Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 2

King - tv series
Hi all

It seems that the search for "King tv series" is not pulling out the right answers.

The two in question are (page hits): King (2011 TV series) and King (TV series)

First -  should they both have the year in their names?

Secondly - should either page title be in italics?

Thirdly - the average number of page views for the childrens series was around 45-50. After 15 April both jumped up into the hundreds, with some days in the thousands. 16 April was the first broadcast day for King (2011 TV series) and it seems obvious that this is the reason for the massive jump in both pages hits. Unfortunately it seems that most of the 18,000 were misdirected, even though it also seems probable that they were looking for the latest series, and that something needs to be done to help readers get to the right page.

I myself typed in "King TV series" and clicked on the one in the dropdown, expecting to get to the current as there was no other option available in the search box drop down. Unfortunately it was not the one I was expecting - I expect because of the year being in the current series.

Any ideas how to fix this? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved the children's show to King (2003 TV series) because I don't believe that show (or at least the article doesn't reflect that) is the primary topic. And turned King (TV series) in a disambiguation page. The article titles are automatically italicized by Infobox television.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Undercover Boss overuse of template transclusion
Was browsing the Undercover Boss articles and they all transclude templates in the most stupidest of ways. I've never seen this before in any article, and was wondering if in my break this has become a new acceptable standard.
 * Undercover Boss (UK TV series) transcludes Template:Undercover Boss (U.K. TV series) using the Wikicode, a "series overview" type table consisting of two rows and four columns that tells us how many episodes each season has and the broadcast date of the premiere and final episodes of each season.
 * List of Undercover Boss (UK TV series) episodes transcludes the same table and it transcludes the episode tables from List of Undercover Boss (UK season 1) episodes and List of Undercover Boss (UK season 2) episodes. The first season had two episodes, the second season 6 episodes. Why do we have pages for each season?
 * The content of the two season articles consists of Template:Undercover Boss (U.K. TV series) again (I shit you not), an episode list table that consists of episode number, title, name of the Boss, airdate, a ref column, and at best two sentences for the episode sumamries. There is then a second table for ratings. For the first season page it tells us for the second time the epsiode number, title and airdate, the number of total viewers in millions, a weekly rank and a notes column. The second season ratings table tells us the ep #, title and airdate, and the number of viewers for "main" and "digital" and the share for "main" and "digital", with no explanation what "main" or "digital" are, or what a share is (Share isn't usually something used in the UK).
 * Why do all these transcluded templates and tables and subarticles exist? The main article Undercover Boss (UK TV series) consists of an infobox, a one-paragraph Lede, a single paragraph about the show's format, and the aforementioned transcluded table of the Series Overview. The episode tables from the season pages could easily be put on this page, with no negative effects, and including the viewing figures in the table. We could also do away with the "Boss" column because the summaries tell us who the boss is.

I decided to look at the article for the American version of the programme. The page is formatted in a similar fashion as the one for the British show, with similar Lede and Format paragraphs, althuogh it has an additional short section about the episodes, and a reception section. I understand why the American version of the show probably requires a separate episode list page -- there are more episodes that wouldn't sit right at the main article. But why do we have two sub-sub-articles for each season? MOS:TV says "For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes, it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists." This is neither a very lengthy series, nor has it got 80+ episodes (there are 28), and even if it did, the small amount of real world information the seasons have would disqualify it from needing separate pages.
 * But, List of Undercover Boss (U.S. TV series) episodes transcludes Template:Undercover Boss (U.S. TV series), which does the same job as the UK version in providing a "series overview". Why do we need a separate page for this table when it should simply be marked up on the episode list page? After that we have the episode tables from List of Undercover Boss (U.S. season 1) episodes and List of Undercover Boss (U.S. season 2) episodes transcluded. As expected, the tables on the main list page do not have summaries, so we have to go even deeper and navigate to another unnecessary article.
 * List of Undercover Boss (U.S. season 1) episodes has the same transcluded Template:Undercover Boss (U.S. TV series) (again!), and a standard episode table with 2-sentence summaries for the nine episodes that made up the season. There are also two crazy ratings tables full of numbers that just leave the reader overwhelmed, and they consist of share, ratings, ratings/share, rank (timeslot), viewers, rank (week 18-49) Which week is that one?, and rank (week households). The second ratings table is for Australia, telling us what they viewership was in "Metro cities", and three columns for the timeslot, day and week Rank.
 * List of Undercover Boss (U.S. season 2) episodes is the same, except there are 22 episodes.


 * Undercover Boss Australia -- almost a carbon copy of Undercover Boss (UK TV series) in both content and size, and lo-and-behold, transcludes the "Series overview" table at Template:Undercover Boss (Australian TV series). There has only been one season, of six episodes, but it appears a second season will be airing in 2011, although no other information has been given at this time.
 * So, for a series that consists of just 6 episodes, we have to navigate to, yup, you guessed it, List of Undercover Boss Australia episodes. Look what we see. The same freaking transcluded Overview template, and an episode table transcluded from List of Undercover Boss Australia episodes (Series 1). So now to find out any real information about these six episodes, yet again we have to go to a third-level article. And what do we have? The same damned Overview template, transcluded a third time, an episode table with ep#, title, name of boss and airdate, with single-sentence summaries. There's a second table with ratings information for each episode that is similar to the Aussie ratings tables in the US pages, ep #, title, airdate, Viewers for Metro Cities, and timeslot, day and week rankings. Why can't the two tables be merged and placed on Undercover Boss Australia?


 * There is also Undercover Boss Norge, although no episodes have aired yet, and the Overview table is marked up on that page, not transcluded. (The Template:Undercover Boss navbox already links to Undercover Boss Norge twice for the (presumably yet-to-be-created) episode list and season articles.

It's nice that the editors have gone for some sort of standardisation, but this is taking it to a whole new mind-boggling level. The only version of the show that requires an episode list is the American one. None of them need season pages, none of them need templates for Series overviews. At best, we should have one overview template to transclude where you fill in the necessary fields at each page, sort of like an infobox template.

I'm just stupefied, and have tagged all with merger proposals directing people to discuss it here (since there is no other single common place). Matthewedwards : Chat  17:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't een able to add merger tags to the overview Template pages because the merger tag keeps wanting to add a "Template:" tag to the pages I propose mergers from. If anyone can fix this or work around it, please do, thank you. Matthewedwards : Chat  17:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is also Undercover Boss which I feel should be the main article of them all. Here's what I think. Firstly merge all season episode articles up into the main episodes article:
 * Merge List of Undercover Boss (UK season 1) episodes into List of Undercover Boss (UK TV series) episodes ✅
 * Merge List of Undercover Boss (UK season 2) episodes into List of Undercover Boss (UK TV series) episodes ✅
 * Merge List of Undercover Boss (U.S. season 1) episodes into List of Undercover Boss (U.S. TV series) episodes ✅
 * Merge List of Undercover Boss (U.S. season 2) episodes into List of Undercover Boss (U.S. TV series) episodes ✅
 * Merge List of Undercover Boss Australia episodes (series 1) into List of Undercover Boss Australia episodes ✅


 * With the templates, I like your idea of having one template in which you can pass values into. Undercover Boss summary? So therefore we would:
 * Utilise Undercover Boss summary on List of Undercover Boss (UK TV series) episodes with links to section headings on page ✅
 * Utilise Undercover Boss summary on List of Undercover Boss (U.S. TV series) episodes with links to section headings on page ✅
 * Utilise Undercover Boss summary on List of Undercover Boss Australia episodes with links to section headings on page ✅


 * Then, with the main articles I propose the following:
 * Merge Undercover Boss (UK TV series)‎ into Undercover Boss leaving redirect with categorisation
 * Merge Undercover Boss (U.S. TV series)‎ into Undercover Boss leaving redirect with categorisation
 * Merge Undercover Boss Australia‎ into Undercover Boss leaving redirect with categorisation
 * Merge Undercover Boss Norge into Undercover Boss leaving redirect with categorisation
 * 99% of the content of these articles are duplicated in Undercover Boss. The Format section is almost the same across all 4 articles. The U.S. article has a section on reception - this section is already mostly duplicated in Undercover Boss. The Australian article has a small section on production - this could easily be merged into Undercover Boss.


 * Thus, in the end we will have a single page for the episodes for each of the series (minus Norge which doesn't seem to have contributor adding episodes seeing as the series is almost over), a single page which discusses the format of the series and its various franchises, and a single template which features a set of parameters which can be transcluded on all episode pages.


 * This is slightly different to what you have proposed but I feel it is a way of keeping all of the content and only having it appear once on Wikipedia. Thanks Themeparkgc   Talk  00:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In my sandbox I have created a template which could be used for a single summary table (i.e. Undercover Boss summary). Themeparkgc   Talk  01:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have decided to start part of my proposed merger since there has been no disagreements. I have completed the Australian and UK mergers for the episodes and template. I will continue to tag this section with Done until I finish. Themeparkgc   Talk  01:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

So now I have finished the U.S. pages. This leaves my proposal for the main articles. That is: If there are no objections by 00:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC), I will go ahead with my proposal. Regards Themeparkgc   Talk  01:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge Undercover Boss (UK TV series)‎ into Undercover Boss leaving redirect with categorisation
 * Merge Undercover Boss (U.S. TV series)‎ into Undercover Boss leaving redirect with categorisation
 * Merge Undercover Boss Australia‎ into Undercover Boss leaving redirect with categorisation
 * Merge Undercover Boss Norge into Undercover Boss leaving redirect with categorisation (episodes would be split off into a single "List of" article)

Multiple pages for character lists?
I've been considering the best way of tackling this for quite a while, so any help/guidance would be much appreciated. At present, this page advises that. Is there a comparable rule of thumb for character lists that exceed a similar amount? I'm thinking specifically of articles for long-running series, set out in prose rather than basic list format, where even just a paragraph of development information for each main character would very likely push the page over the 100kb point at which the size rule suggests splitting it up. In that circumstance, how would such an article be best divided? Alphabetically, into "Characters of Show (A-M)", perhaps into yearly, five-yearly, ten-yearly blocks, or by series/season? Or none of the above, and I'm missing something obvious? Thanks in advance. Frickative 06:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(ETA: If a specific example helps, this question was prompted by the article Characters of Holby City. Every time I open it with the intention of making substantial improvements, the long load-time and 90+ sections become a considerable deterrent.) Frickative  06:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I know of at least one show (well technically two in the same fictional universe) that breaks their character lists up into major and minor; Buffy and Angel. Doctor Who has a list of villains, a list of Aliens and I think one other character based list. Another U.K. show, Primeval is able to do a list of characters and a list of critters (it has dinosaurs).  I don't know if any of those ideas would work for that series (I'm guessing its protagonists and antagonists aren't as clear cut as a genre show, but perhaps the major/minor characters would work) but those are the differentiations I've seen that I can think of off the top of my head.  Millahnna (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) There is no rule-of thumb since it all depends on the kind of show, and everything has its pros and cons. You can split it up by alphabet as you proposed, by story arc / family group / in-universe factions, or by main / recurring characters. The one thing I do not advice is to have a list of minor characters only (including one-time characters), since those lists get deleted regularly through AfD. Better keep it all together as long as you can in one list, and prefer to split into two new long lists instead of e.g. five shorter lists - that would just scream for a merger again. Long-running shows with long-running arcs and many recurring characters (like soap operas or science fiction shows) get some more lenience that short-running shows (<=3 seasons) with episode-only arcs (like hospital and crime shows I guess). Non-crufty character summaries (1-2 paragraphs) with sourced non-trivial real-world information usually allows you to divide the main character list into whatever you want within reason, without having to fear merge or deletion discussions. – sgeureka t•c 08:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your help. I hadn't considered the possibilities of major/recurring, or character-role/in-universe divisions, which certainly opens up some viable routes. I'll try and keep it whole for as long as possible, and though I'm not sure yet which way I'll eventually go, all are good suggestions to mull over. Cheers! Frickative  09:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if the major characters are notable enough then they should have their own article. That will cut down on size right there. As such, the way I tackled Characters of Smallville is if they have their own article they don't get but a very brief mention on the page. There is no reason to go into detail if an individual article will do it, and do it better. That really saves on the size of the article. Second, if I cannot find real world information on any of the other characters (that's typically for recurring guests, as most main character at least have some mentioning somewhere even when they don't warrant an article for themselves) then I generated a "list" of "Other characters" (all recurring guests) that at least acknowledges that there were semi-regular characters on the show but they don't have any significant coverage and thus don't warrant the extended plot development for a section on them. Since character lists are supposed to not be simple restatement/expandment of plot, and have real world info on each character, this always for their identification without really violating any guideline and/or rule. That was my approach at least.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Single season shows with season article
At Talk:List of Happy Endings episodes Wattlebird argues for the season article of the first (and currently only) season of Happy Endings. Using the non-set-in-stone nature of the guidelines in this MOS as allowance. Any and all comments are welcome at Talk:List of Happy Endings episodes. Thanks.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style
Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation: "Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?" It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. N oetica Tea? 00:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Character "recurring" or "past/previous"
Hi

Is a character recurring if it only appears in a few episodes and is killed? While I realise that the character was recurring, it is no longer, and is not going to be. There is also the issue that the section is called Cast, but that it appears (from the MOS anyway) that the sub-sections should be "Main characters" rather than "Main cast"

At present MoS (television) simply states "... it may be appropriate to split up the cast listing by "Main characters" and "Recurring characters"." This is also present tense, as the character, and so the actor, are not going to be recurring.

I did move the individual to a "Previous characters" sub-section (though on reflection it should perhaps have been "Past"), thus giving "Main cast", "Recurring cast", and "Past". There does seem to be one concerning lists though, as per List of past Coronation Street characters List of past Hollyoaks characters List of past Neighbours characters etc.

I have searched through other articles, but have only found a couple that use recurring, and in all those the characters existed for a minimum of one season, mostly more than one.

So my questions are:
 * 1) Am I correct in renaming the subs of "Cast as "Main characters" etc.?
 * 2) Is there a convention for non-recurring characters?
 * 3) Is it ok to have a section for "Past characters" or similar?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if a character is dead, or a show is cancelled, they are still considered "recurring". That's because they are fictional characters and cannot actually die. If I rewatch the show, they're still going to be recurring up to the point that they are no longer on the show, so their status within the series doesn't actually change from a historical perspective.


