Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Series overview tables - rough draft

Per a discussion started at WT:TV a few days ago, a few of us think it's time to address Series overview tables, to provide language that aims to establish consistency between articles. I'm not sure what the best approach is for this--I'm sort of feeling that I should add some proposed text and encourage other editors to edit it with notes below, and as our consensus grows we can adjust accordingly. And when we are done, or done enough, we can add to the MOS. I dunno. If someone has a better idea, let's go with that. We still have a few things to figure out, like where to use the series overviews, etc. I'm sure civil editing will prevail. Do we agree that "Series overview" is the best title for the table? Does that acknowledge other works from our British friends, for example? "Program overview"? "Episode overview"? Also, for now, I will indicate the sections that are still undecided, or in dispute, or pulled directly out of my ass, by labeling them in red. If that gets annoying, and/or there is a better way to do that, please just change it and strike out this sentence.

Series overview
When a television program has produced 2 seasons/series or more, it may be advantageous to summarize some of the episode data with a series overview table. If a program's episode list is at the main article, the Series overview should be presented there. If a separate List of episodes article exists, the series overview table should be presented at the top of that article, and transcluded to the barebones List of episodes article on the main page. In order to ensure consistency from article to article, the following guidelines have been set up. Articles with existing series overviews should be changed to reflect this consensus guideline.

Example

The basic overview table should contain:

Season		Episode(s)	First aired	Last aired
	1	26	September 8, 2012 (2012-09-08)	June 15, 2013 (2013-06-15)
	2	26	September 13, 2013 (2013-09-13)	June 21, 2014 (2014-06-21)

If an television program has enough sources to support it, the intermediate series overview should resemble this:

Season		Episodes	Originally aired		Average viewership (in millions)
Season		Episodes	First aired	Last aired	Average viewership (in millions)
	1	26	September 8, 2012 (2012-09-08)	June 15, 2013 (2013-06-15)	3.2^[1]
	2	26	September 13, 2013 (2013-09-13)	June 21, 2014 (2014-06-21)	2.2^[2]

For high profile articles with adequate sources to support the content, the expanded overview should look like this:

Season		Episodes	Originally aired		Nielsen ratings
Season		Episodes	First aired	Last aired	Rank	Rating	Average viewership (in millions)
	1	26	September 8, 2012 (2012-09-08)	June 15, 2013 (2013-06-15)	#55	11.8	3.2 ^[1]
	2	26	September 13, 2013 (2013-09-13)	June 21, 2014 (2014-06-21)	#65	9.2	2.2 ^[2]

Contents

A new season should be added to the overview table only after an episode table has been created for that season. (See: WP:TVUPCOMING)
If average viewership numbers are included, they should be adequately sourced, and not the result of your own calculations as this would constitute original research. Sourcing is crucial for accuracy, and to help other editors quickly respond to numerical vandalism.
Since many series don't have proper "Premieres" and "Finales", we should avoid that language in the overview and use First aired and Last aired instead. There are practical reasons for this: Some networks air previews of a series in advance of that program's official "premiere" (see Fanboy and Chum Chum). By restricting the series overview to the literal "first aired" date, we avoid any confusion; the first aired date would be that preview date. Also, if a series is cancelled before it has a chance to tie up loose ends with a proper "finale", the table header will not need to be changed to reflect this unpredictable event, and will be consistent with other articles.

Formatting

It is preferable to link the season number within the table to the appropriate section at the List of episodes article, or if a unique episode article hasn't yet been created, link to the appropriate episode section within the main article.
The overview table should be presented compactly, for ease of viewing across multiple devices. Since some users have large monitors, overviews that span the user's entire screen are not useful.
Colors are often selected based on the series logo, DVD artwork, or for other obvious reasons. Colors must conform to WP:COLOR, which attempts to make content accessible for the visually impaired (such as readers with colorblindness. Once established, colors shouldn't be arbitrarily changed without discussion.

Misc

Home media releases do not belong in the series overview tables. Such data can quickly overload a simple table and are not germane to our understanding of the series. Home media releases are best suited for their own section within the article.
If data doesn't exist yet, fields can be left blank. Alternatively, editors can use TBA (to be announced) as a placeholder. Once a trend has been established, it should not be changed arbitrarily without discussion.

Go nuts, y'all! Maybe we should start a discussion section below to field objections and suggestions? This is just a rough draft, so please be cool, although I do have a pretty thick skin. Whatever we decide for the MOS, I think it is wise that we build the guidelines around the LEAST popular series and the cartoons that give us all so many headaches. Once we have that stuff squared away as foolproof, then I feel we can add all the fancy shit for the varsity TV programs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments

1) The series overview should be on the episode list page, not the series' main article. Because it makes more sense to summarize the sections that exist in the 'list of episodes' page on the 'list of episodes' page and since it's the status quo now. I don't see the need for making such immense changes. The amount of work required – moving all these tables for no particular reason – gives me a headache to think about. Transclusion works.

2) re: Contents. "Overview table should include each new season that has started to air." I think this should be changed to adhere to the new WP:TVUPCOMING guideline, where an upcoming season section is created when an episode table can be created. Thus, the series overview table should link to a section of an upcoming season when that section is created. An upcoming season row can be added when there is a season premiere date and/or episode count backed by a citation from a reliable source, but should not link to the upcoming season's section until the episode table is created. The WP:CRYSTAL/"tables should only list past events" argument doesn't hold up. No one here is honestly suggesting we remove episode lists for upcoming/currently airing seasons, which are tables that feature future dates. I would remove the "Don'ts" section entirely for this reason.

3) "It is also generally assumed that 'premiere' and 'finale' are marketing terminologies, not encyclopedic terminologies." I don't know what this means. From Wikipedia: A premiere... refers to the debut (first public performance) of a finished body of work. Such examples in the arts include those of theatre work, film, dance, or musical composition." So how is "premiere" not encyclopedic? Regardless, "first aired" and "last aired" are fine with me, but the reasoning in that section should just state that those terms are easier and broader, not because we hate marketers.

4) Viewers/ratings/viewership needs to be defined somewhere. We want "total viewers," not specific demographics. And do we want to say something specific about "Nielsen" as our official unit of measurement for ratings, or is that unnecessary? -- Wikipedical (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Wiki, you're viewing it as the wrong thing. It is not intended to be a summary of the LoE page. You don't need to summarize a page that is nothing but a summary itself. Unless we think that readers are too lazy to just look at season tables now? I don't think that. It's not like any of the information is hidden away, it's in bold at the top of each episode. It's intended to be a "series" overview, which means that it's best location is on the main page and NOT the LoE page. Look at it like this: When a series first starts, we keep everything on the main page for a couple of seasons (as the main page is not large enough to split right away). Then we move the episode list to its own page. It makes better sense to have an "Overview" left behind on the main page to summarize the data that you've just moved to its own page. You don't need to leave a summary on the summary page itself, that's just redundant. Plus, once you start splitting off into season pages (whether they are articles, or just more lists), the LoE page becomes nothing more than dates and titles. A "series" overview really becomes unnecessary then, as you've removed all prose that could possibly have slowed our readers down from collecting (apparently) the important information of premiere and finale dates. Also, if you're linking to the season section, it's again redundant to do that on the LoE page, because you have a table of contents right next to it. Why would you need links to season sections on the LoE page when you have a table of contents?

I disagree about creating a row before the episode as aired. The point of the series overview is to summarize the series, again NOT the LoE page. If the season hasn't aired, then you shouldn't be adding anything to a table that is intended to provide a summary of the show.

I'm ambivalent about the "premier"/"finale" terminology. I'm ok if it goes, and I'm ok if it stays. I think the Nielsen ratings should state "Total Viewers", but the question becomes do we need to clarify if that is "Live" or "Live+7", as season averages are often based on the DVR figures as well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"You don't need to summarize a page that is nothing but a summary itself." - You've argued this a few times but it doesn't make sense. Many LoE pages aren't simply a summary. Many series don't have season articles so the LoE is the complete episode list and there are quite a few that cover multiple seasons.

"It's intended to be a "series" overview" - Absolutely correct, but nothing in your arguments justifies why it can't summarise the episode lists, which are the series. Some of these pages are quite long, so a summary is useful and, as I've said previously, the series overview table is effectively an extension of the lead.

"It makes better sense to have an "Overview" left behind on the main page" - Nobody is arguing against that and transcluding the overview table from the episode list enables it. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

How does this not make sense? The LoE page is a summary of the episodes. It's a giant list. You don't need a table to summarize a LIST. Quite "long". Define "long". You're arguing that a reader is too lazy to scan a page for dates (assuming, of course, that all they are looking for is dates). There is no point to have it on the LoE page other than you think it won't get updated anywhere else. You're effectively duplicating information in multiple areas when you put it on the LoE page, which is completely unnecessary. You have a page that is nothing but a list, and you feel that you need to summarize said list? This is not done anywhere else on Wikipedia. Do you see an "overview" table at List of Presidents of the United States, List of Warner Bros. films, Batman in film (or similar), Marvel Cinematic Universe, etc. You see one table. You don't see a summarizing table of that table, and all of those pages are larger than the vast majority of LoE pages. This phenomena exists here, because people thought it would be cool to have this table. It doesn't make logical sense to include a summary table on a page that does not need it. The LoE pages are not that long. The longest I have even seen is for The Simpsons, and the "overview" table itself is obnoxiously long and difficult to read. That is an outlier of a series, as most never last 20+ years. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much every article is a summary of something, yet we still include tables. The episode tables we use aren't simply rows of data. They include large amounts of prose within the tables and navigating them can be complex. This is far diferent to articles like List of Presidents of the United States etc. And yes, readers do tend to be lazy but laziness has nothing to do with it. It can still be quite a task to chase up premiere and finale dates for seasons, especially when there are many seasons on a page. You have to think like a reader, not an editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We have summary articles, and we have summary tables, but we don't include tables to summarize a page that is a summary itself. You know this. Yes, the tables are not just rows of data, but are you seriously trying to argue that it's "quite a task" to look at the first episode and the last episode of a table that is sectioned off for every season? Seriously? It isn't lost in some text. It's highlighted and outlined (every episode is), and includes numbers. Then it's wrapped up in a nice little box for every season. It takes no more effort to search for the page than it does to find those dates on LoE pages. I've been as much as reader as I have an editor, and we have boxed in these seasons to the point that it is easy to find just about anything in there. If we were talking pure prose all the way around, I would agree with you. We're not. We're talking about a table that is summarizing data (it's not summarizing the prose content), which is already bolded, highlighted, and outlined for a reader in every season section. You couldn't get lost if you tried. That argument doesn't even make sense for a pure logic standpoint when you look at any LoE page. Even The Simpsons, with 20+ years is easy to find those dates. It takes a long time because the show is so long, but guess what, it takes a long time on their overview table as well because the show is so long. You can argue that in that regard it's actually easier to lose track of which date goes with which season because they're all crammed in together, as opposed to looking at the season sections and having the first and last dates being so separated. I think you're trying to oversimplify things to the point that you're just duplicating information on the same page. By the way, per WP:CONSENSUS (as you know), it isn't about the number of editors, it's about the argument. You're argument so far as "it's easier". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments on the draft:

"The series overview table should be used on the program's main article, but not on the program's episode list" - Of the comments made by editors at the current and past discussions, this doesn't follow the majority opinion which seems to be on the side of including the list on the LoE pages. By my count, the number of editors in favour of the loE is double that of the main article, with most editors supporting inclusion on both pages.
Tables - What is shown as the "the varsity level" table (varsity is a poor descriptor and needs to be changed. It's certainly not a term understood in Australia) should be the preferred way of presenting the "Season" column. Colouring the number cells can produce weird effects when seasons are wikilinked. Use of "#" is contrary to MOS:HASH. "Million" in rows is unnecessary. The column heading should identify the measurement and be something along the lines of the "varsity" table where "million" in the rows is completely redundant. The "Rating" column header needs a descriptor - What is this a rating of? Readers may not be aware.
"Premieres" and "Finales" - On the one hand, I agree with "First aired" and "Last aired", but then Wikipedical has a point. I usually link Season premiere and Season finale because the two articles have clear definitions that these represent the first and last episodes of a season. However, they don't address the situation of a series in limbo that asn't had a proper finale. To get around this the guideline could reflect that in this case we defer to the use of |last_aired= in {{Infobox television}}. i.e. if a series hasn't aired for 12 months "season finale" is treated as the last date that an episode aired.
"Series overviews are best placed underneath the article's Table of contents" - That contradicts MOS:TV as far as placing the table in the main series article.
"Colors are often selected based on the series logo, or for other obvious reasons" - We should include DVD/Blu-ray media covers here, since that is what we usually base season article colours upon.
"Home media releases do not belong in the series overview tables." - I don't think this needs to be in red. We all seem to agree on this at the moment.
"The use of N/A (not available) or TBA (to be announced) is not particularly helpful" - Whether or not to use N/A or TBA is confusing but this seems to be the current default, with {{N/a}} being used extensively, especially as it conveniently shades the cells. Em dashes are not used to any great extent (is there actually an article that uses them?) and they are problematic as there is no "Em dash"key on keyboards. More than likely you'll find tables filled with hyphens. The script I use to fix dashes converts hyphens in these cases to en dashes which looks far worse than N/A or TBA.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 13:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Good notes, everybody. I don't mind treating the proposed MOS text like a live document, so if anybody wants to change it (provided it's not something that we're all arguing about), go ahead. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

"The series overview table should be used on the program's main article, but not on the program's episode list" - I am fine with I guess the "current system" of having the table on the LoE, and then transcluding it to the main page, if an LoE exists.
Tables: In my opinion this should be the max table, with anything in red optional.

