Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

TVPLOT reverted

While I respect the process that a handful of Wikipedians have engaged in to revise the PLOT section, the results are inappropriate for two reasons:

1) MOS is not about article content. MOS are about how particular content should be presented, and to the extent that they proscribe content (i.e., requiring the deletion of plot summaries from TV season articles that have episode summaries) they are improper.

2) MOS changes applying to broad swaths of the 'pedia, even if legitimate, should be discussed broadly, advertised at WP:CENT, and affected Wikiprojects notified. While I haven't had time to review the actual advertising in detail, a cursory review of the MOS changes shows fewer than a dozen active editors hashing out an agreement, without effort to involve others, seek dissenting opinions, or to validate that affected editors consent to the proposed changes. That's not how consensus works.

I see that my reversions have ALREADY been reverted, without any apparent efforts to listen to the objection that I'm in the process of raising. That's disappointing. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion was open for 2 months, open to any editor, and advertised to the relevant WikiProjects (as the discussion opened just today on a different section has been by the founding editor). Consensus is often reached with fewer than a dozen editors, pick a few AfD discussions and you would see that. Not sure your criticism is valid in this case -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Where is this discussion you guys are referring to? Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Here -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's a weird-looking discussion, with the whole page of many sections close as one, with comment including "finally settled on the use of proposal 4c, crafted by myself". That's as far as I've read, but having such a mess closed by the proposer is highly irregular. I'd suggest backing off and trying a different approach. Dicklyon (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Is that representation proportional to the impact of the changes? I don't think so. I don't blame participating editors for thinking that it was, but to the extent that it's causing certain editors to delete entire paragraphs from recently-promoted featured content an hour after the new MOS wording goes live suggests that the entire discussion has been an echo chamber at odds with the rest of Wikipedia's editorial process. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It does seem wild that an MOS section would cause so much action on content decisions. That's not what MOS is about. Dicklyon (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) In fact, we have one of the participants acknowledging that participation for the MOS change was dwindling "I think it is just up too the few of us still actively involved here to make a decision." right before the discussion was closed. I think that's pretty telling that y'all should have anticipated pushback. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll perhaps let @Favre1fan93: defend the process, but the MoS doesn't limit what content can be inserted, just limits redundency. Why does the article you have issue with require BOTH a season summary table AND prose summary of the season. It is the same information presented twice in the same space. Why do you think both are required? -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Game of Thrones (season 1) the effort was made to paint in broad strokes for the summary, then flesh out the individual moves in the episode summary. Again, I note that it was promoted to FLC less than one month ago: no editor reviewing that list found the two sections to be redundant to each other. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Most content on Wikipedia is summary-style. It starts with a rudimentary summary in the lead, then gives a more detailed summary in a subject section, then in-depth summaries for specific subtopics afterwards. Many articles are covered like this. Would the proposer suggest broadening this measure across the entire wiki? There are also cases where information may be presented in a timeline and by subject in the same article, should those also be removed since they are the same content? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Can I get some clarity on which Wikiprojects were notified? I work in multiple television series' articles and am involved in the relevant wikiprojects (see my user page), and received no notification. I don't recall seeing an advert for either the initial effort, nor floating the proposed decision for vetting. It's reasonably easy to miss certain things, so I would really like to know how many opportunities I DID have to see this proposed MOS change before it was thrust upon the articles I curate. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

See here. I don't see any television related WikiProjects on your user page by the way. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The one I'm thinking of is Wikipedia:WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, under which aegis Game of Thrones TV series related articles are collaboratively improved. So, of those notices, only one at VPP nearly six months ago would I have had any chance at seeing. Were there any more current notifications made? Perhaps ones dealing with the specific changes being proposed? Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That is just ridiculous Jclemens. If you are going to give us this accusatory, holier-than-thou attitude then perhaps you should pay more attention when quoting other editors. By the time I said that, the discussion on what changes needed to be made had already ended and consensus had been formed. Those of us interested in working out the nitpicky final wording were struggling to come to a compromise and it was suggested that we leave the issue until later. I found that suggestion to be problematic, and came up with a new proposal to help us finish off our discussion on the minutia of copy-editing. Searching through an extensive discussion that took place between many editors over several months to find a specific quote that supports your argument out of context is not going to do good for anyone I'm afraid. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Adamstom, my sincere apologies if you feel personally attacked. In fact, I was trying to read the discussion from the end, backwards when I came upon your quote. Again, a bunch of good-faith editors made a decision that amounted to a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that is 1) out of scope for an MOS, and 2) had insufficient participation and notification. Go read the ArbCom links in my original complaint if you don't believe me. The unfortunate consequence is brought to the fore because AlexTheWhovian decided to decimate 18 separate TV season articles based on nothing more than the recently-adopted MOS. He participated in the discussion, and then decided to take broad-based action without discussion on the basis of it. If there's someone you might ought to be miffed with, might I suggest he rather than me? Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jclemens: That is a very specific WikiProject in fairness. The TVMOS applies to all television shows, it was not directed at Game of Thrones articles. As for more recent notice, scroll this page up and you'll note I asked for comments on final wording to the section less than 2 weeks ago. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep. And I don't read MOS talk pages looking for changes. I read the MOS'es themselves as I format things for GA or FLC or whatnot. I don't expect a MOS change to result in wholesale deletion of content. I think that's a reasonable expectation; don't you? Jclemens (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Having the same content presented twice in the same article is redundant. Affected articles don't lose content, they just change the way they present the information - once instead of twice -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll refer you to my comment above where I note that last month's FLC reviewers did not find the content redundant. But regardless, the two objections are NOT satisfied: It's not up to an MOS to decide content, and it's not up to a handful of editors to make changes in isolation that they (or at least one of them) know will cause disruption to existing content. The change needs to be reverted, proposed for discussion, and implemented once legitimate concerns have been addressed. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just to comment, I think there is a valid point that WP:MOSTV mixes style with content issue, but it is not alone in that, as WP:MOSFILM also does that. And as these are listed as MOSes rather than project guidelines (eg such as WP:VG/GL for video games), there probably should have been a CENT/RFC that was advertized more across the board (even though I personally was aware of it). And given the actions AlexTheWhovian has done (who I am sure is doing this in good faith but very mechanically given this is a MOS), it shows the damages of placing highly subjective aspects as a MOS rather than a guideline as MOSes get treated like policy by some editors. --MASEM (t) 07:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Finally getting around to replying to this, so here is my view. It seems that it's the one editor that disagrees with this, and begins discussions after they've reverted the content, with extremely patronizing tones both in this discussion and on my talk page. It seems that they have issues with no being notified personally, even though the main article summarizing the discussions has a list of every WikiProject that was notified - it is not the fault of editors discussing the content that they did not receive the notification. Other editors have commented "that's a weird-looking discussion" "That's as far as I've read", apparently finding this as a basis to disagree with the updates given that they weren't a part of the discussions. Did you have an issue with it only being a hour after the discussion closed? Would you have rather that I had waited a day, a week, a month, a year? There were enough editors contributing to the discussion to form a consensus on a topic that was up for debate for months. Yes, "broad strokes" have been applied to multiple articles, in which the editors describes this as decimating articles that he curates, but not all Method of Styles are identical - some cover how an article should be display, some cover what could be contained within an article; this particular one covers more the latter. So, all of this seems to be the disagreements of one editor who believes that the edits should not have gone ahead, simply because they were not aware of the existence of the discussions. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Alex, thanks for showing up here to discuss. The reason I don't follow MOS discussions are outlined above: that's not what an MOS should enable, and changes with a large impact require a large discussion. I'm not sure how many times I can repeat that I think the handful of you who were working on this started in good faith, and yet all of you are reacting with defensiveness and hostility towards politely phrased criticism. On a personal note, did you expect that the changes to Game of Thrones series articles would be uncontroversial? Did you consider the recent FLC when re-reverting my change to Season 1? No editor from outside the narrow circle of discussion has agreed with your (collective) process and conclusions. I am going to bed now, and will see what the rest of the community thinks about this once I have an opportunity to review it again. Again: the scope is wrong, the notification is insufficient, and the application of the new changes was uncalled for. Jclemens (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The issue here is that we have done our best to attract attention to this discussion, and I don't think we can be faulted for not sending personalised messages to every individual Wikipedian. I also think the discussion has been carried out respectfully of its impact on the wider encyclopaedia—it's not like a small group of like-minded individuals got together and made some big brash decisions about what should happen to articles we aren't even involved in.

As for the claim that we introduced rules on content in a style guide, the only such statements were already in the MOS: don't include trivia and scene-by-scene breakdowns, etc., don't sensor spoilers, and you can only have a plot summary if there is the real-world content to back it up; that is all based on other Wikipedia rules that are important for new editors to learn. Having them here, where many new editors come to learn how to put together articles, seem logical to me.

Your issue with the removal of double plot summaries seems a bit silly really. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Glad to. Changes with a large impact need a large discussion? That is exactly what this was. The discussion section alone, disregarding the proposal section, went for 2 months and ended at over 115K characters. If that's not long, I'm not sure what is. We are replying with "defensiveness and hostility" given that you immediately reverted the changes an hour after they were implemented, after the discussion took place for two months. If you disagreed with it, you should have started this discussion without reverting the content, and waited for the result of the discussion. Obviously, the edits would be controversial to editors that either disagreed with it or did not take part in the discussion, but a reason was provided for the edits, and then (again) discussions should have been started based on their views. The circle of discussion is anything but narrow. It only appears to be narrow because you didn't know if it, and many discussions have been contributed wit a loss less editors before. The scope is fine, the notifications were completely sufficient, and the application of the new changes were based off of two months of discussion, and were therefore completely called for. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I also disagree with this. To have two editors against this in two days is more than the proposer gathered in support of it in the same period, with (apparently) notices to all involved Projects. After three days without responses, the proposer pinged 8 editors who then made up the majority on the straw poll. How were these eight people chosen? Does it make the consensus group rather selective, as an invitational for people already predisposed to the changes? The proposer said that this was to "speed up discussion". Could it also be said that this rushed the discussion (during the December holidays no less), limiting participation by the wider community? Not to mention the effect of gathering a group to put a big line of Supports at the beginning of the straw poll.

AlexTheWhovian, I don't blame you for wanting to implement these changes after campaigning for them for so long. But the guideline says articles should either have A or B. I don't feel that gives you license to go around to a number of articles and unilaterally decide that they should all have B. The editors for those articles should get a chance to discuss and decide whether they want A or B themselves; this would also give them a chance to tweak the content in light of the change.

On another note, the TVPLOT update says "Just having a plot summary is not allowed", going on to explain that a plot summary must establish context for later content (eg: production, reception). It also says "If the plot summaries are moved to a separate list of episodes" suggesting this is a valid option. However, standalone episode-lists don't generally have any other content, so is that really a valid option? Doesn't that contradict the summary-only prohibition? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I will provide some context to all of this as best I can. Many editors of the Television project felt the wording of MOS:TV did not accurately reflect current editing practices and style, along with wording that was confusing and contradictory at times. Many discussions continued to popup either on this talk page or WT:TV to discuss various parts of MOS:TV. It was decided that the best course of action would be to examine each section, and update or reformat the text as necessary. You can find all information regarding the background, objective and notification of this endeavor, here. All related Projects were given notices to this objective, with regular updates of new discussions being posted here and at WT:TV. (There is a notice box at the very top of the talk, as well as the first discussion section dedicated to this). Additionally, more notices were/are added to the talk articles when necessary. If WP:CENT would have a better place to also add notice of this, I will take partial blame in not doing that, but all notification attempts and what was done, were done with good intentions to make as many editors aware of the discussion, not only a select few as some here seem to be feeling. As for edits made because of the changes, I don't know if it was correct to brashly remove chunks of established text. Obviously the consensus was reached for these new guidelines (which frankly clear up confusion from the old text on word counts and what is generally a good way to present plot), but that doesn't mean that established text should automatically be outright removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to defend Alex's 'revert/delete first, think later' approach to editing, and I did join this discussion only after the content was decided, but not its presentation. I must however observe that Reidgreg neatly identifies the potential drawback of describing both the instruction and the explanation together in prose text, in that it is all too easy to start a debate about whether one fully accords with the other IanB2 (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I am in whole-cloth agreement with Jclemens (talk · contribs) and Reidgreg (talk · contribs). This undertaking to overhaul a large element of the Manual of Style that affects 14% of the 50 most popular articles (2.27% of all Wikipedia articles) has garnered participation from 18 editors (0.013% of active registered accounts in the last 30 days). I went to the Star Trek: Discovery article for the most-recent information on that series, and from there I thought to check out its talk page; it took that happenstance for me to stumble across this endeavor. I haven't time to read up on the consensus of 18 editors right now, so I can't speak to what they've specifically decreed, but doesn't a venture with such scope deserve (or even require) the input of an equally-august number of contributors? — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering this discussion has been widely advertised since June of last year, I don't think all these accusations of not notifying editors are fair. fourthords, only editors interested in this discussion have to participate, so trying to fill a percentage quota seems odd. Reidgreg, the pings in the discussion were courtesy pings (as can be seen) to notify all editors who had been taking part in the discussion already that something of note had happened. For editors not yet involved in the discussion, new notifications were posted elsewhere (such as here, as can be seen above) to let other editors know what was going on. Concerning the "Just having a plot summary is not allowed" bit, that has always been Wikipedia policy due to US copyright laws (based on a previous court ruling). All we did was re-write it to make it more clear for newer editors who often create articles that are solely plot information. In regards to separate list of episodes, they are for articles on TV series; the only reason they should be split off to a separate article is if the size warrants it. It is not our fault if people tend to split off these plot-only articles prematurely.

