AussieLegend (talk | contribs) →Episode list titles: new section |
|||
Line 226: | Line 226: | ||
*Unless there is a template created for reality TV contestant progress tables, this discussion is going to be fruitless. [[User:Heartfox|Heartfox]] ([[User talk:Heartfox|talk]]) 05:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
*Unless there is a template created for reality TV contestant progress tables, this discussion is going to be fruitless. [[User:Heartfox|Heartfox]] ([[User talk:Heartfox|talk]]) 05:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
||
::As the original post in this section states, {{ping|Heartfox}}, this is intended to lead to exactly that type of template. [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:#FF7400; color:#FFFFFF;">Eggishorn</span>]] [[User talk:Eggishorn|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Eggishorn|(contrib)]] 05:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
::As the original post in this section states, {{ping|Heartfox}}, this is intended to lead to exactly that type of template. [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:#FF7400; color:#FFFFFF;">Eggishorn</span>]] [[User talk:Eggishorn|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Eggishorn|(contrib)]] 05:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Episode list titles == |
|||
Please see the discussion I have started regarding episode list titles at [[WT:TV]]. The discussion is [[WT:TV#Episode list titles|here]]. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:#008751;">Aussie</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 17:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:57, 17 July 2021
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
Television Project‑class | |||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Discussion at Talk:Awake (TV series) § Merging proposal from List of Awake episodes into Awake (TV series)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Awake (TV series) § Merging proposal from List of Awake episodes into Awake (TV series). — YoungForever(talk) 13:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48
Discussion at Talk:The Mighty Ducks: Game Changers § Co-starring
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Mighty Ducks: Game Changers § Co-starring. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. — YoungForever(talk) 13:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48
RfC about elimination-style reality programs
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Question: In elimination-style reality television programming, how should the progress of contestants be presented? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Explanation
Reality television programs are often presented as elimination-style competitions, with one or more contestants removed from the program in each episode. Examples: Survivor, The Bachelor, America's Next Top Model, etc. Some such programs use additional mechanics such as immunity or returning contestants. It is standard practice to describe these events in prose in articles about such programs. These events are also often summarized in a table. Such progress tables attract controversy, good-faith errors, disruptive editing, and personal attacks in some shows. See here or here, or here for examples. The widespread use of these tables in such shows demonstrates and implicit consensus at the project level that these are useful. This record of disruption has also caused edit wars and talk page discussions about individual franchises or seasons/series. A recent RfC that removed such a table from one season of one version of the RuPaul's Drag Race show has been challenged on the basis that the explicit consensus at that page makes it incompatible with the implicit consensus at a larger level. It would be beneficial to the project if a MOS-level explicit consensus on the inclusion or exclusion of those tables.
Note: This RfC has been placed here because of the existence of prior-authorized discretionary sanctions should reduce the disruption that has previously attended questions about these programs. It is not a WP:PROPOSAL for a new guideline. It only seeks to establish a WP:CONSENSUS at a general level about these tables. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)updated links to address Heartfox's concerns. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 11:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Added link to this discussion to WP:CD per request of Rhododendrites below. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Options
Please select only one of these options:
- In articles about elimination-style reality television programs, progress of contestants should be presented in a table.
- In articles about elimination-style reality television programs, by default progress of contestants should be presented in a table but there are circumstances that may justify excluding a table.
- In articles about elimination-style reality television programs, by default progress of contestants should be presented in prose only but there are circumstances that may justify including a table.
- In articles about elimination-style reality television programs, progress of contestants should be presented in prose only.
Survey (elimination-style reality programs)
- Option 2, with the circumstances to be based principally at the per-show level - rarely if ever at a per-season level. That is, each season of a show should be consistent in its use of such a table, and the table presented consistently across that show. I can see some elim-style reality shows not requiring that and thus allowing case-by-case by show, but I can't see this case-by-case per season (as with the problematic RuPaul Drag Race season) unless a show undergoes a major reformulation of its rules to change how elimination may work. I would add that this should not need apply to international versions of the same show though I would argue if the rules are fairly consistent in these versions, the approach should also be consistent between show pages (eg I can speak to the various international versions of The Amazing Race having fairly consistent rulesets so expect the format of each season page of any version of that show to be about the same). --Masem (t) 17:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm closest to Option 4 (i.e. should be reported in episode summaries in the episodes table), but there may be merit in Option 3, in some cases. But presenting reality TV show results in tables as the pro forma approach is massively problematic due violating WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE – and the more "detailed" the table is, the more it violates the latter (well, both, really), esp. when not secondarily sourced (which is pretty much always the case). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is definitely an issue with far too much detail, OR, inuniverse stuff going on on some of the tables. eg with the Survivor articles, while the elimination table makes sense, the voting tables and contestant tables tend to become overkill. But most elimination shows as tracked by RSes when they do cover them clearly stress the elimination progress as a key factor, so it makes sense for the elimination tables to be present. However, this itself would be a separate RFC or discussion elsewhere. --Masem (t) 19:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 (to avoid a blanket rule that doesn't allow for exceptions) and I agree with Masem that it should be on a per-show basis. I think elimination-style reality shows have more in common with sports than with fictional TV shows (dramas, sitcoms, soaps). The progress tables can be a useful reader-friendly summary of the season, though I'm not saying every show has done the best job at that (there's a tendency to try to cram in too much detail). Schazjmd (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- After witnessing the multicar pile-up at the RuPaul 2 talk page/RfC I am keen to avoid any usage of tables whatsoever, putting me right off Options 1 or 2. I'd say my preference is Option 4, with a second choice for pragmatism of Option 3. For me, the main thing about any use of tables is that they are useful, which appeared to be a low priority in the discussions (arguments? firefights? carpet-bombing?) I witnessed. Any such table should be clear and quickly understandable by an uninitiated reader, accessible to anyone with color-blindness or low visual acuity, using a dinky phone, a wide-screen browser or a screen reader. If those conditions are held, then Option 3 is less of a problem. I absolutely do not believe a table is a must. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1 (first choice), Option 2 (second choice). I am very disappointed in the RFC close at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)/Archive 2#Ground rules. That RFC is essentially a microcosm of this one. It was an RFC to keep, reformat, or remove a contestant progress table from a reality show article. Forgive me for going into detail about that RFC, but because it is so similar, I think it is relevant.
- The RFC was closed against numerical consensus. This close upset some editors, and left that article as the only article in a 25-article series without a contestant progress table. The closer cited MOS:ACCESS and anti-vandalism concerns as reasons to override the de facto WP:SILENT consensus for these contestant progress tables. I find this to be a dangerous precedent. Just because we have policies and guidelines against vandalism and in support of accessibility, does not mean that we should use these PAGs to go nuking contestant progress tables in articles. In my opinion, this is an unnecessary destruction of useful, concisely presented knowledge.
- Additionally, I find the anti-vandalism argument to be unconvincing. Many of our articles (perhaps even millions) have been vandalized. It is the nature of having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Because vandalism is such a perennial problem spanning all types of articles, we have excellent tools for dealing with this, such as WP:RFPP, WP:HUGGLE, etc. In my opinion, stopping vandalism should not be used as a reason to mass delete useful content.
