Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Which episodes get standalone articles?

In a deletion debate, I noted an argument centering around the word outstanding in WP:EPISODE. I think this is wrong, hence BOLDLY fixed it to say notable instead. I believe that's a far better threshold, because the GNG applies to each Wikipedia article, and even if some episodes are later merged due to editorial discussion, meeting the GNG should be the baseline level below which no episode article should ever be created in the first place. I fear that the 'outstanding' wording could be read in order to deny some shows 100% article coverage (e.g. Game of Thrones, The Simpsons), while arguing that the best/most popular episodes of shows that have no notable episodes (nothing comes to mind as an example) should be standalone articles. Since I'm participant in the discussion which prompted my change to the guideline, I'm bringing this discussion here for review. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "outstanding" is vague wording, but are you suggesting that every episode of GoT or The Simpsons is notable and merits its own article? DonIago (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If there are multiple secondary sources discussing the episode in depth (which means reviews that usually come within 24hrs of airing), then the episode should be considered notable for a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I personally agree with that threshold for TV episode articles, but I'm probably not motivated enough to argue over it. DonIago (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sure I completely disagree with that extremely low threshold/bar. Episodes should get articles on the basis of them standing out from the rest of the series, not just because the entertainment press happens to provide reviews/recaps of said episodes. If that's the bar, then any show that is remotely popular should have articles for each and every one of its episodes, which is patently absurd. For instance, the existence of Gorilla City (The Flash) simply because there was a two-part story is overkill, as is having an article for every single one of List of Supergirl episodes' entries. I see how "outstanding" sounds, in the Wikipedia context, a little vague (because maybe it could be interpreted as a commentary on the subjective quality of an episode) but if you take it as "create episode articles for episodes that stand out," then it fits better. I think in this case, though, "notable" should be fleshed out to clearly indicate that multiple reviews, in and of themselves, do not render an episode "notable." I really think it needs to be "notable" within the context of the series (or at least the season). For instance, as much as I love me some Buffy, the fact that every episode appears to have its own article is insane. Yes, sure, an episode like The Body deserves one, or one where there was nearly no dialogue or background music, or say the title character dies, then of course. But Wikipedia is not Wikia and the fact that there are entire series where there are articles for every episode is indicative that the guidelines need to be much clearer. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This I tend to agree with. DonIago (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you want to see it that way, you're going to have an uphill battle to change the culture at AfD, where meeting the GNG or meeting any SNG is generally considered adequate for notability. That does create systemic bias towards shows airing in the mid-2000's or later, but it'd be a sticky wicket to untangle that. (Oh, and specifically with respect to Buffy, you are aware of Buffy studies, right? May seem silly or trivial to us, but it gets more peer-reviewed academic work than more "serious" shows) Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

DonIago, I mention GoT and The Simpsons because, to the best of my knowledge, every single episode of each show does have its own standalone article, with sufficient RS commentary that many of them are GA or higher. I'm not advocating that they should each have an article, but rather noting that they do, and without any community heartburn at that. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have no issues with standalone episode articles where out-of-universe commentary is provided beyond merely 1-2 reviews. Thanks for clarifying! DonIago (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I would also suggest that weight should be given on secondary aspects of an episode that are beyond just reviews, notably issues related to writing and filming that are beyond simple casting or trivia aspects (the type "That one scene took 27 takes to get!"). Information from the showrunners or writers or actors that establish the episode beyond just being a 30-60 minutes of TV really helps. That would make, for example, most episodes of the current Doctor Who series eligible, but not necessarily every Simpsons or Star Trek, or the like. I realize that the GNG will right now say that as long as there's a handful of reviews and viewership info, the episode is considered notable, but do keep in mind that the TV project can have a higher bar for notability without violating any other notability aspects. (you can't go looser than the GNG, but you can go tighter). --MASEM (t) 03:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is what I and I suspect Joey were getting at...with regards to invididual episodes of a tv show, GNG seems like a very weak threshold for establishing that an episode was notable and deserves its own article. Does anyone really think that every episode of The Simpsons (all multiple hundreds of them) merits its own article here just because multiple reviewers weighed in on it? DonIago (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, actually. Coverage is not a zero-sum game, so we lose nothing by having comprehensive coverage of popular series. The GNG is a very good threshold, and in the case of popular media supported by fans, there's zero indication that forbidding some notable articles would get the editors involved to work on "more important" (however that's defined) things. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

However... there is an issue of what is considered "routine" coverage, as we, for example, don't cover the result of every baseball or football game despite widespread coverage of those. Mind you, I do think television episodes, particularly of series that generate media attention like the Simpsons, are something with more cultural pertenance whereas a single baseball game is just part of the stats. I'm not saying that anything should be acted on this idea, but it is a possible way to discourage episode articles that bascially have a long plot, some casting details and 2-3 sentences to sum up the review and Nielson numbers. Those technically pass the GNG, but its not an encyclopedic comprehensive article. --MASEM (t) 05:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that something similar to WP:EVENTCRIT is merited with regards to individual episodes of TV shows. While I wouldn't exactly call an episode of a TV series an "event", I think WP:RECENTISM is certainly a factor in terms of reviews. DonIago (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why articles about television episodes should be treated differently from any other article. If it meets WP:GNG, then it is allowed to have an article. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that TV episodes are really part of a larger season length story. The problem with jumping right to episode articles for most tv shows is that no one has bothered actually developing the parent articles of these shows. TV episodes are not parent articles, they are sister articles that should be spun out of season articles when appropriate. I have seen the reviews for most of these articles, and it is usually about 4 useable reviews for these articles. I say "useable" because I frequently see fansite and non-professional reviews (e.g., blogs, aspiring writers, etc.). We need to be more mindful of what we are putting in articles, because just like books, anyone can publish anything. And just because it has a Wikipedia page doesn't make the website itself useable for information here (e.g., IMDB has a wiki page, but is considered an unreliable source because it is user-edited).

Then, when I read the articles, most of these pages are about 75% plot summary. The reviews look like they provide a lot of information, but even when they are good reviews I'm finding that editors are basically copying the entire review to this page, or just quoting very large segments from them. Reviews should be presented in paraphrased format and quoted when necessary. That is frequently not the case (not even for film articles). So, you end up with an inflated plot, minimal reviews that are disguised through large quotes, and almost no production information outside of "This person was cast in this guest role". Or, my favorite, which is a copy/paste job from the parent article so you end up with recycled information, which itself was only because someone wanted the ability to write a longer plot summary than is allowed in a season episode table.

I don't think we should look at episodes as individual entities, but part of a larger ensemble that may require separating out when there is enough information to justify it (just like we would any section of any article that has become too large).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Still not seeing a problem. So we get plot summary of notable shows with some commentary and reception tacked on... please explain why that is a problem for Wikipedia without circularly referencing our guidelines. That is, why would or should we care that we get 10-20 new articles on notable current tv shows each week? Editors care to write them, readers read them, and our content guidelines keep them "on the rails" as it were. The thing about season articles is that they are best assembled after the season is complete, such that individual episode articles become the ingredients from which a well written season overview is constructed. I fear this page's contributors seem to occasionally lose sight of why we write: for readers to read, no? Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

TV episodes are really part of a larger season length story. Sure, sometimes. But many series aren't serials, where episodes absolutely standalone as individual entities. Most comedies and animated series, for instance. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is what determines notability, not individual editors determining whether episodes "stand out." WP:GNG should absolutely be our standard here, like any other subject on Wikipedia. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

To stress a point, Wikiprojects are free to apply more narrow criteria than the GNG if they so chose. You can't make something weaker than the GNG, but you can say "For articles within our project, you need to meet the GNG and these additional requirements." That would still be something to set by consensus and probably an RFC or two, but it is an option, and the way I'm reading this convo, there is clear awareness that while some shows get every episode covered by reviews, that still may not make for the best of inclusion for an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

As I noted earlier, the challenge when setting expectations for tv content is that the few who dialogue here are not representative of tv-interested editors as a whole. As a regular AfD participant I can't think of any SNG that is usually considered normative--PORNBIO couldn't loosen things, and PROF has only had moderate success tightening them. Even if you get a LOCALCONSENSUS, you're going to see a fair number of editors disagree with it once it comes to AfD so again I ask... why even bother picking that fight? Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The big issue here, such as with what Bignole is saying, is that there is no inherent problem with episode articles but they are often created poorly. That tells me that we can't solve the issue by making it harder to create these articles since this is going to be a case-by-case thing where some articles are great while others may technically pass GNG but still not be worthy of existing. I'm not sure what the best wording for that would be. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I would figure that if the TV project gains some initial consensus to limit episode articles, that a site-wide RFC (or at least one advertised site wide) should be held to confirm. I would also make sure a grandfathering plan is in place, as well as a plan to avoid fait accompli , and perhaps even pointing out that most of these eps can be redirected to a season/series article without AFD need, allowing them to be re-expanded if more information comes to light. It makes the project look more mature by not treating every episode with 2-3 reviews as "notable". --MASEM (t) 21:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what the issue is with episode articles or why this preemptive strike is necessary. As Wikipedical points out above, the coverage should determine notability, not arbitrary determinations by us which episodes of a series stand out or if (oh no!) we have too many individual articles about Supergirl episodes. I just looked at the example Gorilla City (The Flash) mentioned above, and I wouldn't mind 69 Flash episode articles that were as nicely done, Start class or not. Joeyconnick made the point that any popular show will have enough commentary to create articles about all of its episodes, and the Game of Thrones episode articles prove that. But why not have all those articles if they meet the requirements any other article has to meet for inclusion? Surely not every GoT episode has had an earthshattering impact on entertainment, but if many of them are GAs then there's something there. I do agree with Bignole's way of thinking in that an episode is not necessarily an entity requiring its own page but should be split off from a list when the available material justifies it. But no one here is advocating episode stubs or articles bolstered by only a couple of plot recaps or reviews. Truly unacceptable articles will be obvious. It kind of seems like you're talking about theoretical bad articles that could be redirected per policies and guidelines already in place.— TAnthony^Talk 22:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Some series can support having every episode as a separate article; the Flash is a good example as there's more than just plot and reception (there seems to be consiider per-episode development aspects to talk about), and that would not be the type to diminish episode articles on. But shows like The Simpsons or Futurama do not really get per-episode development information, and all they have are plot and reception. Technically meeting the GNG but failing WP:NOT#PLOT (which warns where plot gets too much attention to other aspects). --MASEM (t) 22:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

