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, it is acting as it should for me. I am using Chrome BTW. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting; I'm using Chrome as well. Seems that for a number of editors it jumps when the collapsible sections actually collapse when the page loads. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- I just checked, and I do have this problem on my old(er) laptop, but not on my new Surface. Make of that what you will. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's probably because your Surface is looking at the mobile view, which doesn't collapse the boxes, so an anchor like MOS:TVCAST is accurately found. When JavaScript runs after the page loads and hides some content, it's hardly surprising that any focus already set to a particular anchor is then shifted to the wrong location. In general web design, I'd normally either link to or pop-up the contents of those boxes. You could use css to place them in a div with position:absolute that takes them out of the in-line rendering of the page, but the question then becomes where do you put them - and you'd need more JavaScript to handle how they are displayed. I don't see any simple solutions if you insist on having that content hidden using the standard wiki tools. --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- I just checked, and I do have this problem on my old(er) laptop, but not on my new Surface. Make of that what you will. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting; I'm using Chrome as well. Seems that for a number of editors it jumps when the collapsible sections actually collapse when the page loads. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, it is acting as it should for me. I am using Chrome BTW. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Style convention for season-numbered sub-headings
WP:NUM suggests that these sub-headings should be formatted "season one", "season two", with similar style used in the body of articles. Yet practice, and the implication (although not explicitly stated) of the TV MoS is that "season 1", "season 2" is more common. Has this been discussed before? IMO the generic MoS is preferable as short numbers are generally easier on the reader's eye as words rather than digits. IanB2 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting. Not sure if it has been discussed. I'd strongly suggest using numerals not words. Not just because I think it looks better, but it looks odd (in my opinion) when written with airdate as it commonly is in the cases you've described (eg. "Season 1 (2015-2016)" looks better then "Season One (2015-2016)"). This would also meet WP:NUMNOTES about avoiding awkward juxtapositions. There's also the issue when there are split seasons (such as season 2A and 2B) - you couldn't write it as season two-A and two-B. If there's not already, there should probably be an exemption for similar usage. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- It can be either way in headings (no standard style). Numerals can be used in headings, tables, and infoboxes, but (in this case) words should always be used in the prose. —Musdan77 (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
"Harrison Ford as Han Solo: The pilot of the Millennium Falcon"
I'm just curious: how was this decided? Standard English would suggest it should be written as "... Solo, the pilot of the Millennium Falcon."
The format listed makes sense when there's a complete thought following the colon, but not otherwise. I ask b/c it quite simply looks wrong to the eye. Samer (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Actually, I think it should be a comma, rather than a colon, but you're right about the capitalization. The editor that added that just copy and pasted from Star_Wars_(film)#Cast and no one contested it. As you can see now, the original has changed from the way it was. I'll go ahead and change the capitalization now. —Musdan77 (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Straw poll for updates to TVPLOT
Hi all. There is currently a straw poll open to discuss updating and redefining word count limits for plot sections as used in the various articles of the TV project. You can find all info on the straw poll, including the discussion that lead to its creation, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Guest/recurring star order
Hullo... just trying to figure out how to parse this description of how recurring/guest cast lists work: 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.
To me, that sounds like the same thing done with main cast. Or am I misinterpreting?
So with respect to the list and edit here for Travelers (TV series), Ian Tracey appears in the pilot listed first in the "guest starring" section and Arnold Pinnock does not even appear in the pilot. So... shouldn't Tracey then be at the top of the "Recurring" section forever, even if—in later episodes—Pinnock is credited as a guest star before him? —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, yes. We follow credit order, not by how they appear in an episode. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion at Star Trek: Discovery on cast section formatting
There is currently an RfC at Talk:Star Trek: Discovery#RfC on "Cast and character" formatting that will have an effect on a large number of TV articles, regarding the formatting of 'Cast and characters' sections in which content is moved to a new line after it gets to a certain length. Input from other editors, especially those who have used the disputed formatting at other articles, would be greatly appreciated. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Guidelines for naming participants in reality/competition shows?
There was a recent dispute at The Great British Bake Off (series 7) about how to use names for participants in television reality/competition shows, and it occurred to me that the guidelines aren't very clear on this, and there are a number of variations on how different articles deal with this. For example, on The Voice (U.S. season 1) and RuPaul's Drag Race (season 8) we see the full names of all the contestants and judges given all through the article; on The Apprentice (U.S. season 1), a mixture of full names and first names; on Survivor: Millennials vs. Gen X, first names only after first use of full names; on The X Factor (UK series 13) a mix of full names (contestants) and last names (judges). I'm wondering if we can have some guidelines so we can have a consistent approach this issue. While first names are often used in many television shows, surname is generally preferred for articles after first occurrence of full name per MOS:SURNAME, for example you would use Kimmel in the article on Jimmy Kimmel Live!. It reads odd that well-known people like Arsenio Hall and Clay Aiken are referred to by their first names in The Apprentice (U.S. season 12) (the article uses a mix of first and full names).
So,
- Do we use first names (or full names) if those are the names used on the show?
- What do we do after the first occurrence of the full names?
I think maybe the simplest way to resolve this issue is to treat the participants as acts, for example the full name of a contestant on The Voice would be the name of the act, the same way you would treat the acts in America's Got Talent (season 11). If the show uses first names only, then only the first name would be used after the first occurrence of the full names, and if full names are used, then full names all through the article. I would be interested to hear your opinion or suggestion on this and how we should formulate guidelines on this, or even if you think it is unnecessary. Hzh (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree there should be a guideline for it. It is complicated sometimes by the fact that sometimes the surname of a participant isn't known, and thus first name is all that is available. The winner's full name may be published in media articles, but contestants eliminated early may not. I would suggest using full names where available in a cast list, regardless of whether the surname is used in the show. After first occurrence and in episode summaries, I think despite MOS:SURNAME that first name (or whatever name they're referred to in the show) should be used. Awkwardly it does mean celebrity contestants are referred to by first name, but the opposite would mean an unknown contestant only ever referred to as Bill on the show, but who's name is William Smith, would be mentioned in article as "Smith performed a waltz" which I'd argue would confuse readers. So I agree with your suggestions broadly. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Whats new? Perhaps it should be marked in ""'s if it is a nickname, like in the lede, i.e. John "joe" Doe. If he was referred to as Joe it would say: "In the show he was called Joe rather than his actual name of John Doe" and any place in the article after that (assuming of course all notability of the person comes from that show) he (in this example) would be called "Joe". In cases where the subject is notable independent of the show, only the section(s) mentioning it would have "Joe". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- What we've done in Hell's Kitchen is to list their full names in the contestant list along with nicknames in quotes like Ranjit "Raj" Brandston and Lewis "Curtis" Curtis. This assumes the full names are posted by reliable source of course, otherwise it's purely common / stage names. Then go by their common / stage name for the elimination tables and the episode summaries (Raj and Curtis in this example). For one-episode acts like in the first rounds for America's Got Talent use the stage name as presented in the banner. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with this style, and there should be a note in the MOS for it. I don't think using quotes throughout the article is necessary, but in the contestant list absolutely as AngusWOOF has described. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if the discussion should be appended to the discussion going on the rewrite of MOS, or perhaps starting a new topic on that there later? I'm not sure if our suggestions fit with the guidelines on MOS:SURNAME (although I'm not really sure one way or the other), perhaps we might invite those interested in naming convention for their opinions on this. Hzh (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Hzh: Good point, the cast section of TVMOS hasn't been discussed yet (its due next in fact) so perhaps pin this discussion until the current plot dicussion can finally be closed and the cast section rewrite begins. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, let's do that. Although if anyone wants to bounce ideas around a bit please do continue to do so. Hzh (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Hzh: Good point, the cast section of TVMOS hasn't been discussed yet (its due next in fact) so perhaps pin this discussion until the current plot dicussion can finally be closed and the cast section rewrite begins. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if the discussion should be appended to the discussion going on the rewrite of MOS, or perhaps starting a new topic on that there later? I'm not sure if our suggestions fit with the guidelines on MOS:SURNAME (although I'm not really sure one way or the other), perhaps we might invite those interested in naming convention for their opinions on this. Hzh (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with this style, and there should be a note in the MOS for it. I don't think using quotes throughout the article is necessary, but in the contestant list absolutely as AngusWOOF has described. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
TV Series cast lists
A point from a discussion here is worth raising as it has wider implications for TV pages. AlexTheWhovian reverted an edit I made and in so doing removed what I considered two principal characters (Judith and Aelle) from the cast list of the Vikings page. His argument, I hope fairly summarised, was that the cast list should be the 'main cast', and the 'main cast' is only those listed in the opening credits. Looking at MOSTV I can see that this might be one interpretation - but these rigid 'rules' are not explicitly stated there; instead the MOS directs editors towards notability policy in making decisions on cast lists, with the paragraph that refers to credits appearing to relate to how such lists are "organized" (which I take to mean ordered). MOS also says that we should follow the producers. Vikings has four producers and I have checked the 'cast' listed on their websites, none of which match the actors in opening credits. Indeed the principal producer History.com selects nineteen cast members for photos and a mention on its series 'cast' page[1], which includes the Judith character. If the producer itself doesn't feel constrained to follow the credits when presenting the principal "cast" for its show, why would WP? (tbf although presented as a generic page this looks like a cast list for season four, but then the Judith actor doesn't appear in the opening credits for this season either) And, besides, approaches to opening credits vary around the world - some series like Vikings cycle through a good number of actors, others just present a few stars, and in my home country the tradition is generally not to have opening credits at all. ISTM therefore that a very mechanistic 'you must always follow the credits' policy is neither reasonable nor practicable? (and even if the consensus, not what the MOS currently says!) IanB2 (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
References
- The cast and characters section is the next to be discussed in the rewriting of WP:TVMOS, so this may be a good issue to bring up then. Currently, the plot section is (hopefully) at the tail end of the discussion, and when it is concluded, cast section will be opened for issues such as this. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's helpful, thanks for the heads up. (Btw has tv page editors' dislike for MOSNUM been discussed yet? ;) IanB2 (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this an acceptable source?
