SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
I seek editors’ views on the best approach before proposing a specific addition to the MoS. If I might finish with a personal view, I would ask that if there is support for option three, a justification for TV project articles departing so significantly from WP-wide policy does need to be advanced. [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 18:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
I seek editors’ views on the best approach before proposing a specific addition to the MoS. If I might finish with a personal view, I would ask that if there is support for option three, a justification for TV project articles departing so significantly from WP-wide policy does need to be advanced. [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 18:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
* I favor '''option 3''' because it's broadly conventional to refer to seasons and episodes with numerals (generally, not just on Wikipedia). I.e., add another exception at [[MOS:NUMERALS]]. However, it would be preferable to write "in the seventh season of ...". That is, there is a difference between describing the season or episode ("the seventh season", "the third episode") and enumerating a season and/or episode ("season 7, epsisode 12"). They are different formats, even if they basically convey the same information. That said, I could live with "the 7th season".{{pb}}As a second choice, I would go with a version of option 2. However, it should be extended to also include citations, because our convention for citations is to do things like "Volume 3, Issue 7", and doing "Season Three, Episode Seven" in them would be needlessly inconsistent, and something that editors probably just will not go along with in practice. Also, I believe that option 1 and by extention part of option 2 are incorrectly reading MOS:NUMERALS. It does not suggest anything about writing numbers that are ten or higher as words instead of numerals to match lower numbers in the same context. That appears to have come out of nowhere. What it does say is that writing out larger numbers is a permissible option. But it doesn't have a context-related requirement.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 19:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
* I favor '''option 3''' because it's broadly conventional to refer to seasons and episodes with numerals (generally, not just on Wikipedia). I.e., add another exception at [[MOS:NUMERALS]]. However, it would be preferable to write "in the seventh season of ...". That is, there is a difference between describing the season or episode ("the seventh season", "the third episode") and enumerating a season and/or episode ("season 7, epsisode 12"). They are different formats, even if they basically convey the same information. That said, I could live with "the 7th season".{{pb}}As a second choice, I would go with a version of option 2. However, it should be extended to also include citations, because our convention for citations is to do things like "Volume 3, Issue 7", and doing "Season Three, Episode Seven" in them would be needlessly inconsistent, and something that editors probably just will not go along with in practice. Also, I believe that option 1 and by extention part of option 2 are incorrectly reading MOS:NUMERALS. It does not suggest anything about writing numbers that are ten or higher as words instead of numerals to match lower numbers in the same context. That appears to have come out of nowhere. What it does say is that writing out larger numbers is a permissible option. But it doesn't have a context-related requirement.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 19:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
*'''Option One''' - If there is a parent guideline on how to write articles from a grammatical sense, then we follow the grammar rules. This would be something hit on in a GA or FA application, because it isn't about your personal style on writing but on the grammar rules we follow. You may not like Chicago Style writing, but that's the writing style that Wikipedia uses across the board. That said, I'm not sure that this MOS should explicitly state that. If anything, maybe we have an item somewhere that points out that this MOS does not supercede any grammar MOS, and whatever rules are identified there are rules that are followed on TV related pages. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:#800000;color:#FFD700"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 19:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:47, 11 October 2023
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. |
Repeated linking change at Manual of Style/Linking
See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#DL, sections, and mobile readers and change. Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Huh... good to know. Now another thing to put on the list of maintenance tasks when going through watchlists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Season articles and MOS:BOLDLEAD
Is there a way for season articles to follow MOS:BOLDLEAD (and MOS:BOLDLINK)? If so, how would an article like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) be modified? Gonnym (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Off the top of my head, no, because any combo for a season article will need to include the main series name, which in turn is likely to be the first mention of it in the lead and would need to be linked, which would violate MOS:BOLDLINK. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD seems to be what's happening has currently formatted, and I think that is the best way to convey this without trying to bend over backwards to find a formatting that would allow bolding. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- And this would also be a possible violation of MOS:AVOIDBOLD and MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Could we give the constant tweaking a rest?
