Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Number format within TV articles - request for views

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus for option 3; season and episode numbers should generally be expressed as numerals in tables, headings, and article body.Two exceptions: (1) Spelling numerals zero to nine remains acceptable, as per WP:CONLEVEL, WikiProject consensus cannot supersede MOS:SPELL09 guidance: "Generally, in article text: Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words". MOS:VAR would apply in these instances. (2) Spelling numerals zero to nine when used as ordinals (e.g., second season) remains acceptable, as per consensus here and already established at MOS:ORDINAL: "Generally, for single-digit ordinals write first through ninth, not 1st through 9th".

Essentially, there is a local consensus regarding MOS:NUMERAL guidance "integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words." For articles under the purview of WikiProject Television, there is a strong preference that integers greater than nine should be expressed in numerals, not words.

Further discussion would need to occur at WT:DATE before expanding these local preferences to exceptions with wider consensus listed at MOS:NUMNOTES.

Heartfox (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

MOSTV is silent on what number format is appropriate for references to season/series and episodes within TV articles. There are both numerical (“season 1”) and worded (“season one”) formats used within the text of the project MoS itself, and actual practice within TV articles varies widely.

WP-wide policy (MOS:NUMERAL) is that within tables and infoboxes, digits are used, but in article text including headings, numbers smaller than ten should be written as words, and proximate related numbers should follow the same format. Otherwise, numbers ten and up are written as numerals.

I suggest that it would be helpful to add a sentence to this MoS, within the “Parent, season, and episode article structure” section, to clarify how season and episode numbers should best be formatted within TV articles. I suggest that a choice needs to be made between the following options, before establishing consensus on the wording of such an addition:

Option One: Follow MOSNUM. Season and episode numbers in article tables and infoboxes should be in numerals, and in headings and body, should be in words if below ten, with consistent format being used for larger numbers in the same context (i.e. if seasons one through nine are in words then seasons ten up are also in words).

Option Two: Follow MOSNUM except for headings and subheadings. Thus season and episode numbers should be in numerals in tables, infoboxes and headings/sub-headings, but in words (below ten, and above in the same context) within article body.

Option Three: Season and episode numbers should be expressed as numerals, in tables, infoboxes, headings and article body.

