→"Absent" cast members on Episodes lists: Agree with GP. |
|||
Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
:I oppose removing these absences because the are notable, non-trivial and not indiscriminate. Who the main players in a television episode actually are can hardly be described as trivial information. The only way to be accurate with respect to people presumed to be in all episode is to note when they are not. I would likely support not having main cast absences if guest stars were not also listed. Some episode lists don't list either and that is consistent. [[User:Geraldo Perez|Geraldo Perez]] ([[User talk:Geraldo Perez|talk]]) 22:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
:I oppose removing these absences because the are notable, non-trivial and not indiscriminate. Who the main players in a television episode actually are can hardly be described as trivial information. The only way to be accurate with respect to people presumed to be in all episode is to note when they are not. I would likely support not having main cast absences if guest stars were not also listed. Some episode lists don't list either and that is consistent. [[User:Geraldo Perez|Geraldo Perez]] ([[User talk:Geraldo Perez|talk]]) 22:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:: +1. That pretty much nails my take on it as well. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 22:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
:: +1. That pretty much nails my take on it as well. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 22:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
::'''Keep:''' Exactly, {{U|Geraldo Perez}}! Listing absences is equivalent to listing guest stars, and the two are linked and are both supported by [[WP:VERIFY]]. No consensus has ever been reached to outright obliterate them and it has been well-established on ''thousands''—'''read: ''thousands'''''—of articles for years, so yes, they were removed arbitrarily without discussion or a valid reason when the user knew full well what it would cause. If we're going to be that pedantic, listing guest stars is also not perfect as editors often do it wrong by including co-stars or not using the credited names. Next you'll be saying silly and ridiculous statements like listing anything other than the title and air date is trivial because who the hell needs to know all that other information, right...? [[User:Amaury|Amaury]] (<small>[[User talk:Amaury|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Amaury|contribs]]</small>) 23:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Relevance to the plot is what's key. We're talking about plot summaries. Unless the absence is notable to the plot, it's not convincing that the reader must know whether every single credited main cast member is in the episode or not. Guest stars are absolutely notable because of their relevance to the episode. When looking at what's relevant to plot summaries, I'd say almost every single 'absent' notice has nothing to do with the plot summary, while guest stars usually do. Following your logic to the extreme means we can list all main sets that weren't included as well. -- [[User:Wikipedical|Wikipedical]] ([[User talk:Wikipedical|talk]]) 22:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
:::Relevance to the plot is what's key. We're talking about plot summaries. Unless the absence is notable to the plot, it's not convincing that the reader must know whether every single credited main cast member is in the episode or not. Guest stars are absolutely notable because of their relevance to the episode. When looking at what's relevant to plot summaries, I'd say almost every single 'absent' notice has nothing to do with the plot summary, while guest stars usually do. Following your logic to the extreme means we can list all main sets that weren't included as well. -- [[User:Wikipedical|Wikipedical]] ([[User talk:Wikipedical|talk]]) 22:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::: I'll just state is again: what you and others here consider to be "incidental trivia" is not considered to be "incidental trivia" to a large chunk of our readership. Simply – there will probably never be enough consensus in favor of removing this kind of info that it'll ever stick. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 22:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
:::: I'll just state is again: what you and others here consider to be "incidental trivia" is not considered to be "incidental trivia" to a large chunk of our readership. Simply – there will probably never be enough consensus in favor of removing this kind of info that it'll ever stick. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 22:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:51, 16 January 2017
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
Television Project‑class | |||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Notice of discussions regarding updates to this MOS
This is just a notification to a series of discussions that are taking place regarding updates to this MOS, of which editors may have an interest. You can find more information about the initiative and the discussions, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Missed this posting (moving, graduating, etc.). Will try to join in future discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Just a *bump* to remind watchers we have a discussion ongoing now for the "Parent, season, and episode article structure" prose and the "Infobox" section below it. There is a proposal on the table that suggests potentially rewording and reordering this and subsequent subsections. Please take a look if you haven't, and join the discussion or add your own thoughts, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- The next discussion, on WP:TVIMAGE, has begun. You can find its discussion, here. Please join! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- The next discussion, on WP:TVLEAD, has begun. You can find its discussion, here. Please join! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- The next discussion, on WP:TVPLOT, has begun. You can find its discussion, here. Please join! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Collapsible boxes break links in Chrome
Per this diff, opening a discussion on how to better display the code snippets in the Infobox section without destroying page links for all of the anchors and shortcuts lower on the page. Speaking technically, I don't know of a better way to display code that doesn't introduce this problem. My proposed solution is still to add the expand=yes parameter to each box. For an example of the problem, try clicking MOS:TVCAST and see where it takes you—several scrolls away from the target section.