I've never seen any MoS page, or any guideline page of any kind for that matter, subject to so much constant change for so long a stretch. This material is supposed to be stable, especially when it comes to the substantive meaning of what it is saying (versus exactly how it's punctuated or whether a sentence has proper plurality agreement or other cosmetic matters). But there has been such a firehose of changes, for a week or two now, that it's very difficult to have a clear idea of where the meaning has shifted, where what it's saying is going to result in a need for changes across numerous articles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. There have been 57 consecutive edits by MapReader, including changes to MOS:TVUPCOMING that state that season headers should be of the form "Season eleven" rather than "Season 11", for which there is no consensus (this change appears throughout the MoS). I'm in half a mind to restore to the late stable version. -- Alex_21 TALK 19:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But the material is badly written in many places, and I have been careful not to change the meaning; each individual edit corrects pretty obvious flaws in grammar or needless repetition of words like “television show” that are implicit from the context. It’s pretty easy to use the history page to review all the changes in one go - from which you’ll see the considerable number of errors that were in the original text - and obviously if anyone thinks any of the edits changes the intention of the text, I am not going to argue about it. MapReader (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- I would recommend changing the season numbering formats back to their previous state, and open a discussion if you wish to change it. These [1][2] are not acceptable changes. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- @MapReader Given your recent contribution history, I see you're trying to make the MoS conform with WP:MOSNUM. Can you show where you a consensus for this? If not, are you able to separately restore the numbering format from before your edits, or will the recent edits to the MoS need to be restored completely? -- Alex_21 TALK 20:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Doesn’t the site-wide MoS apply to the formatting of project MoS pages in the same way as to other articles? MapReader (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- MapReader should draft their proposed changes in a sandbox rather than making an excessive number of consecutive edits and triggering everyone's watchlists. I agree with Alex 21 that the most recent stable version should be restored. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- I would invite you to use the history page to review the large numbers of basic errors, of spelling, punctuation and grammar, as well as incorrectly quoted leads from other articles, and unnecessary and often repetitive duplications, that I’ve removed from the text. Almost every edit has reduced the word count, representing good practice copy-editing, with nothing intended to be added to the long-standing guidelines. By any objective standard the drafting of the original text wasn’t that great. MapReader (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- I am not suggesting that the previous stable revision was perfect or free of errors, or that your version is terrible. I'm saying you should copy-and-paste the entire text of the MoS, move it to a sandbox, make as many consecutive edits as you'd like, and then present your revised version here if there are any major changes. If it's just spelling and grammar changes, you are free to implement those changes directly, but the key is to make them as one bulk edit so our watchlists are not inundated with repeated notifications. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- I had assumed that one bulk edit would be unwelcome since it would contain a large batch of small spelling and grammar changes, no easier to review than using the history page to review those I have made one by one, and making all of these at once would stop anyone reverting any particular change if they had any issue with it. MapReader (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable concern, though clearly the change to "Season Two" style does not have consensus. We use numerals for various things that numerals are more customarily used for, such as sports scores, book volume and page numbers, issues of comic books, etc. I think there's a good bet that TV show seasons/series numbers are one of them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- I also recognize that there's a lot of fixes to basic errors in grammar among the edits, but the onus is not on other editors to have to sort through them all to find the singular edits that need restoring. MapReader, kindly restore the edits to the season numbering style as soon as possible, else the last stable version may have to be restored. Thanks.