But if RSs spend most of their time discussing the plot of an episode, if we don't reflect that in the article, we're UNDUE. RSs determine what and how we cover topics; MOS just arrange content presentation. Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Jclemens, if reliable sources are only discussing plot, meaning we will only be discussing plot, then that can be covered in a list of episodes - no article is needed. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If they are discussing the plot, and only the plot, then those works are primary sources (they offer no transformation of information) and don't contribute towards GNG. Otherwise, they are reviews similar to recaps that TWOP would do, but that's still begging if there's more than just reviews of episode to go into detail. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources can indeed summarize the plot and only the plot while still being transformative. Regurgitating the script is non-transformative; summarizing it is by definition a transformation. If all we have is a bunch of secondary RS plot summaries and viewership numbers, then writing an article that is 90% plot summary and 10% viewership meets V, N, DUE, and doesn't violate NOT#PLOT. Again, while I appreciate the nuanced approach that MOS-interested editors have, I do wish more of a larger view were taken reflecting the letter and spirit of the policies and guidelines that the MOS attempt to implement, because I do think that keeping the big picture in the mind is the best way to keep from arguing over minutiae. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Summarizing without any additional transformation does not make a source secondary; this is why most newspaper articles are primary sources, they are simply re-iterating events, not creating novel thoughts on them. Particularly when we are talking notability, we're trying to establish how an episode fits into the big picture of the world, and simple summarizing does not help towards that, hence why a source solely recapping without commentary is not helpful towards notability. That said, I rarely see any source that does that. Either that recap is part of a review (like TWOP or EW or other sites), or it is part of a tertiary source like a guidebook for a series, where there is additional information that might be able to be used. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a non-interpretive summary; summarizing IS interpreting inasmuch as the summarizer must pick and choose which parts to include or exclude. Look at WP:PSTS. Do episode summaries fall under primary sources? No, they do not. But as you point out, we're potentially arguing about Angels dancing on a pinhead here, as those sorts of purely summary RS'es really don't exist. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess this discussion tapered off, but plot summaries do absolutely fall under WP:PRIMARY when they are "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." You're defining "interpretation" way more broadly than the intent of that policy. 'Interpretation' there really best refers to analysis, not which plot points are included/excluded. That's the broad consensus on Wikipedia and why plot sections without analysis on episode lists or articles about novels don't typically use inline citations after every sentence. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Despite feeling generally "pro-episode", as I research this it seems that an episode article like "Supergirl Lives" (no offense to Supergirl fans) is just an excuse to have a guest cast list and a longer, more detailed plot summary than we allow in an episode list. The bulk of the Supergirl episodes in their current form seem better suited for merging into season articles. And impressive as it is that all 600+ episodes of The Simpsons have standalone articles, many of which include Production sections that seem to justify their existence, there are entire seasons whose episode articles are pretty much just plot summary and some reviews (no doubt added so that the articles meet WP:GNG). Though these episode articles technically meet notability requirements and theoretically are works in progress pending improvement, if they are never going to be expanded/improved, they are just inappropriate offshoots of the episode list. We all know that it's appealing and easy to create an episode article with the sexy stuff like plot, guest cast list, and a review or two, and leave to other editors the heavy lifting of adding more substantial production info. And dedicated fan editors creating such barebones articles for every "popular" show would become a problem.— TAnthony^Talk 22:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, not hearing any justification for why such articles (verifiable, drawing on multiple RS reviews) are 1) not compliant with WP:NOTPLOT: as I read it, a single reception tidbit counts, or 2) problematic in such a state. Can someone please explain to me, without circular references to policy, why articles like Supergirl Lives are problematic? Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Forty-two Supergirl articles of that level of "completeness" is simply an episode list with reviews, split out for the sake of ... I don't know? The sheer number of potential "articles" created—with no realistic intent to improve them—make this weird. Nearly every episode of every show on a real network or channel will get a couple of web reviews. The availability of more substantial production info would probably assert a little more notability, and I think we need some increased criteria to filter these articles. What additional value are we getting out of these individual articles vs. a list? This is only slightly more reasonable than creating an article for every issue of a comic book series. In my opinion.— TAnthony^Talk 01:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to avoid "circular references to policy" because I'm not exactly sure what that comment means but yes, as TAnthony said, how do these article justify their notability? They are essentially duplicate content that could (and in most cases should) be covered by the extant season and show articles. Someone above mentioned Buffy studies and yes, I am aware that's a thing, and again, total Buffy fan here, but I would still argue against every episode of that series, however much of a popular and/or academic culture splash it made, being noteworthy enough to deserve its own article. I'm not fully cognizant of all the particular policies that might be relevant but I certainly see many editors who have more experience than I do with this project point out that we're not IMDb and we're not a fan site. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. If we cast our minds back to what an encyclopedia used to be, it would not be something that would have an entry for every episode of every TV show ever made, unless it was specifically an encyclopedia of that TV show. I realize Wikipedia is not "just" an encyclopedia in the traditional sense and isn't bound by the capacity limitations a printed one was, but I think that most captures what troubles me about having an article for every episode ever made simply because there were some reviews of said episode: Wikipedia is meant to be a general knowledge source, correct? So having that level of detail, which again is generally redundant because it is covered in other articles (season, show/programme), seems off. Like I said way above, there are better venues for that (Wikia, for example).

So from WP:NOTEVERYTHING: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Based on that, I would argue that most individual article episodes are defying the idea that we should be summarizing accepted knowledge about the show, primarily because we already have, in most cases, an article for the show and quite often an article for the season. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

(EC) I don't mean to single you out, TAnthony, because I think this is a big cultural problem that extends beyond you, but neither you nor anyone else have managed to articulate any remotely meaningful harm for having such episodes. I submit that there's a very simple reason for that:

There isn't any.

Back in the early days of Wikipedia, nothing about the PLOT of fiction was ever sourced, and NOT#PLOT was simply another way of saying V and GNG in the specific context of fiction. The point wasn't to limit coverage for the sake of limiting coverage, but rather to enforce notability by saying, in effect, "if no one comments on it, it's probably not notable". In the intervening decade, storage space has become a thousand times cheaper, the capacity of the server software and network to handle articles has gone up, readership of fictional topics is continuing to go up as well. More importantly, the amount of online RS resources for almost anything contemporaneous is higher than it ever was before: there's not a particularly high hurdle to get 2-3 reviews of a mediocre episode of a mediocre TV show. Three months after airing Supergirl Lives still garners 1,500 pageviews a month--Others, such as Battle of the Bastards still garner 20,000 a month. Even lame episodes of 20-year-old TV shows often garner 500-1,000 a month. These are our readers, our customers, and they are happy when we have information on popular culture topics.

If we focus on "improving quality" at the expense of covering what our readers want to see, we risk irrelevance. If we fail to give a contemporary creative outlet for show fans who can get into Wikipedia by contributing to articles on fictional topics they love, we will continue to see our active editing corps fall.

So yes, we should continue to enforce minimum standards: V, GNG, NOT#FICTION... but to go beyond that without a real problem to solve smacks of contemplative navel-gazing, and focusing on our personal preferences as editors, rather than the underlying purpose and promise of Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Readers are editors and vice versa, and on a volunteer project without certain limits, what readers want is what editors create. That's why we had articles on every Pokemon back at the start of WP. But we've matured from that, in part because WP has and continues to be criticized to have much more detailed coverage on contemporary topics than more critically-encyclopedia topics of the page. As such we have created V, GNG, etc. to help avoid that project and help direct editors towards more encyclopedic topics. We don't concern with what readers want (as if we did, our television pages would look like TV Tropes pages) but how best we create an encyclopedia that lasts the test of time. So we should be a lot of discriminatory towards what television episodes we include, recognizing that there is a type of "routine" coverage these get that really isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

So because there are now more RS'es, we must necessarily move the bar? Again I ask: why? WP:NIME is the only answer I keep getting. No, if we stick to V and GNG, we don't get TV Tropes--we get a detailed summary of popular culture in 21st century America, as seen through the eyes of contemperaneous RS'es. Routine coverage is well defined in WP:NOTNEWS and does not at all overlap with what you're insinuating. Gone are the days when Doctor Who tapes were reused because the media was so much less valuable than the storage space. Babylon 5 just announced a new streaming deal--23 years after the first season aired. Reality TV may be quite forgettable, but original TV content (that admits it's scripted) is no longer limited to the show or network on which it aired. In other words, one article per episode is exactly what the readership wants, and what most non-MOS interested editors expect. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because content meets WP:V doesn't mean its appropriate or desirable to include. It's not about saving space, but assuring that we're encouraging articles that actually are going to be encyclopedic and complete: a plot summary and a few reviews are not such. We can still document them - lists of episodes work fine for that, we just dont need standalone articles for that. --MASEM (t) 05:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jclemens: There is no inherent harm in 42 Supergirl articles, but there's no harm in a 1500-word episode summary and guest cast members in an episode table either. I've really been flip-flopping on this because you're right, it's not a big deal to have "Supergirl Lives" (and I would probably read or try to improve the barest stub episode articles for shows I'm into). But then you have 41 others, and 69 of The Flash, and 227 of Dynasty, and 600+ of Real World. As you say, reviews are so easily hosted online. This completely dilutes the idea of notability based on coverage. Why are we even bothering to police plot summaries in episode lists or character articles when we can just split them off into other articles and add a review from a website? But I agree with the point you're making: these articles just rankle our learned content sensitivities as editors, they don't really violate anything or represent the fall of Wikipedia. The sheer number of potential articles that will never be improved is probably what bugs us, and maybe we need to get over it because we're stuck in an old mindset.— TAnthony^Talk 23:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think asking "where is the harm" is akin to saying that if there isn't any real harm then why stop it from existing. Like, there isn't any real harm to film articles have taglines, any article having a trivia section, plot summaries running 1000k words, etc, etc. Fill in the blank. Yes, there is an argument of "it meets the GNG"...but barely. There is also another section of the GNG, called WP:PAGEDECIDE, where it talks about whether or not a page should be created. When you're talking about an episode of a show, which is one piece of a greater subject, I would argue that you really do need to do more than just the basic GNG. Otherwise, any section of an article can be "separated" on its own. We're here to try to write as quality of articles as possible. Writing 600+ articles on plot summaries and a couple of reviews (most of which are hardly professional). So, yes I think we do need stricter criteria for episode notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

YOU may be here to write few articles of high quality, but not all contributors are. I, for my own part, have been in the lonely and overall thankless business of editing and improving existing articles, and find that merging is rarely necessary to accomplish those improvements. Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(EC) One of the reasons I so strongly advocate for us to keep individual episode articles is the prohibition against fan wiki linking. This is smack in WP:ELNO, #12 and the net effect of this prohibition is that unless there is an article in which to have a decent sized summary, Wikipedia will neither have nor link to substantial elements of popular culture. I would rather have summary only descriptions, with perhaps whatever reaction a reception information we can get, rather than exercising large swaths of popular culture current. I do not know how many times I have seen in an AfD discussion "this belongs on Memory Alpha" or some similar well-regarded fansite. Wikipedia has a schizophrenic approach to such fansites: some want to push material out of Wikipedia and onto them, while others repeatedly and strenuously argue against their inclusion as external links. If I were King of the world, I would actually like to see Wikia-based fansites more closely integrated with, but clearly distinct from, Wikipedia: where we can being everyone's starting point, included links to the fan articles riddled with ridiculously minutia laden trivia, and at the same time have a clear demarcation that says "you are now leaving Wikipedia and the rules are different from here on out." If we could actually get consensus on that, I think that would do loads of good for fictional and popular culture topics, but I admit that allowing it in other areas e.g. science or medicine could be disastrous. Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about "high quality" articles. Did you even read the section of the GNG that talks about whether a page should be created regardless of meeting the GNG? Just because you can find enough information to truly set an episode article out as notable, that does not mean that most episodes are like that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to Supergirl episodes, I was also thinking that there is no need for an article for each of those episodes. It's not like The Walking Dead episodes, where each episode gets a lot of media attention. I do know that the "Falling" episode is commonly highlighted as one of the best episodes of Supergirl, if not the best. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Just three weeks ago, MsMojo listed the "Falling" episode at number 2 on its "Top 10 Best Supergirl TV Moments" list. I would have listed it at number 1. Anyway, I wouldn't mind taking on working on the "Falling" Supergirl article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, if anyone wants to see a perfect example of what some users have been arguing for when not to have episode article, take a look at early episodes for How I Met Your Mother (season 1). I came across them doing template clean up work, and have subsequently nominated the ones that are WP:PLOTONLY and completely unsourced for speedy deletion. This definitely furthers the idea that at least some sort of notability guideline for the TV project (regarding article creation of all kinds) should be developed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Just noting that WP:CSD#G6 is for technical deletions, and doesn't apply to these articles. They really need to be prodded, or better still, redirected to the episode entry in the episode list/season article, with the link to the article from the episode list deleted. If we could G6 them, it would make things so much easier, but that would open a whole other can of worms. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Good to know. I didn't get that far through the series yet, so I'll go back and make those redirects. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

So... did you try and source any of the articles? The poor attitude demonstrated by attempting to speedy poor quality article of a real, mainstream, popular television show is exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia coverage of pop culture: failing to meet our content guidelines is not, nor has it ever been a reason for deletion, let alone speedy deletion. On the other hand, not being able to meet content guidelines is a good reason to delete an article. Redirecting is a perfectly decent WP:ATD that lets anyone pick up the redirected article and improve it--no admin access required. However, I bet that there were identifiable reviews for most, if not all of those articles that could have been added to them. Give me one example to work with, and I'll show you what I can find with Google and 5 minutes. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll

I'm considering whether it's worth pursuing an RfC (or other course of action) on this matter, as there seems to be a fair number of editors who think it merits a broader discussion. I'd appreciate it if editors could weigh in on this.

Note that by "reviews" here, as per the above discussion, we're talking about reviews which are limited to critics weighing on on what they thought of an episode and possibly providing some plot synopsis. For the purposes of this poll, "reviews" does not include reviews where there's a high level of discussion or analysis, or where significant behind-the-scenes information is provided with regards to the episode. DonIago (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Should reviews of episodes constitute sufficient grounds for establishing standalone articles on said episodes per WP:GNG?