An IP editor is adding an episode table to Prison Break (season 5) citing the source "FoxFlash publicity" which is only viewable by logging into the website and you have to be a member of the press. I'm wondering if this is acceptable? I haven't really dealt with something like this before. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- My gut feeliing is no. WP:PAYWALL says not to exclude sources that are difficult to access, but the very first sentence of WP:V is "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". Since the source is restricted to a limited subset of possible users, "anyone" is not able to verify the content. You could ask for opinions at WP:RSN though. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I have reverted the IP user's edit, per a similar sentiment that Aussie has laid out. Also WP:NORUSH. Wait for the info to come from a source like Futon Critic or Zap2It. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Also, even if the info is behind a login/pay wall, the IP did not provide the URL for which others could at least attempt to view or verify the info. The episode table was poorly formatted too. I've added the page to my watchlist to keep an eye on it for a few days. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sure PAYWALL refers more to sources such as news websites where some articles require a paid membership to read, but anyone can subscribe to read the article. A publicity site which only allows selected people access doesn't fit verifiability as stated. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Also, even if the info is behind a login/pay wall, the IP did not provide the URL for which others could at least attempt to view or verify the info. The episode table was poorly formatted too. I've added the page to my watchlist to keep an eye on it for a few days. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I have reverted the IP user's edit, per a similar sentiment that Aussie has laid out. Also WP:NORUSH. Wait for the info to come from a source like Futon Critic or Zap2It. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you guys for your feedback and assistance. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- This was done in the wrong place and should have been on the article page. Also I wasn't notified. Now WP:SOURCEACCESS should apply to any commercial TV article due to info coming from primarily those sources. Relying on only sites such as futon or guide sites is limited due to the info coming out a lot latter and can have errors due to scheduling changes and/or the wrong details released. The revision with url should stand. As for you not liking the lack of whitespace in the source that's your problem. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- continue at Prison Break (season 5) 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't believe that your arguments really make sense. I dont think WP:SOURCEACCESS really applies since its not that its limited just in location of being able to verify, but the inability to anyone not in the press accessing it. Additionally your ref is just to the main page, not anything specific. That would be like me creating a ref that just points to nytimes.com, that wouldn't be useful. - GalatzTalk 14:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wrong place continued on Talk:Prison Break (season 5).119.224.39.131 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is the correct place for it, no such discussion exists at Talk:Prison Break (season 5) - do not split a discussion unnecessarily. Until then, the consensus stands as the result of this discussion. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- (Redacted) 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is the correct place for it, no such discussion exists at Talk:Prison Break (season 5) - do not split a discussion unnecessarily. Until then, the consensus stands as the result of this discussion. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wrong place continued on Talk:Prison Break (season 5).119.224.39.131 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't believe that your arguments really make sense. I dont think WP:SOURCEACCESS really applies since its not that its limited just in location of being able to verify, but the inability to anyone not in the press accessing it. Additionally your ref is just to the main page, not anything specific. That would be like me creating a ref that just points to nytimes.com, that wouldn't be useful. - GalatzTalk 14:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- continue at Prison Break (season 5) 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
List of episodes
Hello, I would like to know when it is ideal to create a list of episodes for television series?. For example here, the series only had 69 episodes and was not renewed for a second season, it is necessary to create a list of episodes for this?. Or if there is some style manual that can indicate me it would be better, thank you.--Philip J FryTalk Tag me! 12:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm I don't think suppose happened that is information about the shows you see 1st season are here but not here 2nd season. I think something need to help so it short because episodes are too shorter about article. Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what Oripaypaykim just said, but neither of the articles linked should have a separate episodes article, no. Though not an official guideline as such, splits to separate articles do not typically occur for one-season shows, and sometimes not even for two or more seasons. Splits are typically based upon the size of the wiki-content of the episode table(s). Alex|The|Whovian? 12:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, it split will separate article that is for 1st season only. not more than seasons above numerals article will separate episodes. Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what Oripaypaykim just said, but neither of the articles linked should have a separate episodes article, no. Though not an official guideline as such, splits to separate articles do not typically occur for one-season shows, and sometimes not even for two or more seasons. Splits are typically based upon the size of the wiki-content of the episode table(s). Alex|The|Whovian? 12:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Does list of episodes had 50 episodes only? anime I think is relevant episodes will be entire article its not good necessary episodes are longer. Oripaypaykim (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
For the show you linked to, it really depends on whether there will be more content to be added besides a list of titles and their airdates. As it stands, the list is fine as is. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Template:Episode_table with dark headers are not printable
WP:COLOR has been used as a reason for allowing colored headers yet it was never written for a print environment. As when dark colors are used the text defaults to white which when printed isn't as clear as black due to the fact that no ink is used for white. The templates script should be corrected to lighten the color value instead of just inverting the text color. Also WP:COLOR should be corrected to print issues with color. After all this site has a printable version link. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- This discussion is in the incorrect place; it should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility, the talk page for WP:COLOR, as the guideline applies to the whole of Wikipedia, not just television articles. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- No it's about the Template:Episode_table broken fix for dark color. The WP:COLOR reference is just your (Redacted) comment for not fixing it and not seeing it as an issue. When the issue with the template is acknowledged then the limited scope of WP:COLOR can be discussed. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think you are the one trolling here. We are complying with Wikipedia's guidelines, so if you think there should be some accessibility rule for this then take your issue there, and come back to us when the guideline has changed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I pointed out that the issue with the template has nothing to do with WP:COLOR given it currently only cover non-print and visually impaired devices. So WP:COLOR can not be used as reason for refusing to acknowledge the issue. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please provide the guideline and/or policy that covers how content should be displayed when printing Wikipedia articles. (Though, why an editor would be printing out episode lists that are constantly being updated is beyond me.) If perhaps you searched for the issue online, you might find that it's not a simple coding fix. Dark headers will always be used, as the colours of episode tables are picked specifically to reflect the marketing material of the season. In the face of Template talk:Infobox television season/Archive 3, you will need to start a major discussion and gain a solid consensus to never used dark headers, an almost impossible feat. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Articles are suppose to be printable. It is a simple fix, given you are parsing out the individual color components to do a basic detection of their contrast. You could then either default the color to a standard background lighter color OR scale and output the component values to higher values. Defaulting the text to white is the worse way of dealing with it. (Redacted) 119.224.39.131 (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm going to keep redacting your personal attacks. (By the way, "colour" is the English spelling, you know, from England.) "Articles are suppose to be printable", based on what guideline or policy? You don't seem to have anything to back you up. And you suppose that we should only use light-coloured table headers? That's just not do-able, nor does it make any sense regarding the manner in which the colours are determined. You're going to have to make another suggestion. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wikis have a "Print/Export" option on articles, so was they should be printable. You don't seem to see the point that white text on dark or black backgrounds is only suitable for screens. No where do you see readable print-outs on dark paper or backgrounds. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I understand the point perfectly clear, when I viewed List of Blindspot episodes in print preview, and accidentally printed the article off in 17 pages. However, I still do not see the guidelines for television articles changing anytime soon. Alex|The|Whovian? 05:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sigh. Do you really need a rule or guideline for everything? Only children or someone with a lack of good judgement would. If there is no specific guideline then I would believe logic and commonsense would come into play. Only pre-programmed devices need everything laid out for them. That said guidelines or rules should be subject to logic and commonsense as people make mistakes and/or over look things, just as the British did in 1755 when they took the Latin word color that has no U and bastardized it along with other Latin words ending in or. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- There are thousands of articles that use dark headers and white text in their episode tables. I could track how many of them there are, were it necessary. You're requesting a change to thousands of articles based on an issue that affects maybe a few readers? Provide statistics as to how many editors print out an episode listing article. And then, gain a solid consensus with the opinions and agreement of many editors to enforce these changes. Until you do that, sorry to tell you, but nothing will be changing. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sigh. Do you really need a rule or guideline for everything? Only children or someone with a lack of good judgement would. If there is no specific guideline then I would believe logic and commonsense would come into play. Only pre-programmed devices need everything laid out for them. That said guidelines or rules should be subject to logic and commonsense as people make mistakes and/or over look things, just as the British did in 1755 when they took the Latin word color that has no U and bastardized it along with other Latin words ending in or. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I understand the point perfectly clear, when I viewed List of Blindspot episodes in print preview, and accidentally printed the article off in 17 pages. However, I still do not see the guidelines for television articles changing anytime soon. Alex|The|Whovian? 05:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wikis have a "Print/Export" option on articles, so was they should be printable. You don't seem to see the point that white text on dark or black backgrounds is only suitable for screens. No where do you see readable print-outs on dark paper or backgrounds. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm going to keep redacting your personal attacks. (By the way, "colour" is the English spelling, you know, from England.) "Articles are suppose to be printable", based on what guideline or policy? You don't seem to have anything to back you up. And you suppose that we should only use light-coloured table headers? That's just not do-able, nor does it make any sense regarding the manner in which the colours are determined. You're going to have to make another suggestion. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Articles are suppose to be printable. It is a simple fix, given you are parsing out the individual color components to do a basic detection of their contrast. You could then either default the color to a standard background lighter color OR scale and output the component values to higher values. Defaulting the text to white is the worse way of dealing with it. (Redacted) 119.224.39.131 (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please provide the guideline and/or policy that covers how content should be displayed when printing Wikipedia articles. (Though, why an editor would be printing out episode lists that are constantly being updated is beyond me.) If perhaps you searched for the issue online, you might find that it's not a simple coding fix. Dark headers will always be used, as the colours of episode tables are picked specifically to reflect the marketing material of the season. In the face of Template talk:Infobox television season/Archive 3, you will need to start a major discussion and gain a solid consensus to never used dark headers, an almost impossible feat. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I pointed out that the issue with the template has nothing to do with WP:COLOR given it currently only cover non-print and visually impaired devices. So WP:COLOR can not be used as reason for refusing to acknowledge the issue. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think you are the one trolling here. We are complying with Wikipedia's guidelines, so if you think there should be some accessibility rule for this then take your issue there, and come back to us when the guideline has changed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- No it's about the Template:Episode_table broken fix for dark color. The WP:COLOR reference is just your (Redacted) comment for not fixing it and not seeing it as an issue. When the issue with the template is acknowledged then the limited scope of WP:COLOR can be discussed. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Given the only practical use of colored headers is in the TOC key on list articles I would say that implementing the fix would have only a minor impact. It's also would signal to editors to make a wiser choice of color. Also the TOC color key goes against WP:COLOR in terms of useability to color blind and non-visual readers. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The TOC color key in the Series overview should be numbered like the main TOC. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your opinions have been noted. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Call for final votes at TVPLOT discussion
Interested users are asked to contribute to the final wording for the revised WP:TVPLOT section to be inserted into the MoS following over a month of discussion, so it can finally be closed. You can review the proposed changes here and either support one, suggest your own from scratch, or suggest modifications to any or the existing text in the discussion section on that page. The MoS review can then swiftly move onto the next section "Cast and characters" -- Whats new?(talk) 00:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
"Absent" cast members on Episodes lists