I seek editors’ views on the best approach before proposing a specific addition to the MoS. If I might finish with a personal view, I would ask that if there is support for option three, a justification for TV project articles departing so significantly from WP-wide policy does need to be advanced. MapReader (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  • I favor option 3 because it's broadly conventional to refer to seasons and episodes with numerals (generally, not just on Wikipedia). I.e., add another exception at MOS:NUMERALS. However, it would be preferable to write "in the seventh season of ...". That is, there is a difference between describing the season or episode ("the seventh season", "the third episode") and enumerating a season and/or episode ("season 7, epsisode 12"). They are different formats, even if they basically convey the same information. That said, I could live with "the 7th season".
    As a second choice, I would go with a version of option 2. However, it should be extended to also include citations, because our convention for citations is to do things like "Volume 3, Issue 7", and doing "Season Three, Episode Seven" in them would be needlessly inconsistent, and something that editors probably just will not go along with in practice. Also, I believe that option 1 and by extention part of option 2 are incorrectly reading MOS:NUMERALS. It does not suggest anything about writing numbers that are ten or higher as words instead of numerals to match lower numbers in the same context. That appears to have come out of nowhere. What it does say is that writing out larger numbers is a permissible option. But it doesn't have a context-related requirement.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
    The answer to your challenge follows logically from what MOS:NUMERALS actually says. Firstly, that integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words (i.e. no choice). Second, that larger integers can be in numbers or words (i.e. choice). And third, that Comparable values nearby one another (nearby being somewhat vague) should be in the same format. The only way these three statements can be squared, is as I described. MapReader (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
    Fair enough. That material didn't used to be in there. Not sure when it was added or by whom (nor whether there was a consensus discussion to add it in the first place), but oh well. You'r right that is actually in there (for now?).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Option One - If there is a parent guideline on how to write articles from a grammatical sense, then we follow the grammar rules. This would be something hit on in a GA or FA application, because it isn't about your personal style on writing but on the grammar rules we follow. You may not like Chicago Style writing, but that's the writing style that Wikipedia uses across the board. That said, I'm not sure that this MOS should explicitly state that. If anything, maybe we have an item somewhere that points out that this MOS does not supercede any grammar MOS, and whatever rules are identified there are rules that are followed on TV related pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
    Normally I lean in that general direction, but MOS:NUMERALS has a lot of codified exceptions, and this seems like a reasonable one to consider.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
    My reason for suggesting that the MoS(TV) should be explicit on the matter is that, currently it isn’t, current practice varies (even within MOSTV itself), and because it’s been suggested that the format of the examples within the MoS is somehow a guideline in itself - which I don’t accept. If we want to give editors a steer, it should be explicitly stated. MapReader (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I would go for Option One as first preference, on the basis that there is no consensus spelled out anywhere within the TV project to depart from the standard WP-wide MoS. Option Two would be a compromise, recognising that within TV articles, using numerals within headings and sub-headings is currently common - but certainly not universal - practice. For TV article that use numbers spelled out in words within the body, a couple of examples are the characters section of Friends together with List of Friends and Joey characters, and Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV series), the latter more closely following option one with spelled out headings as well. MapReader (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Season numbers are commonly and widely expressed as numerals. This has always been the case here as well, and I have yet to see a valid argument to do otherwise. This whole fracas grew out of one editor’s not liking long established practice and trying to force his opinions on one article without any attempt to gather consensus there. Instead, he’s created chaos here in an effort to get his way. That’s a damned poor reason to make a change. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
    Skipping over the unnecessary unpleasantness, which surely breaches some policy or other, the point is that there isn’t a clear “long established practice”, and articles vary. Of the three options, Option Two is probably closest to the majority of articles - for example the article for The Sopranos, which regularly tops surveys as the best TV series and has been passed as a GA, uses Option Two throughout. The one for The Wire, which isn’t a GA, is inconsistent with a mix of formats in the text. MapReader (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    Do you intend to reply to reply to all !votes? -- Alex_21 TALK 09:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4: Follow what the majority of sources do. If there is no consistency, then fall back likely to Option 1. --Masem (t) 23:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
    Interesting point about the sources. I had a quick scan of TV reviews in the Hollywood Reporter and The Guardian, and both seemed to use text for season and episode numbers, in both body and headlines. But I didn’t spend much time on it and this might be worth a more thorough review? MapReader (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3: This is a longstanding common practice that is widely used on majority of TV series articles and I don't see a strong argument changing it to otherwise. — YoungForever(talk) 13:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Don't fix what isn't broken. We use "(season #)" in the article titles, thus we match what we use in the titles in the article itself, especially with headers. "Season 26" is easy for a reader than "Season Twenty-Six", and then again for conformity, this matches what we use in cast listings (e.g. (season 2–4)). I would say that using numerals in headings is most definitely universal for WP:TV, and changing this practice would not change any form of understanding for the casual reader. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Stuff like "season 2, episode 7" works very well and is widely used in practice. Using words instead of digits in such cases would look odd and clumsy. Gawaon (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    Actually, that specific example is something that I would change the moment I saw it in the text as it is ungrammatical. Gonnym (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    What rule of English grammar do you think it breaks? Cite a source. And are you sure you know what is actually within the category of grammar and English grammar in particular? It is not a catch-all term for "style matters that I notice".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish Do you really believe that a sentence like: "The season 2, episode 7 was the highest-rated episode of the season" is best grammatically correct sentence we can write? Gonnym (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    Of course not, but neither Gawaon nor anyone else suggested doing anything like that. See straw man. Your constructed example is absurd.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    Stuff like "season 2, episode 7" works very well and is widely used in practice how else can you understand "season 2, episode 7"? Gonnym (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    That question doesn't really parse. Maybe you're meaning to ask how else it could be used? The way it usually is used, e.g. "In season 2, episode 7, [character name] did [whatever].", and "[Character name] last appeared in season 2, episode 7." Has nothing at all to do with tortured constructions like "The season 2, episode 7 was the highest-rated episode of the season".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would ordinal number words such as "second season" be changed to "2nd season"? Senorangel (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    I would think not, since that's not how we're currently usually doing it. (Keeping in mind that the purpose of guidelines is to encapsulate consensus best practice, not try to legislate a new practice.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Using phrases like "season three" would be very clumsy for no reason, and phrases like "season 3" are far more widely in use, and less clumsy. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Notice how it isn't "Option Three". Most style guides advise using numerals after sequential designations such as "Chapter", "Episode", "Page", "Act", "Game", "Room", etc. If MOSNUM is stopping this from happening, then MOSNUM should be changed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
    @InfiniteNexus: "Use numerals after sequential designations such as ..." is a very good way to put it, and this might be good guideline language, though we would need to figure out whether there's any contradiction of the principle somewhere in MoS's various pages and resolve that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
    As far as I know, it doesn't contradict any policy besides MOS:NUM. This can just be added to the several exceptions already listed at MOS:NUMNOTES. But that is beyond the scope of this RfC, so that will be a discussion for another day. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, but this is worth raising later, so hopefully we don't both just forget. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per InfiniteNexus, though I will note I don't have an issue with seasons below ten in prose/article body if it seems cleaner to write it as "season one", "season three", etc. For example: When discussing the season two premiere, director John Smith said.... seems cleaner (to me) than When discussing the season 2 premiere, director John Smith said..... So I don't know if that actually is what option 2 was going for, but I don't feel words are appropriate for infoboxes, tables, or headings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    It should be left to editors' discretion, basically another case of MOS:VAR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Also option 3 per above. Common practice that has an apparent consensus. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 seems the best to me too. It is informative and visually pleasing. Jack234567 (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2023 (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.

