Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Manual of Style    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This page was within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
WikiProject Television (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborate effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 


LISTGAP compliant cast list formatting[edit]

Hi all. Per a discussion at WT:FILM (perma link here) that stemmed from our discussions here on cast list formatting with line breaks and MOS:LISTGAP, I have created the new template {{Cast list break}}. This template creates the sometimes desired formatting of putting character descriptions on a new line when the text wraps to a second line, but does not produce the screen reader issue that was encountered previously (see template examples for this). If there are any questions on the template, please comment here or drop me a line on my talk. I would like to add this into the MOS to alert users to it, and will begin implementing it on some of the articles I watch and work on within the project. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Episode summary from TV series' original network[edit]

Q: Can the brief summary (usually one sentence) of an episode that's provided by the original network, be used as the short summary included in the series' episode table?

I've done a search on this and have not found it addressed anywhere (if it's buried in an archived discussion, I missed it). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

If you are copying what is provided by the network, then the answer is no, as that would be a copyright violation. As WP:TVPLOT states, plot summaries may not be copied from elsewhere unless their license is compatible with Wikipedia use. -- AlexTW 13:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for reply.
However, "unless their license is compatible with Wikipedia use" is nonspecific. How do we know if a license is/not "compatible" with Wikipedia? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
If there's no licence explicitly stating copying and republishing elsewhere on the webpage or source you are looking to copy a summary from, then you should not use it. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. But what you explained, as written, isn't clear. Maybe you left a word or two out? Are you trying to say that somewhere on the webpage there should be a statement that permits or prohibits copying content found in the webpage? (Isn't that what most of TV articles in Wikipedia are comprised of? Repetition of information found in sources? With maybe a word changed here and there? Does including a reference citation make the transcription legit?) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: Unless there is an explicit licence or statement saying words to the effect of "you may republish this plot summary in full anywhere you like," then the answer to your original question is NO, you may not copy it into Wikipedia. You can, however, write your own description of the episode's plot in your own words. You cannot just copy it from the network without permissions. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I needed this to be made clear, here, to prevent it from happening in a particular article. Any chance it can be included as straightforward as this in MOS:TV and WP:EPISODE? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
It is already in WP:TVPLOT as was pointed out earlier. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, for the Plot section of the main article. Nowhere does it include specific mention of the short summary section of the episodes table -- to find this you have to go to the linked {{Episode list}} template included in the section. You'll be surprised (then again, not) at how many new editors don't connect the dots unless they're straightforward. And I'm not the first and won't be the last editor to think that too many Wikipedia guidelines are florid and don't go directly from point A to B. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:TVPLOT applies to all plot summaries, and specifically mentions episode tables, and {{Episode list}} states "Further guidance on plot summaries may be found at WP:TVPLOT." I think it is pretty clear already, but even if a new editor doesn't understand, you can revert their edit with explanation and links to either in the edit summary -- Whats new?(talk) 23:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
There's another good reason not to use the networks' summaries: they suck. That is, even if we could use them under copyright, they are episode teasers, not recaps, so they won't convey what actually happened in the episode, just the setup. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't disagree. But at least something is better than nothing. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Episode Summaries[edit]

I suggest there is a need for specific guidelines for Episode Summaries in TV as used in the Template:Episode list and Template:Japanese Episode List as opposed to the broader Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. There is a tendency in some popular series (especially where there is a great deal of interest for contributors) to write long and detailed summaries that exceed the recommended 200 word limit - sometimes up to 400 words, eg. some later List of Berserk (2016 TV series) episodes.

This guide would be useful for new contributors, especially if it included links to some good examples such as in Featured Lists. It would also be a useful reference to quote when editing verbose summaries.