- Concerning the number of edits, this is why {{uw-preview}} exists; too many edits (i.e. over 60) can clog the edit history, and, as SMcCandlish, spam the watchlists of those watching the MoS page. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Your assumption is (in my opinion) correct. If you had a huge list of changes there is a more than likely chance that no one will really want to look at it. Whoever has an issue with any specific change you did (and article history is there to view those) should raise it here, like Alex did, and then either restore it or get consensus for it. There is no reason to revert anything else. That said, you could make bigger chunks of edits to reduce the number of edits total. Gonnym (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Personally, my issue concerning the edits changing "season 1" to "season one", is that this style of edit (quoting NUMERAL) by the same editor was already disputed at another article, taken to AN to no avail, and then those same changes made to the MoS without consensus and witin 24 hours of the dispute, knowing there was previously disagreement to them. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have an issue with changing them back, and will do this shortly. Nothing however got changed within the Mos as to how numerals are presented within film articles themselves; simply the formatting of the MoS document itself, as basic copy-editing. I have yet to find anything that refers to how series numerals are formatted within film articles, and if there is indeed a specified exception to the general rule within WP:MOS I would appreciate being pointed to it. MapReader (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's not really necessary for any MoS section to list every conceivable exception. Guidelines are guidelines not policies, and that one clearly even says "generally". We're not listing various other exceptions to MOS:NUMERALS, like volume and issue numbering (to which series/season and episode numbering are rather exactly analogous), page numbering, etc. The fact that the section does list some examples of exceptions does not mean we must wrack our brains for every imaginable example. Until you got a wild hare about this, there was no dispute on WP about how to write series/season and episode numbers, and MoS should not include line-items about things which are not subject to repetitive editorial dispute, because it is over-long already (see WP:MOSBLOAT). The very fact of MOS:TV providing examples written with numerals is already enough guidance. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have an issue with changing them back, and will do this shortly. Nothing however got changed within the Mos as to how numerals are presented within film articles themselves; simply the formatting of the MoS document itself, as basic copy-editing. I have yet to find anything that refers to how series numerals are formatted within film articles, and if there is indeed a specified exception to the general rule within WP:MOS I would appreciate being pointed to it. MapReader (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Personally, my issue concerning the edits changing "season 1" to "season one", is that this style of edit (quoting NUMERAL) by the same editor was already disputed at another article, taken to AN to no avail, and then those same changes made to the MoS without consensus and witin 24 hours of the dispute, knowing there was previously disagreement to them. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I had assumed that one bulk edit would be unwelcome since it would contain a large batch of small spelling and grammar changes, no easier to review than using the history page to review those I have made one by one, and making all of these at once would stop anyone reverting any particular change if they had any issue with it. MapReader (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- I am not suggesting that the previous stable revision was perfect or free of errors, or that your version is terrible. I'm saying you should copy-and-paste the entire text of the MoS, move it to a sandbox, make as many consecutive edits as you'd like, and then present your revised version here if there are any major changes. If it's just spelling and grammar changes, you are free to implement those changes directly, but the key is to make them as one bulk edit so our watchlists are not inundated with repeated notifications. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- I would invite you to use the history page to review the large numbers of basic errors, of spelling, punctuation and grammar, as well as incorrectly quoted leads from other articles, and unnecessary and often repetitive duplications, that I’ve removed from the text. Almost every edit has reduced the word count, representing good practice copy-editing, with nothing intended to be added to the long-standing guidelines. By any objective standard the drafting of the original text wasn’t that great. MapReader (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- MapReader should draft their proposed changes in a sandbox rather than making an excessive number of consecutive edits and triggering everyone's watchlists. I agree with Alex 21 that the most recent stable version should be restored. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Doesn’t the site-wide MoS apply to the formatting of project MoS pages in the same way as to other articles? MapReader (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