Followup discussion: actually implementing this

Well, we have kind of a mess here. This concluded with a pretty clear result, but the closer is obviously sorely confused into thinking MOS:TV is a wikiproject WP:PROJPAGE essay, not a site-wide guideline that is part of MoS (albeit one that naturally attracts significant interest from participants at WP:WikiProject Television), and has effectively set up some illusory conflicts. The closer's comments like "WikiProject consensus cannot supersede MOS:SPELL09 guidance" and "Further discussion would need to occur at WT:DATE before expanding these local preferences to exceptions with wider consensus listed at MOS:NUMNOTES" were not helpful, and misunderstand this page and what it is (and miss the WP:POLICYFORK principle: if a consensus has been reached and implemented at one guideline, it will not be okay for another guideline to fail to account for it). The closer also tried to make everyone happy all at once, by including pretty much every exception anyone suggested. I'm not really sure what to do at this point other than try to write what the consensus clearly is into the guideline here, explain when some exceptions might make sense, and then later try to summarize the bare gist of it at NUMNOTES.

For the first step of this, we can probably say something like:

Season and episode numbers should usually be expressed as numerals in tables, infoboxes, citations, headings, and article body (season 40, episode 3). Spelling out single-digit cases is permissible (season six, episode two) in article-body prose, but may be unhelpful in proximity to cases with numerals (season 12, episode 24), especially in mixed cases (season nine, episode 12 or season 12, episode nine). Single-digit ordinals are usually spelled out (the first season, the ninth episode), but in a table, infobox, citation, or other space-limited context, numeral ordinals (1st, 9th) are more appropriate.

I think that is a good encapsulation of the result of this RfC, in making "option 3" the clear default (which is the most certain result of this RfC, even according to the closer), laying out what exceptions could apply and giving some rationales for when it might and might not make sense to employ such an exception (without trying to prescribe them as no-leeway rules), but keeping it very concise despite inclusion of illustrative examples. I think it includes every actually valid observation by the closer, without any redundancy (e.g. "there is a strong preference that integers greater than nine should be expressed in numerals, not words" would be reundant to include, because it's already implicit from the first two sentences in the proposed wording just above). It's also consistent with cross-topic handling of similar things, e.g. season and games in sports, |edition=3rd in citations, volume and issue numbering of periodicals, etc., etc.

Hopefully the above draft will be satisfactory, but of course it could be wordsmithed a bit further if there's something faulty with it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

but in a table, infobox, citation, or other space-limited context, numeral ordinals (1st, 9th) are more appropriate The TV project has never used ordinals. If space is limited (and this I think would generally maybe apply mostly to infoboxes and maybe tables, but not citations), abbreviations would be preferred if absolutely necessary. So "season 1" -> "S1"; "episode 5" -> "E5"; "season 3 episode 10" -> "S3E10" or "310". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
In general I prefer spelling out numerals in prose, so I'm a little concerned about eager editors going back and "fixing" articles that are already doing so.— TAnthonyTalk 17:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Your draft appears to posit, for television articles, an exact mirror of what the site-wide site recommends for articles generally. The latter guideline is that numbers up to nine are spelled out, with choice for larger numbers subject to the proviso that when they are proximate to comparable smaller numbers, they should all be spelled out. I read your text to be that for TV articles, larger (season/episode) numbers are always in numerals, with choice for smaller numbers subject to the same proviso, but working in the opposite direction. I am not sure how helpful this is? Conceivably it could mean that a long-standing TV series article could have series numbers spelled out (within the body of the article), until season/series ten screens, at which point they all have to be flipped over. That doesn’t seem at all sensible. Long-standing widely acclaimed articles such as the GA for The Sopranos are written with season and episode numbers spelled out, and I would be wary of encouraging anyone to go re-editing the format within those articles without a wider consensus built on more solid ground. Especially since the gist of the RFC close is ‘not let’s go changing the established format of TV articles without good reason’.
Where there is clear consensus is that numerals for seasons/series/episodes should be used in tables, lists, infoboxes, and headings. Since this is common ground, I would start any proposed text for the project MoS with that. For article text, the closer has, IMO rightly, identified that spelling out small numbers is long-established practice across the whole site; departing from it should require a wider consensus than merely a discussion on the TV article talk page. You yourself appear to accept this within the RFC conversation now closed above, and you are right to identify that any such change has implications across many more articles than those pertaining to TV. MapReader (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you. The RFC was to amend MOS:TV, which is at equal par with all other MOS guidelines, not subordinate to them. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
For the record: I like the wording proposed by SMcCandlish and think it would do the job. Gawaon (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I've just stepped away from this for a while to see what other people have to say. In the end we really only have three choices: 1) wordsmith something along the lines of what I wrote (I'm not entirely wedded to every bit of wording in it, just trying to ecapsulate the gist) that attempts to comply with what is really a very confused and confusing close by someone who does not understand the nature of the guideline or even that it is one; 2) RfC this all over again (perhaps at WT:MOSNUM instead) and hope for a clearer close; or 3) take the close to WP:AN for overturning and a new, clearer closure of the original discussion. Option 1 almost certainly entails the least drama.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Just make a new request at WP:CR for someone to re-close this. The original close was too problematic, for the reasons you outlined in your initial comment. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
The closer has meanwhile edited the close, so I think it should be fine now. Gawaon (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm mostly okay with your wording, except as I noted above about the ordinal part at the end. We should not include that because that's never been a generally accepted format within the TV project for representing season or episode info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
If the close was unsatisfactory before, it is less so now, since almost all of it has been deleted leaving no analysis or context, the result appearing to be based on a numerical vote count, which isn’t the way that closes are supposed to work. Your option 2 appears to me the most appropriate since, as you identified yourself in your comments within the RfC, the question of numerical or spelled format for sequential designators is a wider, not a tv-specific, issue. It’s also unusual that the closer has deleted most of his or her closure commentary after having been lobbied to do so on their own talk page. MapReader (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
It's entirely "usual" to take a closure dispute to the talk page of the closer. If you attempt to have a close overturned at CR or AN without having first tried to address the matter with the closer in user talk, the request will be closed with prejudice by the reviewing admins. Whether the revised result in this particular case is any more helpful to us is a severable matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Netflix series are "Web series"?