Yes

• I have no issue with the current threshhold, as I have used it to create many episode articles that I feel are good enough quality. I think the problem with episode articles is when they don't even meet GNG. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• GNG works everywhere; GNG works here, too. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No, and we should conduct an RfC to establish a higher threshold

• RfC seems like the best option to me at this time, but I'm open to hearing other ideas. DonIago (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, and we should follow a path other than an RfC to establish a higher threshold

• Inherently, no, an episode with just a plot synopsis and reviews (such as this one Survivors (Supergirl)) should not exist. Some other sourcing should also be included to warrant the stand alone article. A discussion should be held first to get ideas of what a higher threshold should be, and then the results of that should be placed into an RfC asking "Should this threshold be implemented? Yes/no" It might get too confusing and tangental if an RfC is used to first determine what the higher threshold is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Arguably the other option sort of encapsulates this approach, though doesn't explicitly go into the road leading up to the RFC. Thanks for your thoughts! If there's sufficient interest in an RFC for me to feel motivated to take next steps, I'll certainly keep this in mind! DonIago (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Considering what I am just seeing at Talk:List of Drake & Josh episodes, and the fact that when I looked it up I am finding nothing at what should be found when searching WP:TVEPISODE or WP:NTVEPISODE, I am coming around to this idea... I'm a little shocked that there appears to be no notability threshhold guidelines for TV series episodes (outside of what's covered about TV show pilots at WP:TVSHOW) – that I find to be a real problem, and explains why there are so many TV episode articles on En-Wikipedia: there appears to have been absolutely nothing to reign them in before now, and no guidance provided for the route to deleting them (aside from just WP:GNG itself). We seem to need more... It definitely seems like we need to have a deeper discussion among WP:TV to determine what course of action to take. But a higher threshold for the creation of TV episode articles appears to be desperately needed from what I'm seeing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Coming up with our own definitive threshold/guideline seems sensible before attempting an RfC.— TAnthony^Talk 22:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• No, simply because it implies that episodes are themselves independent of a greater subject. They are not. They are part of one larger topic, a season. Some aspects may be appropriate to separate, but not necessarily all. The greatest issue we've always had with episode articles is that it encourages editors to work backwards. Instead of developing main articles, LoE pages, and season articles, there is a rush to create an article for every single episode. So, instead of 12 well written, very broadly covered articles, we get 200 articles barely better than stubs. We should work on setting a higher threshold on episode articles considering they are part of a larger topic that is often neglected in place of these articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Other

• I don't have an answer on this, except to note that I am one of the episode article "hardliners" in that I would guess that a full 80–90% of a standalone episode articles on Wikipedia should not exist (i.e. and thus should be deleted), and fairly clearly fail WP:GNG outright (esp. if you take web-based "episode reviews" or synopses out of the equation). The episodes that truly should get standalone articles, like Goodbye, Farewell and Amen (though this one is currently undersourced – I remember it getting tons of press when it aired...) and The Contest, are very rare indeed. There is certainly no reason why nearly every episode of SpongeBob and South Park currently have standalone articles... But I really don't have a good suggestion for how we should go about tackling this. I don't get the impression that there is much stomach among the WP:TV regulars to organize a massive "deletion spree" to get rid of all the junk episode articles we have, so I'm not sure what kind of mechanism we can come up with to solve this issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that's what scares people away from action...the idea of "deletion". I think, even when we agree that an article shouldn't exist doesn't mean that we are saying it should never have existed or never could exist. Even agreeing to a higher threshold, I would say that we should be moving away from talk of "deletion" and to talk of "merging" back to the parent article. We always want to keep the work of previous editors, and redirects are important as well. In my experience, you go to an AfD for an episode article and at the end of the day it's a discussion of "deletion" not of merging or even of "does it meet the GNG". So, they don't delete the article and it's perceived as justification to create more, when in fact that's not what an AfD is for.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This is absolutely correct. Changing AfD to discussion is listed at WP:PEREN as #4.5, but it highlights why it's an excellent idea: "The purpose of AfD is in fact to decide whether or not to delete an article. Lesser issues such as mergers or renaming should be discussed on the talk page or at the separate merge and article title forums." Except that's not what happens in fictional or pop culture targets. More than half (it varies) of what gets posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements should have been proposed for merge first but haven't been. Television DELSORT is a good bit better: by sheer definition, a fictional element almost always has a potential merge or redirect target. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion of poll

• Without a decent advertisment, I fear this is not likely to reflect any sort of broader Wikipedia consensus. If that's OK with the rest of the participants, let's be really mindful that any resultant RFC needs to be well-published to assess a broad consensus. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to advertise the straw poll; I posted a notice at WT:TV myself. As there's not even a clear indication yet that a significant number of people support an RFC, worrying about whether it's sufficiently well-published seems a little premature, though worth keeping in mind. DonIago (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I get that; my purpose in sticking around to advocate for those who don't usually care about MOS stuff, and to remind those that do that others are out there rather than here. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Images and colour in navbox

Just wanted to confirm when using colour in the navbox of season articles, the colour that should be used is the one that is most prominent in, for example, the dvd cover art or promotional art, correct? Brocicle (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is generally the case. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Formatting is the specific section on that, and there are plenty of good examples out there: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 4), Fargo (season 2), and Star Trek: The Original Series (season 1) are a few. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction for future use, much appreciated. Brocicle (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Next MOS:TV section discussion - Themes section

The next discussion, on the "Themes" section, has begun. You can find its discussion, here. Please join! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

As an update, this section is very small and not much has been determined needs to be added or changed. Last call for any additional comments regarding the section before we move on to the next section for discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice of discussions regarding updates to this MOS

This is just a notification to a series of discussions that are taking place regarding updates to this MOS, of which editors may have an interest. You can find more information about the initiative and the discussions, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Missed this posting (moving, graduating, etc.). Will try to join in future discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a *bump* to remind watchers we have a discussion ongoing now for the "Parent, season, and episode article structure" prose and the "Infobox" section below it. There is a proposal on the table that suggests potentially rewording and reordering this and subsequent subsections. Please take a look if you haven't, and join the discussion or add your own thoughts, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• The next discussion, on WP:TVIMAGE, has begun. You can find its discussion, here. Please join! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• The next discussion, on WP:TVLEAD, has begun. You can find its discussion, here. Please join! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• The next discussion, on WP:TVPLOT, has begun. You can find its discussion, here. Please join! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• The next discussion, on WP:TVCAST, has begun. You can find its discussion, here. Please join! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• The next discussion, on WP:TVPRODUCTION, has begun. You can find its discussion, here. Please join! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• The next discussion, on the "Themes" section, has begun. You can find its discussion, here. Please join! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• The next discussion, on the "Release" section, has begun. You can find its discussion, here. Please join! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Next MOS: TV section discussion - Release section

Hi all. The next discussion on the "Release" section (including WP:TVINTL) has begun. I hope all will join, as I know this has been a strong discussion point in the past. The discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

LISTGAP compliant cast list formatting

Hi all. Per a discussion at WT:FILM (perma link here) that stemmed from our discussions here on cast list formatting with line breaks and MOS:LISTGAP, I have created the new template {{Cast list break}}. This template creates the sometimes desired formatting of putting character descriptions on a new line when the text wraps to a second line, but does not produce the screen reader issue that was encountered previously (see template examples for this). If there are any questions on the template, please comment here or drop me a line on my talk. I would like to add this into the MOS to alert users to it, and will begin implementing it on some of the articles I watch and work on within the project. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Episode Summaries

I suggest there is a need for specific guidelines for Episode Summaries in TV as used in the Template:Episode list and Template:Japanese Episode List as opposed to the broader Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. There is a tendency in some popular series (especially where there is a great deal of interest for contributors) to write long and detailed summaries that exceed the recommended 200 word limit - sometimes up to 400 words, eg. some later List of Berserk (2016 TV series) episodes.

This guide would be useful for new contributors, especially if it included links to some good examples such as in Featured Lists. It would also be a useful reference to quote when editing verbose summaries.

An example of what I propose as a starting point is enclosed below (drawing heavily on the Plot Summary template): Ozflashman (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

An Episode Summary should be a concise 100–200 word summary of events that occur within the episode. It should be thorough enough for the reader to get a sense of what happens to the main characters, including conversations or expositions that further the plot of the series. Summaries that are too long and too detailed can be hard to read and are as unhelpful as those that are too short. Finding the right balance requires careful editorial discretion and discussion. Also avoid very long sentences that contain too much information, or cover a number of unrelated events.

Episode Summaries should not cover every scene and every moment of a story, nor should they cover the events in the order they appear (though it is often useful). Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory or evaluative statements about characters or events. The point of a summary is not to reproduce the experience - it is to explain the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozflashman (talk • contribs) 13:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The template instructions are clear: "A short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode." Obviously those who write long summaries are not bothering to read the most basic instructions so expanding on them isn't going to achieve anything. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think people need more than an instruction on length. The aim is to provide assistance in what to include, and what not to include, as well as encouragement to focus on the important plot elements. Ozflashman (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think two-tiered plot summaries are probably a good idea: if an episode has its own article, the episode plot summary in the season article needn't be as long in the season article as it would be if the plot summary in the season article is all that there is.

On the other hand, the need for plot summaries is also higher for highly serialized shows, where things happen during one episode (e.g., a character dies) that affect future episodes.

The more I think about it, the more a one-size-fits-all approach seems inadequate, since TV shows are far from just the same as each other. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Episode summary from TV series' original network

Q: Can the brief summary (usually one sentence) of an episode that's provided by the original network, be used as the short summary included in the series' episode table?

I've done a search on this and have not found it addressed anywhere (if it's buried in an archived discussion, I missed it). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

If you are copying what is provided by the network, then the answer is no, as that would be a copyright violation. As WP:TVPLOT states, plot summaries may not be copied from elsewhere unless their license is compatible with Wikipedia use. -- Alex^TW 13:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reply.

However, "unless their license is compatible with Wikipedia use" is nonspecific. How do we know if a license is/not "compatible" with Wikipedia? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If there's no licence explicitly stating copying and republishing elsewhere on the webpage or source you are looking to copy a summary from, then you should not use it. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. But what you explained, as written, isn't clear. Maybe you left a word or two out? Are you trying to say that somewhere on the webpage there should be a statement that permits or prohibits copying content found in the webpage? (Isn't that what most of TV articles in Wikipedia are comprised of? Repetition of information found in sources? With maybe a word changed here and there? Does including a reference citation make the transcription legit?) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Unless there is an explicit licence or statement saying words to the effect of "you may republish this plot summary in full anywhere you like," then the answer to your original question is NO, you may not copy it into Wikipedia. You can, however, write your own description of the episode's plot in your own words. You cannot just copy it from the network without permissions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I needed this to be made clear, here, to prevent it from happening in a particular article. Any chance it can be included as straightforward as this in MOS:TV and WP:EPISODE? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It is already in WP:TVPLOT as was pointed out earlier. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, for the Plot section of the main article. Nowhere does it include specific mention of the short summary section of the episodes table -- to find this you have to go to the linked {{Episode list}} template included in the section. You'll be surprised (then again, not) at how many new editors don't connect the dots unless they're straightforward. And I'm not the first and won't be the last editor to think that too many Wikipedia guidelines are florid and don't go directly from point A to B. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:TVPLOT applies to all plot summaries, and specifically mentions episode tables, and {{Episode list}} states "Further guidance on plot summaries may be found at WP:TVPLOT." I think it is pretty clear already, but even if a new editor doesn't understand, you can revert their edit with explanation and links to either in the edit summary -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

There's another good reason not to use the networks' summaries: they suck. That is, even if we could use them under copyright, they are episode teasers, not recaps, so they won't convey what actually happened in the episode, just the setup. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't disagree. But at least something is better than nothing. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:TVOVERVIEW tweak

Thought I'd start a discussion about this to expand on it first. I think that WP:TVOVERVIEW needs a slight tweak when it comes to the line A new season should be added to the overview table only after an episode table has been created for that season. With examples such as Lucifer, Gotham, and this version of Riverdale, contributors to these articles, and those like it, might want to add a new row to the Series Overview table given that the table for the next season does exist.