@Favre1fan93: please comment your thoughts. Thanks! AlexEng(TALK) 04:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh is that why stuff has been jumping around on me? Is it a Chrome problem or a wikipedia problem? Joeyconnick (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's definitely a Wikipedia problem. I specified Chrome in my post because that's the browser I tested it on. I just tested on Firefox with the same result, though. The problem is that the boxes don't actually render as collapsed on page-load. They render as expanded boxes and then quickly collapse. So your browser's position was originally correct when it loaded the page, but due to the collapsing boxes, shifted downward. AlexEng(TALK) 09:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. I completely see the issue you are presenting AlexEng. As I said shortly in the edit summary, this code really shouldn't be expanded by default; a user should look at it if they are looking to copy the code. I am completely open to another technical work around to prevent the issue we're currently having, but the content really shouldn't be visible, especially since it is three infoboxes, which are a bit lengthy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- The linking issue has been a known problem with Firefox for quite some time. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have any information on a workaround or fix for this? Given that Firefox and Chrome together make up roughly 60-70% of browser share and given that the MOS sees frequent section-level linkage, I think this is an issue that merits some sort of action. AlexEng(TALK) 04:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- @AlexTheWhovian: Might you have some technical know-how to help out with this issue? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, I'm good at coding, but I'm not really sure on this one. I'll see if I can figure something out, though. Alex|The|Whovian? 08:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't know if the collapse templates have a suppresser of sorts to not load open, and then collapse. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, I'm good at coding, but I'm not really sure on this one. I'll see if I can figure something out, though. Alex|The|Whovian? 08:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- @AlexTheWhovian: Might you have some technical know-how to help out with this issue? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have any information on a workaround or fix for this? Given that Firefox and Chrome together make up roughly 60-70% of browser share and given that the MOS sees frequent section-level linkage, I think this is an issue that merits some sort of action. AlexEng(TALK) 04:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- The linking issue has been a known problem with Firefox for quite some time. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. I completely see the issue you are presenting AlexEng. As I said shortly in the edit summary, this code really shouldn't be expanded by default; a user should look at it if they are looking to copy the code. I am completely open to another technical work around to prevent the issue we're currently having, but the content really shouldn't be visible, especially since it is three infoboxes, which are a bit lengthy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's definitely a Wikipedia problem. I specified Chrome in my post because that's the browser I tested it on. I just tested on Firefox with the same result, though. The problem is that the boxes don't actually render as collapsed on page-load. They render as expanded boxes and then quickly collapse. So your browser's position was originally correct when it loaded the page, but due to the collapsing boxes, shifted downward. AlexEng(TALK) 09:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
What exactly is the problem here? I don't see anything wrong. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- When you visit the TV MOS from a shortcut link (e.g. MOS:TVCAST), does your browser go directly to that section for you, or does it go to the section and then jump so that you have to scroll back to it? Alex|The|Whovian? 01:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, it is acting as it should for me. I am using Chrome BTW. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting; I'm using Chrome as well. Seems that for a number of editors it jumps when the collapsible sections actually collapse when the page loads. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- I just checked, and I do have this problem on my old(er) laptop, but not on my new Surface. Make of that what you will. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's probably because your Surface is looking at the mobile view, which doesn't collapse the boxes, so an anchor like MOS:TVCAST is accurately found. When JavaScript runs after the page loads and hides some content, it's hardly surprising that any focus already set to a particular anchor is then shifted to the wrong location. In general web design, I'd normally either link to or pop-up the contents of those boxes. You could use css to place them in a div with position:absolute that takes them out of the in-line rendering of the page, but the question then becomes where do you put them - and you'd need more JavaScript to handle how they are displayed. I don't see any simple solutions if you insist on having that content hidden using the standard wiki tools. --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- I just checked, and I do have this problem on my old(er) laptop, but not on my new Surface. Make of that what you will. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting; I'm using Chrome as well. Seems that for a number of editors it jumps when the collapsible sections actually collapse when the page loads. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, it is acting as it should for me. I am using Chrome BTW. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Style convention for season-numbered sub-headings
WP:NUM suggests that these sub-headings should be formatted "season one", "season two", with similar style used in the body of articles. Yet practice, and the implication (although not explicitly stated) of the TV MoS is that "season 1", "season 2" is more common. Has this been discussed before? IMO the generic MoS is preferable as short numbers are generally easier on the reader's eye as words rather than digits. IanB2 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting. Not sure if it has been discussed. I'd strongly suggest using numerals not words. Not just because I think it looks better, but it looks odd (in my opinion) when written with airdate as it commonly is in the cases you've described (eg. "Season 1 (2015-2016)" looks better then "Season One (2015-2016)"). This would also meet WP:NUMNOTES about avoiding awkward juxtapositions. There's also the issue when there are split seasons (such as season 2A and 2B) - you couldn't write it as season two-A and two-B. If there's not already, there should probably be an exemption for similar usage. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
"Harrison Ford as Han Solo: The pilot of the Millennium Falcon"
I'm just curious: how was this decided? Standard English would suggest it should be written as "... Solo, the pilot of the Millennium Falcon."
The format listed makes sense when there's a complete thought following the colon, but not otherwise. I ask b/c it quite simply looks wrong to the eye. Samer (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Actually, I think it should be a comma, rather than a colon, but you're right about the capitalization. The editor that added that just copy and pasted from Star_Wars_(film)#Cast and no one contested it. As you can see now, the original has changed from the way it was. I'll go ahead and change the capitalization now. —Musdan77 (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Straw poll for updates to TVPLOT
Hi all. There is currently a straw poll open to discuss updating and redefining word count limits for plot sections as used in the various articles of the TV project. You can find all info on the straw poll, including the discussion that lead to its creation, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Guest/recurring star order
Hullo... just trying to figure out how to parse this description of how recurring/guest cast lists work: guest stars will not necessarily be credited in the same order each episode they appear, so their place in the list should be based on the order of credits in the first episode that they appear.
To me, that sounds like the same thing done with main cast. Or am I misinterpreting?
So with respect to the list and edit here for Travelers (TV series), Ian Tracey appears in the pilot listed first in the "guest starring" section and Arnold Pinnock does not even appear in the pilot. So... shouldn't Tracey then be at the top of the "Recurring" section forever, even if—in later episodes—Pinnock is credited as a guest star before him? —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, yes. We follow credit order, not by how they appear in an episode. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Is this an acceptable source?