I've noticed that the filmographies of many Korean actors/actresses list their work in Netflix productions under "Web series", instead of Television. Examples: Jo Bo-ah#Web shows, Kim Hye-soo#Web series. I have always thought that "web series" are video productions created solely for the Internet (such as series on YouTube), whereas Netflix is a streaming platform that produces or distributes television and film content. It's a fine line, but it's distinct. Are Korean editors on the English-language Wikipedia getting it all wrong? And if they are, how can they be corrected? Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 00:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Tend to agree with this. So does our article Web series which doesn't even mention Netflix, despite it being one of the top streaming TV services. These are clearly treated as distinct mediums, even if the method of delivery these days may involve TCP/IP in both cases for a lot of people.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
There is no such distinction and that is purely WP:OR. I'm also sure you can find some RS that make that distinction, while others won't. A series on YouTube Red is no different than a series on Netflix - both are made for internet (streaming) viewers. Gonnym (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
A counter argument can rather obviously be made that combining what "Web series" usually means with what "streaming service" usually means is OR, since it's not well-supported by sources, though I suppose you too could find some that blurred the lines between them. The fact that YouTube has expanded its business model from just being a web A/V platform to also having a streaming service (as has Amazon) doesn't make a show on streaming service identical to the concept of a Web series (any more than it makes a show on a streaming service identical to online shopping for Blu-rays at Amazon). This is complicated and difficult, but editors are good at using sources, common sense, and information-architecture experience to puzzle out complicated subjects well for our readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Interlanguage link/s

Is it okay to put an Interlanguage link in drama article's lede? ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 19:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Likely. What page are you looking for this to happen on and to what link? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Mostly actor/s link on South Korean drama articles like this one. ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 03:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
That seems fine in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

List of Call the Midwife characters

Hi. I'm not usually in enwiki, but others, and come here occasionally, so I do not know the rules. Today I saw this page first time, and I have a question.
I update constantly the casting table in List of Call the Midwife characters. Did I understand correctly that I should split this table into two parts, for main (at least once) and for recurrent cast, and remove a few lines for guests only? Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Second-round RfC on titles of TV season articles

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Boy Meets World (season 1) - does recurring cast belong in the infobox's "starring" list?

An editor has added an actress who is considered a recurring cast member (in this particular season of the show) to the starring parameter in that article's infobox, but I don't think that's correct. I started a talk page entry there about this, at Talk:Boy Meets World (season 1)#Inclusion of Danielle Fishel in the starring part of the infobox. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:So Help Me Todd § Co-starring actors again

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:So Help Me Todd § Co-starring actors again. Editors are needed to weigh in on this in order to reach a consensus. This is about co-starring actors. — YoungForever(talk) 14:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Short description for TV series?

Prompted by this edit, which changed the short description of a TV series article from "NBC sitcom" to "American television sitcom (1997-2003)", is there a consensus as to how the short descriptions for TV series articles should generally be formatted? I checked WP:SDEXAMPLES, but there's no specific recommendation there. Left to my own devices, using the examples that are shown, I'd probably suggest, "NBC television show (1997-2003)", as the examples tend to deemphasize nationality (except for people) and genre. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter! DonIago (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Out of the two, "American television sitcom" is in my opinion better than "NBC television show". Part of the reasoning behind this is consistency in short descriptions. While NBC might be known in countries other than its home country, would "Rustavi 2" mean anything to you? How about a short description stating "ABC television show", would that be American Broadcasting Company or Australian Broadcasting Corporation? Gonnym (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough; I was thinking of the SDs for film articles, where nationality is discouraged, but I know it's not a one-for-one comparison. DonIago (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Readers mostly don't care which network it was but they mostly probably do already know it's a TV show. Telling them something about the type of show is more meaningful. Nationality seems reasonable; I don't know why it would be discouraged for films, other than the few cases where editors keep arguing about how to nationally identify a particular production.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Possibly to try to assist in respecting WP:SD40 and because the nationality is usually listed in the lead sentence for a given film article, but I wasn't part of the conversation. DonIago (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Articles for creation accepting sub-par season articles