 * There shouldn't be "previous characters" because, again, once a show ends all characters would subsequently be "previous". Wikipedia is supposed to be written from that historical perspective and not from a recentism perspective. The MOS also mentions, I believe, no reordering cast lists to reflect "the most recent" cast, because once a show finishes airing it will be inaccurate to suggest that those were the "main cast" for anything other than the seasons they appears. It's always best to keep them in their original order and simply indicate who is no longer on the show.


 * "Cast" has always meant "main characters". "Cast" is a more professional term used on main articles. It's more terse than saying "Main characters". It doesn't entirely matter what the section of the article is called, but "Cast" is a more common term.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all that, just a couple of clarifications; "their original order" i take to mean "that they first appeared on the show", and should they be listed by character's or actor's names first ("Fred Smith as John Doe, the main protagonist ..." or "John Doe (Fred Smith) is the main protagonist ...")? Chaosdruid (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, who appeared first is the order. From there, you can just put them in the order of their credit order. As for whether "John Doe as Bill" or "Bill (John Doe)", that's a matter of preference. It has no bearing on anything.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeated use of first names in episode lists
Does WP:SURNAME apply to lists of television episodes? If episode 1 is already written by John Doe, should episode 2 be written by John Doe or just Doe? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That MOS is about bios, not lists. But I would say that if they are consecutive, then the listing that follows could be surname only (or first initial and surname). Musdan77 (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends if you are restricted in the use of space. Trying to keep your columns short in a table? Consider using first initial, last name. Not worried about line length? Keep using their full name, it can be cut and pasted. Elizium23 (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I should also say that you should consider ambiguity when choosing a style. For common names always err on the side of being specific, to prevent later errors creeping in. Elizium23 (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * SURNAME doesn't apply to lists because each cell of a list is supposed  to act independently. Even  WP:OVERLINK discusses linking each name each time it appears should there be a large enough gap between entries. Additionally, we often put place holders in tables so that when searching a key phrase will take you to a specific point in a table  (as opposed to just the start of the table), and if when you get there all you see is "Doe" or "J.D." then you might get confused. They should get full name credit each time. If you're trying to save space in the table, I would have to assume that you have too much in your table if you're trying to cut down on how you display a name.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I thought it would apply, so I started removing repeated first names from a list, got into an edit war, and figured I'd find out here. I was incorrect. Thanks for the info everyone! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing plot sections
There is a recent debate at the SOAP WikiProject about sourcing in plot sections and how it pertains to this page. I was wondering if we need to be more clear about when sourcing plot sections is necessary. This is for ALL articles, not specifically for SOAP. As it currently reads, the page almost contradicts itself by saying sourcing doesn't need to be there, but it's the active editor's decision if they want to put it there. Now, at GA and FA reviews, the idea of it being the editor's descision is moot because all GA and FAs have basically said it must be there for certain articles: namely character articles. So, do we need to adjust that on this page to reflect that opinion? Does the appropriate section in the "Characters" area need to read: "Although plots do not need to be sourced on episode and season articles, which contain all of the necessary citation information in their infoboxes and tables, characters articles must contain sources for their plot information as they pull from multiple episodes across a larger span of time. Thus, it makes it more difficult to verify information if readers do not know which episode or timeline it originated." I don't know...thoughts?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Dropping in due to a request at WT:V... Our Verifiability policy draws a distinction between requiring that material be Verifiable (ie a source exists, whether it is actually cited or not) and requiring it to actually be verified (ie cited in the article). The policy requires that all material be Verifiable, but only requires the material to be verified when "challenged or likely to be challenged".
 * In the case of plot summaries, as long as they are purely descriptive and do not venture into analysis or interpretation of the plot, the assumption is that the material is verifiable to the show itself (a reliable primary source in this context). It only needs to be physically verified (ie a citation to the related episode or episodes provided in the article) if the summary is "challenged or likely to be challenged"  (and if it is challenged, don't get your knickers in a twist... it's annoying but ridiculously easy to slap in a citation along the lines of, or some such... which should satisfy WP:Burden).
 * Character articles, however, are a bit different... they require some degree of analysis and interpretation of the character. This is more than just plot description, and the show itself is not a reliable source for that sort of material.  A secondary source would be needed.  Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we draw a line on the "likely to be challenged"? What if a show cannot be re-viewed because they don't market it on home video, or because it's 50 years old and there are no easily attainable copies? Should that line be drawn, or should it be left to those instances of "if someone wants to challenge it"? Character articles do have "plot sections" where their television fictional history is summarized into key points. Does this fall under that as well?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't mandate that sources be "easily attainable", just that a) they exist and b) they are available to the public (even if it requires some effort to obtain them). With the exception of some very early TV shows (which were broadcast live and not taped) most TV shows are routinely archived by the broadcaster and are available to researchers. There are also places like the Museum of Broadcast and Television in New York, which has a huge inventory of old TV shows.
 * But to get back to my point... the need for citation depends on the specific nature of the information in question. Some statements or paragraphs need citations, others don't. To give the most common example: The statement: "The ethnic make-up of the population of Paris is 80% European, 13% North African, and 7% Asian." would require a source to support it. On the other hand, the statement "Paris is the Capital of France" does not require a citation... This isn't because the second sentence is exempt from verifiability... its because that statement is so obviously verifiable that we don't require it to physically be verified.
 * The same is true (in a different way) for a strictly narrative plot summary of a TV show. The show itself is obviously a reliable primary source for that narrative (in fact, it is the best possible primary source for that narrative).  It is obvious that a narrative plot summary can be cited to the show itself... so we don't bother to actually include that citation unless someone says "wait a minute... that doesn't sound right... could I see a source for that?".
 * Now, an article that only lays out the narrative plot of a TV show would (and should) be considered a piss-poor article. A good article (and especially a featured article) will do more than just retell the plot.  A good article will include some analysis of the characters; It will include some discussion of why the show was/is so popular and its impact on the industry.  That is all information that can not be cited to a primary source such as the show itself.   So... a quality, good article will always cite reliable secondary sources.  Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Would this be the same where the show is going on for years and you're trying to summarize certain events on a single page. For instance, the way Jason Voorhees or Clark Kent (Smallville) summarize the plot of 10 films/10 seasons worth of information into a single section? Do you think those types of setups should have sources (even just primary sources directing an event to a specific film/episode in the overall series? That is where there seems to be disagreement. Some people feel that those types of sections should be sourced because they are dealing with multiple plots from different episodes/films, whereas some people feel that just saying it comes from show X or film series Y (not actually identifying specific episodes/films) is enough. Is that enough? The current guideline does not directly say one way or the other that it is, but I think that there should be a clear direction on this page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Organizing cast members in a cast section
There is a debate on the talk page for Pan Am (TV series) regarding how the characters should be listed in the "Cast" section. Currently, this guideline does not address this issue, but I have seen it pop up on various articles when people disagree over where an actor/character should be listed in the section. At times, people want to put the most recent characters at the top, others want to keep it in the order of first appearance. Some want the opening credits of the show to dictate the ordering for characters appearing at the same time, others want to order based on relationships within the series.

So, the first question is should we put into place a suggested format for the ordering of characters in a cast section? Secondly, what should that suggested format be?

Personally, I think that for characters appearing for the first time at the same time, it is best to leave it to the show's credits as to how to order the characters. The producers have already decided who the rankings of their "stars", thus dictating the importance of the characters as they see it. This eliminates us having to decide any organization, as our "decision" is actually to follow the series' producers' decision. As for when new characters are added and old characters leave, I believe in the first come first serve policy. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a historical perspective and not based on recent events, then new characters should be added to the end of the list. To put into perspective, once a show ends its run it won't make sense for those "new" characters to be at the top of the cast list any longer. It also promotes the idea that because they are "new" that somehow makes him more important than a character that came before them.

That's my opinion on the whole thing. Others?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen these various discussions going on and I wondered what is so controversial about just using the order from the show credits, as you suggest. Keep it in order of appearance after that. AstroCog (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Billing order in show. No re-arranging if billing changes later, either. New additions added in chronological order. Simple and neutral. Done. GRAPPLE   X  01:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's the best way to stay objective. Jayy008 (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not the best way to stay objective at all. Who's to say the the show's producer(s) and director(s) are listing the cast objectively?  Should we allow the show/network to decide what's an objective order for Wikipedia purposes?  I say definitely not.  And - if the series lives past the cancellation possibility, the "objectivity" being suggested above would only get challenged again (and again) by new editors.  No, the best way to stay objective (now and in the future) is definitely alphabetical order. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Although it's just an essay, Verifiability, not truth is worth a read. We're reporting from the official standpoint of a given series, and regardless of their motives, ours are just to report back what they've done. We don't illuminate, we scribe. I should probably put Name of the Rose down... GRAPPLE   X  23:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Bull roar. We're not "reporting" anything.  Wikipedia isn't a newpaper, it's an encyclopedia.  Verifiability not truth concerns citing references and providing those references to back up what's written in the encyclopedia.  We write NPOV facts, and we do it from the creativity of the editors based on what is verifiable from the references we locate and attach to those NPOV facts.  Lhb1239 (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And the NPOV fact in this case is that the series lists its cast in such a manner, and we follow suit. GRAPPLE   X  23:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I still don't see how you equate what the cast list from the show says is exactly what we have to say. There is no policy that states such.  Of course, if you are able to provide a link to such a policy, you're welcome to do so, and this discussion would be moot.  Until you're able to do so, however, saying that listing the cast exactly as the show does is merely your POV and personal opinion (neither of which are welcomed or a Wikipedia standard).  Lhb1239 (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I say in this discussion is no more POV, personal opinion or unwelcome than anything any other editor, yourself included, will add. The most pressing policy here is Consensus—which, might I add, is sternly in favour of the billing-order method. GRAPPLE   X  00:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct that the consensus so far is toward your side of things. With no accounting for common sense, I'd say. ;-) Lhb1239 (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lhb1239, the difference is that stating "use the billing order from the show" is not subjective. It's a decision, yes. It is an opinion that that is the best way, but it's not subjective. Subjectivity means that it's open to interpretation. Saying "use the order the show uses" cannot be interpreted any other way. What we're saying is that the producers have already decided how to order the cast. We reinvent the wheel if someone's already done it for us? What makes us better able to decide what order a cast should be presented in? Wikipedia is here only to collect information and provide it to readers. When it comes to deciding how a cast list should be ordered, the easiest way is by far just going with the order the producers of the show are already using.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What we want an ordering specified by independant reliable sources. The credits are not independent.  Couldn't the New York Times of CSA certified IMDB pages be used?  There are potential problems there too, but that's the best I can think of off hand. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Bignole, the point of Wikipedia is to be a complete encyclopedic reference above all other information sources available on the internet. If we do what the networks do, what all the other sources available do, what's to set Wikipedia apart from the others?  Absolutely nothing.  If we do and say what everyone else is doing and saying, then what's the point of coming to Wikipedia?  Another thought: you asked "what makes us better able to decide what order a cast should be presented in?"  You have also brought up that there's no bias in the way the network lists the cast.  According to whom?  Of course the network has bias on how they bill their stars on television programs.  They do it they way they do (1) according to marketing strategy (what's going to get people to watch and what's going to sell the products being sold by the advertisers) and (2) according to the language in the contracts those starring and co-starring on the program have.  Cast lists and billing is done for monetary purposes only.  Why should Wikipedia articles adhere to something that has nothing to do with anything other than selling more commercially advertised products and services?  I say put the cast list in alphabetical order and you eliminate all bias and preference - period, end of story. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The network is not presenting information, they are merely identifying who they consider to be the stars of their show. We're merely using their ordering of those stars. There is a little more to the ordering of the cast than simply marketing. If the show is about Character Y, but Character X is the more popular character among audience members they are not going to start the billing with Character X. There is no reason not to use the network's billing. If you're saying not to use the network for billing, then I say don't use them to determine series regulars either. But, that doesn't seem reasonable either, because we have to know who the "main" cast is in the first place, thus it only makes logical sense to go by how the show bills them. Alphabetical, though completely "neutral", makes little sense. If we're going for a historical perspective, which is what Wikipedia is written from (as opposed to writen from the most current event), then alphabetical will contradict historical perspective. If the show is about Character Y, yet his/her last name starts with a "W", and character X comes into the show in season 10 and their last name starts with an "A", then what logic does it make to have them be first on the list? Historically, it makes no sense. I think the alphabet arguement is more if a straw man argument if anything.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "There is a little more to the ordering of the cast than simply marketing. If the show is about Character Y, but Character X is the more popular character among audience members they are not going to start the billing with Character X." First of all, the characters aren't billed, the actors who play them are.  Now back to your example above.  Thank you for demonstrating perfectly that billing is about (1) marketing, and (2) contracts and that both = $$.  If Actor X is more popular than Actor Y, then Actor X gets first billing so that those who like Actor X more will tune in and then be exposed to the marketing (commercials) that are shown during the breaks.  When they are exposed to the marketing, they are very possibly going to buy what's being advertised.  You do realize that television isn't just about entertainment, right?  It's about selling things.  If people don't watch a show, then they aren't going to see the commercials the advertisers pay the networks to put during that show's breaks.  If the advertisers stop paying to have their products marketed during a show, then the networks start losing money.  See how it works now?  The shows aren't there for you and me, they are there for the advertisers.  Shows that don't get the ratings get pulled because the advertisers don't want to waste their money on something that's not going to sell their products; networks don't want to waste money on shows that aren't going to get and keep big-$$ advertisers.  There's nothing more to ordering the actors in the credits than getting viewers and the actors getting what their contract states.  Seriously - that's what it's about.  The only "wisdom" coming from the network is their marketing wisdom and savvy that brings in more $$.  Why should Wikipedia list the actors according to something that doesn't mean anything more than more money for the networks and the advertisers?  Just list them alphbetically and you erase bias from WP editors and bias from the network.  Lhb1239 (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lhb1239, the way you've suddenly changed your opinion after a disagreement with drmargi worries me. It's like now you're not getting along you just want to choose something different. Having it alphabetical doesn't do anybody any favours. It could put the least important cast member first and most important last, for example. Which would be completely pointless. Jayy008 (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What's troubling to me, Jayy008 is that you keep trying to second guess editors and claim to know what people are thinking and why they do and say what they do in regard to edits and talk page comments. Knock it off, please. I changed my mind because I saw that alpha order is best for the article (and actually, I think it's best for all articles where cast and crew are listed). Did you miss that when this all started I mentioned alpha order from the get-go saying I thought it would be a good alternative solution? Lastly, my disagreement with Drmargi is none of your business. It doesn't affect you, it hasn't disrupted the article or anything happening in Wikipedia and it lasted about a second. Please move away from the horse on the ground with rigor and drop the stick. Thanks. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that I know what that expression means. All I have to say is read below. In the case of "Smallville" the actual superman would be listed last in the cast of alphabetical order. Which makes no sense. Jayy008 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks alphabetic listing isn't the most objective and least biased way to order any kind of list can't possibly be looking at the list order with objectivity. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lhb, I don't think you quite understand. To give a specific example, let's use Smallville. On that show, Michael Rosenbaum was by far the most popular character (Lex Luthor) and cast member with fans. Yet, he received 3rd billing in the opening credits. Kristin Kreuk (Lana Lang) was heavily criticized throughout the series with most fans and critics wanting her gone. She got 2nd billing. First billing went to a no-name actor called Tom Welling. The man had 1 real credit to his name (Kreuk and Rosenbaum had many more), but the show was about him. That was why he got top billing over the rest. Now, if we did it alphabetically, then the primary character of that show would be listed last simply because the actor's name starts with a "W". That makes very little logical sense to me.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Bignole, I understand how it works just fine. I've worked in the industry and know very well how it all goes down and why. You don't get what I'm saying and that's fine. Let's just leave it at that, okay? Lhb1239 (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it that every Wikipedia editor for TV and film articles has always "worked in the industry"? Yes, alphabetical is the "most" objective way of doing it, it's also the least sensible way of doing it. If you have to use some common sense and still stay objective then alphabetical is not the best option.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So you and Jayy008 and GrappleX have also worked in the industry? Wow -- what are the odds? ;-)Lhb1239 (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a vox pop for BBC News once, does that count? GRAPPLE   X  00:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, for you Grapple we can count that. Sorry Lhb, the closest I've ever come to working in the "industry" is volunteering as a sound stage decorator for a student film at the university I attended.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The sarcasim LHB is pointless. Why don't you understand that putting the main character of a show at the bottom of the list makes absolutely no sense? Jayy008 (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