If there is no noteworthy reason to list cast absences in episode lists, I believe it's time to remove them. On some pages, there are dozens of listings, and it's completely indiscriminate. This is a convention, not anything mentioned in a TV MOS guideline. While they're pretty uniform on children's TV lists, there are some others like List of Dawson's Creek episodes, List of A Different World episodes, as well. When I removed them from List of Girl Meets World episodes, an editor responded that I removed them "arbitrarily." Though listing them is completely arbitrary in the first place! What do other editors think? -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Absolutely in favor of removing all instances of these. They're pointless trivia. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Are we talking about series regulars who don't appear in given episodes in which they are still credited? Or other scenarios with "regular" recurring cast who just don't appear? I haven't noticed this in any articles/lists I follow but it sounds very trivial (and appears so to me in List of Girl Meets World episodes). I ask about credits because I could see the argument for denoting a cast member who is credited in an episode but doesn't actually appear in it, though I'm still not sure it is notable, and seems more of a footnote situation. Also, we don't often know the exact terms of a contract and Variety calling someone a "series regular" doesn't guarantee they are contracted for, say, all 13 episodes produced of a series, so the absence may not be notable.— TAnthonyTalk 20:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would say Series regular / star billing. Keeping track of recurrings and guests would not be appropriate beyond the Character table. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Are we talking about series regulars who don't appear in given episodes in which they are still credited? Or other scenarios with "regular" recurring cast who just don't appear? I haven't noticed this in any articles/lists I follow but it sounds very trivial (and appears so to me in List of Girl Meets World episodes). I ask about credits because I could see the argument for denoting a cast member who is credited in an episode but doesn't actually appear in it, though I'm still not sure it is notable, and seems more of a footnote situation. Also, we don't often know the exact terms of a contract and Variety calling someone a "series regular" doesn't guarantee they are contracted for, say, all 13 episodes produced of a series, so the absence may not be notable.— TAnthonyTalk 20:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- My opinion is that Absent should only be used in Character tables, and not for individual episodes. But you might want to look at some extensive discussions for removing episode counts over at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television/Archive_5#Addendum_to_the_Cast_section and also Talk:List_of_K.C._Undercover_episodes#Absences, the latter of which ended up with listing the absences up front for each season and then per episode. Apparently for that show, keeping track of absences was a big deal. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think in previous discussions it is generally consensus to not mention absentees like this unless there is a notable reason, in which case that can be mentioned in prose (Actress X was contracted for the whole season, but could not appear in Y episodes because she became pregnant ... or something). - adamstom97 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Clearly they want to know, and we should most definitely consider what our readers want. If you don't or refuse to, you clearly have lost the point of Wikipedia. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Remove: pointless trivia (in the context of Wikipedia) and nearly impossible to verify via any secondary sources unless, as Adamstom.97 points out, the absence is notable, in which case it should be addressed in prose and/or with a note. It seems increasingly common for credited main cast to not necessarily appear in all episodes and also for main credits to vary from episode to episode, so tracking this kind of thing is going to become increasingly difficult and, I would argue, of increasingly less value. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ditto sentiments expressed by Adamstom.97 and Joeyconnick. If there is a notable reason a main/billed member is not appearing (pregnancy, injury, etc.) that can be noted. But if the character gets a billing and just doesn't appear in the episode because the plot being told didn't dictate their appearance, that should not be noted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep is episode summaries in episodes tables, but remove from the top of "season" sections. For an example of the latter, Boy Meets World (season 1)#Episodes, at the top before the episode table – those kinds of listings can go as they're pure trivia. However, whether a main credited cast member does not appear in a particular episode is IMO not "trivia", and can be included in the episode info along with guest stars. (Removing them seems to be a pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of thing...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would say the desire to remove is much more about WP:TRIVIA and WP:V. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Who the major actors were in an episode is hardly trivial. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- But who is NOT in an episode seems quite trivial, unless there is a notable real-world reason.— TAnthonyTalk 21:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The real world reason is irrelevant to knowing who the actors actually in the episode were. That a normally expected actor didn't appear when it was presumed by their starring status that they did means we leave the reader with incorrect information if we don't provide the exception info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- But who is NOT in an episode seems quite trivial, unless there is a notable real-world reason.— TAnthonyTalk 21:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Let me be clear: I'm often guided less by what editors around here "think" we should do (i.e. from their own often very special definition of "trivia"), and more by WP:Readers first (i.e. what our readership actually wants). Unless the latter is a flagrant violation of our policies, I'm generally in favor of giving the readership what it actually wants, not what editors think we should "give" them. And this info is in line with WP:V – it's right there in the episode, which counts as the primary source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's just the flip side of the same coin. What are you citing that says readers want every single absence listed on an episode list? It's purely miscellaneous information, which we have a guideline about. Doesn't matter if readers want us to forbid spoilers, since we have a guideline about that as well. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- What the readers want to know is who were the principal actors in that episode. That is not trivial miscellaneous information. It is valid out-of-universe information about who was in the episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's not what we're talking about. We're discussing who isn't in an episode. What about plot points that weren't addressed? Discussing what "readers want to know" is also completely theoretical and not provable. Let's discuss guidelines and policy. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not theoretical: all you have to do is see what editors have been trying to add to an article, especially across an array of articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- People who contribute to the encyclopedia are editors, as you said, not readers. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Infrequent or drive-by editors (e.g. IPs) are nearly always readers first, and editors second – they often add what they feel should be in the encyclopedia without regard to our "rules". We shouldn't ignore reader desires, when they don't obviously conflict with policies. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, you lost me when you considered IP activity to be representative of anything, since they are the worst offenders at adding what even you would consider trivia, like character's middle names, scene by scene details five minutes after an episode airs, etc. There are also many contributors that merely ape content and formats they see elsewhere, like IMDb or various franchise-specific wikis. I'm as big a nerd as anyone when it comes to "my shows" but I don't want the quality, well-sourced resource we have in Wikipedia devolve to the level of some other wikis.— TAnthonyTalk 23:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed that wikias is really where the hardcore "trivia" for TV series should reside, not here. (Which is why I think most of our TV episode-specific articles should actually be deleted out of Wikipedia – but that's an entirely different discussion...) But I think the point here is that there is a significant proportion of editors that don't consider listing main cast as "absent" from an episode in the episodes listing to be "indiscriminate trivia". I know I don't. That's the point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, you lost me when you considered IP activity to be representative of anything, since they are the worst offenders at adding what even you would consider trivia, like character's middle names, scene by scene details five minutes after an episode airs, etc. There are also many contributors that merely ape content and formats they see elsewhere, like IMDb or various franchise-specific wikis. I'm as big a nerd as anyone when it comes to "my shows" but I don't want the quality, well-sourced resource we have in Wikipedia devolve to the level of some other wikis.— TAnthonyTalk 23:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Infrequent or drive-by editors (e.g. IPs) are nearly always readers first, and editors second – they often add what they feel should be in the encyclopedia without regard to our "rules". We shouldn't ignore reader desires, when they don't obviously conflict with policies. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- People who contribute to the encyclopedia are editors, as you said, not readers. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not theoretical: all you have to do is see what editors have been trying to add to an article, especially across an array of articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's not what we're talking about. We're discussing who isn't in an episode. What about plot points that weren't addressed? Discussing what "readers want to know" is also completely theoretical and not provable. Let's discuss guidelines and policy. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- What the readers want to know is who were the principal actors in that episode. That is not trivial miscellaneous information. It is valid out-of-universe information about who was in the episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's just the flip side of the same coin. What are you citing that says readers want every single absence listed on an episode list? It's purely miscellaneous information, which we have a guideline about. Doesn't matter if readers want us to forbid spoilers, since we have a guideline about that as well. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Who the major actors were in an episode is hardly trivial. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would say the desire to remove is much more about WP:TRIVIA and WP:V. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
IJBall and Geraldo Perez, you make a good point about what readers may want, but I think those of us interested enough in topics to add content to articles about them probably have a heightened interest in minutae. There was a situation in the final season of Dynasty in which Joan Collins was only contracted for half of the season's episodes as a cost-savings measure. This is noted in the main article. I would probably be personally interested in seeing episodes in which she appeared and didn't appear noted in List of Dynasty episodes, but as an editor I believe that a) it is best not included there for the reasons above, b) her character will likely be noted in the plot summary if her presence was significant, and c) I can find this information elsewhere, since per policy Wikipedia is not intended to include all known information on all known topics. I should note that this Dynasty list has problems and is not necessarily an example of a good episode list. Are there any specific examples of lists that you think are "done right"? If absentee information is considered important, I think I would actually prefer the "Missed 3 episodes" approach at the top rather than the cluttery notes in every episode. There would be cast-related fields in the tables if this information was so crucial. But this is a good thing to be brought up in the MOS overhaul discussion.— TAnthonyTalk 23:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The issue with that approach is that "episode counts" (and this would include "absences counts" IMO) are explicitly deprecated under WP:TVCAST because they are very hard to independently verify. Basically, it's easy to verify someone's absence from a single episode: just watch the episode. But to verify an actor's absence from a whole season or an entire series is a lot harder to verify: it would require watching all of the episodes of that series! I think the former lies just this side of WP:V, but I actually agree with the TVCAST decision as well because verifying overall episode counts (or absence counts) is very much harder. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Guidelines aren't "laws", nor are they tablets delivered from God. In fact, guidelines are supposed to arise from common practices, they aren't supposed to be a device which some editors can use to thwart the desires of our readership. Let's be clear, what some of us think we should cover here, and what our readership actually wants from this project are often quite different. I was very recently reminded about this when discussing Wikipedia TV articles elsewhere on the internet – in fact, a lot of our readership actually wants the "trivia" that some of you are disdaining. Again, unless doing so flagrantly violates our policies, I say give the readership what it wants. Frankly, if you try to deny that, you're just going to get snowed under by a sea of reverts from IP editors anyway. A "guideline" without a constituency is ultimately pointless... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- "what our readership actually wants from this project are often quite different." "give the readership what it wants." Why are you the arbiter of knowing what readers want? That's an argument with no basis. Guidelines and consensus among editors is what we follow, not hypothetical readers. That logic is completely unverifiable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, MOS warriors are even worse at knowing what our readership wants. This is not a path that is fruitful for any editor around here to go down. Again, "top-down" solutions are usually roundly ignored on the internet, for good or for ill. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- "what our readership actually wants from this project are often quite different." "give the readership what it wants." Why are you the arbiter of knowing what readers want? That's an argument with no basis. Guidelines and consensus among editors is what we follow, not hypothetical readers. That logic is completely unverifiable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Guidelines aren't "laws", nor are they tablets delivered from God. In fact, guidelines are supposed to arise from common practices, they aren't supposed to be a device which some editors can use to thwart the desires of our readership. Let's be clear, what some of us think we should cover here, and what our readership actually wants from this project are often quite different. I was very recently reminded about this when discussing Wikipedia TV articles elsewhere on the internet – in fact, a lot of our readership actually wants the "trivia" that some of you are disdaining. Again, unless doing so flagrantly violates our policies, I say give the readership what it wants. Frankly, if you try to deny that, you're just going to get snowed under by a sea of reverts from IP editors anyway. A "guideline" without a constituency is ultimately pointless... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep starring cast absence info in episode lists when they do not participate in the episode when guest stars are listed. These two pieces of info are related – the intent is to document who the principal actors for that episode are and if a starring cast member didn't appear when the presumption is that they did, that means they were not a actor in that episode. That matters as much as who the guest starring cast is for an episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- What are you considering a "starring" cast member and how often does this happen? In what instances are readers "presuming" someone has appeared? If a cast member is credited for an episode, they are being paid for it, so I can't imagine that this is happening a huge amount of the time. I think it's more likely that you are classifying performers as series regulars who technically are not. — TAnthonyTalk 21:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Starring cast are those appearing in the opening credit sequence and named there and that is their only appearance in the episode, the opening credit sequence. Their absence in actually acting in the episode happens rarely enough that it is worth noting when it does. Noting guest cast and noting non-appearance of starring cast are linked and serve the same purpose, who had major roles in the episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- One caveat about that – what you say about main cast absences being rare enough to be noteworthy is true of many series, but not all. There are series out there, like Melrose Place, which were designed to have a large cast whose castmembers did not appear in every episode pretty much by design. But that's very different than a show like, say, Happy Endings where the absence of one of the five principal castmembers would be very unusual indeed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:IJBall, here is where you're saying something I agree with. "Unusual." If an absence is notably "unusual" and there are circumstances that are notable, then I completely agree it's worth including. But listing every single absence is not at all relevant to plot summaries and are 99% of the times trivial cruft. I'm contending that most of the "absent" notices on childrens TV series and others are more Melrose Place and less Happy Endings, using your examples. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I fell like this kind of distinction can't probably be handled at the "guideline"-level. I'm willing to entertain the idea that, say, the absences of the twins at List of Best Friends Whenever episodes does not need to be recorded in the episodes list because they are missing from half the episodes (likely due to the restrictions placed on how much you can work minor-aged actors) and that can be mentioned in the article text. But I don't think a guideline can deal with the level of distinction – it's something that will need to be hashed out at the article's Talk page. And there are certainly other series where rare absences from main cast should be noted in the episodes listing (Victorious comes to mind). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:IJBall, here is where you're saying something I agree with. "Unusual." If an absence is notably "unusual" and there are circumstances that are notable, then I completely agree it's worth including. But listing every single absence is not at all relevant to plot summaries and are 99% of the times trivial cruft. I'm contending that most of the "absent" notices on childrens TV series and others are more Melrose Place and less Happy Endings, using your examples. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- One caveat about that – what you say about main cast absences being rare enough to be noteworthy is true of many series, but not all. There are series out there, like Melrose Place, which were designed to have a large cast whose castmembers did not appear in every episode pretty much by design. But that's very different than a show like, say, Happy Endings where the absence of one of the five principal castmembers would be very unusual indeed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Starring cast are those appearing in the opening credit sequence and named there and that is their only appearance in the episode, the opening credit sequence. Their absence in actually acting in the episode happens rarely enough that it is worth noting when it does. Noting guest cast and noting non-appearance of starring cast are linked and serve the same purpose, who had major roles in the episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- What are you considering a "starring" cast member and how often does this happen? In what instances are readers "presuming" someone has appeared? If a cast member is credited for an episode, they are being paid for it, so I can't imagine that this is happening a huge amount of the time. I think it's more likely that you are classifying performers as series regulars who technically are not. — TAnthonyTalk 21:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- In the example Boy Meets World (season 1)#Episodes: Lee Norris as Stuart Minkus appeared in 19 out of 22 episodes and is designated as a "Main" character (with his 3 absences noted), and Danielle Fishel as Topanga Lawrence appeared in 14 and is listed as "Recurring" (with all of her appearances listed). The difference seems somewhat arbitrary, I doubt either was a series regular for this season which should be the threshold for a main character. And I doubt either was credited in an episode in which they did not appear. The layout is obviously influenced by fan interest. I do think guest appearances can be notable and are probably interesting to readers, and harmless, but let's not pretend this is not the very definition of trivia. IMDb is the proper storehouse for this.— TAnthonyTalk 21:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I pulled Boy Meets World into this discussion as an example of how this is all handled badly. Fishel was recurring in season #1 there, and should just be listed as a "Guest star" in the episodes she appeared in the episodes list – her absences shouldn't be tracked at all. However, Norris was main cast credited that season, and so it would be legitimate to note the 3 episodes he did not appear in in the episodes list. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- So you're saying Norris was credited in the opening of episodes in which he didn't appear? As a reader/viewer that might interest me, but on a global, WikiProject scale it still seems trivial. If the absence was notable, there would be a reliable source talking about it, and this would only happen if it was for a specific reason.— TAnthonyTalk 22:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is as notable as who the guest stars were, most of whom are are not backed up with mention in reliable secondary sources. We generally don't care why a particular person was chosen as a guest star either. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The point of listing guest stars is because guest characters are relevant to the plots – and therefore the plot summaries. This whole conversation is about what is 'relevant' to a plot summary. Absences are not relevant to a plot summary in most cases (one absolutely relevant exception would be a character's off-screen death due to a cast member's departure, etc.). Also, secondary sources are not needed because guest stars are straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, just like directors and writers. See WP:PRIMARY. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The plot description is not the only purpose of that table entry. We are also tracking key out-of-universe data about the episode including major cast and crew that participated in that episode. The primary source, the episode itself, is also the verifiable record of who did not appear in the episode, harder to verify than a credit list, but still verifiable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The point of listing guest stars is because guest characters are relevant to the plots – and therefore the plot summaries. This whole conversation is about what is 'relevant' to a plot summary. Absences are not relevant to a plot summary in most cases (one absolutely relevant exception would be a character's off-screen death due to a cast member's departure, etc.). Also, secondary sources are not needed because guest stars are straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, just like directors and writers. See WP:PRIMARY. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is as notable as who the guest stars were, most of whom are are not backed up with mention in reliable secondary sources. We generally don't care why a particular person was chosen as a guest star either. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- So you're saying Norris was credited in the opening of episodes in which he didn't appear? As a reader/viewer that might interest me, but on a global, WikiProject scale it still seems trivial. If the absence was notable, there would be a reliable source talking about it, and this would only happen if it was for a specific reason.— TAnthonyTalk 22:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I pulled Boy Meets World into this discussion as an example of how this is all handled badly. Fishel was recurring in season #1 there, and should just be listed as a "Guest star" in the episodes she appeared in the episodes list – her absences shouldn't be tracked at all. However, Norris was main cast credited that season, and so it would be legitimate to note the 3 episodes he did not appear in in the episodes list. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- In the example Boy Meets World (season 1)#Episodes: Lee Norris as Stuart Minkus appeared in 19 out of 22 episodes and is designated as a "Main" character (with his 3 absences noted), and Danielle Fishel as Topanga Lawrence appeared in 14 and is listed as "Recurring" (with all of her appearances listed). The difference seems somewhat arbitrary, I doubt either was a series regular for this season which should be the threshold for a main character. And I doubt either was credited in an episode in which they did not appear. The layout is obviously influenced by fan interest. I do think guest appearances can be notable and are probably interesting to readers, and harmless, but let's not pretend this is not the very definition of trivia. IMDb is the proper storehouse for this.— TAnthonyTalk 21:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm proposing removing these absences because they're non-notable, trivial, and indiscriminate (could list countless other things on episode list but we don't). Would the editors who disagree propose adding all main cast absences to the episode lists that don't currently include them? This is not an IDONTLIKEIT situation. It's about a manual of style and providing information that makes sense to episode descriptions. We don't list plot points that were absent. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I oppose removing these absences because the are notable, non-trivial and not indiscriminate. Who the main players in a television episode actually are can hardly be described as trivial information. The only way to be accurate with respect to people presumed to be in all episode is to note when they are not. I would likely support not having main cast absences if guest stars were not also listed. Some episode lists don't list either and that is consistent. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- +1. That pretty much nails my take on it as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Exactly, Geraldo Perez! Listing absences is equivalent to listing guest stars, and the two are linked and are both supported by WP:VERIFY. No consensus has ever been reached to outright obliterate them and it has been well-established on thousands—read: thousands—of articles for years, so yes, they were removed arbitrarily without discussion or a valid reason when the user knew full well what it would cause. If we're going to be that pedantic, listing guest stars is also not perfect as editors often do it wrong by including co-stars or not using the credited names. Next you'll be saying silly and ridiculous statements like listing anything other than the title and air date is trivial because who the hell needs to know all that other information, right...? Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Relevance to the plot is what's key. We're talking about plot summaries. Unless the absence is notable to the plot, it's not convincing that the reader must know whether every single credited main cast member is in the episode or not. Guest stars are absolutely notable because of their relevance to the episode. When looking at what's relevant to plot summaries, I'd say almost every single 'absent' notice has nothing to do with the plot summary, while guest stars usually do. Following your logic to the extreme means we can list all main sets that weren't included as well. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'll just state is again: what you and others here consider to be "incidental trivia" is not considered to be "incidental trivia" to a large chunk of our readership. Simply – there will probably never be enough consensus in favor of removing this kind of info that it'll ever stick. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Again, let's discuss guidelines and policy, not hypothetical, un-citable 'readerships' that can be used to argue both sides. I opened this conversation today. It certainly seems that a handful are the ones consistently arguing to keep these absences, so let's allow more editors to have a say here before deciding there's no consensus. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Amaury, as I've expressed it's not equivalent to listing guest stars because guest stars' appearances notably and directly affect the episode's plot. 99% of the times people are marked 'Absent,' it's trivia. Also, let's not enter the fallacies that a) if a convention has been around for long enough, we should give it a pass and b) it's too much effort to change now. DVD releases were present in thousands—read: thousands of lists' series overview tables for years, until editors decided it was arbitrary and they were removed. Let's stick to the discussion at hand without distractions- obviously no one is proposing removing airdates. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Removing air dates will be the next ridiculous statement that's brought up because who the hell needs that information for? It is not trivia, and clearly there is reader reader interest, which you've been pointed to WP:READERSFIRST by IJBall. Just because you claim it's trivia with your "I am right!" attitude does not make it so. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, no. That's a silly reaction. There are specific fields for air dates. There are none for actors. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Please keep your personal attacks to a minimum. Simply because we disagree with you, that does not make the rest of us a threat to the interest of Wikipedia. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's not a personal attack. But I'm flattered that you're still contribution stalking me, Alex. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is. You're accusing us of being threats. This is a personal attack. And don't be so stuck up - I've contributed to this discussion as a member of the WikiProject, hence my watching it, and Amaury's talk page is on my watchlist and has been for months. Now. Back to the discussion - civilly. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'll leave it to others to judge. But if you consider that a "personal attack", you've got an incredibly expansive definition of the term. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is. You're accusing us of being threats. This is a personal attack. And don't be so stuck up - I've contributed to this discussion as a member of the WikiProject, hence my watching it, and Amaury's talk page is on my watchlist and has been for months. Now. Back to the discussion - civilly. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's not a personal attack. But I'm flattered that you're still contribution stalking me, Alex. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's what I'm getting that. X is being called trivial, so what's to stop something else from beginning to start being called trivial and then something after that from beginning to start being called trivial, and so on? Hypothetically, at some point, we'll basically have no content because everything that was there we thought was trivial. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Please keep your personal attacks to a minimum. Simply because we disagree with you, that does not make the rest of us a threat to the interest of Wikipedia. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, no. That's a silly reaction. There are specific fields for air dates. There are none for actors. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Removing air dates will be the next ridiculous statement that's brought up because who the hell needs that information for? It is not trivia, and clearly there is reader reader interest, which you've been pointed to WP:READERSFIRST by IJBall. Just because you claim it's trivia with your "I am right!" attitude does not make it so. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Amaury, as I've expressed it's not equivalent to listing guest stars because guest stars' appearances notably and directly affect the episode's plot. 99% of the times people are marked 'Absent,' it's trivia. Also, let's not enter the fallacies that a) if a convention has been around for long enough, we should give it a pass and b) it's too much effort to change now. DVD releases were present in thousands—read: thousands of lists' series overview tables for years, until editors decided it was arbitrary and they were removed. Let's stick to the discussion at hand without distractions- obviously no one is proposing removing airdates. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Again, let's discuss guidelines and policy, not hypothetical, un-citable 'readerships' that can be used to argue both sides. I opened this conversation today. It certainly seems that a handful are the ones consistently arguing to keep these absences, so let's allow more editors to have a say here before deciding there's no consensus. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'll just state is again: what you and others here consider to be "incidental trivia" is not considered to be "incidental trivia" to a large chunk of our readership. Simply – there will probably never be enough consensus in favor of removing this kind of info that it'll ever stick. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Relevance to the plot is what's key. We're talking about plot summaries. Unless the absence is notable to the plot, it's not convincing that the reader must know whether every single credited main cast member is in the episode or not. Guest stars are absolutely notable because of their relevance to the episode. When looking at what's relevant to plot summaries, I'd say almost every single 'absent' notice has nothing to do with the plot summary, while guest stars usually do. Following your logic to the extreme means we can list all main sets that weren't included as well. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
