Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television

Threshold for inclusion of awards

Hi all, I've thought about opening an RfC on this, but I figure I'll go less formal:

What is the threshold for inclusion of an award in a television article, and can we please add some language to the MOS to clarify this?

I have been under the impression that we only include awards if notability of the award has been properly established, i.e. an article has to exist on that award and the article has to have endured community scrutiny, but that's not explicitly stated in the MOS. Seems like it's typically been what the community prefers. If that is the case, can we write something up in the MOS? Maybe as a starting point, WP:FILMCRITICLIST says:

"Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability. Because of the proliferation of film festivals and "award mills", festival awards should be added with discretion, with inclusion subject to consensus. Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not included."

Thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support the addition since this issues keeps coming up and is also already is place for film articles. --Gonnym (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Also agree that we should add something in the MOS about this. - Brojam (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Implementation of episode splitting guideline

Can we simply implement User:Bignole/Episode page into the MOS? I think the first section can just go in as-is into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Episode listing, but if we should stick with the second section, then where should the first go? -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can go ahead and implement the proposed text. If we were to go with the second section in the MOS, then the first section could go to Wikipedia:Article splitting (television). I also have no problem with us putting the first section as-is, but maybe it's best to go with the second if we want to later expand it to include other television sections like awards, characters, etc., without taking up too much room in the MOS. - Brojam (talk)

 Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

We probably need to add further clarification/examples on the linked "Article splitting (television)" page, along with a page tag so that it makes sense as to why we are linking. Otherwise, it's basically the exact same information on the MOS.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Would be good to add a proper lead, a page tag and some examples. - Brojam (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to work on that (start it, complete it, whatever) in the sandbox I created to encompass our wording above. Since it already has the foundation...don't need to start from scratch.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Order (TV series)#Country

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Order (TV series)#Country . — YoungForever^(talk) 16:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48

Request for Comment

Should we add the year release in the season section for the upcoming TV shows that released a season in one day (Netflix for example)? See the original discussion here. Hddty. (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No Netflix series are no different to other series, and MOS:TVUPCOMING applies to all shows. Zero arguments have been presented to go against this. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Not taking a side here yet, but Netflix series ARE different from others series, BECAUSE the entire season is released simultaneously. I don't really see what the downside of adding the release year for an upcoming TV show season is, other than perhaps having to change it if the season is somehow delayed, but the fact that Netflix series are no different isn't really an argument. The fact that they break the tradition of sequential episodes released weekly is enough of a difference to discuss possible changes to the way their chronology is presented. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they are different. No, they are not different enough in terms of release to change the fact that the year is placed after the season's release. If it's delayed, then there's no need to change the header, as the year is added, again, after the release of the season. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment (Summoned by bot) This was a yes-no question, and in that format I have (as yet) no response. But, as someone who is not as familiar with this type of page as others here appear to be, it would be helpful to me to see a year in the section header, if only so that it appears in the ToC. I get why adding a year before any show has been released in that year could be problematic, but would a compromise work? For example, ===Season 3 (due 2019)===¶ Season 3 of Pilcrow Street was announced and is scheduled for release on 1 July 2019. ? The word "due" is brief, gives a date when it is expected without indicating that it is already released, and implies that someone reliable announced it for that year and that we can expect to find a reference citing it in the section body. Mathglot (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Ellipsis as separator in cast lists

I occasionally run across cast lists in which the separator between the character and actor name is an ellipsis (...). I can't see any justification for this use of an ellipsis. Most articles use either "as" or a spaced endash (–). I prefer "as" because it eliminates the ambiguity of which name is the character and which is the actor. This search, unfortunately, shows over 3000 relevant-looking hits. There could be others (i.e. without the Infobox template (I had to limit the scope somehow), that aren't bullet-lists, etc.).

1. Is this incorrect usage of the ellipsis?
2. Other search patterns?
3. Is "as" the preferred separator?
4. Is there a bot that can/should be used to fix it?