- I also think this issue affects public relations and editor retention, in the sense that uglifying or deleting these tables, and full protecting their corresponding articles in order to enforce it (the article in question was full protected for months, both before, during, and after the RFC), is very offputting to the IP editors that are probably our main content creators for these articles. Evidence of this is, in the aforementioned article and RFC, the many full protected edit requests we received to put the table back from IP editors who were not aware of the RFC. Despite the RFC closing system being set up to ignore arguments like this because they don't cite a PAG, we should consider the bigger picture of what forcing through these unpopular RFC closes does to the editing experience and motivation of IP content creators. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- (Not sure if I'm allowed to comment here as an IP, if not, ignore this.) Option 2 or 3, but I think we need a further RFC to come up with some guidelines on how to design these tables. I think these tables are a reasonable way of presenting information, and as evidenced by the large number of complaints on the talk page for RuPaul's Drag Race after the table was removed they seem to be useful for our readers too. I think that the issue that results in most of these disputes is that we don't have a Manual of style or set of guidelines on how to design these things, which results in every TV series essentially doing it's own thing with a huge variance in the style between articles. Naturally there is going to need to be variance between shows due to each having a different structure, but some overarching guidelines on usual levels of detail, use of colour and how we should use text would help resolve most of the disputes. I think it would also be worth specifying that summary tables can only use classifications\data that is properly sourced in the main body of the article, as a lot of these tables seem to contain major elements of original research and/or fancruft. Looking at a few examples:
- RuPaul's Drag Race (season 1)'s table requires a key with 12 elements to understand. Where is the data on who got positive/no/negative critiques coming from, I can't see it anywhere else in the rest of the article. Despite the table using acronyms in each box these aren't tied to the key in any way, so it still relies solely on colour to convey information. Two of the boxes are coded as "white with the word SAFE written on it" and "Pale cream with the word SAFE written on it" which even as someone with no issues seeing colours are almost impossible to tell apart.
- The Great British Bake Off (series 1) takes a completely different approach, the main table contains basically no text and relies entirely on shades of blue and purple to convey information (again, accessibility). I can't see where the information on who was the judge's favourite has come from? Do we need a key to say that the box with "winner" in it means they were the winner?
- MasterChef Australia (series 1) Contains an absolutely enormous elimination chart so big it won't fit on my screen, that includes a breakdown of each individual event within the show. It's a complex beast and there's no key explaining what any of it means (what does IN mean? why are various contestants in cells in the table? what does I.T. Winner mean?).
- Again I don't think the major issue that leads to conflict here is the existence of the tables per se, it's that we have no master template or overall guidelines for designing them which leads to a huge variation in content. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: This RfC explanation needs better links. Two of the "here" just link to an archive with no section link. I'm not looking through an entire noticeboard to find one section. Also, two of the reality TV articles linked are disambiguations. Heartfox (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2. In many cases the elimination table works as the reality TV form of a "cast and characters" section. I don't see people advocating for the removal of those sections in fictional series with long character descriptions... In the RuPaul RfC, the closer wrote "the disruption and accessibility arguments must be given precedence". What? The two things that can be fixed via page protection and simple syntax justify the removal of the entire table? If some tables have an unjust amount of detail, then there should be a consensus to remove such info. If there is a consensus to remove all of a series' tables, then remove them. The arguments against the tables here are mainly about other issues which already have guidelines. Information is already not to be presented in-universe. It is supposed to meet accessibility standards. So make the tables meet them?? To nuke thousands of tables because one had an edit war is ridiculous. Heartfox (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd like better options in the RfCs to choose from. In that, I mean, I'd like to see a proposal for a MoS supported table and for prose sections that convey the important information. The examples above from the IP user are exactly the type which make me back away from every reality article I've come across. The content, style, colors and minute information problems are so massive that those tables can't be "fixed". If someone can present their idea of how these should look like, I'll be able to much better give an opinion on this matter. Sadly, if no version is presented until this RfC closes, then to the closer, my opinion is no tables at all. Please ping me if there are examples. --Gonnym (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know that any of the options in this RfC match my views, but I hold to three major principles: 1) Tables for these reality shows should never contain information that isn't also already in the prose; 2) Tables must be designed for WP:ACCESSIBILITY; and 3) Shows should be consistent in the use and design of tables across all seasons. Tables aren't always necessary, and may not be valuable in particular cases - the normal edit process and consensus should be used to make that determination as well as design considerations on a per-series basis. On ACCESSIBILITY in particular - no information should EVER be presented by color *alone*. If you design the tables without any color first, and they are readable, then you can add light color to accentuate. Most problems are from editors designing tables backwards. -- Netoholic @ 13:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: FTR, I fully agree with this, and all of the other previous comments, that if there are to be "elimination" tables they must following guidelines like MOS:ACCESS and MOS:COLOR, and as I said earlier cannot run afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and WP:INUNIVERSE). Further, I am seeing a definite consensus against "Option 1" – IOW, I think there appears to be a consensus against "requiring" that "elimination tables" be used. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1 I don't believe a prose-only approach will work well for articles such as Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, The Bachelor (American season 25), The Amazing Race 31, etc. without everything being cumbersome and disorganized. If the result is to go with Option 2 (my second choice), then it should be on a per-show basis as others have mentioned above. Some1 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2, the table is the least cumbersome option most of the time. I won't vote for option 1 because some elimination reality shows may differ from the norm.--Droid I am (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 4 - per WP:ACCESSIBILITY, MOS:COLOR, unwarranted abbreviations, nondiscrimination resolution and Accessibility. We shouldn't be deliberately denying access to content to our visually impaired readers and editors. If a table must be used, then it must be accessibility compliant, like this one, (mistakenly and rudely described by an editor above as "uglifying"), this table would work with a few minor tweaks. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is 100% an issue with these tables become inaccessible, overly detailed, etc., and I would strongly propose that, assuming the tables are kept in this RFC, a second RFC is used to established fundamental formatting aspects as to address these problems. It would require a bit of some standardization across tables (as to maximum number of colors, the colors to use for accessibility, etc.) but that is fixable. --Masem (t) 02:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- And the legends invariably stink. I agree about the follow-up RfC if consensus is found in favor of allowing or (gulp!) mandating tables. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is 100% an issue with these tables become inaccessible, overly detailed, etc., and I would strongly propose that, assuming the tables are kept in this RFC, a second RFC is used to established fundamental formatting aspects as to address these problems. It would require a bit of some standardization across tables (as to maximum number of colors, the colors to use for accessibility, etc.) but that is fixable. --Masem (t) 02:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- The reality WP never stops to surprise me. I've now learned that they've created single-use templates that hold the table content such as Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5. I'll be nominating this batch this week as content should not be held in templates (unlike a table format, which is fine). --Gonnym (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Gonnym, I think I read they did this for anti-vandalism reasons. You may want to reach out to the table creator CCamp2013 and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race to get clarification. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2: I agreed with Masem's explanation and believe this option makes the most sense. — YoungForever(talk) 00:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 is the fairest compromise. It does appear that reality show articles have crossed into Wikia/Fandom territory, perhaps unchecked, and perhaps given more allowance than is fair on other parts of Wikipedia. I know how passionate editors are about these pages, but also how the tables have become creatures that are never full no matter how much you feed them. Let's row back, and as Masem suggests, agree a structure going forward so the tables don't become monsters again. doktorb wordsdeeds 03:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 feels like the best going across the board for reality TV programs. A majority of the time these tables tell more about how contestants generally perform throughout their respective competitions than the descriptions do (in terms of those who excel at that specified challenge or struggle), especially when it is ultimately a larger investment to put that kind of detail in to the episode summaries themselves that usually aren't being done (which usually get shortened per wikipedia guidelines). I myself being color blind do find these tables easy to read if the variety of colors is the main concern for some users! *apologies if I as a non-registered user cannot comment* 199.8.28.39 (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 It seems to be the better option. Sea Ane (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 4 avoiding a table is better per the arguments I gave at the RuPaul RFC (accessibility, less prone to fancruft, ...). Additionally, by explicitly favouring prose instead of tables, this will avoiding a table encourages writing in a more encyclopedic style, by using independent, secondary sources and favourising summary of content instead of listing too much information and sticking in WP:FANCRUFT and WP:RECENTISM, as well as solving potential issues of accessibility, since prose is unambiguously more accessible. Now, this might seem an argument for option 4, and it is. However, as per WP:IAR/WP:5P5, there might be instances where a table format could be used without being too much in Fandom territory. This should of course be an exception and not the rule, unlike at the moment. Hence I'm open to option 3, but that's already a natural corollary of option 4 combined with normal Wikipedia policy and guidelines, hence I don't think we need to state it explicitly, lest it be taken as implicit encouragement to find such exceptions (which should be rare). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I actually have an issue with prose in some reality show formats because they also lead to fancruft and WP:WAF-type problems (in terms of interpretation of what's important, etc.) A prose only approach could work for shows like The Amazing Race, where the format is pretty much fixed (there's locations teams go to, they do tasks that are set for them, and move on, so we only describe the race from those simple data points). But then you get to shows like Survivor (TV series) where the fundamental aspect of the show isn't the challenges that are put to the players but the scheming that happens outside those parts, and that's where I've seen our articles get far too in-depth there. Even with the Drag Race articles, using the one with the progress table removed RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2), the prose per episode is too much and gets into details that are unnecessary. As (at least from the little I've seen of it), Drag Race is not a backstabbing/scheming type show, and simply one that involves challenges and judging rather than inter-playing voting-off, these should be able to written very flatly, and that's where a table (without all the cruft) can help quickly with summaries. I agree the current tables on other Drag Race articls are too excessive in level of detail, but prose here isn't a suitable replacement for how they are currently written either. --Masem (t) 21:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's a decent point. But, as you say, not all shows share this format. The many examples of unhelpful, Fandom-style tables suggests we should be enforcing guidelines about writing an encyclopedia and not a fansite more strictly than less. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Pretending almost everything will work perfectly in prose shows a complete lack of awareness about the consequences of your opinions. You clearly aren't familiar with this space either because you think secondary sources are required for basic results verifiable by the episode. They're not. The episode descriptions in the RuPaul episodes are way more fancruft-y than the table that was deleted. For stuff that doesn't meet MOS, you're supposed to fix it, not remove everything as if it's a massive copyright violation. I'm tired of people treating tables as automatic fancruft and useless. Tables are in the MOS and there are easy ways to make them accessible. If you want to remove tables from Wikipedia then go make an RfC. Maybe it'll end up like the one you withdrew because it had universal opposition. Like an editor said there, "The proposal to change it with prose description is merely table-phobia". The solution is not to delete everything, it's to come to a consensus about what the level of detail should be in the tables—which for some series at the moment—should be reduced. Heartfox (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Your insinuations about a legitimate question which was asked via RfC (and which had some support in the preliminary discussion) are not helpful, and borderline impolite. You're also misrepresenting my position. TV plots don't require secondary sources, but using only primary sources without any secondary ones leads to style issues and fancruft. WP:PRIMARY tells that such sources should only be used for indisputable facts (with some margin for encyclopedic summary), or interpretations which are obvious to any educated reader such as simple arithmetics. Seeing how often we end up with WP:PLOTBLOAT - for all sorts of stuff, not just for reality TV - I'm not convinced that giving free rein in an area which so far looks closer to Fandom than reasonable is helpful, either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I actually have an issue with prose in some reality show formats because they also lead to fancruft and WP:WAF-type problems (in terms of interpretation of what's important, etc.) A prose only approach could work for shows like The Amazing Race, where the format is pretty much fixed (there's locations teams go to, they do tasks that are set for them, and move on, so we only describe the race from those simple data points). But then you get to shows like Survivor (TV series) where the fundamental aspect of the show isn't the challenges that are put to the players but the scheming that happens outside those parts, and that's where I've seen our articles get far too in-depth there. Even with the Drag Race articles, using the one with the progress table removed RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2), the prose per episode is too much and gets into details that are unnecessary. As (at least from the little I've seen of it), Drag Race is not a backstabbing/scheming type show, and simply one that involves challenges and judging rather than inter-playing voting-off, these should be able to written very flatly, and that's where a table (without all the cruft) can help quickly with summaries. I agree the current tables on other Drag Race articls are too excessive in level of detail, but prose here isn't a suitable replacement for how they are currently written either. --Masem (t) 21:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2, with second preference being 4, and expressing a strong wish for a followup RFC if anything but 4 becomes consensus on establishing fundamental MOS level guidelines for progress tabel layout. While I truly think these tables provide a use, a lot of the current ones have becomes bloated, and far worse in accessible due to a over use of colours and acronyms. Making tables the default, with the option to not have them and establising fundamental guidelines in a follow up RFC seems the best way to resolve this issue. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 16:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- [Option 5]: Tables are an excellent visual aid for competitions, and should be included, but they're not a substitute for prose, which should ideally also be present in some way. - Seemed like this one was missing. To be clear, though, I'm not saying that all of the details present in the table should be in prose or vice versa, but that they're not mutually exclusive and both have value. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- BTW this will affect quite a lot of pages, so should be linked from WP:CENT IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1 - in general, I'm of the opinion that better prose makes for better articles, but prose about the progress of contestants can too easily lead to overly intricate detail, vastly overwrriten "plot summaries", and in general make for worse articles. By default, this material should be presented in straightforward, easy-to-read tables, with prose reserved for other parts of the article. These sections are generally, on some level, synthesis and original research, so tables make them much less messy. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 4 We are an encyclopedia. We deal in prose. ~ HAL333 15:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 with the same caveat that Rhododendrites gives. Prose is useful, but so are tables. No one says we shouldn't use charts, graphs, or images to distill information, our guidelines just point out that we should not use images as a complete replacement for textual information. The same for tables. Tables and text are not mutually exclusive, in fact they almost always are most useful together. Why would we make a casual reader search through multiple paragraphs for a simple fact when we can present it in a simple, structured fashion? More detailed prose should be available for those who want more detail, but we should not be making it harder to find information quickly since helping find information quickly is the whole point of a reference work. Anyone who thinks encyclopedias don't have tables should go read an encyclopedia. No one has given a compelling reason that contestant progression in elimination-style TV shows as a class are unlike any other elimination-style competition. 