For those unaware, there is currently a discussion about the entire TVMOS underway, and the cast section of the MoS is the next area due to be discussed. The resulting discussion here may be relevant when WP:TVCAST is opened there. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, User:Whats new?. I'm hoping this discussion focuses solely on episode list summaries, but if editors feel like absences need to be listed somewhere, perhaps a cast/characters article is another place for that information. But still believe in only rare instances those absences are notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, fair enough. Carry on -- Whats new?(talk) 22:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, this conversions has exploded since I last looked at it a few hours ago! I'm not sure what exactly has been covered in here, but I would reiterate that in general we should only discuss absent cast members if there is a real world reason with reliable sources, like the pregnancy example I gave above. The only time I tend not to do this is if I'm writing an individual episode article and say who the network announced was in the episode. In those cases, if an actor didn't end up appearing even though I've just said that the network confirmed their appearance, then I will put a note saying that they ultimately did not actually appear. This can usually be sourced from a review or recap of the episode that mentions the absence of said actor. However, if we are talking about the episode table, then no we should not have an episode-by-episode list of absent cast members, just as we should not list guest stars in an episode table. Any notable cast information should be in a cast/character/casting section, not the plot summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, fair enough. Carry on -- Whats new?(talk) 22:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Conditional remove: I'm not a fan of the "absence" content. I think it's weird to actively note something that didn't happen. I think they should be omitted unless there is citable real-world information, such as a cast member breaking a leg or getting pregnant. I don't know that there's any real expectation that a cast member has to appear in every episode, and I don't see what academic service is being provided. Are we trying to figure out how much money each actor might have made? The focus seems to be knowing for the sake of knowing. And then there's the issue of how the Absences thing should be properly incorporated into children's television articles where maybe it's not clear which of the characters are "main". Which of the SpongeBob characters warrant inclusion into such a list? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- For cartoons like SpongeBob SquarePants or The Fairly OddParents, I can see how it can be confusing as they don't make it clear who the starring cast is in the opening sequence (and I don't know how clearer it is in the end credits), and I wouldn't be totally against excluding that kind of information on Cartoon-related articles. However, on sitcoms where it's clear who the main actors are by who shows up in either the opening sequence or the "starring" cast role after the opening sequence if the actor names aren't shown during the opening sequence due to design, it's not so much of a problem. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, so let's say Julia Louis-Dreyfus doesn't appear in an episode of Seinfeld. Let's say we log that. Then what? What do we do with that information? Airdates at least answer the "when" aspect of the five Ws, and looking at them could help us glean when the show was in production, when the crew took breaks, when sweeps periods might have been, and so forth. but aside from satisfying hunger for statistics, I don't see what the point is, especially when the why of their absence is not satisfied. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- IJBall could probably answer that better, but it just comes down to what the readers want to see, and if Wikipedia values its readers, then we should give them what they want. People can point to X or Y guideline, but we have to remember that they're called guidelines for a reason. Specifically, as IJBall stated, they're general practices, not some arbitrary set of rules we have to follow. Unless something is severely going against policies, such as, and this is an extreme example, some using racial slurs against someone,, then we shouldn't just say "okay, this is how it is." Now, as IJBall also stated earlier, hardcore trivia, such as this, belongs on the Wikias, and with that I agree. However, as Geraldo Perez stated, this is not trivial miscellaneous information. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not swayed. Our readers, given their druthers, would want all sorts of cruft added to articles. Children want to add characters who were absent, catchphrases used, locations the characters traveled to, spells/incantations used, endless plot details in character lists, etc. I'm sure that some readers would want to see comprehensive lists of characters from main to one-off. That's not what the community has decided should be included. Simply wanting content doesn't warrant its inclusion, some clear academic purpose should trigger inclusion. I think people keep forgetting that we are not Wikia. There are other venues for such details. Anyhow, I'm not trying to convince you of changing your position, but this is my position. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- And I most definitely respect your view. Obviously, we should only include what the readers want within reason, not everything they want, such as super hardcore trivia which is more appropriate on Wikias. My God, if we gave the readers everything they want, I think we would have a huge mess. Anyway, I suppose I and IJBall and Geraldo Perez, as well as MPFitz1968 and Nyuszika7H who haven't commented yet, would be willing to compromise in that we remove the absence tally before each season table, but keep the notes in the summaries. And that would actually make it consistent with how we list guest stars because we don't list "X guest starred in Y episodes" before each season table. Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but since we all collaborate together a lot, I think they would likely be okay with that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Absents and guest should both not be listed in the summaries. The compromise and this discussion isn't about partial removals. We are discussing full removal from episode summaries (which I'm assuming means anywhere around the episode table, including before it and within summaries itself). Again, appropriate locations (cast/characters or a casting section) is where this info, both guest stars and notable absences, should go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Cartoons are a different beast. They usually have two levels of guest stars: the one that's advertised in their promos and who actually gets credited in the closing credits. I would keep the advertised guest stars. For example in The 7D episode 212: [5] George Takei is clearly the notable guest star. But the closing credits may list other actors that aren't regulars. Takei should be listed, the others that usually fill in the utility voices and never got highlighted in a promo would not. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Absents and guest should both not be listed in the summaries. The compromise and this discussion isn't about partial removals. We are discussing full removal from episode summaries (which I'm assuming means anywhere around the episode table, including before it and within summaries itself). Again, appropriate locations (cast/characters or a casting section) is where this info, both guest stars and notable absences, should go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- And I most definitely respect your view. Obviously, we should only include what the readers want within reason, not everything they want, such as super hardcore trivia which is more appropriate on Wikias. My God, if we gave the readers everything they want, I think we would have a huge mess. Anyway, I suppose I and IJBall and Geraldo Perez, as well as MPFitz1968 and Nyuszika7H who haven't commented yet, would be willing to compromise in that we remove the absence tally before each season table, but keep the notes in the summaries. And that would actually make it consistent with how we list guest stars because we don't list "X guest starred in Y episodes" before each season table. Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but since we all collaborate together a lot, I think they would likely be okay with that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not swayed. Our readers, given their druthers, would want all sorts of cruft added to articles. Children want to add characters who were absent, catchphrases used, locations the characters traveled to, spells/incantations used, endless plot details in character lists, etc. I'm sure that some readers would want to see comprehensive lists of characters from main to one-off. That's not what the community has decided should be included. Simply wanting content doesn't warrant its inclusion, some clear academic purpose should trigger inclusion. I think people keep forgetting that we are not Wikia. There are other venues for such details. Anyhow, I'm not trying to convince you of changing your position, but this is my position. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- IJBall could probably answer that better, but it just comes down to what the readers want to see, and if Wikipedia values its readers, then we should give them what they want. People can point to X or Y guideline, but we have to remember that they're called guidelines for a reason. Specifically, as IJBall stated, they're general practices, not some arbitrary set of rules we have to follow. Unless something is severely going against policies, such as, and this is an extreme example, some using racial slurs against someone,, then we shouldn't just say "okay, this is how it is." Now, as IJBall also stated earlier, hardcore trivia, such as this, belongs on the Wikias, and with that I agree. However, as Geraldo Perez stated, this is not trivial miscellaneous information. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, so let's say Julia Louis-Dreyfus doesn't appear in an episode of Seinfeld. Let's say we log that. Then what? What do we do with that information? Airdates at least answer the "when" aspect of the five Ws, and looking at them could help us glean when the show was in production, when the crew took breaks, when sweeps periods might have been, and so forth. but aside from satisfying hunger for statistics, I don't see what the point is, especially when the why of their absence is not satisfied. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- For cartoons like SpongeBob SquarePants or The Fairly OddParents, I can see how it can be confusing as they don't make it clear who the starring cast is in the opening sequence (and I don't know how clearer it is in the end credits), and I wouldn't be totally against excluding that kind of information on Cartoon-related articles. However, on sitcoms where it's clear who the main actors are by who shows up in either the opening sequence or the "starring" cast role after the opening sequence if the actor names aren't shown during the opening sequence due to design, it's not so much of a problem. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oddly, I don't mind the inclusion of guest stars in the episode summaries. That makes more sense to me than including information about who didn't appear, and I don't know of where else that content would intuitively go, since cast lists aren't really set up for encouraging one-off cast, and in some cases, an episode of one of the Star Trek incarnations might have several people credited as guest stars. Distributing them in the episode list seems wiser than shuffling them back to the cast section. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- With Cyphoidbomb bringing this up, I've always wondered in the Wizards of Waverly Place season articles and episodes about the listing of the spells/incantations for each episode, and I had thoughts of that as plain trivia (even left an entry in Talk:List of Wizards of Waverly Place episodes about that). Now I'm guided right about it, and will soon remove that stuff. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Remove from episode summaries - The instructions for {{Episode list}} have been discussed at length many times in various venues and and therefore say that
|ShortSummary=should be "a short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode". Strictly speaking, only actual plot information should be included and missing actors are not part of the plot. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Right. A summary. An absence note indicating which characters were absent is not a or part of the summary and therefore does not count toward the word count. And using that logic, we shouldn't include guest stars, either. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you're getting at. Word count has nothing to do with the discussion. The field is for a plot summary, i.e. the story. As for guest stars, that's also really not relevant. We have a cast section specifically for cast. They don't need to be mentioned in the episode summaries. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Seriously? We're not "supposed" to list guest cast either in the episode guide either?! Guest cast doesn't belong in the 'Cast' list at TV series articles – that should be restricted to "main" front-credited cast only, and maybe long-term recurring cast. So, basically, the position of the WP:TV regulars is that we should never even list guest cast in any form?! Wow. Just wow... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Guest cast are typically listed in season articles, or in individual episode articles, but no, not in episode lists. That is the IMDb format stuck in your head, and it has never been a part of any Featured Wikipedia material.— TAnthonyTalk 05:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- As someone who believes that 98% of our episode articles shouldn't exist (individual episodes are almost never notable in their own right), that doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence. And yeah, "episode guides" is where this all began on the internet, and what we did is quite simply the evolution of that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- And your calling it an "episode guide" does sort of tell me that your perception is informed by other websites.— TAnthonyTalk 05:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Guest cast are typically listed in season articles, or in individual episode articles, but no, not in episode lists. That is the IMDb format stuck in your head, and it has never been a part of any Featured Wikipedia material.— TAnthonyTalk 05:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- +1 to IJBall. You said, and I quote,
Hence what I said. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)|ShortSummary=should be "a short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode".
