This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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) ( [1]) and King (TV series) ( [2])
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)
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.
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#Multiple pages 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.
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)
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)
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 "For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes, it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists.". 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)
At Talk:List of Happy Endings episodes#Season article 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#Season article. Thanks. Xeworlebi ( talk) 10:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
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. Noetica Tea? 00:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
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:
Thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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? -- MASEM ( t) 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
There is a discussion taking place at Template talk:Episode list#Bolding of episode titles 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)
For some time there has been discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Friends episodes/archive1 as well as Talk:List of Friends episodes#Disputed changes 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#List of Friends episodes and the slightly related Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Boldface in the episode template] went ignored) and has some advice or thoughts about it, a content dispute resolution thread has now been opened on the matter at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 29#Friends episodes. Matthewedwards ( talk · contribs) 07:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
According to Wikipedia: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)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
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)
I added a link for the {{ infobox animanga}}. Saw a few editors citing MoS:TV on some of my watched, so I was curious as to what I've been doing wrong! {{ infobox animanga/Video}} seems to be closest to the {{ infobox television}}, 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)
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)
- Vorik111 ( talk) 00:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
There's an editor at How I Met Your Mother (season 8) who keeps replacing plot information with a teaser. [3] [4] [5] 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? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 10:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
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: [6]) ─ Matthewi ( Talk) • 10:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
|ShortSummary=
field should be "a short 100–300 word summary". At 525 words your summary needs to be pruned considerably. I agree with SchrutedIt08,
[7] the bullets don't need to be there at all. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
11:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC){{episode list}}
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) --
AussieLegend (
✉)
04:54, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [8] I think it would be prudent to tighten this up, as the statement appears nowhere else. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
There is an RfC in progress at Talk:Terra Nova (TV series)#RfC: Should this article and the episode list article comply with MOS:TV. This RfC deals with issues raised above, so comment from those familiar with the MOS would be appreciated. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
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 removed it, noting that this is a "logo element never used in type".
SnapSnap (whom I've notified of this RfC) undid 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 reverted, 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 CONAN, with a hair outline".
SnapSnap again restored 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)
"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..."
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)
Additional opinions are requested at Talk:American Dad!#Viewer discretion is advised / Doniago. Thank you for your time. Doniago ( talk) 05:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
"(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...)"
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)
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:
Can someone help me figure this out? Thanks, Nick1372 ( talk) 16:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
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 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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Hutton 14:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
"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 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)
Should all pages about non-Anglophone television channels/networks be deleted because of {{WP:TVINTL}}? NorthernThunder ( talk) 12:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
There's an RfC at Talk:Cheers (season 1) that requires attention by editors. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
Yes, I want to know why prose is better than tables. Mouseinphilly ( talk) 23:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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) ( [1]) and King (TV series) ( [2])
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)
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.
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#Multiple pages 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.
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)
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)
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 "For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes, it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists.". 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)
At Talk:List of Happy Endings episodes#Season article 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#Season article. Thanks. Xeworlebi ( talk) 10:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
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. Noetica Tea? 00:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
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:
Thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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? -- MASEM ( t) 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
There is a discussion taking place at Template talk:Episode list#Bolding of episode titles 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)
For some time there has been discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Friends episodes/archive1 as well as Talk:List of Friends episodes#Disputed changes 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#List of Friends episodes and the slightly related Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Boldface in the episode template] went ignored) and has some advice or thoughts about it, a content dispute resolution thread has now been opened on the matter at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 29#Friends episodes. Matthewedwards ( talk · contribs) 07:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
According to Wikipedia: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)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
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)
I added a link for the {{ infobox animanga}}. Saw a few editors citing MoS:TV on some of my watched, so I was curious as to what I've been doing wrong! {{ infobox animanga/Video}} seems to be closest to the {{ infobox television}}, 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)
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)
- Vorik111 ( talk) 00:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
There's an editor at How I Met Your Mother (season 8) who keeps replacing plot information with a teaser. [3] [4] [5] 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? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 10:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
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: [6]) ─ Matthewi ( Talk) • 10:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
|ShortSummary=
field should be "a short 100–300 word summary". At 525 words your summary needs to be pruned considerably. I agree with SchrutedIt08,
[7] the bullets don't need to be there at all. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
11:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC){{episode list}}
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) --
AussieLegend (
✉)
04:54, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [8] I think it would be prudent to tighten this up, as the statement appears nowhere else. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
There is an RfC in progress at Talk:Terra Nova (TV series)#RfC: Should this article and the episode list article comply with MOS:TV. This RfC deals with issues raised above, so comment from those familiar with the MOS would be appreciated. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
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 removed it, noting that this is a "logo element never used in type".
SnapSnap (whom I've notified of this RfC) undid 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 reverted, 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 CONAN, with a hair outline".
SnapSnap again restored 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)
"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..."
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)
Additional opinions are requested at Talk:American Dad!#Viewer discretion is advised / Doniago. Thank you for your time. Doniago ( talk) 05:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
"(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...)"
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)
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:
Can someone help me figure this out? Thanks, Nick1372 ( talk) 16:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
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 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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Hutton 14:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
"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 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)
Should all pages about non-Anglophone television channels/networks be deleted because of {{WP:TVINTL}}? NorthernThunder ( talk) 12:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
There's an RfC at Talk:Cheers (season 1) that requires attention by editors. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
Yes, I want to know why prose is better than tables. Mouseinphilly ( talk) 23:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
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)