InvadingInvader (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
→Proposal for Ratings in TVLEAD: Not relevant in virtually all cases. |
||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
:::: Ratings should only be mentioned in the lede if they are actually relevant. Most TV shows get middling ratings – there is no point in mentioning ratings for shows like this in the lede. It's not ledeworthy. Now, if you are talking about a show that was consistently ranked in the Top 10 or Top 20 TV shows on U.S. TV from the 80s or 90s, then clearly that and the ratings for such shows is relevant... But I agree with MOS:TVLEAD leaving ratings out of the discussion – in general, for most shows, ratings are not germane to the lede. And that is especially true of shows from the "streaming era" of the last 15 years. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 18:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC) |
:::: Ratings should only be mentioned in the lede if they are actually relevant. Most TV shows get middling ratings – there is no point in mentioning ratings for shows like this in the lede. It's not ledeworthy. Now, if you are talking about a show that was consistently ranked in the Top 10 or Top 20 TV shows on U.S. TV from the 80s or 90s, then clearly that and the ratings for such shows is relevant... But I agree with MOS:TVLEAD leaving ratings out of the discussion – in general, for most shows, ratings are not germane to the lede. And that is especially true of shows from the "streaming era" of the last 15 years. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 18:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC) |
||
::::I strongly disagree; ratings can be used as a measurement or indicator of popularity. Audiences coming to Wikipedia should know immediately whether a movie was widely watched, and the lead is where a subtle mention deserves to be. If a tv movie is popular, mention the ratings. If a tv movie is unpopular, mention the ratings to demonstrate that it was a failure. Same idea if it's in the middle or a mid-level success. Every TV movie in between should have reliably-sourced ratings data if such data exists. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC) |
::::I strongly disagree; ratings can be used as a measurement or indicator of popularity. Audiences coming to Wikipedia should know immediately whether a movie was widely watched, and the lead is where a subtle mention deserves to be. If a tv movie is popular, mention the ratings. If a tv movie is unpopular, mention the ratings to demonstrate that it was a failure. Same idea if it's in the middle or a mid-level success. Every TV movie in between should have reliably-sourced ratings data if such data exists. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC) |
||
::::: Except the ratings here are for a single television film. But even for television series, if this were something like ''The Big Bang Theory'', then yeah, but it's not. Additionally, other articles doing things wrong does not set precedence over other articles. See [[WP:OSE]]. Furthermore, with the significant decline the last several years in ratings, particularly L+SD, since that's what we list here, ratings alone aren't even a determining factor as to whether or not a series is renewed, etc. by a network. In other words, ratings aren't as relevant as they used to be. And even back then, there were plenty of times they weren't relevant. [[User:Amaury|Amaury]] • 19:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:15, 25 February 2022
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. |
Plot Summaries on TV Shows with no defined seasons
If a tv show has say 600+ episodes (like an Indian serial), and are not broken up into seasons like other tv-shows, enforcing the 500 word count on the plot summary doesn't make any sense. Yes it should be concise, but outright reverting is not the solution. Maybe we should come up with a new system for shows that do not follow seasons and are posted daily, or maybe instead of outright reversion maybe edit to show a tag that this needs to be edited down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrowIce (talk • contribs) 18:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- For situations like that which are not common I would think it is fine to develop a local consensus that editors agree makes sense for the situation, the MOS is just a guideline and does not need to be rigidly followed in all circumstances. Perhaps it makes sense to treat each year's worth of episodes as a "season" in this context? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps we could settle at episode 1-100 being considered one season? Reason being, I've seen that one should aim for 500 words per season, and condensing 365 episodes into 500 words, will lose track of major plot points, and would mean 0.73 words per episode which doesn't seem fair.CrowIce (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Cast/characters info and capitalization after a colon
- Background
I noticed what I believe to be incorrect capitalization after colons in the Star Trek: Prodigy#Cast and characters section and applied a correction. It was promptly reverted by another editor, whose edit summary suggested discussion on that article's talk page. We discussed guidelines at MOS:COLON and MOS:TVCAST, though continue to have different interpretations of their applicability or meaning. The other editor referred to past discussions during development of MOS:TVCAST that support capitalization of the first word after a colon, even when what follows it is not a grammatical sentence. I did not find such discussion in the talk archives here, though the other editor suggested I raise the issue here for broader discussion and possible resolution.