- Seriously? We're not "supposed" to list guest cast either in the episode guide either?! Guest cast doesn't belong in the 'Cast' list at TV series articles – that should be restricted to "main" front-credited cast only, and maybe long-term recurring cast. So, basically, the position of the WP:TV regulars is that we should never even list guest cast in any form?! Wow. Just wow... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you're getting at. Word count has nothing to do with the discussion. The field is for a plot summary, i.e. the story. As for guest stars, that's also really not relevant. We have a cast section specifically for cast. They don't need to be mentioned in the episode summaries. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Right. A summary. An absence note indicating which characters were absent is not a or part of the summary and therefore does not count toward the word count. And using that logic, we shouldn't include guest stars, either. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Remove from episode summaries per above. In my opinion, this is simply a way to get around WP:TVCAST's quote of "
[t]he cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g. (# episodes), to indicate the number of episodes in which the actor/character appeared
"; this manner of listing absences is to simply list what episodes they haven't appeared in, rather than those that they have. TVCAST then goes on to state that "[i]f 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
". Not the episode table - the character description or production information. And only if it's not trivial and there is an actual real-world reason behind it. Alex|The|Whovian? 04:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Since there are multiple threads happening here at once, I'm just going to put this comment here. The crux of the original question, is if "absences" should be noted in an episode table summary. And the answer is no. Do readers need to know exactly which episode a character doesn't appear. No they don't. Guest actors for that matter too shouldn't be noted in plot summaries. Absences can be noted in cast/character/casting sections, once again, if there is something notable for the reason they were absent. Readers don't need to know that in episode 5 of a 22 episode season, main character 3 wasn't in it. And for those arguing that such info should be stated, then to that I say, if the absence is so noteworthy, sources would be commenting on it, which in turn would give you the source to use to mention in the cast/character/casting section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Remove as above — we "opposers" seem to all be saying the same thing: plot summaries are for plot, there are no cast fields in the tables for a reason, and the most basic notability guidelines confirm for us that unless a reliable source is talking about an absence, it's probably trivia. Just because this IMDb minutae has crept into multiple articles and lists does not make it OK, or set a precedent, or assert a reader-driven need. It is a reflection of our own fanboy/girl-ishness as editors, and as much as I may be a nerdy fan of certain shows and related details, as an experienced Wikipedian I know this is not the proper archive for all of it. We can perhaps clarify our MOS slightly on this, but it seems as though we are already adequately covering cast details in the proper sections.— TAnthonyTalk 05:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Remove The only time I could see this being mentioned is when one has concurrent episodes or something comparable to the "Doctor-lite" episodes of Doctor Who, and even then, this can be woven into production information. Which regular cast members are absent for an episode is trivia. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Again, guidelines aren't some arbitrarily set of rules that we have to follow, hence the term "guidelines." They're general practices that often have leeway, which is made clear by the fact that it has been established like this on thousands of articles for years. There has never been a clear consensus on this, and the episodes themselves and primary reliable sources, so the absences are supported by WP:VERIFY. It's sad that almost everyone doesn't appear to care about our readers' wants and have lost touch with what Wikipedia is about. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think you are seriously inflating the number of "thousands of articles" that have done this. Additionally, how do you know this is what readers want? Do you have some sort of data or examples of this, or are you just projecting your opinion with that statement? Wikipedia strives to be a formal encyclopedia, not a collection of small trivia points that might serve only a select amount of readers. Fan wikias and other sites serve this purpose. And just because you feel since this has been done and established, doesn't mean it is or was correct. We try to serve any and all readers who come visit the site and our articles. An example: I have never seen an episode of Doctor Who. Does it matter to me if I go read the episode summary for episode 3 that it mentions in the plot summary that X actor didn't appear? Not one bit. Would I care if X actor didn't in episode 3 because they had injured themselves during the filming of episode 2, or are in a contract dispute with the production company? You bet. And I would hope that info could be found in the appropriate section elsewhere in the article. This isn't so much a WP:VERIFY question, it is a WP:N and WP:TRIVIAL question. And it appears the overwhelming consensus is that this type of notation is not necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- How do I know? Hm. Let's see. Maybe because of the various registered and IP editors who have added them in over the years, even long before I became a TV series regular or even registered, for that matter. And as I've stated to you elsewhere long ago, I'll well aware of WP:OSE, and what I said isn't an WP:OSE statement, but rather a fact. There is a difference, and if you can't see that, then that's your fault, not mine. Wikias are meant for hardcore trivia, which absences are not, are perfectly notable and therefore NOT trivial, and are supported by WP:V.
An example: I have never seen an episode of Doctor Who. Does it matter to me if I go read the episode summary for episode 3 that it mentions in the plot summary that X actor didn't appear? Not one bit.
Maybe not for you, but again, there is clearly reader interest. Who died and made you boss to dictate to other people what they want or don't want to see? If you don't or refuse to care about our readers' interests, not only have you lost sight of what Wikipedia is about, but it also makes you seem like you're no longer a true Wikipedian. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)- We're talking about episode lists, which have a specific format for a reason, and are not intended to be (somewhat) condensed versions of an individual episode article, as you seem to be suggesting. I've seen content evolve over the years and IJBall has made a good point that the oldtimers like myself should remain flexible. But a broad "give em what they want" attitude is also a bad idea. In that kind of free-for-all situation you end up with 1000-word episode summaries, full cast lists and behind-the-scenes tidbits in a table, and we both know I'm not exaggerating. That's what the IPs want! The information you are fighting for has its place in season articles and individual episode articles. The reason contributors want to add content so badly here is that we have the best-maintained resource of its kind. When we start trying to cram in every tidbit that could be of interest to anyone, we end up with one of the franchise wikis which have complete articles about every comic issue in a series, infants, and characters mentioned twice in an 8-novel series. I love reading some of that stuff, but those are not respectable, coherent and reasonable encyclopedias, which is what we are trying to maintain here.— TAnthonyTalk 15:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of what we're discussing here, and series with four or less seasons typically don't have individual season articles, and even so, listing guest stars, absences, or other notes of interest, such as an episode with a season one production code being aired in season two, are a) hardly trivial and b) barely add much that it not does not cause disorganization issues. And even in individual season articles, people would likely still try to abolish useful information simply because they don't like it. I don't think neither myself nor IJBall has ever suggested a free-for-all, ignoring all rules, just that we should give our readers what they want. I agree that 1,000 episode summaries on every single episode would be ridiculous and hence why we have that little 100 to 200 words guideline, a general practice which is a good one to usually be followed the best someone can. I also agree that we shouldn't have tidbits lying around left and right, hence why both IJBall and myself have said that the true hardcore trivia definitely belongs on Wikias, but neither absences nor guest stars, since those are apparently being questioned now as well, is trivia, and just because you keep saying those are does not make them so. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, in addition to the 1,000 episode summaries being "ridiculous," 10+ editors also believe that the same word applies to writing "Absent" next to every single cast member's lack of appearance in an episode, without any notable reason given. Even IJBall mentioned at one point that when an absence is "unusual" (read: notable), it's worth mentioning, which I and others can agree with. But if we're taking a thorough look at writing "Absent" on episode list summaries alone, the whole point of this discussion without pivoting to other distractions, and asking why this is necessary, pleasing IP editors is not a good enough answer. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yet you guys are clearly in the minority. And IJBall clearly said it was an idea and only for those shows where actors miss half or more of the episodes. And yes, pleasing our readers is a sufficient and valid answer. Just because you don't care about what our readers want doesn't mean everyone else, like IJBall and myself, is also uncaring. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you can be following this discussion and think you are in the majority. I would also caution you about letting things get a little heated. We all care about Wikipedia and what we think is appropriate content, even if we disagree on where to draw the line.— TAnthonyTalk 18:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yet you guys are clearly in the minority. And IJBall clearly said it was an idea and only for those shows where actors miss half or more of the episodes. And yes, pleasing our readers is a sufficient and valid answer. Just because you don't care about what our readers want doesn't mean everyone else, like IJBall and myself, is also uncaring. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, in addition to the 1,000 episode summaries being "ridiculous," 10+ editors also believe that the same word applies to writing "Absent" next to every single cast member's lack of appearance in an episode, without any notable reason given. Even IJBall mentioned at one point that when an absence is "unusual" (read: notable), it's worth mentioning, which I and others can agree with. But if we're taking a thorough look at writing "Absent" on episode list summaries alone, the whole point of this discussion without pivoting to other distractions, and asking why this is necessary, pleasing IP editors is not a good enough answer. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of what we're discussing here, and series with four or less seasons typically don't have individual season articles, and even so, listing guest stars, absences, or other notes of interest, such as an episode with a season one production code being aired in season two, are a) hardly trivial and b) barely add much that it not does not cause disorganization issues. And even in individual season articles, people would likely still try to abolish useful information simply because they don't like it. I don't think neither myself nor IJBall has ever suggested a free-for-all, ignoring all rules, just that we should give our readers what they want. I agree that 1,000 episode summaries on every single episode would be ridiculous and hence why we have that little 100 to 200 words guideline, a general practice which is a good one to usually be followed the best someone can. I also agree that we shouldn't have tidbits lying around left and right, hence why both IJBall and myself have said that the true hardcore trivia definitely belongs on Wikias, but neither absences nor guest stars, since those are apparently being questioned now as well, is trivia, and just because you keep saying those are does not make them so. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- We're talking about episode lists, which have a specific format for a reason, and are not intended to be (somewhat) condensed versions of an individual episode article, as you seem to be suggesting. I've seen content evolve over the years and IJBall has made a good point that the oldtimers like myself should remain flexible. But a broad "give em what they want" attitude is also a bad idea. In that kind of free-for-all situation you end up with 1000-word episode summaries, full cast lists and behind-the-scenes tidbits in a table, and we both know I'm not exaggerating. That's what the IPs want! The information you are fighting for has its place in season articles and individual episode articles. The reason contributors want to add content so badly here is that we have the best-maintained resource of its kind. When we start trying to cram in every tidbit that could be of interest to anyone, we end up with one of the franchise wikis which have complete articles about every comic issue in a series, infants, and characters mentioned twice in an 8-novel series. I love reading some of that stuff, but those are not respectable, coherent and reasonable encyclopedias, which is what we are trying to maintain here.— TAnthonyTalk 15:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- How do I know? Hm. Let's see. Maybe because of the various registered and IP editors who have added them in over the years, even long before I became a TV series regular or even registered, for that matter. And as I've stated to you elsewhere long ago, I'll well aware of WP:OSE, and what I said isn't an WP:OSE statement, but rather a fact. There is a difference, and if you can't see that, then that's your fault, not mine. Wikias are meant for hardcore trivia, which absences are not, are perfectly notable and therefore NOT trivial, and are supported by WP:V.