Season		Episodes	Originally aired					Nielsen ratings
Season		Episodes	First aired	Total viewers (in millions)	Last aired	Total viewers (in millions)	Network	Average total viewers (inc. DVR) (in millions)	Rank
	1	26	September 8, 2012 (2012-09-08)	12.00	June 15, 2013 (2013-06-15)	8.64	ABC	8.31	43^[1]
	2	26	September 13, 2013 (2013-09-13)	9.23	June 21, 2014 (2014-06-21)	7.55	TBS	9.2	65^[2]

Contents: I'm fine with either season premiere/finale, linked, or first/last aired.
Formatting: Regarding the width, if we use the smaller ones, obviously it should not span the whole page. But if we get to the "full" one (the third of my proposed) that should be close to the whole page length, lest we get a cramped table. On the coloring, "other obvious" reasons: what are these "other obvious" reasons? These should be defined, or we state that it is established by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on the series' talk pages. Should we also give any guidelines for choosing a color before the DVD color? (ie when it starts).
Misc: Regarding the N/A, TBA, I think we should dictate that the {{N/A}} template be used for unknown fields, with it formatted as {{N/A|TBA}}, so it will color the cells, and use a more preferable "TBA" over "N/A". Once the season ends, if info from the previous season can not be obtained for the finished season, it can be changed to "N/A" as that will be applicable.
Don'ts: I think per WP:TVUPCOMING, a row can be added once a section can be created, per those guidelines. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you removing the ratings information from the LoE page? Your final table would basically be everything that you'd find in the Ratings table (except maybe the timeslot). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Once the home media info was removed from the table, I have always viewed these two tables as one in the same. So this table would get transcluded to the ratings section on the main page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I am certainly opposed to including separate ratings information on the 18–49 demographic, which was just included in the last proposal by Favre1fan. We've had this conversation before. That information is useful for ad buyers, not common Wikipedia readers. It's also unnecessarily complicating the table. Let's leave it at total viewership. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

But that info actually as determining factor in a series continuing or not. That's a big part of what networks look at when determining renewals, among other things. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that it is important to a degree to networks, I don't think it is to readers. The average reader does not understand "shares". You need to explain it to them, and unless you're going to explain it on every page then you end up sending them to other pages to explain what a "share" really is. We shouldn't have to send them somewhere else just to understand what we're trying to say. A CBC exec criticized the 18-49 demo being considered the most important factor because of the changes in society and generations shifting. First, it was a field that was created for the adult baby boomer generation (that's the 1970s), and largely is not as applicable today because it doesn't accurately reflect who is watching television. Not to mention that the idea of 18-49 differs depending on the station. Who Lifetime or OWN looks for is not necessarily who the CW or ABC are looking for. I think it's an complicated figure that may or may not be reflective of what the network itself is looking for. Thus, a total viewership is probably the only one that is necessary. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I understand the logic behind that. I will adjust my proposed table accordingly then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, is there any reason why we want to feature the ratings for season premieres and finales specifically? -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Those are generally available, and help showcase the series. How did is start compared to how it ended, viewerwise? Granted, that is just a small window (the overall helps with that), but it is concrete data to look to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

New round of comments

September 3, 2014 - Still to figure out

How wide should the table be?
When do we start the series overview? - After 2 seasons have started? 3? 4?
Where should the overview be started? - Still no clear consensus. We can erect the overview on the List of episodes article and transclude to main article. We can omit the Series overview from the List of episodes as redundant and instead erect it at the main article.
Any objectors to removing 'premiere' and 'finale' from overview??
Let's decide once and for all what we expect for missing data: N/A, TBA, blank field

1) With regard to table size, I think we need language to keep the table narrow. Some of you might have some good suggestions. I've seen tables like the one at List of Uncle Grandpa episodes or at List of Breadwinners episodes#Series overview that take up a full 20 inches (51cm) of my screen to deliver 4 measly columns of data. Not a good use of space, and it's a good thing we're not using paper!

2) I can't remember if/what the consensus was for when we start using an overview. Do we use it as soon as a second season section can be created? Do we need an overview for 2 seasons?

3) I have grown to expect the Series overview to appear at the top of the List of episodes article, which is then transcluded into the empty List of episodes section the main article. The Fairly OddParents#Episodes would be an example of what I've come to expect. And if there is no episode article, the overview table should appear in in the List of episodes section of the main article.

4) It is no secret that I am a fan of getting rid of premiere/finale language. That's a peeve of mine. Seems needlessly fancy, and is misused. If we have to link to descriptive terminology to define it, then let's get rid of it.

5) Blank fields are fine by me. N/A makes more sense to me than TBA, as TBA, by its definition, presumes that the data will be announced, which is not always the case. We should be building our guidelines with the worst possible scenario articles in mind. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think if you're talking about the LoE page, and all of the tables are going the full width, then I'd just as soon have it go the full width as well for consistency and aesthetics. That said, if you're trancluding and the main page has something in the way I'm not sure if that wouldn't pose a problem with functionality.

Do we look at season and episode count? For instance, Arrow is a 20+ episode season, so 2 seasons covers a bit of space on the screen. Franklin & Bash is a 10+ episode season, and thus multiple seasons can easily be reviewed without a real need to "summarize" them.

I think the location is going to be based on what it is displaying. For example, Arrow (TV series) is basically using a modified version in the Ratings section, which is slightly different than what appears at List of Arrow episodes. You could do it that way, or you could put it in a "Series overview" section, where you should find a summary of the show and the link to the LoE page. There should never be a section that only holds a link to the LoE page.

As far as blank fields ago, I don't have a problem so long as it's not a blank row. Meaning, a blank "finale" date is bound to happen once a season starts airing. I'm not a fan of creating a row where you have no actual data, but created it simply because the network announced the return. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

1) No preference/opinion.

2) My thinking is episodes are listed on a series article until it's renewed. At that moment we can move the episodes to a "List of episodes" page. Then, when an episode list for the second season can be created, we create a series overview and link to a newly created second season section. That seems like the progression we've been discussing. We should keep the guideline as broad as possible, without getting into areas like episode count or length. Unnecessary complication in my opinion.

3) The overview should be on the "List of episodes" and transcluded to the main series article (is that what this bullet was about?)

4) And replacing with "First aired" and "Last aired"? No objection.

5) Weak lean towards TBA. N/A means not applicable because information hasn't been announced yet, aka TBA anyway. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

1) Depending on the number of columns used, wide enough so there is not excessive wrapping, yet is not unnecessarily wide. (ie a full width table for only four columns).

2) When information can be added for a second season, matching info already gained for the first.

3) LoE, transcluded to the main. If no LoE exists, just on the main (obviously). But where it is kept on the main should be determined I believe.

4) Don't really care either way.

5) I am personally for "TBA" until season conclusion, then a change to "N/A". N/A to me, means that the information was not available at all, while TBA means that we are waiting for the potential release of said information. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, with regard to #3, do you have a location in mind for where it should go on the main page? At the top? Within the List of episodes section? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally, a page will have a premise section, so possibly in there. On pages I have been working on, under premise is where I put the "main" template to the LoE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

1. The table should be as wide as it needs to be, and no more. That means that if it only needs to take up 40% of the width, then that's all it should be. I'm against defining width in the table header unless it's absolutely necessary.

2. Since we're not including DVD/Blu-ray releases any more, we don't need a table for a single season. The table should not be started until season 2 has started.

3. The LoE page really shouldn't be started unless a series has 2 or more seasons. Some TV series, mostly reality series, keep the list of episodes in the main article. The table should be wherever the LoE is. If that's on the main page, then that's where the table should be. If a LoE page is started when seson 2 starts, then the table should go there and be transcluded to the main article.

4. As I've previously indicated, I'm in two minds about this. If we use Season premiere and Season finale, they have to be linked.

5. On this one I have to agree with Favre1fan93.

Regarding where in the main article to place the table, since the episodes form part of the broadcast history, the table should be in an appropriately titled section. Let's call it..... hey, what about Broadcast? The MOS currently focuses on international broadcast but excludes domestic broadcast. What we should be seeing is:

Broadcast (L2 heading)

Series overview (or Episodes) (L3 heading)

Series overview table

International broadcast (L3 heading) --AussieLegend (✉) 19:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I like that proposed placement Aussie. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If there are no objections, AussieLegend could I trouble you to please come up with a rough phrasing for the placement and replace the red text waaaaay up top where I started the draft? I think we're close to done with this thing. Thank you, sir. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Just looking at this, most articles keep the episode link in the "Premise" (or similarly titled) section. Wouldn't you keep the "overview" in that section as well? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

As I've said above, the episodes form part of the broadcast history, so should be in the broadcast section. The premise is about the actual plot and really only concerns the |ShortSummary= field portion of the episode listings. Series that have individual season articles shouldn't link to the LoE page, since the LoE page normally doesn't have any episode summaries. Such articles "should" use a see also link to the individual season articles, which could be messy:

That's why I never use that method. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to incorporate a series overview in a main article where we would expect to find a list of episodes or a link to the List of episode articles. Putting it in the premise section doesn't make much sense to moi even if that's how it's been done. On a List of episodes article, it makes sense to put it at the very top like List of NCIS episodes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Aussie, you'd link to the LoE page, which then has links to any individual season article/page. As you've pointed out, if you have more than 2 seasons it becomes a mess of links. If you have the overview table with the LoE link in the Premise (or Series summary) section (which is likely going to be quite large when it starts getting into multiple seasons), then you have link to the season pages available right there if they exist, as the overview table would like to season pages and not sections of the LoE (if those pages existed). If you're putting the link to the LoE page down in the broadcast section, you're separating similar topics. As you've pointed out, most shows don't have season articles, and thus the LOE page does contain the summaries. As such, putting that link in the series summary page of the main page makes better sense. Since you think that the overview table needs to be near the link, it would stand to reason that you'd put that up there as well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Placement

So we still have to decide where to place the series overview box. My preference is: List of Episodes article gets Series Overview table at top in its own section. Example: List of Sanjay and Craig episodes. The Series Overview table should be transcluded to the main article, in the section where Episodes would be expected to be found. Example: Sanjay and Craig#Episodes. I don't have a problem with Aussie's nesting plan in the section above this one, but for the purpose of getting the overview text into the MOS, I think we should simplify matters first, and tweak accordingly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the placement in both of those examples. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I would leave it ambiguous by saying "put it where the LoE link is". So, if a community of editors are putting it in the Broadcast section, then it's there. If they are putting it in the "Series summary" section, then there. I don't know that I would use Sanjay as the example, as you shouldn't have a section that just contains a link (which is what that section is before the overview table was transcluded to it). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

We have tons of articles with sections containing only a link (to episodes, to characters, etc.) If that's not appropriate, I think that's skipped past me in the MOS. :) I'll find a better example. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sections containing only links are just awful IMO, though I'm not sure if there's an actual policy against them. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Empty sections aren't prohibited but they are frowned upon. We have {{Empty section}} specifically to tag such sections and a category tree used to identify the empty sections so they can be "fixed". Ideally, sections that contain only a link should be deleted and the link moved to the "See also" section, which is the section specifically used for holding orphaned links. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Addendum - Series overview has gone live. Good job, y'all. It was tedious, but a pleasure to work constructively with you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Through my c/e, I came across some wording that I was not sure about. In Formatting, regarding the linking when individual season articles exist, do we want:

[[List of episodes#Season 1 (2013-14)|1]] or [[Main article#Season 1 (2013-14)|1]]

or

[[Main article (season 1)|1]]

Generally now, I believe the convention is the first option, but I feel the second bullet is actually a better option when we have individual season articles. The first option can still be used if a series only has episode tables. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 - My brain hurts. Boldly change shit; I won't tell anybody!

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The series overview table is really a pseudo-TOC for the LoE article and summarises that article, as previously discussed. It's therefore inconsistent to link outside of the existing article from a table that is really addressing the LoE article. The {{main}} links in the individual sections are the links to the season articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I would definitely say the first option should be expressed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. That's fine with me. I see Aussie changed the wording, so we should be good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Transclusion troubles

It came to my attention that the MOS since earlier this month requires the transclusion of parts of one article into another article. That's an extremely error-prone way of doing things. Compare for example this version of List of Last Man Standing episodes - looks fine until it's transcluded, and then it will produce a citation error. And this is just one side of the coin - things will get even more interesting if there's a named reference within the overview table in the list and a different reference of the same name within the main series article. Henceforth people editing episode list articles will all have to be aware that they need to check not just the list article, but other articles as well. Who has ever checked for such possible issues when editing an episode list? I certainly wouldn't have done so, and I doubt many others have. For these reasons I do not think the current transclusion scheme is a good idea, and it doesn't seem the editors arguing in its favor above were aware of these problems. Huon (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The error you mention had nothing to do with the MOS changes per se. The series overview table has been transcluded in that article for nearly two years, and in many other articles for much longer (several years). The problem with List of Last Man Standing episodes was a minor, very easily fixable issue that was no more serious than any other problem that we have to tackle on a daily basis. For much, much longer than the latest changes we've been transcluding episode lists from season articles and we periodically have the same issue with citations. It's never been a big deal in the almost 9,000 articles that use {{Episode list}} and {{Episode list/sublist}}, or the many other articles used by other projects that use navboxes that include citations. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that error persisted for years, but when you reverted an attempt to fix it, you explicitly cited the MOS as grounds for your reversal. And the navbox issue is not directly equivalent because editors who change a navbox will be well aware that their edit impacts articles, possibly multiple articles. I'm not aware of any other guideline that suggests transcluding articles, as opposed to templates, is a good idea, and that this suggestion apparently periodically causes such errors in my view is a strong indication that it's a problematic suggestion. The vast number of pages using the episode list templates also seems rather irrelevant since at a very quick glance comparatively few of those lists are then transcluded from a list article onto the main series article. Huon (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor who deleted the table from the series article gave no indication that there was a problem with citations. His edit summary simply said "Error-prone and unnecessary".[2] Neither being error-prone or unnecessary (in his opinion) is justification for deleting the entire table. He then went to the LoE page and deleted the transclusion information, again not mentioning any problem with citations.[3] I cited the MOS because I thought it was just another IP making a silly edit, deleting content for no other reason than "I don't like it". There was no way to know any different. It wasn't until the IP made a third edit that it became apparent he was having problems with citations and that was a problem that was easily fixable.[4] There is nothing that makes transcluding from an LoE page to the main series article more risky than transcluding from a season article to an LoE page. Quite the contrary in fact. We're talking about transcluding a single, small table from one article to another versus transcluding multiple large tables (typically 20 or so rows each) to one article. To put that in some context for NCIS (TV series) the series overview table consists of 65 data cells, while the transcluded episode tables consist of 2,096 data cells. The series overview table includes no citations while the episode tables have 261. The vast number of pages that do this is entirely relevant; the fact that we transclude thousands of citations across the 9,000 articles and yet have so few problems would lead anyone conducting a risk analysis to determine that the likely risk is so statistically insignificant to be practically not something to be concerned about. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting transcluding articles the other way around is any better. I'm suggesting that we should not transclude articles to other articles at all. If the same content is meant to be in multiple places, then surely the standard way would be to create a template in template space and transclude that on the various articles? Also, of the dozen or so pages using {{Episode list}} that I checked more or less at random, not a single one had the article-transcluded-to-article feature. Even List of The Simpsons episodes, which is set up to be transcluded (except it isn't, really; doing so would produce subtle errors), doesn't actually seem to be used elsewhere. So how many of those 9,000 articles that use {{Episode list}} are actually transcluded elsewhere? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? I don't know, but the mere use of that template is irrelevant to this issue. Huon (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I fear you don't actually understand transclusion. Templates are usually stable and not subject to fairly constant change as series overview tables are (we've discussed this previously) so a separate template can work. Creating a third page so that content can appear in two pages is just additional work for editors and would result in confusion. Since you're arguing for not transcluding "articles to other articles at all", you're advocating that we stop transcluding episode tables too. Episode tables can make up most of an article. Season pages often consist of only the lead, and infobox, a cast section and the episode tables. List of The Simpsons episodes does transclude other articles. The contents of 22 season articles are all transcluded from those articles to List of The Simpsons episodes and that's far more complex than transcluding the series overview table. As for the List of The Simpsons episodes series overview table, transcluding it elsewhere only provides an error with links, as "<includeonly>List of The Simpsons episodes</includeonly>" is missing from the season links. To answer your question, "how many of those 9,000 articles that use {{Episode list}} are actually transcluded elsewhere?", I'm confidant that of the 2,886 articles that use {{Episode list/sublist}}, all of them transclude somewhere else because that's the specific purpose of Episode list/sublist vs Episode list. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I understand transclusion, thank you very much. Trick question: Can you spot transclusion-based problems with List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, and how many articles do we have to edit to repair it? Can you spot transclusion-based problems with Featured List of The X-Files episodes? Do you have any idea how many article transclusions cause similar problems? I'm (probably over-) confident I can answer "yes" to the first two questions (and I'll work on the problems tomorrow), but I shudder at the thought of having several thousand articles that need to be checked for this issue. (As an aside, your transclusion count of {{Episode list/sublist}} is inflated for at least two reasons, but that doesn't really matter much.) Huon (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