Not sure how often this issue arises, but I came across three articles that went through the AFC process today (CSI: Vegas (season 1), CSI: Vegas (season 2), and CSI: Vegas (season 3)), that clearly wouldn't be acceptable under the standards of MOS:TV. The merely consisted of a cast listing, episode summaries, and ratings, things that could easily be housed on the parent article, or should be split out to a LoE page, if needed, per MOS:TVSPLIT. There was no production info, critical reception, etc., that we would traditionally expect to see in a season article. I went ahead and draftified the first and second season articles, but am leaving the third article and LoE page for now, only because they had under construction templates on them. I'm sure to an average AFC reviewer, unaware of the expectations of a season article, it looked okay having ~20 citations, but they were strictly sources for viewing figures. Just wanted to drop a message here, because I'm sure if these three were created, there's probably others. I almost left a message on their talk page as well, but I'm not sure if it would help much. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

On further examination, all articles were created by the same shared IP address, and I also found three others. The Equalizer (season 2), The Equalizer (season 3), and The Equalizer (season 4), that all went through the AFC process as well. There's also The Equalizer (season 1), which has a very short development section that's strictly (main) casting and a sentence about the series order, with no information on recurring or guest starring roles, this could again, easily be housed in the parent article. All eight of these articles were accepted today. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree. I don't know what the criteria people at AfC use to approve, but they really should be more familiar with the topic area. Seasonal articles without season information that isn't found in the parent article, aren't that helpful. Gonnym (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Short descriptions for individual episode articles?

Any guidance for how short descriptions for articles for individual episodes of TV series should generally be formatted? As an example, the short description for "The Best of Both Worlds (Star Trek: The Next Generation)" reads "26th episode of 3rd season and the 1st episode of the 4th season" which is well beyond the 40-character limit recommended at WP:SD40. I'm not sure it's very informative for a reader either...it doesn't mention the name of the series, for instance, though granted in this case that's mentioned in the article name. Courtesy pinging Gonnym (talk · contribs) as the editor who inserted that SD, but I really am hoping for broader guidance here. DonIago (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Should just be just "<Show name> episode", with year and region disamb as needed Masem (t) 14:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Television episodes don't need to be touched most of the times as the infobox handles this automatically. 40 is not the hard limit so this is fine. Gonnym (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Could you explain why you don't feel Masem's suggestion is sufficient? DonIago (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The current style of episode short description has been in use since 2018 and is used on over 12k pages. If you wish to change them, start a discussion get consensus to change them all. Don't do it on a page by page basis (and never do this). Gonnym (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I would say this is such a discussion. Can you provide any links to the discussion in which the 'current style' was established, as per my initial post? DonIago (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Well then if this is the official discussion then I'm leaning oppose as the point is not to make the shortest possible description. Season and episode numbers important to the context of an episode. I'll see what other editors have to say and I might change my mind based on their arguments (no arguments have thus been presented other than length, which is a non-argument really). As for the discussion, I'm sure you can find them across the talk archives here and in the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
It's difficult for me to take your claims that the 'current style' has been in use since 2018 and is in use on 12k pages with a lot of weight when, when asked to provide the basis for the 'current style', you essentially tell me to go on a fishing expedition rather than providing direct evidence for your claims. I look forward to hearing what other editors might have to say on this matter. DonIago (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Short descriptions are meant to help distinguish pages on search results from other similarly named pages, not to fully identify a topic. That's why they should fit into 40 characters. Masem (t) 19:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:So Help Me Todd § Co-starring actors again

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:So Help Me Todd § Co-starring actors again. Editors are still needed to weigh in on this in order to reach a consensus. This is about co-starring actors. — YoungForever(talk) 14:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates § List or article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates § List or article. A discussion on whether season pages qualify as lists or articles for Featured content purposes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Early international release

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Early international release looking for some advice on how to handle this situation, posting here in case anyone not following that page has thoughts. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Rewriting MOS:TVIMAGE

I am proposing a rewrite of MOS:TVIMAGE per the WP:NFCC, replacing the recommended infobox image for main series articles from a poster/intertitle shot with the series logo or a free screenshot:

Image

Depending on the article in question, a different image should be used in the infobox, based on non-free content criteria:

  • For a main article, use the series logo or a freely-licensed still from the show itself. Per WP:NFCC#3b, non-free posters and intertitle shots from the series may not be used in the infobox, unless the poster or intertitle shot is itself the subject of commentary.

Feel free to suggest changes to this text. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This would be a pretty major change and impact a lot of articles. The point of the image in the infobox is to aid with identification of the topic, not just to support commentary in the article. Plus, these logo renders that often pop-up as free alternatives appear to be photoshopped or completely fabricated by random people and posted online. I think it is dubious to claim that these are genuinely free alternatives, and preferring them over a screenshot of the official on-screen logo has always seemed inappropriate to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Penguin (TV series) § Illogical and inconsistent arguments