Ultimately, the biggest concern I see here is the way that Alex implemented these changes. I think this could have been done more tastefully, perhaps with a brief discussion at talk pages to explain the situation. I believe he is right to enforce the MOS, seeing as how, as I have myself been told recently, making articles compliant with the MOS "does not actually require any discussion". However, this is a trickier situation given that plot summaries at series or season articles could have one of two formats. This is something we need to take under advisement moving forward, along with more extensive attempts to notify other editors of our discussions. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You said that "only editors interested in this discussion have to participate," and I don't disagree. However, a corollary should be, "every editor affected by the outcome should have the opportunity to participate." Only 18 editors had contributed to the discussion as of my previous comment (and only about half of those were active—at best); I don't have the data at hand (though I'll look later to try and back myself up), but I'm certain that nine editors are not representative of the number of interested/affected active Wikipedians who edit articles under the umbrella of this MOS. That is the biggest concern. — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, every editor affected by the outcome should have the opportunity to participate. That is why we have attempted to let as many editors as possible know about this discussion since it began months ago. It sucks that we weren't able to advertise to every editor who wanted to have a say, but we still tried. Now you have let us know that we weren't as successful as we had thought, we will be able to try harder next time. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for reacting badly. (While I missed the boat on the poll, I'd been doing a copyedit marathon on a number of articles affected by it.) And thanks for the replies. (I don't understand them all, but thanks.) I'm still not sure about plot summaries in episode list articles. What I'm getting is: They shouldn't exist. But if they do, then the main article should only have 100 words per season, even though the summaries in the episode list articles could and should be deleted. (Presumably when the prohibited summaries are deleted, the main article can go back to 500 words.)

I think I found a compromise for the season/episode plots. "Information summarized in the lead should always be given due weight, so if an article has twice as much information on writing the series as it does filming it, the lead should also emphasize the writing." Game of Thrones (season 6), for example, has about 1800 words of plot summary in a 6500 word episode, or about 25% of the article's content. So one-quarter of the lead, or one of four paragraphs, can be used for an overview of the plot. Would that be acceptable? Reidgreg (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

In regards to GoT S6 example you provide, it complies as far as I can tell with the new TVPLOT section. It has its plot detailed in episode summaries, and doesn't contain a seperate prose summary of the season's plot. I don't see any issue as currently written. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Whats new?, that is because Alex just removed a separate plot section that the article had in addition to the episode table. It was Alex goin around and enforcing the new guideline that brought all these new editors here.

Reidgreg, here it sounds like you are saying that adding a second plot summary should be fine if the plot is covered even more in the lead to reflect that. I don't follow that logic. The reason we changed the MOS to say either a table or a prose summary is because there is no article that requries both. If you break down the entire plot of a season, episode by episode, why do you also need a plot summary of the season? That makes no sense. And this goes back to the idea that articles should only have plot summaries to support the real world information, which I reiterate is stipulated by US law. The thing with separate list of episodes is that they are often split off from articles when they really shouldn't. The idea with splitting them off is that when an article has enough content, season articles will likely also be split off, so the separate list of episodes won't necessarily be an article about plot. For instance, List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't what I was trying to say. The article is still 25% plot, and that isn't covered in the lead. So in accordance with due weight for the lead, would it be MOS-compliant (and not in danger of being a derivative work) to have 25% of the lead (one paragraph, 3-4 sentences) be an overview of the season plot? This would essentially mean putting a shortened version of the old (deleted) plot section into the lead (while adjusting other lead elements to reflect relative prominence in the article). I'm not asking about recreating a plot section, but putting a shortened version of that content into the lead. Apparently, IanB2 has done something in this vein with something called a "log line"? I'll reply to the rest of this at the bottom. Reidgreg (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Where we stand now

As I read the discussion, What's New, adamstom97, AlexTheWhovian, and Favre1fan93 have endorsed the process that resulted in the TVPLOT change. Favre1fan93 and IanB2 have expressed reservations on the MOS implementation by AlexTheWhovian. Myself, Dicklyon, Masem, Reidgreg, and Fourthords have expressed concerns about the MOS update process and/or the outcome.

Thus, I would say that consensus that the MOS update process was appropriate is not established, leaning towards rejection. More definitively, the consensus seems to be that AlexTheWhovian's unilateral implementation without discussion is rejected by consensus.

I believe the proper next step is for AlexTheWhovian to revert his changes to each of the affected articles while proper discussion of the MOS process and implementation is (belatedly) continued. Does anyone disagree with that summary? Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

So, you're saying that a two-month discussion with 18 editors and a solid consensus built between the involved editors was not valid enough, but a discussion that you started, that's lasted just over a single day and far less editors, that is what should be forced instead. So, yes, I disagree entirely and wholeheartedly. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree also. You complained earlier that a consensus was built among a small group of a dozen or so editors and that should be rejected, now you argue an even smaller group of editors has reached a consensus here in under 24 hours? You need to set out clearly what your sepcific issues are with the changes, why you don't feel they are adequate, and how you would propose to change things and why that would be better. With respect, it boils down at the moment to complaining you weren't part of the initial discussion, but I still don't understand why you think an article should include the same information (plot in prose form and episodic summary form) twice in the same article. Make a case. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? The fact that a plurality of editors involved in the after-the-fact discussion has rejected the changes after a day or two is evidence that there never was an actual consensus to change the MOS in the first place. You had a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among a group of MOS-interested editors, but that doesn't make it binding on everyone. The fact that you spent so much time coming up with something at odds with current practice is tragic, and should serve as a case example of how NOT to go about making big changes: big changes need congruent participation. As I read the above discussion, it hadn't even occurred to any of the participating editors that others beyond the general television and MOS arenas even needed to be notified. That sort of insular thinking is avoidable if one keeps the focus on the fact that the MOS is the servant of Wikipedia, not its master. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the others that you are being hypocritical, Jclemens, and I also question this idea that there was no consensus for the overall update. Though we were a small group, yes, the editors who realised that the MOS required reassessment were all experienced TV editors who understood that there had been consistent issues with this MOS regarding updating and interpreting it. After four major discussions to identify any common issues and areas that the MOS could be improved, all the editors who we had managed to notify and were interested in the discussion had reached four consensuses. Each of those led to a major change of the MOS, and none have been challenged or questioned. It is only now, almost six months after the discussions began, and almost seven months after the idea was first proposed, that someone has taken issue with the fifth discussion.

I think where we actually stand now, is that it has become clear that we could be doing more to notify editors about this overhaul, that Alex's brash actions were less-than-ideal, and that there are some editors who missed the last overhaul discussion and would like to have their say now. So, moving forward, we can try harder to notify editors of this process; we can strive to be more diplomatic and courteous when enforcing the updated MOS, including discussing the reason for the change with editors at a specific page before going ahead with updating it; and I'm sure we could all have a civil conversation here about the new text, and the issues that some who have just joined us have with it. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I would welcome a separate discussion on how to move forward. Here's all we need to fix from my perspective "but an article should generally not have both an episode table and a prose summary". How about that? Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and as an aside: enforcement is a terrible word to use with respect to MOS'es, and is at odds with the most recent ArbCom ruling on their purpose and scope. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

What I don't like about the current section is that it's not as clear that the plot section does not usually require references. Simply stating "Plot summaries may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given (per WP:PSTS)." is not as clear as the previous of wording of "Since TV episodes are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable. [...] Since the episode is the primary source and the infobox provides details about it, citing the episode explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Flyer, the reason a lot of helpful explanation was removed from the section was that there were some editors who were totally against it and felt that the less explanation the better. I was opposed to that sentiment and fought to keep as much explanation in, especially regarding the copyright issues and referencing stuff, but the final wording that has been added is a compromise. Jclemens, I agree that enforcement was probably not the best term to use; there is no need to get all technical and pedantic about what the MOS is for. On your suggestion of adding "generally", can you give some reasoning for that so we can discuss? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think that is a fair description of the position, Adam? The issue here is the original decision (against both plot and episode summaries), not its presentation. And, insofar as there is ambiguity in the final text, it stems from the explanation added back in - within days of publication we have people debating what some of the sentences in the long fourth paragraph actually mean, just as I feared. And, sadly, some editors do seem to see it as their role to go round enforcing the MoS, rather than focusing on its use as a tool to enhance the quality of our content IanB2 (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, I don't see how keeping out explicit wording that the plot section usually does need references is an improvement. We've had issues when it comes to editors thinking that our plot sections need references. See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 62#How much of "plot summaries" get a pass from WP:V and WP:OR? for one example, and the archives here and here for more. The current section doesn't even note that references usually are not needed. It simply states, "Plot summaries may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given (per WP:PSTS)." That wording makes it seem like we need to source the plot section with primary sources. The guideline should instead be clear that the work itself is the primary source and that inline references usually are not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I would agree Jclemens, in what cases do you feel it is OK to have both? I still don't understand your case. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Simple: in a complex show where there are a myriad of plot threads, like Game of Thrones. Both a season plot summary and episode summaries make sense and help reader comprehension far more than they represent pointless overlap. I'm OK with most shows having one or the other, but a Procrustean solution like the one adopted does damage to existing articles if implemented wholesale and without discretion. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

this is the version of the page with both plot and episode summaries; this is the version with the plot summary cut out without any attempt to integrate the content. Which particular parts of the season plot summary do folks find objectionable? Which were so egregious the entire section needed to be cut out without discussion? Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jclemens you are rightly upset that a whole section of editors' work has been deleted without explanation or any attempt to integrate appropriate content back into other sections of the article. The same happened on other articles and I had to go back and rescue relevant text, so I understand your perspective. Nevertheless, looking at your example, ISTM that the relevant information needed to place the series in context could be set out in a paragraph within the lead - indeed the sentences at the beginning of the old 'plot' section are almost identical to part of the lead section already (and the stuff about adaptation of the book doesn't really belong in 'plot' at all?) The user of the page will want to understand the scenario and high level plot line, before they start to read what happened in episode one. But what makes you think the lead section can't do this? IanB2 (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to quote WP:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." So, where, exactly would the plot summary go if not in the plot section? Because without it somewhere, we can't summarize it for the lead. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ian makes fair points about the GoT S6 article, the lead doesn't really contain the log line for the season which is permitted (noted in both WP:TVPLOT and WP:TVLEAD) which can summarise the season. Additionally, the main GoT articles should have a season summary of up to 100 words per season which again can include this information. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I was actually referring to GoT1, which was the example linked above. But I have had a go at editing the lead section of GOT6 just to see if it can be done again. We now have two examples of the preferred format - GOT6 with a lead, episodes, and no plot summary, and GOT1 where I have left the former plot section in place as well, but edited the lead as per the new MoS. IanB2 (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@IanB2: Appreciate your attempts, certiainly very welcome. But on the S6 article, the lead is, in my view, still a little long. It should essentially be a sentence or two and I'm not sure you've cut down things quite enough. That paragraph is more akin to the 100 word summary that should appear on the main article page to summarise the season plot -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Whats new?:Ok, fair enough, maybe I will return to it again later. We have at least saved over 2,200 characters; progress is progress.. ;) IanB2 (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@IanB2: No problem, and no rush either. These things will indeed take some time. It's not all about less characters, just less redundancy within an article. Appreciate your impressive efforts! -- Whats new?^(talk) 10:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@JClemens Whilst I see the plot section is now back on the page, I have had a go at copyediting the lead of GOT1 to include some additional information on the plot scenario, which I would expect to see to position me for the episode summaries. With some judicious editing of the rest of the lead, it adds only 168 characters to its length. See what you think? Personally I would suggest that the expanded lead together with the episode summaries should make the plot section as is pretty much redundant? (And, in response to your Q, the lead is summarising the plot set out in the episodes) IanB2 (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other on your change (other than you've adopted UK time notation for a US English article. :-)), but this sort of back and forth and collaborative editing is how MOS changes should be vetted: compare a MOS change to recently promoted featured content, see if there's a conflict, and, if so, work to understand and resolve it before moving forward with a style change that would, if approved, retroactively de-promote that featured content. Jclemens (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

So Jclemens, are you now satisfied that the plot section is not required when there is a logline-style season summary in the lead, and plot of every episode following in the table. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No, not at all. But I am happy that Ian is doing his best to demonstrate collaboratively how things can be made right. While I acknowledge that there are other concerns that prompted the change, I think that the either/or thinking is still a solution looking for a problem and should not be absolute in the MOS. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Well can you please actually explain what you specific issue is with it, which you are yet to do. You're asking for a discussion, I'm discussing with you. What is it that you feel cannot be adequately explained by having only prose or episodic summaries? -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You're still getting ahead of yourself. My first goal is to establish that 1) the MOS change proposal is incorrect in scope, wherever it came from, in that it regulates content instead of presentation of content. Putting a hard and fast word limit on plot summary is 100% not what an MOS is for, and 2) that the process failed to seek input from affected editors, instead erroneously thinking that interested editors would comprise sufficient consensus. I've consented to present evidence that the unilateral changes harmed the readability of a specific FLC TV show season article, but even if we solve those problems, that is no guarantee that there are no more unanticipated problems created by the update. Flyer22's comments seem to indicate that there is at least one more. Finally, one consequence of IanB2's edits to the Game of Thrones (season 1) article is that it may have unbalanced the lead, placing too much plot information there, rather than in the disputed prose plot (vs. episode summary table) section. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no plans to continue taking part in the discussion related to this topic, nor any of the other current or future overhaul discussions. It is a waste of my time. Enjoy your 2,300+ word plot summaries. Future pings will be ignored. Do what you will without my input. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Alex, re: your edit summary, if you think that I think this is a victory, you have misunderstood my purpose in contesting edits to popular TV show articles that made those articles less comprehensible to our readers. I wish things had gone differently such that hard feelings needn't have resulted and I wish you all the best. Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems that we are now discussing two issues with the new text: the fact that we no longer allow double plot summaries in articles, and the wording for sourcing plot summaries. On the latter, would you take a look at the proposal section of the TVPLOT discussion Flyer? You will see that 4c is the wording that has been added to the MOS, and 4a is the version that I initially proposed. Perhaps you have some thoughts based on that. As for the double plot summaries bit, the "complex series" argument has been brought up before, but really, there is no series so complex that it must be explained twice. Reading Game of Thrones (season 6), for example, everything in the plot section is also in the episode table. Why do you need to say Sansa goes to the Wall and Theon to the Iron Islands, and then just below that describe how Sansa goes to the Wall and Theon to the Iron Islands. Readers do not need that much help. The only purpose of this section I can see is describing overarching storylines and connecting threads throughout a series of episodes. While I understand wanting to do this, it is personal analysis of the series with writer interpretation, which violates Wikipedia's copyright policies. If you want to use a prose plot summary, then it needs to follow the rules and be the basic series of events and characters without any futher interpretation by the writer. If that is done accurately, then the summary will just be a shorter version of the episode table summaries, and therefore very redundant. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at your proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Plot section#Proposed changes, the wording still doesn't make it clear that plot sections usually do not require references. When informing an editor that plot sections usually do not require references, I point to MOS:PLOT.