An IP editor is adding an episode table to Prison Break (season 5) citing the source "FoxFlash publicity" which is only viewable by logging into the website and you have to be a member of the press. I'm wondering if this is acceptable? I haven't really dealt with something like this before. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- My gut feeliing is no. WP:PAYWALL says not to exclude sources that are difficult to access, but the very first sentence of WP:V is "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". Since the source is restricted to a limited subset of possible users, "anyone" is not able to verify the content. You could ask for opinions at WP:RSN though. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I have reverted the IP user's edit, per a similar sentiment that Aussie has laid out. Also WP:NORUSH. Wait for the info to come from a source like Futon Critic or Zap2It. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Also, even if the info is behind a login/pay wall, the IP did not provide the URL for which others could at least attempt to view or verify the info. The episode table was poorly formatted too. I've added the page to my watchlist to keep an eye on it for a few days. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sure PAYWALL refers more to sources such as news websites where some articles require a paid membership to read, but anyone can subscribe to read the article. A publicity site which only allows selected people access doesn't fit verifiability as stated. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Also, even if the info is behind a login/pay wall, the IP did not provide the URL for which others could at least attempt to view or verify the info. The episode table was poorly formatted too. I've added the page to my watchlist to keep an eye on it for a few days. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I have reverted the IP user's edit, per a similar sentiment that Aussie has laid out. Also WP:NORUSH. Wait for the info to come from a source like Futon Critic or Zap2It. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you guys for your feedback and assistance. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- This was done in the wrong place and should have been on the article page. Also I wasn't notified. Now WP:SOURCEACCESS should apply to any commercial TV article due to info coming from primarily those sources. Relying on only sites such as futon or guide sites is limited due to the info coming out a lot latter and can have errors due to scheduling changes and/or the wrong details released. The revision with url should stand. As for you not liking the lack of whitespace in the source that's your problem. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- continue at Prison Break (season 5) 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't believe that your arguments really make sense. I dont think WP:SOURCEACCESS really applies since its not that its limited just in location of being able to verify, but the inability to anyone not in the press accessing it. Additionally your ref is just to the main page, not anything specific. That would be like me creating a ref that just points to nytimes.com, that wouldn't be useful. - GalatzTalk 14:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wrong place continued on Talk:Prison Break (season 5).119.224.39.131 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is the correct place for it, no such discussion exists at Talk:Prison Break (season 5) - do not split a discussion unnecessarily. Until then, the consensus stands as the result of this discussion. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- (Redacted) 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is the correct place for it, no such discussion exists at Talk:Prison Break (season 5) - do not split a discussion unnecessarily. Until then, the consensus stands as the result of this discussion. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wrong place continued on Talk:Prison Break (season 5).119.224.39.131 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't believe that your arguments really make sense. I dont think WP:SOURCEACCESS really applies since its not that its limited just in location of being able to verify, but the inability to anyone not in the press accessing it. Additionally your ref is just to the main page, not anything specific. That would be like me creating a ref that just points to nytimes.com, that wouldn't be useful. - GalatzTalk 14:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- continue at Prison Break (season 5) 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion at Star Trek: Discovery on cast section formatting
There is currently an RfC at Talk:Star Trek: Discovery#RfC on "Cast and character" formatting that will have an effect on a large number of TV articles, regarding the formatting of 'Cast and characters' sections in which content is moved to a new line after it gets to a certain length. Input from other editors, especially those who have used the disputed formatting at other articles, would be greatly appreciated. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Guidelines for naming participants in reality/competition shows?
There was a recent dispute at The Great British Bake Off (series 7) about how to use names for participants in television reality/competition shows, and it occurred to me that the guidelines aren't very clear on this, and there are a number of variations on how different articles deal with this. For example, on The Voice (U.S. season 1) and RuPaul's Drag Race (season 8) we see the full names of all the contestants and judges given all through the article; on The Apprentice (U.S. season 1), a mixture of full names and first names; on Survivor: Millennials vs. Gen X, first names only after first use of full names; on The X Factor (UK series 13) a mix of full names (contestants) and last names (judges). I'm wondering if we can have some guidelines so we can have a consistent approach this issue. While first names are often used in many television shows, surname is generally preferred for articles after first occurrence of full name per MOS:SURNAME, for example you would use Kimmel in the article on Jimmy Kimmel Live!. It reads odd that well-known people like Arsenio Hall and Clay Aiken are referred to by their first names in The Apprentice (U.S. season 12) (the article uses a mix of first and full names).
So,
- Do we use first names (or full names) if those are the names used on the show?
- What do we do after the first occurrence of the full names?
