Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk | contribs) |
Whats new? (talk | contribs) →Broadcast/TV:INTL section: new section |
||
Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
::Thanks, {{u|Bignole}}, but these aren't "episode counts"; it's giving which episode it is. It would be the same difference as including the guest in the episode list summary. But, it would probably be if the series doesn't have a "List of episodes.." or a "List of characters.." (just a thought). But, I think that prose trumps all of these. --[[User:Musdan77|Musdan77]] ([[User talk:Musdan77|talk]]) 17:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC) |
::Thanks, {{u|Bignole}}, but these aren't "episode counts"; it's giving which episode it is. It would be the same difference as including the guest in the episode list summary. But, it would probably be if the series doesn't have a "List of episodes.." or a "List of characters.." (just a thought). But, I think that prose trumps all of these. --[[User:Musdan77|Musdan77]] ([[User talk:Musdan77|talk]]) 17:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Broadcast/TV:INTL section == |
|||
Can I suggest that the [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Broadcast]] section be re-written to make a few things clearer, mostly in respect to international broadcasts of television programs. There is a real inconsistency across numerous TV show articles with regards to foreign broadcasts. The MoS states "Apart from the channel of origin for the series, editors are encouraged to instead detail noteworthy (see next paragraph) foreign broadcasts, from English-speaking countries, through prose form" but what is noteworthy isn't explicitly stated. Two examples are given but not at the exclusion of all others. |
|||
Specifically, I have encounted other editors who have numerous opinions on whether a program's premiere in another country is noteworthy and therefore meets [[WP:TVINTL]]. Similarily, some of those who support the addition claim date, timeslot, network and premiere rating is relevent, while some who oppose claim only the premiere date is noteworthy, others claim premiere date and network are fine, and other editors oppose any mention that a series airs outside its country of origin all together, saying only the original broadcaster should be mentioned. For example, [[Fear the Walking Dead#Broadcast|''Fear the Walking Dead'']] only lists channels of premiere per continent, [[Madam Secretary (TV series)#Broadcast|''Madam Secretary'']] and [[The Flash (2014 TV series)#Broadcast|''The Flash'']] lists by country with launch date, [[Reign (TV series)#Broadcasts|''Reign'']] lists by country with launch date and timeslot, while [[Code Black (TV series)|''Code Black'']] and [[Banished (TV series)|''Banished'']] don't mention foreign broadcasts at all. |
|||
I strongly believe foreign premiere date and the broadcaster (in countries using English) are notable to be included in prose form (their ratings and timeslot I'm not sure have as wide support) as long as their is a '''reliable''' source, and I'm not suggesting a full listing of every episode by date that would breach [[WP:NOTTVGUIDE]]. In any case, the current WP:TVINTL doesn't makes this issue clear. Perhaps discussion about this a little further is needed, but either way I don't think it is clearly stated here. '''-- [[User:Whats new?]]<sup>[[User talk:Whats new?|(talk)]]</sup>''' 00:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:58, 18 November 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. |
Addendum to the Cast section
This is stemming out of this discussion over on the project talk, as well as just general "chatter" on the project. I'd like to propose adding wording to the cast section against the use of the "Character (X episodes)" format (here's an example which actually made me start this discussion). I've been seeing this pop up more and more for recurring and guest cast lists on season articles (sometimes main articles too and for main cast members), and not only does it not look very formal, it introduces a slew of biases and other issues instead of listing actors alphabetically. We aren't IMDb, where this is common to see for cast list (and I feel the users doing this are trying to emulate). So I guess I'm just looking for help on how to word this (and a discussion, but I feel there are similar sentiments to mine out there in favor of this addition). Pinging users who commented in the discussion I linked above (@TenTonParasol, Dark Cocoa Frosting, and Ditto51: and some regular editors to the project (@AussieLegend, Bignole, AlexTheWhovian, Cyphoidbomb, and Adamstom.97:). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cast should be ordered per WP:TVCAST. For season articles, instead of
series original broadcast credits
, cast should be listed by "season" original broadcast credits. I'm completely against recording the number of episodes because it's far too prone to problems. Take this edit for example. I'm not sure whether the reduction in the episode count was deliberate vandalism, which happens, but the big kicker here is that at the time of the edit, 188 episodes had aired, not 184 and certainly not 183. The Big Bang Theory is a popular program and if it can be inaccurate, what about the less popular programs? I always look on episode counts with great suspicion as they are never sourced and so prone to inaccuracy that they serve no encyclopaedic purpose. As to what to do about this, I think a simple sentence appended to WP:TVCAST is all that is needed. "A running count of the number of episodes in which an actor have appeared is not to be included for any actor unless accompanied by a citation from a reliable source." --AussieLegend (✉) 08:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)- First, no to episode counts. That's just plain and simple. The only time I would include them is 1) when there is a reliable source and 2) When it's in prose format (e.g., John Doe portrayed Eddie VanTackle in 12 episodes of "The Stupid Show" because the character was written out through a car accident.) Just listing out episode counts is generally irrelevant because the number of episodes does not in anyway dictate importance, otherwise than "recurring" doctor who has appeared in 20 episodes just to say "It's not Lupus" would be classified as more important than the "special guest" who appeared in 6 episodes and drove a significant plot point for a season/series.