2018 FIFA World Cup#Group stage is also based on primary sources, and football articles are routinely vandalized by fans and rival fans, yet tables still manage to work fine. FIDE World Chess Championship 2004 uses brackets and tables to supplement textual descriptions of the tournament. We use tables for those articles and across hundreds of elimination-style reality TV articles because they are useful. In the rare instance that a table makes an article worse, then we obviously should remove it, but not liking reality TV shows or not wanting to do the work of maintaining an encyclopedia isn't a reason to deprive readers of useful visual aids. — Wug·a·po·des 20:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 An efficient, well-designed way to present information and the natural consensus here so far. Maybe there is some circumstance where prose would be better, hence not option 1, but I imagine that 99% of the time, a table is the best way to do it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 tables are a useful way to present information - which should also be present in prose. Per Masem, it is reasonable to allow exceptions to be considered. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2', although I have spent FAR too much mental energy on this topic now. A useful visual aid and summary that restricts overly-repetitive prose ("x, y, and z were high; a, b, and c were low" every week). Spa-Franks (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Edit: Just because I wasn't particularly clear, I'm either misreading option one, or it implies we add tables where there are currently none, which sounds a bit... silly to me. Spa-Franks (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2/1 These tables are excellent ways to summarize the season's cast and the major events of each episode. It's not clear to me when they should ever be removed. Reywas92Talk 18:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like information from someone with experience, on the usability of these tables with screen readers. DGG ( talk ) 10:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2. I completely and fully agree with everything Masem said, particularly that inclusion/exclusion should be at the show not season level. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1, because its wording already implies that there could be exceptions. Or option 2 if some editors believe that that needs to be specified. The word "should" generally means that the practice is recommended but not required ("must", "shall", or "is required" would be used to indicate a requirement). I agree with several editors above who have noted that the elimination table serves as a useful summary of information, and that removing such tables would be analogous to removing the bracket graphic from 2021 Stanley Cup playoffs, 2018 FIFA World Cup, etc. Obviously there are issues that are separate from whether to include tables. The relevant policies should be followed such as MOS:ACCESS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:FANCRUFT, etc (and of course WP:BLP due to most of these TV show contestants being living people). 23:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
- Option 2 first choice over option 1, generally useful, well-maintained, and sensible. Accessbility is important, but removing information entirely is inferior to removing information for a small subset of users. Therefore, I encourage prose summaries in addition to tables. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 with a followup RfC establishing strong accessibility guidelines for the tables, particularly the use of colour. firefly ( t · c ) 16:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 Tables are an excellent way to summarize complex information at a glance. However they are not always needed, so it should be somewhat up to local consensus. Tables should also be explained in prose, but I am against the idea that prose should take priority over tables, or somehow exclude tables. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1, 2 or 5, per the mental smartness articulated by people like Novem Linguae and Rhododendrites above. I am sure that there are some tables that look like ass; this is not an argument against the idea of tables, any more than a section of prose that looks like ass is an argument against the idea of writing prose. I can go outside and take a poorly-exposed photo, is this proof that we should stop having images in articles? And, hey, images present accessibility issues as well. As for disruption, I would hazard a guess that the reason a bunch of people are getting mad and saying "this makes no sense" is probably because it makes no sense. jp×g 16:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 as tables are an effective way to present this sort of information, though there can still be exceptions owing to the structure of the show. While there are a number of bloated and inaccessible tables on this site, they do provide important information that readers of an article expect, and thus should be fixed, not nuked like a copyvio. — csc-1 13:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
RfC about main cast order
Question: Should the onscreen credits determine how the main cast is ordered? Bluerules (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Explanation
Some series only credit main cast members if they appear in an episode. This can create a discrepancy between how the credits and television articles order the main cast because MOS:TVCAST dictates that "new" main cast members be placed below those who appeared in the credits earlier. Under this guideline, it is irrelevant where a cast member is billed if they were not in the season premiere.
There has not been debate over whether a season 2 main cast member should be below the original main cast. The contention here is with ordering main cast members from the same season. For example, Colman Domingo joined the main cast of Fear the Walking Dead in season 2, where he was billed above regulars Mercedes Mason, Lorenzo James Henrie, and Rubén Blades from the first season. The parent article identifies Domingo as a later addition to the main cast by putting him below these three, while the season 2 article reflects the onscreen credits by placing him above them. However, the season 2 article also places Michelle Ang at the bottom, despite the credits billing her above Blades. This is because her name did not appear in the credits until the third episode. However, contrary to the current guideline, the first revision of the page used the credits to order Ang above Blades and this was retained for over two years.
The Fear the Walking Dead season 2 article isn't the only case of editors initially following the credits over MOS:TVCAST when ordering the main cast. Other examples include the Doom Patrol parent article (Joivan Wade was billed third, but not added until the second episode), The Witcher parent article (every main cast member billed above Eamon Farren except Henry Cavill and Freya Allan was added later), The Exorcist parent article (Zuleikha Robinson was the highest billed season 2 addition, but didn't appear until the third episode), the Swamp Thing parent article (Jennifer Beals was billed above Will Patton, but wasn't added until the second episode), and the Game of Thrones season 1 article (Peter Dinklage was billed last, but Aidan Gillen appeared later). Some articles, such as the Too Old to Die Young parent, the Jessica Jones parent, and Jessica Jones season 1 still utilize the credits over when the main cast members appeared. For example, the two Jessica Jones articles place Wil Traval fourth, despite him not appearing until the third episode, because that's where the credits billed him.
Both methods of ordering the main cast have their own advantages. The current MOS:TVCAST guideline is a more straightforward approach, while the onscreen credits order is more accurate to the article's subject.
Edit: To hopefully clear up confusion, here is an example of how each option would impact a parent and season article. For context, Chelsea Zhang, Joshua Orpin, Minka Kelly, Alan Ritchson, and Esai Morales all joined the main cast of Titans in the second season. Zhang and Orpin were billed higher, while Kelly, Ritchson, and Morales appeared in the credits earlier. Bluerules (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
How each option would impact specific articles |
In option 1, Minka Kelly, Alan Ritchson, and Esai Morales would remain higher than Chelsea Zhang and Joshua Orpin on the Titans parent article and the Titans season 2 article. |
In option 2, Chelsea Zhang and Joshua Orpin would be ordered higher than Minka Kelly, Alan Ritchson, and Esai Morales on the Titans parent article and the Titans season 2 article. |
In option 3, Minka Kelly, Alan Ritchson, and Esai Morales would be higher on the Titans parent article, while Chelsea Zhang and Joshua Orpin would be higher on the Titans season 2 article. |
Options
Please select only one of these options:
- Only the initial onscreen credits should be used in ordering the main cast on parent and season articles, with later additions placed lower.
- The onscreen credits should determine how the main cast is ordered on parent articles, taking into account the season where the actors joined the main cast, and season articles.
- The current policy on ordering the main cast should be retained for parent articles, while the onscreen credits determine the main cast order on season articles.