My understanding of the MOS guidance is that a word following a colon should only be capitalized when it begins a grammatically complete sentence. Do others see the guidance and examples at MOS:COLON and MOS:TVCAST as showing lower-case is otherwise appropriate after the colon? —ADavidB 04:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- You could also do
Actor A as Character B, a loveable character from the planet Earth.
That avoids the issue altogether and is what is normally done in many television articles. Amaury • 04:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)- Thanks. I had raised the option of making what follows the colon a complete sentence, but that was dismissed by the other editor. Your suggestion of using a comma followed by lower case would work as well. My intent is to reach agreement on a guideline-compliant revision that others won't insist be reverted. —ADavidB 04:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
As the "other editor" in question I would like to make clear that I asked to bring this discussion here because any change made would likely need to be replicated across many other TV articles that use the same style. The standard formatting that I have used and seen at many different TV articles is to capitalise the letter after the colon. Previous wording at MOS:COLON had supported this (or at least it did the way I was interpreting it, which is to say that if there is multiple sentences after the colon we should definitely capitalise the first letter) and the discussion we had about MOS:TVCAST during the big MOS:TV overhaul referred to MOS:COLON and came to the consensus that the MOS should not prescribe whether to use upper or lower case after the colon. Further reasoning for why it makes sense to use the capital letter is because most of the TV articles that I am talking about also add a break after the colon if there is a paragraph of details after the actor and character names. If there is a break after the colon then we definitely want a capital letter. So if editors agree that using the capital after the colon is grammatically incorrect then we should probably explicitly say that here and then we will also need a plan to change all the TV articles that do this. If that is not consensus here then it would still be good to confirm whether clarification of MOS:TVCAST is required to avoid this confusion in the future. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- MOS:COLON already explains how to use colons. Correct letter case after a colon is dependent on whether a complete sentence follows it. Incomplete sentence? Use lower-case. Otherwise, capitalize it, especially when additional sentences follow. As the first responder suggested, use of a comma instead would seemingly get past the issue. I don't believe every TV article needs to use the exact same grammatical structure, just be grammatically correct. —ADavidB 14:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- We could also just use lowercase if there isn't a break after and capitalize if there is a break after. That doesn't seem terribly inconsistent. —El Millo (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Mass-deletion of categories
I don't know precisely where to take this concern, but this is a start:
I have recently been seeing the mass-deletion of categories in tv and film articles. The latest (on my watchlist) to get hit: Degrassi: The Next Generation, which had 13 categories deleted on 16:17, 18 January 2022. This is a tv series known for its inclusion of LGBT characters and I have seen lesbian and gay characters with story arcs about them unfolding in episodes. These individual characters are found in the article List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters.
In the third paragraph of the Degrassi: The Next Generation lead you find this: "The episode "My Body Is a Cage", in which a character is outed as transgender, won a Peabody Award in 2011." In the "List of awards and nominations received by the Degrassi franchise" you see that Degrassi: The Next Generation has received two GLAAD Media Award nominations for Outstanding Drama Series.
The deletion of categories from Degrassi: The Next Generation was done recklessly -- without regard for the history of the tv series and the reason why the categories were included. The HotCat gadget is being used without a second thought about the damage it can cause to articles. Some editors are handling HotCat like a gun, where they just point and shoot, and maybe think about the collateral damage later. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing up the issue Pyxis Solitary. I have reverted the edit per WP:BRD and hope constructive conversation on the topic can happen in that article's talk page. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Such is the case with much of the mass-scope repetitive minor editing when it actually intersects with quite substantive content questions ("is X a defining feature of Y?"). These categories shouldn't have been removed as LGBT inclusion is a significant part of Degrassi. We don't need people to create amorphous work to be done ("removing unnecessary categories") when there are actually hundreds of backlogs that are critical or have substantial reader impact. Anything to do with categories is neither. — Bilorv (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The same editor deleted 15 categories from The Prom (film) on 22:10, 9 January 2022. This is a film musical about a lesbian teenager who is prevented by the PTA from taking her girlfriend to the high school prom. The film is an adaptation of the 2018 Broadway musical hit (the performance of one of the songs in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade made history as the first same-sex kiss seen in the parade's entertainment segment).
