Talk:MTV Splitsvilla season 15

Ideal matches
Ideal Match is a twist that has been introduced in season 10 of Splitsvilla. It has been part of the series since then. User talk:Ravensfire called it WP:FANCRUFT and unsourced fan trivia. I have mentioned about on his talk page and also added WP:reliable sources still he is indulging in reverting it calling it WP:FANCRUFT. The discussion is for either it should be added on the page or not. Dr. Trafalgar D Water Law (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Reliably sourced fan cruft is still exactly that - it's fan trivia that's great in a Fandom site and full of breathless anticipation in forums from fans, but details that don't belong in a Wikipedia article.  High level summary, and there's already far too much detail in this article.  Another table is not helpful and just adds to the existing noise.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Let a neutral user enter in talk. You are very firm with your decision that might be harmful for Wikipedia and it's article. Dr. Trafalgar D Water Law (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The harm I'm seeing here is the relentless edit-warring to push fancruft into the article and that needs to stop. Fan edits are great on Fandom, but not great here. Again, self-revert and let's discuss.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Or better yet, dial back the rhetoric some and discuss calmly without the personal shots that are not helpful here or anywhere on Wikipedia. Think on it.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The information about ideal matches is already included in the Season overview section of the article, where it should be mentioned. Adding the table is where this pushes into fan cruft and WP:UNDUE.   Ravensfire  (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

MOS issues
There have been and continue to be material in the article that is contrary to the manual of style. I'm going to start this to try and highlight several of the problems. Most of the time it's pure laziness from editors not wanting to type out a few more letters.
 * Ordinals - this is using 1st, 2nd, instead of first, second, etc. See MOS:ORDINAL, "The general principles set out in § Numbers as figures or words apply to ordinals. In particular, do not start a sentence with a figure, and generally use first through ninth, not 1st through 9th, for single-digit ordinals."
 * Ampersands *&) - don't use them in normal text and headings unless it's part of a proper noun, title of work or trademark. When space is extremely limited (table, infobox) they can be used, but space does actually need to be limited.  A table that has a few columns and there is no space issue should not use &. In most cases, "and" should be used.  See MOS:AMP
 * Capital letters - "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence." Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters is the MOS for this.  The first section heading - "Do not use for emphasis", so using WIN over Win is obviously contrary to this.  Use "Win".  Section headings - "Use sentence case, not title case, capitalization in all section headings."  Also from the same section, "The same applies to the titles of articles, table headers and captions, the headers of infoboxes and navigation templates, and image captions and alt text."  Bolding the part that gets violated here frequently.
 * Bolding - MOS:BOLD mentions "...is considered appropriate only for certain usages." and calls out Article title terms, automatically applied boldface and then says "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases:" excepting for redirects, mathmatical objects and automatically by the citation templates.
 * Italics - MOS:ITALICS says "Emphasis may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence, when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers, or to stress a contrast" Using it for entire sentences as it was often used here does not fall into that use case.  A sentence that is it's own paragraph is easily apparent to a reader that it is important especially at the end of a summary.

, please bring up specific examples as I'm more than happy to review, but the vast majority of the edits I've made are to correct misuse of the MOS in the article. The excuse of "but the other articles have it" is both WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, continuing bad formatting and frankly, lazy. We should strive to make articles better, not continue to use bad examples. They will get fixed over time, so be part of that change, not continuing poor quality.  Ravensfire  (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There's a WP:WALLEDGARDEN around some of these Indian television articles and the poor formatting is part of that issues. WP:FANCRUFT and excessive amounts of detail abound, and all of this with three sources.  Not good. And the cliq of common editors (IP and named users) is resistant to change.  Ravensfire  (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While different shows from different countries, there's a couple of Big Brother seasons that have GA status - Big Brother (British TV series) series 10 and Big Brother 11 (American season). They've both got different ways of doing the summary (with the British show have a format closer to this article) but also provide good examples of how to handle reality TV series, and the Wiki Project over those shows does also help with the Indian Bigg Boss shows, so without a good Wiki Project for this show, it's about as good as a place as any for guidance and examples.  Unfortunately, none of the Bigg Boss seasons are rated above Start-class quality.  Ravensfire  (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)