However, given that no information is available about the seasons and only for the season premiere episodes (such as an episode count or premiere date), I believe that the above line should be modified to A new season should be added to the overview table only after an episode table has been created for that season, and sufficient information concerning the season is available. (without the emphasis) Thoughts? Better wording? -- Alex^TW 05:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with this kind of information being added as soon as it is confirmed that an upcoming season will exist, so if anything I think the current position is too restrictive for what its worth, but I think I'll be in the minority on that opinion -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a major issue with it either, hence this edit to the Lucifer article a month ago. I just believe that an almost-empty row in a table isn't at all necessary and makes it look untidy, much like this sort of edit as well. -- Alex^TW 05:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• 'Sufficient information' is extremely vague and adds unnecessary openness to interpretation. What do you mean by that? -- Wikipedical (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That's what I asked for suggestions for. Perhaps at least an episode count or premiere date? That might be a start, given that the three articles I linked above have neither, and so would have an empty overview row. -- Alex^TW 09:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

After the recent changes to South Park (season 21), where an editor thought this constituted sufficient content for a season article, I really think we need to look at defining what is sufficient information. I'd argue that at least two items are necessary, writer and director, episode title and writer, episode title and director, a list of episode titles, etc, while a premiere date, or prod codes on their own are not sufficient. Favre1fan93 is probably a good person to ask for an opinion here. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with those standards, as that's what we've typically used, but that's concerning episode tables; this discussion is about rows in the series overview table. -- Alex^TW 12:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If memory serves me, the reason the consensus was to have the current wording was a follows: as the series overview generally acts as a quasi-table of contents for the article, if there is no section for the third season, it thus seems out of place. And while I 100% get your reasoning, my fear (and slight devil's advocate) is if we update to your proposed wording, and allow the rows to be added to the overview, it will then encourage users to create sections for the upcoming season, which are unnecessary per WP:TVUPCOMING. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure you're understanding what I'm suggesting; my proposed wording actually makes it stricter to add rows to the series overview. Nothing is changed to TVUPCOMING, which should be modified as Aussie suggested to the "two items of information to add an episode table row", but if an episode table can be created (see the three links in my first post), but there's barely enough information for the corresponding series overview row, then the row shouldn't be added to the series overview, regardless if there is a table for the upcoming season. -- Alex^TW 00:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes sorry I was misunderstanding what you were trying to add/change. I now understand what you mean. I looked at the Riverdale example. So you're saying, in that case, even though we have a title (which means we can create an episode table), we don't know the starting date nor the number of episodes for the season, so a row should not be added to an overview table? Yes I agree with this. Though sufficient information is probably on the vague side. In my opinion, if we're at this point to have the episode table, the row in the overview should be added if the start date can be added (or definitive year). Otherwise, as with the Gotham example, it probably shouldn't be in the overview. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

So, something like this? A new season should be added to the overview table only after an episode table has been created for that season, and a premiere date for the season has been announced. It's only a small issue, but something that's bound to come up, especially with such examples. We should definitely also look into adding something into the MoS on when to add a row for an episode to an episode table, to actually make the "two items of information" an official guideline. -- Alex^TW 05:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I think so. But would it also be "correct" if you know total episodes for the season, but not the start date? (I'm thinking of a situation like potentially with Sherlock.) So maybe that would also be acceptable, having either premiere date or episode count? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes#Episodes need to be listed in order of air dates

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes#Episodes need to be listed in order of air dates. This discussion is concerning the removal of Director, Writer and Storyboard columns at an article, and the validity of the already-performed edit. This post alerts all editors watching this page to the discussion, not just the ones that have been personally requested. -- Alex^TW 06:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Orange Is the New Black episodes#Featured character parameter in episode tables

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Orange Is the New Black episodes#Featured character parameter in episode tables. This discussion concerns the inclusion of in-universe information outside of the summary parameter, in the main row for the episode and its details. -- Alex^TW 01:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Miniseries as part of a regular season

Some articles (eg: Stakes (miniseries), Elements (miniseries), Islands (miniseries)) describe part of a regular television season – same producers, crew and cast; consecutive episode production numbers; same timeslot; etc. – as a miniseries. The editors have been following sources which promote these partial seasons as miniseries. However, I don't feel it fits the definition of the word, and feel it could be confusing. To me, miniseries are separate vehicles, spin-offs, etc. I could understand if these were first broadcast in a miniseries form then repackaged as episodes (similar to the four movies which were recut as Futurama (season 5)), but it seems like these have always been just multiple-episode story-arcs. They don't seem to count as a "limited series" (eg: American Horror Story or Fargo which reinvent themselves each season). I don't mind saying one of these was promoted as a miniseries, but I'm reluctant to call it a miniseries in Wikipedia's voice. Thoughts? – Reidgreg (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

In my mind, we really don't get to define what a miniseries is: we should follow whatever the RS say it is. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Does Adventure Time and the secondary RS publications consistently call them miniseries? Or is it just the name of the DVD volume? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:TVINTL discussion reminder

Hi all. Just reminding that we still have an open discussion regarding updating or changing the text in the MOS for WP:TVINTL (slightly forgot about it myself). Please add your opinions on potential changes, as this is one of the sections we generally have a lot of discussions about. The discussion again can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Leaving "present" in the infobox as a series' end date

The opinions of a few contributors to television series would be greatly appreciated at Talk:Class (2016 TV series)#Ratings and future; an editor has found themselves confused over the idea of leaving "present" in the infobox as a series' end date until it is officially cancelled, rather than only adding "present" if it's been officially renewed. -- Alex^TW 12:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

More editors using MOSTV changes as a license for wholsale edits without consensus

Well, it's not AlexTheWhovian this time (although he's certainly inserted himself into the dispute), but Keivan.f who has taken a part of the updated MOS:TVPLOT discussion and decided to change dozens of instances in Game of Thrones related articles--all of which were internally consistent, multiples of which are GA or FL--to remove the actor names from the plot section. That's a change that arguably has some merit to it, but once again, careless wording in the MOS has prompted editors to think that they have a license for wholesale content revision without discussion.

In the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Plot section and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Cast and characters section, I count perhaps seven total editors who opined on this change: adamstom.97, Whats_new?, IanB2, Favre1fan93, Wikipedical, IJBall, and Reidgreg. Based on my quick review of the discussions, I saw essentially four supports, two opposes, and one I wasn't entirely sure addressed the question except in terms of talk shows.

My complaint here is essentially similar to the previous one regarding episode summaries: MOS changes should reflect current practices, not de facto alter existing practice in the name of standardization. The actual wording that was implemented, "Avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, technical detail, as well as any information that belongs in other sections, such as actors' names." (my emphasis) is not that bad, as it certainly doesn't say "must not" or other such direction, but when users BOLDly implement sweeping changes across entire self-consistent topics it creates needless churn.

Thus, I propose the edit I made to MOS:TVPLOT be reinstated until a clause can be drafted which more clearly reflects that individual editors and Wikiprojects CAN choose to include cast names in plot sections, as was existing practice and present in multiple GA/FL television articles. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that I have to ask for a permission when I'm doing something that is a part of our guidelines. It seems that, apparently, you're the only one who's opposing these changes. It seems that IVORK and AlexTheWhovian also share my opinion. By the way, it's also possible to find an error on a featured article, and such errors have to be corrected. I haven't read anything about ignoring errors or mistakes on featured or good articles merely because they're prompted to a higher level of quality. In conclusion, I only followed the guidelines and policies. If the users wish to oppose the changes, then the guidelines should be challenged as well, though I think it has already been pointed out that there was a recent consensus to maintain them so we need another consensus to break the previous one, and then I'll revert my edits based on the results of this discussion. Keivan.f^Talk 07:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually I don't pretty much like the way this section is titled: "More editors using MOSTV changes as a license for wholsale edits without consensus". First of all, we're not using MOSTV as an excuse for our contributions. It's a guideline that we're all supposed to follow. Accusing other users because of adjusting their edits to a specific guideline doesn't sound quite right. I again insist that if anything has to be changed, it's the guideline itself. Keivan.f^Talk 07:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I support the edits you made. As a recent user of the pages (bingewatched the 6 seasons, read the plot summaries after each episode to see if I missed anything), I found the actor names to be annoying clutter. Pointless when the actors were already defined earlier in the article with the character names. Game of thrones, especially, with so many plotlines and so many actors, often a giant chunk of the plot summaries became actors names... Teelosdomain (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please allow me to reiterate, just to make sure I understand. You don't feel that a 4:3-agree-to-disagree discussion, among roughly 0.013% of active registered accounts, impacting roughly 2.27% of all English Wikipedia articles, is sufficiently representative of readers and editors. Do I understand you correctly? — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

First, let's be clear that the MOS is not simply going to reflect "current practice". "Current practices" of a lot of articles and editors have never followed the MOS or many policies, so simply saying that doesn't mean that it is right. The MOS should taken into consideration current practices and which of those practices make sense, are enhancements, and which are not. Simply because a lot of people do it does NOT mean that it should be done. Trivia sections were "common practice" in the day, but it was agreed upon that they were not helpful to Wikipedia. That said, mass changes to articles because of MOS changes is not best practice either. Instead, and the MOS isn't going to say this because it's not the place for it, but editors should be having discussions about the changes to the MOS on project pages and discussing how best to implement changes to their respective articles so as not to create bigger issues. I doubt the loss of actor names from a plot section is going to cost an article GA or FA status (just like the addition of them didn't garner that status), but the point is still sound that mass editing to reflect MOS changes isn't the best way to go about making change. I'm not sure if there is an edit war going on about this, as I hope there isn't, but if there is then I hope that everyone will step back and talk about how to implement the changes going forward. People are going to disagree with the changes to the MOS, as you cannot please everyone. But sufficient word was spread about each discussion, and the fact that only active editors to the TV Project and MOS were the contributors doesn't change the fact that they were made.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the most experienced user but I still believe that it would be fine if it was plain text but you're already linking to the character's profile which in itself contains links to the actor. The majority of users will surely know to follow the bouncing ball to find the page they're after. As mentioned above, it does just lead to unneeded clutter, especially considering there is already a comprehensive list which could easily be added as a See more at List of Game of Thrones characters. I would personally push to have that standadized for opening paragraphs as well. — IVORK _Discuss 00:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I warned the WP:TV community that adopting guidelines without widespread consensus support is a fool's errand, and a MOS guideline without a strong consensus is pointless. Well, this nonsense of not including guest-cast in episode summaries, which has been a long-standing practice everywhere else on the internet for over 30 years, is Exhibit A. There is nowhere near "overwhelming consensus for this" (it's probably about a 50/50 split on this issue), and the rationale for excluding guest-cast is incredibly weak IMO, and essentially boils down to an WP:IDONTLIKE view among some WP:TV editors. So this is one WP:TV contributor who feels that unless there is a strong consensus to remove guest cast from the articles you are talking about then they should revert to the previous consensus version with the guest cast included. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about including guest cast or not... -- Alex^TW 02:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: It's in reference to me and DavidK93 making this change against what the other ~60 articles for episodes prior have. — IVORK _Discuss 02:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

In that specific instance, then, I have less of an opinion, as we're talking about main cast actors here, and it's debatable as to whether it's necessary to include them parenthetically. In this case, I'd just defer to whatever the consensus among the GoT editors is... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to strongly argue that my position against parenthetical guest-cast listings in plot summaries is not "I don't like it." Before my first version of the edit IVORK identified, this was the state of the article: [1]. Note that Pilou Asbæk and Gemma Whelan are credited as cast members three times (lede, guest cast list, and plot section), while Emilia Clark, Kit Harington, Peter Dinklage, Sophie Turner, Maisie Williams, Lena Headey, Indira Varma, John Bradley, and Iain Glen are credited twice (lede and plot section), as are Diana Rigg, Jim Broadbent, Anton Lesser, Jacob Anderson, Ben Hawkey, and James Faulkner (guest cast list and plot section). These articles contain a complete listing of guest casts, which is the best place for the information; I see no reason for one article to contain identical information repeated up to three times. I'm not talking about the actors' names being mentioned; I'm talking about the actors' names being listed next to the characters' names as a direct identification with only punctuation separating them. Seventeen cast members do not need thirty-six credits among them. Television episode articles should continue to have guest cast listings; actor names can be given parenthetically when an actor and/or character are a significant enough part of the episode to be named in the lede (especially if it is a regular cast member not identified in the gust cast); and actor names should be used throughout all applicable sections of the article where the actors and/or their work are relevant. But actor names are irrelevant to the plot of a story and should not be included in the plot section. --DavidK93 (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

On the question on the specific change to MOS:TVPLOT that Jclemens proposes, I support striking the text in question: [2]. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I oppose striking it. Actor names are a specific example of non-plot information that is frequently added to plot sections; as a common but undesirable practice, it should be explicitly deprecated. I discovered that was in the guideline only after my edit removing actor names was reverted, and I was glad to be able to cite it in the resulting discussion. --DavidK93 (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Per the reasoning of DavidK93's first response, I oppose striking it. — IVORK _Discuss 05:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Apologize for absenting myself for most of this discussion. I would be fine if the editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire decided we wanted to ditch the name duplication in the plot section to comply with the MOS--that's a perfectly reasonable thing and I can see it both ways: Leave it in because the plot section stands alone for people who don't want to refer to another section, take 'em out as duplicative, I fundamentally don't care, and that's not what my complaint is about. What I would like to see is this:

MOS should be written in a way which describes best practice, without inviting or encouraging wholesale changes to existing articles.

