AussieLegend (talk | contribs) →Cast lists and is/was: new section |
|||
Line 428: | Line 428: | ||
:"Accolades" is the new term being used by the Film Project. This project has not started discussions about its use at this time. The Film project also believes that unless you're dealing with an exceptionally large number of awards (see [[The Dark Knight (film)]] for an example), then prose is going to look better. Right now, there is no indication that ''Hellcats'' is going to be an award hound, and I don't see any problem with having a sentence over a single line table to convey the message of being nominated for something. As far as this page goes, I don't think it's ever been discussed one way or the other. It's certainly something that should be addressed here (BTW, please visit above discussions for other changes to this MOS that are still pending). [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 21:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC) |
:"Accolades" is the new term being used by the Film Project. This project has not started discussions about its use at this time. The Film project also believes that unless you're dealing with an exceptionally large number of awards (see [[The Dark Knight (film)]] for an example), then prose is going to look better. Right now, there is no indication that ''Hellcats'' is going to be an award hound, and I don't see any problem with having a sentence over a single line table to convey the message of being nominated for something. As far as this page goes, I don't think it's ever been discussed one way or the other. It's certainly something that should be addressed here (BTW, please visit above discussions for other changes to this MOS that are still pending). [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 21:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Cast lists and is/was == |
|||
Over the past year or two I've seen an increasing number of editors who always ask "where is ''that'' written down" when a policy or standard practice is mentioned. Two such cases that apply here are cast lists and use of "is" and "was" in the lede of articles about discontinued TV programs. "We always treat fiction in the present" is often stated but it doesn't seem to be addressed here. This leads to both of the issues mentioned. TV articles often split characters into "current" and "former" sections and often, as soon as a TV series ends is changed to "[[Foo]] was a television program....". While common-sense should prevail, unfortunately it seems that it is becoming rare these days. "May contain traces of peanuts" is something that you never used to see but now it appears everywhere, sometimes even on jars/bags of peanuts. It just seems that people need to be told as they can't work it out for themselves. So, my question is, shouldn't we include the following in the MOS: |
|||
* Fiction is always treated in the present |
|||
* TV articles start with "[[Foo]] is a television program...." and not "[[Foo]] was a television program...." even if the article has ended/been cancelled |
|||
* Cast lists should not be split into current/former sections. |
|||
Obviously, this is not the actual wording but I feel these really need to be written down for the benefit of the increasing number of people who need the "may contain traces of peanuts" warning. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 04:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:10, 6 January 2011
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Updates to the MOS
Progress on consensus
- rearrange episode list, placement of episode table ( no. 7 accepted, discussion)
- removal of "Series Overview" table ( denied, see discussion)
- removal of DVD release dates in series overview table (pending, see ongoing discussion)
- removal of unsourced future dates in headers ( no. 6 accepted, see discussion)
- conversion of DVD information to prose format ( no. 2 accepted, see discussion)
- removal of broadcasting lists ( no. 1 accepted, see discussion)
- removal of interlanguage links ( no. 5 accepted, see discussion)
- cast section format ( no. 3 accepted, see discussion)
- ratings section format (pending, see ongoing discussion)
- removal of excessive coloring in tables ( no. 4 accepted, see discussion)
There is currently a discussion above (see #LOE pages and 'Series Overview' tables) regarding "overview" tables in List of Episode pages. First, I'd like to find out where we are in that discussion. Secondly, I'd like to have us discuss two more areas of interest.
The first being the order in which a page should be layed out. Currently, season pages and some episode articles are starting to put the episode table dead last, or at least behind production info. I think this is being done based on a chronological order concept (i.e., you make the show then you air it, then it's received, and last released on DVD). I think we need a standard style across the board because this isn't reflective everwhere. My personal stance is that episodes should come first, primarily because their entire existence (per WP:WAF) is to provide context to the real world information. If they come last, or are in the middle, then they fail to provide that context. If you're reading about how they came up with a character, or did some effects, yet you have to scroll down to find the corresponding episode just to find out exactly what happened then you're missing the point of the episode summaries providing that context. If the table came first you'd read the summaries and already have a basic idea of what happens in each episode, so when you come across that OOU info you better understand it. TV is closely related to Film, and this order is the standard way in which film articles are written.
The second area of interest is in the DVD release section. Recently in reviews, I've started noticing that the DVD release section becomes less about discussing when a DVD was released, or how much it sold, and more about detailing every minute special feature the box sets have. This strikes me more like we're a vender trying to sell something and less like we're a encyclopedia trying to educate. I could see if the information was more prose based, and we discuss the importance of certain features, but what I've seeing is merely a table that bullet lists the features and looks like the back of a box set.
What are other's opinions on this matter? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Order of the episode table
Accepted and implemented
|
---|
I agree completely on the episode table issue; I tend to think of it as the equivalent of the "Plot" section in a film article so I see a direct parallel in the order you propose. Millahnna (mouse)talk 18:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I really don't know about this. I think that Lost (season 1) is a very well laid out article. It provides a good overview of the information about the season, and that information would be lost if it was dropped below the table. If there's not a lot of information above the table, yes, it can make things look a bit bare, so I'd say an article by article idea would be better, rather than a chronological or episode-centric be-all-and-end-all approach. -- WORMMЯOW 09:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine withthat. I assumed the extra explanation was the wordy part that could get cut. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
|
DVD information
Accepted and implemented
|
---|
I think I basically agree on the DVD features issue. The bulleted lists and tables come out looking exactly as you describe and we don't need to list every bonus on the DVD. At the same time, I'd be a little bit concerned if we were too limiting on what features we chose to leave out. Again, I find myself comparing it to film articles (though both projects do many things differently, there is certainly plenty of crossover). In most film articles I've seen where DVD extras are discussed, the method seems to be along the lines of: "Bonus features on the box set includes deleted scenes, several making of featurettes (including one specific to the [insert random groundbreaking visual effect here]), and an alternate ending where some other guy died instead of the guy who died in the above plot summary. Additionally, early concept art by [misc. awesome effects designer] is included with notes on the development process." Then sometimes there will be specific detail on things like deleted scenes or alternate endings if there are interviews out there discussing the changes. I don't see why the same approach wouldn't work here at WP:TV. Millahnna (mouse)talk 18:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
On the DVD issue, Lost (TV_series)#DVD and Blu-ray Disc releases is a great example of prose (minus the citation flags).... though I think, looking at it now, that the header name should be switched to Home media. Smallville#Home release is also a good example of the section in table format with prose above. Personally, I don't see how we can make a stand alone section saying everything that can be explained in a table as prose. Then again, do we really need to know that season 1 had 4 discs? By getting rid of the series overview and adding some DVD info to the lead, having the section in prose would be beneficial. Furthermore, the featured article Supernatural season one has a very good section, not too long, not too short. Hopefully my input help. ChaosMasterChat 22:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Reception/reviews of home media
How about adding something about including reviews for the DVD/Blu-ray and it's special features/quality etc. in this section? Xeworlebi (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- In general, I don't think there would be anything wrong with it, so long as there was something with substance. I think one-liners shouldn't be used, and silly things like "Critic X did not like the fact that there was no blooper reel" are probably irrelevant. The good stuff is probably going to come from people actually discussing the extras themselves, like commenting on how detailed or non-detailed a particular featurette is, or the fact that the commentary on the episodes was less about what went into making the episode and more about random jokes while watching the show. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't really think there would be anything wrong with it, but is it something we should include in the MOS? (I think it should) As for reviews http://www.blu-ray.com does some really in-dept reviews of the quality of sound and audio, not so much on extra's although it goes over the quality/quantity of those as well. And for example Veronica Mars (season 1) has some stuff about the lack of special features and that it was released after the second season premiered. More in-dept reviews of special features would be nice, but not that easy to come by as most reviews are about the show itself and discuss special features as "it's nice, or not". Xeworlebi (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly. I think we can add something to the MOS along the lines of, "If reviews on special features are available, and provide more than a simple passing mention (e.g., Veronica Mars season two DVD lacks a blooper reel and deleted scenes), then it would be appropriate to add that information the Home Media section of the article." - It can be worded however, this is just a quick example. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- That implies to only include reviews of the special features' content. Take for example Human Target were I added a review from blu-ray.com talking about video and sound quality and that the reviewer found it a bit expensive for just 12 episodes. It doesn't go into the special features themselves, but I still think it's valuable to the reader. Xeworlebi (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, no...I agree. I wasn't intended to isolate special features by themselves. Like I said, that was just a quick example of what we could include. Instead of saying "special features" we could leave it as simply, "reviews about the DVD (e.g., special features, sound and video quality, etc.) are available...." - Or something like that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I thought your comment had a weird contradiction in it, my mistake. How about adding "Ideally this section also includes reviews about the DVD (e.g., special features, sound and video quality, price/quality-quantity, etc.)." at the end of the Media information section. Xeworlebi (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that addition. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Series overview table
What are your thoughts on the overview tables that most articles have? In the discussion at the top of the talk page, it largely seemed like most are fine with them being removed as they were primarily used for navigational purposes (e.g., skipping to a season section or seeing the year of production), which the table of contents takes care of since we've been implementing the production years into the section headers of each season. To me, it's always been overly redundant information, because you're just repeating what an already summarized list is saying on the same page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- If we want to resolve the DVD issue, whether prose or table format (more on that later), we should also resolve the overview situation. This issue, in my opinion, should be resolved. Why include a table listing EXACTLY everything that is listed a few inches below? All you need to do is scroll down. It is incredibly redundant. Begoon suggested that whatever format is used, should be used on all episode lists. I agree with this also. My main issue, first and foremost, is with neatness. The difference between Law & Order, "V", the X-Files, and Smallville is purely neatness. Smallville, being the "most neat", doesn't have a series overview. X files then gets into a whole buch of "-"s, "V" gets messed up with the table of contents and the overview, while Law and Order is honestly the only "neat" one with the overview (but then again, there is still quite a few "n/a"s). The second problem is: isn't the overview a total redundancy with the lead and table of contents? The lead is supposed to give an overview of the whole series's episodes with the table of contents allowing you to click on different sections (whether its ratings or season 5) and give you a more elaborate explanation of what was "over-viewed" in the lead. If an "overview" is added, this defeats the purpose of both. The lead is basically the series overview in prose format. ChaosMasterChat 22:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Addressing the points brought up by Bignole as well as some other ones.