As for double plot sections, this has been a matter concerning the Game of Thrones character articles. See the Daenerys Targaryen article, and the discussion I had with TAnthony and Keivan.f about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think what needs to be made clear is that plot sections when they exist in episode lists (tables) do not require references. They do require references when you put them in character articles or as more prose summaries. The reason is, the table acts as the reference in the LoE situation. It has all the information you need for citing, so there isn't a reason to cite it again. In the others, you need that, which is why we have the "cite episode" template for references. It seems like a quick sentence or so to clarify.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That's an excellent note!

(ec: Way too soon to say there's any sort of new consensus.) I feel there are a couple rough patches in the text, and I'm not in complete agreement with the changes. I can see the point about not having both types of plot summary, yet I feel there's value in presenting information in different ways. The episode list descriptions tend to be like a timeline for the season, often with a lot of B and C plots, while a plot section describes major arcs across the season. I think it's too much to expect the reader to pick out overall plot arcs from 4400 words of episode-by-episode summaries (for a 22-episode season). And in the derivative-work argument, it seems a little lopsided to give equal weight to a 500-word season prose summary and 4400-words of episode list plot summaries. I personally feel that the episode-by-episode summaries are a legacy as the show is aired, defended by the group of editors who stuck with it during the season. The season plot summary, which is arguably better able to support the sections of a season article, can only come afterwards. With this either-or guideline, it seems doubtful that any articles created from this point will be able to describe overall arcs. (I suppose it would have been way too complicated to express the article plot limit in a total word count or percentage of article word count.)

I'd earlier asked about putting a plot overview in the lead (representative of article content). WhatsNew cited WP:TVLEAD, and I've read through it three times but still haven't spotted anything about plot or log lines. TVPLOT says "all articles should contain a sentence or two in the lead to summarize the overall storyline". I'd asked if it could be more than that according to due weight, citing Game of Thrones (season 6) where the article is 25% plot, which suggest to me that one-quarter of the lead (one of four paragraphs) could be a plot overview. IanB2's edits to the lead of Game of Thrones (season 1) seems to have done exactly that. I'm going to assume that's acceptable until told otherwise. Reidgreg (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Bignole, I know that you have always supported inline citations for television plot summaries (including television character plot summaries), but I do not think that they are needed unless an editor is adding content that should be attributed to a secondary source. The inline citations are helpful, but I wouldn't state that they are needed. So I am in complete agreement with MOS:PLOT on this matter. Also, as has been discussed times before, adding inline citations to the plot sections of daytime soap opera character articles proves difficult because daytime soap operas have new episodes every day and many characters have been on the shows for decades, which makes it daunting trying to find the episode information for something a character did in a story. I cannot find the episode information for most of the plot information I summarized in the Todd Manning article. I could use primary and secondary sources to source parts of that plot summary (or maybe all of it if I look hard enough), but I don't see that doing so is needed. I have not added my own analysis anywhere to that plot material. I have stuck to the source material, and this is clear by some parts of the article that are supported by secondary sources.

Reidgreg, I see "ec" above; I take that to mean WP:Edit conflict. So your post was addressing my post alone? Or my post and Bignole's post? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Reidgreg, since we can only have a plot summary to give context to the rest of the article, it really shouldn't be getting that much weight in the lead. And like I explained earlier, going through a season and finding the major story arcs for viewers is writer interpretation and analysis, which violates Wikipedia's copyright laws. The way to address these overarching plot threads is to bring them up in production or reception, with commentary on how/why they were put together and received, etc. And there was pretty strong opposition to having a sliding scale for plot summaries. That is the same with films, which all have the same word limit regardless of length or "complexity".

On citations, I don't know if it is all that necessary to cite specific episodes at character articles, for example. For one, the in-universe descriptions at those articles should not be very in depth, which could mean that a single sentence could cover a storyline spanning a whole season. That is a bit problematic to source. I feel it is fine to have a brief description of a character's actions in a show, with links to that show where the expanded plot summaries are sourced by the episode table. On the other hand, when I am working on List of character articles about a specific series, I like to reference all the episodes of the series with the cite episode template at the bottom of the list, to cover any in-universe information that I use for all the series' characters throughout the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Flyer, plot summaries source themselves. Yes. But, plot information on another page cannot source itself. They only "source themselves" on episode articles and episode tables because the information has everything you need to verify it. The whole idea of "you can watch it to verify it" requires you to be able to determine when and where to watch it. Todd Manning and the soap articles are more difficult beasts, you know that, because of how soap operas air. But traditional television is not. If I'm writing and article on Clark Kent in Smallville, I cannot talk about what happens in season 7 without being able to allow the reader (who may want to verify that) the information from a citation. It is reasonable to expect that if someone challenges an event described for a character from season 4 episode 5 to just go watch it to verify it. It is unreasonable to expect them to watch all 3 seasons prior to that because we couldn't even give them the information of where it was.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, what do you mean by "finding the major story arcs for viewers is writer interpretation and analysis, which violates Wikipedia's copyright laws"? Also, do you oppose re-adding "Since TV episodes are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable. [...] Since the episode is the primary source and the infobox provides details about it, citing the episode explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary." to the guideline? If so, why? Why shouldn't we make it clear at this guideline that inline citations are unlikely to be necessary, just like we make this clear at MOS:PLOT and at WP:Film plot? Also, WP:Film plot does consider making an exception for complicated plots when it comes to plot length.

Bignole, yeah, daytime soap operas are a different beast, but the guidelines on this page apply to soap opera character articles as well. WP:SOAPS gives guidance, but it's a WikiProject, not an official guideline. Editors looking to this guideline and expecting the daytime soap opera character articles to follow it on the plot guidance can be problematic. As for primetime character articles, I guess we agree to disagree. I do not see that it's necessary to have inline citations for the plot summary section of a character article. And in the case of primetime television and character articles, it's often that the readers are directed to a specific episode with a wikilink; they are informed of what episode we are talking about that way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I myself have no issue with readding that wording Flyer. The "finding major storylines" thing is what people are trying to do with these second plot summaries—connect the dots between episodes to spell out overarching storylines and character arcs for readers who don't want to go through the whole episode table. This practice is problematic because that is not just basic descriptions of the episodes' plots, it is giving our own interpretation of them, which is a copyright violation. All we are allowed to do when summarising a plot is to give a basic description of it. If editors want to explore specific character arcs or storylines that weave through episodes, then they need to use reliable sources to discuss them in terms of production and reception. For instance, by picking out the actions of Character A over 10 episodes, we may find an overarching journey that may not be immediately clear to some readers. If we described this journey ourselves in a second plot summary, then that is us giving our own interpretation of the plot, which we cannot do. But if the producers or actor discuss this journey and give information on its conception, execution, etc. then we can add that to the production section. Or if Character B has a big change of heart over 5 episodes, writing a second plot summary describing this change in our own words would be wrong, but talking about it in the reception section with commentary from critics would make for a great passage in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

We need to be careful not to over-play the OR argument. And in particular recognise that any page requires judgements as to what to include and how to present it, which is not WP:OR but the work of compiling an encyclopedia. An article on "the history of X" requires editors to identify the key events and storylines from centuries of history, discarding reams of trivial information, and summarise them, appropriately evidenced, in their own words. Summarising hours of plot in a few sentences is essentially the same task (made easier by all of the evidence being available for everyone to see). IanB2 (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

So you are speaking of WP:OR when it comes to the "second plot summaries" matter? By "second plot summaries", I had thought you meant something like the Daenerys Targaryen article having two plot sections (which is why I noted that article above). I'm not clear on how giving our own interpretation is a WP:Copyright violation. I'd classify that as a WP:OR issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Flyer, saying that they are directed to the episode via a wikilink is like arguing we don't need to provide citations for any statement that connects to an article on Wikipedia, because someone can just verify the information there. In-line citations are just how we cite, the more important aspect is that if it's not on an episode page or an episode table, you need to cite what episode the information came from. Otherwise, no one is going to reasonably know without having to do research into where that information took place. That's true whether it's primetime or soap operas. There's a difference between saying "episodes source themselves" and "plot information sources itself". I'm not saying that you need a secondary source, I'm saying that you cannot say that the plot information verifies itself if you can't even provide the information for the specific episode to be verified.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Flyer, it is an OR problem as well, yes. Basically, OR is especially discouraged for plot summaries, if that makes sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Bignole, it's not the same to me when it comes to plot sections since they generally do not need inline references. To my knowledge, inline references have never been required for plot summaries unless it's something that should be supported by a secondary source. Otherwise, it's a personal preference. After all these years, we still disagree on the matter, but I do understand where you are coming from and I like the outcome of articles such as Clark Kent (Smallville). Maybe I'm just a tad bit lazier than you are. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems we have multiple discussions going on, but I just had to comment here. I apologize in advance if I'm going off on a tangent. Bignole, I assume you mean that we shouldn't be saying "Superman saved Lois Lane" in a series-spanning summary without some indication of the specific season in which it occurred, not that we're obligated to spoonfeed episode numbers for every plot point mentioned. Soaps are the obvious extreme case; for a character on a show for 30 years, summaries should probably be condensed to decades, where even consistently citing years could be too detailed. But even in a one-paragraph summary of season two of a given series, while I often do cite episode names, it's not really prohibitive to verification if I don't for some reason. I'm not advocating sloppiness or laziness (and Flyer is not a lazy editor, btw), but maybe the interested reader has to watch the whole season, maybe they have to find a detailed plot summary on another website. So what. It's still reasonably verifiable. When you cite a book it's ideal to provide a page number, but if you can't, or the book isn't searchable on Google Books, or the researcher has a different edition, or it's not possessed by a nearby library, it doesn't mean the content and the citation aren't valid.— TAnthony^Talk 07:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I can see that "finding major storylines" could be treated as original research. To some degree, doesn't that also count for the episode plots? You're still choosing what's significant to include and what's trivial to be ignored. The practice I've noticed is a bit of back-and-forth between editors, ultimately stabilizing with editor consensus as to what's significant. But couldn't that be seen as original research by a group? On the other hand, if editor consensus works for episode plot summaries, why not season plot summaries? (Just wondering where the line is drawn – perhaps wherever the editor with less patience gives up.) Reidgreg (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Identifying the 'main storylines' is core to the work we do on any page, for example if I sit down to write the history of a village/town/city/country the first thing I need to do is sort out what are the principal items to include and, as importantly, what not to include. If this is OR then we have no encyclopaedia! IanB2 (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright, what?

In the section above, Adamstom.97 said "This practice [of multiple plot summaries] is problematic because that is not just basic descriptions of the episodes' plots, it is giving our own interpretation of them, which is a copyright violation." To which Flyer22 Reborn replied "I'm not clear on how giving our own interpretation is a WP:Copyright violation. I'd classify that as a WP:OR issue."