There should not be any exception. The heirarchy of page development should start at Policy, then move to generalistic guildeines (e.g., basic writing), and then to speciality guidelines (e.g., WikiTVMOS --> WikiTVCharacterMOS, etc.). This guideline does not supercede any general guideline on writing. This has always been the case, and the reason why we have frequently referenced other guidelines when it came to how to handle titles, page splitting, etc. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you and MapReader really, really, really want to go add season/series and episode numbers as an enumerated "exception" at MOS:NUMERALS, have at it. But don't be surprised if someone reverts it as unnecessary instruction creep that is not addressing any actual problem. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- My understanding was that season/episode numbers were proper to be shown as numerals in tables and infoboxes, but follow MOSNUM (i.e. in words for numbers below ten and for others to achieve consistency) in the body of the text. I've seen a fair few articles where that is the case, and in the body of an article it does read better to say "season two was well reviewed..." rather than "season 2 was well reviewed" IMHO. Clearly my understanding is wrong, or at least not shared by others; not having it spelled out anywhere isn't helpful and while the core MoS isn't the place to do it, surely MOSTV would be? MapReader (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I guess, but how is it not already clear when MOS:TV is written with examples using numerals? Anyway, maybe draft some language? If we insert a "rule" about it, it should be clear that "second season" or "seventh episode" would be written that way; we have no reason to abbreviate it to "2nd season" or "7th episode" (though we would do "24th episode" per MOS:ORDINALS). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- For the body of text within an article, it's not obvious why "season two was well reviewed" would be subject to any different consideration than any other sentence containing "two"? For example, it took just a few seconds to pull up Friends, an extremely well-known article which I am pretty sure I have never edited myself - and a WP:GA - while the infoboxes, titles and tables all show season numbers in numerals, much of the text follows Mosnum - for example see the cast and characters section here, or indeed the linked article List of Friends and Joey characters. There will be tons of others. The wording I would expect to see would be along the lines of "Season/series and episode numbers should be written using numerals within titles, subtitles, tables and infoboxes, but otherwise within the text (body) of an article the normal guidlines of MOS:NUM and MOS:ORDINALS apply" MapReader (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- That would just result in very inconsistent treatment, veering from one style to another in the same article, like unto writing "Superman #8" in one place (following the "#N" convention for comics) but "Superman no. eight" elsewhere in the same piece, and we just don't do that. (But we would write "the eighth issue of Superman"). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've personally always followed the rule of "the second season" over "season two" as well, and I support that usage. However, yes, for (and not limited to) headings, series overview tables, and cast listings, WikiProject Television has always used numerical values. There is no "heirarchy" outside of policies, guidelines are solely recommendations, and I could absolutely find many series articles out there that don't follow this MoS to a tee for the benefit of the article. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- That would just result in very inconsistent treatment, veering from one style to another in the same article, like unto writing "Superman #8" in one place (following the "#N" convention for comics) but "Superman no. eight" elsewhere in the same piece, and we just don't do that. (But we would write "the eighth issue of Superman"). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- For the body of text within an article, it's not obvious why "season two was well reviewed" would be subject to any different consideration than any other sentence containing "two"? For example, it took just a few seconds to pull up Friends, an extremely well-known article which I am pretty sure I have never edited myself - and a WP:GA - while the infoboxes, titles and tables all show season numbers in numerals, much of the text follows Mosnum - for example see the cast and characters section here, or indeed the linked article List of Friends and Joey characters. There will be tons of others. The wording I would expect to see would be along the lines of "Season/series and episode numbers should be written using numerals within titles, subtitles, tables and infoboxes, but otherwise within the text (body) of an article the normal guidlines of MOS:NUM and MOS:ORDINALS apply" MapReader (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I guess, but how is it not already clear when MOS:TV is written with examples using numerals? Anyway, maybe draft some language? If we insert a "rule" about it, it should be clear that "second season" or "seventh episode" would be written that way; we have no reason to abbreviate it to "2nd season" or "7th episode" (though we would do "24th episode" per MOS:ORDINALS). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- My understanding was that season/episode numbers were proper to be shown as numerals in tables and infoboxes, but follow MOSNUM (i.e. in words for numbers below ten and for others to achieve consistency) in the body of the text. I've seen a fair few articles where that is the case, and in the body of an article it does read better to say "season two was well reviewed..." rather than "season 2 was well reviewed" IMHO. Clearly my understanding is wrong, or at least not shared by others; not having it spelled out anywhere isn't helpful and while the core MoS isn't the place to do it, surely MOSTV would be? MapReader (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