- I think you are seriously inflating the number of "thousands of articles" that have done this. Additionally, how do you know this is what readers want? Do you have some sort of data or examples of this, or are you just projecting your opinion with that statement? Wikipedia strives to be a formal encyclopedia, not a collection of small trivia points that might serve only a select amount of readers. Fan wikias and other sites serve this purpose. And just because you feel since this has been done and established, doesn't mean it is or was correct. We try to serve any and all readers who come visit the site and our articles. An example: I have never seen an episode of Doctor Who. Does it matter to me if I go read the episode summary for episode 3 that it mentions in the plot summary that X actor didn't appear? Not one bit. Would I care if X actor didn't in episode 3 because they had injured themselves during the filming of episode 2, or are in a contract dispute with the production company? You bet. And I would hope that info could be found in the appropriate section elsewhere in the article. This isn't so much a WP:VERIFY question, it is a WP:N and WP:TRIVIAL question. And it appears the overwhelming consensus is that this type of notation is not necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Again, guidelines aren't some arbitrarily set of rules that we have to follow, hence the term "guidelines." They're general practices that often have leeway, which is made clear by the fact that it has been established like this on thousands of articles for years. There has never been a clear consensus on this, and the episodes themselves and primary reliable sources, so the absences are supported by WP:VERIFY. It's sad that almost everyone doesn't appear to care about our readers' wants and have lost touch with what Wikipedia is about. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep – I agree with the people above who say that absences and guest stars are useful information. I'm not saying they must be included in every TV series / episode list article, but aside from a few rare exceptions, they are not excessive at all. Claiming that the inclusion of this information will lead to the inclusion of more trivial things is a logical fallacy called slippery slope. Also, claiming that they should not be included because the parameter is primarily intended for the plot summary is arguing about a technicality. The primary reason it's placed there is because there simply isn't enough space to add even more columns to the table. Some reality shows can afford to include the guest(s) as a column because the usual things for scripted shows do not apply there, thereby freeing up space, but that's a different case. But if you insist on arguing that it has no relevance to the plot summary, that's not entirely true either. As already said, it provides useful out-of-universe context. Sure, in most cases the really notable characters will be mentioned in the plot summary and the actors can be noted in parenthesis. But like I said, in 90% of cases it does not clutter up the episode list so I don't see any harm in providing useful information for readers, which is already kept minimal, as we exclude co-stars. I know the main point of discussion is absences here, but many have also opposed incluing guest stars. I do believe main cast absences are also almost as useful as guest stars. Absences aren't always significant to the plot, but in most cases main cast are important. This may not apply to all shows, but it does generally apply to the ones where absences are noted. Now, for many animated shows, the list of guest stars can grow longer and there is no clear "guest star" and "co-star" distinction, just (usually) a list of main cast in the opening credits, and "Additional voices". In that case, we really only include notable guest stars mentioned in reliable sources. Anyway, I'd be fine with removing the "X is absent for Y episodes" listings from the beginning of episode tables, as while it may be interesting, the numbers often don't have a significance and it's more similar to episode counts which have been banned by the MOS. Either way, we either include all absences and guest stars or only the notable ones included in reliable sources, we can't pick which are important ourselves as that would be original research. I believe this should be decided by local consensus on articles, and conventions like the one for animated shows where it's common to have a long list of additional voices including really minor characters. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that guest cast are notable (I'm refraining from saying "important") but there have to be clear limits. If I can note an actor who played the "murderer of the week" on a police procedural and obviously had many lines and contributed to the plot, why can't I include the credited victim (who had one line) or the waitress who had three lines? Talking specifically of episode tables, I believe it is OK to reasonably note credited cast within the text of the plot summary, which would naturally keep it to only the most notable, as in "Trevor's ex-wife Tracy (Lindsay Lohan) appears, revealing that their divorce was never finalized." The plot summary will probably not mention really minor roles. I really do understand the possible reader interest in absences, but I can see no way of really justifying it in an episode table. As others have said, it's not notable if a character just didn't appear because their storyline was featured that week. Certainly it may be notable to say elsewhere that an actor only appeared in a certain number of shows, but without a reliable source commenting on it, is not notable by WP policy, and it is original research, so it shouldn't be included anywhere. Sure, credits are an acceptable primary source, but looking at a lack of credit and then inventing our own situation where this is notable is the very definition of OR and synthesis. I've said a few times that as a fan, I am interested in this kind of trivia, but no one has really presented a convincing argument that it meets the most basic Wikipedia-wide policies for inclusion on the basis of notability. There is no exception for reader interest, and if that interest was really there in the community at large there would be reliable sources talking about the topic.— TAnthonyTalk 15:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
why can't I include the credited victim (who had one line) or the waitress who had three lines?
The most those actors would receive would be a co-star credit, and we don't list actors with that credit as they are only minor/background characters and aren't really important to the plot of episodes like guest stars are since they have significant roles. It is perfectly notable that a character is absent. All of the starring/main cast members' names appear in the opening sequence, so the presumption is that, as Geraldo Perez stated, the main characters will always be present, and when they're not, we are feeding our readers incorrect information by not noting it. The opening sequence is always the same, with the sole exception of the slight changes they do for each season—for example, if it's a clip show type of opening sequence, they'll use different clips for season two than they did in season one—and doesn't exclude a main cast member just because they're not present in an episode which they still get paid for all the same as that is a perk of having a starring credit. It is also not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH as the episodes themselves serve as the primary sources and are supported by WP:V and therefore meet guidelines which, again, are guidelines—and they're called that for a reason—general practices, not some arbitrary set of top-down strict rules that we absolutely have to follow. And WP:SYNTH applies more to how many episodes there are in a season, anyway, not this. If the first three seasons of a series had 27, 29, and 23 episodes, respectively, and there was a season four renewal announcement that said season four would be the final season and it would bring the total number of episodes for the series up to 107, we can't just automatically put in 28 for the number of season four episodes and would have to wait until the season/series ended to put that information in. Doing that would be WP:SYNTH because two half-hour showings could be put together and finalized as hour showings twice throughout the season which would actually give us a total of 105 episodes for the series once it ended. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)- Like I said, the credits are an acceptable source, but your analysis of them insofar as who is not actually in the episode, and your presenting this as a notable situation, is what is OR/synthesis. The idea that not clarifying that a main character missed three episodes is
feeding our readers incorrect information
is a little overblown. As far as guest stars, many series don't designate "guest star" or "co-star" in the credits, and though I trust that we are not listing Waitress #1 anywhere, we should all acknowledge that as editors are often arbitrarily designating roles as important or not based our view of their contribution in the show. I don't necessarily think the current state of these lists is harmful, because it seems that editors like Amaury and IJBall are keeping them tight even if we're not agreeing on some of this content. But this stuff does fall out of the scope of our current guidelines. We ultimately need to adapt the guidelines or adjust/remove the content.— TAnthonyTalk 18:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)- I can't speak for all sitcoms as I only keep up with and track of sitcoms on Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, and Disney XD since that's what I mainly watch and have an interest in and therefore really the only areas I edit. (Obviously, I do watch shows outside these networks, but I don't keep up with and track of them like I do with sitcoms on the aforementioned three networks.) The sitcoms on those three networks make it perfectly clear who the guest stars are and who the co-stars are, if there are any of either present in an episode. So it is extremely easy to verify credits, and if an editor—usually IPs, though also accounts—adds someone listed as a co-start, we can simply revert them because they inserted a non-guest star. Again, it is not original research nor is it synthesis, and just because you keep saying it will not change the facts. And you're still thinking that guidelines are somehow ultimately binding like some top-down rules. They're not, hence why we call them guidelines which are general practices, not, again, some top-down rules which we must absolutely follow. See WP:BURO. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's not whether their actual role in the episode is significant, but I think we can see which guest stars are notable based on the reliable sources of the promotional material like trailers, television guide writeups, and news articles. The question then becomes how other actors billed at the same level of the promoted guest star in the credits should be listed besides ones that are identifiable as recurring. Some guides will list all of them if they are just a handful of guests every episode. Picking among those based on whether they said enough lines or whether they are more Wikipedia notable than other actors or had an impact on the story would be OR. The actor's filmographies would include their guest roles anyway. And there are other resources such as IMDB, TV.com, and Wikias that can detail every last bit of those. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Remembering the discussion you brought up on Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything in late 2015, which guest stars are notable in sitcoms is made clear by literally who's listed as a guest star in the end credits, though I can only speak for sitcoms on Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, and Disney XD since those are the networks I mainly watch and the only areas I really edit. So, because sitcoms make it clear who the guest stars are and who the co-stars are, there is zero confusion and all of those listed as guest stars are notable. If you want co-stars to be listed, places like IMDB and Wikias are more appropriate venues; that I agree with. Now, cartoons or animated cartoon-type shows—for example, Jimmy Neutron—are definitely a different story and I can agree with treading more carefully there with who we list as guest stars as they list everyone as guest stars—or additional voices—and it's not clear who exactly is a guest star. As for billing credits, the only authoritative place for those are the shows' episodes themselves. Even if a reliable source like a press release or a news site lists a writer's name as John L. Smith, if the on-screen written by credits on episodes show only John Smith, then we must list him as John Smith as that is how he has chosen to be credited for that show and possibly from that show forward. Just because he was previously credited as John L. Smith, or even John Lewis Smith, on other shows doesn't change the fact that he chose John Smith for current shows. This is why we wait to insert directors, writers, and even guest stars until episodes air as they are the only authoritative source. The only exception to this that I can think of is when an actor of a show posts a photo of the front cover of an episode script on their verified Twitter account or other social media accounts which shows the director, writer, and production code. That is the same as opening and closing credits as it comes from the show itself. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, Gamer's Guide was a good one that we discussed and came to the consensus to draw the line at listing all guest stars that appeared in closing credits, regardless of publicity, because the list was small for that kidcom. Further discussion could be done whether folks should be pulled as recurring, but given that it doesn't have a Cast section in the article, that wouldn't be needed either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- "
It's not whether their actual role in the episode is significant
" – It is about the significance of the role, not how famous the actor is, but when we are selective, the notability is determined by reliable sources and not Wikipedia editors anyway. Also, including credits from a press release or similar reliable source before the episode has aired is fine, but they should be corrected according to the episode credits once it airs if they're different, like we already do. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- "
- Yes, Gamer's Guide was a good one that we discussed and came to the consensus to draw the line at listing all guest stars that appeared in closing credits, regardless of publicity, because the list was small for that kidcom. Further discussion could be done whether folks should be pulled as recurring, but given that it doesn't have a Cast section in the article, that wouldn't be needed either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Remembering the discussion you brought up on Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything in late 2015, which guest stars are notable in sitcoms is made clear by literally who's listed as a guest star in the end credits, though I can only speak for sitcoms on Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, and Disney XD since those are the networks I mainly watch and the only areas I really edit. So, because sitcoms make it clear who the guest stars are and who the co-stars are, there is zero confusion and all of those listed as guest stars are notable. If you want co-stars to be listed, places like IMDB and Wikias are more appropriate venues; that I agree with. Now, cartoons or animated cartoon-type shows—for example, Jimmy Neutron—are definitely a different story and I can agree with treading more carefully there with who we list as guest stars as they list everyone as guest stars—or additional voices—and it's not clear who exactly is a guest star. As for billing credits, the only authoritative place for those are the shows' episodes themselves. Even if a reliable source like a press release or a news site lists a writer's name as John L. Smith, if the on-screen written by credits on episodes show only John Smith, then we must list him as John Smith as that is how he has chosen to be credited for that show and possibly from that show forward. Just because he was previously credited as John L. Smith, or even John Lewis Smith, on other shows doesn't change the fact that he chose John Smith for current shows. This is why we wait to insert directors, writers, and even guest stars until episodes air as they are the only authoritative source. The only exception to this that I can think of is when an actor of a show posts a photo of the front cover of an episode script on their verified Twitter account or other social media accounts which shows the director, writer, and production code. That is the same as opening and closing credits as it comes from the show itself. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Like I said, the credits are an acceptable source, but your analysis of them insofar as who is not actually in the episode, and your presenting this as a notable situation, is what is OR/synthesis. The idea that not clarifying that a main character missed three episodes is
@Wikipedical, EvergreenFir, TAnthony, AngusWOOF, Adamstom.97, Amaury, Joeyconnick, IJBall, Geraldo Perez, AussieLegend, AlexTheWhovian, Whats new?, Cyphoidbomb, MPFitz1968, Masem, and Nyuszika7h: Hi all. I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware that this is being discussed once again in the discussion to update, if needed, the TVCAST text. The discussion as a whole can be found here, while I created a discussion subsection here to readdress this. I hope you will all join again to discuss this and the other items users have added for discussion, including adding any of your own if you have any. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Cast in episode descriptions
Should one-shot cast members/guest stars be mentioned in episode descriptions? As in, "In the course of a routine mission, the team encountered John Smith (Fred Jones)." I've seen episode descriptions that cross-link to actors' pages in this form, but I've also had cross-links I've added reverted, with reference to this article. What's policy? Morfusmax (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- We are in the process of clarifying this at the moment, but no, they should not be included. Episode summaries are for summarising the plot, nothing more. Any cast information, if notable enough to be mentioned, should go in a cast/character section and/or a casting section further down the article. I know this is done at some articles, but it shouldn't be. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: So now you're even objecting to simple parenthetical mentions of notable guest stars within a plot summary? Sorry, but this is ridiculous. You and perhaps a handful of editors do not get to decide what should and shouldn't be done, when you have another handful disagreeing with you, there is NO consensus for the removal of such information. Of course, if a summary lists the guest stars afterwards, parenthetical notes would redundant, but I'm well aware you're even more opposed to that. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Aren't we in agreement here? Don't mention the actors if they are listed out in the cast section immediately following (which is the usual approach), but, otherwise, no problem? IanB2 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- This discission has been moved here. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Aren't we in agreement here? Don't mention the actors if they are listed out in the cast section immediately following (which is the usual approach), but, otherwise, no problem? IanB2 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: So now you're even objecting to simple parenthetical mentions of notable guest stars within a plot summary? Sorry, but this is ridiculous. You and perhaps a handful of editors do not get to decide what should and shouldn't be done, when you have another handful disagreeing with you, there is NO consensus for the removal of such information. Of course, if a summary lists the guest stars afterwards, parenthetical notes would redundant, but I'm well aware you're even more opposed to that. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Next TVMOS discussion on TVCAST has begun
The next discussion in the TVMOS overhaul and update has begun. It is focussed on the cast and characters section of the MOS. You can read and participate in the discussion here. Please join! -- Whats new?(talk) 23:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Plot summaries and copyright
Drawn to this page by the mention in the Signpost this week [6].
