Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Background, production and crew sections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Current text

Background/production

• Shortcut: WP:TVPRODUCTION

A variety of information can be included in this section depending on the type of article being written. Whether the main article, season or episode article, this section could contain:

• Conception and development
• Format
• Writing
• Casting
• Filming
• Production design
• Filming locations
• Effects
• Music
• Cancellation and future

Note: Not all television shows will have information on each of these elements. For example, most shows today use soundtracks comprising songs from various performing artists, to fill their episodes, as opposed to an actual score that is created by a single composer for each episode in the series. The same can be said of the effects used in a show; not all shows use any type of effect work. It also may be more pertinent to discuss the writing of a single episode over the writing of an entire show, unless information can be found to discuss over-arching storylines for the entire series.

Crew

Key crew members for each television show are listed in the infobox and do not need to be listed in the article. Generally, if there are any important people associated with the show they will be mentioned somewhere in the production information.

New, updated text

(Shortcut: WP:TVPRODUCTION) Whether for the main article, season, or episode article, this section could contain the following parts:

• Development: This section can cover the development of a series, season, or episode, such as what lead to its creation, production entities behind the project, as well as its format (such as with a game show or reality series).
• Casting: This section can cover the hiring of actors or personalities associated with the series or episode.
• Writing: This section can include notable writers and the development of any scripts.
• Production design: This section could highlight information about set design or special features that make up a set or scene, or other design elements such as costumes, makeup and practical effects, or title sequences.
• Filming: This section can cover aspects related to filming, such as locations, single-camera vs. multi-camera format, equipment used, and filming dates.
• Visual effects: This section could include individuals or companies related to the visual effects of a program, and how the effects were developed and incorporated in the show.
• Music: This section could include involved composers and how any scores or themes were developed and recorded. The template {{Infobox album}} can be used for the score or the collection, although cover images of the albums are discouraged per WP:NFCI guidelines. Given that album covers are generally visually similar to posters and other material for a series, season or episode, having cover images for the album is considered extraneous. If an album is notable enough for a stand-alone article (see notability guidelines for albums), one should be created, and an album infobox with a cover image can exist in the new article. Tracks from the score can be identified and discussed in prose, or used with the {{Track listing}} template.
• Cancellation and future: This section may address details that led to a program's cancellation or the status of any future plans for a program.

This section should be structured to fit the available content and the type of article being written. Not all television shows will have information on each of these elements. For example, if there is sufficient material about each topic, the section could be organized into subsections by the parts above, or it may be more beneficial to have some material combined (ie a "Development and writing" or "Filming and visual effects" section).

(Shortcut: WP:TVCREW) This section should not be an indiscriminate collection of information about the production, but provide context for what is included. For example, it should not simply list crew members, film locations, or dates of events (e.g. David Nutter was an associate producer) but instead be relevant in context (e.g. John and James Smith left their roles as executive producers in 2007 after a falling out with the studio, with Susan Doe taking over for the series' eighth season. Doe would leave after one year so that she could produce a new show for the network.)

Previous discussions

to be found

Discussion

Combining these sections

As you may notice, this is covering two sections of the MOS, currently. I did this, because as I am proposing, the text under "Crew" should either be fully integrated into "Background/production" (so maybe "Background, production and crew" as a heading), or "Crew" becomes a sub-section of "Background/production". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. Frankly, whenever I come across TV series articles with a "free-standing" 'Crew' section, it always looks wrong to me... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the crew should, in many cases, not just be listed. It should be added naturally with other info regarding the show. And if it can't just have it in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be explicitly stated that a full list of crew should never be given. This is to avoid the situation I see with many music album articles where I see a huge list of production personnel, the great majority of them of no interest to anyone and it's just trivia needlessly taking up space. Hzh (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we could do that. Something along the lines of "A section listing crew members should not be used; however, crew may be listed beyond the infobox if they can naturally fit within another production section." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest "... however, notable crew may be listed..." as crew without either their own article, a likelihood of an article ever being created or some sourced significance, shouldn't be mentioned. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I would actually suggest that we not encourage "listing" crew at all, but instead say something along the lines, "...however, notable crew may be included in the prose of the 'Production' section..." Something along these lines. IOW, "listing" crew outside of the infobox should be explicitly deprecated. By discussion important crew members in prose form in the 'Production' section can and should be encouraged... Just my $0.02. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, otherwise it becomes a slippery slope to just list everyone. Most "crew" discussion are going to come into other sections anyway. I would have this section focus more on bigger roles that change over time. So, simply saying "X person is the executive producer", it becomes "Al Gough and Miles Millar stepped down from running Smallville after season seven. X person(s) took over, with X person coming on board in season nine, etc.".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Small examples for each option

