→Bolding: redirects? |
→Bolding: again, unfortunately |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
::The recent series of edit around my revert of [[Leverage (TV series)]] brought me here. I would be fine with character names being bolded if there was a corresponding associated redirect to the article. Just bolding character names as a rote matter of TV style conflicts with the simplicity and minimal use in [[MOS:BOLD]]. —[[user:EncMstr|EncMstr]] ([[user talk:EncMstr|talk]]) 22:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC) |
::The recent series of edit around my revert of [[Leverage (TV series)]] brought me here. I would be fine with character names being bolded if there was a corresponding associated redirect to the article. Just bolding character names as a rote matter of TV style conflicts with the simplicity and minimal use in [[MOS:BOLD]]. —[[user:EncMstr|EncMstr]] ([[user talk:EncMstr|talk]]) 22:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
I'm bringing this up again because [[User:Bovineboy2008|Bovineboy2008]] changed this without discussing it. I agree with what [[User:Bignole|Bignole]] said "''It doesn't cancel it out, but at the same time the use of boldface "in few special uses" is exactly what MOSTV is suggesting. The "ACTOR as CHARACTER" format is a "special case"''". I feel that whenever a discussion comes up, everybody states [[WP:MOSFILMS]] (and other guidelines for films), this falls under other stuff exists. Just because in an other place they do it that way, shouldn't mean that it's blindly accepted here. [[User:Xeworlebi|'''<big><big><sub>X</sub></big></big>'''eworlebi]] <sup>([[User talk:Xeworlebi|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Xeworlebi|c]])</sup> 21:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Past or present tense? == |
== Past or present tense? == |
Revision as of 21:03, 6 January 2010
This page has archives. Sections older than 50 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Distribution outside the original country of origin
I'm not seeing anything in the guidelines on this. Most often the section is titled Distribution when the show is simply distributed outside the country it originally aired in and that section will include a table or prose with information about the network it aired on, any relavant history (i.e. season 1 aired on foo network, and seasons 2 on aired on bar network) along with any information about how far behind a particularly country is from the original air dates. A section titled International versions also comes up for shows like Amazing Race, Married with Children, and Survivor (TV Series) where the show was remade in another country. Simiarly that section contains details about these versions. These seem like reasonable conventions to add to these guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a typically common section among FAs, as far as I can remember, unless there was something special about those international releases (as you pointed out above) - though I wouldn't be opposed to having such a section included in the MOS. Arrested Development has one, but it's all completely unsourced (as is most of the article...and it should probably go to WP:FAR, but that's another story); Degrassi: The Next Generation has a one sentence mentioning of the US broadcasting, but primarily focuses on its country of origin (Canada); Firefly has one but it's basically discussing the broadcasting of 11 out of 13 episodes and the DVD release; Lost doesn't have any section for it...but that's probably another that needs FAR; I don't see one at The Simpsons either. There doesn't seem to be a consistency in this information being included, which might suggest that we scope the proposed section to be more of a "you can include" than a "you must include". Beyond Canada, I think it gets difficult to find overseas broadcasting for US television shows. It's not even a typical staple of the FILM project for their articles, unless there's something special about the overseas release of the film (large number of theaters, foreign box office records). If you were to write up a section, how would you make it look? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Here are some examples of Distribution sections: Friends#Distribution, South Park#Distribution, The Ren and Stimpy Show#Distribution, Knight_Rider_(1982_TV_series)#Distribution, House (TV Series). Referencing varies from okay to not at all. I'll give the section some thought and put up a proposal here.--RadioFan (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Bolding
