Talk:The Chosen (TV series)

Article quality?

Does this page seem weird to anyone else? It seems like most of the content, while properly cited, is rather opinion based and not rooted in objectivity. VidAngel seems like a very sketchy website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsuibhne (talk • contribs) 04:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that the "sketchiness" of the VidAngel website has anything to do with the accuracy and relevance of the Wikipedia article. The article is comparable to other articles about TV film series. The sources are not all promotional. I think that "weird" is too subjective a term for retaining a critique of article quality. Gene B. Chase 15:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneChase (talk • contribs)

Under the reviews there is both the critical and the audience response. According to the Wikipedia MoS of TV and Film, there should only be the critical response. "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including its "Audience Says" feature), as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." I do not have permissions to change this article and it would be good if someone with permissions updated this article, thank you. CurrentlyResearching (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That's one of those things where there is some inconsistency across Wikipedia. What you're referencing is MOS:FILM. This article is for a TV show and follows MOS:TV. While the opinion is similar, Rotten Tomatoes is not expressly forbidden: "Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews" (MOS:TVRECEPTION). I'd be inclined to say leave it in at least for now. Butlerblog (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I should have referenced MOS:TV, thank you. However, I still contend that the audience score should not be included. "This means that IMDb, TV.com, and similar websites that give "fan polls" are not reliable sources of information." The goal of the reviews are to only include the critic reviews, and never include the general audience reviews for the same reason as in the MOS:FILM. Such as the TV Series House, only the critic reviews are included. "It holds a Metacritic score of 77 out of 100, based on ten reviews, indicating "generally favorable reviews". It also holds a 100% approval rating on aggregate review website Rotten Tomatoes, with an average score of 8.1 based on nine collected reviews." (If you follow the reference on the House article, it will take you to the archived page showing 100% based on nine reviews, and those nine are critics) I do not mean to say that the use of Rotten Tomatoes is incorrect, indeed the "Season 1 has a 100 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes from eight reviews" element is done well, however the audience scores are not considered critical reviews and so should not be used as stated in on Wikipedia Review Aggregator essay "Index of usable sources: Editors can visit Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to find film reviews that can then be used to illustrate critical reception. If a specific review is considered for inclusion, always ensure that it is a reliable source." CurrentlyResearching (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Doug_Weller has changed this and I believe this issue to be resolved.CurrentlyResearching (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

List of characters

Do other characters need to be recognized as Gwapong Chikoy states, or should we only list noteworthy roles of cast members? Many that Gwapong Chikoy are adding have an appearance at the start of one episode of the eight that have been aired. Their on-screen time is short over the approximately eight hours of the series, but they are recognizable characters (like Moses or Aaron Himelstein as the shepherd) while others appear briefly in several episodes (such as Zebedee) while others are clearly supporting cast (such as Mary, mother of Jesus, Quintus, Gaius, and Eden, Simon Peter's wife). Is there a logical cut-off or do we list all cast? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

other cast and characters should be take notice and recognized too.. not only just the main characters.. Gwapong Chikoy (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gwapong Chikoy: I have reviewed a few other articles and you were correct in adding more characters. I suspect that "noteworthy roles" references the actors' roles, and is not a limitation on which characters should be included. In other words, if a character has a main role, and appears as an extra in another scene as another character, that need not be mentioned. Thank you for your effort in this and please accept my apologies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:I think we may need to revisit this and possibly seek a consensus. There have been a lot of characters added, many of which are minor roles. Additionally, the distinction between what constitutes a "Main" character versus "Supporting" or "Special" is (IMO) a bit muddled. Speaking in the general sense, we have Main characters listed here who appear in only a couple of episodes (many of the listed disciples), or even Yasmine Al-Bustami who appears in only a single episode. Yet other characters that are main roles in every episode of Season 1 (such as Nicodemus) are listed as supporting or other. For a TV series cast list, this does not make much sense. Most of these should be "Main" and many of the "Main" should be moved to another category (at least for now - who knows what Season 2 will bring?). Additionally, as a TV show, there are going to be a great many minor characters. Are we going to list every single actor? That's not really the standard for TV series articles, nor is it necessary when there is a link to the IMDB page that contains the entire cast list. Yet that seems to be the direction this is going. I have done some initial re-ordering based on billing, but left the disciples in the "Main" list. However I think that, at least at present, characters like Nicodemus should be listed in the main case and most of the disciples as supporting. Butlerblog (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwapong Chikoy: I have reverted your good faith edits as they do not improve the article's listing of cast members. You indicated on one edit that you're "arranged a lot of info which are more accurate," but that's not actually the case. You're placing cast members who appear in a single episode (such as Mary) into top billing of "Supporting and recurring" while moving characters such as Kirk B.R. Woller, Brandon Potter, and Lara Silva who all appear in 6 or more episodes into "Special participation." This doesn't make any sense. I get that in the sense of the character's importance to the actual Bible, Jesus and Mary receive top billing. But this is a TV series, not the Bible, and the cast listing should be treated accordingly. If you disagree with this categorization, please make the case here and let's all try to come to a consensus. (So far, this is still a compromise because a number of the characters listed as "Main" should not be, and a number of "Supporting" should be in "Main", but let's start from where it is now.) Butlerblog (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

There have been a lot of questionable changes here I agree. Most concerning for me is all of the to be announced entries but I agree that the distinction between the major an minor characters is blurred. I even watched as the consensus made earlier on the two actors playing Big James, and now a third for the "second season". Character order and other issues. I appreciate the caretaker aspects that Gwapong Chikoy offers, but do question some of the edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: Special participation is in fact giving those characters credit in their works yet won't appear in the upcoming seasons. Because it is a "MULTI-SEASON SHOW", it indicates that some of the people who appear briefly will become significant such as Ramah. If you are a true researcher of The Chosen, you'll know this. But most of the revisions and research are based and were done by myself, in fact you are the one who spread and placed the cast in a wrong place. First, regarding the people who portrayed younger counterparts of the characters, I put the episode where they appear in order to show their significance yet it also shows that they can still appear; second, Ramah will be significant in upcoming seasons for she will join the group in season 2 and Mary is also a supporting character, it is confirmed that Eden won't appear in the upcoming seasons same as through with Yussif, but Quintus and Gaius will likely appear in season 2 but a portray a less important role: concluding in the fact that some cast in season 1 won't be around in upcoming seasons, signifying that some are in the category of special participation yet some people who are less significant in season 1 will have a larger role in season 2. (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwapong Chikoy (talk • contribs)

What about all of the TBA entries? Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwapong Chikoy: This is basing the order of the cast list on potential future events that have not happened yet instead of what is current and verifiable by reliable secondary sources, which is what Wikipedia requires (WP:RS). Stating that "most of the revisions and research are based and were done by myself" would tend to indicate that it is Original Research (OR) which runs counter to Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:NOR). Please provide a verifiable secondary source, especially for anything added as "TBA" or it will likely be removed as unsourced/unverifiable. Butlerblog (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It is understood that this is planned as a multi-season show (as mentioned above). However, just because it is planned (and even in production) does not mean it will happen that way, if at all. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:CRYSTALBALL) so it does not provide speculative information. Wikipedia has several style guides for information on how things should be presented and sourced. There is a style guide specific to TV shows, which this article needs to follow. In that guide there are standards for cast lists. There is leeway within those standards, but none-the-less, there are specific things that need to be adhered to and that is what I was trying to get to with the previous discussion. We need to work within the standards outlined in MOS:TVCAST for the cast list. I tried to start that process, but it was reverted. So I've re-started by removing the TBA/unreleased Season 2 cast (see new section below). But the list also needs to be reordered according to the style guide. Butlerblog (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I hate to beat a dead horse, but based on past occurrences in this article, it is obviously necessary to explain the reason behind some changes so that if anyone objects, we can discuss it. Based on MOS:TVCAST, there are really only 2 distinctions: Main and Recurring. The order should be based on the order in which they are credited (quoting the MOS: "The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list.") Additionally, this should only be two lists: Main and Recurring, and these should follow notability guidelines. That means characters that are in the show (currently!) for a few minutes of screen time should not really be included. Otherwise, we end up with a list a mile long of characters that, quite frankly, are not notable and will not have a large role in the show. As already noted, future seasons have not happened, so the list should (read: must) be based on what is currently out and available - not future, as of yet unreleased seasons. When characters and their categorization change, then they can be changed/moved. For example, based on what's out now, Ramah is clearly a "recurring" character (actually, not even that because she's only in a single episode), but as noted by Gwapong above, she will be taking on a larger role. When that happens (and only "when" it happens), she would be moved to the end of the Main list as new main character. That's how it works. Once we have three seasons to work with, it may be appropriate to use the "table" method of listing cast members as that will give a better visual for people who change from recurring to main and vice versa. But MOS:TVCAST states that's for 3 seasons or more. So... with all that explained, I will make an edit to the cast based on MOS:TVCAST. It's going to look vastly different. If (when?) someone objects to this change, please let's discuss to move forward. Don't simply revert and start an edit war. I believe I've stated clearly enough that the change is to fix things to be in line with MOS:TVCAST, not personal preference. Butlerblog (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gwapong Chikoy: and @Butlerblog:. I reverted additions by Gwapong Chikoy earlier and requested that a discussion ensue. Gwapong Chikoy's reason is truth while Butlerblog is requesting MOS:TVCAST be adhered to, most notably, "ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list" with main and recurring characters either identified or in separate sections. Please recognize the concerns of the other editor and attempt to address them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Walter for your efforts. I do believe Gwapong's edits were in good faith, and it was not my intent to drive them away. In fact, I reached out on their talk page to thank them for their effort, hoping to to be encouraging. They obviously put a lot of work into locating information for the article. However, as you and I both pointed out, future events are not encyclopedic; and no original research and reliable sources as important Wikipedia standards still have to be followed. I'd like to see MOS:TV followed where possible, but there's room for flexibility. Where there isn't room for compromise is throwing out NOR and simply putting in whatever we want, regardless of whether it is "true" or not. Butlerblog (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

