Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:59, 29 August 2015

Television Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

WikiProject Television

Project main page Project discussion Project assessment talk Television portal talk Descendant WikiProjects and task forces Showcase Project organization Article alerts Deletion sorting Popular pages New articles Project banner talk Project category talk Project templates talk Television stubs Guidelines Project manual of style talk Project notability guidelines talk TV article naming convention talk Broadcasting article naming convention talk Related WikiProjects Actors and Filmmakers Albums Animation Anime and manga Comics Film Literature Media franchises Radio Screenwriters Westerns view · edit · changes

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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}}, 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: Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not#Expanding NOTPLOT. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Past Cast

In reference to: Misplaced Pages: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, 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)

Reception sources

Hello, may TV Overmind, TV Equals, Spoilertv be used to provide reviews in reception sections? I have seen them in a few articles, but I am not sure of their reliability. Is there a list of good and bad sources, similar to the one used in music? The one at WP:TVRECEPTION is fairly limited... --Sofffie7 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Overmind and Equals, but SpoilerTV cannot be used. It's a fansite and user submitted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for sharing your opinion :) --Sofffie7 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sofffie7, including links to the sites you're talking about would be helpful to other editors. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Here are the links (and I added other websites as well):

• TVOvermind
• TV Equals
• SpoilerTV
• Fempop
• TwoCentsTV
• Guardian Liberty Voice
• The TV Addict
• We Got This Covered

--Thanks, Sofffie7 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• TVOVermind: 1-2 person site. "please send to both addresses below to ensure both of us recieve it." Solicits fan contributions. No dice.
• TV Equals strikes me as a blog with a few contributors.
• SpoilerTV seems like yet another blog. No clear indication of where they get their ratings content for example.

Have you checked the archives at WP:RSN to see if these have been brought up before and if there has already been discussion about these sites? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

From working here a bit, I know SpoilerTV has definitely been deemed an unreliable site by the project. I concur with Cyphoid on the others; you should see if RSN has anything. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb and Favre1fan93: Hi, I've checked WP:RSN and there are no mention of any of these sites except for TVOvermind and in that discussion, somebody basically said to wait lol. --Sofffie7 (talk) 20:59, 24 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 –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)

1. WP:TVUPCOMING specifies not to include future years in the date range until an episode actually airs in that year.
2. 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)

Cast order by opening credits or by programming guide/production notes?

Need some advice on how to handle this where the editor wants to insist on using the order according to the Media Centre of the broadcast company website instead of the order presented on the opening credits. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the Anon is misunderstanding "Broadcast order" to be "Broadcaster order". They should be in the order of appearance in the opening credits. If they don't appear (as not all shows do that), then you go by the broadcaster/studio credit order.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Prose vs. table format for cast lists

Hey, everyone. AlexTheWhovian has been changing the cast section of television articles from table format to prose format, as seen here, here and here. I told AlexTheWhovian at the Teen Wolf (2011 TV series) talk page, in part, "cast lists are commonly an exception; things like this are a case-by-case matter, much like WP:Cite lead. That, and the fact that WP:Prose states 'primarily of prose' and makes no demand that people always use prose format, is why I stated 'cast lists in this regard are an exception.' Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Embedded lists, which WP:Prose is a part of, is clear that prose format is not always best. And considering that The Walking Dead (TV series) article is of WP:Good article status and editors there prefer the table format, it would be best that you discuss this there before simply changing that cast list's style. Similar goes for other articles as well. Clearly, the prose vs. table aspect needs to be discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Television, and relevant WikiProjects need to be alerted to that discussion."

Any opinions on this matter? I might alert some of the relevant WikiProjects to this discussion. If there are a lot to alert, I might forgo that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Project-Class television pages
• NA-importance television pages
• WikiProject Television articles