Survey (main cast order)
- Option 1: I've always applied the wording of MOS:TVCAST to both parent and season articles so the cast listing of the first episode is used for the initial listing and then new examples are added to the end of the list. An example can be seen at Grey's Anatomy (season 2), Kate Walsh began receiving a credit as a series regular in the seventh episode of the season and was placed third from the end but is the last to be listed in the Wikipedia article because she wasn't credited in that spot for the first six episodes effectively making her a "new" cast member in the seventh episode. The same idea is applied to the third season where Eric Dane begins receiving main billing in the third episode and is credited third from the bottom but remains at the bottom in the Wikipedia article for the same reason. An example that may complicate the other options if chosen: Doctor Who (series 4), out of the 13 episodes that aired four episodes had three series regulars, two episodes had six series regulars, while the other seven episodes only had two. In the first three episodes that had three Freema Agyeman is listed third while in the second fourth that had three Billie Piper was listed third. Where things get complicated is that in the two with six Agyeman is still credited third but Piper is credited sixth. So by the logic of any of the other options where would she be placed? Third (which would compete with Agyeman's five episodes of third)? Sixth (since that's where she was place for two of her three episodes)? Currently the article places her fourth since she was the fourth series regular credited in the season as a whole and then continues to add people who came after her below her since she came first even though they were credited before her in the series. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- TheDoctorWho - Similar to how the original main cast cannot be supplanted by new season additions on the parent article, the other options would dictate that main cast members cannot be moved on their own. Their position may only change on the season article if the credits bill them below a later-appearing cast member. This approach would also be used on parent articles if both main cast members joined in the same season. Fear the Walking Dead actually had the same issue with its fourth season: Lennie James was billed last in the first half, but the second half gave him top billing. If the second or third options were utilized, the solution would be to keep him last.
- As mentioned by adamstom97 below, what complicates the first option is "new" cast members may not actually be "new". This discrepancy becomes most apparent on season articles where veteran cast members can be placed low in the order simply because they weren't in the season premiere. For example, the Game of Thrones season 3 article has Nikolaj Coster-Waldau listed 22nd in the cast section. Coster-Waldau is billed second, but because he didn't appear until the second episode of the season, he goes down 20 spots from where the show places him. This discrepancy is highlighted by the lede, where Coster-Waldau is one of only five main cast members identified as being in the season and is listed second. Should Coster-Waldau be 22nd in the cast section when the lede is saying he's the second-most prominent cast member? He wasn't a "new" cast member, he was part of the series (and the main cast) from the beginning. Bluerules (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Bluerules: Taking your Game of Thrones example I believe Coster-Waldau is placed correctly. The note listed in the MOS:TVCAST section states "
Note that "new cast members" does not necessarily mean cast members new to a series, although it can. It refers to any cast member new to the respective cast list
." It gives an example of a recurring cast member being promoted to main cast but that's not the ONLY example and this works just as well. Coster-Waldau is considered new to the respective cast list in episode two since he was not credited in episodes one and therefore gets added to the end of the list. - I do have to say that it was about 4 am when I typed my initial response last night and it may just be the way that they're worded but re-reading the options I'm failing to see a difference between options 1 and 3 now. Option 1 states "
Only the initial onscreen credits should be used in ordering the main cast
" while 3 states "The current policy on ordering the main cast should be retained
; isn't the current policy to use the initial onscreen credits already? TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)- @TheDoctorWho: - At face value, the note indicates that Coster-Waldau should not be 22nd because he is not a "cast member new to the respective cast list". He was not "new" to the main cast list in season 3 because he had been in the main cast list since the first season. He's only "new" by a narrow margin. I understand why he's 22nd, but it seems a stretch to place him that low simply because he wasn't in the season 3 premiere. We're basing the order off whether the series credits the main cast for episodes they don't appear in.
- The difference between options 1 and 3 is how the impact season articles. Option 3 would deviate from the current policy on season articles, but not parent articles as a potential compromise. The order in option 3 would be based off the full onscreen credits, as opposed to the initial credits, where Coster-Waldau is billed second. Bluerules (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Bluerules: Taking your Game of Thrones example I believe Coster-Waldau is placed correctly. The note listed in the MOS:TVCAST section states "
- Option 1 with a potential caveat: Adding new cast members to the end of the list definitely makes the most sense and avoids unnecessary discussions about who is more prominent. The only difference to the current approach that I think is worth considering is the fact that a lot of streaming series only credit actors onscreen for the episodes they are in which means some actors aren't credited straight away but are not actually new cast members when they do eventually get credited. This wasn't really considered when the current approach was decided, since streaming was still rare at that point and the focus was on broadcast series. The potential change that I think should be discussed is the instance where a clear set order for the main credits can be determined even if the names are not always shown in every episode, whether we wanted to allow that as an exception to the standard 'add to the end' rule. This would require some local consensus to determine and would be less clean than the strict rule we have been following, but in some instances it would be closer to the spirit of the rule since we would be following the order set by the production and we wouldn't be treating actors as new cast members when they had been working on the season from the beginning. For example, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier has set spots in its end credits for each main cast member so we can easily determine what the one ordering for the cast is even though the actors do not appear in that order in the series, and none of those actors are new cast members as the whole series was filmed in one go. If we were to allow these exceptions, we should still add new cast members to the end of the list for future seasons. This would just apply for the first season's cast at the series article and for season articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- adamstom97 - Correct me if I'm wrong, but your caveat appears to align with what options 2 and 3 are proposing. I apologize if I didn't make this clear, but these options are intended to deal with that scenario present in streaming series. I completely agree with what you've written; the issue you described is why I've created this RfC. Bluerules (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies if that is the case, I didn't think we were on exactly the same page but maybe we are. I support an update to the wording along the lines of what you have suggested, but I think we need to be careful how we write it to make sure we aren't causing debates over cast orders. If it is clear that they are not a new cast member for the series and it is also clear that there is an intended ordering that would not put them at the end of the list then we should be able to do that, but if either of those are not clear then it is safest to just stick with the current guideline. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would add that the examples raised in the above thread with TheDoctorWho don't really seem to apply to what I was thinking, unlike The Falcon and the Winter Soldier which I think is an obvious candidate for making an update. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: - If editors were able to determine a set order for the Game of Thrones season articles, I do not see why it could not be done for other articles. Games of Thrones, like many streaming series, only credits actors onscreen for the episodes they appear in and has set spots for each main cast member. In the example I mentioned above, seasons 3 through 8 give Coster-Waldau the set spot of second. Ordering the Game of Thrones main cast by the onscreen credits is more difficult than other shows due to the sheer size of the cast, but the editors pulled it off. The season 1 article utilized this approach for over seven years (from the initial 2011 edit to 2018) and the article achieved featured status. Bluerules (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Are you saying that he should be listed second for all seasons and the series article just because he is for season three onwards? Because I would disagree with that. Each season should have the correct order based on its own credits, and the series article should have the same order as the first season with new additions at the end. The only difference to the current guideline that I am advocating is within a season's listing. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: - No, I am saying Coster-Waldau should be listed in his set order on all season articles. I agree that he should not be second on every article with a cast order. In seasons 1 and 2, he is billed third and therefore should be third; in the remaining seasons, he is billed second. Every season article reflects his set order except season 3 because that's the only one where he wasn't in the premiere episode. There isn't a cast order on the parent article because of the sheer size of the cast, but there is a characters article that has him third. I agree that he should be third on the characters article because that was his original spot in the credits. My contention is towards the one article that doesn't have Coster-Waldau. Bluerules (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Are you saying that he should be listed second for all seasons and the series article just because he is for season three onwards? Because I would disagree with that. Each season should have the correct order based on its own credits, and the series article should have the same order as the first season with new additions at the end. The only difference to the current guideline that I am advocating is within a season's listing. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: - If editors were able to determine a set order for the Game of Thrones season articles, I do not see why it could not be done for other articles. Games of Thrones, like many streaming series, only credits actors onscreen for the episodes they appear in and has set spots for each main cast member. In the example I mentioned above, seasons 3 through 8 give Coster-Waldau the set spot of second. Ordering the Game of Thrones main cast by the onscreen credits is more difficult than other shows due to the sheer size of the cast, but the editors pulled it off. The season 1 article utilized this approach for over seven years (from the initial 2011 edit to 2018) and the article achieved featured status. Bluerules (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- adamstom97 - Correct me if I'm wrong, but your caveat appears to align with what options 2 and 3 are proposing. I apologize if I didn't make this clear, but these options are intended to deal with that scenario present in streaming series. I completely agree with what you've written; the issue you described is why I've created this RfC. Bluerules (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 2 I think this is the best compromise. The initial order to begin, subsequent appearances to build upon. It has logic and an easy identified direction/ doktorb wordsdeeds 22:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – I'm confused both by the explanation and the options of this RfC, as there seem to be a few ambiguities. Are we arguing about changing the order in parent articles, season articles, or both? The sentence
The contention here is with ordering main cast members from the same season
seems to indicate that we're only discussing the order in the season articles, but then there are many examples referring to the order in the parent article. The difference betweeninitial onscreen credits
and justonscreen credits
in the options is another problem for me. I assume that byinitial
we're referring to the intial credits within the season and not the initial credits for the series overall, but it's still not entirely clear. Then, if not the initial onscreen credits, which ones do we use? Is it using an amalgamation of all episoodes' onscreen credits what's being proposed, incorporating characters that didn't appear in the first episode but where on the onscreen credits when they first appeared?