If you don't understand why that's a preferred thing, then you probably shouldn't be writing MOS'es. MOS'es, like bot edits, have the potential to prompt pointless, avoidable churn, and in doing so, sparks editor feuds. I've incurred a few personal attacks based on trying to straighten out this mess. I'm not complaining about the editor--I know where I could do that--but rather point out that the poor MOS wording caused avoidable contentious behavior.

Again, I'm fine with the MOS listing suggestions that editors are recommended to follow, but absent a clear consensus (and the consensus in this case was nothing like the removal of trivia sections...) MOS recommendations should themselves make it clear that wholesale changes to multiple articles are not justified by the MOS, but by a reasoned discussion among involved editors. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

If MOS should describe best practice, then it should continue to state that actors' names should be avoided in plot sections. If you feel MOS should not be applied to stable content, that's a different matter and would best be achieved by some different content change to the MOS text. As it is, it sounds like editors like Keivan.f and myself, who wish to apply MOS to Seasons 1-6 of GoT, would be best served by seeking consensus at the ASOIAF project talk page. Keivan, I will create two new sections on that Talk page, one to address actors' names (as the existing section appears to have been immediately sidetracked by a debate over whether or not to archive it, and was mostly about the MOS rather than project article content) and one to address more extensive edits to plot sections to bring them down (or closer) to the guideline length of 400 words. --DavidK93 (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I ended up replying to the existing thread about actors' names; I decided it could be done appropriately. --DavidK93 (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, DavidK93, you're correct: I believe what to do about GoT episodes should be discussed there, and how to appropriately word MOS so we don't have future issues like this should take place here. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jclemens: I wasn't here for about two days, and it seems that you and all the other users have already discussed the issue, but I still don't understand what the point of this discussion is. Are we trying to make changes to the guidelines? Are we trying to completely ignore them and get consensus for every critical edit? It seems that this discussion is more leaned toward getting a consensus for GoT-related articles. If those articles are about to become an exception by not following MOS, then why should these guidelines exist at all? These are the questions that still need to be answered because by looking at all of these statements I still cannot figure out what we are trying to get out of this discussion. Keivan.f^Talk 02:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

What I would like out of all of this is very clear labeling that says "These are style guidelines and inherently less important than all of our other policies--don't misunderstand and think they're equal to WP:V or even WP:N" and "If someone else has an established, consistent look and feel that doesn't mesh with these MOS guidelines, ask first before deciding to change things wholesale." Some MOS-focused editors don't share those sentiments, but most who have been around a while understand the problems that come from MOS-warring. There's a reason this page is under discretionary sanctions... Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Television ratings graph

Opinions are needed for the usage of {{Television ratings graph}}. If you look at the recently created templates by DownFame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), you'll see that the user has created a great number of these ratings templates, many of which are unnecessary and cramped. These are listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 27#Template:The Vampire Diaries ratings and related. When does it realistically become pointless to use templates like this? They're alright for short seasons and series, but even Template:The Walking Dead ratings is getting out of hand. Should the template become deprecated, or should there be guidelines applied to the usage of it? -- Alex^TW 11:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've never really understood the purpose of these templates. What is their use, beyond just being a visual aid to the numbers? I think all of these should be depreciated, because personally I don't seen the need, when we already use Ratings tables. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't have a particularly strong opinion on this, but I too believe that they're inessential and superfluous. I'd prefer to deprecate Television ratings graph. But would like to hear an editor's argument as to why readers need them. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur with everyone. They seem really unnecessary and what happens when someone tries to do a show like Arrow or The Simpsons with 20+ episodes a season? Per MOS guidelines, we can't have tables that have side scrolls because of translation to mobile devices and printed sources. You'd run out of space really quickly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I think they serve to show a general trend in viewership. I suspect that if we need to eliminate side-scrolling (which does not appear to be a firm "Thou Shalt Not" as I've seen multiple band member lists that side scroll at normal resolutions), we can compact them by changing from stacked bars to lines. I'm not a huge fan of them myself, but I would caution against a subset of MoS-interested editors making changes without seeking input from the editors actually using them on a regular basis. I'll also note that while they may be technically neutral, the usage of viewership numbers seems anecdotally to predominate when a show is growing in popularity, rather than declining. I'm unsure if that is separate cause for concern. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's too much information. It should be modeled like Seinfeld, where it gives the overall or average rating and ranking, with millions of viewers, and then optionally the peak episode viewers (or households for The Simpsons early seasons) if desired. Note Seinfeld was the number-one show in the ratings for several seasons as well so of course ratings are a big deal to list. Tracking ratings with a graph like The Walking Dead leads more to open interpretation and original research. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Me, I'm fine either way, if they're kept or if they're deleted. I only created the template to create a standard format for something that I noticed was used in a recurring manner around the television articles, mostly in straight wiki-code. Bignole, since you mentioned Arrow ratings... I agree that templates like these are more detrimental to articles than they are useful; some can be useful, as Jclemens, they can display a general trend in the viewership numbers, such as Template:Game of Thrones ratings. Others like Template:The Walking Dead ratings may have been useful once, but now they're growing too large. Perhaps the episode table ratings and series overview averages are enough, and we simply stop using this template? -- Alex^TW 23:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I think they're too detailed and unnecessary, although I am somewhat sympathetic to the 'visual representation of the trend' argument. If the graph was the average of each season (ie. one bar per season, not per episode) I'd be far more inclined to support them, but each episode of each season in a graph doesn't serve a great enough purpose. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I also think they're overly detailed and it's cramming a bunch ratings at once. Also, it's just repetition. A regular table that we use now is sufficient enough and the ratings are also in the episodes table. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So maybe we should say something along the lines of "If per-edit viewership average charts cannot be easily represented without using side-scrolling, consider moving to per-season viewership averages instead."? Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Update

So, the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 21 § Template:Fear the Walking Dead ratings and related templates was closed as "no consensus", with the recommendation of "continuing the discussion, perhaps on the talk page of one of the WikiProjects". We really ought to come to some kind of consensus here now, whether it's a consensus that they're unnecessary, or one where we keep them but we start applying guidelines and add them to the template's documentation. -- Alex^TW 23:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Given an absence of consensus to delete, what improvements can we make to improve readability in the short term? Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Can TV listings be used as sources for premiere dates?

I'm having a dispute with Spshu over sourcing the Disney XD show Play With Caution which aired as part of the "D | XP" Disney XD programming block. I've added sources from TV Guide, Zap2It, and could also provide TV listings from TWC, AT&T, and other cable companies. I've also seen the actual episodes on Disney XD, but don't believe that I need to provide cite episodes to support that statement. Twitter for DXPOfficial also indicates these as new shows, but since DXPOfficial Twitter has not been checkmark verified, that isn't being used, even though Disney XD (verified) Twitter has made references to this Twitter line. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The article in question is at List of programs broadcast by Disney XD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about TV Guides as I've never seen it used, but Zap2it is most definitely a reliable source and can be used. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Zap2it, TV Guide and TWC Central are TV listing/schedule guides. These have been consider non-RS for a long time. You can use their actual article but not their TV listings. Of course, now that a dispute comes up I can't find the guideline. Spshu (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Zap2it is used all the time to reference upcoming and past episodes. It is a perfectly reliable source. See WP:TVFAQ. TV Guide is also reliable per that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

TV listings from Zap2it, TV Guide, and TWC Central are absolutely reliable sources that can be, should be, and routinely are used to cite upcoming episode information. What consensus are you citing that they've been "non-RS for a long time"? -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I've never used TWC Central but Zap2it and TV Guide are definitely reliable sources. That they are TV listing/schedule guides does not affect their reliability. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are they considered "non-RS"? And where did such a discussion take place?!... FTR, I'm with the previous posters that TV listing sites are obviously WP:RS (in most cases – sometimes these sites, esp. Zap2It, have occasional mistakes). Probably better than any of these, though, is The Futon Critic episode-show listings IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

At RS or Verifiable or some adjunct page. Of course, I can not find it when I need it. I say the reverse - Where did the discussion to remove this take place?!?! It feels like the twilight zone as I have routinely seen this at one of those pages. Spshu (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Since you can't find the alleged discussion, please tell us in your own words why they are not RS. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a note that Spshu won't be able to reply anytime soon as they're currently blocked for an unrelated incident. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to wait another 47 hours for a response to my question. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, TV listings can be used as documentation on dates. Why is this even a question? Who cares what WP:RS might have said at one point, how about a little bit of common sense? Also, note that unless a date is challenged, it doesn't need an RS anyways. Oh, and WP:SELFPUB for good measure. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

A little common sense? You expect your onscreen guide to continue to report prior show? Absolutely not, the purposes of TV listings, guides, schedules, etc. are for show current and future programming to determine what you want to watch or record not to keep previous information. So, these pages might that current show premiere dates and times may switch over to future broadcasted date and times when they appear on the schedule. Thus verification is generally not possible or expected. Spshu (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Former shows are still there. It's not like they suddenly don't exist. Do a search for George Lopez or Full House, for example, and you'll see that there are still episode guides for them. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It's true that the current listings change over time, however, they can be screen captured and/or access-dated, and the listing websites such as TV Guide and Zap2it do keep the premiere dates. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

So if they're gone, they're gone, but if they're still there, they're what, going to change over time? Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Surely citing a dynamic TV guide cannot be a reliable source. The day after the episode airs, it is no longer listed in the guide, and the guide is updated for the next 7 days of listings. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you appear to be confusing reliable with permanent. TV guides may be ephemeral, the opposite of permanent, but that doesn't make them unreliable... just a challenge for archival and retrieval. Jclemens (talk)

There are two major parts of the TV listings. The first is the dynamic one that changes every day or week. Those can be screen captured with waybackmachine or other methods. The second is the "guide" part of the listings that records the premiere dates for the show and the episodes that have already aired. This part that indicates the premiere of the show does not change and usually accumulates new episodes when they first aired. So with the two, it can be proven that the show existed and ran on that channel. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I should add that sources need not be available online (in perpetuity, or at all) if they are available and reasonably accessible in print. As long as TV Guide remains in print, we can cite an issue, no url required.— TAnthony^Talk 16:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Just as citing the "Schedule"/"Listings" section of a network's website (reliable source) is appropriate – and after an episode airs, it will most certainly be removed from that page and move to an episode list with its original air date. Same as Zap2it, TV Guide, etc. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't know about TV Guide, but Zap2it's episode guides are never removed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Neither are The Futon Critic's. And, FTR, I don't think that sourcing like Futon and Zap2It that verifies airdate should be "removed" after an episode airs – that seems to be common practice around WP:TV, but it strikes me as bad practice. For shows that aired years/decades ago, souring that can verify airdates is very welcome – we should be in the habit of encouraging this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that! -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Episode transcript websites

Has there ever been a discussion about allowing a website for episode scripts to be included as an external link? Didn't find it in the archives. For example, Springfield! Springfield!, which is based in the UK and established in 1999 (shut down in 2003 after Fox objected to The Simpsons transcripts, then started again in 2004 with a redesign). Thanks. Pyxis Solitary talk 13:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

"Critical reception" sections in articles on individual episodes? Also Rotten Tomatoes.

Hey, I've been having problems with our coverage of critical reception of various individual episodes of Game of Thrones (season 7), and I think I've figured out why. I understand that this guideline, as written, applies primarily to articles about full TV shows, but how should we apply it to articles like Eastwatch?

The Tomatometer is good for establishing WP:WEIGHT for films and maybe TV shows, but the binary "Fresh"/"Rotten" thing is pretty useless in analyzing reviews of episodes like this, since the reviews are not written with "You should watch this" or "You should not watch this" in mind; no reviewer would tell a reader unfamiliar with Game of Thrones to jump on in the middle of season seven, nor would they tell someone who had already invested 60+ hours to stop watching because a single episode was "more Rotten than Fresh". The vast majority of reviews just list off what happened in the episode, and say what the reviewer liked and didn't like, and perhaps rate the episode against other episodes in the same season or the same TV series, and RT decides arbitrarily whether the reviewers thought the episode was "Fresh" or not. It seems like quoting the Tomatomater should be discouraged in cases like this.

It also creates problems because invariably the Tomatometer determines more reviews to be "Fresh" than "Rotten" (sometimes overwhelmingly so), so that detailing those aspects of the episodes that have received near-universal scorn (the "Winterfell" storyline in season 7, particular as it involves the character Petyr Baelish) can be undone as "undue weight".