An example of what I propose as a starting point is enclosed below (drawing heavily on the Plot Summary template): Ozflashman (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

An Episode Summary should be a concise 100–200 word summary of events that occur within the episode. It should be thorough enough for the reader to get a sense of what happens to the main characters, including conversations or expositions that further the plot of the series. Summaries that are too long and too detailed can be hard to read and are as unhelpful as those that are too short. Finding the right balance requires careful editorial discretion and discussion. Also avoid very long sentences that contain too much information, or cover a number of unrelated events.
Episode Summaries should not cover every scene and every moment of a story, nor should they cover the events in the order they appear (though it is often useful). Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory or evaluative statements about characters or events. The point of a summary is not to reproduce the experience - it is to explain the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozflashman (talkcontribs) 13:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The template instructions are clear: "A short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode." Obviously those who write long summaries are not bothering to read the most basic instructions so expanding on them isn't going to achieve anything. --AussieLegend () 19:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I think people need more than an instruction on length. The aim is to provide assistance in what to include, and what not to include, as well as encouragement to focus on the important plot elements. Ozflashman (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I think two-tiered plot summaries are probably a good idea: if an episode has its own article, the episode plot summary in the season article needn't be as long in the season article as it would be if the plot summary in the season article is all that there is.
On the other hand, the need for plot summaries is also higher for highly serialized shows, where things happen during one episode (e.g., a character dies) that affect future episodes.
The more I think about it, the more a one-size-fits-all approach seems inadequate, since TV shows are far from just the same as each other. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:TVOVERVIEW tweak[edit]

Thought I'd start a discussion about this to expand on it first. I think that WP:TVOVERVIEW needs a slight tweak when it comes to the line A new season should be added to the overview table only after an episode table has been created for that season. With examples such as Lucifer, Gotham, and this version of Riverdale, contributors to these articles, and those like it, might want to add a new row to the Series Overview table given that the table for the next season does exist.

However, given that no information is available about the seasons and only for the season premiere episodes (such as an episode count or premiere date), I believe that the above line should be modified to A new season should be added to the overview table only after an episode table has been created for that season, and sufficient information concerning the season is available. (without the emphasis) Thoughts? Better wording? -- AlexTW 05:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with this kind of information being added as soon as it is confirmed that an upcoming season will exist, so if anything I think the current position is too restrictive for what its worth, but I think I'll be in the minority on that opinion -- Whats new?(talk) 05:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a major issue with it either, hence this edit to the Lucifer article a month ago. I just believe that an almost-empty row in a table isn't at all necessary and makes it look untidy, much like this sort of edit as well. -- AlexTW 05:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Sufficient information' is extremely vague and adds unnecessary openness to interpretation. What do you mean by that? -- Wikipedical (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
That's what I asked for suggestions for. Perhaps at least an episode count or premiere date? That might be a start, given that the three articles I linked above have neither, and so would have an empty overview row. -- AlexTW 09:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
After the recent changes to South Park (season 21), where an editor thought this constituted sufficient content for a season article, I really think we need to look at defining what is sufficient information. I'd argue that at least two items are necessary, writer and director, episode title and writer, episode title and director, a list of episode titles, etc, while a premiere date, or prod codes on their own are not sufficient. Favre1fan93 is probably a good person to ask for an opinion here. --AussieLegend () 12:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with those standards, as that's what we've typically used, but that's concerning episode tables; this discussion is about rows in the series overview table. -- AlexTW 12:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
If memory serves me, the reason the consensus was to have the current wording was a follows: as the series overview generally acts as a quasi-table of contents for the article, if there is no section for the third season, it thus seems out of place. And while I 100% get your reasoning, my fear (and slight devil's advocate) is if we update to your proposed wording, and allow the rows to be added to the overview, it will then encourage users to create sections for the upcoming season, which are unnecessary per WP:TVUPCOMING. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure you're understanding what I'm suggesting; my proposed wording actually makes it stricter to add rows to the series overview. Nothing is changed to TVUPCOMING, which should be modified as Aussie suggested to the "two items of information to add an episode table row", but if an episode table can be created (see the three links in my first post), but there's barely enough information for the corresponding series overview row, then the row shouldn't be added to the series overview, regardless if there is a table for the upcoming season. -- AlexTW 00:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes sorry I was misunderstanding what you were trying to add/change. I now understand what you mean. I looked at the Riverdale example. So you're saying, in that case, even though we have a title (which means we can create an episode table), we don't know the starting date nor the number of episodes for the season, so a row should not be added to an overview table? Yes I agree with this. Though sufficient information is probably on the vague side. In my opinion, if we're at this point to have the episode table, the row in the overview should be added if the start date can be added (or definitive year). Otherwise, as with the Gotham example, it probably shouldn't be in the overview. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
So, something like this? A new season should be added to the overview table only after an episode table has been created for that season, and a premiere date for the season has been announced. It's only a small issue, but something that's bound to come up, especially with such examples. We should definitely also look into adding something into the MoS on when to add a row for an episode to an episode table, to actually make the "two items of information" an official guideline. -- AlexTW 05:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I think so. But would it also be "correct" if you know total episodes for the season, but not the start date? (I'm thinking of a situation like potentially with Sherlock.) So maybe that would also be acceptable, having either premiere date or episode count? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes#Episodes need to be listed in order of air dates[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes#Episodes need to be listed in order of air dates. This discussion is concerning the removal of Director, Writer and Storyboard columns at an article, and the validity of the already-performed edit. This post alerts all editors watching this page to the discussion, not just the ones that have been personally requested. -- AlexTW 06:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Miniseries as part of a regular season[edit]