After review of all 8 season 1 episodes casting, I made a slight change to the list based on the producer's "top billing" (opening credits). Kian Kavousi is actually credited for episodes 6-8, not 5-8 (IMDB lists otherwise, but IMDB is considered not reliable, and this change comes from the production credits). It is at episode 6 that the opening credits change to include Potter, Woller, Cairo, and Ross (previously all in the closing credits). We already had them in "Main" in that order. However, Ivan Jasso was also billed "Main." MOS:TVCAST isn't crystal clear on what exactly constitutes "Main." Does it make sense to say that "Main" is top billing/opening credits, while "Recurring" is closing credits ("Also starring")? That's how I'm approaching it at this point. Based on that, Jasso was moved to "Recurring" and I reordered the remaining recurring cast based on when they were billed in the closing credits (a minor change, but based on the past, I felt it best to explain the change). Butlerblog (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

:@Gwapong Chikoy:, @Walter Görlitz: and @Butlerblog:. With all due respect, Butlerblog and Walter Gorlitz, some of the cast deserve credits somehow! I agree to Gwapong Chikoy somehow, because the information which is applied before this is somehow not that reliable because of the fact that there are too many main cast and few recurring cast. Also, there are also some significant people who participated in a special way in giving the heart of The Chosen and that's why Gwapong Chikoy put a portion of Special Participation! Also, regarding in the guests, it was there because the guests like Moses and Jacob fill the emotional layout for the show's heart and that's why they are significant, PLUS, they are Old Testament characters and should be put there.This information is more relevant and Gwapong Chikoy didn't include the characters which are less significant and are only there to fill emotional gap for the main cast like Zohara, Barnabay etc. Search on your own and you'll found out that these are true. Look on IMDB, accounts of the cast in social media and etc. And the order of the cast and characters is misplaced, perplexing, confusing, erroneous and out of context. BUT, I agree with you in terms of only season 1 episodes will be there (EVEN THOUGH ALL OF GWAPONG CHIKOY'S EDITS REGARDING SEASON 2 ARE ALL TRUE), I won't agree to the order of the cast and Gwapong Chikoy must be followed. Additionally, can we switch "Background and production" with "Themes"? Because it is somehow relevant that after episodes, there must be the theme for it and then background. Just a friendly message. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustAnOrdinaryGuy41 (talk • contribs)

I understand what you are saying; but Wikipedia's Manual of Style for a TV series disagrees with you. Please see MOS:TVCAST. Regarding "And the order of the cast and characters is misplaced, perplexing, confusing, erroneous and out of context." - No, it's based on the actual broadcast credits, following the MOS which says: "The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list." The MOS serves as a starting point so that we have some general guidelines, otherwise we just have chaos with everyone working in opposite directions. The "Main" characters are top billing as determined by the producers (not by you or me) by the original broadcast credits. IMDB is not considered a "reliable source" by Wikipedia's standards, nor is social media (WP:RS). Please read the MOS:TVCAST carefully (in fact, read the entire MOS:TV). We can't move forward on other things until we're all on the same page. The MOS information is there for you to review and understand. If you're making edits outside of Wikipedia's guidelines, they're generally going to get reverted. Butlerblog (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Your edit of Kian Kavousi's episodes, please see the talk entry immediately above your entry. Kian Kavousi is credited for episodes 6-8, not 5-8. I realize IMDB lists otherwise, but IMDB is considered not reliable, and this change comes from the actual production credits. Butlerblog (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WP:CHECKUSER has determined that JustAnOrdinaryGuy41 (talk · contribs) is a WP:SOCKPUPPET of Gwapong Chikoy (talk · contribs), although behavioural evidence was fairly clear as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Struck their edit through - note he was pinging himself. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I kind of figured that was the case, but didn't want to assume. Thank you both for your efforts. Butlerblog (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

We should rearrange the list of characters due to the fact that there's a new cast involved. Just saying. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

And also, the list of cast and characters should be precise and are according to what is relevant, because the characters in the show right now have a lot of main cast with a few recurring cast. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Cast should not be "rearranged." It should follow standards in the Manual of Style. Please review MOS:TVCAST for how this is handled. "What is relevant" is what is in the show's credits. Main cast receives top billing (opening credits). Per the MoS, cast lists do not change - you only add to them - do not move or remove existing cast from season 1. Characters that were recurring in Season 1 should remain listed as recurring. If a season 1 recurring character is now billed as main cast for season 2, they are added to the main cast list at the end in order of billing, notated as season 2; they should also remain where they were in the recurring list, and notated as season 1. Butlerblog (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources

All material in any articles needs to be sourceable through reliably published sources. As this article is about living people, all information about them should be reliable sourced.

I don't think all the sources here meet WP:RS. For instance, tvfanatic.com, sec.gov which is a statement by the group behind this series, and there is community consensus that PR Newswire is generally unreliable, as press releases published on the site are not subject to editorial oversight. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. And the American Family Association, part of the Christian Right, isn't an expert on the media - or anything else except themselves. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I replaced the PR Newswire sources with (what I believe is) a more reliable source. I'll work on the others. Somewhere along the line this article took a turn towards being more a "fan page" than an encyclopedia article; but with a little work, I'm sure it can get moving in the right direction. Butlerblog (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I think citing the AMA is fine, as long as people are made known it is the AMA that is being referenced, but I also agree we need more sourcing, even now. TimGreenIsFine (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

TBA entries and unreleased season 2 characters

Regarding the TBA cast, those do need to come out, as do the unfinalized season 2 only cast. It isn't direct in MOS:TV but it is alluded that things not actually released yet should not be included, because although it is in production, it is not complete and is subject to change. Wikipedia is not a "fan site;" it's an encyclopedia, so it can only be based on what is verifiable. For the cast, that means what is complete and NOT what is in production ("Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" WP:CRYSTALBALL also applies here). Butlerblog (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

To address some of the issues in this article, I did some additional removal of season 2 material, specifically that episode tables. To clarify based on MOS:TV, season 2 hasn't happened yet. In fact, it's still just in the filming stages. That means anything can happen and/or change. To meet appropriate style standards for a TV series article, the season 2 table should not be included until it can be complete (which basically means once its released). Until then, it's just speculation of future events (which we don't do here). Butlerblog (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Financing

I removed the following paragraph from the "Production" section (which I'm pasting here in case we want to bring it back after reworking it for problems):

In October 2017, Eves and Jenkins formed a Utah-based LLC in order to "develop and produce an episodic television series entitled 'The Chosen' which is intended to be distributed through online video streaming services, television and home video." Jenkins received a 49% ownership interest in the Company in exchange for his rights to the story. In XX, Eves, Jenkins and others worked with an investment bank to raise $13 million in financing for the project.