I think maybe the simplest way to resolve this issue is to treat the participants as acts, for example the full name of a contestant on The Voice would be the name of the act, the same way you would treat the acts in America's Got Talent (season 11). If the show uses first names only, then only the first name would be used after the first occurrence of the full names, and if full names are used, then full names all through the article. I would be interested to hear your opinion or suggestion on this and how we should formulate guidelines on this, or even if you think it is unnecessary. Hzh (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree there should be a guideline for it. It is complicated sometimes by the fact that sometimes the surname of a participant isn't known, and thus first name is all that is available. The winner's full name may be published in media articles, but contestants eliminated early may not. I would suggest using full names where available in a cast list, regardless of whether the surname is used in the show. After first occurrence and in episode summaries, I think despite MOS:SURNAME that first name (or whatever name they're referred to in the show) should be used. Awkwardly it does mean celebrity contestants are referred to by first name, but the opposite would mean an unknown contestant only ever referred to as Bill on the show, but who's name is William Smith, would be mentioned in article as "Smith performed a waltz" which I'd argue would confuse readers. So I agree with your suggestions broadly. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Whats new? Perhaps it should be marked in ""'s if it is a nickname, like in the lede, i.e. John "joe" Doe. If he was referred to as Joe it would say: "In the show he was called Joe rather than his actual name of John Doe" and any place in the article after that (assuming of course all notability of the person comes from that show) he (in this example) would be called "Joe". In cases where the subject is notable independent of the show, only the section(s) mentioning it would have "Joe". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- What we've done in Hell's Kitchen is to list their full names in the contestant list along with nicknames in quotes like Ranjit "Raj" Brandston and Lewis "Curtis" Curtis. This assumes the full names are posted by reliable source of course, otherwise it's purely common / stage names. Then go by their common / stage name for the elimination tables and the episode summaries (Raj and Curtis in this example). For one-episode acts like in the first rounds for America's Got Talent use the stage name as presented in the banner. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with this style, and there should be a note in the MOS for it. I don't think using quotes throughout the article is necessary, but in the contestant list absolutely as AngusWOOF has described. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if the discussion should be appended to the discussion going on the rewrite of MOS, or perhaps starting a new topic on that there later? I'm not sure if our suggestions fit with the guidelines on MOS:SURNAME (although I'm not really sure one way or the other), perhaps we might invite those interested in naming convention for their opinions on this. Hzh (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Hzh: Good point, the cast section of TVMOS hasn't been discussed yet (its due next in fact) so perhaps pin this discussion until the current plot dicussion can finally be closed and the cast section rewrite begins. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if the discussion should be appended to the discussion going on the rewrite of MOS, or perhaps starting a new topic on that there later? I'm not sure if our suggestions fit with the guidelines on MOS:SURNAME (although I'm not really sure one way or the other), perhaps we might invite those interested in naming convention for their opinions on this. Hzh (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with this style, and there should be a note in the MOS for it. I don't think using quotes throughout the article is necessary, but in the contestant list absolutely as AngusWOOF has described. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
TV Series cast lists
A point from a discussion here is worth raising as it has wider implications for TV pages. AlexTheWhovian reverted an edit I made and in so doing removed what I considered two principal characters (Judith and Aelle) from the cast list of the Vikings page. His argument, I hope fairly summarised, was that the cast list should be the 'main cast', and the 'main cast' is only those listed in the opening credits. Looking at MOSTV I can see that this might be one interpretation - but these rigid 'rules' are not explicitly stated there; instead the MOS directs editors towards notability policy in making decisions on cast lists, with the paragraph that refers to credits appearing to relate to how such lists are "organized" (which I take to mean ordered). MOS also says that we should follow the producers. Vikings has four producers and I have checked the 'cast' listed on their websites, none of which match the actors in opening credits. Indeed the principal producer History.com selects nineteen cast members for photos and a mention on its series 'cast' page[1], which includes the Judith character. If the producer itself doesn't feel constrained to follow the credits when presenting the principal "cast" for its show, why would WP? (tbf although presented as a generic page this looks like a cast list for season four, but then the Judith actor doesn't appear in the opening credits for this season either) And, besides, approaches to opening credits vary around the world - some series like Vikings cycle through a good number of actors, others just present a few stars, and in my home country the tradition is generally not to have opening credits at all. ISTM therefore that a very mechanistic 'you must always follow the credits' policy is neither reasonable nor practicable? (and even if the consensus, not what the MOS currently says!) IanB2 (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
References
- The cast and characters section is the next to be discussed in the rewriting of WP:TVMOS, so this may be a good issue to bring up then. Currently, the plot section is (hopefully) at the tail end of the discussion, and when it is concluded, cast section will be opened for issues such as this. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
List of episodes
Hello, I would like to know when it is ideal to create a list of episodes for television series?. For example here, the series only had 69 episodes and was not renewed for a second season, it is necessary to create a list of episodes for this?. Or if there is some style manual that can indicate me it would be better, thank you.--Philip J FryTalk Tag me! 12:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm I don't think suppose happened that is information about the shows you see 1st season are here but not here 2nd season. I think something need to help so it short because episodes are too shorter about article. Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what Oripaypaykim just said, but neither of the articles linked should have a separate episodes article, no. Though not an official guideline as such, splits to separate articles do not typically occur for one-season shows, and sometimes not even for two or more seasons. Splits are typically based upon the size of the wiki-content of the episode table(s). Alex|The|Whovian? 12:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, it split will separate article that is for 1st season only. not more than seasons above numerals article will separate episodes. Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what Oripaypaykim just said, but neither of the articles linked should have a separate episodes article, no. Though not an official guideline as such, splits to separate articles do not typically occur for one-season shows, and sometimes not even for two or more seasons. Splits are typically based upon the size of the wiki-content of the episode table(s). Alex|The|Whovian? 12:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Does list of episodes had 50 episodes only? anime I think is relevant episodes will be entire article its not good necessary episodes are longer. Oripaypaykim (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
For the show you linked to, it really depends on whether there will be more content to be added besides a list of titles and their airdates. As it stands, the list is fine as is. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Template:Episode_table with dark headers are not printable