Thoughts? I notice this guideline does not currently mention RT one way or the other, for what that's worth.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

We've been discussing it before and will continue to discuss it. The problem with RT is bigger than just "fresh" or "rotten". RT covers a series as a whole, and does not really give ratings on a lower scale. When it does, you can be guaranteed that those ratings are probably based on a number of reviews that would not classify as "statistically significant". Thus, RT really shouldn't be used for its weighted scale, but really as a housing entity to pull reviews from on an individual level.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

MOS:TONE/MOS:FICT, WP:PSTS, and reviews of fictional works

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed clarification of reviews' relation to WP:PSTS and MOS:TONE. This is a request for comments in the general sense, but not a WP:RFC at this stage, being an initial discussion draft (broadened to cover writing about fiction generally), building on a lengthy discussion/dispute at the same page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Cast and characters information

Most shows are works of fiction. so why are actors name listed first followed by character name?

Most shows are about the fictional characters. It is rare for shows to be about the actors. As a result the characters should be listed first, followed by the actors name in parentheses. Just about any competent actor can play the roles, and as such are not important, except to let the reader know who played what character. Good actors can bring the character to live and do it well. as such it's worth noting who the actors are so one can perhaps see other shows the actor is in.

However, shows are all about the character and as a result, character should be listed first. instead of "Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock Holmes: a former Scotland Yard consultant", it should be "Frasier Crane (Kelsey Grammer), a radio psychiatrist".

Who is Jonny Lee Miller and why should I care? I want to see Sherlock holmes, not the actor. If I want to know more I can look him/her up OTOH I'm interested in Frasier Crane, and can note with appreciation that Kelsey Grammer is the actor playing the character.

I propose that the first 'example' listed be removed and the second 'example' be the default methodology. 73.181.225.112 (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but editors should have the choice between focusing on the actor or the character. In general, we want Wikipedia to be about the real-world focus, so we should discuss the actor and how they portrayed the character. The reason the character-first example is even included is for lists of characters, which still should generally focus on the real-world aspects anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Adamstom.97. There's a reason there are two choices. One may be preferable over the other for some articles; it just depends on what works best for each article. I personally find it useful to have "Cast/Cast and Characters" when there aren't any character descriptions—for example, Amanda Bynes as Kayla—and "Characters" when there are character descriptions—for example, Kayla (Amanda Bynes) is a character in this series. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This depends on whether the television show focuses on characters or actors in their crediting. Most television shows display the actor name only, with the occasional "and Ann B. Davis as Alice" presented, so listing "Actor as character" format would make sense. But other shows such as cartoons don't even put their voice cast up front so the "Character (portrayed by actor)" scheme is preferred as like you said, the actor portraying is not as important as the character as organized. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That appears to be letting the studio dictate what is important; it's up to WP to decide what is important to provide for our own readers, and consistency is a boon in an encyclopedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

How does this MOS page define "reliable source"?

Arguably the most important part of WP:RS is Context matters, but on this page we have If there is a major mistake that is discussed by a reliable source it can become a part of the production section. (emphasis added). Generally speaking, self-published, otherwise "unreliable", sources can be used for non-controversial claims, and "a reputation for fact-checking" is less important in a context where the fact claim in question is clearly accurate.

Specifically, I'm wondering about including the continuity errors between Beyond the Wall (Game of Thrones) and the earlier episodes Winter Is Coming and The Pointy End. The newer episode contains countless errors both internal (the editors apparently cut scenes out of order) and external (a character takes credit for avenging another character's death, and another character claims to have been in a different part of a battle than they were), but these seem to be the two most notable.

The source I'm getting this from is a generally reputable fan video reviewer who has interviewed George R. R. Martin (after a fashion) and has been profiled in Esquire magazine, but who is still technically self-published. The specific points in the video are here and here (the detailed evidence for the latter is given earlier in the video). It's highly likely that, if GOT is as important and widely covered in the media as I have heard, other "reliable sources" have also covered these points. But "a reliable source" is not appropriate language since the YouTube video I linked above is a reliable source for its author's (quasi-notable) opinion and for uncontroversial factual claims like really obvious continuity gaffes.

And yes, I am posting this here before RSN or the article talk page because I want to address the apparent contradiction in this guideline, and I'm not interested in getting opinions on the "general realiability" of Preston Jacobs videos, nor on whether this information belongs in the article. Unsourced sections about technical errors or continuity issues should generally be avoided. does not gel with the following sentence, as having a sourced section is not the same as having an unsourced section, so why does the following sentence say that it should be included in the production section? The inclusion of the whole thing under the "Things to avoid" heading implies that sections about technical errors and continuity issues are to be avoided anyway, regardless of whether they are sourced, so why bother saying "unsourced"?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Fan video reviewers would not be sufficient in establishing reliability. Plus, in a general sense we don't include continuity errors on pages, because they are basically trivia. That's why it says a reliable source that is discussing these error, which also means not simply pointing them out. They would need to be discussing them from an importance standpoint, instead of just stating "Character X claimed to be in a battle that they were not". In this case, it would be especially true to find a reliable source discussing the implications of this, because what is the difference between a continuity error and a character simply lying and taking credit for something they did not do?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Wait, but then how is that different from "Trivia sections" covered two headings up? If the reason they are discouraged is specifically because detailed discussion of bloopers and continuity errors is trivial/indiscriminate information, then shouldn't that be discussed under the same heading? Saying "unsourced sections about technical errors or continuity issues should generally be avoided" is not helpful, because unsourced everything should always be avoided, and you seem to be implying that the problem is that, sourced or not, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia unless it has been the subject of extensive discussion in third-party sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing that bit of the MOS was shaped as a result of a specific situation/exception, can anyone recall? The intent seems to be to leave a "loophole" for something consensus might find notable; maybe the language should be tweaked for clarity. I think we're probably on the same page that even if Vanity Fair mentioned the "Beyond the Wall" flubs, they are obviously minor/trivial. But if Jaime suddenly had two hands, I think we'd find that to be a "major mistake" and notable, and be a bit more lenient with the sourcing.— TAnthony^Talk 16:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to Hijiri, because the statement in the MOS that says "If there is a major mistake that is discussed by a reliable source it can become a part of the production section." seems pretty much what I said. In general, we avoid just having "here is a list of continuity errors" as sections. IF there is something notable then it will be discussed and can be looked at for inclusion. My point was to clarify that there is a difference between "discussing" continuity issues and simply stating that they exist and to make sure that those sources are not simply acknowledging the technical issue but are actually discussing it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, how do you define "major"? "reliable source" is a mushy term anyway; I cited a semi-reliable source above that pointed out that the episode in question contained a continuity error that seemed to retcon out of existence the introductory scene of the Starks in the first episode of the show -- that's pretty major by almost any definition, so were back to nitpicking over how "reliable" the sources need to be for a simple factual claim. Maybe if "a reliable source" were replaced with "multiple reliable sources" it would make more sense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

No, you cited a youtube blogger. Remember that accuracy of claims does not determine reliability of the author. Obviously, multiple sources would be ideal. Again, I go back to the fact that it also comes down to discussion, which is what the MOS says. Simply pointing it out as a continuity error is not a discussion, it's just stating an observable fact for the blooper. Sometimes, continuity errors are intentional, because the writers have found a better storyline to tell, or an more established actor comes on board that isn't quite like the previous one that barely got screen time. Who knows, but it comes down to discussion of the continuity error/blooper/what have you, to establish noteworthy context to be included (i.e., you would might define "major" issue). Otherwise, it only services fans of the show who want to go, "Oooooh, you got something wrong". Not an average reader that hasn't seen the show. That discussion needs to come from a reliable source...not a youtube blogger.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You appear not to have read (or not to have understood) WP:RS. Context is everything, and self-published opinions of notable authorities are just as good as opinions that went through third-party publishers. Heck, they're exactly the same as opinions that went through third-party publishers -- that's what makes them opinions. Same goes for critical analysis, really, although our Game of Thrones articles seem to be incapable of telling the difference between analysis and "thumbs up"/"thumbs down" reviews. And nothing in the MOS passage I am asking about mentions anything "coming down to discussion". Honestly, I don't know when Wikipedia started including articles on individual episodes of TV shows -- most of the ones I have read, including ones that are listed as GAs, seem to consist almost entirely of quotations from primary sources and reviews/plot-recaps of the episodes, and when the most noteworthy real-world information about a topic with a standalone Wikipedia article seems to be that the editors cut the scenes together in the wrong order, MOS tells us we can't include that information unless it is covered in "a reliable source" (completely ignoring context) and when I ask here what "reliable source" means in this context you imply that it actually means multiple, independent reliable sources -- which is definitely not what MOS says at the moment. This is nonsense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Short version: This MoS page, and any other page, does not and cannot define what a reliable source is. That's out-of-scope for MoS. See WP:RS, WP:NOR (especially WP:PSTS and WP:AIES), and WP:V policy for how to determine what an RS is. The best an MoS page can do is provide some suggestions about what the likelihood is of a particular source type being reliable or a particular sourcing approach being reasonable, and point out where some sources are known not to be reliable (and even this sort of thing is rare for an MoS page, and rather out of place in it). MoS can't "define" source reliability, nor declare anything categorically reliable (nothing is for everything, and consensus determines locally whether a particular attempt at sourcing something is compliant sourcing policy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Early episode summaries

An issue has been raised at Star Trek: Discovery regarding editors adding episode summaries (either copied or paraphrased from press releases) for episodes that are yet to air. I know this practice is strongly discouraged, but I can't find a specific reason for that anywhere around here to give. Any thoughts from the regular editors here? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Generally, the episode summary taken from a press release is used verbatim, and without a source, so that it is a copyright violation and not appropriate. And since we know that pre-broadcast summary will not remain after broadcast, it doesn't make sense to keep it. A paraphrased version of the pre-broadcast summary is fine. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously (I'm having trouble finding it) but it came up for myself when I was working on Big Bang Theory season articles. It had always been that preview summaries were added for upcoming episodes, but we then removed them because of the copyright violation they pose, even if not listed word-for-word. I believe I had that discussion at the time with @AussieLegend:, so he may have a better memory to the location of said discussion, or at least more to add here if not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't a paraphrase that way be considered a tertiary source and so strongly, strongly discouraged, especially when it's clear the primary source will be available shortly? The press release is secondary to the episode itself, so anything derivative of that is tertiary and gets dangerously close to Telephone (the game). I would say we continue strongly discouraging pre-summaries and wait for the episodes to air... at least, that's been the practice I've observed in nearly all the other series I edit. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As I remember from the discussions that we had, it wasn't just the copyvio problem. In order to rewrite the press release one needs to make assumptions about something that has not been seen, which is falling into original research. This happened far too often. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Between Copyvio and OR issues, I can't see upcoming episode summaries as being a good idea. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Except tertiary sources aren't "strongly, strongly discouraged". See WP:PSTS. And a Wikipedian summarizing a source is what we do; it's isn't a tertiary source, nor a source of any kind. That whole post was sorely confused.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The legit reasons to oppose "pre-summarizing" episodes are a) frequent WP:COPYVIO, b) pointlessness, since the material will be replaced by a summary based on the actual episode itself almost immediately, and c) WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. It's happened quite frequently in television that an episode slated to air did not; or did, but not in the originally intended order; or was changed right before airing due to concerns raised by a test audience, pre-reviewer, studio exec, etc.; or (especially) was very poorly summarized in the pre-airing press materials. The "paraphrasing from a source is, maybe, OR, or me being a source, or something like that" stuff is incorrect, and has nothing to do with it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Early episode rows

Another issue that has been raised at Star Trek: Discovery is when rows of the episode table should be revealed. There are some who feel that we should add all the episode rows for the season now so readers can see how many episodes are planned, and then information can be added to them as we learn it. I know that this is another strongly discouraged practice, and that we usually wait until there is some information already available for a row before we reveal it, but I again do not know if we have anything specific written somewhere about that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Definitely agreed on not revealing it. There is no point to having rows that are effectively empty. If need be, we can do what American Horror Story: Cult is doing and add "The season will consist of a total of 11 episodes." into the Episodes section, but a table is not necessary to state this information.

