Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

RfC about main cast order

Question: Should the onscreen credits determine how the main cast is ordered? Bluerules (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Explanation

Some series only credit main cast members if they appear in an episode. This can create a discrepancy between how the credits and television articles order the main cast because MOS:TVCAST dictates that "new" main cast members be placed below those who appeared in the credits earlier. Under this guideline, it is irrelevant where a cast member is billed if they were not in the season premiere.

There has not been debate over whether a season 2 main cast member should be below the original main cast. The contention here is with ordering main cast members from the same season. For example, Colman Domingo joined the main cast of Fear the Walking Dead in season 2, where he was billed above regulars Mercedes Mason, Lorenzo James Henrie, and Rubén Blades from the first season. The parent article identifies Domingo as a later addition to the main cast by putting him below these three, while the season 2 article reflects the onscreen credits by placing him above them. However, the season 2 article also places Michelle Ang at the bottom, despite the credits billing her above Blades. This is because her name did not appear in the credits until the third episode. However, contrary to the current guideline, the first revision of the page used the credits to order Ang above Blades and this was retained for over two years.

The Fear the Walking Dead season 2 article isn't the only case of editors initially following the credits over MOS:TVCAST when ordering the main cast. Other examples include the Doom Patrol parent article (Joivan Wade was billed third, but not added until the second episode), The Witcher parent article (every main cast member billed above Eamon Farren except Henry Cavill and Freya Allan was added later), The Exorcist parent article (Zuleikha Robinson was the highest billed season 2 addition, but didn't appear until the third episode), the Swamp Thing parent article (Jennifer Beals was billed above Will Patton, but wasn't added until the second episode), and the Game of Thrones season 1 article (Peter Dinklage was billed last, but Aidan Gillen appeared later). Some articles, such as the Too Old to Die Young parent, the Jessica Jones parent, and Jessica Jones season 1 still utilize the credits over when the main cast members appeared. For example, the two Jessica Jones articles place Wil Traval fourth, despite him not appearing until the third episode, because that's where the credits billed him.

Both methods of ordering the main cast have their own advantages. The current MOS:TVCAST guideline is a more straightforward approach, while the onscreen credits order is more accurate to the article's subject.

Edit: To hopefully clear up confusion, here is an example of how each option would impact a parent and season article. For context, Chelsea Zhang, Joshua Orpin, Minka Kelly, Alan Ritchson, and Esai Morales all joined the main cast of Titans in the second season. Zhang and Orpin were billed higher, while Kelly, Ritchson, and Morales appeared in the credits earlier. Bluerules (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

How each option would impact specific articles

In option 1, Minka Kelly, Alan Ritchson, and Esai Morales would remain higher than Chelsea Zhang and Joshua Orpin on the Titans parent article and the Titans season 2 article.

In option 2, Chelsea Zhang and Joshua Orpin would be ordered higher than Minka Kelly, Alan Ritchson, and Esai Morales on the Titans parent article and the Titans season 2 article.

In option 3, Minka Kelly, Alan Ritchson, and Esai Morales would be higher on the Titans parent article, while Chelsea Zhang and Joshua Orpin would be higher on the Titans season 2 article.

Options

Please select only one of these options:

1. Only the initial onscreen credits should be used in ordering the main cast on parent and season articles, with later additions placed lower.
2. The onscreen credits should determine how the main cast is ordered on parent articles, taking into account the season where the actors joined the main cast, and season articles.
3. The current policy on ordering the main cast should be retained for parent articles, while the onscreen credits determine the main cast order on season articles.

Survey (main cast order)

• Option 1: I've always applied the wording of MOS:TVCAST to both parent and season articles so the cast listing of the first episode is used for the initial listing and then new examples are added to the end of the list. An example can be seen at Grey's Anatomy (season 2), Kate Walsh began receiving a credit as a series regular in the seventh episode of the season and was placed third from the end but is the last to be listed in the Wikipedia article because she wasn't credited in that spot for the first six episodes effectively making her a "new" cast member in the seventh episode. The same idea is applied to the third season where Eric Dane begins receiving main billing in the third episode and is credited third from the bottom but remains at the bottom in the Wikipedia article for the same reason. An example that may complicate the other options if chosen: Doctor Who (series 4), out of the 13 episodes that aired four episodes had three series regulars, two episodes had six series regulars, while the other seven episodes only had two. In the first three episodes that had three Freema Agyeman is listed third while in the second fourth that had three Billie Piper was listed third. Where things get complicated is that in the two with six Agyeman is still credited third but Piper is credited sixth. So by the logic of any of the other options where would she be placed? Third (which would compete with Agyeman's five episodes of third)? Sixth (since that's where she was place for two of her three episodes)? Currently the article places her fourth since she was the fourth series regular credited in the season as a whole and then continues to add people who came after her below her since she came first even though they were credited before her in the series. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

TheDoctorWho - Similar to how the original main cast cannot be supplanted by new season additions on the parent article, the other options would dictate that main cast members cannot be moved on their own. Their position may only change on the season article if the credits bill them below a later-appearing cast member. This approach would also be used on parent articles if both main cast members joined in the same season. Fear the Walking Dead actually had the same issue with its fourth season: Lennie James was billed last in the first half, but the second half gave him top billing. If the second or third options were utilized, the solution would be to keep him last.