For extra credit, try to find the transclusion-based problems with Featured List of Family Guy episodes. I have no idea how to fix those, and it may need a rewriting of the template. Huon (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The problems with the Star Trek articles are not transclusion problems. The articles, even those that are GA, had numerous errors, and I still haven't fixed all of them. Duplicate refs, or identically named but otherwise different refs are something that we have to deal with in articles that aren't transcluded. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That's one of two (that I'm aware of) with that article. And personally I'd call the fact that different references with the same name are transcluded onto the same page a transclusion problem - the season articles that are transcluded, considered separately, do not have a problem. Huon (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a problem, but not a transclusion problem. I fixed it without touching the transclusion. It's a typical referencing problem which, as I said, exists in articles that don't transclude. Regarding something you said earlier, according to this, right now 2,887 pages transclude {{Episode list/sublist}}. My estimate wasn't inflated, I was under by 1, probably because NCIS (season 12) was created after I wrote that. It's actually far higher than 2,887 as the tool only counts pages, not the number of times it's transcluded on each page. What is the issue with Family Guy? I'm too busy to look right now but I can probably get to it later. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That number of 2,887 pages is inflated because firstly it includes non-articles and secondly it's transitive, ie if the template is transcluded on Page A and Page A is transcluded on Page B, both are counted even if the template isn't directly used on Page B. The Family Guy issue is admittedly more of a template issue than a transclusion issue. Reference 233 and some others are included in the reference list but do not exist in the body of the article. They do exist in the season article that's transcluded, of course. I've cleaned up the other reference transclusion issues you didn't fix so far in the first two lists I mentioned. Huon (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If by fixing you mean this edit, again, these are problems with the way that somebody has chosen to reference, not a transclusion problem. Somebody deliberately chose to format a reference in a manner that would not identify an error when they typed <ref name=nemecek97>[[#Nemecek1995|Nemecek (1995)]]: p. 97</ref>. They even called the ref "Nemecek1995" when the year in {{cite book}} is 2003 just to confuse things. You can't blame everything on transclusion. Some things have to be done manually, and properly. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Character listing section

It was recently brought to my attention about this section, and I feel that it needs some updating/expanding. The first sentence in particular is the most troubling to me. I think this section should also include coverage of topics such as formatting the content (within a table, or not, or both), the outcome on our bolding discussion, classifying recurring and guest roles within a series (especially if a source can not confirm an actor/character is one or the other), etc. Let me know if people are willing to start a draft of something. We all did a great job with the series overview addition, so I hope we can have the same success with this. If you'd like, I can start some point to go over, as Cyphoid did with his idea for the series overview section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about "In a section labeled either "Cast and characters", "Cast list" or "List of characters", we indicate noteworthy characters, including the name of the actor who portrayed the character, followed by a brief description of the character in one of two ways."?

I think it would be good to discuss updating the section to address more areas that tend to be points of contention because there isn't a more objective stance identified here. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about the section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Character listing, that I just moved to be in the proper area of under ""List of ..." structure". That needs some fleshing out. But the other might need some tweaking. I think Cyphoid did a pass recently on trying to update things. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What is going on with this MOS lately? It seems there are a few editors who want to dictate what all others should do -- recently arbitrarily making (fairly major) changes without discussing first. I reverted one edit. There are two ways to list to them. As explained, a cast list begins with the cast member followed by the character. A characters list begins with the character name. We can't call it a "Cast list" or "Cast and characters" if it lists the characters with the portrayer in parentheses. If this is going to change then we need to find consensus first. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Which changes were you referring to? Favre made some organizational changes to the layout (without discussing), but I didn't think it was all that controversial to warrant a discussion. Before that was the addition of the overview info, which has been thoroughly discussed for months and months (if you combine all prior discussions that started and died). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Musdan, I respectfully disagree with your opinion that "It seems there are a few editors who want to dictate what all others should do". I don't think we've done anything major without a discussion first. There's certainly no dictation. The "few editors" you are referring to, are people who are noticing problems out in the field and want to fix them. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to participate. If there are no other voices to help shape consensus, that's not our faults. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are referring to this edit, it was just an organizational change. "Character listings" with the content in that section, should not have been housed under the "Parent, season, and episode article structure" section. It was referring to a "List of characters" page. As such, it was moved to under the ""List of ..." structure" section. However, you are right in your edit because parent, season and episode articles sometime use characters sections, but in the style of a Cast section, not as stated in the "Character listings" section.

And as a side note, my offer is still on the table if users want to work on better defining the "Character listings" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Uncredited animal as a main character

There is some content dispute at Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#The_dog_as_a_main_character about whether an uncredited actor (in this case a dog) should be listed as a main cast member. Any comments/ thoughts would be appreciated.AbramTerger (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Series overview tables

The Television Manual of Style says that home media releases should not be included in series overview tables. However, almost all series overview tables that I have seen include DVD release dates.

Because of this new addition to the manual of style, should all instances of DVD release dates in series overview tables be removed?

For example, at List of Parks and Recreation episodes this information was removed. Should I expect to see this happen to other articles as well? DVD information has been included for ages in many articles and nobody seemed to have a problem with it before. For example, List of Parks and Recreation episodes has had DVD information included in the series overview table for years now and nobody seemed to object, but now that the manual of style rules that home media information should not be included there, should it be removed?

Rayna Jaymes (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes they should. I think we just haven't gone around and updated tables. I don't think this is something a bot could do (though, a bot could tag those pages for us if someone knows how to write the code). We have to manually remove them. If you do remove them, then please alert them to the MOS change and what other information they can/should be putting there. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue of home media information in the tables was discussed at length. I was one of the holdouts supporting inclusion but in the end I was convinced. In some articles it's simply a matter of removal, but in the others there is so much cited information that a separate home media table has to be created, but this only really applies to series that don't have separate season articles. Parks and Recreation has individual season articles and home media should be detailed in the individual articles. {{Infobox television season}} includes fields specifically for this purpose. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've manually fixed a few of these. It's unpleasant work, but doable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have also gone around and fixed articles I watch as well, or if I come across another one. A way to look at it, an LoE has episode tables transcluded, that has no info whatsoever on home media, so why should it be in the overview table? That is why, episode numbers, air dates and network, and ratings info is the best info for the series overview table, as that is what you are seeing in the episode tables transcluded. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Layout structure

We need to address the opinion that this advised structure is hard fast. There is an editor going around changing articles because the wording on this MOS makes it appear as though the layout here is the only order you can have (and I've seen others argue that the pages need to be exactly as they are here, which is not true). MOSFILM specifically says that the layout is editorial discretion, which I thought this said at one point. There is a basic structural layout (i.e. a summary of the show should be at the very top after the lead), and you wouldn't put DVD info at the very top, but the overall order should be based on what's best for that article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors are idiots. Sorry, but I had to say it. At the top of the MOS is a banner in the form of:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcuts

WP:MOSTV
WP:MOS:TV
MOS:TV

This is all that should be needed. WP policies and guidelines are not mandatory. That's the whole point of WP:IAR. If you have to ignore a policy or guideline then ignore it if it makes the encyclopaedia better. The difference between policies and guidelines is the strength of the argument justifying your use of IAR. IAR is not a "get out of gaol" card. It's a "get out of gaol if you can justify it" card. In order to ignore a guideline you have to have a good reason. In order to ignore a policy you have to have a really good reason. Where possible we should strive to follow the MOS for consistency, but if there's a reason for not following the MOS then as long as you can justify it you should be fine. The banner I included says all of this in the forms of links to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means but it seems that editors don't bother following the links or even reading the banner which is just idiotic given that it's the first thing on the page. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm right there with you. I think it's the section in the MOS that is worded as if it needs to be a set structure. I'm just wondering if we should add the same disclaimer that MOSFILM has for that section. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

story/teleplay credits in episode lists

Any thoughts on this change? I've noticed this style in several places, and sometimes I "fix" it if I can - I can't find a guideline one way or another, but my personal preference is strongly toward:

No. in series	No. in season	Title	Directed by	Written by	U.S. viewers (millions)	Original air date	Production code
71	9	"No Good Deed"	Charlotte Sieling	Story: Eddie Serrano Teleplay: Alexandra McNally	2.52	December 19, 2013 (2013-12-19)	BCW509

rather than:

No. in series	No. in season	Title	Directed by	Written by	U.S. viewers (millions)	Original air date	Production code
71	9	"No Good Deed"	Charlotte Sieling	Story by: Eddie Serrano Teleplay by: Alexandra McNally	2.52	December 19, 2013 (2013-12-19)	BCW509

I find the use of italics arbitrary, and the word "by" completely unnecessary. Comments?

--Fru1tbat (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It comes down to editorial discretion. I personally don't even like including "Story by" because it does not mean that they wrote anything and the column is meant for writers. Others do like it. Again, it's editorial discretion, so if the community at White Collar want to not use the "by" or italics, that's fine. If you're one person in a group of people that prefer it the other way, then you'll probably have to suffer through seeing it. We wouldn't put something so stringent in the manual of style. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the need for "by", but I'm not sure it's worth legislating. The itals look better to me. In disagreement with Bignole about Story credits. "Breaking" a story, that is, figuring out the entirety of the story and working out the puzzle pieces, can be harder than writing it. People who receive these credits sometimes may have only pitched a rough premise, but they also may have gotten as far as writing an outline for the project, which can imply they did some actual writing. It would be very difficult to try to figure out how much work a person receiving a Story by credit would have done. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments requested at Talk:Sonic Boom (TV series)

Hi, there is a discussion at Talk:Sonic Boom (TV series) about whether or not we need to add {{cite episode}} references for actors, writers, directors, etc. who have worked on a TV episode that has already aired, or if we can forgo such references because the primary source is assumed to be used to glean this content. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple TV networks and broadcasts originally overseas

Hi, Manhattan Love Story has a peculiar situation where the series was on ABC, but was cancelled, then overseas broadcasts (in this case online in New Zealand) continued following the US cancellation, and now the episodes are to appear online on Hulu. It is not yet confirmed whether the NZ online releases will continue ahead of the US online releases. The list of episodes was arranged so that episodes 1-4 had the US ABC airing date and then 5 onwards showed the NZ release date. Someone had edited episode 5 to remove the 5 November NZ date and replace it with a 2 December US date. I have replaced the NZ date as it is the original release date of the episode, however consider that the US date should also be included as the show is from the US. Am I correct in my understanding that both the US and the earlier NZ dates should be included? If TVNZ were forced to stall releasing episodes until they were on Hulu, I agree that then only the US release date will be shown. Episode 8 should be released in NZ today, so it will be interesting to see whether that occurs now the Hulu deal has been made. Also, what should be placed in the infobox under original channel? Obviously ABC, but for the remaining episodes, should it be TVNZ Ondemand or Hulu or both? Any thoughts on this will be appreciated. 122.102.109.166 (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I would say stick to the original broadcaster, but since the original broadcaster cancelled it so quickly and it was picked up elsewhere....I'd say that you probably do need to keep to the first instance period (whether that is here or there). Just create note the explains the date situation for any reader. The dates themselves do not hold enough value to create a big stink (e.g., we're not talking about the name of the episode being different in different countries). As for the infobox, include them all if they are providing the "first" broadcasting of the episode (and not simply re-airings). That said, again this is more of an exception than a rule. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Image usage

I was thinking that we probably need to update the image section to be more reflective of WP:FUC, WP:NONFREE, and what we have started encouraging. Namely, that basic intertitle shots be replaced with free equivalents where possible (ala Smallville, Arrow (TV series), or House (TV series)). Thoughts? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller?....Bueller? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought I responded to this. Guess I didn't. I like what you are thinking and would help with a rewrite of the section if you want to go that route. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This is what is currently there:

The image presented in the infobox of the main article should ideally be an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself. Failing that, a DVD cover may be used. For episode articles, a screenshot may only be used if it meets the Non-free content criteria, i.e., (typically) if it is required to illustrate a significant element of the episode – that is, the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary – and where that commentary is in need of visual support to be understood.
Once you have uploaded a suitable image:

On the file's description page, add a short description of the image (e.g., "This image is the current opening titles for the series."), a source of where you found the image, the copyright holder (e.g., CBS, NBC, The CW, etc.), and an image copyright tag:
{{Non-free poster}} for posters,

{{Non-free video cover}} for Blu-ray, DVD, VHS, etc. covers,

{{Non-free television screenshot}} for screenshots.