Among the categories deleted:
- Category:2020 LGBT-related films
- Category:2020s high school films
- Category:American musical comedy-drama films
- Category:American teen LGBT-related films
- Category:Films about anti-LGBT sentiment
- Category:Lesbian-related films
- Category:LGBT-related musical comedy-drama films
I undid the deletion; however, I'd hate to think that LGBT-related articles are being targeted. The careless use of HotCat in Degrassi: The Next Generation and The Prom (film) are examples of why something needs to be done to stop the misuse of HotCat. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Current season dates
Question on when to add announced episode dates to a season table when you have a source? An editor stated that there was a consensus to not add dates of upcoming episodes in a season table where the season was already underway but didn't link to the consensus. MOS:TVUPCOMING doesn't state that and it seems like that is about forthcoming seasons. I looked at some other TV shows to get a sense (ex: A Discovery of Witches (TV series)#Series 3 (2022), Legends of Tomorrow (season 7)#Episodes, Peacemaker (TV series)#Episodes, The Book of Boba Fett#Episodes) and it seems like most add the episodes when they have any kind of sourced basic info (like dates). Is there a stated consensus by the project or is this just a personal style thing? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- The standard practice is when there are at least two cells of information available; a title and a date, a director and a writer, etc. Definitely not just singular dates, such as this edit, as I've explained at Talk:The Legend of Vox Machina#Upcoming episodes. -- Alex_21 TALK 22:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Right. You said it had project consensus so I was hoping to read through the discussion that established that. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Recent MOS changes
@Reywas92: You can discuss your changes here. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- The show's premise should be in the lead. I don't why the heck anyone has a problem with this. It should be common sense that as the lead section summarizes the article and topic, this would include a basic premise of what the show is about in the first paragraphs. This section Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Lead_paragraphs does not explicitly mention the premise but it should, even as implied by "a quick introduction to the topic". Reywas92Talk 01:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I see no issue with the addition about the show's premise. I can't envision a situation where a show can't be summarized into a single sentence. --Masem (t) 01:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- The section covers two things, the lead in general and a basic introduction to the series within the lead. The lead should summarise the entire article with due weight, which covers the premise/plot, but those details do not necessarily have to be in the basic introduction part of the lead. Your change suggested that they do, which there is no consensus for. And for context for anyone else joining here, this editor was reverted by multiple others for trying to insist that the first paragraph of Moon Knight (TV series) must include the series' premise. Instead of starting a discussion about that over there they came here and apparently tried to change the MOS so that it would support their changes to that article. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm baffled why you think this article on a series shouldn't contain its premise in the lead. Again, you are falsely saying I'm trying to put something in "the first paragraph" when I just want the premise to be somewhere in the lead, but you weren't having that. My edit did not say they "have to be" in any particular part of the lead, because the first paragraph of this section describes "The lead paragraphs" plural. Yes, yes, yes the premise is a basic fact about a film or TV series and should be given as early as possible, but this does not specify that it must be in the first paragraph not the second or third. If that's your interpretation of it, this should be more broadly rewritten, but I'm always astonished when I see such poorly written leads about media that don't include the simplest one-sentence plot summary, and this MOS should indicate that they should. Reywas92Talk 03:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I never said the lead should not have the premise, but you definitely are trying to say that the premise should go in the first paragraph of the lead. If you read MOS:TVLEAD properly, you will see that its first paragraph says this:
an article on a television series should begin with basic information about the show, such as when it first premiered, genre(s) and setting, who created/developed the show, its primary broadcasting station (typically the studio that produces the show), and when the show stopped airing (the first airing of the final episode), etc.