- Series overview: I did a quick count and this is what I found: from the 62 featured episode lists, 25 have a series overview, from those 37 that don't have one, 22 (60%) have only one season, 4 have two seasons and 11 episode lists have more than 3 seasons without a series overview. The "neatness" ChaosMaster talk about is entirely POV, which I disagree with and a whole bunch of editors seem to as well, looking at a large quantity of episode lists including a series overview table. And ChaosMaster16's removal of them has been objected by multiple editors across multiple articles.
- The series overview is in widespread use and on 40% of the featured episode lists, 63% if you don't count the single season lists. Adding a blatant "no overview tables" on the MOS would be a definite no-no. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- What would you think of a space on this MOS that simply stated "Overview tables are neither mandated nor restricted, and should be decided upon by the community of editors that work on the corresponding articles as to whether or not they should be used"? This way, it's addressed, but there isn't a specifc restriction one way or the other. My main concern, and this is something that has ocurred in the past, is that some editors see them and think they must be in every article and thus go ahead and start mass adding them to every article regardless of whether the people that edit those articles agree with their inclusion. There isn't agreement over whether they are necessary or not, but I don't really like it when something is simply added to other articles "because X articles have them". Every article is different. This is the same reason why we suggest that common sense be used when approaching the DVD information. I think that most people here at least agree that those huge boxes that seem to mirror the back of a DVD boxset are a little unnecessary and the info can be better presented in probably a more terse manner. How it's presented might just require that same topic consensus as the series overview tables. What I'm looking for more is that for things like that, at least have this MOS detail them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I like you're thinking. Everything we can't decide on, we should still mention it and say it's neither mandated nor prohibited. That way, we'll have a spot for later mandating or prohibiting it if we want. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. – sgeureka t•c 06:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. I'd say they're worth keeping on some articles, especially when the number of seasons becomes unruly, but the "every article is different" arguement is certainly one I agree with. -- WORMMЯOW 08:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Seems the most reasonable, I don't see this getting a one way solution any time soon. Xeworlebi (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I like series overview tables; however, there really is no point if there's only one season. I support leaving it up to the editors, as every article is different. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 10:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
(←) So, we agree that it should be left up the editors working those specific pages, but the question now becomes what should be included. Personally, I don't agree with the inclusion of DVD information in these "series overview" tables. They have nothing to do with the series itself. This is the way House does it, and I think this is fine (minus the "Ratings/Share" info that is completely confusing. I don't think DVD/Blu-Ray info should be listed in the series overview section. It's a separate topic IMO. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- As I've already said in the other section, I don't feel that more sections such as ratings and DVD's belong on in the episode list, these should go on the main page or on the seasonal pages. Adding DVD's them to the overview is, again, wide spread use. Xeworlebi (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's widespread, but that doesn't mean it should be that way. All that means is that one person saw another page use it that way and it eventually trickled down into "standard". Trivia pages did this as well. The DVD info has no place at the top of the page like that. It's not part of the "series". It's ancillary merchandising. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- It means it's perfectly acceptable, and most FL who have a series overview include them, moving them into there own section at the bottom of the episode list article is even less the place for it. And it is part of the series, in fact it is the series. I think it was correct to stop this discussion because this will just like the inclusion of the table itself go nowhere. Xeworlebi (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- But it isn't actually "part" of the series. It's merchandise. You cannot have an American series (or a series broadcast in America) without Nielsen Ratings. It may be hard to find less popular shows, but they are still monitored for viewership. It's standard. Not every show is released on DVD, and know the release date of a DVD box set doesn't provide any real information other than I know I can go to my local store and buy it. Nielsen ratings at least provide info on how well a series performed. There's no reason to "stop" the discussion. Right now, it's just been me and you. No one else has weighed in on their opinion about what should be included in the overview table. No reason not to listen to others. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ratings in the series overview is the exception not the standard. Ratings don't really provide that much info about how well the series did, it's all about context, a show with an average of 2.5 million viewers on Syfy is the greatest show ever, on Fox it would get canned after 5 minutes. Smallville has DVD's in a table, Ratings in a table on the episode list. I find that ratings should go on the main page and the DVD's can be added in an overview or also move to the main page. You basically support more even tables.
- I believe your main reason against the overview is it's redundancy, with DVD info this is not the case. Also the series overview is the infobox of the episode list, it summarized the page, just like the infobox, and it's next to the lead, which also summarized the page. They do pretty mush the same thing. But I don't see you going against infoboxes. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is no standard. There are there is merely the current practice. There was never consensus for inclusion or how it should look. There was merely silent following. Silence is consensus in one form, but this is why we are discussing this now. For a formalized consensus. If you think that ratings "don't really provide much info", then how much info does a release date for a DVD provide? It's just a date, that is far less important than the other dates in the table (i.e. premiere and finale). Yes, Smallville has a DVD table and a Ratings table....in what I see as the appropriate place - the end of the article. There are plenty of times when I feel that infoboxes are unnecessary as well. My issue with overview tables is that the lead summarizes the page, then you have the overview table that summarizes the page, then you have the page which is itself a summary. How much to we have to repeat for a reader that they can simply look at an already summarized page? Regardless, I already agreed to a compromise of let the editors choose for that specific page. My concern now is that we need language for this MOS discussing that, and discussing what should be in these overview tables. Personally, I just think it's weird to put DVD information as the first thing on the page. We're not here to sell a product, so why should the DVD release info be the first thing we read about? That's all I'm asking. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't exactly see why we should include the overview in the first place. This is what the lead is for. If we have a table stating exactly what is stated above in prose format (Season one premiere, ending, ratings, DVDs, cancellations, exc.) there would be no reason for the lead. Plus, you scroll down, and you see more precise listings and dates, ratings, exc. Its a total redundancy. I understand Bignole's opinion, and if worse comes to worse, I agree with an article being its own. But then, if we include just the premiere and finale, or just the ratings or DVD, whatever is decided upon, it would become more redundant than it already is. And overview is meant to overview the series, a plot synopsis. This is meant for the main page of the article and shouldn't exceed a paragraph (or less in some smaller series') in the lead of the episodes. The lead is there to summarize the page. Thats standard on all of wikipedia's articles, and isn't something I'm making up because of arguments sake. Therefore I think we should keep the purpose of the lead on episode page to be a breif overview of the whole series with sections like ratings and DVD info that I can click on and get more elaborite information. The list shouldn't be a lead, followed by a lead in table format, followed by just episodes. That's not the series. Smallville is the best example of what we should follow. I can go to the episode list and get a pretty thuro understanding of the series without clicking on anything else. ChaosMasterChat 02:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is no standard. There are there is merely the current practice. There was never consensus for inclusion or how it should look. There was merely silent following. Silence is consensus in one form, but this is why we are discussing this now. For a formalized consensus. If you think that ratings "don't really provide much info", then how much info does a release date for a DVD provide? It's just a date, that is far less important than the other dates in the table (i.e. premiere and finale). Yes, Smallville has a DVD table and a Ratings table....in what I see as the appropriate place - the end of the article. There are plenty of times when I feel that infoboxes are unnecessary as well. My issue with overview tables is that the lead summarizes the page, then you have the overview table that summarizes the page, then you have the page which is itself a summary. How much to we have to repeat for a reader that they can simply look at an already summarized page? Regardless, I already agreed to a compromise of let the editors choose for that specific page. My concern now is that we need language for this MOS discussing that, and discussing what should be in these overview tables. Personally, I just think it's weird to put DVD information as the first thing on the page. We're not here to sell a product, so why should the DVD release info be the first thing we read about? That's all I'm asking. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
(←) Proposal text "While some episode lists include a series overview table these are neither mandated nor restricted, and should be decided upon by the community of editors that work on the corresponding articles as to whether or not they should be used.", to be added to the Episode listing section. (also how about renaming this "Episode/cast listing" as half of that section is about cast articles? Xeworlebi (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with that. I like the addition of "editors that work on the articles", because it accounts for editors that prefer to include them from coming in and just redoing pages where those editors elected not to use it. That said, do you think we should also organize what these tables should look like so that there is at least consistency when they are used? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Broadcasting lists
- International broadcasters: a lot of articles contain a huge list of international broadcasters, containing info from just which country and which channel to some containing the premiere date for every season for a ton of countries. And frankly it's getting quite ridiculous on some articles. When someone removes this info it usually trickles back, and a month later it's pretty much all back. Most of it is unsourced, Eureka has one of the most excessive International distribution sections.