Each of these header options should have some examples next to each, or descriptors. This can also probably reduce some of these header options too, and removal of the note in the original text. See a couple of examples of what I mean below (but would be done for all):

• Development: This section can cover the development of a series, season, or episode, such as what lead to its creation, production entities behind the project, as well as its format (such as with a game show or reality series). Pertinent crew members (such as producers, executive producers, creators, etc.) can also be mentioned.
• Casting: This section can cover the hiring of actors or personalities associated with the series or episode.
• Writing: This section can include notable writers and the development of any scripts.
• Filming: This section can cover aspects related to filming, such as locations, equipment used, and filming dates, and pertinent crew members such as the cinematographer and directors.
• Production design: This section could highlight information about set design or special features that make up a set or scene.
• Effects: This section could include individuals or companies related to the visual effects of a program, and how the effects were developed and incorporated in the show.
• Music: This section could include involved composers and how any scores or themes were developed and recorded.
• Cancellation and future: This section may address details of a program's demise or the status of any future plans for a program.

I also would definitely want to find a way to add text similar to WP:FILMMUSIC for the music one to state how album covers, if visually similar to the relevant infobox image used, should not be uploaded. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with adding short descriptors to these. In your wanting to remove the note as a result, I would suggest keeping the retaining the first sentence of the note about not containing all elements and merging it with the first paragraph around the area where it says "this section could contain," but otherwise the note can go -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I've filmed in some short descriptors for those without above (Writing, then all from Production design). Feel free to change any or all above, and note which have been changed and if necessary, why -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've switched around the order of the list somewhat – the order should be sort of logical chronologically: Development (incl. Casting) -> Filming (incl. locations) -> then production-type topics like Writing, Effects and Production Design, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Writing should be before filming, however, because without it, there's nothing to film! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Does filming and "filming location" need to be separate. They seem to be of the same grain to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No, they don't need to be separate. I've removed the "filming locations" one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Is crew meant to include everyone not on the cast? Film crew notes "The crew is also separate from the producers as the producers are the ones who own a portion of either the film company or the film's intellectual property rights." I tend to think of the directors and head writers as separate from the crew for similar reasons (royalties or residuals) but perhaps that's a misimpression of mine. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Do soundtrack albums belong under Production? I think of them as part of Merchandising which tends to happen afterwards, that they're a spin-off project in another medium. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposals

Given the shortness of this section, and minimal conjecture about it, I've gone ahead to put together a proposal which puts together the few points that have been raised. As with previous sections, the proposals don't add anything new or propose new discussion topics, it just takes the existing text and adds/deletes/modifies issues raised previously in the discussion section. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I was going to make some adjustments to your proposal Whats new?, but then I realized it was a lot different (in structure mostly) so I created a second proposal. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no problems with your proposal either - I don't have a strong preference on the structure -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 1

(Shortcut: WP:TVPRODUCTION)

A variety of information can be included in this section depending on the type of article being written. Not all television shows will have information on each of these elements. Whether the main article, season or episode article, this section could contain:

• Development: This section can cover the development of a series, season, or episode, such as what lead to its creation, production entities behind the project, as well as its format (such as with a game show or reality series). Pertinent crew members (such as producers, executive producers, creators, etc.) can also be mentioned.
• Casting: This section can cover the hiring of actors or personalities associated with the series or episode.
• Writing: This section can include notable writers and the development of any scripts.
• Filming: This section can cover aspects related to filming, such as locations, single-camera vs. multi-camera format, equipment used, and filming dates, and pertinent crew members such as the cinematographer and directors.
• Production design: This section could highlight information about set design or special features that make up a set or scene.
• Effects: This section could include individuals or companies related to the visual effects of a program, and how the effects were developed and incorporated in the show.
• Music: This section could include involved composers and how any scores or themes were developed and recorded.
• Cancellation and future: This section may address details of a program's demise or the status of any future plans for a program.

A section listing crew members should not be used outside the infobox, although notable crew may be included in the prose of the 'Production' section.

