SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
:: That isn't really relevant since we are discussing the cast and characters on the Main series page, not the List of Characters page (Although that one does look like a lot of in-universe detail with little out of universe detail).--[[User:Ditto51|<span style="color:#00FF00">Ditto51</span>]] ([[User Talk:Ditto51|<span style="color:#FF0000">My</span> <span style="color:#0000FF">Talk</span> <span style="color:#FFFF00">Page</span>]]) 18:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC) |
:: That isn't really relevant since we are discussing the cast and characters on the Main series page, not the List of Characters page (Although that one does look like a lot of in-universe detail with little out of universe detail).--[[User:Ditto51|<span style="color:#00FF00">Ditto51</span>]] ([[User Talk:Ditto51|<span style="color:#FF0000">My</span> <span style="color:#0000FF">Talk</span> <span style="color:#FFFF00">Page</span>]]) 18:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
:: Thank you for the ping. Complex tables do hamper accessibility, and very much so; {{u|RexxS}} has written on this extensively: [[User:RexxS/Accessibility]] (make sure to listen to the audio). However, rowspans are more of an issue than colspans and, though [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Once_Upon_a_Time_(TV_series)&oldid=678399170#Cast_and_characters] would be annoying, in that screen reader users won't know to which season a role corresponds, the table would still be (linearly) navigable. [[User:Alakzi|Alakzi]] ([[User talk:Alakzi|talk]]) 18:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC) |
:: Thank you for the ping. Complex tables do hamper accessibility, and very much so; {{u|RexxS}} has written on this extensively: [[User:RexxS/Accessibility]] (make sure to listen to the audio). However, rowspans are more of an issue than colspans and, though [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Once_Upon_a_Time_(TV_series)&oldid=678399170#Cast_and_characters] would be annoying, in that screen reader users won't know to which season a role corresponds, the table would still be (linearly) navigable. [[User:Alakzi|Alakzi]] ([[User talk:Alakzi|talk]]) 18:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
*Use a table when it's useful, as at the Walking Dead page, where the table has a lot of, well, tabular data. Don't use a table where it's not useful, but use a list or plain prose, as [[WP:COMMONSENSE]] suggests in the context. The cast list at [[Once Upon a Time (TV series)]] is not a hard to read at all. If it were three times longer, or had three times as much information per cast member, sure. There's not enough data presented there to make a table worth the time investment (not just yours but that of every editor who would add/changing anything in it tables as a massive pain in the butt to edit, and a barrier to entry for new and and not-very-technical editors, so they shouldn't be used if a list or regular prose will do. Cast lists tend to at least be lists because, well, they're lists. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:29, 2 September 2015
Television Project‑class | |||||||
|
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Proposing minor addition to TVOVERVIEW
It seems that general community editing practices discourage the inclusion of season end dates in the Series Overview table until that episode airs. Is that accurate or my imagination? I know that we similarly tend to not add last_aired values to the infobox until the final episode airs, since eps can be rescheduled, etc. If this is how we generally feel on the matter, I think it's worth adding a quick "Please do not add the season ending date until the final episode has aired" statement somewhere at WP:TVUPCOMING WP:TVOVERVIEW. And maybe at Template:Infobox Television as well. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- That would seem consistent with current practice and guidelines, but shouldn't it be added to WP:TVOVERVIEW, not WP:TVUPCOMING? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh crap, that's what I meant. I get the two confused sometimes because they're somewhat intertwined. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- As do I. Maybe we need to combine them so we don't have to keep typing "WP:TVOVERVIEW, WP:TVUPCOMING" in edit summaries. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know if they have to be combined. UPCOMING is already a part of OVERVIEW; it is a more direct link to a part of it. So in theory, one should only need to link one or the other (unless they are talking about two elements of each). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- UPCOMING and OVERVIEW are parts of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Episode listing that have the same heading level, with paragraph numbers 4.3.3 and 4.3.1 respectively. Neither is part of the other and they are separated by "Multiple pages" (4.3.2), so it's necessary to refer to them separately. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know if they have to be combined. UPCOMING is already a part of OVERVIEW; it is a more direct link to a part of it. So in theory, one should only need to link one or the other (unless they are talking about two elements of each). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- As do I. Maybe we need to combine them so we don't have to keep typing "WP:TVOVERVIEW, WP:TVUPCOMING" in edit summaries. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh crap, that's what I meant. I get the two confused sometimes because they're somewhat intertwined. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with that addition. As long as the information has an inline citation, I don't see the problem. How is listing a date in the series overview table any different than listing dates with upcoming episode information? -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Good question, and I'm up for the discussion since in actual practice I see the reversion of this content all the time from infoboxes and overviews. I'd say that one issue is that we are creating multiple instances of potentially incorrect content. We might have an episode date in the episode list, an end date in the Infobox and an end date in the overview, creating three areas where data needs to be updated. On the other hand, I see your point that if it is sourced, then shouldn't that suffice? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- To me, the difference lies in what the table is being used for. The overview is being used to summarize a series, whereas the episode table is being used to list all episode information that has happened or about to happen. For me, it seems inappropriate to "summarize" future events that can easily change up to the week before for any reason. It's like the episode count not counting ahead of time. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, all future dates may change, but I don't think that's convincing enough to prohibit presenting cited future dates. What you're saying applies to all upcoming episode dates as well as the "First aired" parameter too. Articles on films include upcoming theatrical premiere dates in their infoboxes, and it's not controversial. The Wikipedia readership understands the future is not 100% confirmable beforehand, and I believe listing cited upcoming dates is definitely worth that trade-off. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- To me, the difference lies in what the table is being used for. The overview is being used to summarize a series, whereas the episode table is being used to list all episode information that has happened or about to happen. For me, it seems inappropriate to "summarize" future events that can easily change up to the week before for any reason. It's like the episode count not counting ahead of time. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Good question, and I'm up for the discussion since in actual practice I see the reversion of this content all the time from infoboxes and overviews. I'd say that one issue is that we are creating multiple instances of potentially incorrect content. We might have an episode date in the episode list, an end date in the Infobox and an end date in the overview, creating three areas where data needs to be updated. On the other hand, I see your point that if it is sourced, then shouldn't that suffice? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Budget
I have very rarely, practically never seen television shows feature 'budgets'. Except like Band of Brothers. And was wondering what are the 'rules' or whatever of it? I did I search on this page for 'cost' and 'budget' and came up with nothing. What would we do? Or how would we mention it? Under production? Or on info box? Game of Thrones Season 1 cost around 60 million and that was mentioned in production I believe. Not sure how much other seasons are. But has this ever been discussed? Charlr6 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's not discussed in the MOS because it's not a typical thing to know. It's rare that we hear about TV show budgets, outside of high profile, long series where someone reports on how much the actors are getting per episode (there's more than their salaries that go into a budget). I would say it should be mentioned in production if reliably source, but I don't think that we need the MOS update to reflect information that is rarely provided. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Charlr6: Is there something specific that prompted you to ask about budget? I'm just curious. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I was wondering it as on the Humans (TV Series) wiki page, a budget was put into a info box. I did start a talk there, and was discussed possibly put there because it was considered to be a limited series, but now talks of future seasons. Charlr6 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Does it actually show in the infobox? I wasn't sure if we had a budget field for TV infobox. If so, that's probably fine for now. Unless there is details about the budget, then production would be a good place for it. I still think it's too rare to have a mention on the MOS. Otherwise, we'd be adding every minor production detail to the MOS and how to handle it. Sometimes, common sense must prevail. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, my suspicions were valid.
|budget=
was added when Infobox television film was merged with {{Infobox television}},[1] after a TfD discussion. As explained in the documentation, the field isUsed for television films
and isThe budget of the television film or miniseries
. It's not meant to be used in TV series articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, my suspicions were valid.