- For the order, if it's the main page it should be per TVCAST and ordered based on their ordering in the show. I can see alphabetical being a benefit when there are constant disagreements of placement, but even for list of character pages I generally prefer "first appeared" to dictate the order, as it follows the chronology of the show. I'm not opposed to alphabetical on a cast list though, just not on the main page (unless you don't have a character list page, and even then there should be something noting it for the reader). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support Remove episode counts for main characters. If a main cast member does not participate in an episode, then it must be determined first whether that is notable, and if so, requires citation. Wikipedia is not a repository of attendance records, and television shows do not care about Games Played/Started GP/GS as with professional sports teams. Order main characters by TVCAST on the main article, and by TVCAST season broadcast order for the season article. Order recurring characters in whatever way most helps the guide. It can be in order of appearance, grouped by significance, alpha order, or episode count, or a combination. But listing actual episode counts would require citations for all such numbers. If you're lucky and your program provides a count for you on their website or a guidebook, then great, otherwise appearing in 12 episodes would require 12 cite episodes. So I would side against listing such things. The only useful time would be like guest host appearances on "Saturday Night Live" or hosting some major awards show as that tends to get a lot of coverage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC) updated 17:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding episode counts, does anyone wish to comment on this sort of thing? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh sweet Christmas. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding episode counts, does anyone wish to comment on this sort of thing? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support clarification in MOS, episode counts in cast section is poo poo. I will point out that the MOS says
Please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time.
so ordering by episode count would not be consistent with the MOS anyway (but perhaps could be expanded with "...or episode count"?) The NCIS table Aussie pointed out hurts my brain. It seems like the excessive statistics WP:NOTSTATSBOOK reminds us to avoid. However, I know that some users find value in "Absent: John Doe" additions, so I don't know how this is much different. I also think it's completely unmanageable from an anti-vandal standpoint. If the community decides it does like this sort of data table, I have a controversial suggestion (I once suggested something like this at the Village Pump and was ridiculed by a more senior editor...) The table could be created as a template, and once the community A-OKs the content, it could be indefinitely semi-protected, then transcluded to wherever we wanted it. This would greatly reduce the day-to-day numerical vandalism. It would, however, stray from the "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" philosophy, which would make it controversial. For my favorite data table at Wikipedia, please check out this link. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support, like I said on the Project talk page, it can cause issues when actors appear on screen briefly and without speaking, especially when the actor is a series regular so the credit can't be used. The NCIS one could very easily be written in prose if it is needed at all, and so can the crossover tables.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support - I for one will be so happy to see this needless nonsense abolished. Never have understood the appeal. LLArrow (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Just wanted to add that I'm still in 100% support of using TVCAST to order main/starring actors as we have. This was just mainly for any recurring or guest subheadings. Bignole and AngusWOOF provided good alternatives to ordering them along with my alphabetically version. That decision is really a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS thing for each series to decide which works best. Also, I'm not opposed to including information about a characters appearance number if it has a reliable source and in prose (much like what Bignole pointed out in their first paragraph above). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Should the MOS distinguish between the list of main cast and other lists (recurring / guest stars / special guest stars )? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree that there should not be episode appearances listed unless there is a specific, notable, cited situation. As for the ordering, I thought I would just explain my thought process when I am editing. If the main cast is separated from the recurring and special guests than it has usually been easiest to order the latter two by the last names of the actors. However, in one big series cast list, I have tended to order the entire thing based on the credits order, which has the main cast first, and then the guest cast basically in order of appearance throughout the series. I don't know what others think about that or if there is even a need to have ordering standardised in the MOS rather than allowing editors to use what they think is best for each series, but I thought I would just put this out there anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