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I feel that using an ellipsis for this purpose is perfectly sound. When you have multiple lines of

• John Actor as Joe Character
• Jane Player as Sally Role
• Frank Thespian as Willy Fictional

they can be a bit difficult to muddle through, whereas multiple lines of

• John Actor ... Joe Character
• Jane Player ... Sally Role
• Frank Thespian ... Willy Fictional

are a great deal easier to read. This method has been used in the credit lists of films and television shows, and also on websites like IMDB, so I see nothing wrong about it. As for working out which name is that of the actor, just put that name first; it makes a lot more sense than putting it last, especially if that person plays more than one role. Wrightaway (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It's easier to say "just put that name first", but is it easy to confirm that this is actually how it's been done in all of those thousands of articles? No. "Billy Blogs ... James Joe". Who's Billy? Who's James? Which is which? There's too much disambiguity. I fully support the removal of ellipsis and support the use of "as", as it removes any guessing games whatsoever. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wrightaway: WP has its own WP:MOS, which does not necessarily follow outside styles, especially when they, objectively, make incorrect use of standard punctuation, as shown at Ellipsis and MOS:ELLIPSIS. I think they've probably misused an old typograhical aid that was used for column alignment and to help the user follow a row across a page:

• John Actor ............................... Joe Character
• Jane Player .............................. Sally Role
• Frank Thespian ...................... Willy Fictional

Like the previous editor, I don't understand the response to the ambiguity issue – if the names are not familiar, the reader doesn't know which is which without actually navigating to one of them to figure it out, and then having to remember that as they look down the list. Using "as" eliminates all of that; you can read just one line and know what it means. As far as it being "muddled", if that is an issue, editors are free to use simple markup to tablify it:

Actor	Character
John Actor	Joe Character
Jane Player	Sally Role
Frank Thespian	Willy Fictional

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Jane Actress as XYZ character
  is direct and cleaner. Ellipses serve a purpose in writing. The who & what of actor & role is not one of them. There's no logical reason for making the cast section florid with context hieroglyphs. Pyxis Solitary yak 12:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Game of Thrones episodes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Game of Thrones episodes#Unnecessary hiding of episodes. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC on disambiguation of TV articles

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RFC: What disambiguation should shows from the United States and United Kingdom use?. Additional participation is welcomed. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Episode table alterations

Has a change been made in the table template since 2018 that was not announced wiki-wide for all editors to be made aware of? I ask because there's an editor going through TV articles and changing the format of their tables, or adding new tables with a modified format. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Example? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: A few:

• Busting Loose (TV series):  Before -- After.
• Kelly Kelly (TV series):  Before -- After
• The Closer (1998 TV series):  Before -- After.
• Eight Is Enough:  Before -- After
• Nightmare Cafe:  Before -- After.

Pyxis Solitary yak 14:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I just checked the first 2, but you do realize that neither did the before version nor the after version use {{Episode table}} right? --Gonnym (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I see what you said about the first one. But the second one had used an old template. So, if an episode list wasn't originally created with the {{Episode table}}, shouldn't a new edit of the table now include the template? What about the changes made on some column headings? Pyxis Solitary yak 14:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, must have misclicked and looked at a different "before" link instead of the correct one for the 2nd one. I'm always in support for a more consistent look and think that the template should be used over any manually created column headers. I see no advantage in the manual versions. --Gonnym (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll note that MOS:NUMERO specifically says do not use the symbol №. This would seem to apply to the two-character, non-underlined, version "Nº" as well. Pinging Wrightaway, the editor involved. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the editor's contributions history you will notice that "minor edits" have been made to the episodes section of innumerable TV articles. The most recent (3 April 2019):