- Yeah, thinking about it now, I would agree. Budgets are a bit more fluid from episode to episode, with some going over and some being under, and then each new contract change can increase or decrease a budget. I think it's too hard to track sufficiently for an on-going series. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
TV series categories
I've noticed this for a long time, and that's categories for TV series' are not consistent and use different wording, ex. series, show(s), and program(s). One naming style should be used across all categories for consistency, and ease of finding/adding categories. Using "series" seems to be make the most sense since that's how they're usually referred to. There's tons of other inconsistencies, such as, Television shows filmed in California, Television series shot in Los Angeles, Television series produced in Toronto, which all are categories having to do with filming, but all use different wording (filmed, shot, produced). Filming, which is the most dominant usage for most of the naming, should be used across all similar categories. I'm just wondering how to go about this. Anyone have any input/comments on this? Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think this might be better addressed at WT:TV so we can get wider consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Multiple nationalities for tv series
After seeing this edit to Beast Wars: Transformers, I'm wondering whether this MoS should borrow from WP:FILMLEAD, specifically "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." Thoughts? DonIago (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Expanding WP:NOTPLOT
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Expanding NOTPLOT. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Past Cast
In reference to: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Cast and characters information
Several infoboxes I feel are becoming exceeding long with past presenters, for example The X Factor (UK TV series) has the full history of presenters and judges. Similarly Britain's Got Talent has a list of presenter history.
The Loose Women, Good Morning Britain (2014 TV programme), This Morning (TV programme) and BBC Breakfast all just have current presenters as a list of past presenters would be lengthy.
Eastenders, Coronation Street and many other soaps have links to their cast/character pages instead of a long list of cast members.
I was wondering could we change rules to just hold the current or in the case of an ended show, most recent line-up. Currently there is discussion about the line up of Top Gear (2002 TV series) as to who should be in the infobox.
I feel that we could have a table on the page with a full explained presenter/cast history and then just have the most recent cast mentioned in the infobox, unless they have an incredibly large cast, in which we could link it to a cast page. CDRL102 (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- WP:TENSE explains that, by default, all articles should be written in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued. WP:TVCAST explains that articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series. As I explained to you at Talk: Top Gear (2002 TV series)#Presenters in Infobox, when you proposed a table there in June,[2] when lists in the infobox get too long we remove all of the cast from the infobox and link to the cast list in the prose section, not list them in a table. Cast tables have been discussed here and, IIRC, there was no support for them. Prose is almost always preferred. An option for listing lots of people in the infobox is a collapsible list. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Series overview table
Now that we're using {{Series overview}} to ensure compliance with WP:COLOR, I think we should be changing the examples in the MOS to use {{Series overview}} and to mention WP:COLOR compliance. Opinions? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. I had one odd thought: per WP:TVOVERVIEW we add to the overview after we create the episode table. We should probably mention the color issues in the episode section as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's fine. I'm sure we just need a quick one line mention to remind people to comply with "COLOR", and send them to COLOR along with providing your examples. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should use it as well, though I've been pondering how Alex's template can be used if one wants to incorporate ratings (ie the "fully-expanded" example). I'm trying to think of the coding to account for the second example as well as the final one, but I'm not as good with wiki coding as I'd like to be to implement it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- We can always add parameters for the ratings data. That shouldn't be a huge issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- @AlexTheWhovian: - He should probably be here. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should use it as well, though I've been pondering how Alex's template can be used if one wants to incorporate ratings (ie the "fully-expanded" example). I'm trying to think of the coding to account for the second example as well as the final one, but I'm not as good with wiki coding as I'd like to be to implement it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's fine. I'm sure we just need a quick one line mention to remind people to comply with "COLOR", and send them to COLOR along with providing your examples. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi fellas, thanks for the tag. I've been meaning to get around to adding ratings parameters, but never got around to it. Shouldn't be too difficult. The "colspan" attribute might different between series depending on how many ratings are added. Example 2 at WP:TVOVERVIEW has the one (average viewership), The Flash has two, Example 3 has three, The Big Bang Theory has four... Alex|The|Whovian 23:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I've added everything in. The documentation has been updated with the variables in question, as well as an example (Example 4). It supports up to five columns of extra information. (I should probably look into implementing this in Lua...) Anyways. The series overview tables at WP:TVOVERVIEW can be found as templates at User:AlexTheWhovian/sandbox#Series overviews (though slightly different, due to the template itself). Alex|The|Whovian 11:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Reception sources
Hello, may TV Overmind, TV Equals, Spoilertv be used to provide reviews in reception sections? I have seen them in a few articles, but I am not sure of their reliability. Is there a list of good and bad sources, similar to the one used in music? The one at WP:TVRECEPTION is fairly limited... --Sofffie7 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with Overmind and Equals, but SpoilerTV cannot be used. It's a fansite and user submitted. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sofffie7, including links to the sites you're talking about would be helpful to other editors. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry. Here are the links (and I added other websites as well):
- TVOvermind
- TV Equals
- SpoilerTV
- Fempop
- TwoCentsTV
- Guardian Liberty Voice
- The TV Addict
- We Got This Covered
- --Thanks, Sofffie7 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- TVOVermind: 1-2 person site. "please send to both addresses below to ensure both of us recieve it." Solicits fan contributions. No dice.