So I think we have a consensus to include wording to avoid the (X appearances) text; maybe some other points too. Could I get some comments on how to actually word this? I just tried writing something and couldn't come up with anything I liked or felt conveyed what we discussed here. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion so far has really been about different points:
- There is an agreement that cast list(s) should not contain an episode count, and should not be sorted by screen time or episode count. Suggestion: Thus, add at the end of the second paragraph: "The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g., (# episodes), and should not be sorted by number of episodes in which the character appeared." The second part should really be clear from the rest of what the MOS says, but sometimes things need to be made explicit.
- Already included in the MOS: There is an agreement that the main cast list should be sorted by credit order.
- Still missing: There is no agreement to sort the other (recurring / guest stars / special guest stars ...) lists by credit order or alphabetical (but not by episode count). Right now, the MOS says by credit order with new characters added subsequently.
-Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would probably propose that guest stars be included in order they appeared, if we're going to list them at all. In some episode lists, guest stars are mentioned as notes at the end of the episode summary. Not sure this is the best way, but it is one way that it is done. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to me that if everyone is ordered in credit order as the MOS kind of suggests, then guest stars would be listed pretty much in order of appearance anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Unless they are recurring guests, I wouldn't include basic guests. That would be an extensive list even just for a single season. You're talking about potentially 2 to 3 guests an episode (sometimes more), so for the average show that's about 60 guests a year. That list would be incredibly long for just a season. I think we have gotten into the habit of just include guests that are "big actors" or if it's an adaptation "a character we know from somewhere else", which places undue weight on those concepts. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Bignole: I would agree, still I didn't make up (or wanted to promote) the cast categories myself. I just see them quite regularly on season article pages (see, e.g., Pretty Little Liars (season 6) and before, The Good Wife (season 7) and before, The Vampire Diaries (season 7) and before, and there are many others). Not so much in List of character pages, though. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Dark Cocoa Frosting I like your suggested wording. For the third bullet, I feel we should not specify any particular way, because sorting by credit order, alphabetically, or appearance, are all viable options and each can be beneficial each way. Maybe instead, word something that says "Recurring or guest actors should be sorted alphabetically, as they are credited, or by first appearance." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Favre1fan93 My concern is that giving multiple equally valid sorting options again poses a risk of continual resorting.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- It could, but anything like that always does. We have that issue everywhere. I think if the community on that page have decided on an order then a hidden note can be placed there. In instances like this, the "re-ordering" often comes because someone doesn't realize what the order is and start ordering based on what they think it should be. If they open it and a note says "this order is based on" or even a visible one like is done with Smallville will usually stop most edit wars. There's never been an issue at the page I linked, except the occasional "this should be in this list". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Favre1fan93 My concern is that giving multiple equally valid sorting options again poses a risk of continual resorting.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Unless they are recurring guests, I wouldn't include basic guests. That would be an extensive list even just for a single season. You're talking about potentially 2 to 3 guests an episode (sometimes more), so for the average show that's about 60 guests a year. That list would be incredibly long for just a season. I think we have gotten into the habit of just include guests that are "big actors" or if it's an adaptation "a character we know from somewhere else", which places undue weight on those concepts. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to me that if everyone is ordered in credit order as the MOS kind of suggests, then guest stars would be listed pretty much in order of appearance anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and add this wording in, based on Dark Cocoa's suggestion. Feel free to amend based on what I add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Given the outcome of the discussion and the changes to the MOS, should the episode counts be removed from this table? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say yes, and replace them with {{CMain}}, {{CRecurring}} or {{CGuest}} as appropriate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