- I think it would be helpful to put forward one single example and apply each proposed option to it, in order to illustrate what exactly would change.
I think using season 3 of Game of Thrones, as it has already been mentioned, would be useful, as it seems complex enough that all the options would render clearly different results, but at the same time only has ten episodes, so it wouldn't be as unwieldy as, e.g., a season of The Office with upwards of 20 episodes.(I just tried to write down the cast order for the first episode of the third season and I got traumatized by the sheer size of it and the speed at which they go through them. I hadn't realized that many of them were credited as main cast. An easier, shorter example should definitely be used) It could be laid out between the explanation and the options and then collapsed. —El Millo (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)- @Facu-el Millo: - I added a table using Titans as an example, which will hopefully help clear up confusion. This is about both parent and season articles, which currently don't follow the same order guidelines and the distinction between the two should be retained. On parent articles, main cast introduced in the second season cannot supplant the original main cast, but they can be ordered higher on season articles if billed higher. Fear the Walking Dead is a good example of this distinction because of Colman Domingo's billing. The parent article has him below all the original main cast members because he didn't join until the second season; the season 2 article has him higher than three original regulars because he was billed higher than them. I want it to be clear that I am not advocating for season 2 cast to be ordered above season 1 cast on parent articles. There should still be an order distinction between these two types of articles.
- With that distinction in mind, season articles would use the full onscreen credits. We would consider where a main cast member was billed in the credits, not place them at the bottom simply because they were not in the season premiere. The parent article would only directly follow the full onscreen credits for season 1. That order becomes locked and names from later seasons are ordered by their season's credits. To use Fear the Walking Dead as an example:
- The main cast for season 1 was Kim Dickens, Cliff Curtis, Frank Dillane, Alycia Debnam-Carey, Elizabeth Rodriguez, Mercedes Mason, Lorenzo James Henrie, and Rubén Blades. This is the order they were billed in the season's credits and no adjustments to this order can be made on the parent article.
- Season 2 added Colman Domingo and Michelle Ang to the main cast. Domingo was billed higher than Ang in the second season, so they follow the season 1 regulars in that order.
- In season 3, the new additions to the main cast were Danay García, Daniel Sharman, Sam Underwood, Lisandra Tena, and Dayton Callie. Again, the parent article places them below all the past season regulars. Where things get contentious is the fact that the credits bill Tena higher, but Callie received credit earlier. If the guidelines were changed under the second option, Tena would be above Callie. Tena and Callie are equally "new" to the main cast because according to production, they joined at the same time. The story simply had Callie's character appear earlier and production chose not to credit Tena for episodes she didn't appear in.
- Let me know if you have further questions. Bluerules (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1 - The reason that this has always been the case is because we don't give preferential treatment to new casts members just because they are newer. Eventually the show will end and putting new cast members above older ones (just because they may no longer be there) puts us more in recentism line of thinking. The reason we don't do the second option is because you're placing weight on number of appearances or importance of those appearances, which gets too close to original research. The most neutral way is to keep them in order of their original appearance. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Bignole: - This has nothing to do with weight on number of appearances or importance of those appearances. This is about the onscreen credits. In the second option, newer cast members would not be ordered higher under any circumstance if they were credited lower and they are prohibited from supplanting the original cast if they joined in a later season. They may only be ordered higher on the season articles if that particular season's credits bills them higher. In the example given with Fear the Walking Dead, Michelle Ang appeared in only two episodes of the second season. Rubén Blades appeared in seven episodes, but under option 2, Ang would be ordered higher because she was billed higher. The article already orders Colman Domingo higher above three original series regulars, despite not joining the main cast until the second season, because he was billed higher that season. Option 2 would maintain Domingo higher on the season article and lower on the parent article. The change would be to Ang's order on the season article because she was credited higher than Blades, even though she's not in most of the season. Bluerules (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1 I think this is the option I want to support, but maybe it's option 3? I don't see the need to change the approach we've had really. Looking at a series that is lucky to have multiple seasons (and season articles here), the list at the "parent" article should be reflective of the series as a whole, with new starring actors being added after the first episode's credits appearing at the bottom. And then the season article should be reflective of how the cast appears respective to the first episode of such season. So for example, if episode 101 of series I Just Made This Up lists Actors A, B, C, D, E, F as starring, with no other additions in its first season, that's the order I would want to see on both the parent article and season 1 article. Then come episode 201, Actor G (who was a guest in season 1) and Actor H (totally new and the new "top bill"), join the series, while Actor B leaves, I'd expect the parent article to be Actors A, B, C, D, E, F, H, G, while the season 2 article showing Actor H, A, C, D, E, F, G, since that's what the credits are for episode 201. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am going to take your example Favre1fan93 as I think it is the clearest one here so far, and use it to elaborate on what Bluerules and I are talking about above. In this scenario, if A and E are not in 201 and a few other episodes of the second season but when they do appear the credits are H, A, C, D, E, F, G, our current approach (which I believe is Option 1) would set the season 2 cast list as H, C, D, F, G, A, E. What I was proposing (not certain how this aligns with the RfC options) is that in such a case where it is clear that they are not new cast members and they have a set order for the season (as determined through local consensus where needed) that we use the "correct" season order of H, A, C, D, E, F, G for the season. But when that is not clear we should stick with the current approach and just add new onscreen credits to the end. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Favre1fan93: - My issues with option 1 are inaccuracy to the subject, a reliance on an arbitrary factor that has more to do with the story than production information, and discrepancy when it comes to "new" cast members. Game of Thrones season 3 is perhaps the best example of these problems. The series itself says Coster-Waldau is billed second and even the lede of the same article acknowledges his second billing, which is contrasted by him being 22nd in the cast order. He is 22nd because the story doesn't have him to appear in the first episode. And Coster-Waldau is not truly a "new" cast member when he's been a series regular from the series premiere. I don't think there's anywhere outside of Wikipedia that would order Coster-Waldau 22nd for Game of Thrones season 3; even the editors on the page initially had him second. He was second on the page for over five years until the order was changed in 2018. This doesn't apply the parent article, of course - I'm open to maintaining the policy for parent articles. I find that the problems become apparent on season articles. Bluerules (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I just think trying to "synthesis" a "correct" order in a season potentially opens too many cans of worms, even if some examples are very "cut and dry". Think of it this way: when a new season is airing and the first episode airs, you've only seen those credits, so you have no idea (in theory) what's coming down the line, or who will be appearing. Our listing should reflect the fact that newer "starring" actors first appeared later in the season by putting them at the end of the list, even if in such episodes they are credited in, they have a higher billing order position. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Favre1fan93 - I believe both approaches have a strong case. The reason I'm more inclined to use the overall credit order is because it seems more accurate. This approach has been used in the past without any issues that I'm aware of, so I don't think there would be serious contention. The articles that used the full credits order were changed because they didn't follow current policy, not because of debate.