- Personally, I think that unless there is something significant about the broadcast info in other countries, it's just more minutia. I think acknowleding the broadcasting in Australia, UK, etc. is all that is needed. We don't need to be listing what channels they appear on, because frankly they could appear on multiple channels. Smallville, at one time, appeared on 3 different channels in the U.S. - though only one received the original airings. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- This one's tough. We're supposed to not just provide a euro centric view, and this is about the only foreign info a US show has. While it may not usually be cited, it would be trivial to find an RS saying "Smallville airs at 8pm on X channel in paraguay" or whatever. Every country with regular TV is going to have a reliable source for TV air times. While I couldn't care less about viewers in Chile, it is encyclopedic. The problem is that the sections easily get too large. Not sure what to do here, because a spin out article will be deleted, but we really should include all foreign info we can. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- The only reason we mention the channel that it airs in the U.S. is because that's typically the channel that owns the show. The same is true for any British TV or Australian TV shows. It's not that we're mentioning it in an effort to say "Hey, it's on this channel", but really because ABC owns Desperate Housewives. My problem with these types of things is that it turns the page into a TV Guide, which is not something we're supposed to be. And I say that understanding that it's just as true for the information from a U.S. viewpoint. In other words, what is the purpose of just listing channels and air times? A part from actings as a means to promote when to view a show, there isn't. Typically, when there is a significance to it, we explain it with prose. For example, when a series is moved from a Tuesday timeslot to a Friday night death slot is something that would require some prose to explain the significance, as typically there is quite a bit of coverage about show X going to it's death because of that type of move. Or, when a change from Wednesdays to Thursdays results in a decrease or increase in ratings. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- International broadcasting information is usually the worst part of articles. I propose we remove them almost entirely as they are nothing but trivial. For example, Heroes used to have a huge list of broadcasters, like at Eureka, but I managed to cut it down and source information about Canada, Australia and the UK (the main English-speaking countries). It looks a lot better now (Heroes (TV series)#International, but I still don't think that much of the information is all that important/relevant. In 20 years time, who is going to want to know the timeslot changes in Australia? I also wrote a small, well-sourced section at Veronica Mars#International. Is it any good? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I hate-hate-hate such broadcasting lists nowadays because they usually turn into massive blocks of MOS:FLAG-violating trivia. If someone (e.g. me) wants to find out where and when a show airs in their country, they should look it up their native wikipedia. en.wp should restrict broadcast information to the major English-speaking countries, i.e. the US, the UK, Australia and Canada. The rest can be summarized in prose, e.g. (made up) "Heroes aired in over 50 countries, e.g. in Europe except for some Balkan states." – sgeureka t•c 06:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Flashforward's International distribution section is a prose of this. I don't see this as particularly interesting. 3rd Rock from the Sun has a table which includes multiple channels for every country, which aired the reruns.
- I mush rather have this info moved to reception than have it in these type of lists/tables/long lines of statistics. For example, "In Belgium show aired on channel were it received awesome ratings blablabla" this is the more non-U.S. type of info articles should have, just a list of all the channels a show airs on is to excessive in my opinion, and not really the world view articles are looking for. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- That Flashforward section is horrible, and the 3rd Rock even worse. I don't agree with moving the info to reception, because that section is usually reserved for reviews. An "international ratings" section under reception makes sense, but that always leads to mass amounts of unsourced information about random countries. Actually this raises the question, should this info be under "reception" or "broadcasting"? Broadcasting makes more sense to me, but a "ratings" section is also plausible. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 10:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I meant removing the info and only add it when a review or some type of notable info from that country is added, like, "In country where the show aired on channel it was watched by 90% of the population, had 50 million viewers" etc. Only if it's actually notable like for example The Mentalist was like the most watched show ever in France and always. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good, but would that be under "reception" or "broadcasting"? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I meant removing the info and only add it when a review or some type of notable info from that country is added, like, "In country where the show aired on channel it was watched by 90% of the population, had 50 million viewers" etc. Only if it's actually notable like for example The Mentalist was like the most watched show ever in France and always. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I guess that depends on the significance for inclusion, if there's something notable about the reception in a country, lets say some kind of record or controversy it would go under reception. If for some reason the broadcast was especially notable for example Germany aired the last two episodes of Stargate Universe a month before they did in the U.S. it would go under broadcast. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Reception is not international broadcasts. This information should be incorperated into the broadcast section with references. Smallville is again a good example. I don't think there are international broadcasts in the article, but if we get sources stating what channel and county it is airing on, we can add a paragraph about international. For example; Smallville also currently airs on The CW in the USA and in Canada. (ref) In Mexico, it I'd broadcast on the Mexico1 channel. (ref) Furthermore, it was broadcast in The United Kingdom on UK1 from Jan 1 and ended on Jan 31. (ref) That can easily be added without making anything a table or unorganized and unsourced. ChaosMasterChat 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I guess that depends on the significance for inclusion, if there's something notable about the reception in a country, lets say some kind of record or controversy it would go under reception. If for some reason the broadcast was especially notable for example Germany aired the last two episodes of Stargate Universe a month before they did in the U.S. it would go under broadcast. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
(←) Please read the discussion. That's exactly what most (if not all who already spoken) here are against. International broadcasts should not be added unless it is somehow notable, either the broadcast itself was notable or the reception in that country was notable. If not it should not be added. That's the proposal here. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Then how do you determine what's notable and what's not? I can agree with just the country
of origin and the first broadcasted country. But other than that, nothing else would seem notable except if there is sources saying otherwise, which is basically what everyone has said. ChaosMasterChat 15:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd rather the broadcasters section be limited. I think we should only really include the English speaking countries, since this is an English Wikipedia. I also think that most readers don't generally care which channel a certain show airs in certain countries; I certainly don't. Some of those lists can go on forever, and I believe they are trivial at best. I have no problem if they are sourced though, but still, rather it be limited to UK, IRE, US, Canada, Australia, NZ. -- Matthew RD 15:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, as I proposed only the main English countries, notable would be some type of record or controversy, premiere for certain episodes. Where it would just be included as context. Others can be added at there respective wikipedias. Which is pretty much what I already said.
- I guess that the MOS should state: don't add other countries and there channels but those of English speaking countries (U.S.A. Canada, UK, Australia, NZ, …), as this falls under WP:NOT#STATS, unless a notable event happened in said country or on said channel revolving around the broadcast. The world view is already covered in the MOS under Reception. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the channels themselves are irrelevant. I think noting that it airs in New Zealand is important for showing a shows international coverage. What channel in New Zealand is of no consequence. Again, the only reason we mention the fact Desperate Housewives, Lost, or whatever air on ABC is because ABC owns that show. They are the ones responsible for producing it (though, there are exceptions where independent firms produce it and big networks merely purchase the distribution rights and have no say in what actually goes into the show). That isn't the case for most series though. I think it might be notable to mention a channel if something significant occurred. For example, (and I"m sure Xe is tired of reading about Smallville...lol) the entire seventh season of Smallville aired 1 day early on Canada's Channel 1. That is the only season to do that before or since. That's kind of noteworthy to mention that for some reason that particular channel received the show a day early that year. Maybe a series changes broadcasting stations (ala Buffy the Vampire Slayer going from the WB to UPN). That would be noteworthy. But I think that general channel identifiers are irrelevant. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to delete thing but this section is particularly poor quality and strong guidelines are needed, or these sections should be removed. It really is not very encyclopedic and more like tv guide, the unloved subspecies of news that pads out so many magazines. It's a shame we can't encourage projects like TVIV that are not trying to be an encyclopedia to cover this kind of information instead, and at least have somewhere to redirect the misguided but good faith efforts of so many editors.
If we contrast with other media, project film includes very little information about secondary releases. The include the place of first release and one or two other notable releases. As for books there is a barcode lookup tool if you want to know where to buy but that is fairly unobtrusive and does not seem comparable to Project Television.
International broadcast information seems difficult to WP:VERIFY even if the citations are actually in English the information is often dated and useless. More importantly the information is rarely WP:NOTABLE.
It is tempting not to have the section at all since it is difficult to do well and so many editors keep creating lists but we can see some Featured Articles manage to have a paragraph or two of prose on the subject of International Broadcasters. Take for example Friends or The Simpsons* as guideline on existing best practice, they only include broadcast information that has been shown to be notable as it has been covered by secondary sources. (* Used to, doesn't seem to included international broadcast section at the moment.)
It seems reasonable to mention the channel where a show gets first run, and if that changes. As for other international broadcasters' any information about them should not only be verified but also shown to be notable. That seems to me to be in line with the existing consensus, although admittedly with some people less interested in keeping the section at all. -- Horkana (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- What about this: (Amended) "When detailing a show's international broadcasting, simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged. Wikipedia is not a television guide. Apart from the channel of origin for the series, editors are encouraged to instead detail English-speaking countries that the series appears through prose form. Special mentionings can be used where a show does something noteworthy for a country/international channel (e.g., The Simpsons break the viewership records for ProSieben in Germany on MM DD, YYYY). All information must be verified by reliable sources." --- BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- IMO, there absolutely needs to be a note that only the English-speaking countries matter for the purpose of en.wiki (or we continue having sprawling listy-sounding, just in prose form). All other countries should only be mentioned if there is something special about them, or be grouped with other countries (e.g. "most of Europe"). Insisting on reliable sources for where a show airs would be stupid because every random national TV magazine already works as a reliable print source for that country ({{cite magazine}} doesn't require URLs), and still no-one outside the country could check it.– sgeureka t•c 16:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- When talking about sources, not all American shows are airead outside of the U.S. (or at least North America), so some source identifying if it's aired anywhere else would be necessary (I'm not saying a web-based source is necessary, because a TV magazine is just as good). Specific channels are irrelevant unless there is something special about its airing there, in which case you'd probably have a source discussing it's specialness anyway. As for note about English-speaking, I amended the above proposed wording to include "English-speaking". Do you think that is enough? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- My point was, if I claimed that The Simpsons aired on Pro 7 in Germany (and I know it does because I've seen it there hundreds of times), I could just add the ref {{cite magazine |date=2010-10-09 |journal=[[Hörzu]] |publisher=[[Axel Springer]] |language=German}} although I have never held a Hörzu in my hands in my life, and almost no non-German reader will ever have the opportunity to hold one in his hands either to check it. So whom would this ref help? Other non-trivial claims need sources of course, so I propose a rewording to "All non-trivial information must be verified by reliable sources." – sgeureka t•c 07:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Non internet sources are perfectly acceptable, that a part or majority of readers can't check that in 2 seconds is not an issue. WP:V is pretty clear on this. All information (also non-trivial) must be verified by reliable sources and offline and print sources are perfectly acceptable. But since only notable info should be presented, like viewer records etc. finding sources for this shouldn't be all that difficult. If not, is it notable enough? If you think the information is false you can always tag the reference wit {{Verify source}} or {{Request quotation}} so someone with access to the material can verify it.