Part of the problem with this is that I believe it makes things a little confusing. This is from the SEC filing so that equity could be given to investors participating in crowd funding (which is discussed in the paragraph that was after this). But it is worded in a way that makes it sound as if these were two separate equity raises. It also uses a primary source (the SEC filing - which is rather confusing if you're not familiar with these), and also is incomplete ("In XX, Eves, Jenkins and others..." In XX? When is that?) Maybe this could be reworked and reworded into the information about the crowd funding? If so, it needs a better source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butlerblog (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Scripture references

I moved the scripture references into a separate section in the "Themes" section. This makes the episode tables are now more consistent with the standard table (and IMO, easier to read), and second, it moves this information to "Themes" where it is more appropriate. These seem to be valid, but are technically unsourced. If anyone has source information that can source these that would be worthwhile. Any sourcing should be "show specific," though - not generic to the story being conveyed in the episode (Is it in the credits?). Butlerblog (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: Can we switch "Background and production" with "Themes"? Because it is somehow relevant that after episodes, there must be the theme for it and then background. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JustAnOrdinaryGuy41 (talk • contribs)

Yes, that follows MOS:TV and I have been moving that direction, just hadn't gotten to that yet because correcting the cast list (and previous reversions) has taken some time. Another section change (which I'll apply) is that the section currently labeled "Overview" should be "Plot" and should contain the episodes, followed by the Cast section, then Background (which should contain production information), then Themes. Butlerblog (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WP:CHECKUSER has determined that JustAnOrdinaryGuy41 (talk · contribs) is a WP:SOCKPUPPET of Gwapong Chikoy (talk · contribs), although behavioural evidence was fairly clear as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Identifying Date

Shouldn't the beginning of the article say "2017 television drama" instead of 2020, based on the release of the pilot, as IMDb does? Or 2019 as TMDb does, ignoring the pilot? brentbillings (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It should probably just say "television drama" (no date), as the series is continuing for a 2nd season, with crowdfunding already being done for a 3rd. Butlerblog (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Capitalizing articles

@Mr. Pekka Stranker: and @Butlerblog: The question about capitalization based on how the title was originally written are immaterial as MOS:THECAPS and MOS:CAPTITLE are clear that the definite article (the) is not to be capitalized on Wikipedia unless it is at the start of a sentence. The exceptions to this rule of style are few and so "Jesus Loves the Little Children" is correct while "Jesus Loves The Little Children" is not, even though it may have been written that way somewhere else. Wikipedia does recognize that there are other manuals of style that prefer that articles be capitalized, but when titles are placed in an article on the English project, we follow our own MoS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)]

@Walter Görlitz: Even it is stated in the Official The Chosen App? If it shouldn't be capitalized, then other words on other episodes are not to be capitalized too, like The Rock On Which It Is Built, wherein there's preposition, on, and it is capitalized. Explain that.

Did you read what Walter wrote above? "[T]he definite article (the) is not to be capitalized on Wikipedia unless it is at the start of a sentence." Your example of "The Rock..." isn't the same because "The" is the first word in the title. Aside from the fact that WP MOS would indicate it is not capitalized, the producer's site as well as the DVD for the episode in question uses a lowercase "t" - this is repeated in other locations as well, including IMdb and streaming services that have the series. Butlerblog (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia capitalization of titles excludes some words. Feel free to read the manuals of style and apply it correctly. If prepositions are to be excluded, then yes, change them as well. Definite articles are an easy one to catch. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: Yes, I read what Görlitz said! I'm just concerned with the appropriate episode titles of The Chosen. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 1:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You have a good grasp on the manual of style. Feel free to apply it correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Episodes

Regarding the episodes, is it necessary to create pages for each episodes for additional information? Just an opinion. And also, as season 2 is approaching this Easter Sunday, should we add the season 2 episode table? Because it is somehow necessary and the creator of The Chosen announced the release date of episode 1 of season 2 and the official titles for episodes 1, 3, and 4, with their scripture references. These are being done with other TV series pages here in Wikipedia, so it must be done also on The Chosen page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a season 2 table will be added as season 2 is released. There's a significant discussion of this above, but you could also refer to MOS:TVUPCOMING as a guideline. In fact, it's worthwhile to be familiar with MOS:TV in general. As far as creating pages for each episode, I don't think you'll find consensus for that. At this point, there is not enough to warrant multiple articles (at least in my opinion). The rule of thumb for multiple pages is 80+ episodes (see: MOS:TVEPISODELIST). Butlerblog (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not think an article per episode is required. We would only create one for each episode if there are a sufficient number of reliable sources to support them. An article for all of the episodes may be appropriate, particularly if the size of the section becomes uunweildy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the season 2 episode table should be added right now because it is somewhat necessary. As I said earlier, titles of episodes 1, 3, and 4 are announced as well as the release of episode 1. I can put down where the creator of The Chosen said those. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 1:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

And also, MOS:TVUPCOMING says, "When a series is renewed for an additional season, a section is not to be added for that upcoming season until such time as an episode table can be created for the season. The information regarding the renewal of the series should be added to the article's lead, depending on when and what info is revealed." So, it means that if there's an enough reference, then I could create a season 2 episode table. Additionally, it is neceassary because season 2 is about to be released. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 1:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the TV season requirements. Do they state that the sources must be present or WP:SECONDARY? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'm sure that the references I will post came from The Chosen itself. Those references came from YouTube, and as a matter of fact, YouTube links are relevant as external links. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 1:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

"Episode title, writers, directors, episode numbers, airdates, production codes, and viewership numbers must be reliably sourced, either from the opening/closing credits or from secondary sources." It can be primary if it's from the opening/closing credits. Otherwise, it should be a secondary source. The series' youtube channel does not meet either of those criteria. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site, a fan site, or crystal ball. We only record what has happened, not what will happen. It's not appropriate to add the Season 2 table until you can add the first episode, but if that's done before the information can come from the actual credits, then it needs to come from a reliable secondary source. Otherwise, just be patient. It's wonderful to be enthusiastic about the article; but please channel that enthusiasm and work within the scope of Wikipedia's guidelines. Butlerblog (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

On the plot summary for season two, Yes, we should keep it short, but the whole construct around "Andrew's friend in his hometown Bethsaida" was not working for me regardless of how you put it together. That was what I was trying to address. Then I read the full summary that Mr. Pekka Stranker had created and it was similarly awkward. The previous wording does not read well and is confusing. My wording may be too long, but it is (I believe) more clear. The question is how can we keep it clear and shorten it? Also, MPS, read MOS:PUNCT and stop using "curly quotes". You may not be doing so intentionally, but every one you add has to be removed by someone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Clarity is preferable to brevity. I think it would be better to scratch that part of the sentence (and others) anyway. It's not necessary for summaries to include every detail. If you read the summary without that phrase do you still know what happened in the episode? Of course; because it's not a detail the episode hinges on. That, along with other extraneous adjectives and detail, should be reviewed/edited. Butlerblog (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks like we're not going to get discussion from MPS though, and I just fixed another set of MOS:PUNCT insertions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I keep hoping, but realistically, I don't expect much from him other than continued reverts. I believe your note regarding WP:OWN is on target. Butlerblog (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It's your own perception. Now, all episode summaries are less than or equal to 200 words. I included the significant details and improved my summaries PLUS added the edits of other users such as the users who edited earlier. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's not set in stone. It's a goal. Would you mind stopping the WP:OWNership please. Your edits are less than ideal and you should really give other editors the opportunity to correct and improve what you have supplied. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

So I improved the summaries for now, and as you can see, the summaries have the edits of the other users. Other summaries lack very important details. And the number of words for each summary are: PILOT – 198 words, 101 – 188 word, 102 – 126 words, 103 – 126 words, 104 – 200 words, 105 – 199 words, 106 – 200 words, 107 – 186 words, 108 – 198 words, 201 – 200 words, 202 – 197 words, and 203 – 143 words. Also, other users remove the significant details and these opportunities are being used for a bland summary. I hope that we can all agree with this, I hope so. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

When you say things like "improved my summaries" as you did above, that's generally going to be perceived by other editors as a display of ownership (see: WP:OWNBEHAVIOR). But the issue at this point is more related to grammar, clarity, and detail. Please review MOS:TVPLOT, and note "Plot sections should summarize the core storyline(s), but not offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens." Plot summaries provide context - not a complete play-by-play of the episode. So if a detail is removed and you disagree, that is something for discussion - constant reversion just degrades into edit warring and does not benefit the article's quality. I'm inclined to agree with Walter about quality. Keep in mind regarding the content you've provided in the summaries: there isn't a writer in the world that should expect their work to be published without being edited. We're trying to improve the article for the sake of quality, not attacking your contributions. Butlerblog (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Release date of S02E02, "I Saw You"

Please change the release date of Season 2 Episode 2, titled "I Saw You," to April 13th, 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icourtofficial (talk • contribs) 07:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It will be changed when it actually airs, based on that actual date. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:CRYSTALBALL) and not a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWS). As such, we don't record future events that have not happened yet. Another way to look at those guidelines in terms of MOS:TV is that Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Yes, in all likelihood, the episode will be released as scheduled. But it's a future event, so you don't know that will actually happen. It could be pre-empted, there could be a system malfunction, a cataclysmic event could occur. Once it airs, then the "original air date" can be set. Butlerblog (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Episode summaries

Most of the existing summaries as of this mention are simply copied from the summaries used by the producers. Not only is this a potential copyright violation, it also is not how episode summaries should be handled in a TV series article. From MOS:TVPLOT: "Summaries copied verbatim from other sources can risk a breach of US copyright law," and "plot summaries may not be copied from elsewhere unless their license is compatible with Wikipedia use."