- This page is on my watchlist, but I'd overlooked your latest change to it. Regarding this edit you made, I didn't like the emphasis on "main"; so I removed it. Having "main" there gives editors too much freedom to do what they want to do with the recurring character list, such as placing their favorite character first. Yes, I know that you also added "Some examples of sorting include, but are not limited to, alphabetically, as they are credited, or by order of appearance.", but that doesn't clarify how best to order a recurring cast list or a guest list; it simply gives some options, and doesn't indicate that ordering the lists in some other way can be a problem. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Adamstom.97, regarding this edit, mind explaining your objection? Like I stated, "Where is the WP:Consensus for that edit? Nowhere that I can see. The WP:Consensus is for numbering [I mean episode count]." I was clear with my "07:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)" post above why I reverted. Furthermore, Favre1fan93 stated above, "I'm going to be bold and add this wording in, based on Dark Cocoa's suggestion. Feel free to amend based on what I add." Well, I amended. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- My issue was really that you undid one of the major points of Favre's edit without discussion, when the whole thing was already being heavily debated here. I am happy to continue that discussion though.
- Adamstom.97, regarding this edit, mind explaining your objection? Like I stated, "Where is the WP:Consensus for that edit? Nowhere that I can see. The WP:Consensus is for numbering [I mean episode count]." I was clear with my "07:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)" post above why I reverted. Furthermore, Favre1fan93 stated above, "I'm going to be bold and add this wording in, based on Dark Cocoa's suggestion. Feel free to amend based on what I add." Well, I amended. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- The thing with the cast ordering is that it basically used to state that all cast, series regulars and guest stars, should be ordered by broadcast order, something that I don't think many pages actually follow. After some discussion above, Favre changed the section to say that only the main cast has to be in broadcast order, and that guest stars (recurring or not) can be ordered how the page's editors see fit, as long as it isn't based on arbitrary nonsense such as the number of episodes the actor has appeared in. When you removed the earlier main specification without removing the guidelines for guest stars I just laid out, you created a pretty big contradiction by going back to saying that the whole cast must be in broadcast order but that the guests could also be ordered how you want at the same time.
- What we need to decide here is whether we want to go back to saying that the whole cast should be in broadcast order, and actually enforce it this time, as you have suggested Flyer; if we want to specify some other sorting method; or if we want to leave it vague for guest stars, as Favre's version does.
- If some consensus on that can be made then proceeding should hopefully be easy. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have to query this one myself. "Main" was only recently added,[1] and it's a significant change. Until now, even in recent discussions, we have agreed that cast lists in general should follow TVCAST. This now changes that. We order main cast one way, and other cast whatever way we damn well please, as long as we don't include an episode count. I have to support Flyer22 Reborn's amendment,[2] which was simply a restoration to the 25 October version for that part of the paragraph.[3] --AussieLegend (✉) 12:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Are you saying that you support the first of the three options I outlined, because again we can't remove the word main from there while we list different options for guest star sorting below it. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly sure what the three options are, as I lost track of the discussion somewhat due to other commitments. I do think that the existing wording was fine. All we really need to say in addition to that was that we don't include episode counts. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Are you saying that you support the first of the three options I outlined, because again we can't remove the word main from there while we list different options for guest star sorting below it. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have to query this one myself. "Main" was only recently added,[1] and it's a significant change. Until now, even in recent discussions, we have agreed that cast lists in general should follow TVCAST. This now changes that. We order main cast one way, and other cast whatever way we damn well please, as long as we don't include an episode count. I have to support Flyer22 Reborn's amendment,[2] which was simply a restoration to the 25 October version for that part of the paragraph.[3] --AussieLegend (✉) 12:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify for this discussion, here is what I believe we are deciding between, along with the addition of not including episode counts:
- Keeping the previous wording, that all the cast should be ordered by broadcast credits.