• It's Your Move:  Before -- After. These "minor edits" botch-up both the episodes tables and page layout of the affected articles. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:NUMERO is about using the numero symbol. It is not about the specific Unicode code point "№", so faking the latter with "Nº" is still using the numero symbol, against MOS:NUMERO. Just use "no." Or some insist on rendering this as "No.", but that's arguably only appropriate in a context like "Journal of Foobarology, Vol. IX, No. 7". This keeps getting discussed, and many editors are of the opinion that should be rendered "Journal of Foobarology, vol. IX, no. 7", anyway, for the same reason we write "Adventures of Bazquux, season 3, episode 1", not "... Season 3, Episode 1". Our WP:CS1 citation templates are doing this: '"Article Title". Journal of Foobarology. Vol. IX, no. 7.', an academic style that keeps being objected to as unclear, and for books its similarly doing: "Encyclopedia of Quuxionometrics. Vol. 3.", which even more people object to. For one thing, no one with a screen reader "sees" boldface; for another, even sighted readers will not notice boldface, especially on something that small, depending on their font settings. So trying to use bold by itself as a "magical signifier" for 'volume' or 'vol.' just isn't cutting it. Anyway, {{Cite episode}} produces: '"A Bad Day to Die". Adventures of Bazquux. Season 3. Episode 1.', which is both improperly punctuating and over-capitalizing. In plain English, this should be rendered "season 3, episode 1" (or "series 3, episode 1" in British English). If a table is so tight some abbreviation is needed, try "sea. 3, ep. 1" (BrEng: "ser. 3, ep. 1"). There's an even more compressed format of "S3 E1" (also rendered S03E01, etc.), but it's difficult to imagine we'd ever need it, and it's probably not clear to anyone but people who do a lot of TV steaming.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The "No." I was referring to was in the column header, where it should be capitalized and glossed, as I read it: {{Abbr|No.|Number}}, producing "No." —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds right to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed them all so they use {{Episode table}}. - Brojam (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That was very generous of your time. But, oh, there are more. The 5 TV articles I posted in my initial comment are just a handful. The following are those between 3 April–21 March 2019, but the list of articles stretches to January. Then there are those from 2018. And so on.:

• It's Your Move
• Kaz (TV series)
• Honey West (TV series)
• Get Christie Love!
• Tijuana Toads
• The Pink Panther (TV series)
• The Yellow Rose
• The Mississippi (TV series)
• Sanford Arms
• The Investigators (U.S. TV series
• Checking In
• Ladies' Man (1980 TV series)
• Free Country (TV series)

Pyxis Solitary yak 09:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Viewership/Ratings guidelines for simulcasts

Killing Eve season 2 seems to presenting some issues due to it being simulcast on BBC America and AMC. The active editors of that page maintain that according to the style guide, only viewership on BBC America should be reported. Simulcasts like this are rare, and the only examples I could find on Wikipedia that have viewership on the page were NFL playoffs on ESPN/ABC and the Waco miniseries on Paramount Network/CMT. The playoffs combined the numbers and Waco had them listed separately by channel along with the total. This is especially problematic since the "secondary" channel, AMC, is the one with higher viewership. I feel that the AMC numbers should be included in some capacity in this scenario. What are your thoughts? 63.140.86.216 (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

As stated in the lead, Killing Eve is: "produced in the UK...for BBC America." The decision to renew for a new season is made by BBC America. The simulcast on AMC has not changed that. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Love, Death & Robots#Flag icons for studio

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Love, Death & Robots#Flag icons for studio . — YoungForever^(talk) 16:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48

MOS:CREDENTIAL / listing out job titles for fictional characters

My understanding for fictional characters is that, like with real people and MOS:CREDENTIAL, we don't privilege particular occupational titles by listing them with the character's name (i.e. "Jane Chan" rather than "Dr. Jane Chan" and "Malcolm Smith" rather than "Chief Master Sergeant Malcolm Smith") except maybe in cases where the character is referred to primarily or exclusively by said title (i.e. where the title is in effect functioning as a name, say if a character is "Mrs. Bloomington" and may have a first name but is referred to as "Mrs. Bloomington" in 99% of cases... say Hugo Weaving as "Agent Smith" in The Matrix).

