Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television

Overview sections

Do you guys think we need to officially address these "overview" sections that are just table summaries of the season premiere, finale, viewership, DVD, etc? I've been seeing them pop up more and more for shows that are only 1 or 2 seasons old (especially with the first year shows), and to me it seems completely unnecessary and redundant to have a table list the season dates when you're on a "List of episodes" page that is nothing but summary tables to begin with. I see no point of having a table summarize 1 or 2 seasons worth of information immediately above where you're going to see that information. I don't really see a point of it period, unless we're talking about The Simpsons or something of that nature where it's been on for multiple decades, because we're on a page that is in an of itself a summary of dates of episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of how many seasons a series has, the overviews sum up the information is a nice, clean way. True, it doesn't provide new information, but neither does the infobox. It's organizes the information in a helpful way to readers.Caringtype1 (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

What organization is needed to summarize a single season's premiere and finale date...which you can see directly below the overview table in the first place? Also, why is DVD information there in the first place? We don't put home video release in the infobox of film pages. We're not here to sell a product, so the release of said product is the least important information in the entire article. So, why should it be at the top?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Of course you could take the DVD part off -- but someone else could put it back at some point. And I agree that a show with only one season doesn't really need an overview. It would be helpful to have an MOS for it. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Further more, without DVD information the only reason use of the overview section is collecting viewership and airdates. For a List of Episodes page, there isn't a need to summarize a page that is nothing but tables that summarize a show. Viewership has its own section on LoE pages, and dates can be summarized in season section headers (see List of Smallville episodes). I don't think readers are so lazy that they can't scroll through a LoE page to see dates. Especially when a show gets so large that it gets season pages and all the plot information is removed from the LoE page and you're left with nothing but titles and air dates. To me, this removes (even more) the need for a table that collects the same information that is already being presented in list form.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

So, what are we thinking? Probably need more opinions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Why did International Brodacasting is "a TV guide"

I mean why do Wikipedia think it's a "TV guide" and who created this? 99.229.41.79 (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It means that we don't simply catalog channel appearances (ala what TV Guide does). If there is a significance to the international broadcast then we can note it, otherwise, anything that is NOT an English speaking country would have its own Wikipedia page in its language and it can be mentioned there. Also, if you get into listing different channels the show appears on, you end up with an endless list that serves no real purpose to a reader. I would never come to Wikipedia to find out what channel Vegas or some other show was on in Japan, because I'm not in Japan.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is controversial I can't even watch any show without the channels of a country. 99.229.41.79 (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Placeholders in episode lists

Hi, was wondering if there's a policy on the use of placeholders in episode lists. The scenario is this: a show with a 3 season order is currently airing its first season, and its episode list continues to grow. A user adds a new row to the episode table, and fills in all fields with TBA, because ostensibly a new episode will air soonish. Is this discouraged? Would this be a WP:CRYSTALBALL issue? Original research? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have an issue with the TBA entry itself, which is just filler. There's no harm in leaving cells blank; TBA is implied, and it reduces the visual clutter that TBA over and over again creates. Moreover, we have to think about low-vision users who use speaking screen readers; they end up reading "TBA", "TBA", "TBA" over and over again, like a Dalek. TBA adds nothing a blank cell doesn't already tell us and creates unnecessary clutter. My view is less is more: create and comment out the whole table when a season is announced, add what we know and can reliably source, reveal/add a row when we know something substantive and abolish TBA/TBC. I'd also avoid posting projected and assumed dates from Futon Critic, which are subject to lot of change. That keeps crystal-ball issues and OR down to a minimum. --Drmargi (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I like the comment-out idea. Thanks for the input! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Why International Brodcasting is discouraged

Why International Brodcasting is discouraged? This is controversal because many user many not know which channels aired in a country. 99.229.41.79 (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You asked this above, see that reply.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The international Brodcasting rule

The International Bordcasting rule is controversial is because they won't know if they what they are watching 99.229.41.79 (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers in Character/Cast Sections