A fair use rationale must be included or the image will be deleted. The rationale should state why the image should be included on the article. For screenshots and other copyrighted images, a more detailed, individual fair use rationale must be given that explains what particular point of analysis this particular image is meant to illustrate.

Note: Please see the fair-use criteria for specific details on image usage, as it applies to all images in the article, not just in the infobox.

Example images that meet the criteria

DVD covers – File:DTNG season-1.jpg

Promotional posters – File:Smallville poster1.jpg, File:Lost-Season1.jpg

Screenshots – File:New60minutes.jpg

Other images – File:Pauline Fowler.jpg

This was originally pulled from WP:MOSFILM, which has been amended since that time. I'm trying to figure out how best to amend it. Although it should not be controversial, because it's merely following the non-free policy, it'll be a big overhaul, because it will need to focus on finding more free alternatives. We'll need to both update the wording, as well as the examples. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear on your intent, you want to word it to guide users to find and use free content whenever possible as the first option, and if none exists or can be found, to then proceed with non-free alternatives. And then, to remind that if additional non-free content is desired for the article, there needs to be specific commentary in the article which supplements the added image. Is this correct? I feel that we should look to WP:MOSFILM for their wording as a start, and then just the applicable Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria pages to pull wording from. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much. Right now, it really focuses on non-free content and what to do with it. It doesn't impart the significance of free images, especially when it comes to title cards that can be found/created in a free manner a lot easier than film posters. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I also think it would be good to start with what MOSFILM has and go from there. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Let me know where you would like to start a write up for this. I will also be on wiki sporadically the next couple of weeks, as school is finishing up for me. As we get closer to the middle of the month, I'll be back on more regularly to start working on this if that works for you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'll try and start working on something this week. There isn't a rush on it, since we've been dealing with it for awhile. :) BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Should we allow DVD release dates in series overview tables?

Consensus is against including DVD release dates. Sam Walton (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Should we allow series overview tables to include DVD release dates again? Rayna Jaymes (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

Support. I'm currently in favour of allowing DVD release dates in series overview tables. It has been included for years and nobody has had a problem with it. I have noticed that some editors are against the new rule 'Home media releases do not belong in the series overview tables' so I'd like to hear from other TV article editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayna Jaymes (talk • contribs)
Support Who even suggested removing this? st170e^talk 21:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Support. There is really no need for yet ANOTHER small section in an article when the home release information can be included quickly in the series overview box. Not to mention that Wikipedia users have been seasoned to look in that box for that particular information. Encmetalhead (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Articles consist of numerous sections and the MOS already supports inclusion of a media section. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Support A series does not just finish on television, just as a film doesn't finish at the end of it's cinema viewing. Film articles carry information about home media, and there is no ostensible difference between the two. - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Can you please point me to a film series overview table that uses home media information in it? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mention a film series: I mentioned film articles. Films are released individually on DVDs, individual television programmes from within a series are not. The closest analogy to a TV series, is a film. - SchroCat (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Favre1fan93 was talking about a series overview table for a film, not an overview table for a film series. I don't see how any individual film is analogous to a TV series, unless you relate episodes of a TV series to individual scenes in a movie and seasons to the various acts. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Well they are analogous, you are just choosing not to see it that way (or the sine qua non of pushing the analogy too far to make it break). With the exception of a few film series designed as such (HP, LotR, Marvel, etc), most films are single units that tell a story from beginning to end. Series tend not to: even when there is a single story in an episode, they tend to have a story arc that goes over the series, however loosely. Thus the "unit" of a television programme for DVD release is not an episode, but the series. It's the reason that the series is sold on to other countries, and generally broadcast in the series format, not just one-off unconnected episodes. It really comes down to whether you think a series lives and dies in its television broadcast, or whether it has "life" after that, and I think it is fairly clear that there is more to a series than just the television broadcast. (As to the production companies and television channels who buy and sell series for repeats). - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Two things. 1) What does that have to do with a release date of a DVD? What you're really saying is that the broadcast date is what is important in the other countries, because they don't just release DVDs of shows without having already broadcasted them there. The "selling" of a product is not relevant to an encyclopedia (unless it is, but there would be critical commentary on that selling). 2) there is a discussion section below and all of this needs to be there and not here. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying, so please do not try to wait my words, that's uncivil. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I was attempting to say, that if you look at overview tables such as those at Marvel Cinematic Universe, they do not feature the home media release dates. Yes individual films carry info on home media, but that is the same as a television season article. But for a series overview table, that is generally housed at a List of episodes page, there is no mention of home media there, so why should it be included in the table? And if that is insufficient to be transcluded to the main article, a new table can be created (an example, as done at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.#Release) where that info is appropriate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I disagree that the unit of a series is the series is the series itself. Most series consist of episodes that stand on their own. There are some that fit your POV, Lost, BSG etc but, for the most part you can watch a single episode and follow a complete story. However, this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is about whether or not television series overview tables should also include home media and I don't see anything in your arguments that explain why this should happen. Home media should exist in a separate section in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

My POV? I see that bludgeoning and badgering is the name of the game here. I'm out, and you can twist yourselves into ever decreasing circles in agreement with whatever you want to fit your thoughts to. The MoS is as much about reflecting current practice as it is about providing guidelines, which is something you've overlooked in your desire to make things fit to your view. I'm just glad I don't have the time or inclination to bother with this nonsense: the rest of us will keep plugging away writing things, and ignore whatever nonsense a small cabal things might be "right". - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"bludgeoning and badgering"? Really? POV simply means "point of view". There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone has a point of view, but I would remind you that you accused me of "choosing not to see it that way". People in glass houses. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Nominator's argument is insufficient as it represents an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. The user claims that nobody has, "for years", expressed a problem with the inclusion of this content. That is an unsupported statement. And even if it were true that nobody has, "for years", expressed a problem with the inclusion of this content, that doesn't suggest in any way that DVD content belongs in an episode overview table, or that such traditions cannot be changed. See "other stuff exists". Where the use of series overviews had previously been unguided, and not an official feature of television articles, the establishment of recent MOS guidelines created an actual focus for the table, which is now intended to summarize the number of seasons, episodes, airdates, and in some cases, ratings averages. This was the result of lengthy open discussions here, the central, intuitive location for such a discussion as well as at WikiProject Television, another intuitive central location for discussion. DVD release info is tangential to a list of episodes as it doesn't expand our knowledge of the episodes themselves. DVD content can be included in a section devoted to home media in the main article, where we might also include information about streaming video services like Netflix, iTunes, Amazon Instant Video, assuming that's something the community cares about. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per the proper discussion that was previously held regarding this, with proper notification in areas related to the TV project, that discussed at length the inclusion for this. Through that discussion (which did have opposition to removing) consensus was achieved for removal. Also, this should be closed per WP:Canvassing by the OP. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - We've discussed this at length in previous discussions. I was one of the holdouts who felt that such information should be included but I was eventually convinced that series overview tables are not the place for home media listings. I don't see any argument justifying why we should reverse the decision not to include that content. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Series overview is only meant to list seasons, episode numbers, and premiere/finale dates. Dcbanners (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks like I'm opposed. I was honestly coming here to write a thoroughly Neutral comment, but really, why should there be distribution information in the series overview table? Plus, DVDs and Blu Ray discs are completely arbitrary- we don't include links to Netflix streaming or VHS tapes (and it's not like film articles feature DVD links so prominently). I think ratings (and perhaps time slot) information would be better suited for the series overview table. The Support votes haven't made a case other than "that's the way it was." So yeah, I've been convinced after all. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per AussieLegend. ₂₃W 23:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. In many cases there's not one home media release date: different media, different regions, different seasons, anniversary editions. There's not a way to summarize that concisely enough for an infobox. It's also not an essential feature of the series. Until about ten years ago home media releases were very uncommon, and it seems likely that in ten years it will be uncommon again, replaced with on-demand streaming. This particular trend in marketing doesn't earn a spot in the infobox just by being popular now. Put it in the article someplace and save the infobox for essential information that can be expressed concisely. Lagrange 613 15:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Yes, they have been there for years. Trivia sections were included in articles for a lot longer than that, but we've removed them as well. DVD information is the LEAST valuable information on the entire page. We're not here to sell a product or tell people when and where they can get it. That is merely ancillary information about the show itself. The more important information is the number of seasons, when it aired, and how well it performed with viewership. That is also more about the "series". DVD information has nothing to do with the "series" and more to do with marketing and selling a product. Thus, by definition it does not even fit the identified name of the table itself. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Home release information DOES have to do with the series. If we move the information from the series overview to it's own section it's going to be yet ANOTHER small section that will be full of "Season x was/will be released on y" with no extra information. Using the table for the information saves space, makes sense as it's all on the same line, and Wikipedia users are seasoned to look there for this information. Encmetalhead (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe you've misinterpreted the spirit of Bignole's statement and you are arguing for the inclusion of DVD releases dates in a table that's intended to summarize other content. That is, the rest of the table is a summary of other content, but you are proposing that the entirety of the DVD information should exist in the overview to "save space". Would you also propose that all streaming services (you know, the future of content delivery) should be included in this table, or are we only selling DVDs? Episode lists only care about a few pieces of vital information about the series. How many seasons, how many episodes, when the series aired, and how many people watched each episode when it first aired. Anything beyond that is tangential to the subject. As for how seasoned Wikipedia users have become to this content, they can easily be seasoned to look at the main article for this content or to read the prose. And I'd be very interested to learn if Encyclopedia Britannica includes Region 4 DVD release dates in any of its TV show articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You're operating on the notion that every shows has viewership numbers in the series overview box. While most broadcast shows do, most cable shows don't and that's where I see most of the home media dates included in the table. What if we had two set of rules where the obviously more cluttered broadcast shows should not have home media dates but the cable networks can? Encmetalhead (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Except, not having viewership numbers has no bearing on DVD information. This isn't a contest to have the largest series overview table. If they don't have viewership numbers, then they don't have them. The MOS shows that you can have a series overview table without viewership numbers. That doesn't magically make the DVD info more relevant to the article. DVD info is the least relevant information about the series in our articles. They don't contain anything encyclopedic, they just have marketing info. We're not a vendor. The fact that we have sections devoted to discussing such information should be enough. We don't need to place undue weight on said information by putting it into a table at the top of the page and projecting it as something of importance. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'm operating under no such assumption, Encmetalhead. We've provided for the inclusion of ratings info, if such ratings info can be adequately provided, but we also have examples of simple series overview tables that do not contain this information. Maybe I'm not sure what you're arguing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This RFC should be closed given that the edit summaries are being used as a form of Wikipedia:Canvassing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I am currently changing my edit summary to something more appropriate. I apologise for using canvassing in my edit summaries. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to ask a question. Are the suggestions in the Manual of Style rules that must be followed. I was just told by an editor that they are 'just guidelines which do not have to be slavishly followed' (which I initially thought it was) but a few days ago I was told that they were 'rules' and that they had to be followed. I'm confused and I would really like to know the answer. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's a style issue, then yes it isn't a hard fast rule. If it's a content issue, then that is different. There is no policy against trivia, but this guideline is still one of those "rules" that need to be followed. You won't find trivia sections (at least, not on well monitored articles) any longer. The guideline specifically says " Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions.". I don't believe that DVD information is one of those "exceptions". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Also Rayna, although I agree that your edit summaries are canvassing, please remember that consensus is not based on majority rule. You can have 30 people come in and vote "support", but if they isn't an argument outside of "I like it", then there isn't a real consensus. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue of canvassing has been addressed, although I would add that the method of canvassing appears WP:POINTy - making articles comply with WP:TVOVERVIEW but canvassing in the related summaries. Rayna Jaymes (and others who may be watching) needs to be reminded that generally, significant discussion should take place before opening an RfC discussion. To date, Rayna Jaymes' only participation in discussion has been this post asking about the recent changes. That he may not have liked the responses is not justification for jumping straight to RfC. Further discussion should have ensued before that happened and, had normal process been followed, Rayna Jaymes might not have seen the need to retire from Wikipedia less than 2 hour after opening this RfC. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

...well okay then. Should the RfC be closed then? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Rayna Jaymes left his canvassing summary on 37 pages, and a slightly revised (but not much better) version on another 4 pages. We have no idea how many editors will come here based on that request. The extent of Rayna Jaymes attempts has effectively polluted any outcome of the RfC so I agree with CambridgeBayWeather that it should be closed. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: SchroCat's support - the issue is not whether or not home media should be included in television articles, the issue is whether they belong in series overview tables. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Episode Tables

For one-season shows that have yet to be renewed or were cancelled before it has a second season, the episode table for a TV series (the tables with the short summaries) are included in the article for the show itself, instead of having a separate "List of SHOWNAME episode" article. However, the MOS for TV Shows does not state where this table should go in the order of things, even as it gives a rough order for everything else (Premise, Cast, Production, etc). I've always been partial to adding it after Cast (example), and extending the lead paragraph, premise and/or cast if there's white-space caused by this, and certainly not partial to adding it at the very bottom of the article (example). What is the view of other editors on the position of this table? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

With the exception of rearranging the article because of excessive white space with a table (which should be a temporary solution until the article is further developed), it should generally be one of the first things. This is because the plot information is supposed to provide context for the real world information (which it cannot do if it's last). If there is a "Premise" section, then it should really be next to that, or be that section. We shouldn't create a big gap between when we give you a summary of the show and when we give you a summary of the episodes. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:TVUPCOMING

I understand the new WP:TVUPCOMING guideline where years cannot be added to a section titles before episodes air, however, why is that, this article, a featured article which is similar to any List of episodes article, has years in section headings for future events? What's the difference? As an editor who is in favor of including future years ("2014–15") in headings for shows that have sourced air dates for those years, I think it needs to be addressed as to what the difference is. Sorry for bringing up an old topic; I'm not expecting a change, just an answer. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, first it's a film series article and not a TV article and they don't set those regulations (the real question there is how did the article become featured when it's going to continually growing and changing as new films come out...hard to establish "stability"). Even if you come across TV articles that have the future years in the section header that probably has more to do with the fact that we cannot police every article. When we see it, we change it. As for why we don't include it, that's outlined I the MOS itself. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: If you were for some reason looking for an "apples-to-apples" comparison in the MCU realm, you would be looking for this article, which you will see is following WP:TVUPCOMING because it is within the TV project and MOS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that, thanks. But still, there is no difference, regardless if it's film or TV, it's still putting future years in section headings. Weird why it's okay for that but not this. No biggie, not going to push it anymore. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, there is a difference. The difference is that they are separate WikiProjects that provide separate guidance. Additionally, don't mistake not addressing it as agreement for use. We have a lot of things that appear and happen in articles that are not directly addressed by any MOS, guideline, or policy. Those items are often left to the discretion of the editors on that page until such time that it becomes a community wide issue that requires addressing. It was here, hence why it was addressed. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:TVINTL and Da Vinci's Demons#International broadcast

This is related to the above discussion (WT:Manual of Style/Television#International Broadcasts), but more specific in scope so I am asking it as a separate question.