There have been some attempts (i.e. [1]) to start the process of improving the summaries, but those edits are continually reverted to a copied summary from another site (please see above paragraph). Rather than revert a legitimate edit, if another editor has issues with the details, then they should improve the edit rather than simply reverting the entire thing. But we need to start focusing on improving the article summaries so they aren't simply copy/pasted content from elsewhere. Butlerblog (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I recognized the problem immediately, but claims from Mr. Pekka Stranker‎ (talk · contribs) are that they are too similar to another source exist, so I'm stepping back for now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Butlerblog‎ (talk · contribs), Walter Görlitz‎ (talk · contribs), with due respect, I fixed the short summaries for now. Please, help me in organizing these, and I appreciate Pipadmilton's contribution, but mostly, those have wrong information, making this Wikipedia page not reliable. Yes, Pipadmilton didn't copy most of the information, but the user provided wrong spellings like Phillip and Nathaniel, the sentence, "Phillip arrives from Jesus’ cousin John, the Baptizer, whom he works with", the wrong flow of the plot, and etc. The key for these is helping each other out. Thank you, any arguments? Let's leave out the summaries I edited currently for awhile, for they are to be edit for the future. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 1:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

If there's a spelling error, then fix the spelling error. Similarly, if the sentence doesn't flow, then re-word it. These aren't reasons to undo an entire good faith edit. Additionally, for the reasons stated above, it's important that these summaries be descriptions of the episode plot, and not simply copied verbatim from other sources. Butlerblog (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Since you brought up spelling of names, we have to address the spelling of Nathanael/Nathaniel. Both are accepted spellings of the Apostle. If we're going to go with names like "Big James" instead of "James the Great" based on what is used in the show itself, then we need to go with the spelling used by the show. The problem is that the credits do not include the character names. IMDB does list the character as "Nathaniel," but IMDB is mixed in terms of being used as a reliable source. As far as cast lists go, it is "disputed" (see: WP:CITEIMDB). So a second secondary source would be needed to confirm. The only other place that could be deemed a reliable source where I have seen the character names is a CBN interview with Rabbi Jason Sobel, who serves as a consultant for the production [2]. The spelling used in the interview is "Nathaniel." Butlerblog (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Butlerblog‎ (talk · contribs), the scripture, the subtitles, and the series itself calls the name "Nathanael". These are primary sources, and can't be sources. Let's agree that these names, like Nathanael, Big James, and Little James, will be written as what the series calls and spells those names. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 1:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Fine. But to put this back on the original point, when someone makes a good faith edit and there's a spelling or grammatical error, that's not a valid reason to revert the entire edit. Just fix the error and/or improve the content. And when we're speaking of episodes summaries, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is no such thing as "official" summaries. That would indicate they are copied verbatim from the primary source (which I've already explained should not be done). They should be written as "out of universe" descriptions of what happens in the episode. The example given for MOS:TV is State of Affairs (TV series). While the MOS is a guide not a rule, the copyright issues do definitely fall into the "rule" category. Butlerblog (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The new plot summaries are good and a tremendous improvement! However, some are a little bit too long. Not that it's a hard-and-fast rule, but we want to try to keep plot summaries in an episode table to 200 words or less. See MOS:TVPLOT for guidelines. I've started to carefully trim them down somewhat simply for length. One thing to note is that it is not necessary to include every detail. A good guide for review is WP:PLOTSUM, specifically WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. Note that even with the edits I made, the summaries are longer than the recommended 200 words, so keep this in mind when reviewing edits. Again, the effort in writing these is appreciated, and they definitely improve the article. We just need to trim a couple of them a little bit. Butlerblog (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Butlerblog‎ (talk · contribs), I'm working on the summaries for season 1, episodes 6-8 and season 2, episodes 1-3. The flashbacks and flash-forwards are necessary for the flow of an episode, so if possible don't remove those. What must be done is trimming off a little bit BUT the relevant pieces of information have to be there. Be patient and also, watch the episodes of The Chosen if you didn't watch or watch it again, in order to understand the flow of each episode. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"The flashbacks and flash-forwards are necessary for the flow of an episode" - not necessarily. When they are critical to understanding the episode, sure. But if they are just extra backstory, they aren't critical. For example, the one I removed from episode 5 doesn't change understanding of the main plot synopsis; and thus, in this instance because of the length of the whole, it's better to remove it. It's simply not necessary to discuss every scene and every detail. Please review the guides I linked previously for reference. Butlerblog (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"Backstory" was the term I was searching for. Thanks. Agree with this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Something I probably should have mentioned earlier, the first instances of adding "flashbacks" to the episode summaries were items I put in there myself. Perhaps I set a bad precedent because now it seems impossible to get some editors to budge on excluding most of these as unnecessary. The ONLY reason I put in the ones I added was to list the "guest stars" (since those were being added to the cast list, which would be non-standard MOS:TV). In hindsight, maybe it would have been better to leave out the backstory part and just list the guests on a separate line, which is also OK. I'd like to address this in future improvements, but I believe things are still a little "hot" for the time being. Butlerblog (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Request to fix typo

The article currently states "Simon is forced to fish for work on Shabbat, leaving her wife Eden (Lara Silva) behind." This should read "leaving his wife Eden". Article is currently protected, so I can't do it myself. 71.48.30.166 (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Done Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's just I didn't notice as I write all of these summaries. Anyways, the request is being done by Qwaiiplayer and I really appreciate your efforts. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Scripture vs the show

For the sake of clarity on naming conventions, character background, and other such items, the only acceptable sources are what's in the series or what is in a reliable secondary/tertiary source discussing the series. Whatever the Bible says about the character is not of consequence unless it is specifically used/mentioned in the show. Any information about an actual historical figure or event that is drawn from the Bible but not the show belongs on the article about that actual historical figure or event (if it exists as an article, that is). Butlerblog (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you referencing the table with the separate episodes and scriptures? At the very least, the episodes should be placed in side quotes (by someone other than MPS because of MOS:PUNCT issues).

if not there, where are the scripture refs? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it was some of the fancruft in the character descriptions. For example, Little James was the son of Alphaeus.[3] That's information about "James the Less" from the Bible, but it's not mentioned in the show. Butlerblog (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In my original statement, I almost said something about "historical fiction," but was worried about people with pitchforks branding me a heretic; but that does set the context for my actual point. This is a work of historical fiction, and so the info about characters or names or whatever needs to be "in-universe" rather than drawn from scripture. So character details that are in scripture but not the show should not be in the article because the article is about the show. I suspect that's going to bother some people because they can't separate the two in their head. (I'm glad you brought up the scripture tables, though because those are going to need some attention. Since it's not related necessarily to this section, I'll hold off and put that into another section. I'm going to want your input though, so I'll ping you if that's OK.) Butlerblog (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

To reiterate this point, character names and spellings should be "in universe" — whatever they are within the show — not necessarily what they are in the Bible (or anywhere else these names may come up). The reason for this is that the article is about the show (and the characters of the show), not the "actual" people. While TV articles are written from an "out-of-universe" perspective, we are writing about "in universe" characters, places, and events. The spelling of "Thaddeus/Thaddaeus" for example - the only actual source I have seen this on IMDb, which, while not considered a citable source, it is a source that can be referred to. Unless there is a citeable source (specifically regarding the show, not the Bible) that indicates another spelling, then we go with "Thaddeus". ButlerBlog (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Overlinks and unnecessary snark

Please review MOS:OVERLINK and explain why terms that are commonly understood should be linked. In linking discussions we usually suggest that editors ask themselves, would a person think to themselves, "what's that thing, you know the occupation that Jesus had. Oh, I know, I'll go to the Wikipedia article on The Chosen TV series to remind myself and read about it because there will be a link to the term next to Jesus' name!" If you cannot seriously answer that question, then do not add a link. The only other reason one would add a link is if the term were unclear and it makes no sense to devolve into a discussion about it in the current article. Most links are never clicked once so there is no reason to add them. Links to avoid include, "everyday words understood by most readers in context" and "common occupations". "The purpose of linking is to clarify, not emphasize. Do not link solely to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect."