I very much want to understand this issue. I do not see how anything we can do here would create a 'derivative work' or other problematic copyright issue. Can someone please point me to the legal opinion underlying this assumption? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Describing a plot comes under WP:NFCC, as the original work is the intellectual property of its creator(s). So we are supposed to give a minimal, basic representation of that property only to provide context for the rest of the article, which can address the work in further detail and complexity by detailing production and reception information, etc. So by summarising an article more than once you are not giving a basic description for the purpose of simply giving context. You are also doing WP:OR by connecting the dots for readers, which is just an unnecessary violation seeing as how there are reliable sources who can connect those dots for us. There is no situation where a second summary that shows overarching storylines is so necessary; if there is something that isn't coming across very clearly in the basic plot description but is in fact important to note, then surely someone will discuss it in a way that you can still talk about it later in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your position. I'm pretty sure it's incorrect, as a plot isn't copyrightable, but a specific instantiation of a story is (c.f. example 1 here). I'm also not seeing where any amount of plot summary would be violating any rightsholder's copyright. Can you point me to specific legal opinions by appropriate authorities (i.e., not just other editors) to support what you're asserting? Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I would question whether the source you've given is a reliable source, but in any event it is based on Wikipedia policies including NFCC and WP:PSTS in addition to others. Perhaps a read of some of these policies would help your understanding -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam, there may be valid arguments against multiple plot summaries but I think you're misapplying WP:NFCC, which would cover verbatim text but not an original summary, no matter how many times it's rehashed, especially not one of the relative length we're talking about. That policy does not specify what you're suggesting, and WP:PLOT and MOS:PLOT don't seem to touch on that either.— TAnthony^Talk 06:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Some of the relevant point in this essay may help also -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I forgot where that essay was, I've wanted to cite it in discussions. But exactly, lengthy and excessively detailed "play by play" summaries are already forbidden and all-plot articles regularly deleted, we're not talking about that kind of obvious ridiculousness (though we should always be vigilant).— TAnthony^Talk 06:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! That is exactly what I was looking for, and it confirms my suspicion: those who are arguing for strict plot summary limits are (innocently, I would presume) exaggerating the risk posed. Per TAnthony, we aren't ever going to get anywhere close to the levels of detail sanctioned in those legal cases, and so arguments based on potential copyright infringement amount to excessive copyright paranoia. This answers my question thoroughly. Jclemens (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, NFCC has nothing to do with text aspects, or a plot summary. There is fair use aspects in describing a plot summary, but it is different from images or other type of media. most specifically that overly long plot summaries can represent too much copyright-taking of a work, and plot-only summaries have no aspects of transformation of information that lends to appropriate fair use purposes. As long as we use plot alongside secondary sources to talk about the production or reception of a work, and that plot summary stays concise, we are good. But this is not an aspect of NFCC policy, just general application of WP:NOT#PLOT and our purpose as an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 07:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

To summarise: no overly long plots in articles - thus why the TVMOS limits word counts and the amount of times those summaries should appear within an article. Write in original language - don't plagarise or copy and paste. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but on the basis of those cases, neither word count restrictions nor limitations of 'repetitive' information in an article are supported. We definitely need to focus on the primary goal--appropriate plot summaries that help the reader's understanding--without worrying unnecessarily about copyright-infringing behavior that is incompatible with writing a good Wikipedia article in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

And once again, I would ask you to explain what exactly is your specific reason for thinking there is need for a logline-style lead summary, a prose plot summmary and episodic summaries in the same article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope. The important thing is to keep MOS'es minimalist and universal, including only essential things (which you've demonstrated these restrictions are not) so as not to interfere unduly with editors who actually create content. MOS-interested editors often have a different view--that standardization for standardization's sake is a good thing, that remote risks of copyright infringement justify draconian rules, or suchline--which is subtly harmful to the encyclopedia. The burden of proof on the MOS is to demonstrate that in no case would any such composition be beneficial, not on me to demonstrate that it is. Cheers and goodnight, Jclemens (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Well if you're not going to engage in good faith and enter a dialogue, I'm going to disengage from this conversation all together. There is no case where a prose plot summary together in the same article with episodic summaries isn't pure redundancy, essentially summarizing the same plot information twice. I can't think of any case where there is good reason, and you have declined to present an example after multiple requests. You are the one with the grievance, I no longer understand what it is. Good luck to you -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Whats new?: Exactly what I left earlier. The uncivility and know-it-all, holier-than-thou attitude is too much to bare. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Pot, kettle much? Seriously guys, you need to approach things with more humility if you presume to be making rules that you intend to be binding on hundreds to thousands of volunteers. I won't apologize for advocating for that, although I will again express my regret that it appears my advocacy for flexibility in any matter where rigidity is not required appears to be taken as an affront by MOS-interested editors. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

On a season page for a ongoing serialized work (unlike a sit-com where episodes tend to be compartmentalized), there are three reasonable places for the plot: a one-to-two sentence broad summary of the events that happen in that season in the lede, so that if that is the only part of the article the reader reads, they still have an idea what's going on; a brief season-long summary and then per-episode summaries. Now the last two have to work hand in hand; you shouldn't use "long" forms for either. If you use a long-form season summary (2-3 paragraphs), the episode summary should be short (4-5 sentences at most) as to simply guide where the narrative of the episode falls within the season. If you use long-form episode summaries, that combined would be expected to be the same as doing a long-form season summary, and thus the season summary should be very short and potentially if duplicating the terseness of the lede, unnecessary. The decision to use either form shouldn't be forced; where works have a stronger arc narrative, like the Walking Dead, the long season summary/short episode makes more sense, while for where there is some arc but very loose like Doctor Who, long episode/short season makes more sense. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Masem. Could you look specifically at Game of Thrones (season 1), in its various iterations (as promoted to FL; as unilaterally trimmed by AlexTheWhovian; or as edited after restoration by IanB2) and let us (well, me specifically, but it's what brought me to this discussion) know if you think that multipart plot presentation met your criteria? Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that I have only very passing familarity with GoT (haven't read books, watched only an episode or two and just haven't had time to binge the rest), so when I read the "new MOS" compliant version, I find the lack of any setup prior to the episode list harmful. The FL version is... not perfect, but it does a far better setup for me to proceed through the episodes. I recognize that we don't need an excessive amount of Setting-type material, but there needs to be something that's longer than one would put in the lede but before you get to the episode content proper. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the season plot summaries as well. Wading through 4400 words in the episode lists is too much. Take a thousand words (or more) off of those and put in a 300- to 500-word season summary. The non-spoilery log lines in the lead are an imperfect compromise; a plot summary immediately following the lead gives a nice further introduction to the season article while being separate from the lead to avoid spoiler complaints. With an episode list immediately following the lead (as per recommendations for those plot descriptions to support the rest of the article), there's this massive table dominating the early article (and on my browser it often results in text overlapping with the infobox). I hear the arguments against it, and maybe they're right, but it feels overcautious and incomplete to me. Reidgreg (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

First, who said that a lead should be "non-spoilery". WP:SPOILER applies no matter where you are in the article. Not saying that you should intentionally spoil things for readers, but it's not our fault nor problem that a reader has a plot event spoiled by reading the article. Whether that's the lead or that's a section below. It comes with the territory. As for what is deemed "significant storyline", I would tell people that the best approach is to treat every episode on its own. We run into this on Arrow and The Flash (and I assume most shows based on another source material). Editors see something happen and "know" that it will be important later because of prior knowledge (whether from sourced commentary on its importance or what have you). So, they want to include that little tidbit, and this little tidbit. Except, it has no bearing on the episode in the moment. By "bearing" I mean, not knowing that does not hurt your understanding of what happens in that episode itself. So, the approach we take is to look at every episode by itself and when that event becomes "significant" (i.e., it becomes addressed in the show), we just acknowledge it. Remember, we're not a substitute for watching the show, so just because a series hinted at something in episode 2, but didn't really focus on it until episode 11, we don't need to mention it in episode 2. Just like we don't retcon events based on what happens later. You don't need redundant summaries of storylines for a season when you have a main page that will summarize those seasons for you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Bignole, see Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 17#RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the guideline. Like I recently stated on that guideline's talk page, editors are significantly divided on their feelings about the WP:Spoiler guideline (which some people continue to treat as a policy). The linked RfC shows that editors are generally in agreement that obvious spoilers are not needed in the lead, and that the question of what is an obvious spoiler is more so common sense than subjective. The RfC shows that editors generally feel that spoilers should only be in the lead unless necessary. And yet there still has not been a change made to the WP:Spoiler guideline to reflect this or other concerns. Simple re-wording of that guideline would indeed help issues with the WP:Spoiler guideline, which is often used to enforce spoilers where they don't need to be. We have editors who use that guideline to intentionally spoil things for readers. I'm fine with spoilers being in the lead when they need to be, but in cases where they really don't need to be in the lead and would ruin the entire story for readers (for example, The Sixth Sense), I am opposed. Editors agreed that including the plot twist in the lead of the The Sixth Sense article would be unnecessary and gratuitous spoiling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The impression I get from a "logline or preview summary" is that it seems to be generally non-spoilery (albeit in part due to brevity). In practice with season articles, this sometimes seems to be a summary of the first episode or two, rather than a summary of the season as a whole. I don't feel it is ideal to have spoilers in the lead (or infobox for that matter), and readers can easily skip a plot section to avoid those spoilers. Reidgreg (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The point of "SPOILER" is that you don't avoid them, not that you intentionally insert them. It's really not hard to write summaries that address potential spoilers without actually spoiling anything. For example, if a season has a major character shake-up by killing over several "main cast" members, then you would write in the lead section that "multiple characters die throughout the season" (there's a more elegant way of writing that, I'm just illustrating a point). Readers don't know who died from that, we cover a major plot point of the season, and we don't have to go into unnecessary detail again about it as the episode summaries themselves can cover the details.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the inappropriate copyright language from the production version, based on this clarification. I'm kinda iffy on how the subsequent sentence reads, so I welcome further tweaks. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, where did you gain consensus to remove such a section? You complain about an 'insular' and 'small group making changes to the MOS' and here you are with less or no support for removing a sentence? -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you asserting that the sentences I removed were correct? If you'll look at what Masem and TAnthony said above in reply to my query, the version of the MOS misstated U.S. Copyright law as it applied to plot summaries. Since I've been reverted, the MOS once again contains incorrect and unsupported legal assertions; Wikipedia has an excellent track record in taking a dim view of specious legal arguments used in any attempt to influence content. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion about the specific section. The discussion in this section has gone all over the shop. YOU are the one who came here with issues perceived lack of consensus building before changing things, now here you are without a broad consensus making changes? Additionally, I believe that part of the MOS was broadly in the original text before it is was re-written anyway. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(sigh) Look, I'm sorry that you're confusing a couple of different issues. Leave aside the issue about presentation of plot material for the moment; it's an open issue, but unrelated to the factual error. What we have here is an issue where the MOS makes a statement regarding the copyright status of content that is simply not true. It's factually incorrect, this was noted above, I fixed it, AlexTheWhovian reverted it, and you're here arguing that we need consensus to change an error. The behavior here appears less than collaborative, which is a real shame. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced of a factual error -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens that the text removed about copyright is misunderstanding the need of copyright concerns here. There is very much little concern we should have with copyright and any legal for an article that only would consist of a 300-400 word plot summary for a typical 30-min TV show. That would be a terrible article under many many policies, but not under copyright concerns. Even a 1200 word plot summary alone would not trip anything. It would be if we had a 10,000 word (read: scene-by-scene) plot summary - even if we had a bazillion secondary sources to show how significant the episode, that amount of plot could be a problem copyright-wise. There's some buffer here where the word count starts to trip into an area of concern, and that's where the point of avoiding plot-only works comes in; however the copyright avoidance issue is a secondary benefit of avoiding plot-only articles; the primary benefit is that short plots and non-plot-only articles with secondary sources are more appropriate for general encyclopedic coverage of contemporary works.

The bottom line here is: any MOS/TV guideline should not worry about setting guidelines to help enforce copyright/fair use - other policy and guidelines exist for that, and it can allude to them , but this should absolutely not be written with fair use protection as the first thing in mind. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'm not seeing what's factually incorrect about that sentence. You might not like it or think it deserves prominance, but I'm not convinced it is wrong and thus should be removed. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Echoing Masem, that strongly-worded text is basically suggesting that a mere plot summary violates copyright laws. It does not. If you create a stub article with only a two-sentence plot summary and a cited sentence that establishes notability for the topic, we are not required to delete the summary or the stub itself until the article has "further commentary". Yes, an excessively detailed plot summary could be construed as a violation, but the situations where this has happened are extreme cases that we would not allow in articles for other reasons. The fact that some of you don't see this is a little alarming.— TAnthony^Talk 16:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

We should not be throwing the fear of copyright into guideline/policy/MOS where the likelihood of a copyright problem will not (ETA) exist and that's not already covered in other policies. It's one thing when we're talking media and non-free content, which is critically driven to stay within fair-use allowances, but plot summaries aren't even close to this issue. It's worth to mention that short plot summaries assist keeping our work free of copyright problems, but it shouldn't be a driver to get people to comply. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Would someone else like to propose a change to the wording of that part of the revised PLOT section to bring it in line with actual copyright law? Or do we have consensus to just take it out entirely, as I'd done WP:BOLDly? I am in favor of a gentle reminder mention as Masem notes above, but the "fear of copyright" I think is both 1) inaccurate, and 2) providing inaccurate justification the other severe/draconian parts of the MOS with which I initially voiced problems. Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering the heat of this discussion, I'd like to hear back from What's new, AlexTheWhovian and perhaps others before anyone attempts any boldness LOL. A rewording suggestion here is not out of line though.— TAnthony^Talk 20:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Just because there was agreement that the copyright guidelines may have been misconstrued doesn't mean that the passage should be outright deleted. That is just ridiculous, and again, very hypocritical Jclemens. Let us talk about our options before you go ahead and edit the article, seeing as how we are in the middle of a massive discussion. I think that we should just re-word the passage to suggest the same thing, since there seems to be support for the idea that big plot summary-only articles are bad. Also, this idea that the MOS cannot mention guidelines is ridiculous. For many editors, this is where they come to learn how to write articles. Linking to important and appropriate guidelines as warnings and explanations is surely a good thing to help these newcomers learn what to do, right? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm open to a rewording, but would not support omitting mention of it completely like Jclemens did. I think discussing in context of and linking to NFCC is important. If there is consensus to change the text to focus on large passages of plot not being permitted that is fine with me, but it is important unexperienced editors have understanding that copying or writing a massively detailed plot with no context breaches copyright. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Omitting all mentions of copyright is preferable to making a false (or at best severely misleading) statement on a legal matter: copyright is covered elsewhere as a policy matter, not as a matter of style. Inaccurate statements about copyright, as Adamstom.97 points out, are a very bad thing to have when new editors are looking to these pages for instruction. Who will make a WP:BOLD edit to tone down the copyright warning was we've discussed above? Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Mate, how about discuss the rewording before 'boldly' adding. Your edit was reverted, now it is being discussed here, per the BRD cycle. The fact you're ready to rush back in and change things is so hypocritical to your concerns about changes to the TVMOS in the first place. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This is repair work, so the cycle is of necessity a bit faster than for iterative improvement. I made a BOLD edit, it was reverted, we've discussed agreed that there is a material misstatement about the interaction of fair use and copyright. It's time for another BOLD edit--I don't need to be the one to make it, but it does need to happen, and thus the cycle continues without getting overly bogged down in bureaucracy or discussion. Why don't you make one? I'll happily defer to your longer-standing involvement with the topic. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Because I'm still not sure what opposing editors want to say. Those, including yourself, who want to make a change should propose text and let it be reviewed and accepted -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

What opposing editors? The whole reason I deleted the sentences in the first place is because there hasn't been any defense of the original statement. But if you want it here first, here's what I would do:

Replace: "A plot summary may only be included if an article has further commentary on the work; it will otherwise violate U.S. copyright laws, and therefore will not meet Wikipedia's non-free content policy. For instance, just having a plot summary is not allowed, but using a plot summary to establish context for some production and reception information is allowed. Likewise, plot summaries that are accompanied by this commentary but are copied directly from official sources will also violate Wikipedia's copyright policies, unless these summaries can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia."