Does "Da Vinci's Demons#International broadcast" satisfy "WP:TVINTL"? As currently written, in my opinion, it seems to be nothing more than a "TV guide" type listing of channels airing the show worldwide. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As it is currently written...no it doesn't. First, it's a giant table of channels and dates. That immediately brings in WP:NOTGUIDE. Second, it isn't a list of solely English speaking countries. Yes, they speak English in Germany, but that isn't an official language (let alone the primary language). So, in a nutshell, it doesn't meet the current guide and it certainly won't meet the new one that gets established (whenever we all have the free time to write it). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bignole for the speedy reply. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD hypothetical question about Wikipedia:TVCAST#Cast_and_characters_information and notability

Some shows, such as The Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone, consist almost entirely of episodes unrelated to one another. Ergo, there is no "main" cast, because almost every episode is about a completely separate cast of characters from previous or subsequent episodes. While it may not be noteworthy or practical to list every episode's cast members (or even just the ones who portrayed main characters in any given episode), should some actors be mentioned if they regularly appear on the show (each time as a new character)?

Back on the subject of "normal" TV series with continuity, Please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. But, isn't it noteworthy if "minor" characters/cast members are more popular and/or get more screen time than the main cast? assuming it's not original research, of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.201.44 (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not the purpose of the lead. The section says "Starring", so it would be hard to sell the idea that a guest is the same as a series regular just because they use them more than once. That's basically a recurring actor/character, which isn't put in the infobox anyway. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

International Broadcasts

There is a dispute between me and Favre1fan93 about international broadcast on Agent Carter. Is it limited to only English-speaking countries? I added the Middle East and Southeast Asian broadcasts because they air it in English. Maybe changing WP:TVINTL to include all countries that air shows in English? Dcbanners (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This issue was discussed, at length, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television in late 2013. Essentially, Favre1fan93's position is what was agreed upon. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DC, the reason we don't include every country that is not English speaking is because it would ultimately be an never ending list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the non-English speaking countries have their own Wikipedia. Yes, it was aired in English, but the country itself is not an English speaking country. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What about Asian (Phillipines, Singapore, Malaysia) and Middle Eastern (UAE) countries that have English as an official language? Dcbanners (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Theoretically, if "English" is the primary language of the country, then yes. Not an official language, the primary language. Again, we're not an indiscriminate collection of information, so the random Middle Easter country (which btw, English is not the primary language there, it's a secondary language that is taught) that is primarily English may not be relevant. In the end, you're right that the MOS needs to be updated. It should say "where English is the primary language", not "English speaking countries", as many countries speak it even though it isn't their primary language. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this list sufficient to help guide the decisions? List of territorial entities where English is an official language I admit, I've added India, the Philippines, South Africa to some of these lists because someone once argued that these are English-speaking nations, which is what WP:TVINTL requires. If we mean "primary language", I propose we tweak TVINTL accordingly. Also I'm really bummed that Dcbanners was hit with a 72 hour block for edit-warring over this, considering it was based on a misinterpretation, and thus was easily-preventable. Dc, keep a cool head! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need to tweak the MOS to be "primary language". The list for "primary" is much smaller, and if we say "official" then, as you've provided, we're opening the door to an extremely long list that does not serve the readers. We're not here to list every single broadcast of a show (which is not the spirit of the MOS for international broadcastings). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The MOS should explicitly list the countries to be included and not depend on a fuzzy definitions of inclusion per primary, official, de facto, de jure usage. I too am bummed by the excessive 72 hour block on a valued contributor for basically trying to do the right thing and tripping over something that deserves a slap on the wrist. 24hrs is normal for this, WTF. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, I believe it was his second block for edit-warring. I agree with adding more specificity to the MOS. I pretty much always agree with adding more specificity to the MOS. So who do we care about? Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, the UK. Who else? The Caribbean? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "fuzzy definition" is accurate if you say only "primary" language. The countries kind of tell us if it is their primary language or not. "Official" isn't necessarily primary. I think if we get into the habit of going so specific that you say, "you can only use these ones", you're going to limit the page and create more problems and edit wars. This is because, by just saying "these countries" and not providing a rational reason, people that believe a particular country warrants inclusion are going to edit war over it. If you say, "just primary" then at least you have something to fall back on. You can point out that the country does not recognize "English" as the primary language. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the 5 major English-speaking countries only as there is likely to be universal acceptance for inclusion as both major and notable. There should be demonstrated a strong consensus for inclusion of other countries in the list and that discussion should be part of the MOS discussion, not part of each article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a slippery slope to go down, I cannot think of the last time I've seen any project regulate such specifics in articles like that. Film doesn't do it, and that is our closest medium (they are released in far more diverse markets as well). I'll be interested to see what others think (though, it would probably be best to have this discussion at the MOS than on the main project page). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Closest is MOS:Film#Release which basically says notable only. If we followed that we would only list broadcasts that had significant coverage in reliable third party sources with more than a directory listing for the broadcast section. That type of guideline I could get behind and it would significantly reduce the size of the International broadcast section if followed. That would also mean that whether or not the broadcast was in an English speaking country becomes irrelevant if there is significant coverage to support notability. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I agree with that approach, but it is certainly better than arbitrarily identifying a select few countries to include. It would definitely affect the international broadcast section, by virtually making it obsolete in most articles (which is not necessarily a bad thing, considering how prevalent the giant tabular lists are that contain every country and their TV channel that a show appears). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I would be more supportive of changing the wording to "primary language". Using the article Cyphoid linked to above, if the show is in English, that would be: USA, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia/NZ/"Australasia", Nigeria, Singapore, and Caribbean nations. Out of all of those, in a general case setting, you probably will not find info on the Caribbean nations or Nigeria. That leaves then a potential of up to six broadcast listings (again, for English). We have to remember that Wikipedia is not a TV guide, so we can't be listing things indefinitely. However, I would be supportive of using this language, with a mix of Geraldo's suggestion of including significant coverage broadcasters. In any event, whatever changes we make, they must have clear definitions. So if we go with the first option I mentioned, what exists for us to link to, for users to check if a language is the primary one for a certain country? And any more notability guidelines for the second option? Because some users may come out with "X show got picked up by this network. That's notable!" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Just as an FYI to my first question I posed, this site may be an option, if we could link to it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. A wider range of acceptable nations isn't the death knell for TVINTL, but requiring sources would certainly help manage the cruft. Sure, Nigeria may be a primarily English-speaking nation, but if nobody can provide reliable sources, the content could be omitted. The lack of sources is probably the biggest obstacle for TVINTL. I barely trust the various "reliable" sources in the US (TVGuide.com/Zap2It/TV.MSN.COM) for accurate airdates for big-money US shows, but even beloved Canada has a dearth of reliable sources. Frankly, I'm not sure why TVINTL is even a thing with the source pool being so poor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I would be really happy to deprecate the International Broadcast section completely, grandfathered for existing articles but strongly discouraged for new and replace it with a release section similar to how it is done with film articles. I have never seen the value of a section that just lists a bunch of countries and dates. Table or not this is still TV guide type data. There should be more well-referenced meat in this type of section. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you get rid of the section, then you cannot grandfather older articles. Articles would need to change. We've never grandfathered stuff in the past. When we got rid of trivia sections, we didn't let articles keep that that already had them. When we removed IMDb as a source we didn't let articles keep them that had them.

That said, I'm not against dismantling it. I think that any relevant international broadcasts can be listed in prose form in the basic "Broadcast" section. Most of the time, you're talking about (maybe) a paragraphs worth of information anyway. It is rare (not unheard of) for a TV article to have a really fleshed out international section that is more than just listing countries, dates, and probably TV channels. That said, I would not get rid of the sections that are fleshed out into well developed pieces.

So, I think we have 2 decisions here. First, do we get rid of the idea of "international broadcast" and follow the film route of only including notable releases? Or, do we just more specifically define what should be included in an international section? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't particularly see the value of the section since as a list it invites unsourced cruft, and as a prose section it is limited to a scant few examples of English-speaking nations, most of which are unsourced. Do we need an RfC to deal with this? I remember the Rayna Jaymes canvassing situation after we passed the Series Overview guidelines, and I think at least one other editor was critical of the changes, as if we were hiding the discussion or something... I could go either way though, between deprecating the section and being super-specific about what the section should contain. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any encyclopaedic value in the current format. I actually see more value in the old tables as a way of demonstrating the world-wide recognition of the various series, but obviously we don't want to use tables again. Something along the lines of "The Real Wikipedians Who Have No Lives has been marketed in 33 countries including Angola,^[1] Botswana,^[2] Bolivia,^[3], New Zealand,^[4] South Africa,^[5] and Yemini^[6]." I feel that's likely to cause more problems than it solves though. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel if we get into a situation where we go more the Film project route, we are going to get in a very murky area of what is notable and what isn't. To me, it is somewhat easier to define that with a film, because under that guideline, you have the generally single release date in the country of production, and then notable releases become known. With television series, you have so many other factors such as delayed broadcasts in other territories, broadcasters changing after so many seasons, etc. If we only go on notability, some series, in my opinion, would not feature info that, to me is worthwhile to have. For example would a series say as Doctor Who only be limited to the UK info, or would the US get included too? Also, at least for network shows, probably 90% of the time a US show is tied to a Canadian broadcast. That's why I feel there should be some thing like the primary language to define what is and isn't included. That way, we would have a clear cut knowledge of it (and again, with any broadcasts not falling under that heading if it is indeed notable). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:, what we will need to do is decide here what we want to do and how it should look. Then, we go to the MOS and make an official proposal. Following that, we will need to do legitimate "canvassing" to all the projects to let them know of the proposed change to give them ample time to either agree or disagree. This way, no one can say we're hiding anything. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Amending the MOS

@Cyphoidbomb:, @AussieLegend:, @Geraldo Perez:, @Favre1fan93:, @Dcbanners:, We discussed at length what to do about the International Broadcast information, now we need to decide exactly how it will look. Let's start discussing the change here please. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In terms of organizing the framework of what needs to be done, shall we start with a to do list? I'm not sure where exactly we left off. We're not deprecating TVINTL. Did we agree on whether we want to add specific nations or keep the vague "English-speaking nations" as supported by List of territorial entities where English is an official language or the CIA world fact book. Please feel free to add and change below. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

To Do

Resolve consensus: Do we want to deprecate TVINTL compltely?
Resolve consensus: If we do not want to deprecate TVINTL, do we want to name specific nations we are interested in, or keep it vague? ex: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Nigeria, Republic of Ireland, US, UK vs. English-speaking nations only? Obviously we keep the language that tells editors what to do about noteworthy events in non-English-speaking nations. (Simpsons/ProSieben example).
Require references as a deal-breaker for inclusion.
????
Address backlash from editors who never participate in discussion here, but hate the new proposal...

Item 1

Do not deprecate - Though I could go either way on whether or not the Broadcast section should be deprecated. In my experiences gnoming the kids' TV articles, I rarely see a broadcast section that conveys useful information. It's usually an long list or table of nations, typically unsourced, or a short list that is typically unsourced. I do, however, see the value in keeping the Broadcast section around for more significant TV series (like prime time comedies or dramas) for which there would naturally be more attention, more sources, and presumably more information to convey. For this reason I am somewhat reluctantly leaning toward not deprecating. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Deprecate - I'm ok with removing, with a new write-up that discusses how to identify notable international releases. I don't think that simply airing overseas is notable, at least not in a specific venue (unless otherwise stated). We can have a blanket statement, with sources, that says something to the effect of "it premiered internationally on date x". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Item 2