Lately there has been some edit-warring and general debate on the House of Cards pages about whether details on Frank Underwood murdering Corey Stoll should be included in the Cast and Characters section. I have brought up the example of Revolution (TV series) cast section where it reveals Danny's death (a spoiler for the show). After reading through the MoS and some of the talk page/archives, it is still unclear what the proper format should be. Hopefully some more experienced editors could help here. Rgrasmus (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it mentioned s:omewhere else on the article, like in an Episode table? If so, then I would say don't include it in the other section. Per WP:SPOILER, readers need to understand that spoilers will be present and we don't remove them for the sake of it. That said, if it's already mentioned on the page I would keep it there for the time being. Unless I'm missing something.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the cast section need not contain plot information. Between episode articles, episode list capsules, season articles, character articles, there are ample opportunities to provide information on all elements of the plot and characters, and in areas where the reader will intuitively expect to find them. --SubSeven (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. We don't need to hide spoilers, we only need to put complete information where it's expected to be found. Cast/Characters isn't that place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naapple (talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You're going to have some plot information in there, because you're likely to be describing the character to some degree. Otherwise, you just have an IMDb list, and that basically regulates the cast list to non-essential if it's just a bare list (as IMDb can give the list).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

IMDB doesn't give cast summaries. There's a big difference between listing a character's job/relationships/etc vs. giving direct plot information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naapple (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I know that IMDb doesn't give cast summaries, that was my point. If there was nothing but a list of names, then it would be no better than and IMDb list. "Job/relationship/etc." is plot information. They aren't real people, so the only other place the information could come from would be the plot of the show. Do you want to reveal that character Y killed Character X in the cast section...no.. you probably don't. There are better places for that. You do want to say that Character X was written out of the show in season B. As that is relevant information that is based on the plot of the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I get what you mean. By plot information I meant specific events that happen during the story line. There's general information about the character that doesn't reveal the story line, and I guess I was doing a poor job of explaining the difference. And yes, who was in what season is something we'd want to include. Anyways, I basically agree with you. Naapple (Talk) 14:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Stylized titles

Should creative works' stylized logos be mentioned in their articles' lead sections? —David Levy 17:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

---

I noticed that the 2 Broke Girls article's lead contained the the statement "(stylized as 2 BROKE GIRL$)". This is a description of the program's on-screen logo. I'm aware of no reliable sources (even counting the show's producers and broadcasters around the world) that use such a spelling in type, as it isn't actually the show's name; it's merely a fancy logo style (all uppercase, with a decorative "S" resembling a dollar sign). A different logo, used by CBS in virtually all promotional contexts, lacks the dollar sign.

I saw no good reason for this trivial detail to be stated in the lead (where we summarize the subject's "most important aspects"), as though the show's title is actually written in the manner described. So I removed it, noting that this is a "logo element never used in type".

SnapSnap (whom I've notified of this RfC) undid the edit, advising me to "take a better look at the show's intertitle". As this ignored my edit summary (in which I acknowledged the logo and pointed out that the style doesn't appear in type), I reverted, noting that "2 BROKE GIRLS" (all uppercase, but without the dollar sign) appears as part of the same animation and comparing the lead to one in which we state that Conan's title is "stylized as CONAN, with a hair outline".

SnapSnap again restored the claim, asserting that "the 2 Broke Girls logo is stylized in the same way as shows such as Friends, Revenge, and Awkward, not Conan".

I don't see a valid distinction, but sure enough, those articles' leads contain comparable statements. This, in my view, is indicative of a problem that I now seek to address.