The following statement in the MOS appears to be factually untrue, and should perhaps be revised:
- A plot summary may only be included if an article has further commentary on the work; it will otherwise violate U.S. copyright laws, and therefore will not meet Wikipedia's non-free content policy.
This seems to reflect a view expressed by User:Masem above, that
- There is fair use aspects in describing a plot summary, but it is different from images or other type of media. most specifically that overly long plot summaries can represent too much copyright-taking of a work, and plot-only summaries have no aspects of transformation of information that lends to appropriate fair use purposes. As long as we use plot alongside secondary sources to talk about the production or reception of a work, and that plot summary stays concise, we are good.
But if we actually look at the most relevant cases, eg Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. RDR Books (the "Harry Potter Lexicon" case), that is not quite what courts have said, the judge in fact writing that:
- "Because it serves ... reference purposes, rather than the entertainment or aesthetic purposes of the original works, the Lexicon’s use is transformative and does not supplant the objects of the Harry Potter works."
What let the Lexicon down was its tendency towards "verbatim copying of ... highly aesthetic expression"; it was this, in particular the amount of original text it replicated from the slim spin-off volumes Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and Quidditch through the Ages, that caused the judge to find for the plaintiffs and block publication, rather than the plot summaries in the Lexicon's own words. Ultimately, as our article notes: "In 2009, RDR Books released an edited volume, eliminating the problematic long quotes found to be infringing." -- to join any number of other "unauthorised guides" to TV series and media franchises in bookshops, in many of which brief episodic plot summaries appear to be the dominant content, with other information or authorial comment often rather limited.
So: to collate and summarise information for reference purposes has been held by courts to be a transformative act (and some might say that's close to a definition of what an encylopedia does, and is for) -- without there necessarily being any (legal) requirement to discuss reception or production. Of course a good article ideally should do both of those things, if possible. But for the MOS to say it is legally required and that an article would "otherwise violate U.S. copyright laws" seems to me to go beyond the facts, and should be re-written. Jheald (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- In general agreement, but do keep in mind there are standalone television episode articles (more dating from WP's early days) that are plot summaries and nothing else. They could be expanded with secondary information in most cases, and just need to be, but it still needs to be emphasized why notability for these things is important - it provides the transformative material as we need for an encyclopedia to keep any copyright issues - even with a super-long plot summary - at bay. Most everything else, though, is about proper "style" and when too much is a problem from that standpoint. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- So I think what you're saying is that production and reception information can help justify even quite detailed plot summaries in copyright terms, if the detail helps for appreciation/understanding of that information; but that even without production and reception information there should be no (legal) objection to comparatively concise summaries. Have I got you right? Jheald (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Are you trying to argue for plot only articles? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Bignole: I'm saying that the rationale stated in the MOS for objecting to them doesn't seem to hold. And of course there's a general case that once you have a stub, then that gives a focus for people, if they have more information they can add -- eg production code, guest cast, etc, etc. Of course there are also people that object to stub articles, as not helping to present WP well; and that if there is only limited information on a topic, it looks better to present it all in one place, rather than splitting it out between different micro-articles. There are arguments to be made on both sides, and I wasn't particularly taking a position. But the statement being made in the MOS that a plot-only article cannot exist, because it would be a copyright infringement, seems to me to be false -- particularly if the plot summary is as short as the MOS seems to call for. Jheald (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Well, copyright infringement does exist as an issue. It becomes a derivative work. The case you presented, which got into trouble for using text verbatim, was still at least providing additional information around the text they were using. A plot only article by definition would not be providing anything else, and thus would be considered a derivative work. That said, when we say "plot only articles", we're not referring to pages with a 3 sentence plot. We're talking about pages that are 800 word plot summaries and nothing else. Cast list and stuff like that would not be enough to justify having a summary. Even if you want to get into a debate about whether there could or couldn't be legal action (as there has been court cases on derivative works, see WP:FAIRUSE), we still have WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is a policy. The MOS is here to outline how to build an article so that it isn't just considered that, because in the end Wikipedia is not a substitute for watching or reading anything, which is why we summarize. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Bignole: I'm saying that the rationale stated in the MOS for objecting to them doesn't seem to hold. And of course there's a general case that once you have a stub, then that gives a focus for people, if they have more information they can add -- eg production code, guest cast, etc, etc. Of course there are also people that object to stub articles, as not helping to present WP well; and that if there is only limited information on a topic, it looks better to present it all in one place, rather than splitting it out between different micro-articles. There are arguments to be made on both sides, and I wasn't particularly taking a position. But the statement being made in the MOS that a plot-only article cannot exist, because it would be a copyright infringement, seems to me to be false -- particularly if the plot summary is as short as the MOS seems to call for. Jheald (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Adding dev + reception further reduces any issue with fair use with long plot summaries, but from an encyclopedic view, there are other problems:
- The longer a plot summary is, the more is potentially can get into original research, speculation, and interpretation. It doesn't always happen, but it can. This also pushes on the concern that plot summaries are implicitly sourced to the work it is about. While true, long plot summaries without even explicit primary sourcing can be problematic.
- Long plots are a magnet for trivia, particularly for works with an invested fanbase.
- There are other aspects of WP:NOT beside NOT#PLOT that long plots (written as I see them) tend to run afoul off, particularly NOTDIR and NOTGUIDE.
- For a large number of works, the actual plot is of minimal importance compared to production details, or critical reaction to actors/direction. So within the scope of WP:UNDUE, focusing too much on plot over these other details is inappropriate.
- Thus, it is desirable to keep plot short even with extensive development and reception section. If there is actual serious discussion of the plot (and this is usually related to narrative themes identified from third-parties than exacting details), that might warrant a larger plot summary so the themes can be explained out. Plots should be seen as a necessary supporting element of a good article on a fictional work, not as the principle piece of it. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Are you trying to argue for plot only articles? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Can I just point out that WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO issues are diametrically opposed? That is, a plot that engages in one will be, of necessity, not engaging in the other. I suppose one could say that a long plot summary could veer towards either extreme, but let's be clear that both cannot happen at the same time. Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that is necessarily true. If someone wrote a massive COPYVIO summary that also included some OR elaboration, I would call them out for both. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- So I think what you're saying is that production and reception information can help justify even quite detailed plot summaries in copyright terms, if the detail helps for appreciation/understanding of that information; but that even without production and reception information there should be no (legal) objection to comparatively concise summaries. Have I got you right? Jheald (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
As above, I am not convinced that we are understanding what OR is here? I quote: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". It does not refer to picking and choosing between facts that can be verified, or choosing the words used to summarise them. So, in a PLOT context, nothing that actually happens in an episode can possibly be OR. Something that may or may not have happened (for example offscreen, or in relation to a character's thoughts or motivation), or conclusions about a plot's meaning, interpretation or implications, is OR unless a reputable source has already published the same view. IanB2 (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly, if it is not explicitly shown or stated then adding it is OR. So if a series has two moments that are implicitly connected, we can summarise two moments that are implicitly connected, but we shouldn't explicitly connect them ourselves. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Routine calculations are not classified as OR
I have made the following edit: If average viewership numbers are included, they should be adequately sourced, and not the result of your own calculations as this would constitute original research. Sourcing is crucial for accuracy, and to help other editors quickly respond to numerical vandalism.. Routine calculations are not classified as OR as per WP:CALC (which is part of WP:OR policy). I can understand the reason for the MoS point and I am not looking to dispute its decision - but I don't think it is right, nor needs, to justify it's existence with a fallacy. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- I am mixed on this issue. I do see that averaging sourced ratings figures should be an easy enough calculation by hand, but I also think it brings up a number of issues in certain circumstances. For example, where episodes are of varying lengths or ratings are split into two figures for same episode (eg. in Australian ratings it is common for reality shows to be split into a second ratings figure for the final 15 minutes of an episode where there is an elimination or winner announced to get a higher peak in press). Conducting averages in these cases are not so straight forward. There is also the case when a reliable source includes an average that differs from the calculated one. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that this section also makes too strong a point. I think it should be changed to emphasize that any calculations on average viewership should be based on uniform, RS'ed calculations. That is, apples-to-apples numbers for a whole season, ideally from the same reliable source. That way, when an average is done, it's very clear what is being averaged, and since each element of the calculation (e.g., each episode viewership) is RS'ed, the resultant calculation is not only straightforward, but any reader can re-do it if they want. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)