- Best to link Wikipedia is not a television guide. to WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Xeworlebi (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I guess the difference of opinion here if this MOS demands that something should be verified or veryfiable. Wikipedia:Verifiability generally demands the second, and the first only if something is challenged or likely to be challenged. As we can assume that every "Show X airs in country Y" sentence is verifiable by the existance of random national TV guides for that country, we don't need to insist that that sentence actually needs to be verified with an accompanied ref. – sgeureka t•c 10:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
(←) This entire discussion is about removing this information, and only add notable information, and that non notable information is automatically challenged and should be removed. The "Show X airs in country Y" isn't really what needs sources, it's the notable part, which is required for inclusion, that needs the references. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed by anyone, so the request for references is perfectly justified, especially in this case because this information is "likely to be challenged". But I guess changing the line to "All information must be verifiable by reliable sources" would be sufficient, and more inline with WP:V. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- It technically already says "all info must be verified". As to Sgeureka's claim of why cite something like a show's appearance in another country, like I said, most shows do not air everywhere nor do they air outside of their own country of origin. The Simpsons may air in the UK, but not in India, yet what is to stop someone from just adding that without a source? Most vandalism aren't going to add something with a "fake" source, unless said fake source is simply a copy/paste job from another source which is probably located in that section already. As such, it's easy to identify a source (even a paper one you or I cannot access) used to cite the UK existence when it is used to cite the existence of the India broadcast given that that source wouldn't appear in that country. Regardless, just sticking to "verify all information" is probably the best way to go anyway. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm late to the party here, but as Horkana said, just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean it's notable. Verified information can be removed if it's not notable. Typing "Show X airs in country Y" and citing it means nothing. Unless it actually means something, it shouldn't be included. I have often removed cited information of this kind because it has no relevance.
- And now a couple of questions.
- Can South Africa and India be included in the list of English speaking countries? There's a pretty large population in both countries of English speakers.
- All that's been covered here is shows that are produced in an English-speaking country. What about our articles about shows that are made in foreign speaking countries for that country's audience, but is also exported? Do we not mention the foreign country, and only mention whether it's aired in the US, UK, AUS or CAN? I'm thinking of something like Tatort, a German-Austrian-Swiss production that aired in the US on MHz WorldView. It's not the best example, but the only one I can think of right now.
- Bignole, you said, "Again, the only reason we mention the fact Desperate Housewives, Lost, or whatever air on ABC is because ABC owns that show. They are the ones responsible for producing it (though, there are exceptions where independent firms produce it and big networks merely purchase the distribution rights and have no say in what actually goes into the show). That isn't the case for most series though." Are you therefore saying that in cases when a different company to the broadcaster makes a show (such as with Medium, which is produced by CBS and aired on NBC; the first season of JAG, a CBS production, aired on NBC. Lois and Clark, a WB production, aired on ABC; Buffy and Angel, Fox for WB; Friends and ER, WB for NBC; I'm not even getting into Freemantle or Shed etc) then it's not suitable to mention the channel? If I have my facts straight, there's some sort of rule in the UK that a certain percentage of the BBC's stuff not be in-house. Should we not say that Hotel Babylon, X Factor, and Wife Swap, aired on the BBC, ITV or Channel 4?
- What about situations like what often occurs in the UK with American shows when the terrestrial channels don't bid enough and lose broadcasting rights of later seasons to Sky or Living? (Thinking specifically of 24, which the BBC lost to Sky; The Simpsons, which the BBC lost to Channel 4; Friends and ER, which Channel 4 lost to Sky for a while -- to be honest though, most of these did gain coverage in newspapers and certain magazines because many viewers didn't have Sky and were angry) An extension to that, although I'm not sure if it applies because I don't know if we have articles on this, but what about when Formula 1 went from the BBC to ITV and back to BBC, the BBC lost cricket coverage to Channel 4, the BBC lost Premiership football coverage to ITV, or the BBC lost all its sports programming to rivals.
Thanks, Matthewedwards : Chat 07:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- If English is the primary, or one of the primary languages spoken then the country is included. You can usually find out what the primary language is by just going to the Wiki page because there's typically a section in the infobox and a section in the body of the article discussing the languages spoken in a country. For Foreign Language shows, I would say it's the same but just in the reverse. The focus should be on the country of origin, and if that isn't an English speaking country then so be it. I disagree that we shouldn't acknowledge broadcasts in other countries just because there isn't anything "notable" about said broadcast. One could argue that airing anywhere outside of the country of origin would by itself be a noteworthy feat considering most shows don't make it outside of their country of origins.
- Well, in the case of "Lois & Clark", The WB didn't exist at the time that Warner Bros. was producing that show. :D My statement was geared toward the inclusion of any random channel of broadcast, and not toward the primary channel of broadcast. For instance, Buffy is an American television show that aired on The WB (exception of final season) but was produced by FOX. In this case, it would be nice to note both of these facts given that FOX opted to sell the distribution rights to the show instead of just putting it on its own channel. As for the other issues you brought up, again those seem like noteworthy dilemmas that would require prose. I believe that the original point of all of this was that we should be avoiding these tabular lists of channel/country broadcasts, and stick with prose that is reliably sourced and really just covers the fact that the shows are being broadcast outside of their country of origin. If something noteworthy occurs (e.g., a show is sold from Channel 4 in Canada to Sky) then note it in prose if there is a significance to it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 08:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I find the argument that "the broadcast history of a show (to keep neutrality and make sure that Wikipedia is not seen as the American Wikipedia, it would be beneficial to the article to have any international broadcasters listed as well" illogical. It implies that all TV shows are made in America, or that other countries don't have a history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
(←) Proposal, altered from Bignole's one with some additions like calling it simply "Broadcast", to more depreciate the notion that the section should be all international broadcasters: "When detailing a show's international broadcasting, simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged, Wikipedia is not a television guide. Apart from the channel of origin for the series, editors are encouraged to instead detail English-speaking countries that the series appears through prose form. Special mentions can be used where a show does something noteworthy for a country/international channel, and are best addressed in the appropriate sections (e.g., Stargate Universe airing the final three episodes of the first season a month before they aired in the U.S. would be added to the "Broadcast" section while The Simpsons breaking the viewership records for ProSieben in Germany on MM DD, YYYY would be addressed in the "Reception" section). This section is best named simply "Broadcast" and also address broadcasting in the country of origin. All information must be verifiable by reliable sources." Xeworlebi (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Awesome. I love it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Interlanguage Links
- Interlanguage links: there is a flood of wrong Interlanguage links, especially from the French wikipedia. This is caused due to the French wikipedia almost always having seasonal articles. These are then wrongly linked to the entire episode list and can be linked by multiple articles at once. I've seen as much as five different links to the French wikipedia in a single article. This is especially worsened by bots, who sometimes redo this linking, out of the blue, even when no-one re-added a link on either page. I find this especially problematic when a bot makes 10 edits in a row changing the link from season 1 till season 10 on the one English episode list.
- I think there should be something in the MOS encouraging the removal of these wrong language links. Due to the sheer number of bots who do interwiki linking this isn't easy to address. Although there might be a better place to address the core of this issue. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Is there an interwiki page that discusses interwiki linking specifically? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Never heard of this. Examples? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- You've never heard of the interwiki links, any possible MOS page for the interwiki links, or the issue with a bot putting multiple links to the wrong page on a season page? By interwiki links, we're talking about things like da:Jason Voorhees, es:Jason Voorhees, fr:Jason Voorhees, and it:Jason Voorhees. As far as the abuse of those links on pages, I am not familiar with it primarily because I typically ignore those types of edits unless they are vandalism. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I know what an interwiki link is (we've both been on wiki for a long time, after all). What I haven't' seen, and am curious to see, is multiple interwiki links. I don't fully understand if it's several links on the left side of the page, or if it's bots doing a bunch of unnecessary edits, or what. Anyways, I'd like to learn more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- From what I've seen, it's both. An example from memory for Stargate SG-1: the German wikipedia keeps all in-universe info in the main TV show article. So when somebody wanted to link from the English fictional-element article to the German section, he added the interwiki link e.g. de:Stargate_–_Kommando_SG-1#NID (note the anchor) to NID (Stargate), de:Stargate_–_Kommando_SG-1#IOA to IOA (Stargate), and de:Stargate_–_Kommando_SG-1#TRUST to Trust (Stargate) etc. Then a balance-checking bot found an imbalance in interwiki links between de:Stargate_–_Kommando_SG-1 and Stargate SG-1. So that bot added 20 links from de:Stargate_–_Kommando_SG-1 to Stargate SG-1. Of course this is nonsense, but the bots weren't (aren't) always that smart. – sgeureka t•c 08:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- There are several issues, from section links like sgeureka says to multiple articles linking to the same article. For example List of Dollhouse episodes links to fr:Saison 1 de Dollhouse, it:Episodi di Dollhouse (prima stagione). Both fr:Saison 1 de Dollhouse, fr:Saison 2 de Dollhouse and it:Episodi di Dollhouse (prima stagione), it:Episodi di Dollhouse (seconda stagione) links to the english episode list. This often creates bot-fests were they cycle through the pages replacing each article once. I believe wikipedia can only handle 1 interlanguage on the article, secondary links just get ignored.