When you say "there is no heirarchy", I point you to the literal first paragraph of WP:MOS, which states: "This Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles (though provisions related to accessibility apply across the entire project, not just to articles). This primary page is supported by further detail pages, which are cross-referenced here and listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Contents. If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence." Yes, we do have heirarchies. The fact that you can point to many pages that don't follow this guideline or some other guideline does NOT mean that there isn't an heirarchy, that they shouldn't be followed, or that those pages are operating correctly. There are certainly aspects of any guideline that may be ignored, but those are exceptional cases, and not the rule. Otherwise, it would simply be part of the guideline. When this MOS was originally drafted (and I know, because I fucking wrote it with several others), we frequently were checking to make sure it did not say anything that contradicted other guidelines. You cannot have guidelines contradicting each other. They can handle certain things differently, but they cannot outright contradict each other. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Then if it is such a violation of guidelines (note, not policy), then I recommend you gain a consensus to change and correct those thousands of articles, instead of just talking about it and not presenting a solution.No point suggesting this to an editor who cannot remain civil, my bad. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)- The wider point here is that we actually don’t have a guideline. We have site-wide policies, which are specific and clear, and then we have actual practice for TV articles - which is heavily inconsistent, and for MoSTV I don’t buy SMcCandlish’s presumption that, merely because some examples (put there to illustrate unrelated points) happen to use a particular format, this in itself somehow constitutes a guideline. Clearly it doesn’t and that isn’t the WP way, which is to be as specific as possible when it comes to matters of format or style (even if that specificity is that editors have a choice, or we leave things be). It also seems peculiar to be so specific on ordinals - so within article text we want “second season” not “2nd season”, without the same applying to “season two” not “season 2”, when the visual interruption to the reader of coming across an unnecessary numeral mid-sentence is broadly the same? MapReader (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- And what we don't want is a WP:POLICYFORK or a perception of one. If we think there's a perception of one here (a minor, topical guideline creating a "magical exception" to a general rule that seems like it should apply to this topic), then the solution is to open an RfC here to hammer out the details; put the resulting wording in MOS:TV (if a result is reached that indicates a particular convention in this topic); and (under the same "if") put a one-liner summary of it in the list of exceptions at MOS:NUMERALS. I'm generally resistant to codifying topical exceptions to general rules, but this actually seems to be a conventionalized (even if not yet universal) case for one. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- I know that comment about "someone who cannot remain civil" wasn't aimed at me, because I made no such uncivil remarks to you. If you're trying to claim me saying "I fucking wrote it" is uncivil, then you're misunderstanding civility. I didn't attack you in anyway, and I don't appreciate the attack on my character when the only thing I've done in this entire section was point out that there is in fact a hierarchy to guidelines (as even stated directly by our parent MOS page). I haven't argued a point of what should happen one way or the other. I'm not entirely sure where this weird belief that "because it's a guideline we really don't have to follow it" has come about, because that's not true. Guidelines aren't policies because they contain gray areas that Policies do NOT contain. Not because you can simply ignore them when you don't like them. Gray areas of understanding that articles might be structured in different ways, and guidelines cannot force you to order things one particular way (like a policy would), but if there are guidelines on how to literally write your article (e.g., how to use quotation marks, how to write numbers, etc.) then you don't simply ignore that because you don't like it or "other articles aren't doing that. No one can police every article, and you know as well as I do that there are a lot of things that never get corrected on pages because the main editors of those pages typically don't know what the guideline is for writing. It's also not helpful to take this strawman argument of, "well, why don't you go fix the X number of articles that do it this way?" You have been around long enough to know that when we have mass articles doing something wrong we don't simply let them be. We have banded together and divided them up and got them (at least the majority) fixed. Or someone was kind enough to write a bot that auto corrected simple issues. So, please stop throwing this in people's faces like it's proof that we should just accept whatever the problem is. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Quit the personal attacks. Bottom line, both MOS:NUM and :ORDINALS direct that numbers and ordinals within the body of articles should be written in text, rather than numerals, certainly below ten. There’s nothing in MOS:TV currently that has any consensus to do anything different, although I accept that for infoboxes, tables and lists, sticking with numerals does make sense, as it does probably (although it is arguable, on grounds of readability) for titles. For text within articles, such as commentary along the lines of “season two received mixed reviews”, having the season number in text is clearly preferable for readability, reflects MOS:NUM, and doesn’t contradict anything currently written within MOS:TV. MapReader (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- And is there anything dictating between the usage of "season two received mixed reviews" and "the second season received mixed reviews"? -- Alex_21 TALK 20:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not that I can see. Both formations are readable, and clear. Both read best in lower case text. But it wouldn’t make sense to prefer one over the other solely because one is allowed to be in words and the other not, when the problem would be with the latter guideline, if it existed. MapReader (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- And is there anything dictating between the usage of "season two received mixed reviews" and "the second season received mixed reviews"? -- Alex_21 TALK 20:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Quit the personal attacks. Bottom line, both MOS:NUM and :ORDINALS direct that numbers and ordinals within the body of articles should be written in text, rather than numerals, certainly below ten. There’s nothing in MOS:TV currently that has any consensus to do anything different, although I