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Penguin (TV series) § Illogical and inconsistent arguments. This is a dispute about listing multiple directors in the infobox. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Now, now, be clear about what is really going on. It is only being argued that multiple directors can be listed for limited series and miniseries, not for regular TV series. That is the point here and that is how it has always been done according to the overwhelming majority of the articles I've seen. Nicholas0 (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Please note that the discussion title should also reflect the actual topic of what's being discussed; "Illogical and inconsistent arguments" does not do this, hence the need for further explanation of the discussion's topic each time. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
But that is what the discussion is about. I have no opinion on whether or not directors should be listed in the infobox. I am simply pointing out that editors are using illogical and inconsistent arguments without looking at evidence. That is the real issue and no one has yet addressed this. Nicholas0 (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox television § Alternatives to writer and director parameters

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television § Alternatives to writer and director parameters. For a discussion on the possibility of adding a showrunner parameter to television-related infoboxes and limiting the use of writer and director parameters. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes average rating not appearing for TV shows

For several days now, the average critics reviews rating (example: 7.00 out of 10) has not been available for TV shows. I've searched but have not found information on whether the score details for TV has been removed permanently or temporarily. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 23:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This issue came up in March, so if it's still around it's probably here to stay. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 38#Rotten Tomatoes: Are average scores no longer visible? RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
It appears the average score is now visible again for TV shows. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Over-reliance on review aggregators

This is a topic that's been subject to a fair bit of discussion at MOSFILM (for example here), with (paraphrasing) a widespread view that some articles over-rely upon review aggregators, which inexperienced (and even some regular) editors use - often formulaically - as an easy substitute for the harder work of reading, citing, quoting and summarising a balanced mix of individual reviews.

As a consequence MOSFILM has wording that is tighter than we have on TV, including provisions such as "Describing a film with superlatives such as 'critically acclaimed' or 'box-office bomb' is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources" and in relation to RT and MC specifically: "the use of prevalent summary styles or templates is not required", and "To avoid giving these sites undue weight in such circumstances, consider whether it is best to place the data lower in the section". Both MOSFILM and MOSTV are clear that the aggregators are citable (subject to some provisos regarding sample size and regarding older and non-English productions) for "data about the ratio of positive to negative reviews" (my bold).

My proposal would be that we adopt similar, fuller, wording here at MOSTV.

A related issue is the use of the phrase "universal acclaim", which is commonly found in articles both as a general descriptor and as a quote from Metacritic, in the latter case often preceded by words in editorial voice such as "indicating". Self-evidently, "universally acclaimed" is a greater superlative than "critically acclaimed", and it is highly unlikely that a film or TV show would be acclaimed by absolutely every review, which would in any case be impossible to establish by citation. That a third party might describe a show as universally acclaimed is, I accept, potentially quotable, but is puff nevertheless. Metacritic presents a particular difficulty, since it uses this phrase for films or shows where the MC score is just 81%. With a score of 81% it is very likely that there are negative reviews (and certainly some that are not positive) and therefore the reality, whatever MC might say, is that such a show has not been universally acclaimed. Placing "indicating" in editorial voice before such a descriptor is simply misleading, since that score doesn't indicate anything of the sort. Some articles are more careful, and use phrases such as "Metacritic suggests..." or "Metacritic claims..." or "according to Metacritic this indicates", all of which are much better in terms of accuracy, but nevertheless remain presentations of a puff descriptor that doesn't add any actual data to the article (being merely an opinion) - which according to our MOS is the purpose for which the aggregators are supposed to be restricted.

My further proposal would be that we either explicitly restrict the use of MC strictly to the data (being the score), and not the supplementary descriptor, or alternatively we advise that where the MC descriptor is used, editors should avoid wording in editorial voice that gives the impression of confirming the MC opinion. Personally I would like to see the phrase "univeral(ly) acclaim(ed)" omitted altogether, or used with great caution and only where the review scores are exceptionally high, ideally 100%. MapReader (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