Proposal 1 discussion

Proposal 2

(Shortcut: WP:TVPRODUCTION)

Whether for the main article, season, or episode article, this section could contain the following parts:

• Development: This section can cover the development of a series, season, or episode, such as what lead to its creation, production entities behind the project, as well as its format (such as with a game show or reality series).
• Casting: This section can cover the hiring of actors or personalities associated with the series or episode.
• Writing: This section can include notable writers and the development of any scripts.
• Production design: This section could highlight information about set design or special features that make up a set or scene, or other design elements such as costumes, makeup and practical effects, or title sequences.
• Filming: This section can cover aspects related to filming, such as locations, single-camera vs. multi-camera format, equipment used, and filming dates.
• Visual effects: This section could include individuals or companies related to the visual effects of a program, and how the effects were developed and incorporated in the show.
• Music: This section could include involved composers and how any scores or themes were developed and recorded. The template {{Infobox album}} can be used for the score or the collection, although cover images of the albums are discouraged per WP:NFCI guidelines. Given that album covers are generally visually similar to posters and other material for a series, season or episode, having cover images for the album is considered extraneous. If an album is notable enough for a stand-alone article (see notability guidelines for albums), one should be created, and an album infobox with a cover image can exist in the new article. Tracks from the score can be identified and discussed in prose, or used with the {{Track listing}} template.
• Cancellation and future: This section may address details that led to a program's cancellation or the status of any future plans for a program.

This section should be structured to fit the available content and the type of article being written. Not all television shows will have information on each of these elements. For example, if there is sufficient material about each topic, the section could be organized into subsections by the parts above, or it may be more beneficial to have some material combined (ie a "Development and writing" or "Filming and visual effects" section).

(Shortcut: WP:TVCREW)

This section should not be an indiscriminate collection of information about the production, but provide context for what is included. For example, it should not simply list crew members, film locations, or dates of events (e.g. David Nutter was an associate producer) but instead be relevant in context (e.g. John and James Smith left their roles as executive producers in 2007 after a falling out with the studio, with Susan Doe taking over for the series' eighth season. Doe would leave after one year so that she could produce a new show for the network.)

Proposal 2 discussion

I structured this proposal similarly to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Production. I also adjusted some order of the example parts with some c/e. Some other large additions were to the music (as I noted above) with wording similar to WP:FILMSCORE. As this is more in depth than any of the other parts, I don't know if this should be separated out as a subsection, to go further in depth with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've added "single-camera vs. multi-camera format" to the "Filming" instruction to both proposals – I realized the other day that one of the biggest issues involving (American) sitcom productions is single-cam vs. multi-cam format, so it should probably be specifically mentioned in the MOS:TV instructions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that it's mentioned in the infobox. We need to be careful that the production section doesn't turn into a list of "And they use this. ANd this person is in this role. And they filmed here." type statements. It should convey real content, not just be lists disguised as prose.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Infoboxes aren't a substitute for prose content, they're simply supposed to summarize it. My $0.02. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
      • The more things from the infobox that can be naturally folded into prose as well the better, and it doesn't hurt to have more suggestions in our listing here since the whole idea is to try let people know what sorts of things they can add. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
        • It's not about just telling people what could be there, but explaining how it should be. Additionally, you don't need to have a single sentence saying "This was shot in multi-camera format" when the infobox itself can suffice for a basic statement like that. We tell people that we shouldn't just simply list cast members like IMDb does. The same should be true for any section, especially when you're just listing technical specs. So, it is much more appropriate to list the camera format in prose when you can discuss WHY they chose that format, or how it was benefiting the production. Not to simply state a fact that it exists. I would also be careful with crew members. We need to discuss what types of roles should be listed and why, otherwise, what is to stop people from listing every role under the production?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
          • The common sense of other editors. The MOS does not need to cover every eventuality – it just needs to provide guidelines for what can and should be done, which includes listing possible topics for inclusion. As to single- vs. multi-cam, that is in fact often a defining characteristic of a (sitcom) series, and there are plenty of examples of TV shows where sourcing will mention exactly this fact – e.g. "...[show's] producers went with single-camera over multi-camera because... [whatever]..." So, in the case of a number of series, this will go beyond being a "trivial" fact, and will instead be relatively important content that will be directly sourceable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
            • What if it was worded as "the decision to use single- or multi-camera format"? I think that would satisfy what everyone was looking for and the concerns to not just list things as Bignole noted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
              • Sure, that's fine. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
                • IJ, I'm not saying list every eventuality. If that was the case, then there's no reason to list so many items in there now because we shouldn't list every possible thing to be covered. My argument is that we need to focus more on the context of information more than the individual elements of it. We shouldn't list crew members as examples of what you would find in a production section, we should discuss why you would cover crew members in a production section. That serves editors better than just simply saying "you may find a, b, c, d, e, f, etc. in this section". Guidelines....guide. Just having a list of things that could be in a section is hardly guiding anyone. If anything it leaves more confusion. We didn't do that for any other section so we should be careful not to do that here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