- I have no idea were to bring this up elsewhere, so I brought it up here, since it's a episode list/seasonal list TV centric problem. It covers pretty much every bot that resonates interlanguage links. When there is both an episode list and a seasonal page on the English wikipedia this mostly goes away. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
How to present a Cast section
- Cast section: There are some different formats in place, from full prose to the more common list.
- I'm ok with almost any setup. For Smallville, I use the "Actor as Character", but the information that follows is all prose content. It's more of a combo list/prose. I don't think we should be simply listing actors and their characters like a film credit, because that's kind of why we have IMDb. I think we should be encouraging less "listy" cast sections. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I like the lists best myself, but we promote prose here. In any case, either order is fine, but it would be great to standardize it. Why not do the same for both? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't this MOS already talk about how to present cast sections? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Different setups work for different articles. If one character is played by several actors, it would be very weird to read Clayton Norcross, Jeff Trachta and Winsor Harmon as Thorne Forrester. By another reasoning, the character played by actor format is more appropriate for character lists, and in cast member lists (even though I don't support their existance) it should be actor as character. Short character summaries work best in a bulleted format, whereas longer summaries should use headers. The MOS should let the authors decide which format works best for their articles. – sgeureka t•c 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- As long as it's consistent through the article, I don't really see the need to regulate it. Having said that, I've seen some articles where the '[character] ([actor])' format gets very silly when you have 5 or 6 characters in the first scene, and they all get mentioned - creating a sea of blue. I'll try to find an example of that, but it really doesn't look good! -- WORMMЯOW 08:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is another section where I think we abuse tables sometimes. Beyond making sure we don't use tables for a cast list when they aren't really warranted; addressing the overbolding potential that happensl and the unfailing in-universe-ness that invades cast sections; I'm pretty easy on how they are formatted. Some articles seem to work better one way while other articles will work best completely differently. Millahnna (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think the MOS is already vague enough on this issue. It talks about the use of "Actor as Character" and "Character (Actor)" in that section of it. Do we just need to spruce up the wording and add a few "in case of this, don't use..." type of statements? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- That was my proposal, to make it more clear, for lists use actor as character, for prose use the inline character (actor). As Sgeureka in case of multiple actors portraying the same character this can become weird. But that's were WP:SENSE comes in, could always be mentioned as well. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Presenting ratings info
- Ratings: As of recent more and more ratings tables show up on the episode lists, I think this is not the appropriate place, seasonal ratings should be on the main article under reception. Episodic ratings have also gotten out of hand on some articles, creating giant tables with basically statistics. I have no problem with the total number of viewers in the episode list itself and possibly the weekly rank as well, but info like Rating and Share, while being some abstract numbers, this information is borderline statistic filler.
- Seasonal ratings should go on the main article in Reception, or possibly as a prose line in each seasons section. Episodic ratings should be limited to viewers and possibly rank, and in the episode list itself.
I've tried to keep it as overview-able as possible. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. One of the things I hate the most is when you have an episode table on a page, and then later there is a separate table just to list all of the ratings for each individual episode. It seems completely unnecessary when the ratings can easily fit on the episode table. I also agree about the "Rating/Share". I think this type of info is largely over the average reader's head. I've read up on and it and it's confusing to me. I cannot imagine when the average reader who probably has no idea whatsoever as to what these figures represent is actually thinking. I say, keep it basic: "total viewers". You cannot misinterpret what "total viewers" means. It's self-explanatory. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- While I still don't understand rating and share, I do think it's encyclopedic, so I have to disagree on this one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's all probably encyclopedic, but probably a bit much for the average reader. If you don't understand what you're reading then the information itself probably doesn't hold much value afterward. Even the Wiki page on rating/share is slightly confusing. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- While I still don't understand rating and share, I do think it's encyclopedic, so I have to disagree on this one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it's encyclopedic. It's a collection of non-notable abstract numbers which a large majority of the readers don't actually know what they mean. I believe WP:NOT#STATS applies here. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- What I don't like is the prose dedicated to explaining the ratings over the course of the series in the main article. At Lost (TV Series)#Ratings, the table is a great summary. But then there's two paragraphs of prose going into detail about what happened in specific seasons. I think all this prose should be removed, as the episodic ratings are shown in the "list of episodes" page. There's some interesting information at the Lost article, ie the first paragraph and the statistic about it being the second most popular TV show, but these could be easily transfered to the season articles. Also, in the "list of episodes" page, I think we should just have an extra column for the total viewers. Extra tables are useless and usually unsourced. Finally, I've noticed graphs being created to show the episodic ratings in various seasons (see right). Should this be encouraged? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't seen those graphs before but I love them. They are compact, and the refs could be listed in the image file and don't overwhelm the main article/list. – sgeureka t•c 06:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- The graphs certainly make more sense, I do like them. I'd personally suggest toning down the amount of ratings information shown because it's rather US-centric. AFAIK other countries don't publish quite the same levels of television statistics. That combined with the fact that they can be regarded as complex to the majority of readers suggests that they should be reduced. A paragraph or two on the trends should be sufficient on the top-page, rather than lots of information on every episode/season list -- WORMMЯOW 09:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Graphs for longer running shows are quite nice, although the few I've seen use a line graph, which is actually the wrong type of graph, since there is no relationship between episodes, meaning there is nothing between the episodes which is what a connection line suggests. A bar graph is far more appropriate for this type of information. For example Heroes has a graph (not the greatest with a gray background though) which displays the season over season drop in viewers. FlashForward has one for its single season which displays the gradual decline to only half of the premier viewers. While audio-visual aids are always nice, adding them on every show might be over the top. When the show has a stable viewership this isn't something that would much help the reader, it would just be a straight line. When something notable happens like the type of drops in viewers this type of visualization is quite helpful. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think the graphs are cool and useful for shows with more than 3 or so seasons. To be able to look at a chart and see how The Simpsons have fluctuated over 20+ years would be interesting. Does it need to be done for shows with just a few seasons, I'd say no because that's probably easily covered by prose. I understand that other countries don't publish a lot of TV statistics like the US does (we're media whores, what can we say), but I think that it's important to have total viewers and at least end of the season rankings for each TV series. If something can be found internationally, awesome, but it's harder to try and create equal balance across the world with this type of info because we put more pride into such things than most other cultures. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I've requested an additional parameter for viewers in {{Episode list}} to standardize its position, which if additional ratings tables are depreciated would push more ratings in the episode lists, and this would aid it's placement. Xeworlebi (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ratings on US shows is US-centric because they are from US. I dare anyone to put ratings from TVO on the Doctor Who articles. If you understand rating & share and viewers you would know that by actual consequence the total viewers is the least important of the numbers for any episode. American broadcast network shows are cancelled and renewed primarily based upon their rating and share in the 18-49 year old demographic, regardless of how many people in total watch a show. Close to Home won its time slot in total viewers almost every week and often was a top-3 show on Friday nights yet it was cancelled after 2 seasons, has barely any content to its article, and is listed as a victim of the Friday night death slot because it skewed to an older demographic who also do not frequently edit Wikipedia. Numbers for 5 November 2010 are not yet available but to compare the 6th episode of Close To Home to the 6th episode of Blue Bloods you would find Close To Home comes out on top in every category and demographic except maybe m18-34, yet Blue Bloods is considered a success on Fridays. The straight up total viewers doesn't really give any indication why a show that won its time slot in that category was cancelled while Ghost Whisperer, which did worse in total viewers got 3 additional seasons with progressively lower total viewers. Dumbing things down for the "average reader" should not be the goal. Wikipedia is not for Kindergarten. Assuming people are too dumb to understand a table is an insult to them and deprives those who do understand or who are wanting to learn from having the information readily available to them. The tables following the episode list provide the actual details. Pretty charts are pretty but they hide the actual information forcing you to estimate the actual numbers in a field where a difference 0.1 is of significance. Still, as in the one shown above, the pretty chart only lists the viewers. The No Stats clause says to specifically make use of tables as has been done in including the viewer data for shows. Use of a pretty chart is against the No Stats clause. If you want to cite No Stats here then you ought to get that changed to reflect how you wish to use it here. The total viewers is a nice, neat number that is easy to put into an episode list or chart, but it means almost nothing in the "tv world". Where more data is available it only makes sense to use it so as to not misrepresent things.