- Using Favre's wording, that the main cast should be ordered by broadcast credits and the recurring and guest cast can be ordered how the editors see fit (except for by episode count).
- Having the main cast ordered by broadcast credits and the recurring and guest cast ordered some other way, which we would have to then decide.
Hopefully we can come to a decision on this by discussing. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I apologize if I brought any confusion to this, but I was always under the impression that TVCAST was strict in how to order the main cast (by broadcast order, with new main cast members added to the end) but this did not necessarily apply to recurring or guest cast, since the order and frequency they appear in the credits usually changes every time. That is why I added "main" that Flyer22 undid. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think the original wording was quite vague and therefore confusing, but I always assumed that everyone was ignoring the fact that it was strict for the whole cast to be by broadcast order, since the wording (The cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list) does apply to guest stars as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I removed "main" per what I stated above. I knew before removing it that I was leaving in the "Sorting styles may include, but are not limited to, alphabetical, as they are credited, or by order of appearance." sentence, but that sentence is not stating that editors should present the recurring and guest lists any way they want to; like I noted above, it "doesn't clarify how best to order a recurring cast list or a guest list; it simply gives some options, and doesn't indicate that ordering the lists in some other way can be a problem." That is a problem to me. I removed "main" for further discussion regarding how best to word the guideline for recurring and guest lists. Obviously, I disagree that editors should order those lists any way they want to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with Favre1fan93's claim that the original wording "The cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list." was vague or confusing regarding the order. The paragraph talks about splitting into main and recurring cast before that, so this order obviously applies to all. Yes, credited order (even for main cast, I can give examples) can change within one season, but following the rule from the original wording, it doesn't matter. When an actor is credited for the first time, they are added to the end of the (respective) existing list which already has all actors that were credited before. No subsequent resorting, no subsequent deletion. So far, so unambiguous. And from the view of neutrality I see nothing wrong about this chronology either.
- However, this is hardly ever done (I can point out a three digit number of current and previous show or season articles – not "List of characters..." – that deviate from this rule, but where TVCAST clearly applies). Maybe the only confusing point about the original wording is why it is systematically ignored.
- Granted, this order – albeit not being confusing – also brings along problems: A common one is verifiability, as there are hardly ever any reliable sources of the credits other than the TV show itself. For example, if there is a cast list which is ordered by popularity, or number of episodes, it requires to watch (the credits of) all episodes (of the season or show) to reconstruct which actor was first credited when. While this is not original research it still poses a practical problem. A rare(?) case is credit without actual appearance (because of edits), but it is not really a problem of making the list according to the credits, rather than if such a list is meaningful. A third problem are ongoing seasons where the cast list already contains actors which have not appeared yet (but are announced and properly sourced), as it is not known where they will go in the list.