TV seems to have fewer issues with exceptional claims being made in the lead, e.g. fewer discussions, so could just refer to policy like WP:EXCEPTIONAL. To be clear, your quote about "undue weight in such circumstances" is about "films released before the websites existed". Film has more issues with aggregators being used retrospectively than TV does so more necessary there, doesn't seem like a problem for TV unless you have any examples? MOS:FILMCRITICS doesn't say anything about sample size and non-English productions?
Strongly oppose changing the standard practice across film TV videogames and music projects regarding Metacritic. "Indicating" in same sentence as the Metacritic data, and with quotation marks around the words like "universal acclaim" seems sufficient to be clear we're quoting Metacritic and not using WP voice. The well-known and reliable source Metacritic decides what the bands are, our opinion isn't important. Alternatives to "indicating" like you list are unnecessarily less concise. Including the text helps provide context to readers less aware of the aggregators. Previous discussion on this at User talk:MapReader#Metacritic text if anyone wants to read that. Indagate (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with aligning the wording here with what MOSFILM says. One big difference that we may want to note is that the number of reviews aggregated is often way less for TV shows/seasons/episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The point is that “indicating” is commonly, but wrongly, put in editorial voice, outside of the quotation. It is Metacritic that says a rating of 81% indicates ‘universal acclaim’, not Wikipedia. And very clearly if 19% of the reviews were neutral or negative, the acclaim was not universal. MapReader (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Again, it seems clear enough that even with indicating out of the quote marks, that's we're saying Metacritic says the quote based on previous part of sentence and quotation marks. Whether 19% is universal is debatable but irrelevant for whether to include as a quote because that's what the source says. Indagate (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree that it is usually clear that the "indicating" is according to Metacritic's own metrics. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I work in public service news where we have to be very attuned to any editorialising, however implicit it may be, and to avoid adopting value systems of any sort which do not align with our mission, however unconsciously. For what it's worth, in my view MapReader makes a valid point. WP at its best embodies public service values - I hope that's the intent. If not, disregard this comment. Aggregator sites are commercial, not academic or critical, and, I'd suggest, are best used judiciously. Hyperbole reduces authority, even when simply quoted. "Universal acclaim" for a rating of 81% is hyperbole. A firm policy in this regard - even where such sites are used less frequently, as in TV - strikes me as sound judgment. Anyways, I think it's great you all are so invested and engage passionately on this issue. Jack C (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Essentially the same discussion is concurrently happening at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to support "positive", "mixed", "negative". These discussions need to come to the same general conclusion. For my part, I will say that WP using terms like "bomb", "blockbuster", "acclaimed" (much less "universal acclaim"!), "iconic", "classic", etc., is highly inappropriate (MOS:WTW, WP:NPOV, MOS:TONE, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, etc.). In some unusual cases we could possibly use such a term, but only if it meets the WP:EXTRAORDINARY sourcing criteria; i.e., it would need to be something that is agreed upon among a strong preponderance of the major media critics who have addressed the work, not just found as peacock (or condemnatory) "purple prose" found in some reviewer's comment, nor just applied across an enormous swath of works by the misleadingly simplistic and exaggeratory ratings labelling of review aggregators. What's happening here in large part is a confusion between "acclaim" (or whatever) as a reliably sourceable critical-assessment label, a fact we can research and source (like we do with other questionable labeling, e.g. "freedom fighters" vs. "terrorists", etc.), on the one hand; but on the other, use of terms like "acclaim" as buzzwords in the iffy rating schemata of a couple of websites like MetaCritic and Rotten Tomatoes. By way of analogy, if I decide to rate things I like as "dog" or "cat" for "bad" or "good" because I like cats better, it doesn't mean that anything I rate as "cat" is actually, in fact, a cat. This is a general semantics error, basically, of confusing a label in one domain for an actual fact in another domain simply because they are represented by the same text string ("acclaim" or "cat").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: The key benefit of Metacritic is to report the set of reviews and how it is broken down. If that is done upfront, saying how many were positive, mixed, or negative, I don't have much of a problem with explicitly in-text attribution of "universal acclaim". If we see 30 positive reviews and 2 mixed, and Metacritic says "universal acclaim", we know that their label is hyperbolic. I don't object to paraphrasing it, though, like saying "widely praised" or "highly regarded" or "much lauded". I tend to do that anyway in the lead section with the article body having the specific label that Metacritic applied to the set of reviews. If we want to do that in both the body and the lead, I would be fine with it. Plus, with Rotten Tomatoes (and its unfortunately simplistic positive-or-negative metric) also in play, that coverage also shows X negative reviews compared to Y positive reviews. To highlight an example, Gravity has 49 reviews on Metacritic, all positive, where it has 362 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes with 16 being negative. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agree with Jack C and SMcCandlish for the most part. Generally, we want to avoid the appearance of unnecessarily elevating labels and ratings, even when they are not technically being claimed in Wikipedia voice. We don't spend any real estate discussing or explaining RT's "fresh" vs "rotten", so I never quite understood why we were so quick to quote the categorical labels on MC. Perhaps we convinced ourselves that RT's were WP:JARGON and therefore MC's were more acceptable? Although it may seem innocuous to quote MC's labels, without proper context and explanation, they could be interpreted by the average non-editor as, "Hey, this film received universal acclaim, wow!" More care should probably be taken here, and certainly more discussion about it can't hurt.
    Another thing to consider are TV shows that span multiple seasons. I don't frequent this realm too often, but I've often noticed that RT gathers a bulk of its reviews for the 1st season and sometimes after only the pilot/premiere episode. It's quite possible that opinions change later in the show's run, but this is not generally reflected in the scores cited early on. Correct me if I'm wrong. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
    Also worth remembering that our current MoS says the aggregators "….are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews". Yet so many TV (and film) articles cite not only the data, but also Metacritic’s opinion, which isn’t data at all. It’s bad enough that it’s mentioned; worse that the customary standard wording ("indicating", in editorial voice) implies that WP is accepting MC’s subjective, and frequently inaccurate, classification. MapReader (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Summary & proposals: There are useful comments in this discussion, and perhaps I can try and summarise into a proposal:

A) The suggestion that we add into MOSTV the additional wording from FILM - as quoted in italics in my opening post above - appears uncontroversial?

B) I would propose adding "universal acclaim" into the examples of discouraged "superlatives" within the first of the additions: "universal acclaim" is clearly more superlative than "critically acclaimed", and its inclusion would clarify that the term shouldn't be used in editorial voice without support from multiple citations.