Close To Home episode 6 Blue Bloods 11.87m Total viewers 11.616m 7.8/13 Households rating/share 7.3/13 3.2/10 18-49 rating/share 1.8/6 2.3/8 18-34 rating/share n/a 4.5/12 25-54 rating/share 2.7/8 TheFutonCritic.com copy of CBS Press Express release "A New 'Home' Found?", 14 November 2005 References TV By The Numbers, finals for 29 October 2010CBS Press Express, weekly ratings press release, 1 November 2010
- I'm not going to write up the entire table but that would be the explanation of why Close To Home was cancelled; it was too popular among people long since finished high school. You would be really confused if you read the article which said it was cancelled due to poor ratings while at the same time reading that it won its time slot for total viewers. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 13:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that you'd have to spend your time trying to explain to the average reader what the "share" actually means. Most people, including most editors, do not understand "share". They understand "total viewers" because that's pretty obvious. You shouldn't have to turn an article into a class on statistics just for a reader to understand what all the extra "shares" mean. That is why we say just stick to "total viewers". If you need to explain later that a show was cancelled (and I'd like to see actual evidence that shows are always cancelled because of low "share" numbers) because of low figures in certain demographics, then that is what you do because that requires prose explanation. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thing is, there are to many different types of ratings, it's to much. Whichever is picked it still is a poor representative for comparing it to canceled due to low ratings. Comparing viewers, in whatever category, is ultimately flawed, for one shows cost different amounts of money to produce, a show that has half the viewers but only costs a third to make would be considered a more successful show. But even then it's not just that, different shows get different types of advertisement, and different advertisers means networks can ask different amounts money for different types of advertisement. So while show A can have 10 million viewers it can earn more money through advertisement than show B with only 8 million viewers. But even then it's not over, especially for science fiction, marketability is a big deal, so while a show could have fewer viewers they can make more money from merchandizing. And I'm sure there are other influences as well. I believe a lot of network use C3 ratings, which only counts the advertisements watched for the first three days. But I've never seen C3 ratings anywhere.
- In essence whatever rating-figure you use it's really not a good one, and definitely not a complete one. The explaining it really isn't that big of a deal, you can just link to Nielsen ratings. The problem is that you get ginormous tables full of ratings, which is WP:NOT#STATS, and should not be done. Using seasonal averages of all these figures in prose, especially in the case of explaining "low viewership" should not be a problem, as long as you don't start spewing statistics just for the sake of it. Xeworlebi (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Coloring in tables
Perhaps this is silly of me but one thing I'm concerned about with tables and infoboxes (like for list of characters type pages) are the colors that sometimes make them real eye sores. List of Wipeout episodes is the worst offender I know of but I've seen some really awkward usage of greying out boxes (and to be fair this crosses over to articles outside of TV) and random colors that can be really hard to sort out at first glance. I know that there are guidelines for color usage in tables that encourage people to not go crazy unless it's thematically relevant (I believe Simpsons related pages are the example given as an exception). But there is actually a reason behind the crazy colors on the Wipeout page; it just doesn't make it any less difficult to read knowing that. Millahnna (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is just way too much going on in that Wipeout page. I think I need 3-D goggles to see what is really going on there. I agree, that is probably the best example of what not to do. I don't think it helps them that they have separated every episode into it's own distinct subsection, thus creating a TOC that's almost 50 items long. My extent for color cording goes more in line with creating basic edgings so that these standard whites/grays/blacks aren't destroying eyes because of a lack of contrast. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah cotton candy with a splash of skittles. Love it. :-| I think WP:COLOR is pretty clear on this issue. Personally, I don't see why each season's table must have a different color. Mike Allen 06:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also another issue with colors is with these "episode progression" tables. (See List of Scream Queens episodes) Mike Allen 06:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- That Wipeout article is a work of art. In general, I support each season table having its own colour just because it makes the "list of episodes" page more appealing. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I do believe that the episode progression issue in that example is part of the problem in the Wipeout tables too. I'm starting to sense we're going to end up with a whole thread devoted to just episode tables on reality shows where we run around and post "please come talk here" messages on a bunch of article talk pages. One thing the Scream Queens table is doing that is helpful is the greyed out portions that represent an "eliminated" designation. By having the grey stretch across like that, it's a lot easier at a glance than leaving the contrasting borders in the cells. So good on them for that, I guess. Millahnna (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- There was actually a reason for splitting off each episode like that, though the result is obviously... eclectic. One of the tings people reading the page kept wanting to know was the details of each round of competition on the different obstacle courses. There were a few other issues that fed into it, but there was some reasoning behind the massive episode splits like that. Honestly, I'm not sure what to do to fix the page. I threw my hands up in 2008. Millahnna (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Whipeout page is pretty bad, Jack Merridew would have a massive heart attack if he saw that. Colors are actually encouraged as making the page more visually appealing in the featured article criteria. Do you have a problem with the common colors in the episode list itself, meaning header and lines between episodes? Xeworlebi (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nope; no problems there. No problems with each season table on more standard shows having separate colors either, per Conucopia's comment above you. But the pink and blue for males versus females (when a parenthetical notation or extra column would suffice for that show), and gold for winners and wait, what the hell is dark grey again, etc., really hurts my eyes. That page was actually one of the very first on my watchlist back when I first registered for an account but I just can't stand to look at it. I recently asked on the talk page if anyone else got eyebleed on it but I guess it was just me. I mean, pink and blue? Come on guys.
- As for the other color issue I mentioned (character infoboxes), the only example I can think of off the top of my head is the List of True Blood characters page, but I recently killed the example in question and I think it was an accident anyway (there's been a lot of shuffling there and a minor characters page was recently merged). If you dig in the history for one of my contributions, you should find it. One of the characters had a lovely splash of teal while everyone else there is generic grey. I could actually see that page using red, a la the Simpson's use of yellow. But then color is the least of the problems with that page so I'll probably attack that when I finally get around to addressing the in-universe "plot summary the sequel" problems with it. I just know I've seen that before on list of pages, in spite of the fact that our current color guidelines (but TV and site wide) recommend consistency. Millahnna (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I agree that it's really bad. I think that page should probably be converted to using {{Episode list}} and the tables into summary prose. It's pretty much all statistics. Xeworlebi (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sometimes I can see colors in character infoboxes being useful. I find it nice to have a common theme (ala The Simpsons) utilized, so long as it doesn't burn the eyes. If red is the big theme of the show, then there are tons of reds that aren't as loud to use. Speaking of those character lists, we're not really supposed to be using infoboxes for each individual section. Should this be mentioned on this MOS? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- For the love of my sanity, yes please. I got the impression that those character boxes are strictly for standalone character pages but The True blood pages are not the only list of characters article I've seen it on. So I'm assuming it's vague enough to give people the idea it's a good idea when it isn't. The article wouldn't be nearly so problematic in the aesthetic sense without them. I would love to just go in there and wipe out those boxes; they aren't adding any constructive info to the page that couldn't be addressed in prose (relationships and the like), and addressed more easily, at that (some of those relationships change practically week to week). I've held off because the season is almost over, so that fangirl editing will die down, and I know the films MOS better than the TV one so I'm still researching. Millahnna (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I took care of it. It needs to be removed from any other character list article. Infoboxes are designed to summarize and you don't need to summarize the 2 paragraphs of information that appear directly to the left of the box. I think we need to briefly touch on this in the character list section. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I could hug you. Now all I need to do is hunt down my massive list of bookmarks to interviews so I can yank all the plot sumamry and replace it with real world info and that page will be shaping up. Arg. Heh. The next time I see the infobox thing I'll go ahead and fix it myself, now that I have confirmation. Millahnna (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I took care of it. It needs to be removed from any other character list article. Infoboxes are designed to summarize and you don't need to summarize the 2 paragraphs of information that appear directly to the left of the box. I think we need to briefly touch on this in the character list section. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- For the love of my sanity, yes please. I got the impression that those character boxes are strictly for standalone character pages but The True blood pages are not the only list of characters article I've seen it on. So I'm assuming it's vague enough to give people the idea it's a good idea when it isn't. The article wouldn't be nearly so problematic in the aesthetic sense without them. I would love to just go in there and wipe out those boxes; they aren't adding any constructive info to the page that couldn't be addressed in prose (relationships and the like), and addressed more easily, at that (some of those relationships change practically week to week). I've held off because the season is almost over, so that fangirl editing will die down, and I know the films MOS better than the TV one so I'm still researching. Millahnna (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Related to the color scheme issue for whole seasons; I tried making the True Blood pages more uniform (and make the red we use for season one less eye bleedy) but 1) can't change the text color for the main show infobox (and can't figure out how to request it at the color version of the template) and 2) got shot down on the grounds that "different seasons need their own colors to differentiate." So clearly this needs to be more clear in the MOS since my understanding is that this is not true (each season in this case has its own page). I'll leave it for others to fight out. Millahnna (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- The color used in the infobox is usually the same as the episode list, which has for each season its own color. Normally the DVD box's main color. The text color for the seasonal infobox is
|fgcolour=
(with # before hexcode), for {{Infobox television}} it's|color text=