As for the unnecessary personal attacks, it is not about me (or any other editor) being satisfied. Our goal here is to make an encyclopedic article about this subject while maintaining manuals of style, and formatting so that this article will fit in with other well-written articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Scripture reference location and source

@Walter Görlitz: Last time I brought this up, we got derailed by sockpuppetry. I had moved the scripture references out of the episode list table about 500 edits ago. This was for two reasons. (1) They were in the heading row and some (with lots of refs) made that layout look messy, because it's not a standard column. And (2) I was hoping we could get to citing them. Since then, I've been thinking that a better way to display them would be as a line item just below the episode summary (in the same cell with a line break above separating it from the summary text). But before even going there, I feel like we need some basic level of citation, regardless of how they are displayed. Since they've been added uncited, no one presently knows whether it's OR or if they are from a primary source, and therefore they are not verifiable (in the Wikipedia sense of the term). I'm fine with a primary source, but we still need a cite for that. I don't think I'm OK with it being OR (as it is now). I hate to add a CN tag, but I think that's what I'll do for now so that hopefully someone comes along and applies some cites. Even if it's not an acceptable source, that might lead another editor to dig further on the trail and find one that is. (And this doesn't even consider the other possibility of removal as OR... not sure I want to go there for multiple reasons, one of which is that I think they're good content.) Sorry if this is overly wordy. Looking for input... Any thoughts? Butlerblog (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The scripture table is likely OR, or at least most of it. Some scriptures are directly supplied in the opening sequences, but we should probably have them all sourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. They started with Gwapong, so I'm sure the s1 are all OR, and that seems to have continued into s2. Recommendations from Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment support (1) moving the scripture references into the episode summary as a note below the summary, and (2) definitely having them sourced ("this needs a reliable source because it's a non-trivial inference from the plots"). I'm going to begin with moving them into the episode tables as described, and if you have objections to that, let me know. I think it will clean things up quite a bit. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mr. Pekka Stranker: Are you planning to add sources for the scripture references, or will you be removing them? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel like some headway has been made, but it opens up the need for some additional clarifications. Patheos is considered an unreliable source and is treated as self published since it is a collection of blogs. So while I appreciate the effort to cite the existing scripture references, the source is IMO inadequate for the long term. Rather than remove the source as unreliable (which it is), I've tagged them as needing a better source and hopefully someone can provide one. I'm open to discussion on that, but keep in mind that the article most certainly will not achieve "Good Article" status (WP:GACR) with Patheos as a source, and likely would be an instant fail to make it past the current "C-class" rating. (Note this doesn't address the Season 2 additions that Walter mentioned. So that's still considered to be in question. Also, if someone removes the OR (or any other) cleanup banner, a supporting reason needs to be noted in the edit summary.) ButlerBlog (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Watching the season two, episode five live-stream this evening (after it aired) I saw that the producer was promoting devotional books based on the two seasons ( https://thechosengifts.com/collections/best-sellers/products/bound-devotional-book and https://thechosengifts.com/collections/best-sellers/products/the-chosen-devotional-book-2). I suspect that the verses could be in there, but otherwise, it's hard to imagine where they would be coming from other than WP:OR (or obvious associations). Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that because yesterday I was looking at those exact same books wondering if they might be useable. I loaded the sample on my kindle and it seems to be more specifically a devotional and doesn't necessarily hit the plot sections we'd be looking for. I'm hopeful that we can find a reasonable source (preferably one that is not specifically a "do not use" on WP:RSP. It may be that Jenkins mentions something in his video streams, which would be fine, since a primary source saying "this is the scripture that inspired the episode" is actually exactly what we're looking for and for TV or film would better than a secondary source. It's just going to be tedious to locate that (if it exists). ButlerBlog (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Origin of characters

The origins of the subjects in most cases is not relevant. The fact that Cephas, Matthew, the Sons of Thunder, and Andrew are all from Capernaum is somewhat significant. Nicodemus may or not be from Jerusalem, but the story (and scripture) places him there at this period (c. 30 AD). Most of the other fine details are not relevant in the character list but may be relevant in episode summaries. KISS principle applies and there is probably a MoS about it somewhere as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I concur. It only needs to be enough to say who they are; otherwise, it becomes unreadable. As for MoS, MOS:TVCAST notes "a brief description of the character." Stating that another way would be "Does not need to be every relationship the character has." This is true of the episode summaries as well (for which there is good, additional MoS and suggestions which also stick to KISS) - stick to the key points. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, Walter Gorlitz, I will let you with removing Ramah's origin!! But Butlerblog, regarding Simon Z.'s relationship with Jesse, it's significant since it's how he is introduced in the show and his relationship with his brother will give light to his character and its information. Simon Z. and Jesse as brothers are relevant for the upcoming episodes. I hope you two understand this! Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 1:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm deeply concerned with this statement. First, you make it seem as though this is a game. You win one round and so you let someone else win another. Editing on Wikipedia is not a WP:GAME. Most things are done for reasons of common sense. Keeping the cast of characters short is important, so much so that it is advised. Keeping the plot summaries short is also important and advised. While I appreciate that you want to keep the subtle nuances of the program in the cast list and summaries, you have to recognize that the level of detail in the current iteration is unusually high for any series. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

If that's what you see then fine, but I'm not treating this as a game like what you've said, as I am also an editor wanting to give appropriate info. I agree with you regarding this matter, with just few exceptions, but how you handle, how you bring it and how this is being carried out are what must be concerned, Gorlitz. As of now, I perceive that each detail of cast are all relevant for it greatly addresses each character. However, all have to do better and having these discussions are somehow fine. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Let me put this plainly, @Mr. Pekka Stranker:: Of the editors involved, the present consensus view is that many of these details are not relevant to the character description. It's important to understand these positions are based on Wikipedia's guidelines and Manuals of Style, not personal opinion or feeling. You have not given a single reason supported by guidelines or MoS, in which case it is not likely to find support or consensus among other editors. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I added Jesse as a recurring since like Atticus, he will be significant for season 2 to be included as a recurring character. I hope you agree with that. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

He is not currently a recurring character, so no, I do not agree at this point in time. Once he is, then it makes sense to add him. Remember, Wikipedia is not "forward looking" - we don't report news, and we do not act as a fan site. See WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. Unless it is verifiable by a reliable secondary source, then consider it "original research" (which you will see noted as "OR"), which we do not do here. See: WP:NOR. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you want to report on what's new, hot, and upcoming, then participate in a fan site or a blog. Encyclopedic entries are just verifiable facts, ideally from secondary sources. Let me emphasize - this is where it stands now. Obviously, if/when someone becomes a recurring character or is added to top billing credits, then it's time to re-evaluate that. But MOS:TV and MOS:FILM expect that we not be speculative (i.e. listing what has not actually happened yet), even if the producers say it is so because it can always be changed before it actually happens. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your position. Your response is reassuring.

While you may see that each detail of cast are relevant as you have supplied them, can you appreciate that other editors do not? With the MoS we have (MOS:TVCAST) I suppose the details could be greater, but I will point you to two paragraphs from the MoS:

A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a "recurring" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status.

Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary; instead, focus on real-world information on the characters and actors (this could include, but is not limited to, casting of the actor or how the character was created and developed over the course of the series). The key is to provide real-world context to the character through production information, without simply re-iterating entertainment websites such as IMDb.