- –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- The reason I never took the sentence The cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. to mean anymore than the main cast, is you can't really follow this for any cast beyond the main one. The main cast is pretty much a defined order for the entire season, yet recurring and guest cast are different each episode. And even if you have reappearances by the same actor, their order in the credits usually changes based on other actors that appear with them in the episode. So to me, "broadcast credits" is for main, but the similar idea that this is presenting for the other cast members is "order of appearance", which I added in the new text. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- If the main cast are credited initially as:
- Main actor 1
- Main actor 2
- Main actor 3
- Main actor 4
- and then, at any point, the order changes to:
- Main actor 1
- Main actor 3
- Main actor 4
- Main actor 2
- we wouldn't change the order in which cast are listed because the MOS says cast should be organised according to
original broadcast credits
. For recurring cast, if they appear in the order- Recurring actor 1 - episode 1
- Recurring actor 2 - episode 1
- Recurring actor 3 - episode 2
- Recurring actor 4 - episode 5
- we list them in that order. If "Recurring actor 2" then appears in episode 17, we don't move them to the end of the list. We maintain the original order because the MOS says
original broadcast credits
. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about main, recurring or guest cast, the original text works. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)- And then we reach a practicality issue where new lists would follow this pattern, but old seasons and series would require people to watch the entire season/series to check. Especially since not all TV shows release a press release which include guest cast. Which is why we should come up with a more manageable solution to recurring and guest sections. And if people aren't going to watch an entire series then anyone can come along and change it without anyone knowing if it is correct or not. Which is why going for an alphabetical approach would work better as you can't change the alphabet so the list will be less prone to vandalism or users promoting their favorite actor to the top of the list.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- That is a valid concern, but I don't think it is really as big a problem as you think. There should not be exhaustive lists of guest stars, only those that actually recurr throughout the series/season, and any others that are actually notable to the series/season as a whole (anything less belongs in an episode article only). To find out what order to have those in, the editors only have to look at the credits for the episode in which each of them are introduced, something that I believe would not be too difficult to discover. So while it will take some work, as most good things do, it is not too big of an ask, in my opinion, and will make the articles consistent and simple, which benefits future articles as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- The reality is that there are plenty of lists, new and old, where cast credits are wrong even for main cast and we're never likely to fix them all. I've had to restore Kelly Hu to The 100 (TV series) several times (she was main cast in only one episode), and Lisa Rieffel to The King of Queens (she was main cast in part of the first season). I had to write a FAQ for The Big Bang Theory to explain why Sara Gilbert is listed as main cast. Regardless of what the MOS says, editors are going to ignore it (here is an example from today)but a clear and consistent direction in the MOS as to the way that cast lists should be ordered is better than vague instructions, and provides backup when you're reordering cast lists. We've had some fairly lengthy discussions here and at article talk pages about the way that cast should be organised (Talk:Person of Interest (TV series) is a notable example) and listing alphabetically really isn't an improvement because it introduces inconsistencies in the way that we list cast. We should be using only one method for all. Adamstom.97 is quite correct that we shouldn't have guest lists at all, I just mentioned those to demonstrate the consistency with which the original wording can be applied. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- I support the notion of only one sorting method in the MOS. I have voiced my concern about giving several equally valid options above, but to little avail. Several options create ambiguity. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- The reality is that there are plenty of lists, new and old, where cast credits are wrong even for main cast and we're never likely to fix them all. I've had to restore Kelly Hu to The 100 (TV series) several times (she was main cast in only one episode), and Lisa Rieffel to The King of Queens (she was main cast in part of the first season). I had to write a FAQ for The Big Bang Theory to explain why Sara Gilbert is listed as main cast. Regardless of what the MOS says, editors are going to ignore it (here is an example from today)but a clear and consistent direction in the MOS as to the way that cast lists should be ordered is better than vague instructions, and provides backup when you're reordering cast lists. We've had some fairly lengthy discussions here and at article talk pages about the way that cast should be organised (Talk:Person of Interest (TV series) is a notable example) and listing alphabetically really isn't an improvement because it introduces inconsistencies in the way that we list cast. We should be using only one method for all. Adamstom.97 is quite correct that we shouldn't have guest lists at all, I just mentioned those to demonstrate the consistency with which the original wording can be applied. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- That is a valid concern, but I don't think it is really as big a problem as you think. There should not be exhaustive lists of guest stars, only those that actually recurr throughout the series/season, and any others that are actually notable to the series/season as a whole (anything less belongs in an episode article only). To find out what order to have those in, the editors only have to look at the credits for the episode in which each of them are introduced, something that I believe would not be too difficult to discover. So while it will take some work, as most good things do, it is not too big of an ask, in my opinion, and will make the articles consistent and simple, which benefits future articles as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- And then we reach a practicality issue where new lists would follow this pattern, but old seasons and series would require people to watch the entire season/series to check. Especially since not all TV shows release a press release which include guest cast. Which is why we should come up with a more manageable solution to recurring and guest sections. And if people aren't going to watch an entire series then anyone can come along and change it without anyone knowing if it is correct or not. Which is why going for an alphabetical approach would work better as you can't change the alphabet so the list will be less prone to vandalism or users promoting their favorite actor to the top of the list.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- If the main cast are credited initially as:
- The reason I never took the sentence The cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. to mean anymore than the main cast, is you can't really follow this for any cast beyond the main one. The main cast is pretty much a defined order for the entire season, yet recurring and guest cast are different each episode. And even if you have reappearances by the same actor, their order in the credits usually changes based on other actors that appear with them in the episode. So to me, "broadcast credits" is for main, but the similar idea that this is presenting for the other cast members is "order of appearance", which I added in the new text. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Episode count templates
I've started a discussion about episode count templates at WT:TV as the result of comments made by the closer at a recent TfD. Since the outcome of the discussion may affect the MOS, comments by editors watching this page would be appreciated. The discussion is here. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Guest lists
This is sort of a spin-off of the above Cast section discussion (which I wasn't aware of before, so I didn't take part). This was hinted at, but not really discussed. Saying not to use episode counts in main and recurring cast lists is fine (especially for series that are currently on-going), but guest lists are a whole other issue. First of all, should they even be included or should they only be mention in prose or in the episode summaries (re: Cyphoidbomb above)? And if a list is used, how do we know who should be listed. We can't feasibly list every guest (re: Bignole). So, what's the criteria? Also, if they are in a cast list and not in the episode summary, then it should include which episode it is that they appear in. And should a guest be listed if they are said to appear in an upcoming episode, and should the episode number be given (if sourced)? One editor insists on using "will portray" (instead of "as") without saying when. I said to him that it would be better not to list the ones who haven't appeared yet than to list them without saying what episode. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- I guess this is two items. First, I would say "no" to have guest lists period. NOt a page of guests and not in a section on a main page. IMDb can list those things. THe reason being is that a guest list can become extremely exhaustive and dominate a page. Arrested Development had this issue, and if you listed ever guest for THe Simpsons after 25 years you'd have multiple pages. I don't think it should be based on the length of the show or the type of show. It should be a blanket rule of not guest lists. Recurring is fine, because they are usually smaller lists and show significance to a character (typically, but not always). You also could not stop people from adding really minor guest stars that don't impact anything. It's best to avoid them.
- Second, if we did have guest lists, then I say no to episode counts for them as well. I'm not opposed to listing future appearances, because it's casting information, if listed correctly. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Bignole, but these aren't "episode counts"; it's giving which episode it is. It would be the same difference as including the guest in the episode list summary. But, it would probably be if the series doesn't have a "List of episodes.." or a "List of characters.." (just a thought). But, I think that prose trumps all of these. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Broadcast/TV:INTL section
Can I suggest that the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Broadcast section be re-written to make a few things clearer, mostly in respect to international broadcasts of television programs. There is a real inconsistency across numerous TV show articles with regards to foreign broadcasts. The MoS states "Apart from the channel of origin for the series, editors are encouraged to instead detail noteworthy (see next paragraph) foreign broadcasts, from English-speaking countries, through prose form" but what is noteworthy isn't explicitly stated. Two examples are given but not at the exclusion of all others.
Specifically, I have encounted other editors who have numerous opinions on whether a program's premiere in another country is noteworthy and therefore meets WP:TVINTL. Similarily, some of those who support the addition claim date, timeslot, network and premiere rating is relevent, while some who oppose claim only the premiere date is noteworthy, others claim premiere date and network are fine, and other editors oppose any mention that a series airs outside its country of origin all together, saying only the original broadcaster should be mentioned. For example, Fear the Walking Dead only lists channels of premiere per continent, Madam Secretary and The Flash lists by country with launch date, Reign lists by country with launch date and timeslot, while Code Black and Banished don't mention foreign broadcasts at all.
I strongly believe foreign premiere date and the broadcaster (in countries using English) are notable to be included in prose form (their ratings and timeslot I'm not sure have as wide support) as long as their is a reliable source, and I'm not suggesting a full listing of every episode by date that would breach WP:NOTTVGUIDE. In any case, the current WP:TVINTL doesn't makes this issue clear. Perhaps discussion about this a little further is needed, but either way I don't think it is clearly stated here. -- User:Whats new?(talk) 00:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)