Some creative works' titles are notably stylized. Examples include the film Se7en and the TV series M*A*S*H and Numb3rs. Reliable sources actually identify the subjects by these titles. What reliable sources refer to Friends as F•R•I•E•N•D•S? (I don't recall seeing it outside fan sites and the like.) If the logo is even sufficiently noteworthy to mention in the article, why does this information belong in the lead? Is it really one of the subject's "most important aspects"? Should we include such a notation for any creative work whose on-screen logo font differs from conventional typography? I don't believe so. —David Levy 17:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I would be inclined to support your contention that the so-called stylized titles are visual mnemonics for the viewer, but hardly notable with a few exceptions. Moreover, I'd go further and class them as fancruft. The three you cite have no alternate spelling; the others, such as Two Broke Girls do. That's the easiest line to draw. --Drmargi (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding alternate spellings, I believe that the film is commonly referred to as both Se7en and Seven (hence our article's title). That, in my view, is the key distinction; reliable sources (such as newspapers and magazines) have actually used the stylized variant in type. In the case of 2 Broke Girls, even the show's producers and broadcasters (to say nothing of journalists and the like) don't do that. —David Levy 17:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see any problem with stating in the lead section that the title of a TV show (or some other creative work for that matter) is stylized in a certain way on its on-screen logo. Such information doesn't seem to take up much space in the lead, or affect the reader's understanding of the topic. SnapSnap 23:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To quote Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section:

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..."

A subject's name(s) is/are important. When reliable sources indicate that a creative work's actual title is commonly written in an alternative/unusual format (as in the examples cited above), it makes sense to note this in the lead. Conversely, the work's logo design generally isn't among its most important aspects (and typically doesn't warrant coverage in the article, let alone the lead section).

Even Warner Bros. and the relevant broadcasters around the world don't call the show 2 BROKE GIRL$, which simply isn't its title. In that case and others, we're misrepresenting logo descriptions as alternative names, despite the absence of corroboration by reliable sources. This does affect readers' understanding of the topic. —David Levy 00:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Remove. Well, I originally thought this rfc was frivolous, but you've convinced me. It doesn't seem relevant, important, or reliable enough to include in the lead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: As a generalization, I think that stylized titles should not be used unless that is the typical case. You make a compelling argument with your "Friends" example, and I agree that, in the specific instance mentioned in this case, the title should be remain in the context in which it is typically used, but I disagree that the lead should not mention it if it is commonly used. I put forth the example that Panic! at the Disco should have had the exclamation point in it (before they changed their name to remove it), as that was actually part of the name. Note that Kesha does mention the Ke$ha style and even your Friends example notes the stylized name. I do not see why a specific category of articles should be treated differently than the norm. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

  You appear to have misunderstood my position. I don't object to the inclusion of stylings that are commonly used (as verified by reliable sources), nor do I advocate that articles about creative works be deemed special. (The problem is that some of them are receiving treatment different from the norm.)
  In your examples, Panic! at the Disco and Kesha, the variants in question are notable alternative spellings of the subjects' names. The same is true of my examples, Se7en and Numb3rs.
  The issue is that descriptions of logos are being misrepresented as alternative names, despite the absence of corroboration by reliable sources. Kesha is commonly known as "Ke$ha". Conversely, 2 Broke Girls is not commonly known as 2 BROKE GIRL$.
  As far as I can tell, we're in complete agreement. —David Levy 02:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I first noticed that kind of usage when I first came accross Revenge (TV series) which is stylized as Reven₈e, however I don't think it is really important or necessary to transcript its stylish name into the article's lead paragraph. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 05:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The question should be, "Is it essential to the reader?" Pointing out that they stylize the "S" to be "$" is not essential in anyway. So, pointing it out to readers, when there is a picture directly to the right of the lead that shows it stylized to the reader seems unnecessarily redundant. I say, it doesn't need to be there or anywhere else like that when you have clear images that do the job for you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles should reflect the entire history of a series

The "Cast information" section says, "Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." The phrase "articles should reflect the entire history of a series" clearly applies to the whole article, not just the cast section, but use of this is being claimed as being misapplication of the MOS.[1] I think it would be prudent to tighten this up, as the statement appears nowhere else. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