My preference is for few details in the cast list and anything else relevant in the post summary. Eden and Nicodemus, in my opinion, have the right level of detail. Simon is a bit too detailed. Philip is far too detailed. Recognize that many of these characters are known from the gospel narratives and most of them are linked, so extra detail can be seen there. Where the story embellishes on the biblical narrative, that should be addressed in the plot summary (or just left to the viewer, rather than the reader, to discover). Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Jesse's relationship with Simon Z. is important. Even though it is addressed in the summary of s2ep4, it's still needed for the character's detail. Jesse may not be a recurring character, yes, but we should address him as Simon Z.'s brother. Simon Z.'s info lacks one detail about him which is pretty significant for him as a character and that is his relationship with Jesse as a brother, and removing it is like removing something important for the overall information of Simon.

MOS:TV says, "By contrast, the average reader is probably not going to know who every member of Chloe Sullivan's family is, so it would not be essential to list them all. On the other hand, the average reader probably knows who Lois Lane is, and listing her as Chloe's cousin would be essential to understanding the character."

It's similar for this matter, Butlerblog. Görlitz, it's not too much DETAILED since the other unnecessary details are already removed yet all current details are somewhat necessary. Nevertheless, for now, all character details are brief as I see the information fits each cast. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mr. Pekka Stranker: The MoS you've quoted is specific to what you put in an {infobox} for a character article, which is not what we're talking about here. It is clear from the above discussion that current consensus is to not include this information. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Responding to @Walter Görlitz:'s last comment - I agree on the level of detail you noted. I am trimming some down based on what we have discussed. If you have comments on my changes, let me know. @Mr. Pekka Stranker:: due to your previous disruptive edits, if you disagree with the changes, please refrain from making any changes and instead bring it up in discussion here, since clearly consensus is to trim these down somewhat. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the environment, I thought seriously about holding back on this next item. But then after some consideration, I felt that since it related to current character discussions, it was best to just move forward with it. Current assessment of the page from WikiProject Television has moved the article from stub to C-class. There are some very specific recommendations made towards moving it forward to B-class, one of which is addressing the massiveness of the cast list. The length of the main cast was questioned, but given that it is based on those so credited, the recommendation is to remove the list of recurring characters. We are noting characters and the actors portraying them in the episode summaries anyway, so this information is readily available. Before making this change, I'll leave things open for input from any other active editors, but I think we should move forward with the recommendation given. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be a good solution, and if the project suggested it, it is less likely to have push-back from them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll go ahead with that change, noting that it's based on article assessment. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: AND @Walter Görlitz:, I FINALLY DECIDED TO AGREE!! However, I added the only detail of Andrew being a friend of Philip from his hometown Bethsaida in episode summary, and it doesn't exceed the 200 words rule. The article as of now is relevant. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Change to lede

The current lede states it "is a television drama based on the life of Jesus Christ". That's not the case, it is based on the life of his disciples during his ministry. That seems to be what VidAngel is pushing: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_chosen/s01 . We should probably rework it based on what RSes state the series is about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Dallas Jenkins himself said that, "The Chosen is a TV series and a multi-season show about the life of (Jesus) Christ." Based on the Gospels, the first paragraph of the article already states: The series portrays Jesus "through the eyes of those who met him". I don't see the need to change it, since it's already stated, making it redundant. However, I want to know your perceptions. Mr. Pekka Stranker (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Well... the first two cited sources say "TV series that depicts the life of Jesus Christ," and "multiseason show about Jesus". However, that being said, I would tend to agree that that description doesn't really give the full picture. It's not really "the life of Christ" so much as it is his 3 years of ministry. Even the show's title would tend to indicate it is about his disciples. The lede should really be expanded anyway, so it probably makes sense to revise this with some additional color. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't find that Jenkins quote, but the Fox reviewer is clear. IMDB, which is not a RS, focuses only on the characters: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9471404/ and https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_chosen/s01 has the same summary, so I can assume this is from VidAngel. https://wng.org/podcasts/review-the-chosen-1620357581 has a summary: "The second season of the streaming series about Jesus and his disciples is even better than the first".

My primary desire for change came when I Googled the title from my work computer and, as was expected, our lede was prominently displayed by Google on the right side of the results page. We need to clean it up for that very reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with a beefier lede with more insight (as it then lends itself to expanding the other areas of the article, since anything in the lede should be a precursor to expanded info in the article). So to be clear, I'm good with a rewrite. But the show itself does seems to be promoting itself as "a show about the life of Christ." I hit the Google, too; and some of the top results are the show's facebook page, the search result of which says "The Chosen is the first-ever multi-season series based on the true stories of the gospels of Jesus Christ" and the show's youtube channel, which says "WHY A TV SERIES ABOUT JESUS?" So probably a "both and" approach would be good. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Acclaim?

I know that the limited number of reviewers have praised it, but the limited number of reviews is more telling than the praise the few give. I suggest we make this clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I would agree adding that to the lede as worded is dubious. On a related note, one of the comments on the assessment was that the "Reception" section "is a start but we shouldn't cite Rotten Tomatoes with such a small sample size, as there's too much variance for the statistic to not be false precision—instead." He suggested that we look through the reviews RT lists and, of the Wikipedia-reliable ones, read them and summarize some of their major points in the section. I think an expanded/enhanced/reworked "Reception" section would lend itself to giving a summary of that info in the lede. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Great idea on the RT review as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• 1Z-Disciples2.jpg (discussion)
• Dallas Jenkins.jpeg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Cast and Characters

How can we tell that someone is a recurring character? In addition to the cast list is based on MOS:TVCAST in which I recently contributed in organizing, it seems that there are a lot of characters not included who are significant for the show in the long run but should be considered as recurring (as the main cast are credited on the opening credits), hence, it's necessary in some way that the cast and characters should be splitted in main and recurring as stated by MOS:TVCAST, "It may be appropriate to split the cast listing by "Main" and "Recurring" cast or characters. If the series is long-running, and has a large number of recurring guest stars, it may be better to create a separate list of characters articles (see below for style guidelines on "List of ..." pages)." What should we do in this matter? Loki Variant (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Loki Variant Perhaps not enough seasons for that yet. Season Three is not fully released as of this writing, but I would suspect that most characters we saw in Season One will persist for the rest of the series. TimGreenIsFine (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Long standing consensus on this article through both discussion and editing has been that if a character is in only 1 episode in a season, they are a guest in that season. 2-3 (or more) would qualify as "recurring". Main cast is inclusion in the opening credits. Because there is significant change from season to season (so far), we've kept that to a single list. (It was originally two - main and recurring - but there was significant editing disagreement as well as the fact that there was only one season at that time.) At this point, it is waaay too early to consider a separate list article - there is simply not enough content to warrant that. However, as discussed previously in this talk page, it's probably time to consider using the cast table display method. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Questionable and Unethical Production Tactics

While This Show has Inspired Millions who watch on screen, behind the scenes has few concerned about the unethical "creative accounting" methods used by select few in the Production Office; For instance, The Chosen has spread accounting out into many different LLC's. Such as... "Chosen" LLC, "The Chosen" LLC, " The Chosen Texas LLC. Which has exposed that the amount of money raised by the Audience isn't completely accounted for, having some suspecting in doing this One LLC will have a $10,000,000 cap and lowest possible wages to some of the hard working crew, and Unjust Standards based on statements like "We don't have the budget" while that may be true, another LLC. May have in excess over $50,000,000 for building sets on location amongst other things. However, The Unit Production Manager, Production Office Coordinator, and a couple of The Producers Have time and time again shown to be disloyal, unethical, and flat out greedy. The most upsetting part of these frustrations is that, This is a TV Show about God, Love, and Compassion but rarely is any of that found regarding some of the Higher Ups in this Production. Perhaps it's clever and a smart way to make Money and It seems to help the masses that watch the show, but some of these practices seems contradictory to the very core of the meaning of The life of Jesus Christ. 2600:100C:B206:8FEB:7D78:8DBF:C4C2:3F6D (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, WP:NOTAFORUM to air unsupported speculative grievances. If you don't have a reliable and citable source, then it's not worth discussing. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Like what ButlerBlog said above, you have zero reliable sources and thus no evidence. Please read WP:ORIGINAL and WP:NOTFORUM. Wolfquack (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Fantasy

This show is not a "historical drama.". It is fiction based on Christian myths. Calling it a historical drama is akin to calling the Loki TV series an historical drama. It is a disservice to the wiki that it's allowed to be called this. 168.149.232.78 (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Based on the definition of the genre, I'd say it meets those requirements. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