Amaury disagrees as per this edit. Is there a generally accepted principle here? I don't see why we would avoid privileging occupation-based titles for actual people and not do the same thing for fictional characters when their occupations and/or rank in whatever relevant organization can easily be given as just that, rather than as a title, e.g. "Rosa Hernandez, an FBI agent" or "Rosa Hernandez, a US Army captain". —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The ultimate best thing to do here would be to find a source with cast and characters and use the names they use. Preferably, the network's site and/or press site is best. For example, American Housewife: ABC website (scroll down to "Meet the Cast" section) and Walt Disney Television Press website. If there are no sources and the character names for starring cast are not shown in the credits, which is the case for the majority of series' starring cast, then we fall back to WP:COMMONNAME. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why we'd need a source beyond the primary source of the episodes/works themselves, except maybe for spelling? If a network lists a person's occupational title along with their name, that doesn't require us to ape it—we already make all sorts of alterations from original styles/presentation based on the MOS and the whole crux of this is that someone's title is not (in most cases) their name. WP:COMMONNAME is about names, not titles, and concerns article names, not cast/character lists of fictional characters. For the fictional characters I've seen with articles, most (all?) are absent titles, barring some obvious ones that fit into the "Mrs. Bloomington" example I provided above, "The Doctor" from Doctor Who being the obvious one where the title is, in effect, the name.

Anyway, we already know what the two parties who have already commented think—I'm interested in what others feel is the best approach. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Because if series themselves don't list the character names starring actors portray, then we fall back to WP:SECONDARYSOURCES. Then, failing that, we fall back to WP:COMMONNAME. MOS:TVCAST is quite clear that it's names per credits, sourcing, or common name. If any of those include titles like Sgt. or Dr., then those are also a name and part of a character's name and are therefore included. See The Orville, which lists its character names in the credits, and the article matches that. Names are listed exactly as they are typed in the credits, again, per MOS:TVCAST. If a name is shown as Bob Willy, Jr. we list it exactly like that. If a name is shown as Mary Jane "MJ" Watson, we list it exactly like that. If a name is shown as Mary Jane "M.J." Watson, we list it exactly like that. If we don't list them exactly as they are in the credits, we are disrespecting those actors' wishes, as the way the credits display their name is how they wish to be credited on X series. What's next, are we going to start cutting out part of people's names? If a writer is credited as John Apple Smith for Series A and as John Smith for Series B, C, and D, we should list them just like that: as John Apple Smith for Series A and as John Smith for the other series. Your entire argument is dead wrong. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

First and foremost, we don't follow things like WP:BIO because these are fictional characters and not real people. Thus, they are not actual doctors, and why we don't give preference to that simply because they play one on TV. Yes, you will find articles that do this, but they do so in contradiction to our guidelines. I would agree, that if a character is officially credited as "Dr. James Michael Murray", then that's how they should be in our article. If not, and they are just credited as "James Murray", then that's how they should be listed. You'd simply say "James Murray is a doctor on the fictional series E.R.". Saying "James Murray, M.D. would be incorrect because that's treating them like they are real and have an actual M.D.....they don't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes – notice at The Orville, we are listing the characters as "Captain Ed Mercer" and "Commander Kelly Grayson", etc. because that's how they're credited onscreen in the opening credits of the show. Presumably, if they were "real people" we wouldn't list them that way. But, as per MOS:TVCAST, that's how we list them because that's how they're credited. And MOS:TVCAST is written that way exactly because we want to avoid discussions like this one – simply list them exactly how they're credited (or by their "common name"), and then there's no doubt, and no WP:OR involved. If there's no onscreen crediting, then your next stop is to look at primary sources – e.g. press releases, or the official website, for the TV series, etc. – to determine how the characters would be credited by the producers/networks if there was onscreen crediting. Failing both of those, then you are stuck with going with how the preponderance of secondary sources refer to the character... FWIW, in the case of The Alienist, IIRC the Laszlo character was often referred to as "Dr. Kreizler" during the series, though I don't know how primary and secondary sources referred to the character. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