- Most of the time, editors will at least have an understanding of who will be appearing in the credits. There will be press information, official media, and for shows entering a new season, knowledge of the previous cast. Plus, if all the episodes are released at once, all of the title credits will be immediately available (hence why The Witcher parent article originally utilized the full credits order). But even if the editors have no idea what will happen, they just have to update the article accordingly by the season's end.
- The television article I'm currently working on is Titans season 3. The main cast and their order has at least been implied by a press release. However, Titans does not credit series regulars for episodes they don't appear in. I'm expecting this to affect the production order because Teagan Croft and Conor Leslie aren't supposed to be in the early episodes, meaning they'll be last in the article order. It won't look accurate to have them at the bottom because the show itself bills them higher and they're not new to the main cast. Bluerules (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I just think trying to "synthesis" a "correct" order in a season potentially opens too many cans of worms, even if some examples are very "cut and dry". Think of it this way: when a new season is airing and the first episode airs, you've only seen those credits, so you have no idea (in theory) what's coming down the line, or who will be appearing. Our listing should reflect the fact that newer "starring" actors first appeared later in the season by putting them at the end of the list, even if in such episodes they are credited in, they have a higher billing order position. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1: I think most parent and season articles are this way anyway. I believe this is the best approach based on the examples. — YoungForever(talk) 21:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- @YoungForever: - From what I've seen, most articles utilize option 2 when first created before being changed to option 1. It makes sense that most articles presently use option 1 because that's the current guideline, but I think most editors instinctively lean towards option 2, especially if all the episodes of a season have aired. Bluerules (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1 – I think trying to combine all the onscreen credits of every episode of a season to try and put each actor listed in the spot they were put in the first episode they appeared (or commonly appear) if they didn't appear in the season premiere is going to be a mess that will cause more problems than it will solve. —El Millo (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly, we can't be rearranging the starring cast every time that happens which would most likely result in a recipe for disaster. — YoungForever(talk) 20:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1 (or 3?...) – I'm finding this RfC a little confusing. But there have been multiple MOS:TV discussions over this issue, and anything other than Option #1 (ordering by initial crediting, and then ordering in order of appearance on the show), opens up massive cans of worms that will only serve to increase editor conflicts on this topic as editors argue over the "correct ordering". As it is, we still have examples like California Dreams#Cast and NCIS: Los Angeles#Characters where editors are clearly playing games to try to get around MOS:TVCAST. "Loosening" TVCAST still further is likely a recipe for disaster. So I'm very much opposed to Option 2. All that said, I feel less strongly about this at "season" articles than I do at parent TV series article (where I think "Option 1 approach" should be the only option), so I'm maybe closer to Option 3 there – but I don't like how 'Cast' are handled at current "season" articles anyway, put below the episode tables, as they generally are. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- @IJBall: - I feel the opposite in respect to parent and season articles; I believe season articles would allow for a change in policy because there's a set credit order and less cast members to order. Changing the policy for the parent article could be tricky because of all the season credit orders we'd have to factor in, but season articles obviously only need the credits from the respective season. Bluerules (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Parent articles should be ordered based on when they received series regular status across the series; meaning, someone that was 6th in order in season one and left after that season will always remain 6th in the order. Seasonal pages should follow whatever the order is for that particular season (which itself doesn't conflict with our guideline). The same would then be true for any episode articles that have a list there. The fact that someone was moved halfway through the season is not relevant, because that again moves away from historical perspective in favor of recentism. If the next season has the "new" order, then that season has the new order. At the end of the day, readers are not coming to Wikipedia to verify an "order" of cast listing. The reason we have an order is for consistency across articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Bignole: - No one here believes that a series regular should be removed from the parent article or a season 2 regular should be placed above a season 1 regular. The issue is when one series regular receives higher billing in a season, but another appeared in the credits earlier. This is not about someone being moved halfway in the season, but where to place the main cast members who weren't credited for early episodes. The producers intended for a main cast member to be in a certain spot and the season's correct order is disregarded simply because the regular wasn't in the premiere.
- Ordering the main cast by their credit billing isn't recentism because their order wouldn't be determined by how recent they are. Their order would be determined by their order in the credits, which could be higher or lower than other regulars. If the cast order on the Game of Thrones season 1 article was based on the full credits, Aidan Gillen would be eighth because that's where he was billed in his first appearance, between Iain Glen and Harry Lloyd. From the historical perspective, Gillen's original billing position was above Lloyd, Peter Dinklage, and the regulars between them. And he would still be below Glen, Sean Bean, and the regulars between them, who were all less recent to the credits.
- Readers expect the order to be an accurate reflection of each cast member's prominence. We obviously can't decide that ourselves because that's original research, so we rely on the order provided by the producers. However, when we don't follow the set order from the show itself, our information is inaccurate. The Game of Thrones season 3 article itself is inconsistent by identifying Coster-Waldau as the second-most prominent cast member in the lede, but placing him 22nd in the cast order. Under the current policy, a series regular may go down 20 spots from their intended billing simply because the story doesn't have them in the season premiere and the show doesn't credit regulars for episodes they aren't in. Coster-Waldau would be second in the season 3 article if he was credited for every episode, not just those he was in. Bluerules (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Again, if Season 2 episodes 1 through 6 show one particular credit order, and episodes 7 through 15 show another, then the season article should reflect the first order with new members added to the bottom of that list. A show is typically (key word being "typically") not going to re-order a cast list in the middle of a season. I'm sure there are exceptions to that case, but that is not the norm. That's all I have to say about it from my perspective. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I agree that existing cast members cannot be re-ordered on their own. A show that did re-order the cast list was Fear the Walking Dead season 4, where Lennie James was billed last in the first half and received top billing in the second half. In the case of James, he should remain last because that was his original billing spot. The change I would argue for is having Jenna Elfman above James because although she didn't receive credit until the second episode, her original billing was one spot above James. Bluerules (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Again, if Season 2 episodes 1 through 6 show one particular credit order, and episodes 7 through 15 show another, then the season article should reflect the first order with new members added to the bottom of that list. A show is typically (key word being "typically") not going to re-order a cast list in the middle of a season. I'm sure there are exceptions to that case, but that is not the norm. That's all I have to say about it from my perspective. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Please note Bluerules that replying to every single responder can be considered WP:BLUDGEONing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Option 1 Per reasons given above. I admit the vote is also due to finding the other two options confusing. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Star original programming. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. This discussion is about exclusive international distribution of American TV series on Star (Disney+). — YoungForever(talk) 18:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48
Discussion at Talk:Prodigal Son (TV series) § Catherine Zeta-Jones
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Prodigal Son (TV series) § Catherine Zeta-Jones. Editors are needed to weigh in on this in order to reach a consensus. — YoungForever(talk) 13:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48
- Editors are still needed to weigh on this discussion. — YoungForever(talk) 14:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Standardized terms for elimination-style reality program progress tables
The just-concluded RfC above established a consensus for progress tables as a default part of the articles for this type of reality TV programming. It also established a desire on the part of many editors for a set of recommended table designs that would accomplish goals such as quick readability and accessibility compliance. Before a table design can be proposed, however, a preliminary discussion on the table contents needs to happen. For many such franchises a standardization of terms has already happened but this discussion will allow a unified recommended progress table style to be proposed.