How long before can close this discussion? Including the one on the "Pan Am" one it feels like it's gone on forever with little to no resistance for credit order. Jayy008 (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the current consensus appears to be to follow the show credits and then list based on next introduced character, I'd like to wait a bit longer. I'll probably see if I can find a way to throw out further feelers just to get more opinions. I mean, we've made changes with less people commenting without any actual fight, but I'd just let it stay open a bit more. It's only bit a week.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I generally support the credits order but I do think we should allow for flexibility when warranted (similar to how film plot guidelines allow for those few times when going over the recommended word count is OK). As with all things fictional that get wikipedia coverage, there will almost always be one or two articles where an exception is probably the better way to go.  One possible example would be a show with family groupings (so then the Smiths, Does, and Johnsons might get grouped together instead of standard credits order). My second choice would be alphabetical (which some shows use as their credits order, anyway) but I feel it is simpler to go with credits order in most cases.  The only potential problem with credits order that I can really think of is when cast order changes on the show itself in some fairly major way.  As an example, the cast order of Buffy the Vampire Slayer changed around when Allison Hannigan moved to the coveted "with/and/as" spot in one of the last two seasons.  I think most of the time, Bignole's proposition will work just fine, however, and if a situation arises that truly needs an exception, it shouldn't be too terribly difficult to iron out on a talk page.


 * My biggest problem with the proposed ordering in the Pan Am thread was the editor's interpretation of major plotlines and using that to base the cast order off of (see the very last response in this thread). While I personally would agree with LHB on the creators' intended importance of plotlines, the fact is that this will almost always be viewer interpretation by it's very nature.  Not everyone watching a show is invested in the plotlines in the same way so I'm inherently against us trying to work cast lists in such a fashion unless we can back it with sources in some way.Millahnna (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the "family groupings" would make sense for SOAPs, considering the quantity and complexity of the casts in those series. I cannot think of too many "regular" TV shows that would need that type of organization. If someone could think of some that would be great, otherwise I would propose putting in an amendment for SOAP articles. As for alphabetical, I think that would work for shows that have large numbers of regular cast members and the show does not have have clearly defined "leads". For example, LOST had a crazy number of regulars and the show as not primarily about any one single cast member. Thus, utilizing alphabetical in that regard would make sense. Also, you'd have to define what was being alphabetical (i.e. the actor or the character). With something like Buffy, I don't think that is a real issue. A lot of actors get shuffled in opening titles as a series progresses. Allison Mack was shuffled a bit during Smallville. If you stick to the "original" ordering, than a shift later in the series would be irrelevant because you wouldn't move her to the end of the list just because she left the show, so why move her to the end just because a new actor came in and took her "spot"?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Soaps are the only example I can think of for the family grouping idea, as well (though I could see it cropping up in some prime time "soap-esque" shows down the road). Even there I see a potential snag to iron out on article talk pages; what order to group the families in (probably not the biggest deal, shouldn't be too hard to deal with on individual articles most of the time).  Honestly, though, I only thought of it because I had just looked at a film article that grouped their cast that way (please don't ask which one, I was idly browsing and have no idea).  Normally, the Film Project goes by credits order but a few articles have done something similar when it makes sense.  A lot of times the needs of both projects don't really mesh but they do often enough I thought I'd toss it out there as a hypothetical.


 * For an alpha sort (either as a rule or as a possible exception to a different one) I'd rather alpha by actor but that's because I prefer the Actor as Character style of notation when using bulleted lists. Whole different can of worms in prose, of course.  Casting sections seem to usually go in order of casting news and that makes sense to me, though I'm less particular about order in those types sections.  The flow of the writing typically irons out the kinks (the more critical roles will often have more sourced info available so they tend to drift to an appropriate place in the text, if that makes any sense).


 * Point taken on my Buffy example; had an overthinking it moment, as I am wont to do. In theory, the contract status changes that come with upgrades to "with/and/as" characters would be covered in prose and that's more important than rearranging the character order (since the with/and peeps are always listed last).


 * I think as a general rule, credits order is the easier way to go, with new characters/actors going to the end of the list (basically how we deal with the infobox starring section). But I do think we should make a notation of possible exceptions.  So I'm imagining something like this (only without my "blah blah" style shorthand and in much nicer sentences):

Most of the time, a list based cast section should be listed in the same order as the show's credits. New cast members should be added to the end of this list. Sometimes there may be exceptions if a show has a large cast or it might benefit from a different style of organization. These possible exceptions should be discussed on the article's talk page.


 * Soap operas and similar shows with large casts involving complex familial relationships may be better organized by families or alphabetically.
 * Similarly, shows with large ensemble casts such as Lost might better serve readers if they are organized alphabetically.
 * The order of cast members in a prose based casting section (in lieu of a list) may be more fluid depending on the availability of sources for different roles.


 * Granted that last bit is pure philosophy from reading articles and pattern watching on my part. Just wanted to add another bullet point for no real reason at all.  I feel certain there's other possible exceptions I'm not thinking of at the moment.  I'm still technically wiki-light right now so I'm kind of rushing my thoughts a bit. Millahnna (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In general, I like your wording of the guideline as well as the exceptions to it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds perfect. Completely agree Millahnna. Jayy008 (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we note scheduled broadcast times?
Seems risky! I just added "as of November 2011" and a reference in two articles. Is there a policy on this? Thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you mean but "scheduled broadcasat times"? Do you have an example I can see?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fareed Zakaria GPS -- Jo3sampl (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We do to an extent. We display the primary broadcaster for the country of origin. We don't typically display timeslot unless there is a reason for it (e.g., we're showing Nielsen ratings at that timeslot, or a show changes timeslots and thus its ratings change). There isn't anything truly wrong with it unless it becomes just another TV guide and we're just listing channels and timeslots.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Thanks. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs

 * References to the show should be in the present tense since shows–even though no longer airing–still exist, including in the lead (e.g. Title is a...).

This seems wrong. To say that a show "is ___" implies that it is still in production and actively being developed. It should be obvious that shows, particularly syndicated TV shows still exist in some form somewhere, especially as we move in to the digital age. Past tense should be used here to immediately clarify the status of the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadlock (talk • contribs) 13:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Read it from a different perspective. "30 Rock IS a television show". You can never lose the status of what you are. The statement is not "30 Rock is a television show in production". To assume the statement has anything to do with production is incorrect. To clarify the status of the show, we indicate that it ended it's run on a certain date. This is not something just for MOSTV, this is a practice across ALL mediums, because it's true no matter what you're looking at. I wouldn't say that Frankenstein WAS a book by Mary Shelley simply because she isn't writing it anymore. It's still in production, just like TV shows are through various other outlets like DVD and reruns.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

TV Line
For the reception section, could TV Line be added to the prominent sources? Like EW and THR. It's editors have all worked for either E!, Deadline.com, EW or TV Guide, which are considered prominent. They have years of experience in their field and the source itself, TV Line, is reliable. Jayy008 (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there an "About Us" page where we can see if they qualify?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There's one on there for Michael Ausiello himself, here and here is the "About Us" for the company that owns TV Line and here is the one about TV LINE itself Jayy008 (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's reliable. It's from the same company that owns Movieline and Deadline.com. As you pointed out Ausiello is the editor, who wrote for TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly. — Mike  Allen   23:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's reliable, but the question here is whether TV Line should go in WP:TVRECEPTION's list of prominent sources. That's a very limited list, which excludes many reliable sources, such as The New York Times and Deadline.com.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @JT, what do you think? Can it be included? Jayy008 (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. I had hoped that others would post opinions too.  I will put something on the TV noticeboard to try to get some more feedback.
 * My opinion is that TV Line should not be added. First, I think that because TV Line debuted in January, it has not been around long enough to establish a reputation as a prominent source for reviews.  Second, neither Ausiello (the editor-in-chief) nor Mitovich (the editor-at-large) seem to have much editorial experience.  Ausiello's bio at TV Line doesn't mention any editorial experience.  While he does have significant writing experience at TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly, I don't think that's enough to put TV Line in the same league with those listed in WP:TVRECEPTION.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right. Okay, thanks for your opinion. I'm not fussed either way, just want it set in stone one way or the other. Jayy008 (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't necessarily mean it cannot be used, but it's probably best not to put it in the same list as USA Today or Entertainment Weekly.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know... I would still use it. There was just a dispute over at Hart of Dixie about putting TVLine at the bottom simply because it wasn't listed there. I disagreed. Jayy008 (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Character Leads
I remember reading an MOS that stated that fictional characters should not have a date of birth and death in the lead. I can't seem to find it now though, can anyone point me in the right direction. See |this edit I made to the Grandad (Only Fools and Horses) article. Anyone know if this exists or did I dream it up. GimliDotNet (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Series infobox images - logos over interstitial titles
Based on some questions at Media Copyright Questions, there is a valid question of non-free vs free image use for the infobox image of a TV series.

Take the interstitial title of I Love Lucy. It is non-free, obviously. However, due to the Threshold of Originality, one could extract the logo and the heart shape, make an SVG vector image of that, and upload that as a free image (text and simple shapes do not qualify for copyright). Per NFCC#1, we need to use free imagery when it is an equivalent substitute for a non-free image. One can technically argue that this is true for the I Love Lucy, and there are several other series that qualify. (Note: there are people willing to make SVG images so it's not a matter of an SVG image not being available).

The question that is needed answering is if this substitution is equivalent. In the case of I Love Lucy, the only piece missing, the cloth background, adds little from what I take for this article. Similarly, shows like The Golden Girls or Get Smart have a free "logo" imposed on a non-free element, which can be extracted.

There are cases where the interstitial, or more often with DVD cover art used in place, provides more information than just the logo of the show. Identification of characters pictured on the box, for one thing (Buck Rodgers in the 25th Century may qualify here). Also in cases where the interstitial or opening credits are specifically discussed in the article (Lost (TV Series)).

But in the general case, where we have a potentially-free TV logo atop non-free elements, is it fair to say that that can be equally replaced with an SVG of just the free element of the TV's logo? Or is the interstitial that irreplaceable? --M ASEM (t) 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This this this, a thousand times this! When it comes to a TV series property, the SOP has been that the interstitial title is a good representative of the entity as a whole, and that's why we use it. I wholeheartedly argue that the image or logo which best represents the property and series is that which has been most widely used to represent all aspects of the series and property as a whole.  That wider application is typically simply the textual aspects of the logo as applied in the title (sometimes with shapes as in your ILL example).  For example:
 * Our article on Star Trek: Voyager is currently illustrated with a non-free image of the interstitial title. However, looking at the Voyager franchise as a whole, it's only the font and text of that title that are universally applied across the franchise.  Books in the Star Trek: Voyager franchise sometimes apply the title's coloring to the font and text, but more often simply stick with a solid color for the covers; Voyager DVDs and on-demand streaming only use the font and text while universally using a solid white color for that merchandise.  The most widely-applied standard for Star Trek: Voyager identification is the distinctive font and the words "Star Trek Voyager"; using that standard for identifying the article with libre-licensed imagery best meets our goals of being free and best-identifiable.  Furthermore, in this example, we already have libre media on the Commons: File:Voyager.gif and File:Star Trek Voyager title.svg.
 * Our article on M*A*S*H is currently illustrated with a non-free image of the interstitial title. Yet it's the specific recognizable font and the punctuated title that is the key to brand recognition for this property, the helicopter in the background is incidental and not part of the universally-applied brand.  The DVD collections of the series use the font/text in either a green or white, and while the books are all over the board on fonts and colors, it's the stylized "army-stencil" look with the "M*A*S*H" that connotes connection with the TV franchise.
 * Our article on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation is currently illustrated with a non-free image of the interstitial title. Yet again, CSI books, DVDs & streaming, video games, and even the official website only use the specific font and layout of the series title as evidenced across all instances of this show's franchise.  That's all we need to use ourselves to (a) have our article on the subject be equally recognizable (or whatever the reason we're using NFC in the first place), and (b) maintain our free-content mission objective.
 * Our article on House is currently illustrated with … a libre-licensed image of the series logo as adopted across all associated media and merchandise.