How would you propose that it is tightened up? I glanced through the Terra Nova discussion to see what the argument was about, and I noticed that last comment about it only being about the cast section. That is incorrect, but I can see how its placement in the MOS would make people think that. I can tell you (and you can send this message to those on Terra Nova's talk page), since I'm the original author and was here for all the adjustments with the other editors, when it was written originally we were talking about the entire article, but placed in the cast section because it just happened to be the place where we had the most issues of people wanting to remove cast members no longer on a series. Obviously, we can place it in a way that it's more clear that we're talking about the entire show/article, and not just one section. I'm just curious as to how the argument on that page is connected to the MOS.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The statement really needs to be in a more general section. It shouldn't need to be but, as you can see it's being misinterpreted because it's only in the cast information section. I suggest a "Basic principles" (or something like that) section be added to the "Parent, season, and episode article structure" section prior to the "Infobox" sub-section. In that would be the things we always seem to have problems with, the already mentioned history clause, the present tense sentence that is currently in the "Lead paragraphs" section are two items that immediately qualify. As to how the MOS applies to the argument, Terra Nova originally aired what are now episodes 1,2,12 & 13 as 2, two-hour episodes. After the series was cancelled, these were broken into individual episodes for susequent airings and DVD release. This was discussed at length at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes#Number of episodes and we agreed, as a compromise, to this method of listing the episodes. The three other editors at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes want to completely disregard the original airing of the series, effectively denying it ever happened, despite reliable sources, most notably the press releases, stating the premiere and finale were to be aired as 2-hour episodes, and not 2, back to back episodes.[2][3] The press releases are very specific, saying "The "Genesis" two-hour series premiere episode of TERRA NOVA", and "the all-new "Occupation/Resistance" episode of TERRA NOVA" (emphasis added) respectively. The transition between parts 1 & 2 of Genesis was so seemless that you can't tell where one part ended and the other started. The way in which these episodes aired obviously affected the ratings, so we need to include the original airing (as well as the 13 episode split). This is really just another one of these situations where editors only want to talk about how a TV series is now, which is why the MOS needs to be a little bit broader. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for having a general principle section with items like this (I also think we need to specifically address when to split articles off, because I'm finding that to be an issue now), as well as the "Overview" tables. That said, I think we need more editors, otherwise it just looks like you and I are trying to make changes to the MOS to serve our arguments (not saying that that is the intention of either one of us, just the appearance). I think what we can do is come up with all the items we want to have in a general principle section, write up basic descriptions for each, and if we haven't gotten more editor opinions then we should start sending out mass requests for opinions and feedback before updating the MOS. Changing guidelines on such a scale requires clear consensus, and this page doesn't get a lot of traffic on the talk page. That said, it means that the debate at Terra Nova will probably have to be conceded for the time being. As I noted from one of the editors there, they pointed out that consensus can change, so lets get the consensus on the changes to the MOS (or clarifications for some items) and then you can go back to the Terra Nova page and start the discussion again. I can understand your issue with the double episodes, as Smallville did that with 2 different episodes as well. One of them it became easy to defend as a single episode because they literally changed the name of 2 episodes to a single name (i.e., Legends & Society became "Absolute Justice"). The other was the finally. On the table (see Smallville (season 10), we kept the finale as a single entry, but it has 2 production codes, 2 directors, etc., but it has 1 neilsen rating because it aired as single entry. Don't know if that helps for the time being, but I'm all for a "General Principle" section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ahh yes, splitting and overview, how did I forget those? There's also "when to create next season's article" - I hate May. Since we're both apparently in agreement, where do we start? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I say we start with a new section for "General Principle Proposals", and then lets list the items that appear to be in this gray area of action (do we or don't we) for editors, and the items that involve an entire article (e.g., series history is more than just cast). Then we can go from there. Sound like a plan?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good one. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

General Principles Section proposal

Let's get to identifying some general principles for articles. I think that these should be items that are not being followed, but there is a general consensus to operate by.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and not just the current status --AussieLegend (✉) 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
2. References to the show should be in the present tense since shows—even though no longer airing—still exist --AussieLegend (✉) 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
3. When splitting "List of <foo> episodes" articles, the principles of Wikipedia:Splitting should be followed. Articles should not be split simply to break episode lists into multiple articles that contain only episode lists --AussieLegend (✉) 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Clarify how "international broadcasting" should be handled (e.g., addressing these tables of countries and channels a show appears on) --- May just need to be updated in the Broadcasting section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Address series overview tables (e.g., when to add them, what they should contains, etc.).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Neilsen Ratings tables (maybe just update the Reception section) that contain every episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide, so is it necessary to list day and time of airtime slot in the lead? And then every change to that airtime? --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
8. For the infobox, as per Template:Infobox television, the production location parameter "is only for use when outside country of origin. Leave blank if same as country of origin [above]." Despite this, U.S. cities are often added, claiming "notability". Television shows shoot all over the U.S. now, not just in L.A. It's not a unique thing. (Sorry for the US-centric example, I cannot speak about television series production in other countries.) Question: Change the guideline, or enforce? --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC notification