With: "Overly detailed, blow-by-blow plot summaries are not just unencyclopedic, but in extreme cases can run afoul of U.S. copyright law. Likewise, plot summaries may not be copied from elsewhere unless their license is compatible with Wikipedia use." Only, I think it actually flows better if placed immediately after the second sentence of the second paragraph, "Avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, technical detail, as well as any information that belongs in other sections, such as actor's names."

Someone want to improve on that? Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I cannot see that the text deleted by Jclemens originally actually adds any value at all to the MoS? It is just padding that we can easily lose. The infringement being worried about is already vanishingly unlikely, and the provisions within the rest of the MoS provide plenty of safeguards to make sure that our plot sections are not going to infringe copyright, unless themselves copied from somewhere else - which is already 'not allowed' (but sadly not infrequent, nevertheless). In the real world of editing, copying an episode summary from Amazon is the problem, not someone pasting in the entire script. The more concise and direct the MoS is about the more likely threats, and the less non-pertinent stuff it contains, the better. IanB2 (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

So to clarify, after a day (more or less), no one objects to my proposed change wording, and IanB2 thinks that the deletion I made was fine in the first place. Is that correct? Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I think your proposed wording is good. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that substitution. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm also on board, thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

OK with me IanB2 (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hearing no objections... Implemented as proposed. Feel free to improve further. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in late, but I feel "are not just unencyclopedic, but" is a bit awkward. Assuming that's not intentional – to make readers pause and think about the meaning – I feel it could be made simpler. Additionally, "run afoul" sounds a bit informal, though it seems "violate" was too strong. How about: "Overly detailed, blow-by-blow plot summaries are unencyclopedic and, in extreme cases, can conflict with U.S. copyright law."? (Maybe someone else can do better.) – Reidgreg (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I stick by my original response - IMO the whole sentence "overly" through "law" is superfluous and should be deleted - as JClemens suggested in the first place. The immediately preceding sentence rules out blow-by-blow summaries and, given the word limits and other constraints already in the MoS, the copyright point is 99% red herring. Why spend time arguing over the wording of a sentence that adds no value and could easily be dropped? IanB2 (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Some variation of it has already been added to the MOS. Moving on -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The particular phrase I mentioned is a triple-negative and should be simplified. Yes, content should be fixed first. - Reidgreg (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Next Steps

Again, I do not believe the post-implementation discussion has shown a consensus among interested editors. To be frank, I haven't seen any editor other than some of those involved in the extended discussion opine in favor of retaining the recently negotiated section. But, obviously, a lot of work went into that. So... what's the next best way forward? How do we retain as much of the work product created by the MOS-interested editors, while still crafting a workable MOS? That is, how can we retain the improvements made, rather than just focusing on the disputed issues? An RfC is probably premature until we can elicit a good sense for the overall plusses and minuses of the recent revision. Also, I note that discretionary sanctions are applied to this page, so let us all be quite circumspect with our reversions. With all that in mind, where shall we go next? Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Although I was involved in discussion of its presentation, I wasn't involved in the original discussion/decision, so don't feel I have any strong ownership of the new guideline either way. Nevertheless I have tried it out on some pages and feel that the general approach of avoiding effectively three summaries of the storyline on the same page (lead, plot and by episode) both has merit and is workable. On the other hand, I would hate to be launched into reading the blow-by-blow detail of each episode without having some idea of what the overall storyline is about, had I not seen a show. The proviso therefore is that a short paragraph in the lead may be a more realistic expectation for summarising the storyline, rather than restricting to the the "one or two sentences" of the MoS. And there is already, of course, the option of summarising the plot in one prose section, rather than by episode (the episode format is over-used, in my opinion, arising because fans are eager to write up each one as it is aired).

My proposal for going forward is that we retain the approach of the new MoS but qualify it by a) inserting "generally" into the phrase "an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary" and b) amending "a sentence of two in the lead" with "a few sentences in the lead". The 'generally' flags to people with a strong contrary view that they can make the case on the relevant talk page (the MoS is only a guideline, after all, not mandatory policy as some appear to have assumed - its header already makes it clear there is room for common sense and exceptions). Interested editors should be encouraged to work constructively with the new approach rather than treat the new manual as justification for mass deletion and reversion - in particular the key point is that if a plot section is removed the editor needs to make sure at the same time that the same information is adequately covered in the episode summaries and that the summary in the article lead is fit for purpose. We should then pencil in some sort of review after a period to see how things are working out? I hope this is considered helpful. IanB2 (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This proposed 'patch' answers my objection to my satisfaction. We still have Flyer22 Reborn's objection about self-sourcing plots, which I expect he will continue discussing. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, a lot has happened since I last commented here, and I'm not sure of all the specifics. I'd just like to say that any misconceptions I have regarding NFCC and plot summaries come from my reading and interpretation of TVPLOT when I was learning to make TV articles years ago. So if I am off base, then that just goes to show how important getting the MOS correct is. Regardless, I still see no good reason to have this second plot summary in any situation, but I will not fight adding the word "generally" as Ian suggests if that is where everyone is leaning. And adding wording to clarify that plot summaries do not need to be referenced seems like an easy fix as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, why are we still on this? It was broadcasted everywhere. If 5 people show up, then 5 people show up. There is no reason to have plot sections across 3 areas of an article. The lead should suffice with "summarizing the season" for you. You don't need to re-summarize the season again, and then have episode summaries that do it a third time. Even GOT isn't immune to the fact that they don't need that. Especially since their main article should be summarizing those seasons altogether (another reason to avoid redundancy since you can read ALL the season summaries in one location).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Because five people are a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and they made an avoidable mistake: look at how current featured content implements things, and make sure the MOS does not create disharmony, resolving all such identified issues BEFORE proposing an MOS as final. That, and MOS cannot dictate to the level of words in a summary... As far as multiple summaries, a LEAD is always there to summarize every article, so that doesn't count. Each article has to stand on its own, so a season summary must, actually, precede the episode table in order to give a bigger context, the framework into which each episode fits. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I just want to mention something that has been bugging me since you guys showed up here: the argument that the MOS should not be changed in a way that conflicts with common practices. This is not a good argument for two reasons: firstly, many of the issues people mentioned when first seeing the new version of TVPLOT were actually with guidelines that had always been there and apparently people just hadn't realised before; and secondly, that is just not how rules work. If it became common practice for people to murder one another, should the law be changed to make murder legal just so the law doesn't conflict with what everyone is doing? No! Laws, rules, and guidelines establish what should be done, and if people do not do that, then they need to be stopped. If there is a common practice that is just not right (like summarising a plot multiple times, in my opinion) then the MOS should be changed and the offending articles made to comply with it. Anyway, that is just an aside I wanted to bring up here. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that is broadening the debate unnecessarily, Adam! And we all need to be clear that we are not talking about 'rules' here - and indeed are having this discussion because one editor rushed off and started 'enforcing' as if we were. As I said earlier, on balance I think that the change is a good one, provided that there is enough in the lead to 'position' the reader before they dive into the detail of episode one. But it is a major change, which over time is likely to lead to the deletion of a lot of content, and I don't blame editors for shouting out when they saw sections disappearing every few minutes, without any appropriate reworking of the articles. My suggested tweaks - which JClemens has supported above - simply flag the fact that, as a major change, we need to move towards it in a thoughtful way. I don't think what I have suggested is unreasonable, nor does it change the direction you guys have all worked on? IanB2 (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, I am very much a fan of law and order. I do not believe that people should be beaten for wearing the wrong fashion, however. It may be a bit of an inapt metaphor, but the MOS are not content guidelines: content guidelines are content guidelines, content policies are content policies, and MOS are guidelines on the presentation of material that conforms to content policies and guidelines. They are designed to help people 'get' Wikipedia easier, but they often allow wide variance and latitude (e.g., variations of English language spelling) reflecting the diversity of our global volunteers and global audience. Jclemens (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

MOS are whatever they need to be. It is NOT true that they don't govern word counts. MOSFILM has governed word count since it began. So has this MOS. They do govern content as well. It's the reason we don't have "trivia" sections and other trivial and insignificant content added to articles (or why they are removed). I also vehemently disagree that MOS should not affect "common practice". That's exactly what they should do. They should address all practice with a project, as they are the foundation that should guide "common practice". That's because "common practice" without an MOS guiding it is going to be different from article to article. Years ago we had trivia sections. Years ago we had pictures in every episode summary on an LoE page. Years ago we did a lot of things different. MOS's change and policies change and articles are adjusted accordingly (even FA articles, that's why we have Featured Article Reviews, so re-assess if an article meets criteria based on the CURRENT mos and policies, not based on the previous ones). Now, I think the real problem is not the change to the MOS but the fact that enough time had not passed to develop a strategy on how to adjust the articles that would be affected (it isn't all of them mind you). Also, LOCALCONSENSUS is when you only discuss it locally. FavreFan sent out notifications to countless project pages to alert people. If you failed to take part in the discussion, that is neither a problem with the notification process nor a problem with the outcome. Silence = Acceptance. Or, in this case, try not to be apathetic to a discussion until it affects an article you're working on. Consensus is NOT 100% agreement.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Bignole, I'm not an MOS-interested editor, and to the extent that anything you say is true about word counts, etc., it is both disappointing and fundamentally against what MOS'es are chartered to do. I'm genuinely concerned with the attitude of several editors here about the discussion, which reminds me of this ever time I hear "but it was well advertised". Jclemens (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

While that video is quite funny, it is a misleading comparison - we went out of our way to try and tell as many people as possible about the discussion. I think assuming good faith and dropping the stick are a couple of principles you should apply to that particular gripe. As for what the MOS is supposed to do, it is a style guideline for writing articles, and the word count is a styling issue; changing a plot summary from 500 words to 300 words is not removing content, it is merely styling said content in a different way. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless we have a lot of work to do on the rest of the MoS; we were close to agreement and now the whole debate is opening up again. The issue here does now - I believe - come down purely to whether or not to add the word "generally" and increase the sentences in the lead from 'one or two' to 'few'. Surely we can quickly agree these changes and all move on, guys? IanB2 (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about "generally", because it's vague and everyone and their mother will assume that their article is the exception to the rule. As for "one sentence" to "a few", I've always thought it was "a few". I cannot imagine trying to summarize a season on a season page in just 1 sentence. A full developed article might need about 3 or 4 sentences in the lead just summarizing the season itself. What I think we would benefit from is an ancillary page that provides examples of "well written summaries" for leads, summary sections, episode tables, etc.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Jclemens is correct that I still feel that this guideline should make it clear that inline citations are not necessarily needed for plot sections. If it doesn't make that clear, I am likely to cite MOS:PLOT when explaining that matter to an editor.

Jclemens, I'm female, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I would really like to see anything regarding sources promote the use of secondary sources if possible to back up a plot summary. Yes, the default implicitly sourced aspect is fine, but I've seen people not normally involved in fictional area criticize the lack of sourcing in plot summaries in other areas of the project. And when plot summaries are available from a third-party, it seems silly not to employ those to improve the WP:V-ness of the summary. (I have had one case where I did add appropriate sourcing for plot summaries and was reverting sayings it not required, which is not the intent of this implicit sourcing aspect). --MASEM (t) 21:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I notice that MOS:PLOT states "However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible." I could support that, since it's not telling editors to source the plot section but is rather encouraging them to do so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, my apologies; I see you listed that on your user page, and I, well, didn't look. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem, Jclemens. I was little surprised that you thought I was male since I have been familiar with you for sometime, but I don't always leave a significant impression on editors, and certainly not always enough for them to look into what my sex/gender is. Assuming that an editor is male happens, especially since far more men than women edit Wikipedia (you know, going by statistics on the topic). And except for the "My block log" listing, my sex/gender is not yet immediately noted on my user page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, based on what I've done before, I'm vaguely familiar with the majority of Wikipedians who've edited for any length of time, but I've been wrong on sex more than once. Other than people who've made a particularly strong impression on me, I often forget the details after a while... Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC Drafting

So, discussion has gotten down into the details, and I think it's time to solicit input on options at WP:CENT on the areas of remaining disagreement. Here's what I see so far:

1) Should season articles have both plot summaries and episode summaries?

1a) Never.

1b) Under certain circumstances (adapted works, multiple season shows, others?)

1c) Usually or always.

2) Plot sections should be sourced...

2a) Always.

2b) Usually not; plots should be understood to be primarily sourced to the material itself.

2c) Never.