This seems to conflict with WP:MOSBOLD: "Another means of displaying the information would be in a "ACTOR as CHARACTER" format. Here, the actor and character's names are bolded, and then followed by a colon". Does one trump the other? Copana2002 (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- What do you think is being conflicted? MOSBOLD does not address the issue of using boldface in the body of the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- It does say "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only for a few special uses etc." I am just confused if MOSTV cancels out MOSBOLD. Copana2002 (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't cancel it out, but at the same time the use of boldface "in few special uses" is exactly what MOSTV is suggesting. The "ACTOR as CHARACTER" format is a "special case", it only exists in one section of the article (and not all articles follow that setup), and it's also a standard followed by WP:MOSFILMS. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. :) 02:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't cancel it out, but at the same time the use of boldface "in few special uses" is exactly what MOSTV is suggesting. The "ACTOR as CHARACTER" format is a "special case", it only exists in one section of the article (and not all articles follow that setup), and it's also a standard followed by WP:MOSFILMS. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Bold_formatting_in_.22Cast.22_section The film style guidelines discourage the use of Bold for fictional character names in "ACTOR as CHARACTER" which this style guide recommends, and I had assumed the same style applied to television articles and was surprised to find the WP:MOSTV guidelines actually encouraged it, especially since WP:BOLD recommends using bold sparingly. The above comment from June seems to suggest the film guidelines have moved on to a new consensus since June 2009 and it has created this inconsistency. I'd like to see Project Television follow their lead but right or wrong the guideline should be consistent to both Projects Film and Project Television. -- Horkana (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- MOSFILMS has not always discouraged it. That was something done in the recent history. If it's not the trend anymore, then it can be corrected. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- The recent series of edit around my revert of Leverage (TV series) brought me here. I would be fine with character names being bolded if there was a corresponding associated redirect to the article. Just bolding character names as a rote matter of TV style conflicts with the simplicity and minimal use in MOS:BOLD. —EncMstr (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm bringing this up again because Bovineboy2008 changed this without discussing it. I agree with what Bignole said "It doesn't cancel it out, but at the same time the use of boldface "in few special uses" is exactly what MOSTV is suggesting. The "ACTOR as CHARACTER" format is a "special case"". I feel that whenever a discussion comes up, everybody states WP:MOSFILMS (and other guidelines for films), this falls under other stuff exists. Just because in an other place they do it that way, shouldn't mean that it's blindly accepted here. Xeworlebi (t•c) 21:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Past or present tense?
It appears Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines doesn't address the issue of which tense to use when writing about a television series. I write mostly film articles, and in those you always say "XYZ is a 1950 American drama film . . ." because once a film is made it exists forever. But what about a series from the 1950s such as Producers' Showcase? It seems silly to say "The series is packaged and produced by Showcase Productions, Inc." when Showcase Productions probably doesn't exist anymore. I think if a show like I Love Lucy or The Golden Girls is seen regularly in reruns, the present tense makes sense. But what about an old series that hasn't been broadcast in 52 years? Thanks for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Works of fiction should always be in present tense. So anytime you refer to what happens in the series or who appears, then it should be in present tense. Real world happenings, like when the DVD was released or when the show was canceled should be in past tense. I think... BOVINEBOY2008 15:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- The same is true with TV series, in terms of "XYZ is a X year Television series" (it still exists), but when talking about distribution of a series it "was packaged and produced by Showcase Productions." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- One can say, "This is a play by Tennessee Williams" and "This play by Tennessee Williams was produced..." Live television of the 1950s was like theater. So, "This teleplay is by JP Miller" or "This Tad Mosel teleplay was produced..." The day after the show one could say, "That was quite a production last night on U.S. Steel Hour." Years later, one might say, "Remember when U.S. Steel Hour was on? It was a live series, and only a few kinescopes survived. It was a great show though." Pepso2 (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't address it because it's addressed at Writing about Fiction - which is a more appropriate home. Maybe we could mention something somewhere. That said, I think that Bovine and Collectonian addressed the uses pretty well. Basically, since we can always watch the show, the events are always present tense. The only time this would change for the show itself would be if all copies of the show were deleted and it does not air or have any possible verification in the present day beyond secondary sources. Even then, you could probably find a way to write it in present tense. So, rule of thumb is if you are restating events in a TV show they should be in present tense.