They both look good; the crew part is integrated nicely. One issue: both proposals have a bit of separation between the type of article being written and what those types are (ie: main article, season, or episode article). In prop1 they're specified two sentences later and in prop2 its precedes on the other side of the bullets. I feel it'd be a little clearer if they were connected more directly (or alternatively, the quoted part above could be skipped to simplify it). – Reidgreg (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Any final thoughts on this topic? Proposal 2 looks like the way forward -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I still think that things like "pertinent crew members", regardless of the role, needs something more than just that. Otherwise, it's just a listing of crew members and you're going to get into a fight with people based on the notion of "well, this crew position can win awards" and "well this crew position is important to making the show." We really shouldn't be listing anything in a production section. It should all come with context and more information supporting the need to list it. IMDb already lists every crew member, so we should be adding something else other than 'this person was in this role'. I think that needs to be more clearly stated.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

What if we pull all those instances out and add a sentence such as this below the examples: Crew members should not simply be listed in any of the suggested headings above, but can be mentioned through natural context and presenting of info.? Doesn't have to be these exact words, but the spirit of them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That seems fine to me, though I personally think the current wording ("pertinent crew can also be mentioned") doesn't promote indiscriminate listings of crew members. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Favre, I think that sounds like a good idea. IJ, "pertinent crew members can also be mentioned" does actually say how they can be mentioned. Given that typical editing style of most editors that don't take part in these discussions, you know as well as I do that it will turn into a list. Maybe a prose list (listing information in the form of a sentence), but a list nonetheless. And anytime we add words like "pertinent", "important", etc, we open ourselves up to a very wide interpretation of what that means.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking back over what I typed up, I think we had the intent Big with what you want with the very last sentence. However, the way it is currently wording, points back to each of the section examples, which is why the "pertinent crew" phrases were included to provide examples of which crew could be talked about, appropriately, in each section, if necessary. So maybe it is just a matter of reformatting or adding to that last sentence, and adjusting its placement in the section as a whole. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I see the line you're talking about, and I think that is helpful. Whether something changes or not, I want people to be aware that if we're not careful with the wording, I've seen editors "list" people through the use of prose and argue that it isn't a "list", so it doesn't count. To me, there is no difference between saying 1. Director is X, 2. Sound Composer is Y, 3. Key Grip is A and then turning around and saying: "The director of the episode was Y, while X was brought in to do sound composing. AB was hired as the Key Grip." Making it a sentence doesn't change the fact that it's just a listing. That's my main point.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Is everyone happy with Prop 2 now? -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we just need to finish discussing the last sentence we have on the crew, and if that should be expanded a bit or moved around to make sure we fully clarify the point Big was making. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 and Bignole: OK great, if that issue can be clarified soon then that would be helpful so we could move on to the next section -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If Bignole doesn't mind, I'm going to leave it to them to add, adjust or move that last sentence we currently have on the crew to include what wording they want to be highlighted in it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

My focus in my argument was on crew, because it was easy to identify that area. To me, it should be a general statement of not simply listing information in prose form, regardless of the subtopic item (e.g., crew, locations, etc.) It doesn't have to focus on crew just to clarify that simply listing factoids should be avoided in favor of contextual statements that show why it was important enough to include and not simply indiscriminate information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bignole: I hope you don't mind, but I've made some tweaks to your proposed sentence (cut down the examples and some minor rewording) as I think it flows better. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. I agree with that you changed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Great. Should we then include in our bullets the text about which crew should be listed (as defined by your sentence) or should we just let the sentence handle that? I'm going to make one last notice post at the MOS talk and TV project talk to get any last minute commenters, but I think we're good on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. My entire point was that it should be based around context. There may be relevant context for a key grip one day, so I wouldn't want to automatically restrict that. I just don't think we need to get into the habit of simply listing crew like IMDb.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. So I'll remove those and add in your 2a proposal. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I liked the Tom Welling example better, in that it was more "contextual"/less listy. I assume it got removed because Tom Welling wasn't crew on Smallville but the above example with executive producers does just boil down to a list of who was executive producer when, without any context as to why. Even if it said "X and Y left as executive producers to develop <new show/project> and then Z took over", that would be an improved example. Or "X and Y left owing to a falling out with the studio" or "X left because of health reasons" etc etc. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Technically the actual section at Smallville explains their departure a little better, but that's a lot to put in an example. It may be easier to point to articles that have done this effectively and link to those sections. Maybe we adjust this example to be less exact and more "summary" of the event to better illustrate the point.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The fictional version works for me! —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the programs used in the original examples, I just felt it was too wordy for a simple example and chopped it down. Sounds like agreement on what is there now which is good -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we are, and no worries about the trimming. It helped push us to look at it from another perspective and I think it resulted in a more finely worded illustration of what we should look for in this section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Shall we close this discussion and move to the next section then -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I think so.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: can close and start next section then! -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.