If we're not deprecating TVINTL completely, then my vote is to just stick with "Primary English" (as in that is the official language of the country), with notable exceptions provided via source. Said exceptions could be outlined in the MOS. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Is the primary language of a country really the right deciding factor? It seems to me the Broadcast section should be focused mainly on country/countries of origin, and other English-speaking countries should be subject to the same notability considerations as non-English-speaking countries, and covered in the same way. To do otherwise would seem to involve an English-centric POV, wouldn't it? --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That's my point. If we go by what you're suggesting, that would basically deprecate the idea of "TVINTL", and turn into a purely case-by-case basis instead of a "accept everyone" approach that it is now. I'm saying, if we don't do that, then we need to set a standard for how to identify which are appropriate to list, which to mean should be only countries where English is the official language (there's a list). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Another suggestion: Should we include premieres for future seasons internationally. They are reliably sourced and English broadcasts. It's important to keep international broadcast up-to-date. Dcbanners (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach. We'd just end up with a giant list of "this season aired in this country on this date, and this country and this date. Then this season aired....". You'd have an entire page devoted to broadcast dates for a show like The Simpsons. Remember, being verifiable does not mean it should be included. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Multiple season information is just as important as the premiere date. I was thinking about adding it so the international broadcast doesn't get out of date. If there are a lot of seasons (example: CSI), then I will agree with your idea. The premieres can go on the season pages. If there are few seasons and there aren't separate articles, then it can all go on the main page. In addition, there are tons of articles (such as Grimm) that are like this. Dcbanners (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We're not a current events website, so there isn't a worry about "out of date". Just listing every date of broadcast, for every season, in all countries (whether limited or not) is just creating a collection of indiscriminate information, not to mention getting back to this TV Guide type of approach (which is forbidden as well). The fact that there are articles that already do this does not mean that it should be done. There are ton of articles that list every broadcast in a giant table, and the MOS clearly says not to do that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We actually are a current events website. The main page lists them in the "In the news" section. We're not listing every broadcast date for every season, just only a few. A lot of good/featured articles list future seasons. If you think it's a "TV Guide", then we should just remove the broadcast section entirely. If so, then we need to remove timeslots that are in virtually all ratings tables. I don't mean listing every broadcast in a table. Information that's "out of date" is not useful. Dcbanners (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The question that needs to be answered is what is notable. Why do we need to have season premiere dates for all countries that air a show? Why are they notable? I think it's safe to say that it has been agreed that the country of origin is notable. It has not been established, though, that all other countries are as well. And just having a "broadcast" section does not make it a "TV guide" - some of it is valid encyclopedic information. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What about listing info for only Canada, United Kingdom/Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Those are considered the "major" English countries and reliable sources for those countries abound. Dcbanners (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think what Bignole and Fr1utbat are saying, is that there is no inherent notability. If Canada releases a TV series that airs first in Canada, what does it matter that it airs in the US on ABC? Maybe in an article on "Series broadcast on ABC" there would be relevance. There are some exceptions. For instance if a Canadian series first aired in the United States, or was produced for a US audience, then it might be noteworthy to include information about both national premieres. But providing this information for all English-speaking nations without any real context to indicate the importance of the information doesn't seem particularly useful. It's like we're just ticking boxes on a form—"South Africa, check. Ireland, check." Would we reasonably expect to find this information in a print encyclopedia? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Is enwiki meant to be a collection of notable encyclopedic articles that happens to be written in English or is a collection of notable articles of interest only to the English speaking world? If the former, then restricting content to only what is assumed to be important in primary English countries would go against those goals and that includes what is in the broadcast section of TV series articles. A simpler standard would include info that we can demonstrate with reliable sources meets our notability standards irrespective of country or language and exclude info that we can't demonstrate notability for. Generally we can assume notability in the country of origin or first airing or we probably couldn't demonstrate notability for an article all. As I mentioned before, I think MOS:Film#Release strikes the correct balance and I suggest we do something similar. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Also look at Category:Television series by country - will the manual of style cover all that is listed there? Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Geraldo Perez. If we remove non-English broadcasts, then we might as well remove anything that isn't related to an English-speaking country. MOS:Film#Release won't work here because there isn't a website that lists every international release. IMDB lists foreign release dates for films. In addition, several "primarily English" nations (such as Jamaica) don't have sources for this, but large non-English countries (like Germany; this website is very good because it has episode guides) do. Dcbanners (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Geraldo's point is that in WP:FILM, they only list foreign information when it is notable, not simply because it exists (or doesn't exist). We're not here to track every international release of a TV show, but if something notable happened in Japan, Germany, or the United Kingdom with relation to the broadcasting of say Jane the Virgin, then we would note it. If not, then we wouldn't simply note "Jane the Virgin premiered in Country X on date Y." It's just indiscriminate information. There is no context as to why that is relevant. Timeslots are relevant in ratings tables because there is context. You're seeing how the show compared to other shows in that slot. That is not true for broadcasting dates. It holds little value other than to say, "Hey, it appeared here too". Since we're not a TV Guide, then it isn't like people should be coming here to find out if a show is airing in their home country. Also, Wiki itself is not a current events website. We have a section on the main page for current events, that is not intended to mean that articles are written from that perspective. See WP:NOTNEWS, specifically the "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia", and #2 in that list. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we should go with something like "The series airs in (number) countries". Many television shows (such as SpongeBob SquarePants and The Walking Dead) air on the same channels in different countries through various feeds. I believe it's unnecessary to list every broadcast if they air like that. Dcbanners (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. That was something that I proposed above, that we just have a basic statement of, "The Walking Dead has also been broadcast in various international countries, the earliest broadcast being January 29, 2015." (or something like that). Everything else, in my opinion, should be based on notability of the broadcast. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Item 3

Sorry I'm late, guys. I personally believe that we should not deprecate the International broadcast parameter, but we should make the countries mentioned specific to each language Wikipedia. Much of the international broadcasters I've seen are, for the most part, unsourced and hard to verify for those who don't speak a particular country's language. Unless a show originated in a non-English speaking country (in example, Japanese anime), we should stick with English-speaking countries when dealing with international broadcasts. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 08:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying any country that speaks English, or where English is the primary language? Those are two different things, as many countries speak English, and you can technically translate their websites on Google Translate. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should go by what language is mainly used in television. For example, in Israel international shows are shown in English with subtitles, but it's not the primary language of the country. Dcbanners (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Bold edit made

I've made a bold edit to the section in question that brings it in line with the MOS:FILM understanding of this. If someone wants to revert my edit, I'd appreciate it if reasoning was provided as to why such wording shouldn't be used here. Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with it. It just removes any need to define it beyond notable releases. I say we give this a bit, and notify the other projects (not sure if we did that when we started this discussion) and if there are no clear objections we start updated articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

So if my understanding is correct, a network show that originates in the US, where we would previously mention broadcasts in Canada, the UK, and the Australasia region, based on this wording change, we would not be mentioning these three regions along with the US, unless there is some notability to them? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That is basically my understanding of the change—which I agree with. Notability should be more than a line in a scheduling guide and should be supported by some meat in a reliable source such as a review or some discussion about the series at the very least. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have another question the regarding this wording change. What then of international broadcast ratings? If we aren't mentioning in the broadcast section, why then should we mention their rating info? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think if we're mentioning a premiere rating, then you would also include the date of the premiere for context. If it's the average rating for a season, then I don't think that it matters in the big picture. Film doesn't necessarily include the release dates for overseas, but they will include the box office information that goes with it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

So in an episode article we could add airing information for non-country-of-origin broadcasts if we also added ratings information for said broadcasts? - adamstom97 (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you would so that you have context for the rating. YOu don't have to, obviously. I wouldn't mandate it or anything, as film articles don't typically add those release dates when they add box office information. I just don't think it harms anything if you're saying something like, "The Simpsons' episode X brought in 5 million viewers in Australia when it aired on Date Y." BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been over a week since the bold edit was made and no objections have been raised, so it appears to be the new consensus at this point. Also, just to confirm: all of the interpretations of the intention of the wording change noted in this section are indeed correct. Mdrnpndr (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it's too early for that. One thing that I have issue with is the removal of "English-speaking countries". We have had prior discussions about this and it has always been consensus that we do not include non-English broadcasts. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus on this matter that I'm aware of besides the widespread agreement that there shouldn't be indiscriminate broadcast listings. Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue of what to include has been discussed at length. As a result of these discussions, there has been widespread conversion of broadcast tables to prose format and removal of all non-English listings from many (thousands possibly) articles. Your change opens the way for something that might be notable in Hungary but nowhere else to be added, which might be of use in the Hungarian Wikipedia, but not in the English Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

MOS:FILM seems to manage, so why can't MOS:TV? Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Films and television are somewhat different, even though they do have similarities. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"I'm a conservative because I'm a conservative." Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note that we do not "declare" consensus after a fixed period. Consensus happens when discussion has finished. Until now, nobody has specifically addressed the issue of the removal of "English-speaking", which does have consensus to be in the MOS, based on previous discussions, so it needs wider discussion before it can be removed. The limited discussion that has been held here cannot be considered to be consensus. For that reason I am again restoring "English-speaking countries" to the MOS. Do not delete it again until others have had the opportunity to weigh-in on the discussion. If we agree to remove it, then it can be removed then. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can understand that concern Aussie, but I think that argument could be made for everything internationally for that matter. You can easily say that just because that's significant there doesn't mean that it's significant in the US. It doesn't matter if it's significant in the US (or nowhere else), it was significant period. If we have a reliable source providing commentary on a subject, just because it's in another country doesn't negate the significance. I think that the important thing here is that simply airing a show in another country is not significant by itself, no matter what country (exceptions exist, as they do for everything, but as a general rules of thumb). By saying, "there needs to be something notable about the release" in a blanket sense, you remove this need to just list every English speaking release. I don't think that TV and Film are so different that how they handle releasing information should be different. TV and Film are far more alike than they are different, and some of the basic areas of concern for their pages tend to be alike. I don't know how many times I go to pages and since giant lists of release dates that serve no real purpose as far as information goes. This update removes that and forces editors to put forth effort to find critical commentary to support why this is somehow needed to advance the article in a positive direction. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The point I was getting at was that the notability issues in a non-English language country are a lot harder to verify, as the sources are generally not in English. While that of itself is not insurmountable, it opens itself to abuse because TV articles are themselves subject to high levels of abuse. (One of our articles is in Wikipedia's 100 most fought over articles) I specifically picked Hungary because there are anonymous proxies in that country and I see a lot of cases of Hungarian airings being added to the remaining international broadcast tables. What I expect will happen is that something will be added to an article with non-English sources and it will remain in the article for some time, possibly years, before somebody comes along and deletes it because the sources don't support the claim. This is exactly what happened when we tolerated the broadcast tables, and was only resolved when we enforced the English only part. And, even if the sources are contentious, it's difficult for English speaking editors to try to enforce the removal of such content if another editor keeps adding it claiming notability. In any case, I don't see what is wrong with editors are encouraged to instead detail noteworthy (see next paragraph) foreign broadcasts, from English-speaking countries, through prose form. This still allows the requirement of being noteworthy, but retains the "English-speaking countries" requirement. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

We are supposed to write about notable subjects and notability does not have to be demonstrated with English language sources in general. We write articles in this wiki in English but that should be the only tie to English and not a requirement for what is notably included or not. With various translation program we should be able verify non-English sources as being supportive or not when references are required. I really object to restricting info about notable airings to just English language countries, however defined, as I feel that goes against the spirit of what we are trying to accomplish on Wiki. If something has significant coverage we should include it, no matter what language or country it pertains to. Likewise is something has just minor directory type passing coverage it should be excluded even if it is in English for an English language country. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, after looking through a lot of articles today, the requirement for something to be noteworthy will effectively remove the "Broadcast" section from just about every article I looked at, making WP:TVINTL largely redundant. This only slightly less than what Mdrnpndr was aiming for back in 2013 when he suggested removal of the section from the MOS.[5] --AussieLegend (✉) 04:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If that is the result, so be it. If there isn't enough non-trivial info for a section we shouldn't have one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to take credit for such manipulative brilliance, I'm afraid you're quite mistaken. The changes proposed back then would have had the effect of allowing pretty much every single channel that ever aired a particular show to be listed on that show's page. The changes being discussed here would prohibit pretty much every single such channel from being listed since each channel's airing of the show must be individually notable. In other words, these are basically two diametrically opposed approaches. Mdrnpndr (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no, at the time listing only broadcasts from English-language countries in prose form was encouraged, which practically limited most articles to, at best, 2 or 3 sentences detailing broadcast in English language countries as the result of earlier discussions. Prohibiting "pretty much every single such channel from being listed" happened when we decided to get rid of the tables after those earlier discussions. The wording of the changes doesn't require individual notability, only noteworthiness, and what is noteworthy is rather subjective. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would remove the broadcast section. It would largely remove any international mentionings, mostly because they tend to just be the passing "it aired on this day and this channel" type of references. A general broadcast section is going to include any notable releases of a show. If we're talking comic book related shows (which are growing), then they typically see a lot of coverage at various ComicCons. At the end of the day, what are we talking about losing? We're talking about potentially losing a small paragraph (or a large table) of information that basically say, "it aired here on this day". I don't think that's an ultimate detriment to a reader. I can't see people coming to Wikipedia just to find out if a show aired in another country and then leaving as soon as they find out. I'm sure there are some, but there are still some readers that look for trivia sections (and we don't include those anymore). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Most broadcast sections only contain international mentionings. See for example The Big Bang Theory#Broadcast and the first paragraph of Arrow (TV series)#Broadcast. If we look at Arrow, all that might be left is "Arrow premiered on The CW network from October 10, 2012, during the 2012–13 television season." That seems rather "American-centric", which we need to avoid. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There are certain items that will generally have a centric focus to their country of origin, releases are generally one of them. If it got rid of the paragraph, again, I don't think it's a real loss. For Arrow, the statement can easily be moved to the ratings section, since that most correlates to that information. It ultimately goes down to the fact that simply being released in another country is not itself all that noteworthy. I think basic statements of "it was released in various countries over the course of 2014 and 2015" is all that's really necessary to convey the message of international broadcasting. Otherwise, we get to where we were/are, with just basic listings of every release (whether English or not). It comes across as indiscriminate information. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with getting rid of the current format, I said above that it's useless, but I'm concerned that "noteworthy" is too subjective and, removing "English-speaking" is opening us up to a completely different set of problems with content. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

So, are you proposing that it says something along the lines of "Noteworthy English speaking countries"? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, I'm going to oppose any wording that combines "noteworthy" and "English-speaking" (or any similar terms) per WP:CREEP. Mdrnpndr (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I oppose any Anglo-centric based restrictions to any article in Wiki. Geographic scope talks to deletion discussions but I think the reasoning is valid. If something is notable it should be included and not restricted because of location. Weighting coverage to location of origin will likely happen as that is likely to be where most reliable sources that cover the subject are located and notable airing of TV shows in the language it is created in will most likely be in locations that speak that language. Also TV series such as Violetta (telenovela) do not originate in an English speaking country and an English-language restriction on its international coverage seems very unwarranted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

My concern with removal of "English speaking" is that it has been in the MOS for a long time and limiting content to English-speaking countries has always had strong support in the past so, if we're going to remove it, we need a strong consensus. I must admit that I find it ironic that "English-speaking" was apparently originally added to the MOS in order to combat "American-centric" editing. I don't like the word "noteworthy" at all, as it is too subjective. WP:N governs the creation of articles, it doesn't prevent non-notable content from being added to articles, but I feel we should be asking for notability, which noteworthy is not. To some, mention that the series aired in another country is noteworthy. Mdrnpndr has made recent edits insisting on "reliably sourced",[6] so maybe we should be looking at some wording along those lines. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that if we add examples of what "noteworthy" is, then we should be ok. In the very least, saying it's not "it simply aired on this day" should help combat that problem. English-speaking was originally added to remove the never-ending lists of release dates in every country on this planet, not so much to prevent an American-centric page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole about need for examples for what we need to see. It doesn't need to meet notability requirements for an article but it should be more than a passing mention in a program listing and it should come from some source not connected with the production or the network. It looks like we have some forming consensus to remove the "English-speaking" restriction if we can find wording that restrict the list in some other way. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, providing some examples would be a good idea. I'm sure somebody can find some somewhere. The articles I checked were pretty dismal. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A fairly reasonable broadcast section is at Violetta (telenovela)#Broadcast. Some light references but the Spanish language one is easily verifiable using Google translate and is at a good level of coverage for this Spanish language TV series being broadcast in Spanish in the US. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of the content there seems to fail the "noteworthy" test. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to say, that largely looks like "it appeared here on this date". That seems to go against what we're talking about. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus?