Do we need other questions asked? Are there major sections/options that I'm summarizing badly or missing? Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure this route is appropriate? Your question assumes the words "in articles on television series" which, although not stated, is needed for someone in a central discussion to make any sense of it. Yet as soon as you add that in, you make it inappropriate under the terms of WP:CENT. The general question you are really asking would appear to be something along the lines of 'should an article contain (not contain, or sometimes contain) a section summarising information that is already set out in greater detail in subsequent sections and also summarised at high level in the article lead", but of course that reads like a rather loaded question! IanB2 (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

p.s. And phrasing it like that prompts thoughts about other examples. WP practice suggests that the answer to the question as I have phrased it above is 'no', but there are clearly lots of examples where an article contains a summary paragraph or two of material that is then set out in more detail on a different page (a practice that, personally, I feel is heavily over-used, and does create a lot of unnecessary duplication, but that's another matter). Maybe the answer, therefore, is that where a plot summary is thought indispensible, the episode information should be spun off onto a separate WP page "episodes of Game of Thrones", or whatever? That is no different from the practice of having the cast information in detail on a separate page with a shorter cast list in the main article. Or, indeed, in relation to the actual plot - for example, see The Bureau (TV series) (as indeed you should, if you haven't, since it is brilliant) Problem solved? IanB2 (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I had considered it obvious, because what other sort of TV article would be subject to a ban on both series summaries AND episode summaries? As written, and as AlexTheWhovian implemented it, it was specifically targeted solely or primarily at those sorts of articles. To go with where I think you're headed, Ian, in general WP:SS articles that are NOT series of homogenous sub-articles have no restriction against summarizing both the main topic AND the sub-topics... nor should they. I have still not yet seen any argument (leaving aside COPYVIO, which has proven to be a red herring) against having multilayered summaries. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

it won't be obvious to a non-TVproject audience. My first point was that WP:CENT prohibits topic-specific queries - these should either be sorted out within the wikiproject, or if actually a wider issue the project is either expected to fall into line with wider policy, or raise the wider issue. I don't see that the draft RfC fits the bill? My second point - as I have argued from the outset - was that it was a mistake for someone to rush off under the misapprehension that this is about content and whether or not it appears in WP. The MoS issue is really about how pages and articles are structured and organised. On the third, wider, issue, I don't see anything in WP:SS that encourages/allows parent and child sections in the same article? Surely the logic of WP:SS is as I suggested above - the plot summary stays in the parent article and the episode table gets split off into a separate child article? IanB2 (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's consider World War II, the poster-child WP:SS article. There's a Lead summary of each major faction of the war: Consider "The Axis advance halted in 1942 when Japan lost the critical Battle of Midway, near Hawaii, and Germany was defeated in North Africa and then, decisively, at Stalingrad in the Soviet Union." OK, that's a one sentence summary of an entire year. Then, you have the section at World War II#Axis advance stalls (1942–43), which has a summary of the entire year, and then three sub-sections detailing Eastern, Western/Mediterranean, and Pacific theaters. So, three layers of summary in one article. Interestingly enough, none of these subsections link to full articles, because the article seems to be the primary one that takes a broad, chronological view of the entire war, vs. certain theaters or campaigns. Thus, there's definitely precedent in WP:SS for three levels of summary (lead, broad overview, detailed summary) in an all-expansive topic like WW II. Jclemens (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll think on that, but my immediate reaction is that an analogy between a page on one of the biggest events of world history, and on the first season of a TV show, is pushing things somewhat! Regardless, what exactly is wrong with a The Bureau model for GoT, with the episodes in a separate article? That way, the plot section whose deletion/inclusion started this whole debate off simply stays, as is IanB2 (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with a different model, but nothing is wrong with the way the GoT articles had it: Lead summary, overview in text, episode summaries in table. That's not excessive, when done properly, and there is no rational basis to outlaw it. Much like we don't mess with Brit/US English when an article has a particular bent, we just leave it as is if it is internally consistent. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is still ongoing, but the 'rational basis' was consensus at the long-running discussion on the entire section that it is redundant. Dare I suggest once again that it is too soon for all this -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is it too soon? The poorly-advertised, insular discussion, never properly closed by an uninvolved admin, never vetted against current practice, exceeding the scope of what can legitimately be included into an MOS, implemented in a draconian, high-handed manner by at least one of the involved editors... are you suggesting that, rather than hold an RfC, we simply scrap the whole thing and start over? I don't think that's necessary, and I don't think that's what you're arguing for. Most of the others have admitted the whole thing could have gone better--can you? Will you? Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that you need to understand the difference of "could have gone better", our view, and "should not have happened at all", your view. And I reverted my edits when I realized that they were implemented in an incorrect fashion. Drop that particular matter, would you? Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for starting over, I'm arguing for your grudge against not being involved to end. That is how it is coming across to me. It is fine to have a difference of opinion to the process or its outcomes, but reopening on two topic areas already settled seems unnecessary now. Give it time to work and if there's still issue, revisit it then -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with What's new? My concluding points: a) WP:CENT is inappropriate as this is clearly topic/project specific. b) JClemens did earlier agree that my two tweaks to the MOS would satisfy his objection - one got consensus and is made; talk on the other ran into the sand, but read the introduction to the MOS: the point is already explicit. c) this is not about deleting content but about where it goes and/or how material is organised into pages. d) the editor whose actions kicked this off has made an exception to his announced departure to recognise that his implementation was incorrect, which is clearly helpful. As I said right at the beginning, JClemens raised a valid concern, but given (a-d) surely we can now move on? IanB2 (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If there is still concern with the whole double summary thing, then there is no reason why JClemens cannot go ahead and hold an RfC. But I agree that it should be at a TV-specific location, you'll just have to make sure that you try notify any potentially interested editors. And don't worry, if you miss anybody who was interested in the discussion, I'm sure they will cause a big stink about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

An MOS change should never prompt a stink in the first place; the fact that any active editor objects to an MOS change after the fact is evidence that the change was inappropriate: the time for discussion is before a change is made. I'm just shaking my head at the assertion that WP:CENT is inappropriate venue to gain input on proposed MOS changes affecting such a broad swath of content, given that the same editors who are suggesting it are the ones who thought Wikiproject Television was sufficient in the first place. MOS need to be non-overreaching, broadly discussed, and something everyone can live with. Note that I didn't say "be happy with", but Alex's good faith but indiscriminate destruction of sourced content, damaging nearly a score of articles before I objected, didn't take other editors' views and efforts into consideration at all. It's a good example of why people who like working on MOS updates should not be the ones approving them, and definitely not the ones implementing them. I realize this may still sound hostile to those of you who have labored at the MOS updates, but I repeat: I appreciate your good faith, I disagree that your internal conversations have been optimally effective. Jclemens (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@JClemens I don't disagree with much of what you say, but let's not start the debate from scratch? My comment about WP:Cent is simply that it specifically excludes "topic specific discussions", and this question only affects TV series articles. All of us agree that the original discussion would have benefitted from wider involvement. There is general recognition that its initial implementation was wrong. There are of course other places that you could take an RfC if you wish, but I come back to my question - essentially you now have an MoS that covers the two points we agreed to meet your concerns (i.e. more scope in the lead to summarise a plot; confirmation that the MoS is guidelines not policy and exceptions can be made), as well as the option to take the episode summaries to a separate page. I have done my very best to try and resolve this. Surely we can now move on? IanB2 (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Vikings (TV series)#RFC for linking in the Cast section

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Vikings (TV series)#RFC for linking in the Cast section. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Honorifics in character lists

Is there an established precedent regarding the use of honorifics in character/cast lists? The tables at The Royals (TV series)#Cast already attribute titles to characters like King Simon or Prince Liam, but an editor recently added honorifics like HRH or The Right and Honorable. Assuming these have actually been referenced in the show, are they appropriate? They seem "too much" for a character list, in my opinion, but I don't know that I have grounds to challenge them. I have not yet found another article which uses them (like The Crown, The Hollow Crown, The Palace, Kings, Isabel). Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 23:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Since the cast section is currently being discussed, I don't know if this is something worth bringing up there. It might be too specific. But I will point to this discussion there that might be applicable. Anyways, I don't think there is any established precedent (at least in the TV MOS) but maybe in the larger MOS? It could also be against MOS:DOCTOR. But I guess I'd say they probably should be needed, especially for wholly fictional characters. Characters based on real people (ie with The Crown) might be a different story. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Characters in the lists should follow common name, so no, they should not have the full title, unless that's how the closing credits or the captioned dialogue shows them as such. However, the individual character article or section can allude to their typical title as addressed in the show. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Recently wrong a and an

Hello everyone i would like help that @Kazaro: shows the wrong front of a noun the a and an sentences i given the answer on my talk page and he did not understand meaning. i think its the country of adjective shows problem word present in the county like "is an Filipino drama series" not a vowel sound should containly wrong. would please clarify the answer second clearly. Oripaypaykim (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Go by the sound a word or letter makes when said, not the word or letter itself. A Filipino is correct. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Right, it still is grammar refer the consonant word xD. Oripaypaykim (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

To source or not to source the plot section

In the #Where we stand now section above, I stated, "What I don't like about the current section is that it's not as clear that the plot section does not usually require references. Simply stating 'Plot summaries may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given (per WP:PSTS).' is not as clear as the previous of wording of "Since TV episodes are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable. [...] Since the episode is the primary source and the infobox provides details about it, citing the episode explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary."

In that same section, Adamstom.97 said that he would not be opposed to re-adding the previous wording.

In the #Next Steps section, Masem, stated, "I would really like to see anything regarding sources promote the use of secondary sources if possible to back up a plot summary. Yes, the default implicitly sourced aspect is fine, but I've seen people not normally involved in fictional area criticize the lack of sourcing in plot summaries in other areas of the project. And when plot summaries are available from a third-party, it seems silly not to employ those to improve the WP:V-ness of the summary. (I have had one case where I did add appropriate sourcing for plot summaries and was reverting sayings it not required, which is not the intent of this implicit sourcing aspect)."

I that same section, I told Masem, "I notice that MOS:PLOT states 'However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible." I could support that, since it's not telling editors to source the plot section but is rather encouraging them to do so."

Re-adding the previous text would alleviate my concerns, and probably some of TAnthony's concerns. And Masem's suggested addition could alleviate the concerns of those like Bignole, who prefer that the plot sections be sourced.

So is everyone okay with re-adding the previous text and then adding Masem's propose text after it? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we can reword this to make it more clear and adjust for the other proposals? Perhaps start with noting that as with everything else in Wikipedia we need to provide reliable sources to support plot summaries, especially if they are questioned by other editors. Episode's themselves can be used as primary sources, but it is always good to use reliable secondary sources if possible. When sourcing an episode as a primary source, an explicit reference is not required in an episode table or episode article, but this does not extend to plot information added in other places (such as a cast list). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, there is a difference between a "plot section" and a character page that has a section describing what happened to them in a show. I'm arguing that on character pages it SHOULD be sourced, because we cannot say where that information is actually coming from. You cannot require someone to watch an entire show to find the information, thus an episode citation should be required. I'm not requiring secondary sources, just an episode citation so it is easy to verify where it comes. I'm also not saying that LoE pages need to be sourced, or episode articles, because again all the information you would use to source is right there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I think on character pages, the approach should be "is this information obvious without having to watch every episode?" If it a bit of info pertinent to the character but buried in only a few episodes (For example, Picard's family that only is mentioned in one TNG ep and in Generations) should have a primary source link, at minimum , when discussing this; on the other hand, we don't need to source that he's balding, a Starfleet captain, and has a love of archeology, points which come up frequent enough to not be required to be sourced. However if you can do this to secondary sourcing, all the better. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Masem: let's save sourcing, even explicit primary sourcing, for things not immediately obvious. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Can someone give an example of actual text they want added. It seems much of an original discussion related to sourcing in non-plot areas. The addition of that suggested above is incredible lengthy and confused for the most part, and doesn't seem appropriate. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with What's new; if the point is (from Flyer's first sentence) being clear that citation/referencing isn't necessary, we can achieve this much more simply by adding "without referencing" after "themselves". If the point is the opposite (from Flyer's later sentences) then I am struggling to see the argument; also, that would be more than a minor tweak to the recently agreed wording. IanB2 (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To respond to all above in this section, my issue is simply that I don't want people to come away from this guideline thinking that a plot summary must be explicitly sourced (you know, have inline references). Doing so has never been a requirement except for cases where the content goes into the realm of interpretation. I don't think it's productive to make it so that editors can challenge a plot summary simply because it's lacking inline citations. Wikipedia has had issues with editors doing that before, including editors tagging film plot sections for not having inline citations. And, as noted in the #Where we stand now section above, explicitly sourcing daytime soap opera plot summaries can be difficult (sometimes very difficult). Any wording that makes it clear that explicit sourcing is not automatically required...but is strongly encouraged...would be okay with me. But I would prefer that the previous wording be re-added, and then "However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible." be added after that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

So you'd be fine with IanB2's suggestion above of adding "without referencing" to the existing text then? Because inline citations in plots is not strongly encouraged unless a lost episode or otherwise not verifiable -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be okay with "Plot summaries may be sourced from the works themselves without referencing", but I'd change "without referencing" to "without inline citations" since "referencing" can be vague. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I don't support "without referencing," but I do support "without inline citations." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking honestly there are a lot of people outside of fiction editing that question why fiction articles are allowed to get away without sourcing, even when its pointed out that we presume the work to be the implicit primary source for that. I know it's longstanding tradition, but we really need to be better. That said, in an episode article , where the amount of content is "short" so that it is simple enough for a user to verify the plot summary by spending an hour or so of their time, that's fine to go without a citation (barring important quotes). In a character article which spans multiple seasons, and where it would be lengthy for a user to find a specific fact, those should have inline cites to where the relevant information can be found. And if there do exist secondary or third-party sources, it should not really be optional to include them whenever possible. It just helps fiction works approach the expectation all other article topics have. --MASEM (t) 04:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That's where we disagree, though, Masem. There have also been editors who feel that we should source film plot sections instead of leaving it to the readers to confirm the plot material by watching the film themselves, but I disagree with that too. I would state more, but I'd be repeating myself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I compare a film to a TV episode: it is a short amount of time (from 30 min to 3 hrs, nomimaly) so the amount of burden of someone wanting to validate the details themselves is acceptable that the implicit nature of the work being its own source is fine. When we are talking a whole series, a season, or a character from a TV show, now that becomes more a burden on the reader to validate; a one minute plot point in 65 1-hr episodes is a huge problem, and thus sourcing, even explicitly to the primary source (by episode) is needed. (We'd require the same if we were talking a film series too).