The following list of terms is not necessarily exhaustive but is intended to be generic and adaptable.
- Eliminated – contestant left the program due to the program's normal elimination mechanism (voting, judging, etc.)
- Left – contestant left the program on their own decision (including when asked to) or did not return when allowed (e.g., hiatus, Covid-19 filming break, etc.)
- Removed – contestant left the program at the direction or insistence of the production for reasons outside of the normal elimination mechanism
- Challenge Winner – contestant received a reward for a single-episode contest. Can be used for multiple contestants if there are multiple contests within each episode. Specify the particular reward or contest, e.g., Immunity Challenge Winner, First Challenge Winner, Main Challenge Winner, etc.
- Challenge Loser – contestant failed in a single-episode contest that does not eliminate the contestant from further competition. Can be used for multiple contestants if there are multiple contests within each episode. Specify the particular reward or contest, e.g., Immunity Challenge Loser, First Challenge Loser, Main Challenge Loser, etc.
- Judge's/Popular Winner/Loser – In programs where there is a winner or loser designated for the episode that does not determine elimination. Usually for franchises with both a judging panel and a viewer voting system.
- Won - contestant won the overall competition
- Runner-up or Second, Third, etc. – contestant was determined to finish in an on-screen placing in the final episode. Contestants that were eliminated earlier do not need to be designated in their placings unless the show uses those places on-screen. Fan or other media designations of an eliminated contestant as finishing fifth, seventh, etc. are not used.
Please feel free to contribute any additions, changes, etc. A shorter yet generic term for single-episode challenge winners or losers that would fit in a table cell would be particularly welcome. Thank you in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have seen the word (or abbreviation) "SAFE" used on these things (rather a lot) and have no idea what it means, so I won't add it to the list. Maybe somebody knowledgable can determine its usefulness (and meaning). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep it super simple if we are talking a table. The bulk of the problem are around judge-based elimination shows (Project Runway, Top Chef, RuPaul's Drag Race, etc.), and here I think you basically only need four primarily labels: WIN for the winner (if there is one), TOP (for those also consider for winning but not selected), BOT(TOM) (those selected for possible elimination), and OUT (the one eliminated). Everyone else is safe by default and doesn't need to be marked/colored (to keep text down in the table). Any special case, like quitting due to personal reasons/injury should stay as OUT with a footnote under the table.
- The other types of reality shows, like the voting type of Survivor, and the performance-based like Amazing Race, aren't as easy to simplify down to a similar set of runs, but the goal should be to minimize how many different colors/terms/symbols/etc. that are needed in the table for simplicity and accessibility purposes. For example, across the Survivor articles I know there's a want to use the color of the tribes to make those stand out but that goes against accessibility requirements. But it does seem to make sense given how tracking who votes for who's elimination to note immunities and voting record. --Masem (t) 20:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- I included the Challenge Winner/Loser options for shows like Project Runway and Face Off that have usually a "quick" challenge at the start of each episode and then a main challenge that determines elimination. It's possible to win one of these but not be the winner of the episode. If it's too much, we can scrap it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- For shows where this non-eliminate challenge is a "safe from elimination" reward (which I agree you want to track), I would simply then use a special symbol in the table to mark that than calling it out (eg like †) with a key below. So someone may still win the judges vote, so their entry would look like "WIN†", and keeps the text simple. --Masem (t) 01:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- I included the Challenge Winner/Loser options for shows like Project Runway and Face Off that have usually a "quick" challenge at the start of each episode and then a main challenge that determines elimination. It's possible to win one of these but not be the winner of the episode. If it's too much, we can scrap it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Just my opinion, but sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me. We should let local consensus and WikiProjects handle it, rather than trying to breaucratically dictate it from here. So far from the example I've seen at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2), attempts by experienced editors to swoop in and override local and WikiProject consensus just ends up bungled and creates frustration and animosity. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- See the !vote above. While tables are fine, there's far too much detail in them and many break accessibility requirements in trying to document to trivial levels what can be put to prose or footnotes. The tables should be like a box score in a sports game - easy to read at a glance. Given the inability for this to happen, there needs to be base ground rules that then projects can adapt from but should stay very close too. --Masem (t) 21:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- I do not agree. I witnessed what happened at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2), where outsiders came in and tried to force local editors and reality TV show WikiProjects to change their tables. Those actions were deeply unpopular (drama fest that resulted in 3 months of full protection and a bunch of animosity), and those actions did not improve the table (resulted in an uglified table, and a deleted table, neither of which is an improvement). I am not convinced it is worth the trouble. In my opinion, one-size-fits-all is not the solution. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- The discussion on RPDRS2 is exactly what prompted the discussion above, and it closed that 1) these tables need to be accessible first and foremost and 2) there should be further discussion to lay out base ground rules to apply to all shows. If we have those, then that would likely have prevented the type of disruption that happened at RPDRS2 (with either the table becoming far too complex or being removed altogether). The goal is not to try to lay out one size fits all but a core set of guidelines that then each show can work from to make sure they're in reasonable compliance with, like a MOS for reality TV shows. --Masem (t) 22:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- I do not agree. I witnessed what happened at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2), where outsiders came in and tried to force local editors and reality TV show WikiProjects to change their tables. Those actions were deeply unpopular (drama fest that resulted in 3 months of full protection and a bunch of animosity), and those actions did not improve the table (resulted in an uglified table, and a deleted table, neither of which is an improvement). I am not convinced it is worth the trouble. In my opinion, one-size-fits-all is not the solution. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- See the !vote above. While tables are fine, there's far too much detail in them and many break accessibility requirements in trying to document to trivial levels what can be put to prose or footnotes. The tables should be like a box score in a sports game - easy to read at a glance. Given the inability for this to happen, there needs to be base ground rules that then projects can adapt from but should stay very close too. --Masem (t) 21:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Just my two cents, I think it may be useful to generalize the definitions for the terms but make the terms interchangeable per series. American version of Big Brother for example uses a number of these definitions but the terms for them all differently. Evicted instead of eliminated, walked instead of left, ejected instead of removed, etc. These terms can also very per season/version, the first U.S. season (as well as in one place of the twenty-first season) used banished instead of evicted. I only say this because reliable sources typically use the same term as the show, so if we're using "evicted" in sections about episodes, production, format, etc. and then "eliminated" in the table it seems like it would be a bit off. TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- Unless there is a template created for reality TV contestant progress tables, this discussion is going to be fruitless. Heartfox (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Episode list titles
Please see the discussion I have started regarding episode list titles at WT:TV. The discussion is here. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)