Many of our standard practices are basically local consensus' created through editing and randomized discussions. I believe we should create a list of such practices and actually implement them into the Manual of Style. This is another such case. -- Alex^TW 22:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That was one of the reasons that WP:TVFAQ was created. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What's currently listed (about 3-4 episodes, given episode 1 and 2 have aired) is acceptable. Episodes don't get added until both the title and the airdate is published so that links can be shown. No extrapolations. Leave the rest in comments. Most television guides display about a week or two ahead of the current day. That's about it, unless it's a planned season/mid-season premiere. The American Horror Story: Cult was assuming the press release pinpointed the titles and the airdate from Futon Critic? Hmm. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Essentially this is stemmed from WP:NOTTVGUIDE. If all you have are just the amount of episodes planned, that really should be noted in the "Release/Broadcast" section, or again as Alex stated if really needed. Once additional episode info is available (the rule of thumb I've gone with is at least two pieces of info not necessarily including the intended air date, so title, director or writers), the future cell can be added. But if you have only aired two episodes, and have the info of episode 7, that should be prose, because we don't want multiple blank cells between the known content. One blank is not horrible (ie have the first 2 episode and episode 4 info, with nothing for 3). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot where I saw it but a year or two back I saw an entire table laid out for something like 12 or 20 episodes, with no airdates, titles or other info for any but the first three or so, and it was deeply, deeply silly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of spoilers in the cast section of Westworld

RfC on Potential Spoilers: "Should information revealed to the viewer throughout the series (such as major plot points and reveals) be contained in the Cast and characters section of the article?" -- Radiphus 16:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It is difficult to argue against WP:SPOILER, so I expect project TV can't offer any specific guidance. Wikipedia should not censor relevant information, but there are reasonable arguments to be made about editors putting too much plot in what should be a general character description. If a character description is longer and more detailed there is a strong argument to be made about the order in which information is presented, just in terms of good writing and presentation.

For example if a character is presented as "the man in Black" and no name is given until the end of season 1, then character description should probably have a sentence describing the character as he was initially presented, and then another sentence explaining who (or what) he was revealed to be at the end of the season. So while the information isn't omitted it is presented to readers in an order similar to how it was presented on the show. I certainly appreciate more when an article allows me to skim the descriptions without presenting too much information from later in a show.

That's just my opinion and it is a lot of hassle to convince editors who think they own an article to make even the smallest changes or to convince editors in general about better spelling, grammar, or writing structure. WP:SPOILER unfortunately works as much for trolls as it does for people not wanting to leave out any important details. If you have the patience to discuss at length on the talk pages and make smaller careful changes, it might not be impossible to improve things though. -- 109.78.200.56 (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

My first point about not including plot in the character section is similar to what WP:TVCAST says "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary;" -- 109.78.200.56 (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Best to take this to the talk page of the article instead of here. -- Alex^TW 04:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

We actually need to revisit WP:SPOILER's terseness in this and a couple of aspects. I'm reminded of some CENSORED who used an image at a Walking Dead episode that blew the entire plot of a whole major story arc, and it took three or four of us to get him to stop edit-warring to include the image. He was even explicitly doing it as a "ha ha ha, gotcha!" spoiler. This is really uncool. Yes, we should include something like "Alice B. Ceesdale – Agent X" even if agent X hasn't been revealed yet, and even if Agent X's gender hasn't been, if the information is very reliably sourced (no IMDb!), and it's a major castmember. E.g., Colony (TV series) listed several eventually major cast members long before they appeared. But we should not have crap like "Alice B. Ceesdale – Agent X, who turns out to be the long-lost sister of Jimmy McNuts", if that flushes a whole bunch of the plot down the toilet. Save that for the Plot section, which anyone who's used WP for more than a few days knows by now "do not read that part if you don't want spoilers". No one should ever have their whole season wrecked by just skimming a WP TV article – not by an image, not by a cast list, not by infobox content. So, we do not need to make "exceptions" to WP:SPOILER, we need to tell people to apply WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:Don't be a jerk to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Mention of episode run time in "List of episodes" page

Is there a guideline somewhere that I'm not finding about not stating the episode run time in the list page? The following sentence has been deleted twice from the lead of List of Wynonna Earp episodes:

• "Total episode running time is 43 minutes (including opening title sequence and closing credits roll)."

There is no mention of "minutes", "run time" or "running time" in the MOS project page. The only inclusion of episode minutes appears as a header in Template:Episode table (nothing at all in Template:Episode list). I'd appreciate some guidance because if the deletions are arbitrary, I'd like to refer to MOS:TV to support keeping the information. Thanks! Pyxis Solitary talk 10:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't come across this before, but I find it unlikely that every episode is exactly 43 minutes anyway. I don't personally have any strong feelings about this issue, but I would note that there are spaces to include run times in the infoboxes for individual episode articles and general series articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Normally we only include an average runtime for episodes in the infobox in the main series article. It's not included anywhere else. Occasionally it is included for webisodes although I don't see why we need to specify for webisodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I would note that List of Quantico episodes and List of Game of Thrones episodes are both featured lists, and include the average run-times. -- Alex^TW 13:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

And there are other FLs that don't include it. It seems like minutia to me. If you need to know a runtime, which I think is some of the least useful information in these pages, then the main page has it listed. There's no reason to list it in a sentence for an LoE page unless there is something special about a particular episode that was not the standard length. Meaning, it was some special that was longer, like they do for some season finales and milestone episodes. Otherwise, it seems pointless and just fluff in the lead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it referenced? Sometimes the production studio will specify the runtime like 13x22' when they release the program. I agree it should be the average and can stay in the infobox television on the main page. It can be removed from the episodes list article as with List of Supernatural episodes as it is formatted to run in the standard one-hour television slot. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that in most cases, runtimes are going to be relatively the "same" across episodes of a series and are probably just clutter in an episode table. I'd like to note though that some web series use {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}} and utilize the custom parameters to note runtimes, because obviously they can vary greatly from what we would consider "standard" TV series runtimes. We may want to examine their usefulness in a series like Star Wars Forces of Destiny in which the runtimes are still within a reasonable average for the series itself (in that instance, 2–3 minutes) in comparision to a series whose episodes may vary, for example, from 2 minutes to 10 minutes.— TAnthony^Talk 17:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. So ... it's arbitrary. Some editors think it's okay (there are list of episodes pages that include the info) -- while some editors think it's trivial. If there's no guideline in MOS, then it boils down to personal opinion. What I wouldn't like to see happening is "my way or the highway" by one or more editors who don't think the information should be included. Is there any way to get an explicit guideline about it in MOS? Pyxis Solitary talk 07:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I doubt we would put it in the MOS, simply because we cannot list everything that should or should not be on a page. Some of it should come down to common sense and looking at whether or not it enhances the article. Given that runtimes, unless specially noted, are not exactly the important pieces of information and are already listed on other pages, one could argue that (yes it doesn't hurt) it doesn't really need to be there. You should do that with all information on a page, not just runtime. You should look at whether or not it enhances what the reader is getting, is it already covered in more detail elsewhere and a simple link should suffice, etc.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"You should look at whether or not it enhances what the reader is getting, is it already covered in more detail elsewhere"

In my opinion, it enhances what the reader is getting in that individual page. Run times are not usually covered in more detail. I don't think a 15-words sentence to be a back breaker. And, again imo, what purpose does it serve to not provide information on a separate page associated with a TV article just because it appears in the infobox of the main article?

Take, for example, a film article where you include the soundtrack. The section is linked to the main article for the soundtrack, but you still replicate details about the soundtrack in both the main page's section and the separate page for it.

If the inclusion of a particular detail about episodes on their list page is subjective, who has the power to decide that one editor's opinion about it is more important than the other's? Pyxis Solitary talk 18:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

How does the runtime enhance a readers' understanding? Do you specifically point out the filming aspect ratio in the lead as well? It's probably just a "valuable" compared to the runtime. Knowing that a show is a 30 minute show, a 60 minute show, etc. is not that relevant as a whole and probably something the reader already knows if they are on the LoE page anyway. Your example about the soundtrack isn't quite the same. We don't duplicate technical information. You don't see "the entire soundtrack runs 63 minutes" on a film page, whereas the soundtrack's infobox probably has a runtime on it. You always go for a general consensus, but we cannot arbitrarily include everything that one could put in an article or not put in an article, we'd have pages of that stuff. The real question is, "why do you think it is hurting this article to remove it?"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

How does it enhance a reader's understanding? Well ... some readers may not notice the running time down below in the Production section of the infobox. (Sometimes, something is right in front of your nose and you don't see it — and this happens with life in general.) Should the filming aspect ratio also be included in the lead? No. Because the aspect ratio is not a format (the infobox template guidelines say so). Should the video or film format be included, too? Maybe. Maybe not. But I would wager that informing readers about the length of the episodes is something worth being provided on their list page, because most television networks flood a broadcast hour with commercials (some more than others). How much of that hour are the episodes themselves is good information to offer readers.

My question to you is: "why is this bugging you so much?"

Where is the sin in having one sentence in the list page that lets readers know that the episodes on the page that were watched or recorded in the hour that comprised 10-11 pm, are 43 minutes long? Pyxis Solitary talk 10:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that I would say that not noticing technical details about a show is important, especially since most people don't come to Wikipedia to look up technical details like runtimes, or to confirm that a show is in color, or at a 4:3 aspect ration, or that it's broadcast resolution is 420p or 1080i. Again, we don't include any other technical details in prose form because they are not needed beyond the infobox (one could argue that they aren't needed period, but they certainly don't need prose space devoted to them). Standard TV length for a 60 minute show is 42 minutes, give or take a minute or so depending on the editing of the episode. Doesn't matter about commercials, because that's standard. A 30 minute show is 22 minutes of actual episode. Again this is standard. The exceptions are shows on Netflix, HBO, and the like, that don't have commercials. They have their own standard and not something that is important enough to need mentioning in a lead. The lead summarizes the most important aspects of the article (see WP:LEAD), and you're arguing that pointing out that a show is 42 minutes long on average is important to a reader because? What "bugs me" is the principle behind the inclusion. It opens the door for more minutia to be added to the lead, thus moving the lead away from what the lead was designed for. Here's another reason it shouldn't be there: The lead is summarizing the article and should not contain information that isn't present anywhere else in the article. I'll pull the exert for you:

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

I don't think runtimes fit into anything that the MOS describes as what should be in a lead. Before you point out that it also says not everything has to be the body of the article, remember that you've already deemed runtimes as "important", and thus not simply just some standard fact that exists among all tv shows, but something specific we definitely need to point out to readers. By that argument, you've moved runtimes into a category of significance that requires discussion in the body of the article if it is that important. Otherwise, it's just a technical fact that is covered elsewhere, and not needed on an LoE page (given that they likely came to the LoE page via the main page anyway).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how many people come to Wikipedia for technical details, so I can't make a general statement about them, but they do come to Wikipedia to find information (that, I know), and providing readers with a little more instead of a little less sounds like a good goal to me. After all, this is a content encyclopedia, right? Besides, we're dealing here with a specific about episodes in their "List of episodes" page. We're not dealing with the lead of the main article.

You made my point by quoting MOS:

"Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

1. The running time of episodes aired within a specific broadcast time frame is an important piece of information (imo) about the episodes on the list-of page.
2. The running time of episodes is a basic fact about the episodes on the page, and this basic fact can only be included in the lead due to the layout structure of the list-of page.
3. The information about episode running time for Wynonna Earp episodes is supported with reliable, published sources.

"I don't think runtimes fit into anything that the MOS describes as what should be in a lead."

You don't. But per the wording of the guideline quoted above ... I do. (And, btw, I've seen general running time included in some other List-of pages, which is why it was also included in the page for Wynonna Earp episodes). And that's what all of this boils down to: subjective opinion regarding content that is not addressed in MOS — which is, providing a basic fact about episodes in the List of episodes page. Pyxis Solitary talk 03:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely say that run time is much more important when it varies in an episode--say, in Once More, With Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), or how the current season of Game of Thrones has variable episode run times. If all the episodes are the same length... mention it once somewhere, probably not in the lead, and move on. Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"mention it once somewhere, probably not in the lead"

But this topic is about basic information provided in the List of episodes page which has a completely different layout than the main article. Pyxis Solitary talk 03:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It can't be "basic facts" and "important details" at the same time, because if you read WP:LEAD, you'll see that "important details" require more discussion in the body of the article. Second, just because other pages have it does not mean that they should. You're placing undue weight on the runtime of a show, that is standard across most networks, I've already pointed out networks that use unconventional times. The infobox on the main page or an individual episode page is sufficient in letting a reader know how long a traditional show runs for. The LoE page doesn't need it, the lead or NO page needs it listed. You are arbitrarily picking runtime (you can't decide if this is an important information or a basic fact), and it opens the door for more technical details to be listed in the lead that are completely irrelevant details. Yes, I disagree with your assessment that the runtime of a show fits into what WP:LEAD is referring to. There doesn't appear to be agreement from others that this is information that SHOULD be there, only that it does happen to exist on some other pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't an RfC. Until then, this entire discussion is all personal opinions. You disagree with my viewpoint. I disagree with yours. Until MOS states "do not include episode run time in the List of episodes page" (or whichever way its worded), the run time is a basic fact about the episodes that some editors, myself included, think should also appear in the list-of page. Pyxis Solitary talk 21:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, fasten your seatbelts, because it was deleted a third time. Anyone interested in creating an RfC to get this list-of page matter decisively clarified in MOS? (I've never done one and will probably suck at it.) Pyxis Solitary talk 07:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:RfC has a step-by-step process to tell you what to do. That said, I've already told you that the MOS isn't going to specifically identify 1 piece of information not to include in the LEAD. It doesn't for ANYTHING else. It discusses information as a general. We cannot spend time identifying every minute detail that should or should not be in the lead. All an RfC would do would establish a set for THAT page in question, not the MOS in general. WP:TVLEAD already discusses what SHOULD be there, and it doesn't list "technical details" in the list.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I posted this topic to get answers from editors more familiar with the policies and guidelines of MOS:TV because I wasn't finding an instruction that said the mention of episode running time was not included in the "List of episodes" article. It didn't appear in the archived discussions. It wasn't in the instructions for the List-of pages. You turned it into a debate. It's just a brief sentence with a few words. That's it. No one is throwing the MOS:TV baby out with the bathwater because a List-of article includes the statement "Total episode running time is XYZ minutes." It doesn't open the gates of hell.