So MOS:CREDENTIAL does not differentiate between real and fictional people, and I don't know why the guideline shouldn't apply to both. I don't like a flat rule of naming them "as credited" because the style and substance of credits isn't really consistent across all shows/films and sometimes even within the same project. And we don't worry about "respecting" the wishes of actors or creators, that's crazy. As Joeyconnick noted above, our MOS diverges from "official" style all the time, since we apply our own style no matter what the work or source may do (see MOS:CONFORM, MOS:TITLE#Typographic effects, MOS:LCITEMS, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks etc.). It should be based on common usage. I don't watch The Orville, but I'm assuming that like Star Trek the characters are commonly referred to with their titles. But even in medical shows I would argue against calling everyone "Dr So-and-so" as a rule because a) it looks like overkill, and b) their character description probably notes that they are a doctor.— TAnthony^Talk 00:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It's "names as credited" for a reason – it avoids these arguments entirely, and it avoids WP:OR. In general, I am very uncomfortable with "raising" Wikipedia's own MOS guidelines above articles' sources – in general, I do not think we should do that... One other point – MOS:CREDENTIAL is under MOS:BIO: there's no reason that should apply to fictional characters, as it was designed to deal with the biographies of real people. Anyway, if someone is credited as "Dr. Soandso", that's exactly how we should list them, as per MOS:TVCAST. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A name and a title are two different things, and MOS:TVCAST is talking about names. MOS:CONFORM is clear that we conform the presentation of information to our own MOS for consistency. If you consider that "raising" our MOS over external sources, then fine, because that's what we do. When a show styles its title as NUMB3RS or UnREAL, we note this but refer to the series consistently as Numbers or Unreal (standard capitalization, no numbers mixed in) per the guidelines I mentioned above. If a show or film's credits are in lowercase, would you list character names in lowercase here? No. We obviously don't have a rule in fiction (that I know of) which specifically applies to titles, but if we look to MOS:CREDENTIAL for guidance, titles are more a style choice than a part of the name. The current "List as credited" can be problematic as it is, throwing titles in with that makes it worse. Mary Jane "M.J." Watson is a different naming issue than Ser Meryn Trant. I'm not saying we should be deprecating all titles in cast lists, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't be letting the producers tell us what to do by blindly following their formatting.— TAnthony^Talk 13:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

All uppercase or all lowercase is one thing. If we change a movie name from how it's displayed on-screen as JOHN'S CHRISTMAS PARTY to John's Christmas Party, we aren't really changing anything, so that's fine. Nothing is being added or removed. The meaning is the same. However, if the credits show M.J. and we list her as MJ, we are changing something. We are removing the periods that the producers put there because that is how they wish the character to be credited there, and not following that is, again, dishonoring them. Similarly, if an actor is displayed as Bob Willy, Jr. and we list him as Bob Willy Jr, we are again doing a disservice by removing both the comma and the period. When it comes to actors, they tell the producers how they wish to be credited. The producers don't just pick how they are credited. (It goes back to the earlier John Apple Smith and John Smith example.) Are we going to start listing Snoop Dogg as Calvin Cordozar Broadus, Jr. for his television appearances? I'm pretty sure no. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@TAnthony:, you're right, WP:CREDENTIALS doesn't differentiate between fictional and real. But, that is as section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography, and WP:BIO only deals with real people, not fictional characters. WP:WAF deals with fictional characters. You'll note that Wikipedia:Naming character articles points out that "Guidelines intended for real people do not apply to fictional people." In that line it specifically points out naming and MOS/BIO.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Amaury, are you talking about actor names or character names? Because the issue here is character names, and actors and producers don't really get a direct say in how we name characters at WP. Yes we can go with credited names or common names, but a title is not a name. There are plenty of times when Dr or King will be appropriate, but not because the end credits say so, but because we decide that it is an important part of the character's name. Plus most main characters aren't credited by name so you'll have to go with common names/consensus of external sources anyway.— TAnthony^Talk 20:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:TVCAST

Simple question: what are our tolerance for deviations from MOS:TVCAST? In the case of the Netflix show Altered Carbon the cast is almost entirely replaced between seasons, sometimes even for one and the same character. It appears to me completely counterproductive to mush the cast lists of all seasons together just to satisfy TVCAST, drowning which actors and characters work together, when cast sections per season would provide much better clarity and overview for the reader.