 * I'll be frank in that I don't appreciate the rationales for using such NFC in series' infoboxes in the first place; the page title and first sentence of the lede should be sufficient to "identify the show" as these copyrighted images are apparently deemed necessary to do. However, I have zero problems with, and wholeheartedly throw all of my support behind, stripping these basic logo elements from their non-free shackles and applying them wherever they may enhance the encyclopedia&mdash;including the series infobox.  To answer your question: yes, it's 100% fair to say the interstitial titles can be replaced with libre-licensed (preferably SVG) versions of the logos of these TV properties; the title screen is not irreplaceable at all.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  18:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are probably legitimate cases where the show's logo cannot fail the threshold of originality (eg Legends of the Hidden Temple's logo has copyrightable elements in it, same with various iterations of the Doctor Who logo); in these cases, even if we can make a SVG logo, it will be non-free. But as long as it's understood the logo does as much to identify the show as the interstitial, we should use the free version. --M ASEM  (t) 00:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Plot information in "Present tense"
Shouldn't information about the a series/episode be written in the present tense, as if it is happening, and shouldn't characters not be referred to as "former" if they change careers, graduate, or otherwise change their ways during the course of a series/episode? I thought this was common sense, but its not explicitly stated in the "Plot" section. The MOS does state, in the "lead" section, that References to the show should be in the present tense since shows–even though no longer airing–still exist, including in the lead . Yet it should make that more clear in the "Plot" section.-- JOJ Hutton  12:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, plot sections should be in present tense as well. We've typically not run into this problem in plot sections, it's usually the lead where people want to say "Y was a television show". Are you experiencing this on a particular page?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes at Terra Nova (TV series). In the "Cast" section. Referring to a character as a "Former police officer", when he is a police officer at the beginning of the series. In my experience, when we use "Former" in this context, it usually refers to events that have occurred prior to the TV series' first episode, not changes that occur during the episode or series.
 * I was asked to show the relevant passage, from MOS:TV. But it doesn't appear to exist in the "Plot" section of this MOS, only in the "Lead" section. -- JOJ Hutton  16:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as the pilot is concerned, he will always be a police detective at the start of the series. I think that it should be just made clear that he loses his badge when he is caught breaking the law. The best you can do is probably look at WP:INUNIVERSE. That might help you out, because it talks about present/past tense a bit and links to another page that discusses it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:INUNIVERSE is really good. Although I fear that some may still argue against it, despite the guideline. I actually feel that, in the case of this article, the "Cast" section of MOS:TV states that "in-universe" plot information should be relegated to the section regarding the plot of the series. So in reality, it should all be removed, or at least moved. -- JOJ Hutton  23:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes in lists
Which is the preferred way of putting notes in episode lists: after the summary or linked notations at the end of the list? --Musdan77 (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Depends on the type of note you are trying to add. There are two kinds of information, what pertains to the table itself and what pertains to something more specific and requires more extensive clarification. If you're just creating a key for the table so a reader know was some symbols or asthetics represent, then it should be next to the table. If you're clarifying that episode Y originally aired on another date, then a "Note" section should be added, like an in-line citation. For an example of the latter, see List of Smallville episodes.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Boldface in the episode template
There is a discussion taking place at Template talk:Episode list regarding episode titles being presented in boldface in List of xxxxxxx episode tables and TV season tables. So far only one or two editors from this project have bothered to comment. Whether you feel strongly or not about the subject, whatever your position on the matter is, please provide input so that the issue can be resolved. Thanks, Matthewedwards : Chat  16:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute re episode list transclusion
For some time there has been discussion at Featured list candidates/List of Friends episodes/archive1 as well as Talk:List of Friends episodes regarding the transclusion of episode tables from season articles into the parent episode list articles. Whichever way this ends up could have widespread effect on the articles within the WikiProject's scope. For anybody who actually gives a hoot (noting that previous requests for input, thoughts and guidance [ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television and the slightly related Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television ] went ignored) and has some advice or thoughts about it, a content dispute resolution thread has now been opened on the matter at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 29. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 07:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Recurring characters
I edit a fair number of television-related articles and have noted the work that the project has done to standardize contents of these articles. One glaring issue that I don't believe has been addressed is what constitutes a recurring character. I notice many of these articles list characters who appear in as few as two episodes in a single story arc as recurring. To my mind, and I've lived on top of the industry my entire life, a recurring character appears in multiple episodes across more than one story arc; that is what distinguishes him/her from a guest star in a multi-episode arc. TV.com has guidelines, but they're limited to simple number of episodes; we need something more in keeping with what a recurring character actually is. I'm not sure what the procedure is for creating guidelines for identifying a recurring character, but I'd be happy to work with the project on proposing some. Similarly, I'd like to see the project clarify the different between cast status (main, recurring and guest) and billing (for example, also starring, which is below-the-title billing for main cast v. guest starring or special guest star, which are as described), particularly in the new season-by-season cast tables that are cropping up in too many articles.

I'm new to the project talk pages, so if this is in the wrong place, feel free to move it and drop me a note on my talk page. --Drmargi (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers in episode lists
I've been in a conversation at Talk:List of Eureka episodes regarding the merits of spoilers in episode lists. I hold that, though spoilers are encouraged, generally they ought not be included in episode lists because the in-depth details of the episode likely do not meet notablity requirements and do not best serve the audience who would be reading the article. A spoiler would belong in an article about the episode because, to have an article, it is surely sufficiently notable to have the entire plot exposed by a secondhand source. I suggest we include something to that effect in these guidelines, though I expect there will be some dissension. Your thoughts? -- ke4roh (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the episode is summarised within the relevant size guidelines given at WP:TVPLOT then a spoiler is to be expected; the issue is less the plot details being included but the overall length and level of depth. GRAPPLE   X  02:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? Should we omit spoilers and plot details of I Love Lucy episodes in List of I Love Lucy episodes just because they can spoil readers? --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Grapple X. Notability is the test for whether a topic merits it own article. What we're talking about here is what level of detail belongs in an episode summary in terms of relevance and space. WP:TRIVIA and WP:INDISCRIMINATE may also apply. But not WP:SPOILER. Summarizing the entire episode means just that, and that's going to entail spoilers, unless you want to just set up the conflict, like TV Guide does in its listings. (I tend to summarize the entire episode when I write summaries, including important developments. Nightscream (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Spoiler aside, notable or not, the fact that any episode fails WP:notability, including WP:GNG does not prevent us from telling details about one episode or another. Readers want to know about a plot of an episode; that's all. --George Ho (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, good point about trivia and indiscriminate. --George Ho (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at List of I Love Lucy episodes, I see the first several episodes have suitably non-spoiling descriptions. That is to say that they don't give every detail of plot resolution.  "... the men see through the ruse and turn the tables" does not explain how they turned the tables.  "Can Lucy resist the temptations of eating?" certainly does not tell the resolution.  These are exemplary for the guideline I propose.  -- ke4roh (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I find summaries such as the two cited annoying, and decidedly not encyclopedic, but far from exemplary. Moreover, use of these summaries to avoid spoilers is particularly ludicrous because the episodes in question are 50+ years old and have been broadcast hundreds, if not thousands, of times.  The notion that any description of these episodes could be viewed as a spoiler is beyond ridiculous.  Spoilers are advance knowledge of content before broadcast; not summaries fifty years later.


 * An encyclopedia's job is to inform, not to skirt around the fringes of information in order to avoid spoiling someone's fun. In effect, there is no such thing as a spoiler where an encyclopedia is concerned.  The two summaries read like promotional teasers used in advance of an episode in the TV listings, not the post-hoc descriptions of the episodes we expect to find in an encyclopedia.  This mania for avoiding spoilers largely comes from folks who want it both way, and want us to withhold information so we don't spoil their fun.  This project already is plagued by sadly underwritten episode summaries.  Bottom line:  don't like spoilers?  Exercise a little personal responsibility and stay away from places spoilers might be.  This is not a fan site and it's not a collection of TV listings.  Encyclopedic writing means spoilers are bound to be part of summaries at least some of the time.  Period.  --Drmargi (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that spoilers are common place and anyone that comes here and reads a plot (knowingly, since you cannot stumble into a section called "Episodes" and see plot summaries and not know what you're reading) has no business complaining that they were "spoiled". That's like eating McDonald's everyday and the complaining that it made you fat. Plus, Wikipedia is not censored and if we're to provide accurate summaries of episodes then we have to assume that they will contain spoilers. Otherwise, we're not writing summaries we're writing marketing descriptions and episode summaries will start looking like the back of a DVD box.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's be very clear about what "non-spoiler summaries" look like: TV guide content. We should not write articles that look like TV guides. If we summarise what happens in a show, that means telling the reader the juicy bits, rather than forcing the reader to watch the show / click through to the full article. So if the important thing that happens in an episode is that one of the main characters is killed off, we are obliged to tell the reader which one. Any time that we deliberately avoid doing so, we're self-censoring for the sake of protecting the reader from spoilers, and we are obliged not to do that. To be quite honest I think this sucks, because it means the only people who can read our episode articles are people who have already watched the shows (or don't care about spoilers), but that's the consensus we've had for many years now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Requested input by Ke4roh — A spoiler is only a spoiler if you haven't seen the episode. They are practically a requirement for wikipedia to fulfill its goal as an encyclopedia. Off course the summary for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince shouldn't start with "Snape killed Dumbledore" but it obviously should be part of the synopsis, and the synopsis for the sequel does start with that. Additionally the summary should only contain officially released info, even if what is shown in trailers etc. is considered by some to be a spoiler. At a certain moment the point of avoiding spoilers becomes so crippling to writing a summary that it becomes completely useless to the reader, at what point can we consider something to be no longer a spoiler? How do you handle summaries for later episodes that deal with somethig that would be considered a spoiler for earlier episodes (for example someone dying/being resurrected etc. having an episode revolve solely around their funeral/not being dead party). The main reason for not not including spoilers is obviously that you can't write a decent encyclopedic summary when going out of your way to avoid certain aspects, and spoilers usually meaning main aspects, of the subject.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the input. Suffice it to say that consensus is that the summaries should be brief, complete, and in order of the program. I added that guidance to the MOS. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Image for TV show
According to Non-free content criteria policy:

1. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

In the case where there is an available free logo on Commons, it should be stated that it can be used instead of the screenshot as it is a free equivalent and serves the same encyclopedic purpose of the non free image.

Example: File:TBBT_logo.svg instead of File:BigBangTheoryTitleCard.png. — Mr White  16:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 100% concurrence. See my discussion on the topic here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 2.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  06:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I see. Since this was discussed before, could I make an edit request to change this? — Mr White  13:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * — Mr White  19:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at your edit history, it is clear where your POV lies. You should avoid editing this page to suit that POV, and if there is a consensus, someone else should do it independently of you.


 * I do not see the benefit of these so called logos. They are not always free (just look at the user's talk page above), and they are inferior to the intertitles, in the way that they are often not even exactly like the original. TBBT is point in case. Compare the SVG above with the logo from the Facebook page here. Nymf hideliho! 07:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No they aren't always free, but that's not the issue; when they are free, falling below the threshold of originality, we should be using the free version instead of an intertitles. Further, small detail changes like the green shadow gradient on the TBBT logo is not a reason to avoid using the free flat color image - the logo is still fully recognizable. --M ASEM  (t) 08:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What I was referring to in the TBBT logo is the symbol thing in the background. They are very different. So rather than calling it a free version, this would be a free impression of the logo. Furthermore, the logo for TV shows changes quite a lot. Currently the TBBT logo looks like this. A far cry from the old logo. What version should we be using? Nymf hideliho! 08:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The differences in the nuclei symbol are so small that its not an issue for free vs non-free. Additionally we should always be using the latest logo of a TV show and if that one is truly the latest, its even more  "free" (as its just text) than the former one. --M ASEM  (t) 08:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. This free/non-free all seems like a fine line, though. Commons:File:Coca-Cola Zero logo.svg by the user above is tagged as public domain and not copyrightable. A quick Google gives me this, that states that it is indeed copyrighted. How would we make the judgment call that a logo is free/non-free? Nymf hideliho! 08:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We're working within the bounds of what we in the US would consider to be uncopyrightable, as there are country by country differences, and I think that the article about the Coca-cola logo is missing this aspect. (I'm 99% certain discussion of the Coca-cola script as an uncopyrightable logo has been discussed before on WP but I can't recall where).  The line is not simple, but we should play it safe if there's doubt. Hence on the current TBBT logo (with nuclei) that bit of drawing is just at the edge of what would be uncopyrightable.  Any more flourish and the logo would probably become copyrightable. --M ASEM  (t) 14:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Font faces are not copyrightable, but custom script that says a particular word in a very distinctive way is not a font face, but original art. I'm turning off the COI edit tag, I don't think it's appropriate here, and if there's consensus for any changes, there's enough people participating here to do them. Gigs (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Template infobox animanga
I added a link for the. Saw a few editors citing MoS:TV on some of my watched, so I was curious as to what I've been doing wrong! seems to be closest to the, and I was ambivalent on draconian alignment versus having the Anime project's template be a subset. I thought I woudl at least start the discussion. I'm not a member of either projects, yet. –Vorik111 (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Recurring characters
I edit a fair number of television-related articles and have noted the work that the project has done to standardize contents of these articles. One glaring issue that I don't believe has been addressed is what constitutes a recurring character. I notice many of these articles list characters who appear in as few as two episodes in a single story arc as recurring. To my mind, and I've lived on top of the industry my entire life, a recurring character appears in multiple episodes across more than one story arc; that is what distinguishes him/her from a guest star in a multi-episode arc. TV.com has guidelines, but they're limited to simple number of episodes; we need something more in keeping with what a recurring character actually is. I'm not sure what the procedure is for creating guidelines for identifying a recurring character, but I'd be happy to work with the project on proposing some. Similarly, I'd like to see the project clarify the different between cast status (main, recurring and guest) and billing (for example, also starring, which is below-the-title billing for main cast v. guest starring or special guest star, which are as described), particularly in the new season-by-season cast tables that are cropping up in too many articles.