. The one color for all is usually for the other infoboxes, character pages and episode pages. You can request that at the talk page of {{Infobox television/colour}}. Xeworlebi (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)- Ah I misunderstood. Although, I don't really see the need for each season to have its own color when each also has its own page. I guess it looks better in those little tables that people use to link to the separate seasons but that's another thing I don't understand the existence of; they often seem like they would be fine as prose with subsections that serve as links to the season pages to me. Wikipedia: the learning experience. Heh. Millahnna (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- The color scheme for season page is used primarily so the page isn't the same drab gray and white (if you've ever worked in an office, that white/black/gray combo that is standard in everything is horrible on the eyes). The colors, which should not be distracting by themselves (i.e. not crazy bright or so dark you cannot read anything), are just used for contrast. The colors are picked, as X pointed out, by the color of the DVD box sets. This helps with the LOE page as well, since we transclude them to that page in shortened form. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think 20 different colors is just too much. Having it all in one default color works just the same, IMO. Wikitables are already confusing without adding additional HTML markup. Mike Allen 23:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Law & Order is pretty poorly setup, it should be using the {{Episode list/sublist}} format and use transcusions. Besides that, the separate articles include a lot of trivia in the episode summaries; guest stars, first/last appearance, … Xeworlebi (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think 20 different colors is just too much. Having it all in one default color works just the same, IMO. Wikitables are already confusing without adding additional HTML markup. Mike Allen 23:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- The color scheme for season page is used primarily so the page isn't the same drab gray and white (if you've ever worked in an office, that white/black/gray combo that is standard in everything is horrible on the eyes). The colors, which should not be distracting by themselves (i.e. not crazy bright or so dark you cannot read anything), are just used for contrast. The colors are picked, as X pointed out, by the color of the DVD box sets. This helps with the LOE page as well, since we transclude them to that page in shortened form. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah I misunderstood. Although, I don't really see the need for each season to have its own color when each also has its own page. I guess it looks better in those little tables that people use to link to the separate seasons but that's another thing I don't understand the existence of; they often seem like they would be fine as prose with subsections that serve as links to the season pages to me. Wikipedia: the learning experience. Heh. Millahnna (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- The color used in the infobox is usually the same as the episode list, which has for each season its own color. Normally the DVD box's main color. The text color for the seasonal infobox is
Dates/years
I have seen this on many pages. It seems silly to me that an upcoming season is listed as (2010-11) when no episode has even aired. From the moment its listed as such, it can be delayed, canceled, or indefinitely on hold for numerous and unstated reasons beyond anyone's control on here. I think this would also work for the seasons of TV programs. If there is no episode in the second season that has aired, how can there be two seasons? It breaches WP:CRYSTAL; how do we know it will actually air on the given date? Are there any opinions on this out there? ChaosMasterChat 02:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL is about calling something by year based on repetition, for example naming a season for two years when only episodes in the first year have been sourced, and assuming that due to the length of the show it will cross in the next year. Reporting verified information does not breach this. Quote: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." Note the "unverifiable", when it's sourced that it will air in that year it doesn't violate this policy. An example given is 2020 Summer Olympics, it's sourced and thus perfectly correct to name it 2020. By your "how do we know it will actually air on the given date?" every episode not aired should not include and air date because something might always happen. Take a look at some articles about upcoming TV shows and movies. Xeworlebi (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Then by your logic, every upcoming film and tv show will not change it's year or date? The best example would be Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film). It had a planed 2008 release but was delayed until 2009. Another example would be TerraNova planned for the fall of 2010 but got delayed until 2011 for the time being. By what your saying, we should just assume that nothing will delay any other show just because of logic and what has happened in the past as well as sources? Then I might as well edit President Obama's article with sources that state he is Muslim and assume they will remain true because of what happened in the past. There is no definite that Smallville will air exactly on Sept 24. It can be delayed until 2011 or 2012, despite my assumtion that it won't. With that, why not assume everything on wikipedia? The world will end in 2012 because it's sourced. The moon is made out of cheese because it's sourced. I assume that these are both true so why not keep them in the article? None of it males sense. ChaosMasterChat 14:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- What? You're right, nothing you just said makes any sense. Yes you report what is sourced by reliable sources, if there are sources contradicting each other it goes up for discussion on which is the more reliable source, Obama being a muslim is contradicted by sources stating he's a Christian, same for the two other ridiculous arguments you gave (and "2012 phenomenon" is an actual article). If a movie is scheduled for 2011 and it needs a dab for having the same name as another movie then it would be named "[name movie] (2011 film)", if it gets delayed the page will be moved to reflect the new information brought up by reliable sources. By your logic we should not add anything that talks about the future because maybe the world will end tomorrow and none of it would happen. There is no assumption here, we report what sources say, assuming it will be delayed without any reason and sources stating it might be delayed is original research. You are entirely misreading WP:CRYSTAL which is about —unsourced— information based on the assumption it will happen because it falls under a —pattern—. Xeworlebi (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Whoa, this is getting a bit heated. :/ I think the issue is more when we're looking at tables and headers that identify a full TV season as if it is already completed when it hasn't. It's misleading to say that Show X airs 2010/2011, when we haven't entered into 2011 yet. Yes, it's assumed that it will air then, but something could happen to get the series canceled before that ever happens (I don't know how many shows on the major networks don't make it past a few episodes each year). We should be sticking to what is logically accurate. We haven't entered into 2011 yet, so tables and section headers that identify a show's run for the upcoming season shouldn't be stating that it ended its run in the future because that's impossible. There is a reason that in TV infoboxes when we list the "Original run" we say stuff like "2005 - present" or "2005 - ", to indicate that it is still on going. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- So why do we add a "Season X" in the first place, you know it might get canceled before it starts, and Season X might never happen. We report and name things based on reliable references. The infobox is because the infobox reports the current status, same for the episode count, this is not the case in the article itself, were also the future is reported on. How is it misleading to say season 1 will air in 2010–2011 when this is sourced? So is it wrong to say the original air date of episode X will air in September? There might happen something? There is nothing wrong or misleading about naming things based on sources. What is accurate is what is sourced. Not to insult anyone, but I think the "It might never happen" is one of the lamest reasons I've ever heard, yes something might happen, that doesn't mean we don't state what is currently known. Take the example given at WP:CRYSTAL: 2020 Summer Olympics, it hasn't happened yet, it could get canceled, but is sourced and thus correct in naming it so. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- A page shouldn't exist if it hasn't started production in the first place. Once it has, it's still "season X" no matter if it airs or not. It may be sourced that it will air, but it isn't sourced that it has aired and that is what the headers represent. A historical account. You cannot have a historical future account. You can have a planned future, but when the header in this case is representing the current state and not a future state, it's misleading and inaccurate to suggest otherwise. It's the same reason we don't actually change the "Season" status in the infobox over to the next season until it actually airs that season. The info on that season might exist and they may have filmed some episodes, but if they never air then the show was never broadcast in that year. You're applying the naming of an article to the naming of a section header. This is two separate things. The article is the topic. The section header in the case of TV show seasons indicates when a season aired. It cannot air in the future, only in the present. There can be a plan for it, but until it actually airs there are no 2011 episodes. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
(←) The infobox gives a representation of the current status of the show, the rest of the article doesn't, it also talks about the future. It's sourced and that's basically it, verifiable information. The section header doesn't indicate when the season has aired, it represents sourced information, if the show has aired in 1999 is says that, if the show is scheduled to air in 2050 it also says that. You're basically saying that a section title has somehow higher standards than an article title. And that no section can be named after lets say a book or comic spinoff by name when it hasn't been released, because of the assumption it might change. So in your opinion the section #Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2010/2011) is double wrong, once for stating both 2010 and 2011 when the movies haven't been released yet and once for naming the movie, because they might change it? As well as every section on wikipedia naming an upcoming movie/album/song by name? Xeworlebi (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- It amazes me how much of a big deal you are making about dates in a section header. It's your opinion that it should represent what is planned. That is not the opinion that I share. Simple as that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- My logic is that the headers on an LOE page (which is primarily what we're speaking about here, I assume, since Chaos brought this up) are used to represent when a season aired (past tense intended). A show cannot air in the future. This isn't the same situation like when in film you're naming an article, or the 2020 Olympics. We're speaking about a specific section of a specific type of article. It is my opinion that those header dates are used to represent the current state of the season. For a show that has an upcoming season, which either has not aired yet or has not aired any episodes in the next year, the header should reflect that. It's as simple as that. There's not illogic behind it. It's an opinion. Just like yours is an opinion that if a show is expected to air in the future that the header should reflect what is expected. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I prefer Bignole's way, although I don't think it's a huge deal. I also think it's a little bit funky depending on how you look at it. For instance, consider the 2010–11 NBA season. Maybe we call it that because we think there's no way it won't happen. But, it's also it's name. Even if something happened, and the current season stopped in December, it might still be called that. Could a 2010 season still be a 2010 season even if it was never aired? Maybe. "The 2010 season of Beverly Hillbillies was filmed but never aired. Because of a copyright dispute, the 24 episodes were shelved with an agreement they would never be aired or released on DVD." Maybe I'm reaching. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- My logic is that the headers on an LOE page (which is primarily what we're speaking about here, I assume, since Chaos brought this up) are used to represent when a season aired (past tense intended). A show cannot air in the future. This isn't the same situation like when in film you're naming an article, or the 2020 Olympics. We're speaking about a specific section of a specific type of article. It is my opinion that those header dates are used to represent the current state of the season. For a show that has an upcoming season, which either has not aired yet or has not aired any episodes in the next year, the header should reflect that. It's as simple as that. There's not illogic behind it. It's an opinion. Just like yours is an opinion that if a show is expected to air in the future that the header should reflect what is expected. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, Bignole, I am only talking about on LOE articles. This is a perfect example of how we cannot predict the future. Last August, if you were to ask me if The Beautiful Life would have at least 13 episodes to span from September 2009 to early 2010 on The CW, I would have said yes. But, due to low ratings, the show was pulled just after two episodes. Looking at TV.com (I know its not the most reliable site) Four episodes had descriptions released and looking at MSN TV, Five were released. This show has six produced epiosodes, two of which were aired on TV, that make up one season. The heading "Season One (2009-2010)" would make absolute sense in August, but in October, it would be quite foolish.