Later in the section we have this line:Subsequent paragraph(s) should summarize the major points of the rest of the article: basic production information (e.g. where the show is filmed), principal cast of the show, critical reception, influences, place in popular culture, major awards, and anything else that made the show unique.
The first quote is specifically about the "basic information" that the lead "should begin" with, which is where you were putting the premise, and then the second quote refers to "subsequent paragraphs". Now, I will note that the second lin includes stuff that also can possibly go in the first paragraph if we want to, such as the cast, so if we want to specifically mention the premise somewhere (we don't need to because these are just examples and all sections in the article are covered by "a concise overview of the article itself, as per the Lead section style guideline") we could put it in that second quote, but putting it in the first quote means that we are recommending all TV articles begin with the series' premise and that is definitely something that would need to be discussed properly. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)- A premise could possibly be included in the lead, but it doesn't necessarily have to be in the first paragraph, which this edit was claiming (based on the existing
... should begin with ...
terminology). I would also caution on any potential wording additions in terms of plot, because any lead mentions should, if at all, be more plot elements/broad overview, which might not be a "premise" per se. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC) - I also want to comment too regarding Reywas92's editing at Moon Knight: the solution wasn't coming to the MOS to add something to win an argument. A discussion should have been held at that talk page (ideally) first, to discuss the issue, and then MOS edits or a discussion should have branched from that if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to "win" anything with this, WP:LEAD is more than adequate for what I'd think would be common sense that the lead of a TV article should include what the show is about! You're making the same unclear interpretation: that under "Lead paragraphs" says the article "...should begin with", immediately following "The lead paragraphs of an article..." so no, this does not state it must be in the "first paragraph". It subsequently says "All genre classifications throughout the article, including in the lead,..." again not specifying that this information is only for the first paragraph. If you think we should be prescribing what goes specifically in the first paragraph, it should be changed to say that, but it does not currently, and it'd be better remove that exact structure anyway. Basic plot concept, premise, or whatever you want to call it belongs in the lead – and I'd certainly consider that "basic information about the show" ahead of production information, critical reception, influences, etc. – to adequately summarize the article and subject. Reywas92Talk 14:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is a shittily drafted section then. When the paragraph begins with "The lead paragraphs", the rest of that paragraph applies to the lead paragraphs. That lead as a whole is how "an article on a television series should begin" (emphasis added), not specifically how the lead should begin in the single "first" paragraph. We shouldn't be prescribing such a narrow format specifying what goes in what paragraph. But the premise should be in the first one or two. Reywas92Talk 14:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- "It is a satirical parody of the middle class American lifestyle epitomized by its titular family, which consists of Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie." sounds like a premise to me! If this is "A good example of a first paragraph", where is when it first premiered, as is supposedly directed to be in the "first" paragraph? Should the premise be removed from that since you don't like it going at the very top? No, this shouldn't go "in that second quote", because we shouldn't be recommending articles not begin with the premise and direct it be relegated to "subsequent paragraphs" and restricted from the first! Somehow you're saying the "subsequent paragraphs" stuff can go in the first if we want (obviously!) but stuff that's as you claim to be specified to go in the first (but it's not) can't be moved later if we want to? Reywas92Talk 14:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Please remain WP:CIVIL. The fact that different sentences in the same paragraph talk about the rest of the lead is completely irrelevant. Multiple editors now have explained that the sentence you updated is specifically about the beginning of the lead, trying to talk your way around that isn't going to work. And obviously that example shouldn't be changed, it's just an example. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just chiming in to remind editors that the WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH way to approach a disagreement is to take it to the talk page. While the discussion is in progress, don't try to push through the same or similar edits, knowing that other editors have not yet consented to those edits. Try to build WP:CONSENSUS. If there isn't a consensus to move forward, the status quo remains. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Please remain WP:CIVIL. The fact that different sentences in the same paragraph talk about the rest of the lead is completely irrelevant. Multiple editors now have explained that the sentence you updated is specifically about the beginning of the lead, trying to talk your way around that isn't going to work. And obviously that example shouldn't be changed, it's just an example. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- A premise could possibly be included in the lead, but it doesn't necessarily have to be in the first paragraph, which this edit was claiming (based on the existing