I'm new to the project talk pages, so if this is in the wrong place, feel free to move it and drop me a note on my talk page. --Drmargi (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Create a definition, and you can test it here before you add it to the main page. Looks like there's significant discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television/Archive_2

-Vorik111 (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL
Does WP:CRYSTALBALL apply to episode guides? I added all eight episodes for The Taste but an IP user said my addition violates this so they added "(scheduled)" next to all the dates, which I have never seen before. --Recollected 23:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * THe first statement in that policy is "not a collection of unverifiable speculation". If we were talking about supposed interest in a character appearing on a show, but no real facts, that would apply. Reliable sources confirming dates of future episodes does not apply to crystal ball. It also says "if future dates are almost certain to happen". Barring a show being cancelled for no obvious reason, shows that are in the middle of their season typically have their episode dates set in advance and it's rare that they change (Presidential addresses can alter them, but you cannot predict that kind of thing to happen).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no guarantee that all of those episodes will air at the dates/times they're scheduled. Episodes of TV shows are often pre-empted or rescheduled. The show may even be canceled. Putting a future date such as the Super Bowl or the Academy Awards is fine, per WP:CRYSTALBALL, but not all the future scheduled dates of a TV show. As WP:CRYSTALBALL says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." --76.189.109.147 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Each episode should not be listed until the episode has already aired. If you want to list all scheduled episodes, then you must indicate that it is only the scheduled air date. Otherwise, it's a clear violation of CRYSTALBALL. It is very rare that every episode of a series always airs at the scheduled date/time. And of course the show could be canceled before it even runs all the episodes. So this show definitely does not meet the exceptions of CRYSTALBALL. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * THe policy does not say "Absolute", it says "almost certain". They are "almost certain" to air on those dates. Episodes are NOT often pre-empted or rescheduled. I don't know what you watch, or where you're watching it from, but my shows have rarely been pre-empted or even rescheduled at the last minute. THe only times I can think of that happening is the rare presidential addresses that are not scheduled, or a sports game goes long (which most episodic TV series do not air after sporting events for that very reason). I would say less than 10% ever have that happen. THe bit about "individual scheduled or expected future events" is refering to creating an entire article on the subject, NOT about including a date in a table. We include future dates, that are reliably sourced, all the time for entertainment pages. It's standard practice. Crystal Ball does not apply to reliably sourced episode dates.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, it happens very often that not all episodes of a TV series air at their scheduled time.The past season of The X Factor is a good example of a series that changed from its original schedule. It was changed at least two times. Also, it is not uncommon at all for a network to suddenly move a prime time show to a different time slot. The bottom line is that no one ever knows if a TV series will air all its episodes at the originally scheduled dates/times. What you or I watch is moot because WP:CRYSTALBALL exceptions only apply in rare instances such as, as I said, major events that historically do not get changed - the Super Bowl, a major awards show, a presidential inauguration, or a State of the Union address, etc. Listing every future epsiode of a television show is totally inappropriate because it is much more likely that at least one episode will not be aired when originally scheduled. For any TV series, future episodes should not be listed; they should only be added after they actually air. If all the future episodes are listed, then there must be some indication that those are only scheduled dates; it can't be stated as fact because we obviously can't look into the future, thus CRYSTALBALL. It is most definitely not "almost certain" that all eight episodes of The Taste will air when scheduled. In fact, it's not even known if this show will survive. With new shows especially, there's always a chance that it will get canceled if the ratings are low. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, it does not happen as often as you are claiming. It happening often to 1 particular show is one thing, it happening to most shows is another (BTW, happening 2 times is not often). If there is a reason to suspect that a particular show is likely to have that happen, I'd probably side with you on this. That is not the case with most shows, I'm sorry, but it just isn't. Secondly, moving to a new timeslot is not the same thing as what you were initially talking about. First, most networks when they move a show to a new timeslot in the middle of the season (which is again rare), typically don't reset their scheduled times. That is because marketing firms have booked those times with commercials with the specific of being with said program. They typically move timeslots when they haven't released the schedule for the later episodes and thus can move them without it affecting advertisement space. Also, "listing every future episode"? If the date is not reliably sourced, then it shouldn't be there, and since no network I know of will release EVERY episode date for the season (for the very reason you pointed to above with timeslot changes), that's not an issue to argue. Networks release these dates because they've decided they will air then. Even shows that are cancelled will play out their remaining episodes, because they've already been filmed. I cannot think of the last time a show was cancelled that didn't air it's remaining (already filmed) episodes. It just doesn't happen, because it's a complete loss of revenue. At least by airing them you can recoup some money back. As for adding "scheduled" next to a date. That's redundant. The average reader show know that any future dates are merely "scheduled", because they haven't aired yet. CRYSTAL does not apply here. If you still disagree, please feel free to go to the policy page and ask them. They'll tell you the same thing; if there is a reliable source for the date then it is fine. I'll reiterate this part again, CRYSTAL is primarily talking about creating pages for future events, not specific details within a page. That said, the first part of CRYSTAL explicitely states that unreferenced information is not to be included anyway, and if it's reliably sourced and almost certain to happen then it is fine. To quote: "In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF)" - Notice how it doesn't say "don't include unless the date has happened"? It all comes down to if the source is reliable and if we can reasonably expect it to air then. In the case of The Taste, there is no reason to assume that it will not air at this time. Even if the show is cancelled, the remaining episodes will air that they've already filmed. Again, those dates are released because the network has determined that the show will air and they've booked those ad times with those shows.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're wrong. The point is not that "there is no reason to assume that it will not air at this time", but that we have no way of knowing if all the episodes will air when scheduled. That's why WP:CRYSTALBALL exists. The Super Bowl will happen on the scheduled date. All eight episodes of The Taste airing at their scheduled dates? Maybe. Maybe not. No one knows. And all your assumptions and O.R. make your case even weaker. And for the record, your claim that "Even shows that are cancelled will play out their remaining episodes" is also completely uninformed and just plain wrong. Some do, but many, many, many shows have been canceled and gone forever, with their remaining episodes going unaired. In fact, there is a very long list of shows that were canceled after just a few episodes - some after just one or two episodes - never to be heard from again. You seriously don't know all this? --76.189.109.147 (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing if the Sun is going to come up tomorrow, but we still believe it will. How do you know the Super Bowl WILL happen? What happens if there is a natural disaster in the area? Heard of Hurricane Katrina? You don't know that anything will happen. We have reasonable believe that something will. There is good evidence to suggest that the Super Bowl will occur when scheduled, just like we have good evidence to show that shows that have identified dates of broadcast will air on those dates. What shows are you talking about exactly? I'd like to know. You keep claiming that all these bad things happen to TV shows and no one ever hears from them again, but you've provided no evidence to support a single claim you're making. You have a poor understanding of CRYSTAL and Original Research. Again, if you think you're so right then please go ask the people on the policy page. Cheers.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You've just lost all credibility with the "sun is going to come up tomorrow" nonsense. The sun coming up? Wow. And if you truly don't know that hundreds of TV shows have been canceled over the years, with their remaining episodes trashed, then you're incredibly out of touch with TV history. Every season, there are many shows canceled, with their remaining filmed episodes never aired. Here's the list for just one season, 2011-2012. Look at all the canceled shows on the list. You'll see all the ones that never aired another episode. Although a network sometimes runs remaining episodes of canceled shows, typically bad shows just go away; networks don't give them a consolation prize by airing their remaining bad episodes, only to hurt the network even more. I honestly can't believe you don't know this. Remember The Playboy Club? How about The Hasselhoffs? A few episodes, then gone. All remaining episodes trashed. This happens every year. Do your research. There are literally hundreds of shows that this has happened to. Btw, CRYSTAL is not just for, or even primarily for, "creating pages for future events". Not even close. The vast majority of CRYSTAL applications is for content reverts. Soap opera articles are especially susceptible to CRYSTAL violations, which is why CRYSTAL is applied in those articles more than anywhere else on Wikipedia. Not assuming future events is a basic tenet of Wikipedia. For content, this one line from CRYSTAL says it all: "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." Period. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Talk about reaching. You've provided a list of canceled shows. I never said shows don't get cancelled. That list does not say that the episodes stopped airing abruptly, and they never aired already finished episodes. So, you're argument is not valid in that point. I can tell you right now, just looking at the list Tera Nova was canceled at the end of its first season, the same for The River, Alcatraz, and many many others. So, again, I'd like to see this evidence that somehow they didn't bother airing the finished episodes that had yet to air. Out of all the shows cancelled last year, most did not get cancelled with episodes remaining. I never claimed that it NEVER happens (in the case of The Playboy Club that was a combination of low ratings and extremely bad publicity regarding the content of the show that played a role in the remaining episodes not airing), I said that it is not the majority of the time and you haven't shown that it is. Regardless, again there is nothing wrong with sourced dates. If a show doesn't air, then (and here's a novel thought) you remove the dates of the unaired episodes. I don't see you going to the policy page and asking them, so you must not have a lot of faith in your belief that someone putting a future date of episode broadcasting is in fact a violation of CRYSTALBALL. I've certainly had enough of your outlandish thought processes, so I'll retire from this debate. Cheers.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to say... comparing the sun coming up to listing all future episodes of a brand new TV show is one of the nuttiest things I've ever read in a talk page discussion. Your admission of not knowing that many canceled shows don't have their remaining episodes aired was funny too, but not nearly as good as the sun coming up comment. Here's a site that lists over 1200 canceled shows. And it only goes back to 1998. You'll be amazed at how many of the shows had no episodes aired after they were canceled. Apparently, you're not very familiar with TV or you'd know just by the name of the show which ones did and did not air additional episodes after being canceled. If you're not sure, look up the show's article on Wikipedia. Or, uh, Google it. Do you expect someone to do all this for you? I hope you have time because there are hundreds and hundreds of canceled shows whose remaining episodes were trashed. Good luck. ;) --76.189.109.147 (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's hilarious how you're trying to weasel out of your original claim, as if people can't read what you already wrote. You originally said, "Even shows that are cancelled will play out their remaining episodes, because they've already been filmed. I cannot think of the last time a show was cancelled that didn't air it's remaining (already filmed) episodes. It just doesn't happen". Did you forget about that? And now, amazingly, you're saying: "I never claimed that it NEVER happens... I said that it is not the majority of the time". Really? Is that what you said? Don't think so. Nice try, though. Lmao. In any case, just follow the guidelines appropriately - especially those that have common usage and clear precedence - and you'll be fine. --76.189.109.147 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Teasers
There's an editor at How I Met Your Mother (season 8) who keeps replacing plot information with a teaser. I'm not sure of his reasons but I know the issue of teasers in episode summaries has been discussed before - I just can't find the discussions. Does anyone have any idea where this was discussed or wish to make comment? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Would that fall under WP:SPOILER, and have been discussed there? I seem to recall a rather absurd discussion about the use of teasers rather than plot information for I Love Lucy because it might spoil the show for some readers (never mind the show is upwards of 60 years old.)  I think it might have taken place there.  As for the teasers, I've seen a lot of newbie editors do that, thinking in the same way they would about program information on a fan site (i.e. removing spoilers).  I see a lot of that on Castle and more recently on Elementary; in the case of the latter, an editor persists in cutting perfectly appropriate episode summaries to teaser length.  I'm in the no-teaser/no-spoiler cuts camp; somewhere along the line there is such a thing as personal responsibility where reading about TV shows is concerned.  If I don't want to read what's coming (as with the current season of Downton Abbey, for example), I remove a show from my watch list while it's running.  Others can, too.  --Drmargi (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe it is covered by WP:SPOILER, but by WP:TVPLOT as well. WP:TVPLOT says, "Per Wikipedia's content disclaimer and guideline on spoilers, all of the episode's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers, and without using disclaimers or warnings in the article. In short, Wikipedia contains spoilers; please respect this policy." Eaglestorms edits are effectively "censoring details considered spoilers". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Definitely covered by both. I was trying to think of where the discussion is.  I know I've seen something, if only the example above.  --Drmargi (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

TV Episode Summary, "♦" or "•"
A typical television show episode will have about three to six sub-plots in an hour program. The guideline for that summary, per MOS/TV, is about 200-500 characters. Since we don't use paragraphs in summaries, what does everyone feel about using a symbol to divide different sub-plots? We could use "♦", "•", or basically anything else. (Here is an example of an episode summary I wrote with the symbols: ) ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 10:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, the instructions for Episode list say that the contents of the ShortSummary field should be "a short 100–300 word summary". At 525 words your summary needs to be pruned considerably. I agree with SchrutedIt08, the bullets don't need to be there at all. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your feedback and look forward to anyone else's feedback as well. One small point is these wouldn't be bullet points but rather a divider of sort between two sections. That's a small point though. The alert for summaries needing to be shortened was added a couple days ago and removed by the same SchrutedIt08 you mentioned. I don't mind the alert being there but you're incorrect about episode summaries limited to 100-300 words. Per this article the summary should typically be 200-500 words. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking it should be much less. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 18:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Aussie, if we're talking about just in the table list, the summaries should be short to the point that we're not covering everything in the episode. If it's an episode page, then you will have paragraphs. Looking at the Southland episode summaries, those are rather large for an episode table. That said, the bullets/symbols to me don't indicate that a new subplot is being mentioned, and just seem to distract me while I read. I think that a more natural way of mentioning a subplot could exist through prose. You don't have to straight say, "In a subplot..", so much as "Meanwhile, ...." says the same thing in less words.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Bignole, did you read the MOS/TV here that shows episode summaries should be between 200-500 words per episode? ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 19:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 200-500 words is the guideline for summaries of plot in episode articles, not per episode in a table; that's 100-300 words. I agree with the others that the symbols signifying sublots are disruptive, pointless and not intuitive.  And frankly, they're also a lazy tool.  A well constructed summary can handle multiple subplots, which most dramas have, with judicious use of transitions.  --Drmargi (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Drmargi, oh... I don't know why I didn't understand that when I read it. I've started all the longer summaries on Southland. I'll work at reducing them. Thanks for pointing that out.─ Matthewi (Talk) • 03:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, in fairness, if you read just the small section you linked, it isn't particularly clear. I wouldn't worry, and happy editing.  I'd lend a hand but I find Southland so insulting to the LAPD and so deeply cynical I can't watch it.  --Drmargi (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There's always a problem with people not reading beyond where they think they've found their answer. WP:TVPLOT specifically addresses episode lists in season articles further in the paragraph:
 * "For season articles, there are a couple ways to present plot information: in a basic prose section that gives season story arcs and main plot points or a tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section (approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines)."
 * Obviously, the basic prose section doesn't apply when using episode list. While the instructions specify 100-300 words, the upper limit is for complex storylines. For the average episode, summaries should be below 200 words, which is one reason most editors tell you "a few lines" when you ask how long episode summaries should be. Ironically, well constructed transitions direct the reader to the following text - WP:TVPLOT could obviously do with some. Bullet points and "dividers" stop the reader • from reading further. (like that) -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * AussieLegend, I disagree that a divider would, in the way I illustrated, would stop the reader from continuing. I do see where the divider would be unnecessarily though. When you said "most editors tell you", I presume you're speaking generally as opposed to specifically to me. When Drmargi pointed out to me I was reading the MOS wrong I reread it and now have a clearer understanding of the guidelines. I originally started writing longer summaries because Southland's summaries were between 46-160 words (usually being around between 66-80.) That's well under the recommendations and, in my opinion, didn't adequately summarize the episodes. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 07:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was speaking generally. I often see editors asking the question and the "a few lines" response amuses me; obviously those responding haven't looked at the instructions which specify maximum, not minimum sizes. Episode summaries are completely optional, some programs don't use them at all, while others only use a single sentence. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In truth (and somewhat tangentally), I think the bigger problem right now is underwritten "TV Guide/TV Times/Whatever TV magazine Aussies read" style teasers. A couple of us just went a couple rounds with an editor who was tagging 200 word summaries in a table as too long. I don't think he'd bothered to read any of the relevant MOS content. --Drmargi (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Present tense
An Objection