No one asked for an atheist troll to whine about his personal beliefs, and please read WP:NOTFORUM. Wolfquack (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@168.149.232.78 Uh, yes it is! History Channel has had a number of them; they're not accurate, but they include things that happened in the past. Same for this show. TimGreenIsFine (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

So this has come up yet again (Cannot be considered "Historical" when it recounts an unverifiable story based on sectarian scripture[4], The designation "Historical" is inappropriate in this context. The series portrays the doctrinal scriptures of a religion, the stories of which are not considered to be historical outside of attested followers of the religion[5]). So to be clear... by definition, the "historical drama" genre includes works of historical fiction. Regardless of where you fall on the myth vs real continuum, it fits the definition of the genre. Genre is indifferent to historical accuracy. Besides, works that seek to portray historical accuracy fall under the "docudrama" or "biographical drama" genre. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we need some criticism

As much as I like the show, I think citing sources that would expose some of its issues might be needed in order to give this article a fair balance on both sides of the spectrum. Not everyone who watched it liked it, and it has had issues during production that aren't even mentioned. TimGreenIsFine (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Well that goes against WP:NPOV and WP:ORIGINAL. NPOV is not a balance, (read WP:BALANCE) articles must not take sides, but should show the mainstream consensus. You have not provided or cited any sources describing the criticism thereof. While I do know not everyone liked the show and criticized it, you CAN NOT say there is without citing it. Trust me I learned this myself. Wolfquack (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wolfquack I'm confused, didn't TGIF suggest finding sources? The mainstream consensus(not sure what that means now that I type it_ should be shown but if there is significant criticism, even if most sources are positive, they can be used. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t deny there is criticism of this show (and I agree that the negative reviews be presented). But the TGIF didn’t provide the sources so I assumed this was OR. Wolfquack (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

But without doubt I believe criticism should be presented if there is RS to back up the claim. Wolfquack (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ll probably search for a few to add to the article, although it’d be quite tricky considering the positive score on Rotten Tomatoes. Not saying that means there is not criticism whatsoever, but since it has the top Critics it would be difficult. Wolfquack (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@TimGreenIsFine: Do you have any sources that mention this? ButlerBlog (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That is what I was concerned with, but I did want to give this user a fair shot, although (as shown below) I haven’t found a lot besides the Atlantic. Wolfquack (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Number of viewers - do we use religious sources or the recent analysis requested by the producers?

This should be a no-brainer. [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/25/us/the-chosen-jesus-streaming-tv.html Jesus Christ, Streaming Star] in the New York Times 2 weeks ago says "Globally, 108 million people have watched at least part of one episode of “The Chosen,” according to an analysis prepared at its producers’ behest by Sandy Padula, an independent consultant.". Doug Weller talk 09:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Perhaps we should maybe bring this to Butlerblog since he’s been working pretty hard on the article for a admittedly long time. Wolfquack (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Good point, Doug. I condensed all the "by this date, x viewers, and by this date... etc" into one sentence sourced by the NYT. In reviewing the existing text, somewhere along the line sources went from "200 million views" to "300 million viewers". Those are two very different things, the latter being questioned since the NYT article gives the data from an independent consultant hired by the producers. So my guess was it was "terminology drift" leading to an inaccurate picture. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. Without doubt views and viewers are separate. Maybe perhaps the box office be a tool? I believe the NYT or some other mainstream source mentioned the jack in the box office. I’ll look for and along with the suggested criticisms (as you can see in the discussion above) to see if I can find any validation in general for a lack of better words. Wolfquack (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Butlerblog Thanks. It's good that the producers did this. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for pointing out that NYT article - definitely useful to maybe update some of these other sections. When the show started, it was largely and "underground" production, so there weren't a lot of good "mainstream" sources. BTW, I hope you're feeling well these days and are getting back to some semblance of "normal" as much as you are able. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Butlerblog Thanks. Trying to build up my strength through walking but this past week am having serious problems with calf muscles and can't do any outside walking, seeing a physio Monday. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I also bring my condolences to you as well Doug, I hope your health gets better soon. Wolfquack (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Found a couple suggestions of criticism

@Doug Weller Ok so I have found some criticism of the chosen, including those that are in the positive reviews themselves. I’m very bad at adding references (it’s humiliating but it is the truth) so I’m going to do my best.

So first is a true validation of criticism, which comes from the Atlantic. In general it praises many of the performances and the financing, but slightly criticizes that it’s practically invisible to secular audiences with the majority being the converted. Also there is Commonsense media which while it undoubtedly praises many aspects, does critiques “lack of diversity”. I know that sounds incredibly dumb considering it is more diverse than most christian media, but its still reproof nevertheless. Although I couldn’t find anything else outside of present time. I’ll keep looking though. Wolfquack (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC) Wolfquack (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wolfquack: Commonsense isn't something we'd normally include in an article under WP:WikiProject Television. When it comes to criticism or reviews, we generally only include what comes from "professional" critics. Commonsense is an audience review and those can swing wildly and are not generally considered to be citable as there is no editorial oversight, thus they are subject to "gaming the system". Maybe look at MOS:TVRECEPTION before you go too much further. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Butlerblog Wow I didn’t catch that with Commonsense! Thanks for pointing that out guys. Wolfquack (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with ButlerBlog that community reviews are not reliable sources. I did add the review from the Atlantic to the Reception section. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks (: Wolfquack (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

OK SO I GOT SOME “NEWS”

I have found this article from a critic that was featured on Rotten Tomatoes by the name of “Rachel Wagner”, the source may appear to be a bit to “blog-ish” to be considered reliable, but it’s considerable. Quote as follows:

“As far as flaws, the pacing of the series won’t be for everyone but my main problem was with the dialogue. While I admire the storytelling and plotting of the script there are times where the conversation feels a little too modern for its setting and characters. This is particularly the case in the scenes with Matthew as the Roman characters surrounding him are too glib and American sounding. Most of the time I was able to ignore it but sometimes it did take me out of the show.”

I’ll let the “pros” be the judge of this, I honestly can’t tell whether to include or exclude. Wolfquack (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC) Wolfquack (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a blog and would not qualify as a reliable source (self published blogs are generally panned as qualified sources). And user ratings from Rotten Tomatoes (or metacritic, or IMDb) are to be avoided. These aggregators are subject to vote stacking and other such manipulation. I think RT was used in this article early on because there was very little content available, but now that the series has matured and received more mainstream coverage, there are plenty of better sources (such as the Atlantic article mentioned here). There's more on MOS:TVRECEPTION, which covers what is and is not OK. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Butlerblog thanks for the input, I’ll be honest RT has started to become less reliable as the years have passed as it’s now taking it’s reviews of shows from personal blogs. Maybe it should be changed in WP:RSP at some point to “yellow” considering it has used several blogs to complete it’s critic consensus. Although I believe I should add that it wasn’t a user review but from the critic page itself. Not that it necessarily changes anything though. Wolfquack (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Spit the episode/season section?

I didn’t see this at first, but after looking through the article I realized that this show has nearly four seasons at this point. I think we should divide it to a separate article so it won’t fall into the “TL;DR” category if you know what I mean. I’m not familiar on what the requirements are to make the episode/season section a disunite article, but seeing it has quite a few seasons perhaps we do so? Wolfquack (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

There is actually a standard for making that decision: MOS:TVSPLIT. At this point, the article doesn't meet this standard. In fact, I recently nominated the season 1 and 2 articles for deletion as they don't conform to this standard and a split was never discussed. They are exact duplicates of information already included in the main article (this one), with nothing additional beyond that. Per the WP:WikiProject Television guideline, There should be real world content to accompany any additional split that is not simply a duplication of the main page's content. But I digress... IMO, there's not enough at this time to warrant a list article for the episodes either. The current article is very small in terms of readable prose (13k) and there are only 26 episodes at this time, not enough to justify a list article. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok I can see that, thanks for sharing that link to the subsection on MOS. Since 50-60 eps are needed to divide the section and article, I can definitely see (since the show will without doubt be on air for a while due to its popularity) when it gets to about the fifth season that I (or someone else) can begin developing the article and publish it when it gets to the sixth-seventh season, because by then it would meet the formers criteria. Although if it gets cancelled I’ll have to reluctantly discard those ideas. Wolfquack (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the Season pages be deleted, I’ll go over there to see if I could “vote” on the article, or at best give some input. Wolfquack (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting this discussion rather than starting a new one. As noted elsewhere, I'd like to get this article to WP:GA status. Working towards that, the article has been expanded quite a bit in the last couple of months, now at around 3500 words of readable prose (w/o the episode summaries). Without the cast list and episode lists, it's at about 22k. Add in 1k for each episode summary (and assuming a summary for the remaining season 3 episodes) plus the cast list and we're probably around 45k - close to the recommended split threshold noted by MOS:TVSPLIT. One of the recommendations from the most recent assessment was to go ahead and split a list article for the episodes. Because we're right at the threshold meeting the MOS guideline, and seeing that it was recommended in assessment, I'm going to WP:PROSPLIT an episode list article, as discussion is not needed. However, since this discussion also brought up the season episodes, I want to note that we are still a long way from needing to split season articles. There simply is not enough content at this point in time to warrant individual season articles. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Previous editing consensus re cast status