WP:COLOR has been used as a reason for allowing colored headers yet it was never written for a print environment. As when dark colors are used the text defaults to white which when printed isn't as clear as black due to the fact that no ink is used for white. The templates script should be corrected to lighten the color value instead of just inverting the text color. Also WP:COLOR should be corrected to print issues with color. After all this site has a printable version link. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- This discussion is in the incorrect place; it should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility, the talk page for WP:COLOR, as the guideline applies to the whole of Wikipedia, not just television articles. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- No it's about the Template:Episode_table broken fix for dark color. The WP:COLOR reference is just your (Redacted) comment for not fixing it and not seeing it as an issue. When the issue with the template is acknowledged then the limited scope of WP:COLOR can be discussed. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think you are the one trolling here. We are complying with Wikipedia's guidelines, so if you think there should be some accessibility rule for this then take your issue there, and come back to us when the guideline has changed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I pointed out that the issue with the template has nothing to do with WP:COLOR given it currently only cover non-print and visually impaired devices. So WP:COLOR can not be used as reason for refusing to acknowledge the issue. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please provide the guideline and/or policy that covers how content should be displayed when printing Wikipedia articles. (Though, why an editor would be printing out episode lists that are constantly being updated is beyond me.) If perhaps you searched for the issue online, you might find that it's not a simple coding fix. Dark headers will always be used, as the colours of episode tables are picked specifically to reflect the marketing material of the season. In the face of Template talk:Infobox television season/Archive 3, you will need to start a major discussion and gain a solid consensus to never used dark headers, an almost impossible feat. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Articles are suppose to be printable. It is a simple fix, given you are parsing out the individual color components to do a basic detection of their contrast. You could then either default the color to a standard background lighter color OR scale and output the component values to higher values. Defaulting the text to white is the worse way of dealing with it. (Redacted) 119.224.39.131 (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm going to keep redacting your personal attacks. (By the way, "colour" is the English spelling, you know, from England.) "Articles are suppose to be printable", based on what guideline or policy? You don't seem to have anything to back you up. And you suppose that we should only use light-coloured table headers? That's just not do-able, nor does it make any sense regarding the manner in which the colours are determined. You're going to have to make another suggestion. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Articles are suppose to be printable. It is a simple fix, given you are parsing out the individual color components to do a basic detection of their contrast. You could then either default the color to a standard background lighter color OR scale and output the component values to higher values. Defaulting the text to white is the worse way of dealing with it. (Redacted) 119.224.39.131 (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please provide the guideline and/or policy that covers how content should be displayed when printing Wikipedia articles. (Though, why an editor would be printing out episode lists that are constantly being updated is beyond me.) If perhaps you searched for the issue online, you might find that it's not a simple coding fix. Dark headers will always be used, as the colours of episode tables are picked specifically to reflect the marketing material of the season. In the face of Template talk:Infobox television season/Archive 3, you will need to start a major discussion and gain a solid consensus to never used dark headers, an almost impossible feat. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I pointed out that the issue with the template has nothing to do with WP:COLOR given it currently only cover non-print and visually impaired devices. So WP:COLOR can not be used as reason for refusing to acknowledge the issue. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think you are the one trolling here. We are complying with Wikipedia's guidelines, so if you think there should be some accessibility rule for this then take your issue there, and come back to us when the guideline has changed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- No it's about the Template:Episode_table broken fix for dark color. The WP:COLOR reference is just your (Redacted) comment for not fixing it and not seeing it as an issue. When the issue with the template is acknowledged then the limited scope of WP:COLOR can be discussed. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
"Absent" cast members on Episodes lists
If there is no noteworthy reason to list cast absences in episode lists, I believe it's time to remove them. On some pages, there are dozens of listings, and it's completely indiscriminate. This is a convention, not anything mentioned in a TV MOS guideline. While they're pretty uniform on children's TV lists, there are some others like List of Dawson's Creek episodes, List of A Different World episodes, as well. When I removed them from List of Girl Meets World episodes, an editor responded that I removed them "arbitrarily." Though listing them is completely arbitrary in the first place! What do other editors think? -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Absolutely in favor of removing all instances of these. They're pointless trivia. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Are we talking about series regulars who don't appear in given episodes in which they are still credited? Or other scenarios with "regular" recurring cast who just don't appear? I haven't noticed this in any articles/lists I follow but it sounds very trivial (and appears so to me in List of Girl Meets World episodes). I ask about credits because I could see the argument for denoting a cast member who is credited in an episode but doesn't actually appear in it, though I'm still not sure it is notable, and seems more of a footnote situation. Also, we don't often know the exact terms of a contract and Variety calling someone a "series regular" doesn't guarantee they are contracted for, say, all 13 episodes produced of a series, so the absence may not be notable.— TAnthonyTalk 20:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- My opinion is that Absent should only be used in Character tables, and not for individual episodes. But you might want to look at some extensive discussions for removing episode counts over at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television/Archive_5#Addendum_to_the_Cast_section and also Talk:List_of_K.C._Undercover_episodes#Absences, the latter of which ended up with listing the absences up front for each season and then per episode. Apparently for that show, keeping track of absences was a big deal. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think in previous discussions it is generally consensus to not mention absentees like this unless there is a notable reason, in which case that can be mentioned in prose (Actress X was contracted for the whole season, but could not appear in Y episodes because she became pregnant ... or something). - adamstom97 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Remove: pointless trivia (in the context of Wikipedia) and nearly impossible to verify via any secondary sources unless, as Adamstom.97 points out, the absence is notable, in which case it should be addressed in prose and/or with a note. It seems increasingly common for credited main cast to not necessarily appear in all episodes and also for main credits to vary from episode to episode, so tracking this kind of thing is going to become increasingly difficult and, I would argue, of increasingly less value. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ditto sentiments expressed by Adamstom.97 and Joeyconnick. If there is a notable reason a main/billed member is not appearing (pregnancy, injury, etc.) that can be noted. But if the character gets a billing and just doesn't appear in the episode because the plot being told didn't dictate their appearance, that should not be noted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep is episode summaries in episodes tables, but remove from the top of "season" sections. For an example of the latter, Boy Meets World (season 1)#Episodes, at the top before the episode table – those kinds of listings can go as they're pure trivia. However, whether a main credited cast member does not appear in a particular episode is IMO not "trivia", and can be included in the episode info along with guest stars. (Removing them seems to be a pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of thing...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would say the desire to remove is much more about WP:TRIVIA and WP:V. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Who the major actors were in an episode is hardly trivial. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- But who is NOT in an episode seems quite trivial, unless there is a notable real-world reason.— TAnthonyTalk 21:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The real world reason is irrelevant to knowing who the actors actually in the episode were. That a normally expected actor didn't appear when it was presumed by their starring status that they did means we leave the reader with incorrect information if we don't provide the exception info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- But who is NOT in an episode seems quite trivial, unless there is a notable real-world reason.— TAnthonyTalk 21:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Let me be clear: I'm often guided less by what editors around here "think" we should do (i.e. from their own often very special definition of "trivia"), and more by WP:Readers first (i.e. what our readership actually wants). Unless the latter is a flagrant violation of our policies, I'm generally in favor of giving the readership what it actually wants, not what editors think we should "give" them. And this info is in line with WP:V – it's right there in the episode, which counts as the primary source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's just the flip side of the same coin. What are you citing that says readers want every single absence listed on an episode list? It's purely miscellaneous information, which we have a guideline about. Doesn't matter if readers want us to forbid spoilers, since we have a guideline about that as well. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- What the readers want to know is who were the principal actors in that episode. That is not trivial miscellaneous information. It is valid out-of-universe information about who was in the episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's not what we're talking about. We're discussing who isn't in an episode. What about plot points that weren't addressed? Discussing what "readers want to know" is also completely theoretical and not provable. Let's discuss guidelines and policy. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not theoretical: all you have to do is see what editors have been trying to add to an article, especially across an array of articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- People who contribute to the encyclopedia are editors, as you said, not readers. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Infrequent or drive-by editors (e.g. IPs) are nearly always readers first, and editors second – they often add what they feel should be in the encyclopedia without regard to our "rules". We shouldn't ignore reader desires, when they don't obviously conflict with policies. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, you lost me when you considered IP activity to be representative of anything, since they are the worst offenders at adding what even you would consider trivia, like character's middle names, scene by scene details five minutes after an episode airs, etc. There are also many contributors that merely ape content and formats they see elsewhere, like IMDb or various franchise-specific wikis. I'm as big a nerd as anyone when it comes to "my shows" but I don't want the quality, well-sourced resource we have in Wikipedia devolve to the level of some other wikis.— TAnthonyTalk 23:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Infrequent or drive-by editors (e.g. IPs) are nearly always readers first, and editors second – they often add what they feel should be in the encyclopedia without regard to our "rules". We shouldn't ignore reader desires, when they don't obviously conflict with policies. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- People who contribute to the encyclopedia are editors, as you said, not readers. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not theoretical: all you have to do is see what editors have been trying to add to an article, especially across an array of articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's not what we're talking about. We're discussing who isn't in an episode. What about plot points that weren't addressed? Discussing what "readers want to know" is also completely theoretical and not provable. Let's discuss guidelines and policy. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- What the readers want to know is who were the principal actors in that episode. That is not trivial miscellaneous information. It is valid out-of-universe information about who was in the episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's just the flip side of the same coin. What are you citing that says readers want every single absence listed on an episode list? It's purely miscellaneous information, which we have a guideline about. Doesn't matter if readers want us to forbid spoilers, since we have a guideline about that as well. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Who the major actors were in an episode is hardly trivial. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would say the desire to remove is much more about WP:TRIVIA and WP:V. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
IJBall and Geraldo Perez, you make a good point about what readers may want, but I think those of us interested enough in topics to add content to articles about them probably have a heightened interest in minutae. There was a situation in the final season of Dynasty in which Joan Collins was only contracted for half of the season's episodes as a cost-savings measure. This is noted in the main article. I would probably be personally interested in seeing episodes in which she appeared and didn't appear noted in List of Dynasty episodes, but as an editor I believe that a) it is best not included there for the reasons above, b) her character will likely be noted in the plot summary if her presence was significant, and c) I can find this information elsewhere, since per policy Wikipedia is not intended to include all known information on all known topics. I should note that this Dynasty list has problems and is not necessarily an example of a good episode list. Are there any specific examples of lists that you think are "done right"? If absentee information is considered important, I think I would actually prefer the "Missed 3 episodes" approach at the top rather than the cluttery notes in every episode. There would be cast-related fields in the tables if this information was so crucial. But this is a good thing to be brought up in the MOS overhaul discussion.— TAnthonyTalk 23:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The issue with that approach is that "episode counts" (and this would include "absences counts" IMO) are explicitly deprecated under WP:TVCAST because they are very hard to independently verify. Basically, it's easy to verify someone's absence from a single episode: just watch the episode. But to verify an actor's absence from a whole season or an entire series is a lot harder to verify: it would require watching all of the episodes of that series! I think the former lies just this side of WP:V, but I actually agree with the TVCAST decision as well because verifying overall episode counts (or absence counts) is very much harder. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Guidelines aren't "laws", nor are they tablets delivered from God. In fact, guidelines are supposed to arise from common practices, they aren't supposed to be a device which some editors can use to thwart the desires of our readership. Let's be clear, what some of us think we should cover here, and what our readership actually wants from this project are often quite different. I was very recently reminded about this when discussing Wikipedia TV articles elsewhere on the internet – in fact, a lot of our readership actually wants the "trivia" that some of you are disdaining. Again, unless doing so flagrantly violates our policies, I say give the readership what it wants. Frankly, if you try to deny that, you're just going to get snowed under by a sea of reverts from IP editors anyway. A "guideline" without a constituency is ultimately pointless... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- "what our readership actually wants from this project are often quite different." "give the readership what it wants." Why are you the arbiter of knowing what readers want? That's an argument with no basis. Guidelines and consensus among editors is what we follow, not hypothetical readers. That logic is completely unverifiable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, MOS warriors are even worse at knowing what our readership wants. This is not a path that is fruitful for any editor around here to go down. Again, "top-down" solutions are usually roundly ignored on the internet, for good or for ill. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- "what our readership actually wants from this project are often quite different." "give the readership what it wants." Why are you the arbiter of knowing what readers want? That's an argument with no basis. Guidelines and consensus among editors is what we follow, not hypothetical readers. That logic is completely unverifiable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Guidelines aren't "laws", nor are they tablets delivered from God. In fact, guidelines are supposed to arise from common practices, they aren't supposed to be a device which some editors can use to thwart the desires of our readership. Let's be clear, what some of us think we should cover here, and what our readership actually wants from this project are often quite different. I was very recently reminded about this when discussing Wikipedia TV articles elsewhere on the internet – in fact, a lot of our readership actually wants the "trivia" that some of you are disdaining. Again, unless doing so flagrantly violates our policies, I say give the readership what it wants. Frankly, if you try to deny that, you're just going to get snowed under by a sea of reverts from IP editors anyway. A "guideline" without a constituency is ultimately pointless... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep starring cast absence info in episode lists when they do not participate in the episode when guest stars are listed. These two pieces of info are related – the intent is to document who the principal actors for that episode are and if a starring cast member didn't appear when the presumption is that they did, that means they were not a actor in that episode. That matters as much as who the guest starring cast is for an episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- What are you considering a "starring" cast member and how often does this happen? In what instances are readers "presuming" someone has appeared? If a cast member is credited for an episode, they are being paid for it, so I can't imagine that this is happening a huge amount of the time. I think it's more likely that you are classifying performers as series regulars who technically are not. — TAnthonyTalk 21:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Starring cast are those appearing in the opening credit sequence and named there and that is their only appearance in the episode, the opening credit sequence. Their absence in actually acting in the episode happens rarely enough that it is worth noting when it does. Noting guest cast and noting non-appearance of starring cast are linked and serve the same purpose, who had major roles in the episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- One caveat about that – what you say about main cast absences being rare enough to be noteworthy is true of many series, but not all. There are series out there, like Melrose Place, which were designed to have a large cast whose castmembers did not appear in every episode pretty much by design. But that's very different than a show like, say, Happy Endings where the absence of one of the five principal castmembers would be very unusual indeed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:IJBall, here is where you're saying something I agree with. "Unusual." If an absence is notably "unusual" and there are circumstances that are notable, then I completely agree it's worth including. But listing every single absence is not at all relevant to plot summaries and are 99% of the times trivial cruft. I'm contending that most of the "absent" notices on childrens TV series and others are more Melrose Place and less Happy Endings, using your examples. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I fell like this kind of distinction can't probably be handled at the "guideline"-level. I'm willing to entertain the idea that, say, the absences of the twins at List of Best Friends Whenever episodes does not need to be recorded in the episodes list because they are missing from half the episodes (likely due to the restrictions placed on how much you can work minor-aged actors) and that can be mentioned in the article text. But I don't think a guideline can deal with the level of distinction – it's something that will need to be hashed out at the article's Talk page. And there are certainly other series where rare absences from main cast should be noted in the episodes listing (Victorious comes to mind). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:IJBall, here is where you're saying something I agree with. "Unusual." If an absence is notably "unusual" and there are circumstances that are notable, then I completely agree it's worth including. But listing every single absence is not at all relevant to plot summaries and are 99% of the times trivial cruft. I'm contending that most of the "absent" notices on childrens TV series and others are more Melrose Place and less Happy Endings, using your examples. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- One caveat about that – what you say about main cast absences being rare enough to be noteworthy is true of many series, but not all. There are series out there, like Melrose Place, which were designed to have a large cast whose castmembers did not appear in every episode pretty much by design. But that's very different than a show like, say, Happy Endings where the absence of one of the five principal castmembers would be very unusual indeed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Starring cast are those appearing in the opening credit sequence and named there and that is their only appearance in the episode, the opening credit sequence. Their absence in actually acting in the episode happens rarely enough that it is worth noting when it does. Noting guest cast and noting non-appearance of starring cast are linked and serve the same purpose, who had major roles in the episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- What are you considering a "starring" cast member and how often does this happen? In what instances are readers "presuming" someone has appeared? If a cast member is credited for an episode, they are being paid for it, so I can't imagine that this is happening a huge amount of the time. I think it's more likely that you are classifying performers as series regulars who technically are not. — TAnthonyTalk 21:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- In the example Boy Meets World (season 1)#Episodes: Lee Norris as Stuart Minkus appeared in 19 out of 22 episodes and is designated as a "Main" character (with his 3 absences noted), and Danielle Fishel as Topanga Lawrence appeared in 14 and is listed as "Recurring" (with all of her appearances listed). The difference seems somewhat arbitrary, I doubt either was a series regular for this season which should be the threshold for a main character. And I doubt either was credited in an episode in which they did not appear. The layout is obviously influenced by fan interest. I do think guest appearances can be notable and are probably interesting to readers, and harmless, but let's not pretend this is not the very definition of trivia. IMDb is the proper storehouse for this.— TAnthonyTalk 21:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I pulled Boy Meets World into this discussion as an example of how this is all handled badly. Fishel was recurring in season #1 there, and should just be listed as a "Guest star" in the episodes she appeared in the episodes list – her absences shouldn't be tracked at all. However, Norris was main cast credited that season, and so it would be legitimate to note the 3 episodes he did not appear in in the episodes list. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- So you're saying Norris was credited in the opening of episodes in which he didn't appear? As a reader/viewer that might interest me, but on a global, WikiProject scale it still seems trivial. If the absence was notable, there would be a reliable source talking about it, and this would only happen if it was for a specific reason.