User:AussieLegend appears to be the only user opposed to the previous version of the page, yet it is this user's version of the page that is the current one. Can someone please explain to me why this user has been allowed to edit war that user's preferred version of the page into being the current one? Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Because it reflected the previous WP:STATUSQUO. I personally would like the phrase "from English-speaking countries" stuck due to the, in my opinion, inappropriate Anglo-centricness of it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's the solution. Notify the several key TV-related wikiprojects and we'll see if anyone disagrees. That will get your wide-spread consensus. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not a solution and you know it. Our resident edit warrior will simply claim, once again without justification, that consensus has not been established, even if there are no objections from others in the meantime. Mdrnpndr (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If they are notified and no one objects, then it is a consensus. Silence is acceptance in that case, because they would have been given the option of challenging the change. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you even read his objection above? "No, it's too early for that." No mention of project notifications there... or other editors' opinions, whether in agreement or not... or indeed anything except a conveniently unspecified timeframe. Mdrnpndr (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Lack of acknowledgment from one editor on what needs to be done does not negate the need. Yes, you have a small consensus on this page, but it is based on who frequents this page. Considering how impactful the edit will be toward TV articles, it's best to notify the other projects so that they have time to say if they agree or not. Simple as that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Mdrnpndr Please stop being so aggressive and uncivil. The rest of us respect each others opinions, even if we don't agree with them. Your persistent failure to collaborate with other editors is clearly blinding you to what has been said in the discussion. Quite frankly, I'm sick to death of your attitude; edit-warring and then accusing me of doing so, and coming to my talk page, being uncivil and then accusing me of being uncivil, then crying on another editor's talk page that your block history is not your fault. It has gone well beyond a joke, to the point of being completely unacceptable. For the record, since you seem more interested in fighting than following the discussion, I've already said (nearly two months ago) that I don't see any encyclopaedic value in the format that we currently use. I've said above that the reason I oppose the removal of English-speaking is because I feel that we're likely to see a return to the old "table days" because "noteworthy" is a subjective term. However, and I've already said this too, but you've ignored it, that I agree with providing examples and, if we could do this in the same way that we've done for the series overview table, then I'd agree to removing English-speaking from the text. However, as I've said before and as Bignole has pointed out above, the "consensus" that you see here is limited and has wide-reaching effect so others really need to be involved, or at the very least, notified of this discussion. And yes, I've also talked about that on your talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you don't want me posting this at your talk page I'll say it here: any further accusations of this kind will be considered outright Wikipedia:Harassment and dealt with as such. Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place for threats, please limit your posts to addressing the issues under discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC at Talk: Remember (The Walking Dead)

It has been suggest that this RFC should be mentioned here. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a standard format for abbreviating season/episode?

Is there a standard or predominantly used format for identifying an episode by season number and episode number, like (Season 1, Episode 8). I'm particularly concerned with mixed lists of episodes from different shows, for example, shows/episodes where the fictional Morley cigarette brand appeared. I'd like to use as compact a format as possible, like (1x08) or (s1e8), as longer versions visually clutter up some of these lists. (Hopefully, this is the right place for this question, it is the best fit I could find after browsing this Project.)--Tsavage (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that this page would dictate such a thing, because that's not a directly related TV article (i.e., an article about a TV show). So, really how you want to display them would be up to you and the editors of that page. If you're going to slim it down, to say "s1e9" or "1x09", then I would suggest having a key that explains that so that the average reader knows what they are looking at. Otherwise, I'd leave it as "Season one, episode nine", so that it's clear what they are reading. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, clear enough, thanks. --Tsavage (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You could also link directly to the episode entry. For example, instead of:

"Burn Notice: In season 2 episode 5 "Scatter Point" the main character"

you could instead write:

"Burn Notice: In the episode "Scatter Point" the main character"

By directly linking to the episode you eliminate the need to pick a system. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool, that's pretty slick. I took a quick look and it seems there's an ID tag only for the number of the episode in the series, but not for the number in the season, which is how I imagine many editors will have the information. It's certainly a clean extra for anyone who wants to do the extra lookup work. If there is a way to go to the episode number in season, please let me know.--Tsavage (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Most List of episodes (whether they are a page or just a section somewhere else) have an overall "series number". So, instead of 2x10, it would be episode 32. This would be your best bet. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Time-Sensitive Broadcasts

There seems to be a battle on The Early Show page, in which several editors believe the article lead should say "The Early Show is" a television show. My argument against this is the fact that news broadcasts are different than syndicated shows or other television programming that might be seen at a later time. TV News Broadcasts are seen one time, and then for all intensive purposes, aren't seen again by the general public. There could be an argument that tapes containing airchecks do exist at CBS news HQ or the like, but that's not something that the general public would ever have access to. The Early Show WAS a show, it was replaced by CBS This Morning. That would be like saying, "Crossfire on CNN IS A show..." when in fact that news show is off the air and something else was placed in its time slot. Check out The Early Show article, you can see it's a highly debated issue by one particular editor. This debate goes on within several other notable TV news related articles that use is/was. The word been switched back and forth for the lead in articles like Rock Center with Brian Williams. There needs to be clear consensus and differentiation between first run shows, and news/time sensitive broadcasts.

I think the consensus among editors relates to television SHOWS, not newscasts or dated-broadcasts that deal with newsworthy current events. These are different from television shows that still exist in some form, either on DVD, Broadcast syndication or online after they leave their original network or time slot, or go off the air permanently.

I think the same could be said for dated radio programs as well! Taylor2646 (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

First, it's "for all intents and purposes". Second, the TV show still exists if someone has a copy of even a tiny snippet of it somewhere, which is the case for an extremely large percentage of all the TV shows that have ever been made (I'm tempted to say that it's the vast majority here but I haven't seen any specific data in this regard). Mdrnpndr (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I get that, but it would be more 'archive material' in that regard. Remember, the issue here is not TV shows, but more do to with TV news and time sensitive broadcasts. TV News is completely different and for that reason I feel other considerations should be made. As I said, it's not like House or Seinfeld... for the most part, 99.999% of Americans will never see the broadcast again. Even if they do, it won't be the whole broadcast, but maybe a snippet, pre-fonted with "File Video" that airs on some other broadcast. My point is, people could get confused. 'Oh, The Early Show is still on? I didn't know Erica Hill was still anchoring!' Also think about the fact that most of the shows in question came on 5 days or nights a week, and were live... which, again, puts them in a category all their own. Taylor2646 (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, though, that we're not discussing whether to say "was broadcast" or "is broadcast", where the distinction is quite obvious; rather, we're discussing whether to use "was" or "is" regarding the show itself. Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Additions to MOS:TVCAST

Would anyone be opposed to the following additions to the first paragraph in MOS:TVCAST? I've been working off of this criteria for a bit on the series pages I work on, and I think it is a very reasonable way to "define" recurring status over simply being a guest. (changes are in bold)

Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: Not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed and even fewer will deserve an individual article. For the main article of a series, it may be appropriate to split up the cast listing by "Main cast/characters", "Recurring cast/characters", and "Guest cast/characters". If the series is long running, and has an overwhelming number of recurring guest stars, it may be appropriate to split those into a separate list of characters articles (see below for style guidelines on "List of ..." pages). The main cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. Additionally, "recurring" cast (over simply being a "guest") is generally determined by a reliable source; for example, when an actor is cast, the announcement may state the actor will be a "recurring" one on the series. If a reliable source does not exist for this information, a general rule-of-thumb to follow for a 22-24 episode season is 4 or more appearances would make the character recurring for the season. As well, if a series goes for multiple seasons, a character that appears as a guest in a season, but has appeared in 4 or more episodes across the entire series, could be considered a recurring character for the series. However, every series is different and may require slightly different criteria when considering if a character is recurring or a guest, should a reliable source not exist. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain in their spot on the list even after their departure from the series.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Where did the number 4 come from? It's arbitrary, right? It seems easiest if a "guest" appears in one episode over the entire series and "recurring" is in two or more, unless credited otherwise. The word "recurring" means happening more than once. Also, setting up guidelines for a "22-24 episode season" doesn't make sense to me, as most shows don't follow that schedule anymore. Many seasons are 13 episodes or even 6 now. I don't see any benefit to getting so specific. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Not completely arbitrary with 4 appearances, as it was under the guise of 20% of the season (22-24 eps) which was approximately 4. While you are correct in the definition of recurring, "Recurring" generally means a significant reoccurrence in a show. Since all characters appearing outside of the main cast are guest stars, we split up the once that appear frequently and significantly (recurring) out of the "1 or 2" appearance characters, that are not as significant. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll oppose 4 – or any number greater than 2 – as used here on the basis of arbitrariness and WP:CREEP. Mdrnpndr (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment - At bare minimum, I would opposed anything less than 4 that isn't identified specifically as a "recurring guest". You can technically appear 4 times in an arc, and not be a recurring guest. You're a special guest who had a specific arc, and then your arc is done. Those guests typically have all their episodes right after the other though, and then it's done. If they weren't identified as "recurring", then we shouldn't be doing that just because they had a multi-episode arc after the course of 3 to 4 episodes back-to-back. I also don't think that appearing twice is "recurring". I think that's putting a lot more importance on a special guest appearance than the actors that actually get real recurring contracts. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Appearing twice is literally recurring. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  - Not according to Recurring character. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    - Are you talking about the five-episode minimum inserted by an IP? As you know Wikipedia is not a reliable source. That number is as arbitrary as the four episode proposal above. The "more than one episode" unless credited as main employs the least arbitrary interpretation by editors, since it follows the actual definition of 'recurring.' No reason to get so precise, especially as the number of episodes in a TV season is changing. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel that a specific number should not be given in the MOS, but that it should be noted that the editors at whichever TV series page need to decide upon a definition that is most appropriate for said series and stick to it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It may have been added by an IP, but the reality is that 2 episodes is not "recurring". Recurring is meant to be multiple appearances across the length of time. Two episodes cannot span any length of time and is nothing more than a guest spot. If you're going to try and create some ridiculously easy criteria so that every Tom, Dick, and Harry character can be added to a list (which would be borderline indiscriminate), then lets just leave it as "reliable sources identifies them as a recurring guest". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you are the arbiter of what recurring is "meant to be." It literally means occurring more than once. Like Mdrnpndr, I would be opposed to inserting any number greater than two. Many articles do parenthetically list each character's episode count in the cast list– if it's believed that the number of appearances indicates significance, as expressed by Favre1fan93 (which isn't necessary the case), ordering recurring characters by the number of appearances should address the above concerns. But redefining the word "recurring" arbitrarily (20% of a season? 4 times? 5 times?) isn't the answer here. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Opening it up to every actor that has multiple guest spots, but is not actually considered recurring isn't the answer. There is a reason that some people are announced as "guest roles" and some are announced as "recurring". You cannot say that series regulars are defined by the credits, but recurring can be anyone that has appeared 2 times or more. That isn't what a recurring guest is. Recurring guests are ones that appeared across time, not a couple of one-shot appearances and then they are done. That isn't a recurring guest.

According to Thinking Inside the Box, they are ones "who often and frequently appears from time to time during the series' run". Two times is not "frequently" in any sense of the word. You have to set an arbitrary number high, otherwise this ridiculous notion that two appearances will cause character lists to explode with an indiscriminate collection of information about characters that were merely guests. Again, you either set a realistic number, or you simply say, "if a reliable sources says they are". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The latter option is the only one compliant with policy, or WP:OR more specifically. Mdrnpndr (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Present tense for shows with no copies

"References to the show should be in the present tense since shows—even though no longer airing—still exist, including in the lead" Really?

What about shows that were completely wiped, such as The Joan Edwards Show? Suddenly There Is a Valley (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If there is well-referenced info that there are no-extant copies then we can say the show no longer exists. Most early TV shows were live, transient, and not copied. Unfortunate as history is lost. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should TV show episode articles link to other episodes using information?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The OP has withdrawn his request and the original question at the specific article has been settled. Although there was not much input, Option B seems to be the preferred version, but Option A may also be used, depending on editorial judgment and context. The too specific original question and the low input are not enough to create a specific guideline on this point. Closed without further action. Kraxler (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If you take a look at this edit the question will become clearer. Should edits like this be the norm or should we refrain from linking to other episodes (of the same show) using info that has previously happened in that show. An example of a different attempt of linking the episode would be: ...returns to the vet that had previously treated his bullet wound ("Five-O") and asks...
So would you propose
Option A:...returns to the vet that had previously [[Five-O (Better Call Saul)|treated his bullet wound]] and asks... or
Option B:...returns to the vet that had previously treated his bullet wound ("[[Five-O (Better Call Saul)|Five-O]]") and asks... Thanks for your input! Rayukk (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey

To avoid the idea of easter egg links (links that appear to be about one thing but lead to a completely different thing) I prefer calling out the episode title when referencing any required past events to understand the current episode in context. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Option B in this specific instance. There are merits to this type of linking in some cases, but if you are referencing information from a past episode of the same show, it is best to use the styling of Option B. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Option A because that way reading the text remains friendly while simultaneously giving the reader the proper option to read about the event. Option B looks clumsy and forced. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: @Rayukk: please remove your vote because you are the creator of this RfC, which makes it unethical at best. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't sure about this. I removed it. Rayukk (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This is not a vote, he was open about starting the RfC and he is expressing his preference which has value to this discussion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: @Geraldo Perez: the point is to solicit the opinions of OTHERS. It's as if he is replying to himself in what looks like "thickening" support for his view. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 01:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Option A because it provides the reader information where the incident previously occurred. Generally, the link will provide more of the story and background of the story. I find it very helpful to refresh the reader's recollection of the incident that occurred in a prior episode. A good example is the link " an earlier conversation" found in Gliding Over All which references back to a previous episode Bullet Points (Breaking Bad). Television fan (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment & question - The guideline for RfCs says Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it always helps to first discuss the matter with the other parties on the related talk page. Is there any prior discussion regarding this or did Rayukk jump immediately to RfC? This looks like an attempt to use RfC instead of dispute resolution, which is not the point of RfC. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No there is no prior discussion, but I figured the outcome of this could result in a change in Wikipedia, so I dind't want to leave it between just two users. Rayukk (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