Some articles (eg: Stakes (miniseries), Elements (miniseries), Islands (miniseries)) describe part of a regular television season – same producers, crew and cast; consecutive episode production numbers; same timeslot; etc. – as a miniseries. The editors have been following sources which promote these partial seasons as miniseries. However, I don't feel it fits the definition of the word, and feel it could be confusing. To me, miniseries are separate vehicles, spin-offs, etc. I could understand if these were first broadcast in a miniseries form then repackaged as episodes (similar to the four movies which were recut as Futurama (season 5)), but it seems like these have always been just multiple-episode story-arcs. They don't seem to count as a "limited series" (eg: American Horror Story or Fargo which reinvent themselves each season). I don't mind saying one of these was promoted as a miniseries, but I'm reluctant to call it a miniseries in Wikipedia's voice. Thoughts? – Reidgreg (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

In my mind, we really don't get to define what a miniseries is: we should follow whatever the RS say it is. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Does Adventure Time and the secondary RS publications consistently call them miniseries? Or is it just the name of the DVD volume? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Orange Is the New Black episodes#Featured character parameter in episode tables[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Orange Is the New Black episodes#Featured character parameter in episode tables. This discussion concerns the inclusion of in-universe information outside of the summary parameter, in the main row for the episode and its details. -- AlexTW 01:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Television ratings graph[edit]