accept that for infoboxes, tables and lists, sticking with numerals does make sense, as it does probably (although it is arguable, on grounds of readability) for titles. For text within articles, such as commentary along the lines of “season two received mixed reviews”, having the season number in text is clearly preferable for readability, reflects MOS:NUM, and doesn’t contradict anything currently written within MOS:TV. MapReader (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- The wider point here is that we actually don’t have a guideline. We have site-wide policies, which are specific and clear, and then we have actual practice for TV articles - which is heavily inconsistent, and for MoSTV I don’t buy SMcCandlish’s presumption that, merely because some examples (put there to illustrate unrelated points) happen to use a particular format, this in itself somehow constitutes a guideline. Clearly it doesn’t and that isn’t the WP way, which is to be as specific as possible when it comes to matters of format or style (even if that specificity is that editors have a choice, or we leave things be). It also seems peculiar to be so specific on ordinals - so within article text we want “second season” not “2nd season”, without the same applying to “season two” not “season 2”, when the visual interruption to the reader of coming across an unnecessary numeral mid-sentence is broadly the same? MapReader (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- In the interest of MapReader's intent of being "careful not to change the meaning", I re-added a few things that are significant enough to change the meaning, based on my reading. I agree with this thread that substantial changes in meaning should be discussed, even if they seem uncontroversial to some. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- No worries at all. The paragraph you have edited begins by saying “…not offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens…” and you have added back in, to avoid “scene-by-scene breakdowns”, which I took to be making the same point twice. But if you think this is a substantive change your revert is welcome. MapReader (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Number format within TV articles - request for views
MOSTV is silent on what number format is appropriate for references to season/series and episodes within TV articles. There are both numerical (“season 1”) and worded (“season one”) formats used within the text of the project MoS itself, and actual practice within TV articles varies widely.
WP-wide policy (MOS:NUMERAL) is that within tables and infoboxes, digits are used, but in article text including headings, numbers smaller than ten should be written as words, and proximate related numbers should follow the same format. Otherwise, numbers ten and up are written as numerals.
I suggest that it would be helpful to add a sentence to this MoS, within the “Parent, season, and episode article structure” section, to clarify how season and episode numbers should best be formatted within TV articles. I suggest that a choice needs to be made between the following options, before establishing consensus on the wording of such an addition:
Option One: Follow MOSNUM. Season and episode numbers in article tables and infoboxes should be in numerals, and in headings and body, should be in words if below ten, with consistent format being used for larger numbers in the same context (i.e. if seasons one through nine are in words then seasons ten up are also in words).
Option Two: Follow MOSNUM except for headings and subheadings. Thus season and episode numbers should be in numerals in tables, infoboxes and headings/sub-headings, but in words (below ten, and above in the same context) within article body.
Option Three: Season and episode numbers should be expressed as numerals, in tables, infoboxes, headings and article body.
I seek editors’ views on the best approach before proposing a specific addition to the MoS. If I might finish with a personal view, I would ask that if there is support for option three, a justification for TV project articles departing so significantly from WP-wide policy does need to be advanced. MapReader (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- I favor option 3 because it's broadly conventional to refer to seasons and episodes with numerals (generally, not just on Wikipedia). I.e., add another exception at MOS:NUMERALS. However, it would be preferable to write "in the seventh season of ...". That is, there is a difference between describing the season or episode ("the seventh season", "the third episode") and enumerating a season and/or episode ("season 7, epsisode 12"). They are different formats, even if they basically convey the same information. That said, I could live with "the 7th season".As a second choice, I would go with a version of option 2. However, it should be extended to also include citations, because our convention for citations is to do things like "Volume 3, Issue 7", and doing "Season Three, Episode Seven" in them would be needlessly inconsistent, and something that editors probably just will not go along with in practice. Also, I believe that option 1 and by extention part of option 2 are incorrectly reading MOS:NUMERALS. It does not suggest anything about writing numbers that are ten or higher as words instead of numerals to match lower numbers in the same context. That appears to have come out of nowhere. What it does say is that writing out larger numbers is a permissible option. But it doesn't have a context-related requirement.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Option One - If there is a parent guideline on how to write articles from a grammatical sense, then we follow the grammar rules. This would be something hit on in a GA or FA application, because it isn't about your personal style on writing but on the grammar rules we follow. You may not like Chicago Style writing, but that's the writing style that Wikipedia uses across the board. That said, I'm not sure that this MOS should explicitly state that. If anything, maybe we have an item somewhere that points out that this MOS does not supercede any grammar MOS, and whatever rules are identified there are rules that are followed on TV related pages. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)