And please note that I'm more talking about when we know there exists secondary sources that we can use to source an episode summary; we absolutely should be using them, but there's resistance towards that. EW, IGN, and (formerly) TWoP, among others, provided recaps for a lot of episodes that are perfectly good as sources here. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand where Flyer is coming from now; I see two separate points. On citations not being a requirement, we should be absolutely clear, and her addition of "without inline citations" after "themselves" in the current text would do this efficiently. On the proposal that they become "strongly encouraged", this is asking for trouble IMO - we have had a separate discussion about editors who can see an MoS as something to be "enforced", and "strongly encouraged" but not "required" would be the worst of both worlds; citation tags everywhere! My view is that the citation is implicit - but we are also in the same position as film pages or literature pages describing their plots, and I don't see a reason for TV to strike out on its own? Recently I added a citation into a film plot section, to establish a point of detail that had been contested, and it lasted only a few days before being deleted entirely. There are clearly editors who think citation in plot sections is inappropriate altogether! If we wish to make clear that citation is acceptable, we should say so, but I wouldn't go strongly encouraging something that is not actually an expectation. IanB2 (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to source film plot details that can be gathered from watching the film, unless there's something peculiar about certain edited versions that would invite contention. If some of the details seem out of place, they can be cited to the episode or film section. If they're strange but not really bothersome, then embedded comments can be added instead so as to not disrupt flow. I get the feeling there are details that are WP:BLUE like Mark Hamill reprising Luke Skywalker in the latest Star Wars film, but if stated in a peculiar way, would require citation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The difference that I'm pointing out and that Masem is saying, is that when you're dealing with character pages that is a different beast. There is no other information to help you verify it on the page. The pages themselves don't contain the information necessary to even verify from a primary standpoint. You cannot argue that the "subject is the source itself" if someone cannot verify where the subject came from. That is why you need to source on character pages or lists when you are dealing with multiple, varying episodes across time. You cannot require a reader to watch and entire series to verify all the information. And yes, even black and white information can be wrong, which is why we verify. Not to mention, it's easy for vandals to change something without anyone realizing that it is wrong. Not all vandals just say "this guy is gay" or "suck a dick", making it obvious to remove.

I get that SOAPs are hard to source, which I think is where Flyer's concerns really come from. It's very hard to source SOAPs because of how they air, but that should be an automatic reason NOT to source and it shouldn't stop other characters on "regular" shows from having their information sourced.

As for "in-line citations", well that's just how we source here. So, if it's sourced then it is represented through in-line citations.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree with sourcing character articles and sections to at least the episode or film section if the statements don't already list the episode (e.g. Martok debuted in the season 4 premiere "The Way of the Warrior" followed by the season 5 premiere "Apocalypse Rising".) I've gone a bit overboard with List of Totally Spies! characters but it does help on little known details like learning characters' full names or establishing recurring habits. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little torn here. I'm a citation freak and I love how well-cited Clark Kent (Smallville) is, but while I agree that citations should be encouraged, I would not want the wording of any guideline now or in the future to suggest that the level of plot sourcing shown in that article should be the norm. The plot section of that article not only mentions episodes by name, in many cases it cites the minutes at which these events occur in the episode. Bignole, you say that we can't require a reader to watch an entire series to verify something we write. But the series' plot is summarized in Clark Kent (Smallville) with a brief paragraph per season, and I would argue that it is technically enough to identify the season as the primary source. We don't have to spoonfeed episode names any more than we have to necessarily cite page numbers in a book or comic when describing clear plot points not likely to be challenged. We can put the burden on readers to watch multiple episodes (even an entire season!) if they are seeking to verify basic and easily verifiable plot points. Ideally it's great to identify for the reader which episode included Lana's engagement to Lex Luthor, but that is above and beyond actual Wikipedia requirements/guidelines regarding fiction as far as I'm concerned.— TAnthony^Talk 18:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm.. I think on that Clark Kent article, someone is using the wrong time field. All the times are "42 minutes in" which is the length of the episode, and (I've only just started watching though S2) some of the reveals don't happen in the last minute. In other words, that should just be the episode length which is not a required parameter for episode sourcing, unless you are using a direct quote. But sourcing every episode by title, season and director is what helps improving sourcign to avoid OR and the exactly to meet WP:V, especially some of the critical points that define that character.

Now if we were talking season pages, and we're talking the season summary, then either:

• If the season summary is short and the episode summary long, then the season summary shouldn't need sourcing since you're repeating the key points sprinkled through the episode summaries (which by the nature of these tables, self-serve as the citation for the episode).
• If you use a long season summary and brief episode summaries, then you need to be more exacting about certain key points in the season, since most episode summaries do not hit on major reveals or the like.

A key mentioned above are "easily verifable plot points". These should be considered ones that are brought up in nearly every episode or at least a majority of episodes; for Smallville, that Clark is romantically interested in Lana, or that Clark and Lex have a friendship is clear and plain as day every single episode that I've seen so far, so that don't need sourcing. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

When I wrote Clark Kent, the things I source were events that occurred, not over-arching themes, like Masem points out. I would disagree that saying an event occurred in a season and requiring the reader to watch an entire season is something we should do. That would be like saying Entertainment Weekly discusses Alien: Covenant throughout 2016, but then requiring a reader to verify that by reading every EW magazine from January to December to verify the information. We wouldn't do that, so that same principle applies here. Again, removing SOAPs from the equation because of how they air, why should we be discouraging, or not mandating, sourcing of specific plot points on character pages (or pages where the information isn't readily sourced already, like it is on a season page or an episode article)? It maybe takes 5 minutes, if that, to fill out a "cite episode" reference, and many of the items are not required anyway.

You don't even have to go look them up, because if you know the event took place in season 2, episode 5, you can go to the season page or the LoE page and get the specific information for the template. No, we shouldn't say "it happened on this season, so go to the season page and read the plot description" either. For one, we don't source articles by pointing to other articles. Second, there's also no guarantee that that point was addressed on that page. What might ultimately be something decided to be important to a character for their individual page, might not have been important to the entire episode and thus not mentioned in an episode summary. I'm just very surprised by the push-back for basic sourcing of plot points (not plot summaries) on character pages, which can be done with primary sources (though encouraged for secondary). We're not talking about mandating secondary sources here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, I would personally cite episodes when possible, and would not discourage that. Enthusiastic sourcing also reinforces the all-important real-world perspective in these articles. But I would stop short of requiring it. My point is that the current guidelines regarding fiction do not presume that readers are going to need to fact check plot summaries to such an extent. We are all TV nerds, but is the casual reader actually going to want/need to research which episode Lex proposed to Lana? "Easily verifiable", to me, means that the show is available for viewing somewhere, not that we've necessarily pointed the reader to an episode summary in EW. I'm basically concerned with what impact this has on the thresholds for articles seeking Good or FA status, which is essentially our measuring stick for improving them. To use our Clark Kent example, the current state of the "Role in Smallville" plot section is obviously FA-worthy. But if each paragraph (which is a few sentences and encapsulates a season) were entirely unsourced, do we think that article should be promoted? What if there is a single source for that paragraph based on an EW article about the season that may not mention every one of the noted events? Our Project applies things like WP:CRYSTAL more forcibly than the Film and Novel WikiProjects do, and this would be something else that is probably beyond the expectations of an editor assessing an article. Again, I'm all for this level of sourcing, but I don't want articles tagged or held back because they lack it.— TAnthony^Talk 00:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I will noted that over at WP:CITE the advice is gives is "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited." And I think we'd all agree that a whole season (much less a whole series) of a TV show is "lengthy". Even if we used a single EW source over and over again, that's still fine to meet CITE. And keep in mind, this sourcing pressure is from outside the TV project and other fiction-based areas; it is something we're going to have to deal with. I don't think it will ever come to "plot sections need inline citations", but for things that are not simple single-work summaries, we really need more care. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been away for days. So this is why I haven't commented lately. Thank you all for weighing in. Bignole is correct that soap operas are part of my concern, but I'm not sure that they are my main concern. I really don't edit many soap opera articles these days. I don't edit a lot of character articles either. Even so, I recently created the Lexa (The 100) article after becoming interested in the show The 100. Unless they are intriguing do-gooder characters like Barry Allen from The Flash, it's the tortured and/or dark, complex characters that usually interest me most, which is why I was drawn to Todd Manning, Spike, Daenerys Targaryen, and to Lexa. When it comes to the type of plot summary I have set up at the Lexa article, I really don't see why I need to source that. At the top of the Appearances section, I link to the List of The 100 characters and List of The 100 episodes articles for further detail, and the episodes are identified in the Appearances section by beginning with things like "In 'Fog of War,' two days after a massacre, mechanic and explosives expert Raven discovers Mount Weather has jammed communications, preventing them from reaching out to other potential survivors from the Ark (a ship that held descendants of humans who survived the nuclear apocalypse 97 years before)." The section is set up this way because I copied and pasted material from the List of The 100 episodes article and then tweaked it. I was more focused on the real-world information than on the Appearance section. I can source all of the Appearances section, but do I really need to?

All I'm asking for is that we have the following or something like it at this guideline: "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible." That is what MOS:PLOT states. Notice that it doesn't state "strongly encouraged," but rather "encouraged." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

IanB2, thanks for trying to help. I'm often busy (taking days off from Wikipedia), and it appears that editors are content with letting the guideline stay as is, even though the guideline should address this issue. I'll simply refer editors to MOS:PLOT when making it clear that inline references are not required. That page will remain on my watchlist, in case any significant changes are made there. But as for this discussion? I am not interested in continuing to make my case or starting a RfC on this issue. I've already argued that this guideline should make it clear that inline references are not required, and that the bit about this should have never been removed. So re-adding anything about it is something I'll leave to others. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

With this edit, I removed the "Under discussion" tag, and added "MOS:PLOT" to the "Further information" template. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Headers for upcoming films

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Headers for upcoming films. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

future-dated season end dates: should they be in series overview boxes?

Hullo,

Regarding these edits, for announced but as yet in the future season end dates... is it appropriate to list them in the series overview boxes? The column they get added to is entitled "Last aired", which implies something that has already happened... and as we know, these dates might change as time goes by. Per WP:CRYSTAL, wouldn't it be better to list them in prose as "Season X is scheduled to end on [date].[ref]" and only add them to the "Last aired" column once that date has been reached and the final episode of the season has actually aired? Seems like something that should be covered under WP:TVUPCOMING but I couldn't find it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this, given that it's been the normal procedure since before I joined. Per WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future - we are adequately sourcing the content with the content given to us; nothing is being predicted. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This is exactly what is happening. They are included given their notability as the season finales, and given that the dates are released by the networks that the series' belong to, they are most certainly a WP:RS. There was a previous discussion on this elsewhere; I'll see if I can find it again. -- Alex^TW 08:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Found it. Primarily about adding the total number of episodes into the overview, then mentions the dates. Talk:List of Arrow episodes/Archive 1 § Season episode count -- Alex^TW 09:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I also do not have any issue with this as long as the information is reliably sourced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Having the broadcaster publish that it's the season finale and not just an episode title does help that situation. In most crystal cases, the editor extrapolates the weekly schedule and calculates the finale based on that without sourcing, and that is where I've had to put in embedded notes not to do so. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Episode list MOS issue

Can I get some assistance in the following lists:

• List of Dynasty episodes
• List of Falcon Crest episodes
• List of The Colbys episodes

The IP who has added extensive cast and producer lists for each season, as well as Guest cast info within the edit summaries, is not accepting my explanations that these things specifically go against our MOS. I don't want to get into an edit war. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk

The IP seems to also be adding the same material to multiple lists, including List of Knots Landing episodes, List of Flamingo Road episodes, Designing Women (season 1), and many others. A related problem is the creation of excessive links to disambiguation pages because little care is being taken when linking performer and crew names.— TAnthony^Talk 20:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@TAnthony: I've reverted some (please let me know if I've missed any). I've also left a warning on their talk. If they revert any of these again, go straight to ANI with them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Thanks for the intervention! The problem I think I will have if this continues is that our MOS is in flux, and though this specific addition of excessive cast and producer credits is obviously not appropriate for an episode list, I'm not sure there is enough to point to in our guidelines.— TAnthony^Talk 21:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion regarding TVPRODUCTION changes now open

As part of the ongoing updates to MOS:TV, the discussion on WP:TVPRODUCTION has now begun. Please add any thoughts or comments to the discussion, which you can find, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Batch cast

Hi, I want to help these batch cast is entire article about WP:LISTCRUFT from an article and I'm not sure is fit on the article @Tonyboy bautista:. I think is folk out Filipino of List of Ang Probinsyano guest cast. I don't had figure out is batch from the past and present years. Oripaypaykim (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Which article are you scrutinizing? Goin' Bulilit? List of Ang Probinsyano guest cast? Are those shows known for bringing in lots of celebrity guests, as with List of SpongeBob SquarePants guest stars, List of The Simpsons guest stars, or List of The Love Boat guest stars? If not, then I have to question whether having such a guest list is notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I really notice is article was cast member or guest cast absolutely is those list notability celebrities kids then gone edit war to re-added member cast from the batch in many times. I think is the related children shows cast members of Goin' Bulilit was batch guest from past years. I wonder is problem from guest members figure out is part of actor and actress comedy is List of The Office (U.S. TV series) cast members or List of The Proud Family guest stars. maybe should be notice is problem for list of (article) cast members needs find answer. Oripaypaykim (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