— TAnthonyTalk 22:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is as notable as who the guest stars were, most of whom are are not backed up with mention in reliable secondary sources. We generally don't care why a particular person was chosen as a guest star either. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The point of listing guest stars is because guest characters are relevant to the plots – and therefore the plot summaries. This whole conversation is about what is 'relevant' to a plot summary. Absences are not relevant to a plot summary in most cases (one absolutely relevant exception would be a character's off-screen death due to a cast member's departure, etc.). Also, secondary sources are not needed because guest stars are straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, just like directors and writers. See WP:PRIMARY. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The plot description is not the only purpose of that table entry. We are also tracking key out-of-universe data about the episode including major cast and crew that participated in that episode. The primary source, the episode itself, is also the verifiable record of who did not appear in the episode, harder to verify than a credit list, but still verifiable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The point of listing guest stars is because guest characters are relevant to the plots – and therefore the plot summaries. This whole conversation is about what is 'relevant' to a plot summary. Absences are not relevant to a plot summary in most cases (one absolutely relevant exception would be a character's off-screen death due to a cast member's departure, etc.). Also, secondary sources are not needed because guest stars are straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, just like directors and writers. See WP:PRIMARY. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is as notable as who the guest stars were, most of whom are are not backed up with mention in reliable secondary sources. We generally don't care why a particular person was chosen as a guest star either. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- So you're saying Norris was credited in the opening of episodes in which he didn't appear? As a reader/viewer that might interest me, but on a global, WikiProject scale it still seems trivial. If the absence was notable, there would be a reliable source talking about it, and this would only happen if it was for a specific reason.— TAnthonyTalk 22:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I pulled Boy Meets World into this discussion as an example of how this is all handled badly. Fishel was recurring in season #1 there, and should just be listed as a "Guest star" in the episodes she appeared in the episodes list – her absences shouldn't be tracked at all. However, Norris was main cast credited that season, and so it would be legitimate to note the 3 episodes he did not appear in in the episodes list. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- In the example Boy Meets World (season 1)#Episodes: Lee Norris as Stuart Minkus appeared in 19 out of 22 episodes and is designated as a "Main" character (with his 3 absences noted), and Danielle Fishel as Topanga Lawrence appeared in 14 and is listed as "Recurring" (with all of her appearances listed). The difference seems somewhat arbitrary, I doubt either was a series regular for this season which should be the threshold for a main character. And I doubt either was credited in an episode in which they did not appear. The layout is obviously influenced by fan interest. I do think guest appearances can be notable and are probably interesting to readers, and harmless, but let's not pretend this is not the very definition of trivia. IMDb is the proper storehouse for this.— TAnthonyTalk 21:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm proposing removing these absences because they're non-notable, trivial, and indiscriminate (could list countless other things on episode list but we don't). Would the editors who disagree propose adding all main cast absences to the episode lists that don't currently include them? This is not an IDONTLIKEIT situation. It's about a manual of style and providing information that makes sense to episode descriptions. We don't list plot points that were absent. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I oppose removing these absences because the are notable, non-trivial and not indiscriminate. Who the main players in a television episode actually are can hardly be described as trivial information. The only way to be accurate with respect to people presumed to be in all episode is to note when they are not. I would likely support not having main cast absences if guest stars were not also listed. Some episode lists don't list either and that is consistent. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- +1. That pretty much nails my take on it as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Exactly, Geraldo Perez! Listing absences is equivalent to listing guest stars, and the two are linked and are both supported by WP:VERIFY. No consensus has ever been reached to outright obliterate them and it has been well-established on thousands—read: thousands—of articles for years, so yes, they were removed arbitrarily without discussion or a valid reason when the user knew full well what it would cause. If we're going to be that pedantic, listing guest stars is also not perfect as editors often do it wrong by including co-stars or not using the credited names. Next you'll be saying silly and ridiculous statements like listing anything other than the title and air date is trivial because who the hell needs to know all that other information, right...? Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Relevance to the plot is what's key. We're talking about plot summaries. Unless the absence is notable to the plot, it's not convincing that the reader must know whether every single credited main cast member is in the episode or not. Guest stars are absolutely notable because of their relevance to the episode. When looking at what's relevant to plot summaries, I'd say almost every single 'absent' notice has nothing to do with the plot summary, while guest stars usually do. Following your logic to the extreme means we can list all main sets that weren't included as well. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'll just state is again: what you and others here consider to be "incidental trivia" is not considered to be "incidental trivia" to a large chunk of our readership. Simply – there will probably never be enough consensus in favor of removing this kind of info that it'll ever stick. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Again, let's discuss guidelines and policy, not hypothetical, un-citable 'readerships' that can be used to argue both sides. I opened this conversation today. It certainly seems that a handful are the ones consistently arguing to keep these absences, so let's allow more editors to have a say here before deciding there's no consensus. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'll just state is again: what you and others here consider to be "incidental trivia" is not considered to be "incidental trivia" to a large chunk of our readership. Simply – there will probably never be enough consensus in favor of removing this kind of info that it'll ever stick. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Relevance to the plot is what's key. We're talking about plot summaries. Unless the absence is notable to the plot, it's not convincing that the reader must know whether every single credited main cast member is in the episode or not. Guest stars are absolutely notable because of their relevance to the episode. When looking at what's relevant to plot summaries, I'd say almost every single 'absent' notice has nothing to do with the plot summary, while guest stars usually do. Following your logic to the extreme means we can list all main sets that weren't included as well. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
For those unaware, there is currently a discussion about the entire TVMOS underway, and the cast section of the MoS is the next area due to be discussed. The resulting discussion here may be relevant when WP:TVCAST is opened there. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, User:Whats new?. I'm hoping this discussion focuses solely on episode list summaries, but if editors feel like absences need to be listed somewhere, perhaps a cast/characters article is another place for that information. But still believe in only rare instances those absences are notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, fair enough. Carry on -- Whats new?(talk) 22:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)