I strongly disagree with the convention indicated here that old TV shows be referred to in the present tense. This is absolutely wrong. The example given of "The Simpsons is" is defensible because the series is still in production. As for shows or episodes in the past, it is absurd. For example, to refer to "The Honeymooners" in the present tense makes no sense. The reader, and Wikipedia, should realize that television has become our history; each show is the product and document of a very specific time in that history. Given this special relation between the medium of television and the history of the past sixty five years, it becomes essential to use the proper tense to record it, for history must be, and is by definition, always written in past tense.

e.g. "The Honeymooners was a television show first aired in 1955." "Jackie Gleason and Audrey Meadows were the lead actors." SamJohn2013 (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please create new sections to have a discussion regarding anything with this page, otherwise you're comments are likely not to get seen when they are put at the top like that. As for your objections, The Honeymooners is still a television show. Did it somehow stop being a television show when it finished airing? If so, what would you call it now, if it's not a television show? By saying that it "was" a show, you're actually insinuating that it is something else now. So....what should we call these shows that are no longer shows?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

REPLY:

To this I can only appeal again to history. The Honeymooners exists today only as an historical artifact, a replay, a reproduction of the original. A TV show only exists in original form when its episodes are aired for the public for the first time, and for that time it exists in the present. Subsequent viewings, shown in any format, whether in 1965, today, or a hundred years from now, are called reruns, second hand by definition, and irrevocably in the past. No more episodes will ever be created.

Consider this analogous statement: "The 1959 Cadillac is a luxury car." This sentence is defective if used today. The only time it could have been properly used in the present tense is if, in 1959, a salesman were showing you one on the showroom floor. Even if I found one in perfect condition today, I could refer to it in the present tense, "My 1959 Cadillac is a luxurious car," but this would be in reference to a particular, individual car. The present tense could never be applied to the specific subset of cars, "the 1959 Cadillac." In 1959, it was a present reality, but it is now a category that has passed forever into history. No new ones will ever be made, and the car, like the TV show, is forever identified in the mind of the public with a very specific time and place in the past.

Finally, your queestion "Did it somehow stop being a television show when it finished airing?" is based on a misunderstanding of terms and of basic grammar. The issue here is not whether or not it retains its definition as a TV show, or whether it became something else. Did Orson Welles stop being a man when he ceased to draw breath? Of course not, but Mr. Welles "is" no more. He has earned the right and dignity of being referred to in the past tense. No one would think of saying that "Orson Welles is a film star." He "was" a film director and actor in exactly the same sense that The Honeymooners "was" a television show.

Orson Welles is in the past because there will be no more new work created by him.

There will never again be another new 1959 Cadillac.

There will never be another episode of The Honeymooners.

"This parrot has ceased to be! It is an ex-parrot." (John Cleese)

All these things were in the past, in our memory, and are gone. But, to be fair, by this standard one may rightly say that The Simpsons is an animated TV series.

PS. Thank you for pointing out my format problem, I am still learning the mechanics of this process.SamJohn2013 (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is some fallacy in your comparisons. You're comparing a real life object to a piece of media. The show itself will always exist (short of every copy being destroyed), no matter if it is airing or not. By your argument, no film can every be presented in present tense after it is removed from theaters. We would have to start saying, The Dark Knight Rises was a film. We don't, because it's a piece of media, and media exists infinitely (again, unles every copy is destroyed).


 * Episodes are broadcast as reruns, but they are reruns of a show that still exists. You cannot confuse "still exists" with "still being produced". These are not the same thing. When you say, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a television show that aired between 1997 and 2003", that is factually accurate. It did not lose its "show" status just because it stopped being produced. It will always be a show that aired during that time. Here's some more examples, The Raven is a poem by Edgar Allen Poe. You'll note that we don't say, it was a poem simply because he's dead, or the fact that the poem ceased to be "new" after he wrote the first draft of it. The Mona Lisa still is a painting by Leonardo Da Vinci. The problem with your argument is that you're attributing the broadcasting of a show directly to its existence. Television broadcasting is merely the medium in which we are viewing the piece of entertainment. The fact that I can put The Honeymooners in my DVD player and watch it whenever I want means that the show still exists. It is not being produced, but it still exists. When it ceases to exist, then it will cease to be talked about in the present tense. Unless you can cite some actual rule that says that pieces of art, even specifically media, must be presented in past tense, then it will stay as present. That is why it should be, and how it is on television pages, film pages, book pages, etc.   BIGNOLE '    (Contact me)  03:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, have it your way. Your conerns are existential while mine are purely grammatical. Whether or not a thing "exists" has nothing whatever to do with choice of verb tense. The only concern of the true grammarian is for which word choice conveys the idea most clearly to the reader. I have here presented reasons why I think that it is important in the special case of television to make a grammatical distinction that separates a past show from a present one in the reader's mind. Verb tense deals with the placement of the object in relation to time. You have confused existence with time in your choice, by making the distinction between "it is" and "it is not" instead of "it is" and "it was."

These are fine linguistic points indeed, and I regret that I have been drawn into such a tiresome and ultimately futile debate.

Perhaps The Encyclopedia Britannica had the same debate and found the same dead end. They copped out by omitting the verb entirely, as in "The Simpsons, longest-running animated television series in U.S. history." Over and out. SamJohn2013 (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no grammar violation, as it does not pertain to media. Media exists continually, unless there are no copies left. I see you ignore the inquisition regarding films and your supposed grammatical rule. That's because the rule does not apply to media. Otherwise, when would a direct-to-dvd film go from being an "is" to a "was"? It wouldn't. You claim I'm going from some existential meaning, when it fact you're getting hung up on the idea of broadcasting a show and how that somehow dictates when a show is referred to in the past tense. We would only refer to a show in the past tense if we were specifically talking about broadcasting (e.g., M.A.S.H. aired in....), but not when we're describing what the title of a show is referring to. The title of a show will always refer in the present tense, because the show is still a show, no matter if it is being produced or not.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Placeholders in episode lists
Hi, was wondering if there's a policy on the use of placeholders in episode lists. The scenario is this: a show with a 3 season order is currently airing its first season, and its episode list continues to grow. A user adds a new row to the episode table, and fills in all fields with TBA, because ostensibly a new episode will air soonish. Is this discouraged? Would this be a WP:CRYSTALBALL issue? Original research? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have an issue with the TBA entry itself, which is just filler. There's no harm in leaving cells blank; TBA is implied, and it reduces the visual clutter that TBA over and over again creates.  Moreover, we have to think about low-vision users who use speaking screen readers; they end up reading "TBA", "TBA", "TBA" over and over again, like a Dalek.  TBA adds nothing a blank cell doesn't already tell us and creates unnecessary clutter.  My view is less is more:  create and comment out the whole table when a season is announced, add what we know and can reliably source, reveal/add a row when we know something substantive and abolish TBA/TBC.  I'd also avoid posting projected and assumed dates from Futon Critic, which are subject to lot of change.  That keeps crystal-ball issues and OR down to a minimum.  --Drmargi (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the comment-out idea. Thanks for the input!  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Why International Brodcasting is discouraged
Why International Brodcasting is discouraged? This is controversal because many user many not know which channels aired in a country. 99.229.41.79 (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You asked this above, see that reply.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Why did International Brodacasting is "a TV guide"
I mean why do Wikipedia think it's a "TV guide" and who created this? 99.229.41.79 (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It means that we don't simply catalog channel appearances (ala what TV Guide does). If there is a significance to the international broadcast then we can note it, otherwise, anything that is NOT an English speaking country would have its own Wikipedia page in its language and it can be mentioned there. Also, if you get into listing different channels the show appears on, you end up with an endless list that serves no real purpose to a reader. I would never come to Wikipedia to find out what channel Vegas or some other show was on in Japan, because I'm not in Japan.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is controversial I can't even watch any show without the channels of a country. 99.229.41.79 (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The international Brodcasting rule
The International Bordcasting rule is controversial is because they won't know if they what they are watching 99.229.41.79 (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Overview sections
Do you guys think we need to officially address these "overview" sections that are just table summaries of the season premiere, finale, viewership, DVD, etc? I've been seeing them pop up more and more for shows that are only 1 or 2 seasons old (especially with the first year shows), and to me it seems completely unnecessary and redundant to have a table list the season dates when you're on a "List of episodes" page that is nothing but summary tables to begin with. I see no point of having a table summarize 1 or 2 seasons worth of information immediately above where you're going to see that information. I don't really see a point of it period, unless we're talking about The Simpsons or something of that nature where it's been on for multiple decades, because we're on a page that is in an of itself a summary of dates of episodes.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how many seasons a series has, the overviews sum up the information is a nice, clean way. True, it doesn't provide new information, but neither does the infobox. It's organizes the information in a helpful way to readers.Caringtype1 (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What organization is needed to summarize a single season's premiere and finale date...which you can see directly below the overview table in the first place? Also, why is DVD information there in the first place? We don't put home video release in the infobox of film pages. We're not here to sell a product, so the release of said product is the least important information in the entire article. So, why should it be at the top?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. Of course you could take the DVD part off -- but someone else could put it back at some point. And I agree that a show with only one season doesn't really need an overview. It would be helpful to have an MOS for it. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Further more, without DVD information the only reason use of the overview section is collecting viewership and airdates. For a List of Episodes page, there isn't a need to summarize a page that is nothing but tables that summarize a show. Viewership has its own section on LoE pages, and dates can be summarized in season section headers (see List of Smallville episodes). I don't think readers are so lazy that they can't scroll through a LoE page to see dates. Especially when a show gets so large that it gets season pages and all the plot information is removed from the LoE page and you're left with nothing but titles and air dates. To me, this removes (even more) the need for a table that collects the same information that is already being presented in list form.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So, what are we thinking? Probably need more opinions.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles should reflect the entire history of a series
The "Cast information" section says, "Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." The phrase "articles should reflect the entire history of a series" clearly applies to the whole article, not just the cast section, but use of this is being claimed as being misapplication of the MOS. I think it would be prudent to tighten this up, as the statement appears nowhere else. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * How would you propose that it is tightened up? I glanced through the Terra Nova discussion to see what the argument was about, and I noticed that last comment about it only being about the cast section. That is incorrect, but I can see how its placement in the MOS would make people think that. I can tell you (and you can send this message to those on Terra Nova's talk page), since I'm the original author and was here for all the adjustments with the other editors, when it was written originally we were talking about the entire article, but placed in the cast section because it just happened to be the place where we had the most issues of people wanting to remove cast members no longer on a series. Obviously, we can place it in a way that it's more clear that we're talking about the entire show/article, and not just one section. I'm just curious as to how the argument on that page is connected to the MOS.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement really needs to be in a more general section. It shouldn't need to be but, as you can see it's being misinterpreted because it's only in the cast information section. I suggest a "Basic principles" (or something like that) section be added to the "Parent, season, and episode article structure" section prior to the "Infobox" sub-section. In that would be the things we always seem to have problems with, the already mentioned history clause, the present tense sentence that is currently in the "Lead paragraphs" section are two items that immediately qualify. As to how the MOS applies to the argument, Terra Nova originally aired what are now episodes 1,2,12 & 13 as 2, two-hour episodes. After the series was cancelled, these were broken into individual episodes for susequent airings and DVD release. This was discussed at length at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes and we agreed, as a compromise, to this method of listing the episodes. The three other editors at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes want to completely disregard the original airing of the series, effectively denying it ever happened, despite reliable sources, most notably the press releases, stating the premiere and finale were to be aired as 2-hour episodes, and not 2, back to back episodes. The press releases are very specific, saying "The "Genesis" two-hour series premiere episode of TERRA NOVA", and "the all-new "Occupation/Resistance" episode of TERRA NOVA" (emphasis added) respectively. The transition between parts 1 & 2 of Genesis was so seemless that you can't tell where one part ended and the other started. The way in which these episodes aired obviously affected the ratings, so we need to include the original airing (as well as the 13 episode split). This is really just another one of these situations where editors only want to talk about how a TV series is now, which is why the MOS needs to be a little bit broader. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm all for having a general principle section with items like this (I also think we need to specifically address when to split articles off, because I'm finding that to be an issue now), as well as the "Overview" tables. That said, I think we need more editors, otherwise it just looks like you and I are trying to make changes to the MOS to serve our arguments (not saying that that is the intention of either one of us, just the appearance). I think what we can do is come up with all the items we want to have in a general principle section, write up basic descriptions for each, and if we haven't gotten more editor opinions then we should start sending out mass requests for opinions and feedback before updating the MOS. Changing guidelines on such a scale requires clear consensus, and this page doesn't get a lot of traffic on the talk page. That said, it means that the debate at Terra Nova will probably have to be conceded for the time being. As I noted from one of the editors there, they pointed out that consensus can change, so lets get the consensus on the changes to the MOS (or clarifications for some items) and then you can go back to the Terra Nova page and start the discussion again. I can understand your issue with the double episodes, as Smallville did that with 2 different episodes as well. One of them it became easy to defend as a single episode because they literally changed the name of 2 episodes to a single name (i.e., Legends & Society became "Absolute Justice"). The other was the finally. On the table (see Smallville (season 10), we kept the finale as a single entry, but it has 2 production codes, 2 directors, etc., but it has 1 neilsen rating because it aired as single entry. Don't know if that helps for the time being, but I'm all for a "General Principle" section.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes, splitting and overview, how did I forget those? There's also "when to create next season's article" - I hate May. Since we're both apparently in agreement, where do we start? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I say we start with a new section for "General Principle Proposals", and then lets list the items that appear to be in this gray area of action (do we or don't we) for editors, and the items that involve an entire article (e.g., series history is more than just cast). Then we can go from there. Sound like a plan?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good one. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers in Character/Cast Sections
Lately there has been some edit-warring and general debate on the House of Cards pages about whether details on Frank Underwood murdering Corey Stoll should be included in the Cast and Characters section. I have brought up the example of Revolution (TV series) cast section where it reveals Danny's death (a spoiler for the show). After reading through the MoS and some of the talk page/archives, it is still unclear what the proper format should be. Hopefully some more experienced editors could help here. Rgrasmus (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it mentioned s:omewhere else on the article, like in an Episode table? If so, then I would say don't include it in the other section. Per WP:SPOILER, readers need to understand that spoilers will be present and we don't remove them for the sake of it. That said, if it's already mentioned on the page I would keep it there for the time being. Unless I'm missing something.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I think the cast section need not contain plot information. Between episode articles, episode list capsules, season articles, character articles, there are ample opportunities to provide information on all elements of the plot and characters, and in areas where the reader will intuitively expect to find them. --SubSeven (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. We don't need to hide spoilers, we only need to put complete information where it's expected to be found.  Cast/Characters isn't that place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naapple (talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You're going to have some plot information in there, because you're likely to be describing the character to some degree. Otherwise, you just have an IMDb list, and that basically regulates the cast list to non-essential if it's just a bare list (as IMDb can give the list).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * IMDB doesn't give cast summaries. There's a big difference between listing a character's job/relationships/etc vs. giving direct plot information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naapple (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I know that IMDb doesn't give cast summaries, that was my point. If there was nothing but a list of names, then it would be no better than and IMDb list. "Job/relationship/etc." is plot information. They aren't real people, so the only other place the information could come from would be the plot of the show. Do you want to reveal that character Y killed Character X in the cast section...no.. you probably don't. There are better places for that. You do want to say that Character X was written out of the show in season B. As that is relevant information that is based on the plot of the show.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I get what you mean. By plot information I meant specific events that happen during the story line.  There's general information about the character that doesn't reveal the story line, and I guess I was doing a poor job of explaining the difference.  And yes, who was in what season is something we'd want to include.  Anyways, I basically agree with you. Naapple (Talk) 14:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC notification
There is an RfC in progress at Talk:Terra Nova (TV series). This RfC deals with issues raised above, so comment from those familiar with the MOS would be appreciated. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Stylized titles
Should creative works' stylized logos be mentioned in their articles' lead sections? —David Levy 17:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the 2 Broke Girls article's lead contained the the statement "(stylized as 2 BROKE GIRL$)". This is a description of the program's on-screen logo. I'm aware of no reliable sources (even counting the show's producers and broadcasters around the world) that use such a spelling in type, as it isn't actually the show's name; it's merely a fancy logo style (all uppercase, with a decorative "S" resembling a dollar sign). A different logo, used by CBS in virtually all promotional contexts, lacks the dollar sign.