And by the way guest cast should taken from appearance every episodes then the cast members is present and past year. Oripaypaykim (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Episode counts in actor BLP articles

There is a part in WP:TVCAST which prohibits episode counts being shown across all articles concerning TV series: The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g. (6 episodes), to indicate the number of episodes in which the actor or character appeared. If an actor misses an episode due to a real-world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or "Production" section with a reliable source. In looking over a number of actor BLP articles, I am seeing episode counts being mentioned in their filmography sections for TV series they were in. While these are not TV series articles, this is just as much a violation of the above guideline in that the counts I'm seeing are unsourced, and as such should be removed. Although I've been wanting to address this for a while, what prompted me to bring this up is this edit, which I subsequently reverted. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh. First, WP:FILMOGRAPHYs are governed by WP:FILMBIO group, not WP:TV. Second, episode counts for main cast for finished series is a trivial matter for series that have finished their runs. IOW, if a show runs 5 years and 110 episodes, and that actor was main cast for all 5 years, they were credited for 110 episodes, and it's not hard to verify. Now, that said, for Main cast like this, I don't feel it's necessary to do episode counts (it's sort of self-evident, usually), but I'm also not reflexively opposed to doing it like I think Geraldo Perez is. Where the situation is trickier is with "Recurring cast" – (independently) verifying the number of episodes a recurring cast member has been in is harder; but, by the same token, I've always felt that the episode counts for recurring cast are actually more relevant than they are for Main cast in Filmography tables (i.e. to quantify exact how "recurring" the actor was)... Another option, which I pursue a fair amount is instead of doing "Main role, 22 episodes" in a Filmography table I'll instead do "Main role (season 2)" or something... All that said, while I agree with the point of WP:TVCAST, I also don't think that it is "binding" on doing episode counts (in at least some cases) in WP:FILMOGRAPHY tables. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: In the specific case of PLL and Lucy Hale, I agree with your edit – where I think "episode counts" should not be included in Filmography tables are in the specific case of Main cast for shows that are still airing. IOW, while I can easily figure how many episode Bob Denver was credited for Gilligan's Island because it's been off the air for about 50(!) years, I've always thought it was silly to keep an updated episode count for, say, Stephen Amell on Arrow (why bother updating it every single week?!...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The episode count could be in the filmography but there must be a useful reason for listing it. There's no point when the character is a main or a recurring unless there's some contract thing specifying a particular number of episodes as with number of Oscar wins. As I have stated on these discussions, Wikipedia is NOT an attendance record. There is no value in keeping track of how many episodes an actor appears in a series. In sports, yes, they do keep track with Games Played (GP), Games Started (GS), and association football Cap (sport), and that information is posted on reliable sites regularly. There is no similar stat for acting, except maybe IMDb but IMDb isn't a reliable source. If a series has a guidebook that prints out the counts for every actor or character, then now you have a source to refer to for episode counts, but no, not if you're having to do Original Research on whether an actor participated in an episode. What happens if an actor is credited for an episode but does not appear in it (e.g. scene was cut) or they cameoed in an episode and didn't get a credit? Do those count? What about archive footage? It gets really messy, and rather pointless for characters that are main or recurring cast anyway. It's more informative to say what seasons the person was labelled as main or recurring or guest. What about news and talk shows? Is there a point in counting when a regular member takes the day off? If the guidebook or reliable source discussion about how a certain actor has appeared in every episode of a series since its inception, then great, now you can put a note in the filmography. And if counting episodes is important, be sure to cite the episodes themselves and the credits/timestamps for each one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Good Wife "production codes"

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the "production codes" added for The Good Wife such as in this edit are not real production codes and therefore shouldn't be added, right? A production code isn't just the season number concatenated with an episode number—it's an actual internal identifier created by the production team, correct? —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

They should be sourced from somewhere, such as the production codes at Legion (season 1) which are taken from the end credits of each episode. Otherwise users are probably just making them up. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I would believe so, yes. I actually removed this form of "production codes" earlier last month. -- Alex^TW 10:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Correct, those are not production codes, just episode number designations (season number, episode number). CBS-produced series do not have production codes. The only time using those types of production "codes" should be is when a series airs their episodes out of production order (see List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes for an example). But in this case, when the numbers are just sequential, they serve no purpose. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The best source for real production codes is the U.S. Copyright Office database search. If you search for "Good Wife", the U.S.C.O. does confirm that there are basically prod. code for episodes of "The Good Wife". Now, the question then becomes whether it's useful to include prod. codes or not. IMO, including prod. codes is only useful if episodes are aired out of production order – in the case of The Good Wife it does not appear that even one episode aired out of production order. Because of that, including prod. code info is not particularly useful and can be removed from The Good Wife's episode lists. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone... especially for the source to check! Always good to hear I'm not (totally) crazy. 😀 —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

episode tables: what columns should and shouldn't be included

So as you can see here, there's a bit of disagreement as to what should and shouldn't be made a prominent feature of episode tables. I personally would argue that Lost is doing it wrong and their table(s?) are like that because they were established quite a while ago and the "standard" has evolved since then. I removed the "featured character" column (which I think might also constitute WP:OR somewhat) because I had never seen episode tables include non-production-related materials (until the IP editor pointed out Lost to me). There's also no guarantee that, going forward, the "featured character" tag will continue to apply, whereas we can be pretty reasonably certain title, air date, writers, directors, etc. will continue to be applicable.

As this is a fairly new article for a fairly new series, it would be good to figure out how to proceed now, rather than later. Opinions? —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It would see Orange Is the New Black does this as well, but as you can see, a number of them features "none". I do believe that it's not a required featured. It's in-universe information being mixed into a row of real-world information, and can easily be added into the summary. -- Alex^TW 23:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for new cast section at TVMOS

There is now a proposal for final wording to be added to the TVMOS as part of the ongoing updates to it. You can view and discuss the proposal here -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Whats new?: the TVCAST update has been made and it's all fine and good. I'm just curious, as a procedural matter, I thought there was going to be some sort of vote or poll. I'm guessing since there wasn't much (any?) opposition, that it went through by general consensus. Is that right? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Since consensus is formed not through voting, each of the discussions allow users to present discussion points, and then a preferred proposal for everyone to discuss to come to a happy consensus. Hope that helped/answered your concern. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As Favre1fan93 said, voting isn't how Wikipedia discussions typically operate. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm with you so far. I heard there was some sort of "straw poll" for the TVPLOT update. Maybe I was wrong about that. Reidgreg (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think there was, but to my knowledge all updates regarding the Plot section have finished, even that straw poll. The straw poll started after the update went through when there was still dissension about particular wording.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You participated in it Reidgreg, a few times. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The straw poll started after the update went through when there was still dissension about particular wording. Oh, I had no idea that was a "straw poll". Okay, now I know. Thanks for explaining. Reidgreg (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#New Tweaks

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#New Tweaks. This is in regards to the guideline of WP:TVOVERVIEW, and manually calculating viewer averages for each season. -- Alex^TW 09:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Season article naming conventions

So, I recently tidied up the articles for Educating (TV series), after becoming aware of it for my University studies. (I have to watch a season for my teaching course.) After reading MOS:TV#Naming conventions and WP:NC-TV, I'm not sure if the naming conventions for the seasons are correct; see the {{main}} links under "Development and production". For example, someone may think of Educating Cardiff (series 4) as the fourth series of a show called Educating Cardiff; in reality, it's the fourth series of Educating and is "subtitled" as Educating Cardiff. Opinions would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 05:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes this was a great programme, running for some years, and focusing on a different school each series, starting with Essex as I recall. As you say, putting the series number after the place is misleading, as there is only one series made in each location. My suggestion for an option would be to treat the overall series title as Educating..., the dots indicating that a place name is to follow, and present the titles as either Educating... (series four: Cardiff) or Educating... (series four) Cardiff. This is a bit clunky but I don't see an easier solution that involves numbering. Incidentally I put "season four" rather than "season 4" following WP:NUMERAL, although this often seems disregarded for TV articles. An alternative approach is not to number them at all for the article title, treating each version as a standalone title, made to a common format but otherwise distinguished by the name. In the lead we could then say something like "Educating Cardiff is a fly-on-the-wall documentary series of ?6 programmes following teachers and pupils at...and is the fourth series made in this format", otherwise not referring to it by number. If it is any help this is how it is usually described in the UK - unlike the US, prominently numbering TV series is uncommon here (even when the name is the same). MapReader (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This looks like it should be "Educating (series 4)" or, if Educating Cardiff is somehow preferable per COMMONNAME or the like, just Educating Cardiff. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Adam. Either of the options they suggested should be where the articles sit, but probably simply "Educating Cardiff" per WP:TVSEASON, third bullet point. It is confusing as you noted Alex, the way it is currently titled. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget that redirects are cheap, and all of the good but non-selected options should probably be added for ease of navigation. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Is a colon used for the title as in Educating: Cardiff or is it typically shown without the colon? I don't really see that (the colon) [1] [2] You can use Educating Cardiff as the common name for the article. I would remove Educating Cardiff (series 4) as that is redundant and implies 4 series of the cardiff version, but keep Educating (series 4) as a redirect. See Survivor: The Australian Outback and how they do those Survivor seasons. Same applies to Educating the East End and others in the Educating series. A navbox at the bottom would also be helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Why again not just Educating Essex, Educating Yorkshire, Educating the East End, and Educating Cardiff? Official sources don't use colons- [3], [4], [5], [6]. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would recommend that. It's worked with The Real Housewives AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

MOS:LISTGAP, accessibility, and Cast/Character list formatting being discussed yet again

People who participated in the discussions at Star Trek: Discovery may be interested to know that Cast/Character list formatting is once again being rehashed, this time in relation to WikiProject Film at WT:WikiProject Film#Cast list gaps but with reference to the fairly recent discussions at ST:D and to the discussions to do with revamping the MOS:TV guidelines that we had. Comments from everyone are welcome. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Average viewing figures proposal

Over at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#New Tweaks, we have been discussing adding average viewing figures to the series overview table. There is consensus between the editors on how this can be successfully managed for this article - however there is concern that it is not completely congruent with an existing rule as written in WP:TVOVERVIEW. So I would like to propose this change “If average viewership numbers are included, they should be adequately sourced or routinely calculated with a public method approved by consensus and not the result of your own private calculations. Sourcing or reproducibility is crucial for accuracy, and to help other editors quickly respond to numerical vandalism". I believe the original intent of the rule was to make it easy to verify average figures - I believe this change keeps with that intent - however the addition empowers editors to be able to reach a consensus on how to manage the level of easiness required for within the specific article. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable to me. Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're adding this, you're adding more information that just becomes duplicated in other sections. Most series overview tables exist on a page where there is a ratings overview, that already provides the average viewership. You're basically restating the same thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am not sure I understand your objection - as a similar rule currently exists and this change does not suddenly force the information to be added to the series overview table - the change attempts to keep with the intention of the current rule (that average viewership is easy for editors to verify). Also the article and topic where this stems from does not have currently have average viewership anywhere - so its not duplicated. I am not opposed to a further addition/change that would limit the duplication you are concerned about - but in my current experience I feel this usually handled well by consensus on the articles anyway. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand it either. In fact, while ratings sections are typically popular for American series, the example given is a British programme, for which "ratings" as Americans know it aren't typically used. If you view the page with the series overview as well, you will see that there is no existing averages information, which is a fair enough representation of each season as a whole. This edit does not state that averages must be added; only that they must be sourced or easily reproducible. -- Alex^TW 02:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with allowing series or season average viewerships either, although I think it would be positive to include a citation indicating it is a routine calculation, rather than sourced from somewhere. That way, a reader will know the figure has come either from a RS with a link or by simple arithmetic. A self calculation may be controversial in some situations, for example in Australia ratings for a single episode of the season finale are often broken up into 2 ratings figures, with the final 10-15 minutes of the episode a seperate figure to the bulk of the finale (in order to get a higher average to generate a better headline in media the following day). I think the method should be made clear with a citation. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree with citing it as a routine calculation - I've been pondering how to best achieve that. I think it should probably point to the underlying source data and the method itself. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You need to be careful with "routine calculations" for this stuff. In other sections where viewer averages are used in relation to placement at the end of the season, those metrics are not always the LIVE numbers, but the LIVE+7 numbers. I've had this battle on tv pages before, where editors come in to do "routine" calculations of averages, stating that the average is wrong. Except, it isn't wrong it's just based on different figures. You see this more on pages where the viewership numbers on an episode table uses LIVE numbers, but the "ratings table" at the end that shows the averages and the show's rank uses "Live+7". So, the basic math doesn't add up when looking at both figures.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

That's why I think it is important to cite the method of the calculation, so if there is such a query or disagreement, there is a clear explanation. Especially important for a reader unfamiliar with a particular country's rating system -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Citing it is good, but you need to be clear to editors why there is a difference in numbers if there is a difference in numbers. There should also be a stipulation that the method should be consistent in the article, and not use one set of figures one location and another somewhere else.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Updates to WP:TVPRODUCTION

Posting a final call for any comments to updated wording for WP:TVPRODUCTION. The proposed updates are Proposal 2 in the discussion found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 3#Template:Game of Thrones background colors

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 3#Template:Game of Thrones background colors.

Discussion: This is in concerns on whether or not a template should be used to replace repeated colours within a television series article, using templates such as {{Game of Thrones background colors}} and edits such as this. -- Alex^TW 07:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Originally, I believed that the editor was only planning to execute their edits on a few article; however, they have since stated that they plan to do it for every television series and their articles. -- Alex^TW 13:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)