- On a series main article, the infobox would read Number of seasons, followed by episodes, followed down the line by the air date. If a network goes ahead and orders 20 episodes, says "Yes, we will air them from 2010 to 2011", and Wikipedia lists 20 episodes Season One 2010-2011 before or during its run, how in the world do we know for an absolute fact that it will not be canceled after its second episode? The air date period states the month day and year the series started, but does not predict its ending. It states in the determined field "present". Why don't we take this logic and apply it to the headings of LOE pages? Yes, Xeworlebi, it is not an infobox and is merely a heading, but I am sure that you can handle applying it to the header. When it airs, then you can adjust the year. "The section header doesn't indicate when the season has aired, it represents sourced information, if the show has aired in 1999 is says that, if the show is scheduled to air in 2050 it also says that." If the show has indeed aired in 1999, it does say that. If however it is planned for 2050, then listing that as such would be illogical, especially given the 40 years in between now and then. The situation is completely different from the 2020 Olympics, an event meant to take place that year, and a film that is planned for release. The film article, which is most similar to TV, such as Harry Potter 7, parts 1 and 2, is a film, and yes, while it can be delayed, it is not an ongoing situation. With film, once something is planned, it is usually 99% of the time, made. And although a date can easily change, it is not as flamboyant as an episode on a TV show which has constant uncertainty 99% of the time on whether it will make it to the TV screen. Another example of the easy changes to a TV schedule would be the Hope for Haiti telethon, which moved several scheduled telecasts of TV shows that had been scheduled weeks, and in some cases, months before (take that from an angry Smallville fan that night :P ). Smallville, which was scheduled to air its first episode of 2010, pushed the mid-season premiere off a week and re-ordered some episodes as well to incorporate its TV movie. Everything with TV is not as solid as it is with a film or a four year, world-wide event. ChaosMasterChat 21:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
(←) So basically you base your reasoning on the unsubstantiated assumption it might not air rather than the sourced information it will? And reporting sourced information is not "predict[ing] the future", Sometimes references are wrong because things change but I don't understand how updating an article as new references are released became so controversial all of a sudden. Xeworlebi (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that's a little problem in and of itself. Sources typically say, "The studio has ordered X number of episodes". What they do not say is, "The studio will air X number of episodes". The difference is that they have contracted to produce, not to air and should they choose to cancel said contract that any remaining episodes will not air. So, in reality we are not reporting sourced fact when we make a header "2010 - 2011", but actually reporting an assumption on our part based on previous experience. There is no source that is backing our claim, we're merely going by what a TV show typically runs. That is where the issue lies, and why my particular stance is that we report what we can show. We cannot show that an episode will air in the future. We can show that they plan to produce future episodes, but all we can very when it comes to broadcasting is what has actually occurred. We may get to the midway point of a TV season (which is about November) and get a source providing an air date for a new episode in January, but that's about as close as we get to verification that an episode will air in the succeeding year. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- We do report the sourced, if a show is sourced to have episode 1 air on december 31, 2010. we add 2010 to the section, if a week later episode 2 info is released and it says it airs in 2011, then we add 2011 to the section header. Again, we report what dates have been sourced, not assuming it will cross over in the next year. Xeworlebi (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but that means you wouldn't be changing any headers until about November/December when most shows officially release the air dates for episodes in the second half of the season. Until then, what you typically get is "It may air in October 2010". That's not a date, that's an estimation that can (and I've seen many times) change. When they actually set a date for broadcast, then you'd have an argument for changing a header if it needed changing. But when a season is just starting, you're not likely to actually have any idea when an episode will air in the following year until almost the end of the first half of the TV season. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly! Everywhere ChaosMaster16 has been removing these dates, that I've seen, have already set air dates in 2010. Take Smallville, already two date have been confirmed for season 10, so the section would accordingly be named #Season 10 (2010), when sources have information about episodes airing in 2011 then you add 2011 to it. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- So long as we have an actual date confirmed for airing (my personal opinion of a date is Month Day, Year and not simply Month Year), then it's fine. And I thought Smallville already said "2010"? When did it get removed? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- It did, ChaosMaster16 removed it in this edit. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- So long as we have an actual date confirmed for airing (my personal opinion of a date is Month Day, Year and not simply Month Year), then it's fine. And I thought Smallville already said "2010"? When did it get removed? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly! Everywhere ChaosMaster16 has been removing these dates, that I've seen, have already set air dates in 2010. Take Smallville, already two date have been confirmed for season 10, so the section would accordingly be named #Season 10 (2010), when sources have information about episodes airing in 2011 then you add 2011 to it. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but that means you wouldn't be changing any headers until about November/December when most shows officially release the air dates for episodes in the second half of the season. Until then, what you typically get is "It may air in October 2010". That's not a date, that's an estimation that can (and I've seen many times) change. When they actually set a date for broadcast, then you'd have an argument for changing a header if it needed changing. But when a season is just starting, you're not likely to actually have any idea when an episode will air in the following year until almost the end of the first half of the TV season. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- We do report the sourced, if a show is sourced to have episode 1 air on december 31, 2010. we add 2010 to the section, if a week later episode 2 info is released and it says it airs in 2011, then we add 2011 to the section header. Again, we report what dates have been sourced, not assuming it will cross over in the next year. Xeworlebi (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Xeworlebi's logic. Except for maybe one or two shows each season, all shows will proceed to air episodes the next year. If the show is cancelled, we can change the heading to just the year that it aired in. It makes more sense to go with the norm (shows airing it two years), rather than the exception (shows being cancelled and limited to just one year). Just my opinion, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
(←) Proposal: "If the episode lists includes episodes from multiple seasons, give them appropriate section headers such as "Season 1 (1999–2000)", "Season 2 (2000–2001)", or "Series 1 (1999–2000)", "Series 2 (2000–2001)" if that is the identifier for the show. Do not include unsourced years to the section headers, assuming a show will continue into the next year should not be done per WP:CRYSTAL." Xeworlebi (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think we don't need the full date for the ending year (e.g., just "2001-02" should be fine). I would also tweak it to include something about sources for specific dates into the next year, because early when shows start you'll see news places saying "it'll air in the 2010 and 2011 season", which is no indication that it will actually make it to 2011 if there isn't already a date set. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Plot in episode lists
The MOS should be more precise on what the plot section should contain, mention WP:SPOILER and say it should be concise but still complete. Especially the |ShortSummary=
which is often thought to be more of a teaser box than contain the full plot of the episode. Xeworlebi (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Difference between "teaser" and "full plot"? There are many TV pages where they don't have or warrant episode pages, thus a "full plot" (as far as my understanding of it goes) would be necessary. Except, a "full plot" that is much shorter than would appear on an individual episode page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. TV shows that don't have seperate pages for each episode should be allowed 100 to 200 words per 25 minutes of air time (ads not included) in their summaries. More words for complex episodes.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Repeat ratings
Hello, I was wandering if somebody could help me. I have a lot of trouble trying to keep certain pages notable. So I have a ratings section and include repeat ratings in this section. Are repeat ratings notable and allowed? Jayy008 (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say they are not allowed, but most of the time they aren't really noteworthy. Typically, if a repeat rating is noteworthy it's usually accompanied by prose that details why this repeat is special enough to be mentioned. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Awards and nominations, or accolades: table, list, or prose?
I have started a discussion on Talk:Hellcats about the section formerly named "Awards and Nominations," which had been formatted as a table (contents: exactly one award.) The section was renamed to "Accolades," and the contents were reformatted as prose. I disagreed with this decision and reverted, however, the change was reinstated, so per WP:BRD I have started discussion. It was stated that there is a rule that awards be presented as prose. I could find no such rule stating either way, whether table or prose, or even a bulleted list. I did a quick survey by searching "accolades" and found that many pages named "List of <so-and-so> accolades and nominations" are redirects to "List of awards and nominations for <so-and-so>." To me, this says that 'Accolades' is a secondary, non-standard term. The contents of the searched pages I found were fairly uniform in presenting awards in a tabular format, and when not in tables, they were bulleted lists. I could not find one example of prose in a dedicated awards article. I realize that this is comparing one extreme to another -- Hellcats received one nomination; List of awards and nominations received by Brad Pitt is exhaustive, so perhaps presenting a single accolade as prose is preferable. It might depend on balancing ease of reading with ease of editing and I can see where the reader will win out. Those are my thoughts - what about yours? Elizium23 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Accolades" is the new term being used by the Film Project. This project has not started discussions about its use at this time. The Film project also believes that unless you're dealing with an exceptionally large number of awards (see The Dark Knight (film) for an example), then prose is going to look better. Right now, there is no indication that Hellcats is going to be an award hound, and I don't see any problem with having a sentence over a single line table to convey the message of being nominated for something. As far as this page goes, I don't think it's ever been discussed one way or the other. It's certainly something that should be addressed here (BTW, please visit above discussions for other changes to this MOS that are still pending). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Cast lists and is/was
Over the past year or two I've seen an increasing number of editors who always ask "where is that written down" when a policy or standard practice is mentioned. Two such cases that apply here are cast lists and use of "is" and "was" in the lede of articles about discontinued TV programs. "We always treat fiction in the present" is often stated but it doesn't seem to be addressed here. This leads to both of the issues mentioned. TV articles often split characters into "current" and "former" sections and often, as soon as a TV series ends is changed to "Foo was a television program....". While common-sense should prevail, unfortunately it seems that it is becoming rare these days. "May contain traces of peanuts" is something that you never used to see but now it appears everywhere, sometimes even on jars/bags of peanuts. It just seems that people need to be told as they can't work it out for themselves. So, my question is, shouldn't we include the following in the MOS:
- Fiction is always treated in the present
- TV articles start with "Foo is a television program...." and not "Foo was a television program...." even if the article has ended/been cancelled
- Cast lists should not be split into current/former sections.
Obviously, this is not the actual wording but I feel these really need to be written down for the benefit of the increasing number of people who need the "may contain traces of peanuts" warning. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)