Opinions are needed for the usage of {{Television ratings graph}}. If you look at the recently created templates by DownFame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), you'll see that the user has created a great number of these ratings templates, many of which are unnecessary and cramped. These are listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 27#Template:The Vampire Diaries ratings and related. When does it realistically become pointless to use templates like this? They're alright for short seasons and series, but even Template:The Walking Dead ratings is getting out of hand. Should the template become deprecated, or should there be guidelines applied to the usage of it? -- AlexTW 11:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've never really understood the purpose of these templates. What is their use, beyond just being a visual aid to the numbers? I think all of these should be depreciated, because personally I don't seen the need, when we already use Ratings tables. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't have a particularly strong opinion on this, but I too believe that they're inessential and superfluous. I'd prefer to deprecate Television ratings graph. But would like to hear an editor's argument as to why readers need them. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I concur with everyone. They seem really unnecessary and what happens when someone tries to do a show like Arrow or The Simpsons with 20+ episodes a season? Per MOS guidelines, we can't have tables that have side scrolls because of translation to mobile devices and printed sources. You'd run out of space really quickly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I think they serve to show a general trend in viewership. I suspect that if we need to eliminate side-scrolling (which does not appear to be a firm "Thou Shalt Not" as I've seen multiple band member lists that side scroll at normal resolutions), we can compact them by changing from stacked bars to lines. I'm not a huge fan of them myself, but I would caution against a subset of MoS-interested editors making changes without seeking input from the editors actually using them on a regular basis. I'll also note that while they may be technically neutral, the usage of viewership numbers seems anecdotally to predominate when a show is growing in popularity, rather than declining. I'm unsure if that is separate cause for concern. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it's too much information. It should be modeled like Seinfeld, where it gives the overall or average rating and ranking, with millions of viewers, and then optionally the peak episode viewers (or households for The Simpsons early seasons) if desired. Note Seinfeld was the number-one show in the ratings for several seasons as well so of course ratings are a big deal to list. Tracking ratings with a graph like The Walking Dead leads more to open interpretation and original research. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Me, I'm fine either way, if they're kept or if they're deleted. I only created the template to create a standard format for something that I noticed was used in a recurring manner around the television articles, mostly in straight wiki-code. Bignole, since you mentioned Arrow ratings... I agree that templates like these are more detrimental to articles than they are useful; some can be useful, as Jclemens, they can display a general trend in the viewership numbers, such as Template:Game of Thrones ratings. Others like Template:The Walking Dead ratings may have been useful once, but now they're growing too large. Perhaps the episode table ratings and series overview averages are enough, and we simply stop using this template? -- AlexTW 23:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I think they're too detailed and unnecessary, although I am somewhat sympathetic to the 'visual representation of the trend' argument. If the graph was the average of each season (ie. one bar per season, not per episode) I'd be far more inclined to support them, but each episode of each season in a graph doesn't serve a great enough purpose. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I also think they're overly detailed and it's cramming a bunch ratings at once. Also, it's just repetition. A regular table that we use now is sufficient enough and the ratings are also in the episodes table. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 01:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
So maybe we should say something along the lines of "If per-edit viewership average charts cannot be easily represented without using side-scrolling, consider moving to per-season viewership averages instead."? Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:TVINTL discussion reminder[edit]

Hi all. Just reminding that we still have an open discussion regarding updating or changing the text in the MOS for WP:TVINTL (slightly forgot about it myself). Please add your opinions on potential changes, as this is one of the sections we generally have a lot of discussions about. The discussion again can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Leaving "present" in the infobox as a series' end date[edit]

The opinions of a few contributors to television series would be greatly appreciated at Talk:Class (2016 TV series)#Ratings and future; an editor has found themselves confused over the idea of leaving "present" in the infobox as a series' end date until it is officially cancelled, rather than only adding "present" if it's been officially renewed. -- AlexTW 12:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

More editors using MOSTV changes as a license for wholsale edits without consensus[edit]

Well, it's not AlexTheWhovian this time (although he's certainly inserted himself into the dispute), but Keivan.f who has taken a part of the updated MOS:TVPLOT discussion and decided to change dozens of instances in Game of Thrones related articles--all of which were internally consistent, multiples of which are GA or FL--to remove the actor names from the plot section. That's a change that arguably has some merit to it, but once again, careless wording in the MOS has prompted editors to think that they have a license for wholesale content revision without discussion.

In the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Plot section and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Cast and characters section, I count perhaps seven total editors who opined on this change: adamstom.97, Whats_new?, IanB2, Favre1fan93, Wikipedical, IJBall, and Reidgreg. Based on my quick review of the discussions, I saw essentially four supports, two opposes, and one I wasn't entirely sure addressed the question except in terms of talk shows.

My complaint here is essentially similar to the previous one regarding episode summaries: MOS changes should reflect current practices, not de facto alter existing practice in the name of standardization. The actual wording that was implemented, "Avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, technical detail, as well as any information that belongs in other sections, such as actors' names." (my emphasis) is not that bad, as it certainly doesn't say "must not" or other such direction, but when users BOLDly implement sweeping changes across entire self-consistent topics it creates needless churn.