- OH! I just thought of another instance of "past" tense. If the show itself is discussing something that took place in the past off camera (e.g., The people of Gossip Girl talking about what their grandparents did when they were younger, which is never actually seen), then that would be put in past tense. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- A "kinescope" can be mentioned in present tense because it exists. Back to the theater/live tv comparison: Suppose I said to someone, "Did you see Henry Fonda in the opening night of Mr. Roberts? I understand this is one of the greatest opening nights on Broadway." How confusing is that? Pepso2 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
If a series such as Producers' Showcase was broadcast live, and there are no existing tapes of any of the episodes, is it a series or was it a series? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- It still is a series. A nearly impossible one to find, but it possibly still "exists" as live broadcasts are almost always recorded, and people may have made personal copies. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Is this what you are talking about Maven? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Those were the two episodes devoted to classical music, so apparently some of them were preserved. Thank you all for your feedback! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Is this what you are talking about Maven? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Almost everything is gone. The Paley Center claims a collection of 120,000 items, but they count individual episodes, radio programs, tv commercials and interviews. What is missing falls into several categories: accidentally wiped (as the BBC did with early Dennis Potter plays), intentionally wiped for reuse of videotape, intentionally wiped to gain storage space, lost because of poor record-keeping, materials stolen and shows never recorded. Here's the List of lost television broadcasts. Here are 10 missing-feared-lost TV shows. ABC had people turning rewinds to deposit 16mm prints directly into a trash barrel. Steve Allen got some media coverage when he announced that NBC had thrown out almost every kinescope from the 1950s. In many cases, the Paley Center only has two or three episodes of major TV shows that ran for several seasons. In radio, of 3500 episodes of Vic and Sade, only 330 survived. The comic strip Our Boarding House was adapted into a 1942-43 radio series with Arthur Q. Bryan and Mel Blanc, but no episodes are known to exist. Over 27 years, One Man's Family ran on NBC for 3,256 episodes of which only 380 episodes apparently exist. Pepso2 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok...what exactly does this have to do with how to write a plot summary? If you don't know what happens because there isn't anything to view, then you cannot write anything to begin with. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify things, my original question had nothing to do with how to write a plot summary. I simply wanted to know if the opening sentence about an old television series should describe it as is or was. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 21:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, so that's just where we ended up. My bad on that one. Then, in that case if you can prove there are absolutely no copies left (i.e. no way to view this show), then it "was" a TV show. If there are copies somewhere, even if they just are not available to the public, then it is "is" a TV show. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Could we mention that in the style guideline? Changing "is" to "was" seems to be a frequent mistake made by people editing articles about recently cancelled shows. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok...what exactly does this have to do with how to write a plot summary? If you don't know what happens because there isn't anything to view, then you cannot write anything to begin with. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we could use correct and incorrect examples like WP:MOS does.
Incorrect: Seinfeld was an American television sitcom that aired on NBC Correct: Seinfeld is an American television sitcom that aired on NBC
Somehow the tense usage needs to be more prominent in the guidelines since editors keep asking about it. Sarilox (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- We could probably incorporate some details from, and a link to, Wikipedia:TENSE#Check_your_fiction. --Ckatzchatspy 19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like this presentation. It is essentially saying the same thing, but is more clear. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think the Seinfeld example above would be a great inclusion to the guideline page. I'm forever encountering the problem regarding tense (most recently at T. J. Hooker). Citing WP:TENSE in edit summaries rarely works so I've resorted to placing a hidden note right next to the "is" in the lede if the article is forever popping up on my watchlist. The people that want to edit war over the tense think I'm either really behind on the status of television shows or am interpreting the guideline wrong. It's getting old, that's for sure. Pinkadelica♣ 04:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
A discussion concerning the navigation boxes at the bottom of articles has started at WT:TV#Navigation boxes. Please join and weigh your opinion. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Ordering
There was a discussion a little while ago about making the order of sections consistent across the board for all articles. It was determined that we needed some concrete language put into the MOS to let editors know the basic order of an article. In other words, specifically state that the first thing after the lead should be the plot section. I know there is a current trend in the season list pages to put the episode list last, but from a comprehension standpoint this make little sense. The page is about the episodes; real world info is put into context by the plot summaries, and generally the first thing people want to read when they come to these pages is the plot. Thus, it makes sense that it should be the first thing on the page (after the lead). Otherwise, the plot doesn't provide any context to the real world info that follows--not even listy info like awards/reception--and it makes the page less about the episodes themselves. Granted, we'll need to go through the season FLs and readjust the order, which should be simple enough. Any objections? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)