There is an RfC in progress at Talk:Terra Nova (TV series)#RfC: Should this article and the episode list article comply with MOS:TV. This RfC deals with issues raised above, so comment from those familiar with the MOS would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for Feedback

Additional opinions are requested at Talk:American Dad!#Viewer discretion is advised / Doniago. Thank you for your time. Doniago (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Broadcast section edit

Hi, I just made an edit to a confusing sentence in the Broadcast section of the MOS from and to:

"(e.g., Stargate Universe airing the final three episodes of the first season a month before they aired in the U.S. would be added to the "Broadcast" section...)"

"(e.g., Canadian-American show Stargate Universe airing the final three episodes of the first season in Belize a month before they aired in the U.S. would be added to the "Broadcast" section...)"

The first example seems ambiguous, because it's missing a "where" variable. If we're trying to describe an exceptional scenario of "international noteworthiness", it seems we need to know that Stargate Universe always aired in the U.S. first, except for that weird noteworthy time when the last three episodes of S1 aired in Belize first. Stargate Universe might also not be the best example, because it's a Canadian-American show, which adds an unnecessary level of national complexity. Maybe let's pick a random Canadian sitcom show and some other random country? Whatevs. The point the section SEEMS to want to make is: Non-English-speaking international broadcasts are worthy of mention in the Broadcast section if, and only if, there is some kind of noteworthy change-up. Did I cross any lines? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What shows would you suggest?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bignole, I have no preference. Could pretty much be any show? Breaking Bad? I'll boldly make the edit. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: I made the change. It now reads:

"(e.g., If the American show Breaking Bad aired its series finale in France a month before it aired in the U.S., this would be added to the "Broadcast" section...)"

Hopefully that's clearer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'd earlier suggested a Canadian show, I realized that I don't know much about Canadian shows. Breaking Bad seems to fit the mold because if they aired the series finale in France a month earlier--fans would go batshit.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You're example works fine. Thanks for making that change so it's easier for a reader to understand the message.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Should we be including parental guidelines info?

My understanding is that the film project has a clear guideline regarding including ratings information (WP:FILMRATING) and other projects may as well. After having been involved in a bruising discussion regarding this at Talk:American Dad!, where I did not see any clear reasoning regarding why tv shows should be handled differently, my feeling is that MOS:TV should adopt a similar guideline.

Proposed wording:

Parental Ratings

Parental ratings given to episodes of television series by television content rating systems will vary by territories in accordance to their cultures and their types of governance. In television articles, avoid indiscriminate identification of ratings and instead focus on ratings for which there is substantial coverage from reliable sources. Coverage of ratings can include how a series or episode of television is produced to target specific audiences, the late editing of a television episode to acquire a specific rating, or controversy over whether or not a television series or episode's rating was appropriately assigned. Since this is the English-language Wikipedia and not the American Wikipedia, avoid mere identification of ratings issued by American broadcast and cable networks to counter systemic bias (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for more information). Provide global coverage of how different territories rate individual television shows or episodes if substantial coverage exists. Retrospective coverage is also welcomed to evaluate how television shows/episodes were rated in their time period. It is recommended that parental ratings information be placed in the "Production" section of the appropriate article, but a stand-alone section can cover controversy surrounding a rating if enough detail exists.

Thank you very much for your thoughts on this! Doniago (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this definitely should be discussed. I'd like to have it added to the above section for general principals that we need to add to the guideline. This way we can keep them all together, as I think this is another important component that we need to address.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this needs to be discussed. In my opinion, I believe parental ratings should be added to television articles, but only a short explanation. Reasons, such as because of its violence, is very unnecessary and a short explanation (eg: Family Guy is rated TV-14) would be fine.