- I never said the lead should not have the premise, but you definitely are trying to say that the premise should go in the first paragraph of the lead. If you read MOS:TVLEAD properly, you will see that its first paragraph says this:
- I'm baffled why you think this article on a series shouldn't contain its premise in the lead. Again, you are falsely saying I'm trying to put something in "the first paragraph" when I just want the premise to be somewhere in the lead, but you weren't having that. My edit did not say they "have to be" in any particular part of the lead, because the first paragraph of this section describes "The lead paragraphs" plural. Yes, yes, yes the premise is a basic fact about a film or TV series and should be given as early as possible, but this does not specify that it must be in the first paragraph not the second or third. If that's your interpretation of it, this should be more broadly rewritten, but I'm always astonished when I see such poorly written leads about media that don't include the simplest one-sentence plot summary, and this MOS should indicate that they should. Reywas92Talk 03:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- The section covers two things, the lead in general and a basic introduction to the series within the lead. The lead should summarise the entire article with due weight, which covers the premise/plot, but those details do not necessarily have to be in the basic introduction part of the lead. Your change suggested that they do, which there is no consensus for. And for context for anyone else joining here, this editor was reverted by multiple others for trying to insist that the first paragraph of Moon Knight (TV series) must include the series' premise. Instead of starting a discussion about that over there they came here and apparently tried to change the MOS so that it would support their changes to that article. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Proposal 1
Add the sentence "The lead section should also include the premise of the show." This is basic information that is needed for the lead to adequately summarize the article and the topic. Reywas92Talk 18:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Proposal 2
Change "Subsequent paragraph(s) should..." to "The lead should also..." There's no reason to require that these can't go in the first paragraph. The Simpsons example is just two sentences long, which is hardly a full paragraph, and as was said above, "Now, I will note that the second line includes stuff that also can possibly go in the first paragraph if we want to." Reywas92Talk 18:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that these are two separate proposals or options that we are choosing from? I would support this second proposal but I think the first one would then be redundant. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- These are separate, but the first would not be redundant because there's still nothing specifying that what the show's actually about should be in the lead. Reywas92Talk 21:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- If we go with this second proposal then there would be no issue adding the premise to the "lead should also..." sentence. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- You just agreed to this and there's no objection to it. Word it however you like, but this shouldn't be a problem. Reywas92Talk 02:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Very well, I have made the agreed upon change myself. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- You just agreed to this and there's no objection to it. Word it however you like, but this shouldn't be a problem. Reywas92Talk 02:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- If we go with this second proposal then there would be no issue adding the premise to the "lead should also..." sentence. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- These are separate, but the first would not be redundant because there's still nothing specifying that what the show's actually about should be in the lead. Reywas92Talk 21:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Audience scores
The section WP:TVRECEPTION says: "This means that IMDb, TV.com, and similar websites that give "fan polls" are not reliable sources of information." I would like to suggest making a small update to that text since TV.com is defunct and it has been a while since anyone thought it was appropriate to add TV.com scores to television articles. I do not have an exact wording change to in mind but I propose removing the outdated mention of TV.com and instead highlighting other "similar websites", specifically I recommend making it explicitly clear by name that the Rotten Tomatoes audience score is also just another fan poll WP:UGC and not allowed either (per WP:UGC and WP:RS.) -- 109.78.199.168 (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- I would support this, have had recent issues with users trying to add Rotten Tomatoes audience scores to articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sure we could copy some of the text at MOS:FILM#Audience reception. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- I was thinking the most minimal changes possible to avoid disagreement (as close as possible to just deleting TV.com and replacing it with "Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score" more or less). If editors wanted to a little more than that or to avoid naming specific sites that happen to be an issue at the moment it might be best to point upstream to the guidelines WP:UGC/WP:RS to give readers a better understanding of not only what to do but also why it is done that way. It really does help when the guidelines make the existing consensus and best practices clearer, there are plenty of knowledgeable wikipedia editors who edit in good faith and are simply more familiar with other topics and do not edit TV or film articles very often. I'm sure there will always be some users who continue to add Audience scores (and act like not including it is a conspiracy against their favorite show) no matter what, but I think even a small adjustment would help. If nothing else being able to point to this discussion might help a little too. Thanks. -- 109.78.199.168 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sure we could copy some of the text at MOS:FILM#Audience reception. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Proposal for Ratings in TVLEAD
I propose that TVLEAD (for TV movies) clarifies that ratings information belong in lead paragraphs, albeit mentioned briefly and if information is reliably available. TV movies should include information about whether they were widely viewed. My proposal is only inconsistently applied to TV articles; Descendants (2015 film) and The Day After includes ratings information, but some TV movies like Zombies (2018 film) do not include ratings and viewership information mentioned in the lead. By including a small amount of ratings information in the lead whenever a reliable source can be accredited to such information, readers can easily determine how popular a program is. InvadingInvader (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- The LEAD of this page doesn't dictate everything that needs to be there, it's just a guide of how to write an overview. So, if a page has some rating info in the lead, that's fine already. Now, it's far easier to do that with a TV movie (as it's a single viewership), over a series that spans multiple years. Even saying "Series X held an average of Y million viewers across 10 years" can be potentially misleading if the first few years were say 6 million viewers and the last several years were say 1 million. It's about context and you want to make sure that it isn't misleading. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I personally agree with TV Movies; thanks for responding. Some editors have been opposed to including brief ratings information for TV movies, and I can't understand why such information is excluded from the lead. I can understand your point for shows or long-term stuff, but for singular events, ratings should definitely be mentioned if they're included. InvadingInvader (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- What is the argument against including the viewership ratings for a TV movie in the lead? Per WP:LEAD, that section is to summarize the article as a whole...and ratings and critical reception are part of the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ratings should only be mentioned in the lede if they are actually relevant. Most TV shows get middling ratings – there is no point in mentioning ratings for shows like this in the lede. It's not ledeworthy. Now, if you are talking about a show that was consistently ranked in the Top 10 or Top 20 TV shows on U.S. TV from the 80s or 90s, then clearly that and the ratings for such shows is relevant... But I agree with MOS:TVLEAD leaving ratings out of the discussion – in general, for most shows, ratings are not germane to the lede. And that is especially true of shows from the "streaming era" of the last 15 years. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree; ratings can be used as a measurement or indicator of popularity. Audiences coming to Wikipedia should know immediately whether a movie was widely watched, and the lead is where a subtle mention deserves to be. If a tv movie is popular, mention the ratings. If a tv movie is unpopular, mention the ratings to demonstrate that it was a failure. Same idea if it's in the middle or a mid-level success. Every TV movie in between should have reliably-sourced ratings data if such data exists. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Except the ratings here are for a single television film. But even for television series, if this were something like The Big Bang Theory, then yeah, but it's not. Additionally, other articles doing things wrong does not set precedence over other articles. See WP:OSE. Furthermore, with the significant decline the last several years in ratings, particularly L+SD, since that's what we list here, ratings alone aren't even a determining factor as to whether or not a series is renewed, etc. by a network. In other words, ratings aren't as relevant as they used to be. And even back then, there were plenty of times they weren't relevant. Amaury • 19:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- What is the argument against including the viewership ratings for a TV movie in the lead? Per WP:LEAD, that section is to summarize the article as a whole...and ratings and critical reception are part of the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I personally agree with TV Movies; thanks for responding. Some editors have been opposed to including brief ratings information for TV movies, and I can't understand why such information is excluded from the lead. I can understand your point for shows or long-term stuff, but for singular events, ratings should definitely be mentioned if they're included. InvadingInvader (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)