I am preemptively asking here to find out what other shows have non-standard cast or character sections so I may study them, and help prepare myself for any possible challenges to the current structure (I don't need to tell you any and all deviations from MoS will eventually be considered errors to be rectified no matter the circumstances).

Help me, MOS:TV. You're my only hope. CapnZapp (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand how this is different. Is it just one character that has different actors? Or is this like an anthology show, ala American Horror Story?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: That show has very special needs with a very special solution: List of American Horror Story cast members. If and when Altered Carbon reaches a cast size and number of storylines I'm sure a similar solution will be considered, but for now my concern is for a "regular" cast section, only subsectioned by season.

I'm still trying to understand how the show it set up. From what I can gather just looking at the page, it looks like only 3 characters carry over, one being portrayed by a different actor (explained in the story as a new host body), while everyone else from season 1 has been replaced with new characters. I'm assuming that it isn't quite anthology based, so much as its Kovac, with his partners(?), with a new story that he's focused on for season 2?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I would just list the new main characters after the first main list. Forget about separating season 1 from season 2 for now. I don't know if it will get so complicated as American Horror Story. At some point you can consider whether or not to make a characters table or keep it as (season 1) (season 2-). But if you need a simple characters table you can see something like Torchwood#Cast AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I changed the character list format for Altered Carbon back to a more standard one, unaware of this discussion. CapnZapp made a bold change on [4/21/19 after opening a discussion on the talk page and getting no response. Bold is great, but in this case it was not an improvement (see my comments at Talk:Altered Carbon (TV series)#Structure). As a viewer of the show, I don't see a difference between it and Homeland, for example, a show which has changed most of the cast every season after S3 based on the main character's relocation. Altered Carbon is not an anthology series. The list was not confusing. We should not have two entries of the same character in a list because he/she appears in two seasons, which CapnZapp's version does. I don't believe that the MOS:TVCAST format "drowns" which actors and characters work together here, there are only 13 main characters across the two seasons and we are all used to seeing cast lists like the one at Homeland (TV series)#Cast and characters that illustrate cast transition. The fact that CapnZapp has to ask if anyone else has seen non-standard lists tells me it's not a common occurrence. We have variants in presentation but I certainly haven't seen any that diverge to the point of listing characters twice. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 16:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Notability and extent of aftermath sections

When should aftermath sections be applied to reality television shows/contests/seasons? It's clear that contestants move on with their careers, so what should be logged if anything, and how far past the finale date should it cover? Example: Produce 48#Aftermath Should it only cover activities that are broadcast within a show or a follow-up / reunion special? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

It should not be very long term, otherwise these pages become mini bio pages. If it is something covered in third-party sources in 3-5 years of airing, give or take, that's probably fine, but 10 or so years is outside the time-relevance of the show, outside unusual situations. --Masem (t) 23:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about passive and active language

I edit a lot of Netflix and other web television articles, and I've noticed a large trend of using passive language to describe the production and release of the series. This usually follows a format similar to this: it was announced that... or the official trailer was released or it was confirmed that.... In addition to the use of passive voice (and thus, less polished prose), there's also a missing subject. Who announced this, who released the trailer, etc. Usually the answer is Netflix, or Hulu, etc. Others have expressed a concern that, if I'm expressing their view correctly, phrasing it as Netflix announced that... or Netflix released the official trailer would require a citation saying that Netflix specifically did this. In reality, Netflix does this—like many media companies, they frequently issue press releases, and in fact, most reporting indeed follows these press releases.

Some example articles, as of this writing: It's Bruno!, Tuca & Bertie, Dead to Me (TV series), and a whole host of other Netflix series (though, I have occasionally changed this language on some of these articles).

Anyway, I think a lot of this usage is just following the existing format (i.e., copying/pasting/modifying from an existing article). Is there any reason to continue writing in this format? – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 18:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Including an image in the infobox, and plot length for episode articles

Can we get some opinions at Talk:Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones)#Image and tag? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)