I saw no good reason for this trivial detail to be stated in the lead (where we summarize the subject's "most important aspects"), as though the show's title is actually written in the manner described. So I, noting that this is a "logo element never used in type".

SnapSnap (whom I've notified of this RfC) the edit, advising me to "take a better look at the show's intertitle". As this ignored my edit summary (in which I acknowledged the logo and pointed out that the style doesn't appear in type), I, noting that "2 BROKE GIRLS" (all uppercase, but without the dollar sign) appears as part of the same animation and comparing the lead to one in which we state that Conan's title is "stylized as  CO NAN, with a hair outline".

SnapSnap again the claim, asserting that "the 2 Broke Girls logo is stylized in the same way as shows such as Friends, Revenge, and Awkward, not Conan".

I don't see a valid distinction, but sure enough, those articles' leads contain comparable statements. This, in my view, is indicative of a problem that I now seek to address.

Some creative works' titles are notably stylized. Examples include the film Se7en and the TV series M*A*S*H and Numb3rs. Reliable sources actually identify the subjects by these titles. What reliable sources refer to Friends as F•R•I•E•N•D•S? (I don't recall seeing it outside fan sites and the like.) If the logo is even sufficiently noteworthy to mention in the article, why does this information belong in the lead? Is it really one of the subject's "most important aspects"? Should we include such a notation for any creative work whose on-screen logo font differs from conventional typography? I don't believe so. —David Levy 17:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I would be inclined to support your contention that the so-called stylized titles are visual mnemonics for the viewer, but hardly notable with a few exceptions. Moreover, I'd go further and class them as fancruft.  The three you cite have no alternate spelling; the others, such as Two Broke Girls do.  That's the easiest line to draw.  --Drmargi (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding alternate spellings, I believe that the film is commonly referred to as both Se7en and Seven (hence our article's title). That, in my view, is the key distinction; reliable sources (such as newspapers and magazines) have actually used the stylized variant in type.  In the case of 2 Broke Girls, even the show's producers and broadcasters (to say nothing of journalists and the like) don't do that.  —David Levy 17:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see any problem with stating in the lead section that the title of a TV show (or some other creative work for that matter) is stylized in a certain way on its on-screen logo. Such information doesn't seem to take up much space in the lead, or affect the reader's understanding of the topic.  Snap Snap  23:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * To quote Manual of Style/Lead section:
 * A subject's name(s) is/are important. When reliable sources indicate that a creative work's actual title is commonly written in an alternative/unusual format (as in the examples cited above), it makes sense to note this in the lead.  Conversely, the work's logo design generally isn't among its most important aspects (and typically doesn't warrant coverage in the article, let alone the lead section).
 * Even Warner Bros. and the relevant broadcasters around the world don't call the show 2 BROKE GIRL$, which simply isn't its title. In that case and others, we're misrepresenting logo descriptions as alternative names, despite the absence of corroboration by reliable sources.  This does affect readers' understanding of the topic.  —David Levy 00:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Even Warner Bros. and the relevant broadcasters around the world don't call the show 2 BROKE GIRL$, which simply isn't its title. In that case and others, we're misrepresenting logo descriptions as alternative names, despite the absence of corroboration by reliable sources.  This does affect readers' understanding of the topic.  —David Levy 00:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove. Well, I originally thought this rfc was frivolous, but you've convinced me. It doesn't seem relevant, important, or reliable enough to include in the lead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

In your examples, Panic! at the Disco and Kesha, the variants in question are notable alternative spellings of the subjects' names. The same is true of my examples, Se7en and Numb3rs. The issue is that descriptions of logos are being misrepresented as alternative names, despite the absence of corroboration by reliable sources. Kesha is commonly known as "Ke$ha". Conversely, 2 Broke Girls is not commonly known as 2 BROKE GIRL$. As far as I can tell, we're in complete agreement. —David Levy 02:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As a generalization, I think that stylized titles should not be used unless that is the typical case. You make a compelling argument with your "Friends" example, and I agree that, in the specific instance mentioned in this case, the title should be remain in the context in which it is typically used, but I disagree that the lead should not mention it if it is commonly used.  I put forth the example that Panic! at the Disco should have had the exclamation point in it (before they changed their name to remove it), as that was actually part of the name.  Note that Kesha does mention the Ke$ha style and even your Friends example notes the stylized name.  I do not see why a specific category of articles should be treated differently than the norm. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You appear to have misunderstood my position. I don't object to the inclusion of stylings that are commonly used (as verified by reliable sources), nor do I advocate that articles about creative works be deemed special.  (The problem is that some of them are receiving treatment different from the norm.)


 * Comment - I first noticed that kind of usage when I first came accross Revenge (TV series) which is stylized as Reven8 e, however I don't think it is really important or necessary to transcript its stylish name into the article's lead paragraph. Eduemoni↑talk↓  05:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The question should be, "Is it essential to the reader?" Pointing out that they stylize the "S" to be "$" is not essential in anyway. So, pointing it out to readers, when there is a picture directly to the right of the lead that shows it stylized to the reader seems unnecessarily redundant. I say, it doesn't need to be there or anywhere else like that when you have clear images that do the job for you.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for Feedback
Additional opinions are requested at Talk:American Dad!. Thank you for your time. Doniago (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Broadcast section edit
Hi, I just made an edit to a confusing sentence in the Broadcast section of the MOS from and to: ""(e.g., Stargate Universe airing the final three episodes of the first season a month before they aired in the U.S. would be added to the "Broadcast" section...)""

""(e.g., Canadian-American show Stargate Universe airing the final three episodes of the first season in Belize a month before they aired in the U.S. would be added to the "Broadcast" section...)""

The first example seems ambiguous, because it's missing a "where" variable. If we're trying to describe an exceptional scenario of "international noteworthiness", it seems we need to know that Stargate Universe always aired in the U.S. first, except for that weird noteworthy time when the last three episodes of S1 aired in Belize first. Stargate Universe might also not be the best example, because it's a Canadian-American show, which adds an unnecessary level of national complexity. Maybe let's pick a random Canadian sitcom show and some other random country? Whatevs. The point the section SEEMS to want to make is: Non-English-speaking international broadcasts are worthy of mention in the Broadcast section if, and only if, there is some kind of noteworthy change-up. Did I cross any lines? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What shows would you suggest?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Bignole, I have no preference. Could pretty much be any show?  Breaking Bad?  I'll boldly make the edit.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I made the change. It now reads:

""(e.g., If the American show Breaking Bad aired its series finale in France a month before it aired in the U.S., this would be added to the "Broadcast" section...)""


 * Hopefully that's clearer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while I'd earlier suggested a Canadian show, I realized that I don't know much about Canadian shows. Breaking Bad seems to fit the mold because if they aired the series finale in France a month earlier--fans would go batshit.  :)  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're example works fine. Thanks for making that change so it's easier for a reader to understand the message.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

General Principles Section proposal
Let's get to identifying some general principles for articles. I think that these should be items that are not being followed, but there is a general consensus to operate by.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and not just the current status -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) References to the show should be in the present tense since shows—even though no longer airing—still exist -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) When splitting "List of episodes" articles, the principles of Splitting should be followed. Articles should not be split simply to break episode lists into multiple articles that contain only episode lists -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Clarify how "international broadcasting" should be handled (e.g., addressing these tables of countries and channels a show appears on) --- May just need to be updated in the Broadcasting section.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Address series overview tables (e.g., when to add them, what they should contains, etc.).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Neilsen Ratings tables (maybe just update the Reception section) that contain every episode.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Wikipedia is not a TV Guide, so is it necessary to list day and time of airtime slot in the lead? And then every change to that airtime? --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) For the infobox, as per Template:Infobox television, the production location parameter "is only for use when outside country of origin. Leave blank if same as country of origin [above]." Despite this, U.S. cities are often added, claiming "notability". Television shows shoot all over the U.S. now, not just in L.A. It's not a unique thing. This can go into the production section. (Sorry for the US-centric example, I cannot speak about television series production in other countries. Non-American input is needed.) Question: Change the guideline, or enforce? --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Cancelled?
I can't find this anywhere on the MOS, so I'm going to ask here. Is there a policy somewhere for television shows that have been off the air so long they've been presumed cancelled? I came across this problem while creating the article for Twist of Fate.

There are a few questions about this that need to be adressed:
 * 1) Is there a set time frame where a show could be consdered "de facto cancelled"?
 * 2) If a show is presumed cancelled, what happens in the "Last airing" section of the infobox? Does it say the last time it was on the air, "present", or is it just left blank?
 * 3) Should a sentence or two be added in the text? Should it go into the lead section? The production section?

Can someone help me figure this out? Thanks, Nick1372 (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If reliable sources have determined that a television program is "de facto canceled", the article should reflect this. Othwise, it's original research.  —David Levy 17:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. There are many shows, typically on smaller networks, that have skipped seasons for some reason or another and then come back. I think Hell on Wheels did that. If it hasn't been stated to be cancelled, then it technically isn't. It could just be on hiatus.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I see how it would be considered original research. Although I can't think of a show that went on a looong hiatus with no news at all and then came back (Hell on Wheels had some showrunner/network drama that was publicly known), I can acknowledge that there's always a 1% chance. That's too bad.Nick1372 (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Should we be including parental guidelines info?
My understanding is that the film project has a clear guideline regarding including ratings information (WP:FILMRATING) and other projects may as well. After having been involved in a bruising discussion regarding this at Talk:American Dad!, where I did not see any clear reasoning regarding why tv shows should be handled differently, my feeling is that MOS:TV should adopt a similar guideline.

Proposed wording:

Parental Ratings
Parental ratings given to episodes of television series by television content rating systems will vary by territories in accordance to their cultures and their types of governance. In television articles, avoid indiscriminate identification of ratings and instead focus on ratings for which there is substantial coverage from reliable sources. Coverage of ratings can include how a series or episode of television is produced to target specific audiences, the late editing of a television episode to acquire a specific rating, or controversy over whether or not a television series or episode's rating was appropriately assigned. Since this is the English-language Wikipedia and not the American Wikipedia, avoid mere identification of ratings issued by American broadcast and cable networks to counter systemic bias (see WikiProject Countering systemic bias for more information). Provide global coverage of how different territories rate individual television shows or episodes if substantial coverage exists. Retrospective coverage is also welcomed to evaluate how television shows/episodes were rated in their time period. It is recommended that parental ratings information be placed in the "Production" section of the appropriate article, but a stand-alone section can cover controversy surrounding a rating if enough detail exists.