You linked WP:LEAD. Well, then, it says the lead: (a) tells the reader the basics in a nutshell, (b) summarize the most important points, (c) apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Since the List-of article has a set layout, any basic fact about the episodes can only be included in its lead. There is no "remainder of the article" to include it in.

You say "'It doesn't list "technical details"'? To paraphrase what you said about pages that include run time: just because it doesn't, does not mean it can't.

The manner in which you have responded to my inquiry is precisely the reason why an RfC should be created. It's not going to break Wikipedia's backbone to include a guideline about episode run time in the List-of article. And if the consensus among neutral editors is that run time should not be included, so be it. I can live with that ... so can every editor who complies with MOS:TV.

I'm not here to arm-twist. I want what's best for readers of Wikipedia articles. I shy away from creating the RfC because it should be done by a neutral party (and, yes, I can mess it up the first time and the mere thought of jumping through hoops to get it right is discouraging). Pyxis Solitary talk 03:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

A "no-runtime" rule is certainly not a MOS:LEAD matter; it's true that LEAD doesn't have do/do not line items of particular factoids. However, it's common, pretty much expected, for micro-topical MoS subpages like this to suggest what belongs in the leads on articles within its scope. I agree that runtime stuff is trivia that doesn't belong in the lead. It's for the production section and the infobox. No need to include it in tables of episodes either, unless there's something unusual about a particular episode's run-time (e.g. double-length pilot/finale), which can go in the notes column. Don't create a runtime column, since it's going to be nearly the same for every episode.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Guest actors' names

I see that WP:TVPLOT discourages using actors' names, AlexTheWhovian. That's why you removed them. If that's the case, what about guest names at Cheers (season 1) and other Cheers season? I inserted them into episode lists because a separate list of guest actors is less than desirable. Why not make some occasional exceptions per WP:GUIDES? If not, must I remove all of them from the pages or something? --George Ho (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You want my advice? Don't remove them. Many of the episode lists for older TV series have those, and there appears to be no appetite among WP:TV to go back and "fix" all of those (instead, their focus seems to be preventing the use of "parenthetical guest stars" in episodes lists of current TV series). That seems to be a fine arrangement which I suspect most will find satisfactory. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Is Firefly a current or older series, IJBall? --George Ho (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Firefly is an article which people who care about the parenthetical guest actor thing are watching. So you're not likely to make any headway there. But Cheers is one of those articles that has probably had parenthetical guest actors in the listing for years, and no one cares... FTR, I am with you in that I pretty strongly despise "listing" guest cast separately (e.g. in the 'Cast' section), and would like to see that practice basically deprecated... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Guest actor names are different than main credited cast. I think we should err on the side of including them in the plot. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It actually makes it much more verifiable to include the guest actor along with the plot of the episode they appear in (a point I've been trying to make repeatedly here and during the MOS:TV discussions) – IOW, it's better as per WP:V which is actually a site-policy (unlike the MOS's...). Far too many "Guest cast" listings (i.e. when in list-format as part of a 'Cast' section) in Wikipedia TV series articles don't even include what episode a listed guest cast member appears in, which it makes it vastly more difficult to verify whether an actor actually appeared on that TV series at all or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a thread was started here while being addressed directly to me. Interesting way to do things. Anyways. The WP:TVPLOT guideline was recently updated, which included the addition of the exclusion of guest actors in plot summaries. Many of those disagreeing here are active members of the WikiProject that should have stated their opinions in the updating thread, but would rather wait it out until it becomes an issue (Exhibit A here) to press their opposing opinions. Anyways, again. Realistically, guest stars, unless notable (for example, famous people that have appearedin The Big Bang Theory), are not required at all, whether it's as a list or in the plots. They clog up the cast lists, and the actors are not part of the plot. There was also consensus to remove the guest cast from the Game of Thrones articles recently, after such an edit was contested and a discussion was started about it. I recommend seeing those articles and that discussion. Also, "Firefly is an article which people who care about the parenthetical guest actor thing are watching" is a personal opinion based on no solid evidence to support that fact. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 23:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Part of the reason editors contest MOS changes after the fact is that until such changes are instantiated by editing of existing articles, it's hard to envision how MOS changes will actually affect real-world articles. This is entirely off-topic, but it prompts in my mind the idea that proposed MOS changes should be run through a representative set of featured- and good article and similar content to detect what will actually become at odds with the proposed MOS changes... Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

A couple of points – the MOS:TVPLOT portion relating to listing guest stars in plot summaries was not changed from the previous wording because there was not consensus to change it. That is not the same thing as saying that the current wording actually has widespread consensus – because it doesn't: various conversations on the topic over the past year, including this one, clearly show that in fact the current wording doesn't have overwhelming consensus and is in fact divisive. Secondly, from what I've seen, I wouldn't trust the people who do GA's and FA's enough to get MOS issues correctly – I've seen a number of articles lately that get promoted that would likely have gotten panned if, say, a WP:TV regular had been involved in the GA or FA discussion (because usually one of us isn't)... But this getting pretty far afield from the original discussion by this point... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I just found out about this discussion, which led to the change. It wasn't publicized via RfC and WP:CENT (I don't see the discussion listed in the Archive subpage). Pinging Favre1fan93 about excluding guest actors' names. --George Ho (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

RE to George. The discussion can be found via searching the archives here, and adequate notice of these discussion have been given each time one has started (via notices here in new sections, in the infobox at the top of this talk, and a noice at WT:TV), and even additionally when more input was needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Special guest stars could be put in the episode summaries, like with Paris Hilton in Supernatural or the numerous ones in The Simpsons. It really depends on the flow of the narrative if they should be placed next to the character or at the end in a list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Must I abide to the changes and do the case-by-case method on every series, or can we have another central discussion about inserting guest actors' names? --George Ho (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

You can try, but I suspect it will be a pointless excercise – there will be YA 50/50 split on the question, and thus "no consensus to remove" the wording (but by the same token showing that the current wording really doesn't have consensus support either)... There's no question we'd be better off if that wording was removed, and we just left it to "local consensus" at each TV article – the result would be that "current" TV series articles would probably not use parenthetical guest cast in the episode summaries, while "former" TV series articles would still continue to use them as they do now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I could start a central RfC discussion to ask for either a modification/clarification of "actors' names" or a simple removal. However, I realized that an RfC discussion should be more organized and straightforward and clearer. Therefore, as a test, I instead started the discussion at "Talk:Firefly (TV series)" about whether to reinsert just the names of one-time actors. --George Ho (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I note that you did not link the original discussion at all here. Please keep discussions to one location. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 06:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Firefly (TV series). --George Ho (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Concur with IJBall on all of the above, other than whatever practice emerges as stable should be applied to articles on older shows (if not actively applied, like "hunt it down and change it all), there should at least be a dim view taken of WP:OWN antics at old-show pages to prevent them being brought into conformity. Every single time I've encountered "you can't change this at this article because its old" pseudo-reasoning, regardless of the topic of the article, it's been noisy, disruptive b.s. symptomatic of a clique over-controlling an article to the detriment of its quality. It's part of the smoke indicating a more serious fire. Absolutely don't encourage it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

User voted web polls

Could I please get confirmation that user voted web polls are not a reliable source and that is not appropriate to include them in television articles.

I'm more familiar with Project Film than Project TV where they have consistently rejected user voted web polls as not a reliable source. It was my assumption that the same applied to Project TV but if there are rare cases where it is acceptable to include to include the user voted scores from sites such as Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, or IMDB I would appreciate if you could explain what those circumstances are and what caveats apply. (I think maybe if a third party discussed the difference between the critics views and the audience views and mentioned social media activity and web polls that might just barely pass the requirements but even then I'm not so sure.)

The specific reason I ask is that there is an editor with the power to approve posts who thinks it is acceptable to include these user voted scores and keeps allowing them to be added to The Orville which is locked and requires pending changes to be approved. See Talk:The_Orville#RT_and_Metacritic_audience_scores -- 109.76.159.233 (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This means that IMDb, TV.com, and the other similar websites that give "fan polls" are not reliable sources of information.

I'm not sure how I missed it earlier but this seems to have already been answered by WP:TVRECEPTION. I'd still like confirmation though, the editor seems to think WP:SELFPUB was an exception that allowed the user voted web polls to be included. -- 109.76.159.233 (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I've other questions about the TV guidelines but I'm still hoping for some kind of a response, any response to this above question. Bueller?

To reiterate: are there exceptions where the user votes of from Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, or IMDB are acceptable?

The editor approving other peoples edits on The Orville seemed to think so and if editors that have the power to approve other edits think they are acceptable then I'd really like the guidelines (or the exception to the guidelines to be made clearer). -- 109.78.200.56 (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

User-voted web poll are WP:UGC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I was relying on WP:RS and I wasn't familiar with WP:UGC which probably would have helped. -- 109.78.252.53 (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft guideline material on how to write (and not write) "Production" sections

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#List of points to cover, a draft list of advice on the writing of "Production" sections. This is part of an RfC on MOS:FILM, but the material is written broadly enough (on purpose) it might actually live at MOS:FICT and apply to other media (TV, video games, comics, novel series, etc.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding a disagreement at "The Gifted (TV series)"

There is an RfC at Talk:The Gifted (TV series)#RfC regarding some wording and interpretation of sources. It would be great if we could get some more opinions over there. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Riverdale (2017 TV series)#Creating Article for Episode list

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Riverdale (2017 TV series)#Creating Article for Episode list. This discussion regards whether or not the series' episode tables should be split away to a separate article simply because it has passed its second season. -- Alex^TW 01:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Home Media section and services like Hulu and Netflix

Currently the MOS says that a Home Media section can include details of a show coming to the various streaming services like Netflix. I would recommend that this advice be changed, due to the nature that pretty much most shows come to such services, and leave, without much fanfare, and streaming services are everywhere now.

There are clear exceptions where the streaming services should be mentioned:

• If the show actually broadcasted on that service to start (Handmaid's Tale, Strangers Things) or later seasons completed on it (Arrested Development, MST3K), that is, when the streaming service is the first broadcast point for any part of the series.
• When the series' move to or off that service is a point of detailed discussion in secondary sources (Futurama)

Otherwise, this should omitted information. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: Note that there is a related discussion about this issue at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Release. However, the discussion there has stalled of late... But this really needs to be dealt with in the context of that same discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Masem; this section is badly outdated, and the two kinds of cases outlined are clearly the exceptions to make (maybe someone can think of a third, but those are the only two coming to my mind as well as Masem's).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above as well. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Masem, SMcCandlish, and Jclemens: I wanted to inform you all that I have written up a proposal for new text to replace the MOS section "Release" at the rewrite discussion that you might be interested in reading and/or contributing to it and discussing. That can be found here, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Telenovela or TV series

I would like to know which term is better to use in the articles, if it is "telenovela" or "TV series". I see telenovela articles in IMDb specified as TV series, and not telenovela, but I do not really know what they do, however, it is more convenient to use the term "telenovela" to differentiate articles, for example, the case of Victoria (TV series) and Victoria (telenovela), one is a series while the other is a telenovela, they are not of the same genre, but I think it is necessary to specify. Recently the user NMdUnsl, moved this page, without explaining why, which makes me doubt how the articles of soap operas must be specified.--Philip J Fry :  Talk  19:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It depends on what reliable sources are referring to it as, as well as the definitions of those terms. If it has gone on for more than one season/series/year, then it probably isn't a telenovela. Like wise, if it has only had 20 episode or less then miniseries would probably be a better term. It just depends on the situation. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)