Thus, I propose the edit I made to MOS:TVPLOT be reinstated until a clause can be drafted which more clearly reflects that individual editors and Wikiprojects CAN choose to include cast names in plot sections, as was existing practice and present in multiple GA/FL television articles. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that I have to ask for a permission when I'm doing something that is a part of our guidelines. It seems that, apparently, you're the only one who's opposing these changes. It seems that IVORK and AlexTheWhovian also share my opinion. By the way, it's also possible to find an error on a featured article, and such errors have to be corrected. I haven't read anything about ignoring errors or mistakes on featured or good articles merely because they're prompted to a higher level of quality. In conclusion, I only followed the guidelines and policies. If the users wish to oppose the changes, then the guidelines should be challenged as well, though I think it has already been pointed out that there was a recent consensus to maintain them so we need another consensus to break the previous one, and then I'll revert my edits based on the results of this discussion. Keivan.fTalk 07:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually I don't pretty much like the way this section is titled: "More editors using MOSTV changes as a license for wholsale edits without consensus". First of all, we're not using MOSTV as an excuse for our contributions. It's a guideline that we're all supposed to follow. Accusing other users because of adjusting their edits to a specific guideline doesn't sound quite right. I again insist that if anything has to be changed, it's the guideline itself. Keivan.fTalk 07:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I support the edits you made. As a recent user of the pages (bingewatched the 6 seasons, read the plot summaries after each episode to see if I missed anything), I found the actor names to be annoying clutter. Pointless when the actors were already defined earlier in the article with the character names. Game of thrones, especially, with so many plotlines and so many actors, often a giant chunk of the plot summaries became actors names... Teelosdomain (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Please allow me to reiterate, just to make sure I understand. You don't feel that a 4:3-agree-to-disagree discussion, among roughly 0.013% of active registered accounts, impacting roughly 2.27% of all English Wikipedia articles, is sufficiently representative of readers and editors. Do I understand you correctly? — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
First, let's be clear that the MOS is not simply going to reflect "current practice". "Current practices" of a lot of articles and editors have never followed the MOS or many policies, so simply saying that doesn't mean that it is right. The MOS should taken into consideration current practices and which of those practices make sense, are enhancements, and which are not. Simply because a lot of people do it does NOT mean that it should be done. Trivia sections were "common practice" in the day, but it was agreed upon that they were not helpful to Wikipedia. That said, mass changes to articles because of MOS changes is not best practice either. Instead, and the MOS isn't going to say this because it's not the place for it, but editors should be having discussions about the changes to the MOS on project pages and discussing how best to implement changes to their respective articles so as not to create bigger issues. I doubt the loss of actor names from a plot section is going to cost an article GA or FA status (just like the addition of them didn't garner that status), but the point is still sound that mass editing to reflect MOS changes isn't the best way to go about making change. I'm not sure if there is an edit war going on about this, as I hope there isn't, but if there is then I hope that everyone will step back and talk about how to implement the changes going forward. People are going to disagree with the changes to the MOS, as you cannot please everyone. But sufficient word was spread about each discussion, and the fact that only active editors to the TV Project and MOS were the contributors doesn't change the fact that they were made.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not the most experienced user but I still believe that it would be fine if it was plain text but you're already linking to the character's profile which in itself contains links to the actor. The majority of users will surely know to follow the bouncing ball to find the page they're after. As mentioned above, it does just lead to unneeded clutter, especially considering there is already a comprehensive list which could easily be added as a See more at List of Game of Thrones characters. I would personally push to have that standadized for opening paragraphs as well. — IVORK Discuss 00:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I warned the WP:TV community that adopting guidelines without widespread consensus support is a fool's errand, and a MOS guideline without a strong consensus is pointless. Well, this nonsense of not including guest-cast in episode summaries, which has been a long-standing practice everywhere else on the internet for over 30 years, is Exhibit A. There is nowhere near "overwhelming consensus for this" (it's probably about a 50/50 split on this issue), and the rationale for excluding guest-cast is incredibly weak IMO, and essentially boils down to an WP:IDONTLIKE view among some WP:TV editors. So this is one WP:TV contributor who feels that unless there is a strong consensus to remove guest cast from the articles you are talking about then they should revert to the previous consensus version with the guest cast included. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
This isn't about including guest cast or not... -- AlexTW 02:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@IJBall: It's in reference to me and DavidK93 making this change against what the other ~60 articles for episodes prior have. — IVORK Discuss 02:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
In that specific instance, then, I have less of an opinion, as we're talking about main cast actors here, and it's debatable as to whether it's necessary to include them parenthetically. In this case, I'd just defer to whatever the consensus among the GoT editors is... --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I want to strongly argue that my position against parenthetical guest-cast listings in plot summaries is not "I don't like it." Before my first version of the edit IVORK identified, this was the state of the article: [1]. Note that Pilou Asbæk and Gemma Whelan are credited as cast members three times (lede, guest cast list, and plot section), while Emilia Clark, Kit Harington, Peter Dinklage, Sophie Turner, Maisie Williams, Lena Headey, Indira Varma, John Bradley, and Iain Glen are credited twice (lede and plot section), as are Diana Rigg, Jim Broadbent, Anton Lesser, Jacob Anderson, Ben Hawkey, and James Faulkner (guest cast list and plot section). These articles contain a complete listing of guest casts, which is the best place for the information; I see no reason for one article to contain identical information repeated up to three times. I'm not talking about the actors' names being mentioned; I'm talking about the actors' names being listed next to the characters' names as a direct identification with only punctuation separating them. Seventeen cast members do not need thirty-six credits among them. Television episode articles should continue to have guest cast listings; actor names can be given parenthetically when an actor and/or character are a significant enough part of the episode to be named in the lede (especially if it is a regular cast member not identified in the gust cast); and actor names should be used throughout all applicable sections of the article where the actors and/or their work are relevant. But actor names are irrelevant to the plot of a story and should not be included in the plot section. --DavidK93 (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
On the question on the specific change to MOS:TVPLOT that Jclemens proposes, I support striking the text in question: [2]. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I oppose striking it. Actor names are a specific example of non-plot information that is frequently added to plot sections; as a common but undesirable practice, it should be explicitly deprecated. I discovered that was in the guideline only after my edit removing actor names was reverted, and I was glad to be able to cite it in the resulting discussion. --DavidK93 (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Per the reasoning of DavidK93's first response, I oppose striking it. — IVORK Discuss 05:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Can TV listings be used as sources for premiere dates?[edit]