- TV Equals strikes me as a blog with a few contributors.
- SpoilerTV seems like yet another blog. No clear indication of where they get their ratings content for example.
- Have you checked the archives at WP:RSN to see if these have been brought up before and if there has already been discussion about these sites? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- From working here a bit, I know SpoilerTV has definitely been deemed an unreliable site by the project. I concur with Cyphoid on the others; you should see if RSN has anything. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb and Favre1fan93: Hi, I've checked WP:RSN and there are no mention of any of these sites except for TVOvermind and in that discussion, somebody basically said to wait lol. --Sofffie7 (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
MOS addition: date range for seasons, especially in List of episodes pages
I noticed that the MOS does not specify how to do date ranges for seasons. I started looking because of a good faith edit by 23W here. From what I've seen, the general norm is to do == Season 1 (2001-03) ==
if the season spans multiple years or ==Season 1 (2001) ==
if just during one year. WP:TVUPCOMING specifies not to include future years in the date range until an episode actually airs in that year. That is, don't do ==Season 1 (2015-16)==
yet.
However, what do we do if the season is currently running? Should we just use 2015 as the year (==Season 1 (2015)==
? Or, as 23W suggested, put "since 2015" (==Season 1 (since 2015)==
)? Can we specify something in the MOS for future reference? My personal preference is the former, but open to whatever. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- On a side note, WP:TVUPCOMING mentions WP:SEASON, but that link talks about spring, summer, etc... and makes no sense in that context. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Decided to phrase it that way after seeing {{Adult Swim programming}} use it in a similar manner. Logically it's the same as having
[year]–present
, but it's looks less awkward and is not read as a tautology in the present year (2015–present is currently the same saying as 2015–2015, though I never had a problem parsing it). I could be wrong. 23W 04:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)- I get why you did it for sure. Just never seen it like that so figured I'd ask if we should specify. Pinging AussieLegend who reverted your edit to invite them to the convo. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:TVUPCOMING specifies not to include future years in the date range until an episode actually airs in that year.
what do we do if the season is currently running?
- No. 1 is the answer to No. 2 and WP:TVUPCOMING is clear on this with a practical example.
years should not be added to said section heading until an episode actually airs in that calendar year. For example, for the eleventh season of NCIS, the heading on its list of episodes page would have been "Season 11" until September 23, 2013. After episode 1 aired on September 24, 2013, it would be changed to "Season 11: 2013". And finally, once episode 12 aired on January 7, 2014, it would be changed once again to "Season 11: 2013–14".
--AussieLegend (✉) 04:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)- Yes, but I want to be clear that we just use the single year and do not add "-present" or "since". I think it's worth specifying. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: Correct, we should not use "-present" or "since", given that if the year in the heading is the same as the current one, it has the implication that the series is either currently airing, or has already aired its allotted episodes. I see no problem adding a little amendment to TVUPCOMING. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but I want to be clear that we just use the single year and do not add "-present" or "since". I think it's worth specifying. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I think providing date ranges for season section headings should be prohibited altogether for a number of reasons, ranging from simple unwieldiness to the fact that these dates can vary widely between airings (especially important for coproductions). Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Cast order by opening credits or by programming guide/production notes?