Long standing consensus on this article through both editing and discussion is that a character who only appears in a single episode in a season is a "guest" in that season. Inclusion in the opening credits was the primary standard for "main". As for "recurring" we generally have considered 2-3 episode appearances in a season as recurring. As such, Judas was "guest" cast for season 2. He only appears in a single episode. Also note that per the MOS:TVCAST, status of appearance can vary from season to season, so they may be a guest in one season but main cast in another (as would be the case here). ButlerBlog (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

As per the MOS:TVCAST, in addition to cast order, if Judas, who appeared only in season finale of season 2, will be considered as guest star, then Mary, Thomas, and Ramah should be considered as guest stars for season 1 seeing that they're only in one episode specifically in episode 5, as well as Eden as guest star in season 2 as appearing only in season finale too. Radiant Fellow (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Radiant Fellow: You're right - I must have been putting season 1 and 2 together in my head and I didn't look at it closely enough the first time. Ironically, I remember that in between season 1 and 2, I was pushing for that very same point and was getting pushback because they had a larger role in the as yet unreleased season 2. Honestly, your shouty caps edit summary was a distraction from what you were trying to say, so while that "miss" was on me, you could help avoid that in the future by engaging in discussion and using a less confrontational approach. Also, when there's a disagreement under discussion, don't just put it back to the state you think it should be until discussion has concluded and consensus is determined (see WP:BRD for the best approach). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Source review

When this article started, there was very little available in the way of "mainstream" sources. Most of the coverage was in what would be best described as "religious" media. There's nothing inherently wrong with using those sources, especially for things that are simply factual, such as "where" and "when" or attributed quotes from those involved. But now that there is more mainstream coverage such as NYT and The Atlantic, it may be a good time to look over the existing sources and determine what might be replaced with a better source. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Cast in lead and infobox

An article lead and infobox should contain the principal cast, not an entire repeat of the cast list. In some shows that list is very obvious because the main cast is clear (and small). Unfortunately, this is one of those shows where there is a very large cast, and the principals have differed from season to season (although that may not be the case from here on - we don't know). Generally, principal cast are going to be top billed cast - in this show, that is cast members who are listed in the show's opening credits individually. It should be that way for the lead and the infobox. The article cast list is a little more complicated, so I'll open a separate discussion for that. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Cast in article

The size of the cast is somewhat problematic for displaying a cast list. There are a lot of moving parts as some characters shift from season to season. That was the reason for making a single list rather than splitting "main" and "recurring" lists. This was discussed above (and if I can find it, I'll revise this with a quick link). It was also discussed that due to the complexity, it would be a good idea to use the table display method. Generally, that should wait until there are 3 or more seasons, but someone put one in, it was worked on, and then someone removed it. Where it stood prior to removal is this edit: [6]. Note that using the table method is an "either/or" proposition - either we use a list or we use the table. It should not use both. But if a table is used, sections of prose can be used for describing the cast/characters. House (TV series) and Grey's Anatomy are good examples of how to approach this, and that's how I'd recommend approaching it. Ultimately, the cast display is one of the things that is going to either hold the article back or move it forward in terms of evaluating it as B-class or higher (see assessment discussion below). ButlerBlog (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Assessment discussion

The article is presently independently assessed as C-class by members of WP:WikiProject Television, and after hundreds of additional edits, there isn't any current improvement to the article since that assessment that would move it closer to B-class. I'll explain why shortly, but I want to point out that we should all be working towards getting the article to GA status so it can be a featured article. But that's going to take effort on the part of everyone to work collaboratively using established guidelines. Constant instability due to edit warring is an immediate fail for GA criteria. Since this article tends to attract new, inexperienced editors who are passionate about the subject but who are often unfamiliar with how article assessment works, it would be good for you to review the guidelines here: WP:ASSESS. You can view the Television Project's assessment criteria and discussions here: WP:TV/A. Let me point out that the majority of current editing I see on this article does nothing to improve it for assessment. Much of the focus in the past has generally been on "list" detail (cast and episodes) which really don't matter much for assessment, other than being complete. It is the other sections of the article, such as production and response sections, that need much more work. That is also why I have mentioned in separate discussion why it is important to not split this article. Inexperienced editors see shows with separate season articles and list articles and think that's what should happen here, too. But there are specific guidelines and criteria for that process (see MOS:TVSPLIT) and this article doesn't meet any of them (and probably won't for a while). What I'm trying to point out is that if you split this article too soon, you'll end up with a bunch of C-class and lower articles that will never stand a chance of making GA assessment and will never be a featured article. Focus on building out the content that matters first. If you're really trying to be part of the project in terms of making this a GA/featured article, stop looking at other low grade articles as your example and instead look at examples of ones that have made it to that point. Here are some examples of what you should try to emulate: Featured Article (FA): House (TV series), A-class/Good Article (GA): Grey's Anatomy, B-class: Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That doesn't mean "do it exactly this way" - but those are examples of what we're working towards in terms of assessment. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Update/addendum to the above: I previously said the article hadn't made much progress towards B-class since its last assessment. I want to walk that back a bit, as a further review would suggest that it's farther along than I previously thought. The article structure is fairly complete with the key sections used by MOS:TV, which is B#3. Likewise, there is good coverage of available information: B#2. For the most part, I think it could meet most of the criteria for B-class with a little copy-editing and improvement of sources (see The Chosen (TV series)#Source review above). ButlerBlog (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox network/distributor

Per the docs for Template:Infobox television, the network and distributor parameters are the "original". So even though there has been some change in this regard (VidAngel => Angel Studios), that needs to be reflected. We are an encyclopedia, not a fan site or IMDb, so our information reflects "what was" not "what is". So these need to be reflected probably as a plainlist with dates indicating the years. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Pay It Forward

I feel a little sheepish because this is a very small and technical issue—not substantive—but I would like to get consensus on how to structure "pay it forward" within the article. The Chosen's pay-it-forward page on angel.com seems to treat it like a proper noun by capitalizing it with no hyphens and no double quotes. However, I don't put too much stock in that; that is, I don't think there was a meaningful consensus made by the writers or editors or whoever. In any case, I absolutely don't think double quotes should be used. I think it should be either capitalized as a proper noun or hyphenated (I lean heavily toward hyphenated):

the Pay It Forward model or the pay-it-forward model

Thanks for the thoughts. Scapulus^takk 20:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Since we have our own style guide, we adhere to that regardless of what another site may (or may not) do. I don't think the case can be made to capitalize it, and where it is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, it is not capitalized nor hyphenated (although it should be noted, not everything within the WP sphere is always following our own manual of style, so just because something exists here doesn't mean it's done correctly). I could support quotes or no quotes, but definitely not capitalized and probably not hyphenated. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I do understand that we have the WP:MOS, but as far as I know, there is no entry for "pay it forward." That's why I brought up the angel.com usage. If it had some sort of official usage within the company, then I would give credence to that (again, in the absence of any official entry in WP:MOS). Thank you for bringing up Pay it forward. That is useful. However, it refers generally to the concept of paying it forward and not to the treatment of the phrase as an adjective. There are, currently, five instances of "pay it forward" within the article's running text. The first is using the phrase generally, in which case I don't think the scare quotes are needed because the phrase is arguably well known and not being used out of context. The other four are being used as adjectives with the word "model" after it. Based on the third section of MOS:HYPHEN, I think hyphenation can be well supported. But I agree that hyphens may not be needed. I'll reiterate that scare quotes should be out of the question given that their grammatical function doesn't apply to this circumstance. Scapulus^takk 21:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No quotes is probably best. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, if I don't get anymore input soon from anyone else, I'll just go ahead with "pay it forward" (no quotes). Scapulus^takk 17:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)