I'm having a dispute with Spshu over sourcing the Disney XD show Play With Caution which aired as part of the "D | XP" Disney XD programming block. I've added sources from TV Guide, Zap2It, and could also provide TV listings from TWC, AT&T, and other cable companies. I've also seen the actual episodes on Disney XD, but don't believe that I need to provide cite episodes to support that statement. Twitter for DXPOfficial also indicates these as new shows, but since DXPOfficial Twitter has not been checkmark verified, that isn't being used, even though Disney XD (verified) Twitter has made references to this Twitter line. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The article in question is at List of programs broadcast by Disney XD. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about TV Guides as I've never seen it used, but Zap2it is most definitely a reliable source and can be used. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Zap2it, TV Guide and TWC Central are TV listing/schedule guides. These have been consider non-RS for a long time. You can use their actual article but not their TV listings. Of course, now that a dispute comes up I can't find the guideline. Spshu (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Zap2it is used all the time to reference upcoming and past episodes. It is a perfectly reliable source. See WP:TVFAQ. TV Guide is also reliable per that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
TV listings from Zap2it, TV Guide, and TWC Central are absolutely reliable sources that can be, should be, and routinely are used to cite upcoming episode information. What consensus are you citing that they've been "non-RS for a long time"? -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I've never used TWC Central but Zap2it and TV Guide are definitely reliable sources. That they are TV listing/schedule guides does not affect their reliability. --AussieLegend () 19:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Why are they considered "non-RS"? And where did such a discussion take place?!... FTR, I'm with the previous posters that TV listing sites are obviously WP:RS (in most cases – sometimes these sites, esp. Zap2It, have occasional mistakes). Probably better than any of these, though, is The Futon Critic episode-show listings IMO. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
At RS or Verifiable or some adjunct page. Of course, I can not find it when I need it. I say the reverse - Where did the discussion to remove this take place?!?! It feels like the twilight zone as I have routinely seen this at one of those pages. Spshu (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Since you can't find the alleged discussion, please tell us in your own words why they are not RS. --AussieLegend () 14:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a note that Spshu won't be able to reply anytime soon as they're currently blocked for an unrelated incident. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to wait another 47 hours for a response to my question. --AussieLegend () 16:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)