Need some advice on how to handle this [3] where the editor wants to insist on using the order according to the Media Centre of the broadcast company website instead of the order presented on the opening credits. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- It seems like the Anon is misunderstanding "Broadcast order" to be "Broadcaster order". They should be in the order of appearance in the opening credits. If they don't appear (as not all shows do that), then you go by the broadcaster/studio credit order. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:Prose vs. table format for cast lists
Hey, everyone. AlexTheWhovian has been changing the cast section of television articles from table format to prose format, as seen here, here and here. I told AlexTheWhovian at the Teen Wolf (2011 TV series) talk page, in part, "cast lists are commonly an exception; things like this are a case-by-case matter, much like WP:Cite lead. That, and the fact that WP:Prose states 'primarily of prose' and makes no demand that people always use prose format, is why I stated 'cast lists in this regard are an exception.' Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists, which WP:Prose is a part of, is clear that prose format is not always best. And considering that The Walking Dead (TV series) article is of WP:Good article status and editors there prefer the table format, it would be best that you discuss this there before simply changing that cast list's style. Similar goes for other articles as well. Clearly, the prose vs. table aspect needs to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, and relevant WikiProjects need to be alerted to that discussion."
Any opinions on this matter? I might alert some of the relevant WikiProjects to this discussion. If there are a lot to alert, I might forgo that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Cast tables are simply not necessary for series where the number of main cast is too low, such as Teen Wolf, where this apparent issue was brought to attention. A good discussion to take note of is Talk:Arrow (TV series)#Arrow Cast Table, as well as similar discussions of the talk pages of similar projects. While you state that
That, and the fact that WP:Prose states 'primarily of prose' and makes no demand that people always use prose format
, there's no mention of cast tables there, so no, they are not an exception, only an exception made by users themselves. Alex|The|Whovian 05:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, cast tables are not mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. This means it makes no demand that cast sections should not be of table format. It is, however, clear that prose format is not always best. So those going around changing these cast sections away from table format are doing so based on their own personal preference, not on anything that a guideline states. I will go ahead and alert relevant WikiProjects, The Walking Dead (TV series) talk page, and the talk pages of the articles you recently removed the cast table format from, to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure as to why The Walking Dead is of concern? I haven't touched that article. And well noted that you didn't even touch the discussions I linked to. What further understanding does a table give that prose does not? In fact, table is more disruptive in the fact that you cannot give a character a proper summary without taking up more room, where in prose, it is listed as-is. With it also comes the extremely important point of accessibility for screen readers - prose reads smoothly, tables do not. I will alert users who have contributed to converting to prose as well. Alex|The|Whovian 06:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Per what I stated in my "05:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)" post above, I alerted this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this page to this matter. Included in that is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. And with this edit, I alerted an IP who disagreed with one of your removals of the table format. All of these alerts abide by WP:Canvass. The Walking Dead (TV series) article is relevant because you indicated that you would be changing its cast section; the only reason I think you haven't done that yet is per what I stated about editors at that article preferring the table style and that you should discuss this with them first.
- As for me, I don't oppose the prose format for cast lists; bullet-point format, which is usually used for Wikipedia cast sections (meaning television articles, film articles, and so on), is usually considered the opposite of prose format, though. The cast style you prefer can validly be considered a combination of list style and prose style. What I oppose is anyone going around changing every cast list they see so that it doesn't use the table format, when there is no prohibition against the table format. This discussion is meant to form a WP:Consensus on the matter. The table format is also common for other aspects on Wikipedia, such as filmography sections seen in Wikipedia actor and actress articles. I can see that the style you prefer is needed for articles that don't have a "List of [...] characters" article. But why is that style needed when there is a separate article for readers to specifically learn about the characters? The Hell on Wheels (TV series) article currently uses both styles. A WP:Permalink for that is here, in case that is ever changed. And per WP:Too long; didn't read, I am going to let others comment before I respond again in this section. The longer this section is, the more people won't want to respond. Flyer22 (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Bullet-point format is far more prose-based than tables, so if you wish, it can be considered "the lesser of two evils". I see no need for consensus on an accessibility-based issue, for those that user screen readers, to make Wikipedia more accessible for them - those that can use Wikipedia normally are not the entirety of the site. It is not what I prefer - you presume before questioning, and you are incorrect. For television series where a separate "List of Characters" page exists, there may exist a table on that page, and hence there is no need for a table on the original page when the list is a mere subsection of the characters page. (I'm personally going to continue to put my arguments across - if other editors do not with to comment based merely upon the length of this discussion, perhaps their arguments were not as necessary as once thought.) Alex|The|Whovian 07:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- If accessability is the issue, the table is made more accessible via the instructions at WP:DTAB. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Bullet-point format is far more prose-based than tables, so if you wish, it can be considered "the lesser of two evils". I see no need for consensus on an accessibility-based issue, for those that user screen readers, to make Wikipedia more accessible for them - those that can use Wikipedia normally are not the entirety of the site. It is not what I prefer - you presume before questioning, and you are incorrect. For television series where a separate "List of Characters" page exists, there may exist a table on that page, and hence there is no need for a table on the original page when the list is a mere subsection of the characters page. (I'm personally going to continue to put my arguments across - if other editors do not with to comment based merely upon the length of this discussion, perhaps their arguments were not as necessary as once thought.) Alex|The|Whovian 07:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Which to use is an editorial decision that should not be tampered with without first building a consenus on each article. Departures (2008 film) (a recent FA) forgoes a cast list entirely by introducing the cast in the prose of the plot section. Each style has its strengths and weaknesses and none is objectively better than the others. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Has everyone forgotten about WP:TVCAST? We've had numerous discussions about cast tables and they've received little support, which is why TVCAST says Information about the cast and characters should be presented in one of two ways:
- Cast list: In a section labeled "Cast list" or "Cast and characters", we indicate the name of the cast member, followed his or her noteworthy role(s).
- Harrison Ford as Han Solo: The pilot of the Millennium Falcon
- Characters list: In a section labeled "List of characters", we indicate noteworthy characters, including the name of the portrayer, followed by a brief description of the character.
- Han Solo (portrayed by Harrison Ford): The pilot of the Millennium Falcon
To avoid redundancy, use only one method for delivering this information. For series where an actor may portray several characters, it may be more useful to use a character list. Neither of the two ways specified in the MOS is a table. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Since when is accessibility a justification for making articles hard to read for people who are not using screen readers? The current cast list for Once Upon a Time (TV series) is pretty hard to read. If you can make it readable, I'm all for accessibility, but that's anything but readable. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- We've actually been discussing the issue of accessibility in TV articles at Template talk:Infobox television season over the past 6 weeks. I'm going to ping Alakzi who can better elaborate on that issue. I really don't see the issue at Once Upon a Time (TV series)#Cast and characters. Have you also read List of Once Upon a Time characters? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- In terms of the Once page, I'll probably try and add in some more detail along the lines of Arrow, The Flash and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
- However, I don't see the problem with something along the lines of the NCIS page where the table is first and then a prose section for the characters below it. (Although that page could use some copyediting and sourcing.)--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- @AussieLegend: I was talking about how the starring/recurring/guest info is squeezed into the same line. It was much easier to read that in the table since it's all lined up. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- How's this for unreadable? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- That isn't really relevant since we are discussing the cast and characters on the Main series page, not the List of Characters page (Although that one does look like a lot of in-universe detail with little out of universe detail).--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. Complex tables do hamper accessibility, and very much so; RexxS has written on this extensively: User:RexxS/Accessibility (make sure to listen to the audio). However, rowspans are more of an issue than colspans and, though [4] would be annoying, in that screen reader users won't know to which season a role corresponds, the table would still be (linearly) navigable. Alakzi (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Use a table when it's useful, as at the Walking Dead page, where the table has a lot of, well, tabular data. Don't use a table where it's not useful, but use a list or plain prose, as WP:COMMONSENSE suggests in the context. The cast list at Once Upon a Time (TV series) is not a hard to read at all. If it were three times longer, or had three times as much information per cast member, sure. There's not enough data presented there to make a table worth the time investment (not just yours but that of every editor who would add/changing anything in it tables as a massive pain in the butt to edit, and a barrier to entry for new and and not-very-technical editors, so they shouldn't be used if a list or regular prose will do. Cast lists tend to at least be lists because, well, they're lists. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)