Thank you very much for your thoughts on this! Doniago (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this definitely should be discussed. I'd like to have it added to the above section for general principals that we need to add to the guideline. This way we can keep them all together, as I think this is another important component that we need to address.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, this needs to be discussed. In my opinion, I believe parental ratings should be added to television articles, but only a short explanation. Reasons, such as because of its violence, is very unnecessary and a short explanation (eg: Family Guy is rated TV-14) would be fine. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 20:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. We don't do that for films, so it makes no sense to do that for TV shows. The same issues arise in both mediums, in that how a show is rated in the US is different in the UK, in India, in every other english speaking country. You can't pick one, and honestly I cannot think of a single parent that would come to Wikipedia to find shows that are suitable for their child. If there isn't something significant about the rating (e.g., an animated show airing at 7:30pm that is rated TV-MA on a primetime network....which is primary time for children to watch tv at night) then there isn't a reason to record it here.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * User:TBrandley is correct. And as for this global perspective argument: Doniago is referring to a show created, produced, and set in America (American Dad!), so American-based information is first and foremost in these articles. If information based on other countries should be added, it should be collectively annexed somewhere at the bottom of the article like it is in several other GA articles (such as here and here). Friends and Family Guy, which are both GA articles, touch upon a great deal of information that is unique to America throughout the entirely of their articles, as of relates to dates, premieres, and other information. It only touches upon information that's unique to countries other than America in sections that are collectively devoted to other countries, titled "International."


 * Moreover, just because a policy exists on wiki project film doesn't mean it should too exist on wiki project television otherwise we wouldn't have two articles; we would only have one article devoted to both subjects. And I could just as easily argue that because the policy doesn't exist on wiki project television, it needs not to exist on wiki project film. So that argument is really futile.


 * Furthermore, Doniago has already been told by an admin in the discussion in question that he was wrong with regards to this edit (as shown here ). He has since proceeded to go to sad, unethical lengths to get his way on this edit, including begging on his virtual hands and knees for blocks at the Administrative Noticeboards. There, he was sternly reprimanded by several admins for resorting to ploys and block-begging behavior to try to win this content dispute as opposed to proceeding ahead in a straightforward manner, as was shown here, here  and here . AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, it's not relevant information. There is a reason why we don't include them for films, which can be just as American-centric as TV shows. It's nothing more than indiscriminate information, which we don't include on Wikipedia. We're here to discuss shows from an encyclopedic purpose. Ten years from now, no one will care that a show was TV-14 or something else. Unless there is significant coverage on a show's rating, thus making it noteworthy to include, simply listing it out is nothing more than indiscriminate information. BTW, Kww was commenting on Doniago's edit warring, not declaring an opinion regarding the inclusion of ratings. They merely make the statement that they could not see it taking up more than a small amount of space. Regardless, we have a policy on What Wikipedia is NOT, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What purpose does the rating serve in the article? It serves no real purpose, because people don't come here for maturity ratings on TV shows, given that the channel they watch it on gives it to them at the start of every show. Additionally, each episode is individually rated, which is why you see some episodes receiving their ratings for different areas than previous episodes (e.g., American Horror Story may get a TV-MA for language and horrific images one day, and for brief nudity another day). Given that it would be ridiculous to catalog every episode's individual rating specifiers, adding a "general Rating" again just becomes indiscriminate, trivial information.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)


 * Yes, Kww did say that Doniago's removal of stable content was wrongful. But he also added that I was right and that it at least deserves small mention if anything, not that it was completely unnecessary trivia which is the counterargument that's being presented by Doniago. Also, it's not a fair argument to assert what other people look for when they come to Wikipedia. Unless, we're mind-readers or psychics, such dogmatic claims as yours ('"Ten years from now, no one will care that a show was TV-14 or something else" and "people don't come here for the maturity ratings") cannot be used to support one's position. Who knows what other people are looking for when they come on this site. We're not here to assert what people look and don't look for. Furthermore, Fox carries more weight than other stations in which American Dad! is shown because Fox is American Dad!'s station of origin. In fact, Fox helps American Dad! produce the show so Fox is more relevant than say Cartoon Network which airs American Dad! in reruns. If Fox wasn't relevant as the station of origin, it would not even be mentioned, but stations of origin are often mentioned in articles because they are relevant. Also, every episode of American Dad! on Fox does in fact begin with the "Viewer discretion is advised" warning and "TV-14" rating.AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, what I read was Kww merely acknowledging that they didn't think it would take much space, not that they agreed with the inclusion. Admins don't take sides when they have to come in and address behaviors. I didn't say the rating change, please read what I wrote. I said that the reasoning behind the rating CAN change, and I gave you a clear example. Again, what is the importance of including it? What information are you really trying to share. Is the article hurt by not having that information? I would say not. You cannot compare the station of origin (which is typically the station that OWNS the show) to the maturity rating. It's not the same thing, because FOX doesn't dictate the rating, the FCC does. So, please, explain to me how TV ratings are both different than film ratings (i.e., there's some reason to include them when we don't do it for film), and what the importance is that we would hurt an article by not having them.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

There hasn't been any activity on this in almost two weeks but the consensus seems to me to support the addition of a section on Parental Ratings. Additionally the discussion at Talk:American Dad! seemed to support this as did the ensuing DRN case. I'm consequently going ahead and adding it to the MOS as written. DonIago (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Links to Episode List Articles
I didn't see this mentioned in the MOS, nor in any of the archives; but if I missed it, I apologize for asking again:

In main articles, how should linking to an episode list articles be handled?

More specifically, should the infobox be the absolute and only location for this link to be placed? Or are 'Episodes' sections, such as in Rizzoli & Isles, also acceptable? Is it wrong to include them? In particular, when considering all they consist of is the link.

Cheers, 82.166.114.239 (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Linking in the infobox is fine. I'm generally against creating an entire section in the middle of the page that does nothing more than house a link. For example with Rizzoli & Isles, I would move the link to the overview section and cut the unnecessary space. Similar to how Smallville works.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I get what you mean, but what I'm trying to ascertain is whether or not there's a style-standard one should be following? Or is it simply a case-by-case basis? 82.166.114.239 (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Broadcast section - What exactly is meant by "English-speaking countries"?
Considering that my edits to the (International) Broadcast section for a few shows have been deleted more than once with a note pointing to this section, I want confirmation about what precisely is meant by "English-speaking countries". Is it the List of countries where English is an official language, List of countries by English-speaking population or something else that's entirely arbitrary and up to the whims of whoever is editing a particular page? We need firm guidelines to help put an end to stupid edit wars over this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.133.150 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's where English is identified as the primary language of the country, which you can find relatively easily. That said, the broadcast section of the MOS also says that we're not a TV guide and simply listing every single place a show airs is not acceptable. If there is something special about the broadcast, then you mention it with context on why it's special. Otherwise, it just degenerates into a list of "see where it's showing", and that's not what the page is for.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I hail from a country where the number of English speakers far outstrips those in countries where it is a primary language. So what is it precisely that makes "primarily English-speaking" countries that were not the country of origin so special? If we want to stop being arbitrary and hypocritical, we should remove all references to countries other than the one where the show originated, and mention the former only in case a special mention is required for some reason (which would mean in most cases the Broadcast section wouldn't even be required). I see no justification for mentioning the American or Canadian première date for a British show, or vice versa. If Wikipedia is not a directory, then it's not one, period. It's unacceptable then to backslide and claim that it is a directory of "primarily English-speaking" countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.8.255 (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how the population of your country compared to other countries makes a difference in the argument. For example, and I don't know where you're from, but if you live in a country where the population is say 100 million, and 50 million speak English...yet the primary language is NOT English...what does that matter to a country where the population is say 50 million and 40 million speak English primarily, and the country itself identifies with English? Yes, there are more people in your country, but proportionally, the other country has more English speakers.


 * That said, I'm actually in favor of removing all countries, English or not, except that of the country of origin and special circumstances (e.g., a show breaking a record in another country). I agree that a Canadian show has little value, when it comes to broadcasting, in India, or say England. Since we're not here to act as TV Guide for where shows exist (a local channel listing will give you that), I'm all for removing that piece. I think the "primary-English" bit was added to combat arguments that America is not the only country, as we get a lot of American-centric editing. To clarify, this piece comes from the Film MOS originally.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The only reason I mentioned population was to make the point that if we're focussing solely on English speakers, then there do exist larger/more populous countries that have more people who fit the criteria as compared to smaller countries where English is the primary language. So why should the former be excluded?


 * How do we go about building consensus on the removal of the Broadcast section from TV show articles, or make it a rule for everyone to follow? In my opinion that's the best solution since it leaves no room for people to fight over whether their country should be added to the list or not. As you rightly pointed out, a laundry list of countries (be they primarily English-speaking or not) where a show was broadcast has no real benefit whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.135.103 (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We would need to create a proposal of what to remove and how to word the section for future reference. Then we would need to solicit opinions across the television related WikiProjects and allow for people to come and voice their opinions.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Tense problems
Perhaps this is an issue that may be too broad for a single thread so I'll start with just a single issue, but in terms of actor/character portrayal in television shows, is it appropriate to refer to their depictions as past or present tense? Such as portrayed vs portrays. Appeared vs appeared. Was vs is. JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  14:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement in WP:TVLEAD covers this. "References to the show should be in the present tense since shows—even though no longer airing—still exist" applies to not just the opening sentence but character descriptions as well. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. They will always be portraying that character, in reruns, but the character may no longer be part of the show.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Programming list article troubles
I'm not quite sure this is the right place for discussion of this sort, but my circumstances are formatting-centric in my case.

Taking a glance at the article List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim, right off the bat, you can tell that it is verbose, with detailed (but often unsourced) descriptions for all 237-ish series listed. I attempted to streamline the descriptions by separating certain information into different columns (e.g. production companies and series creators) to no avail; at the end of the day, it is still an indiscriminate list of information, which the guidelines explicitly call out. Prior attempts at removing such indiscriminate information outright removes a lot of the sources provided, which was met with my edits being quickly reverted.

I've been experimenting in my sandbox, trying to find a way to optimally convey content that meets the criteria of being vital to the article, as well as being sourced content without it being indiscriminate. However, I'm not quite sure which of the two formats best suits the article. Right now I have it set up as a list and as a table. Certain guidelines say it should be presented as a table, but most other articles like it present it as a list.


 * In list format:.
 * In table format:.
 * I also have an updated version of this table format in a text editor, with start and end dates seperated (amongst other things), but I haven't got the time to properly wikify it.

At this point, I need a reality check as to how the current article stands right now (not the revisions listed), and maybe some constrictive criticism to add to the user namespace revisions listed, and what measures I should take to implement it into the main namespace. — Whisternefet (talk/contribs) 05:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

International broadcasting controversy and proposal
The article said "When detailing a show's international broadcasting, simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged." What happens if the article violates this. This is a controversy because people outside the tv show's country won't watch and they needed to watch their favourite. It said "The Free Encyclopedia" which means anyone can edit. We should make a proposal for the English speaking persons outside the country they came from. 174.89.25.75 (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what your actually proposing. Wikipedia is not a TV guide, so people shouldn't be coming here to find out what channel their show is airing on. They have their own channel listings for that.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

International broadcasting categories
"When detailing a show's international broadcasting, simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged" - does this also apply to categories? User:81.158.97.209 has been adding many series to Category:Nick Jr. shows, to mean "show was broadcast on this channel once" rather than "show was an original production of this channel". --McGeddon (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say so. Otherwise, we'd be left with dozens upon dozens of categories for every time a show aired somewhere else. It would get out of hand, quickly.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I made a start on cleaning up a couple of dozen of these with WP:HOTCAT - and noticed a few other channel categories in the process, notable Category:Fox Kids - but there are plenty outstanding if anybody else wants to pick them up. --McGeddon (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I could support removing the categories in question on the condition that the tables in question in the discussion above are retained. To this end, I would ask that anyone who comments in this discussion comment in the one immediately above as well. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-anglophone television channels/networks
Should all pages about non-Anglophone television channels/networks be deleted because of ? NorthernThunder (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the tables discussed above, or do you mean pages about the channels/networks themselves? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:TVINTL only refers to broadcast details of a particular television show. Whether or not a particular channel or network deserves its own article is a simple matter of notability, per WP:CORP - if the channel is significant enough to have been written about at length in some reliable sources, Wikipedia can have an article on it. --McGeddon (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC invitation
There's an RfC at Talk:Cheers (season 1) that requires attention by editors. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Phineas and Ferb: The Movie – Across the 2nd Dimension
How come prose is better than tables? I think tables are better because prose can have poor grammar and run on sentences. Tables are also easier to read than prose. We should suggest a change on this. Mouseinphilly (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, your question is vague. Based on your prior edits, I'm guessing that you are asking why prose is preferred over tables for the Broadcast section of television articles, as governed by MOS:TV.  Is that correct? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I want to know why prose is better than tables. Mouseinphilly (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the several discussions related to this topic above. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:PROSE has some simple perspective on it: "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." - in this case, it's preferable to give the reader an easy-to-understand summary of what's interesting about a film's release history, rather than giving them a chunk of raw data and leaving them to comb through and work out when the premiere was, which countries it also premiered in on the same day, etc. --McGeddon (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this per the discussion below. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, prose may give better description, but tables are cleaner and are easier to view, especially of English learners, etc. Mouseinphilly (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * From WP:PROSE, I'd say that Wikipedia was more in favour of better descriptions than easy-to-view (but entirely unsummarised) data. The purpose of an article is to explain its subject, not to present raw data and force the reader to draw their own conclusions from it. --McGeddon (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ad rates
This MOS doesn't say anything about where advertising rates would go in an article. This source has plenty, and I was going to add them to articles but I don't know where to put them. Where would they go? Thanks! Nick1372 (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ad rates would probably go under "Broadcasting", as it has to do with the broadcasting of the show.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)