C) My preference would then be for an additional provision, to be added after the existing statement that the aggregators should be used for data about the ratio of positive to negative reviews: "The Metacritic 'indications' should not be used, as these represent a subjective categorization rather than data." (proposal C1) This follows on logically from the stress within both TV and FILM that the aggregators' purpose is to provide data about the balance of reviews. However, recognising that this may be a change greater than some editors might prefer, as an alternative (proposal C2) I would suggest "Where Metacritic indications are quoted, it should be made clear that these are Metacritic's view and not the article's, and the term "universal acclaim" should only be included where supported by an MC score of 100%". MapReader (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of overlap between MOS:FILM and MOS:TV, given the similarities between the two mediums. I think it's generally understood that the guidance on MOS:FILM tends to apply to MOS:TV as well, and vice versa. We don't necessarily need to duplicate the wording on both pages, but I wouldn't oppose doing so if editors desire. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion at FILM did conclude that too many editors over-rely on the aggregators, and taking the same stance at TV does appear sensible. And would be supported by the above discussion, as far as it goes. But views from other media-article editors would be helpful to establish whether we have a broadly-based consensus? MapReader (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I will go ahead and make changes A and B. Some discussion of the remaining proposal would be helpful:

  • Proposal C1: "The Metacritic 'indications' should not be used, as these represent a subjective categorization rather than data.", or
  • Proposal C2: "Where Metacritic indications are quoted, it should be made clear that these are Metacritic's view and not the article's, and the term 'universal acclaim' should only be included where supported by an MC score of 100%" MapReader (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah agreed with A and B, consistent with Film project, doesn't seem as necessary for TV but no harm. C1, Metacritic indications aren't subjective because based on boundaries, help describe the data for people less aware. C2, that's fair but words like "indicating" is good enough, doesn't need to be overly explicit. We shouldn't omit the description based on our personal opinion on what constitutes universal acclaim, we should either include the description or not, shouldn't change depending on what it is. Indagate (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I’d respond that MC is being subjective in categorising situations where 81% of reviews are positive as ‘universal acclaim’, because that obviously leaves up to 19% of reviews that were not, and so by any objective standard the acclaim cannot legitimately be described as ‘universal’. MapReader (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a significant difference, IMO, between "indicating universal acclaim" and "categorized the score as universal acclaim". The latter provides context and continues to show that this is Metacritic's rating system, while the former can cause confusion as to whom is doing the indication. Is that in Wikipedia voice or is that an indication being done by Metacritic? It is a valid point, despite some editors here saying they are not confused by it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have dried up, but with a consensus that articles should avoid using superlatives and be clear about attribution where they are quoted. I will therefore add to the MoS the first part of C2, which reflect consensus, viz: “ Where Metacritic indications are quoted, it should be made clear that these are Metacritic's view and not the article's”. It remains my view that there is a case for going further and advising against the use of a term like “universal acclaim”, particularly where it is obviously inaccurate according to the data being cited. More views always welcome… MapReader (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't think there's strong enough consensus about changing the Metacritic indications, MoS should have strong consensus. Should be consistent across projects like Film and TV too. Indagate (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Changes should not be made to an MoS based on if the discussion seems to have dried up. That's not a consensus. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Agree as well. Despite some generally good discussion here, I don't think we can say with any high degree of confidence there is a consensus to make any changes at this stage. I think there is general agreement that MC's indications should be properly attributed, but there is disagreement over what that means exactly. As a result, adding the proposed text to the MoS won't change the current behavior in articles.
MapReader, you may want to consider creating a new section (or subsection) that focuses only on this aspect: proper in-text attribution for Metacritic's rating system. If that continues to go nowhere, consider an RfC to solicit outside opinion. The concern is mainly a grammatical one that any editor outside of the WikiProjects can easily weigh in on. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion drying up is the reason for drawing it to some sort of conclusion; the consensus for the modest changes made so far is above in the comments from Jack C (talk · contribs), SMcCandlish (talk · contribs), Erik (talk · contribs) and GoneIn60 (talk · contribs), in addition to my own. The suggestion that articles should make clear what’s editorial and what’s third party opinion shouldn’t be controversial. The remaining element of my proposal concerns the use of “universal acclaim” by MC when 15% of critical reviews can be negative; it remains my view that this is inappropriate and will start a separate discussion to seek views. MapReader (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, let's say you add the first part of C2 as you stated. What will that accomplish? Indagate and adamstom97 have already stated that they believe indicating "universal acclaim" complies, because "universal acclaim" is in quotes. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
RfCing specific questions might be advisable at this point, since we've had an in-depth discussion, but it has failed to come to a certain and actionable consensus, yet something needs to happen here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Star Wars episode articles

I have started discussions about some episode articles that I feel should probably be merged or sent to draft. They are at Talk:The Mandalorian season 3#Episode articles and Talk:List of Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes#Episode articles if any TV editors here are interested in contributing. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Season article notability

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Season article notability. Editors are still needed to weigh in on this. This is about season article notability. — YoungForever(talk) 13:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television/Archive_14&oldid=1244206781"