As worded, the question deals specifically with a single article and the RfC outcome cannot extend beyond that article. In no way can it affect anything more than that. There are many ways that prior episodes can be referred to and the two examples aren't that good anyway. You would have been far better to, and should have, ask a general question about wording. RfC is not the way to go for something like this. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Well in that case, I guess this discussion can be closed. What I meant to achieve was to establish a new standard for all episode-style articles. For this one episode in particular it's actually fine either way. Sorry for wasting everyones time --Rayukk (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Option B Per Masem. More transparent and clear.Bosstopher (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Option B avoids the WP:EGG issue. As a reader, I find it clearer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Neither option While it's nice to see people responding, nobody seems to have noticed that "the vet that had previously treated" should be "the vet who had previously treated". In any case, the RfC is moot, as the article has since been modified by three editors and now reads "... returns to the vet who had treated his bullet wound in "Five-O" and asks ...". --AussieLegend (✉) 05:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Actually, both "that" and "who" are valid, with the sole difference of a single comma. Also, this discussion is far more general than one particular case. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"Who" should be used when referring to a person. Since most vets are human... --AussieLegend (✉) 08:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Character episode count and crediting

I was wondering what the general rule or opinion is for crediting someone in a television series who appears but isn't actually credited in the episode itself but is/will be credited in later episodes. I know for some movies that actors appear who aren't credited are listed as (uncredited) on a Wikipedia article.I apologise in advance if my question is on the wrong page, however I searched everywhere and this page was the closest to what I was looking for. Thank you. Brocicle (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source that says they had an uncredited role, then you can include them. Otherwise, we cannot verify their involvement. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This is sort of related, so I am going to add it here. What should be done when an actor is credited for an episode, but doesn't actually appear in an episode? Is this something that needs to be pointed out, perhaps by saying something like "Credits list as series regular in XX episodes, but only appeared in YY episodes"? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't go into that level of detail, because it would require someone to watch every episode just to verify it. Chances are, they were cut in editing, but actually did film. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply. Would you suggest including such information is then best determined through consensus? The reason I am asking is that this seems to be an issue in articles for actors who appear/appeared in The Walking Dead (TV series). Someone adds the extra info, another editor removes it, someone adds it again, another editor removes it, then someone adds it again. To be honest, I have no real preference either way though I kinda agree that it might be just a little too much detail. Just was curious if there was a Wikipedia or MOS:TV policy/guideline reason for/against inclusion. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If there is a reliable sources that says, "but they only appeared in X episodes", then you're fine to include it. But if you have a source that say "10 episodes" but someone watching the show goes, "I only see them in 9 episodes", then it's just original research. We ask people to watch shows to verify plots, but that's about as far as that goes because we're saying a specific episode to look at. In this case, we'd be asking people to watch 100+ episodes to verify that a character did or did not appear. It's original research, so it shouldn't be there without a source. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

How would a simple computation constitute original research?

#Contents says:

* If average viewership numbers are included, they should be adequately sourced, and not the result of your own calculations as this would constitute original research. Sourcing is crucial for accuracy, and to help other editors quickly respond to numerical vandalism.

I'm a bit confused as to how that would be OR, though I can certainly understand that the numbers could become vandalized or stale; it's not as though simple calculations are not trivially verifiable, is it? (Perhaps average viewership is not as simple as it sounds?) —SamB (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason is that final season rankings are not necessarily based on the LIVE numbers, like many episode lists include. They are often either LIVE+3 or LIVE+7, which means that simply doing your own computation and saying that this is the average would be original research. Especially since the "Rankings" is based on official figures. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposing minor addition to TVOVERVIEW

It seems that general community editing practices discourage the inclusion of season end dates in the Series Overview table until that episode airs. Is that accurate or my imagination? I know that we similarly tend to not add last_aired values to the infobox until the final episode airs, since eps can be rescheduled, etc. If this is how we generally feel on the matter, I think it's worth adding a quick "Please do not add the season ending date until the final episode has aired" statement somewhere at ~~WP:TVUPCOMING~~ WP:TVOVERVIEW. And maybe at Template:Infobox Television as well. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That would seem consistent with current practice and guidelines, but shouldn't it be added to WP:TVOVERVIEW, not WP:TVUPCOMING? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh crap, that's what I meant. I get the two confused sometimes because they're somewhat intertwined. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

As do I. Maybe we need to combine them so we don't have to keep typing "WP:TVOVERVIEW, WP:TVUPCOMING" in edit summaries. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if they have to be combined. UPCOMING is already a part of OVERVIEW; it is a more direct link to a part of it. So in theory, one should only need to link one or the other (unless they are talking about two elements of each). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

UPCOMING and OVERVIEW are parts of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Episode listing that have the same heading level, with paragraph numbers 4.3.3 and 4.3.1 respectively. Neither is part of the other and they are separated by "Multiple pages" (4.3.2), so it's necessary to refer to them separately. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with that addition. As long as the information has an inline citation, I don't see the problem. How is listing a date in the series overview table any different than listing dates with upcoming episode information? -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Good question, and I'm up for the discussion since in actual practice I see the reversion of this content all the time from infoboxes and overviews. I'd say that one issue is that we are creating multiple instances of potentially incorrect content. We might have an episode date in the episode list, an end date in the Infobox and an end date in the overview, creating three areas where data needs to be updated. On the other hand, I see your point that if it is sourced, then shouldn't that suffice? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

To me, the difference lies in what the table is being used for. The overview is being used to summarize a series, whereas the episode table is being used to list all episode information that has happened or about to happen. For me, it seems inappropriate to "summarize" future events that can easily change up to the week before for any reason. It's like the episode count not counting ahead of time. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all future dates may change, but I don't think that's convincing enough to prohibit presenting cited future dates. What you're saying applies to all upcoming episode dates as well as the "First aired" parameter too. Articles on films include upcoming theatrical premiere dates in their infoboxes, and it's not controversial. The Wikipedia readership understands the future is not 100% confirmable beforehand, and I believe listing cited upcoming dates is definitely worth that trade-off. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Budget

I have very rarely, practically never seen television shows feature 'budgets'. Except like Band of Brothers. And was wondering what are the 'rules' or whatever of it? I did I search on this page for 'cost' and 'budget' and came up with nothing. What would we do? Or how would we mention it? Under production? Or on info box? Game of Thrones Season 1 cost around 60 million and that was mentioned in production I believe. Not sure how much other seasons are. But has this ever been discussed? Charlr6 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not discussed in the MOS because it's not a typical thing to know. It's rare that we hear about TV show budgets, outside of high profile, long series where someone reports on how much the actors are getting per episode (there's more than their salaries that go into a budget). I would say it should be mentioned in production if reliably source, but I don't think that we need the MOS update to reflect information that is rarely provided. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Charlr6: Is there something specific that prompted you to ask about budget? I'm just curious. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering it as on the Humans (TV Series) wiki page, a budget was put into a info box. I did start a talk there, and was discussed possibly put there because it was considered to be a limited series, but now talks of future seasons. Charlr6 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Does it actually show in the infobox? I wasn't sure if we had a budget field for TV infobox. If so, that's probably fine for now. Unless there is details about the budget, then production would be a good place for it. I still think it's too rare to have a mention on the MOS. Otherwise, we'd be adding every minor production detail to the MOS and how to handle it. Sometimes, common sense must prevail. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, my suspicions were valid. |budget= was added when Infobox television film was merged with {{Infobox television}},[7] after a TfD discussion. As explained in the documentation, the field is Used for television films and is The budget of the television film or miniseries. It's not meant to be used in TV series articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, thinking about it now, I would agree. Budgets are a bit more fluid from episode to episode, with some going over and some being under, and then each new contract change can increase or decrease a budget. I think it's too hard to track sufficiently for an on-going series. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

TV series categories

I've noticed this for a long time, and that's categories for TV series' are not consistent and use different wording, ex. series, show(s), and program(s). One naming style should be used across all categories for consistency, and ease of finding/adding categories. Using "series" seems to be make the most sense since that's how they're usually referred to. There's tons of other inconsistencies, such as, Television shows filmed in California, Television series shot in Los Angeles‎, Television series produced in Toronto, which all are categories having to do with filming, but all use different wording (filmed, shot, produced). Filming, which is the most dominant usage for most of the naming, should be used across all similar categories. I'm just wondering how to go about this. Anyone have any input/comments on this? Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this might be better addressed at WT:TV so we can get wider consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Multiple nationalities for tv series

After seeing this edit to Beast Wars: Transformers, I'm wondering whether this MoS should borrow from WP:FILMLEAD, specifically "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." Thoughts? DonIago (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Expanding WP:NOTPLOT

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Expanding NOTPLOT. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Past Cast

In reference to: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Cast and characters information

Several infoboxes I feel are becoming exceeding long with past presenters, for example The X Factor (UK TV series) has the full history of presenters and judges. Similarly Britain's Got Talent has a list of presenter history.

The Loose Women, Good Morning Britain (2014 TV programme), This Morning (TV programme) and BBC Breakfast all just have current presenters as a list of past presenters would be lengthy.

Eastenders, Coronation Street and many other soaps have links to their cast/character pages instead of a long list of cast members.

I was wondering could we change rules to just hold the current or in the case of an ended show, most recent line-up. Currently there is discussion about the line up of Top Gear (2002 TV series) as to who should be in the infobox.

I feel that we could have a table on the page with a full explained presenter/cast history and then just have the most recent cast mentioned in the infobox, unless they have an incredibly large cast, in which we could link it to a cast page. CDRL102 (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:TENSE explains that, by default, all articles should be written in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued. WP:TVCAST explains that articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series. As I explained to you at Talk: Top Gear (2002 TV series)#Presenters in Infobox, when you proposed a table there in June,[8] when lists in the infobox get too long we remove all of the cast from the infobox and link to the cast list in the prose section, not list them in a table. Cast tables have been discussed here and, IIRC, there was no support for them. Prose is almost always preferred. An option for listing lots of people in the infobox is a collapsible list. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Series overview table

Now that we're using {{Series overview}} to ensure compliance with WP:COLOR, I think we should be changing the examples in the MOS to use {{Series overview}} and to mention WP:COLOR compliance. Opinions? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I had one odd thought: per WP:TVOVERVIEW we add to the overview after we create the episode table. We should probably mention the color issues in the episode section as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that's fine. I'm sure we just need a quick one line mention to remind people to comply with "COLOR", and send them to COLOR along with providing your examples. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we should use it as well, though I've been pondering how Alex's template can be used if one wants to incorporate ratings (ie the "fully-expanded" example). I'm trying to think of the coding to account for the second example as well as the final one, but I'm not as good with wiki coding as I'd like to be to implement it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

We can always add parameters for the ratings data. That shouldn't be a huge issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: - He should probably be here. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi fellas, thanks for the tag. I've been meaning to get around to adding ratings parameters, but never got around to it. Shouldn't be too difficult. The "colspan" attribute might different between series depending on how many ratings are added. Example 2 at WP:TVOVERVIEW has the one (average viewership), The Flash has two, Example 3 has three, The Big Bang Theory has four... Alex|The|Whovian 23:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've added everything in. The documentation has been updated with the variables in question, as well as an example (Example 4). It supports up to five columns of extra information. (I should probably look into implementing this in Lua...) Anyways. The series overview tables at WP:TVOVERVIEW can be found as templates at User:AlexTheWhovian/sandbox#Series overviews (though slightly different, due to the template itself). Alex|The|Whovian 11:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

MOS addition: date range for seasons, especially in List of episodes pages

I noticed that the MOS does not specify how to do date ranges for seasons. I started looking because of a good faith edit by 23W here. From what I've seen, the general norm is to do == Season 1 (2001-03) == if the season spans multiple years or ==Season 1 (2001) == if just during one year. WP:TVUPCOMING specifies not to include future years in the date range until an episode actually airs in that year. That is, don't do ==Season 1 (2015-16)== yet.

However, what do we do if the season is currently running? Should we just use 2015 as the year (==Season 1 (2015)==? Or, as 23W suggested, put "since 2015" (==Season 1 (since 2015)==)? Can we specify something in the MOS for future reference? My personal preference is the former, but open to whatever. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

On a side note, WP:TVUPCOMING mentions WP:SEASON, but that link talks about spring, summer, etc... and makes no sense in that context. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've always seen currently-airing seasons done as ==Season 1 (2015)==. I believe that's fine as it is. Alex|The|Whovian 04:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Decided to phrase it that way after seeing {{Adult Swim programming}} use it in a similar manner. Logically it's the same as having [year]–present, but it's looks less awkward and is not read as a tautology in the present year (2015–present is currently the same saying as 2015–2015, though I never had a problem parsing it). I could be wrong. 23W 04:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I get why you did it for sure. Just never seen it like that so figured I'd ask if we should specify. Pinging AussieLegend who reverted your edit to invite them to the convo. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:TVUPCOMING specifies not to include future years in the date range until an episode actually airs in that year.
what do we do if the season is currently running?

No. 1 is the answer to No. 2 and WP:TVUPCOMING is clear on this with a practical example. years should not be added to said section heading until an episode actually airs in that calendar year. For example, for the eleventh season of NCIS, the heading on its list of episodes page would have been "Season 11" until September 23, 2013. After episode 1 aired on September 24, 2013, it would be changed to "Season 11: 2013". And finally, once episode 12 aired on January 7, 2014, it would be changed once again to "Season 11: 2013–14". --AussieLegend (✉) 04:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I want to be clear that we just use the single year and do not add "-present" or "since". I think it's worth specifying. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Correct, we should not use "-present" or "since", given that if the year in the heading is the same as the current one, it has the implication that the series is either currently airing, or has already aired its allotted episodes. I see no problem adding a little amendment to TVUPCOMING. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think providing date ranges for season section headings should be prohibited altogether for a number of reasons, ranging from simple unwieldiness to the fact that these dates can vary widely between airings (especially important for coproductions). Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)