As mentioned by adamstom97 below, what complicates the first option is "new" cast members may not actually be "new". This discrepancy becomes most apparent on season articles where veteran cast members can be placed low in the order simply because they weren't in the season premiere. For example, the Game of Thrones season 3 article has Nikolaj Coster-Waldau listed 22nd in the cast section. Coster-Waldau is billed second, but because he didn't appear until the second episode of the season, he goes down 20 spots from where the show places him. This discrepancy is highlighted by the lede, where Coster-Waldau is one of only five main cast members identified as being in the season and is listed second. Should Coster-Waldau be 22nd in the cast section when the lede is saying he's the second-most prominent cast member? He wasn't a "new" cast member, he was part of the series (and the main cast) from the beginning. Bluerules (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerules: Taking your Game of Thrones example I believe Coster-Waldau is placed correctly. The note listed in the MOS:TVCAST section states "Note that "new cast members" does not necessarily mean cast members new to a series, although it can. It refers to any cast member new to the respective cast list." It gives an example of a recurring cast member being promoted to main cast but that's not the ONLY example and this works just as well. Coster-Waldau is considered new to the respective cast list in episode two since he was not credited in episodes one and therefore gets added to the end of the list.

I do have to say that it was about 4 am when I typed my initial response last night and it may just be the way that they're worded but re-reading the options I'm failing to see a difference between options 1 and 3 now. Option 1 states "Only the initial onscreen credits should be used in ordering the main cast" while 3 states "The current policy on ordering the main cast should be retained; isn't the current policy to use the initial onscreen credits already? TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: - At face value, the note indicates that Coster-Waldau should not be 22nd because he is not a "cast member new to the respective cast list". He was not "new" to the main cast list in season 3 because he had been in the main cast list since the first season. He's only "new" by a narrow margin. I understand why he's 22nd, but it seems a stretch to place him that low simply because he wasn't in the season 3 premiere. We're basing the order off whether the series credits the main cast for episodes they don't appear in.

The difference between options 1 and 3 is how the impact season articles. Option 3 would deviate from the current policy on season articles, but not parent articles as a potential compromise. The order in option 3 would be based off the full onscreen credits, as opposed to the initial credits, where Coster-Waldau is billed second. Bluerules (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 with a potential caveat: Adding new cast members to the end of the list definitely makes the most sense and avoids unnecessary discussions about who is more prominent. The only difference to the current approach that I think is worth considering is the fact that a lot of streaming series only credit actors onscreen for the episodes they are in which means some actors aren't credited straight away but are not actually new cast members when they do eventually get credited. This wasn't really considered when the current approach was decided, since streaming was still rare at that point and the focus was on broadcast series. The potential change that I think should be discussed is the instance where a clear set order for the main credits can be determined even if the names are not always shown in every episode, whether we wanted to allow that as an exception to the standard 'add to the end' rule. This would require some local consensus to determine and would be less clean than the strict rule we have been following, but in some instances it would be closer to the spirit of the rule since we would be following the order set by the production and we wouldn't be treating actors as new cast members when they had been working on the season from the beginning. For example, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier has set spots in its end credits for each main cast member so we can easily determine what the one ordering for the cast is even though the actors do not appear in that order in the series, and none of those actors are new cast members as the whole series was filmed in one go. If we were to allow these exceptions, we should still add new cast members to the end of the list for future seasons. This would just apply for the first season's cast at the series article and for season articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

adamstom97 - Correct me if I'm wrong, but your caveat appears to align with what options 2 and 3 are proposing. I apologize if I didn't make this clear, but these options are intended to deal with that scenario present in streaming series. I completely agree with what you've written; the issue you described is why I've created this RfC. Bluerules (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if that is the case, I didn't think we were on exactly the same page but maybe we are. I support an update to the wording along the lines of what you have suggested, but I think we need to be careful how we write it to make sure we aren't causing debates over cast orders. If it is clear that they are not a new cast member for the series and it is also clear that there is an intended ordering that would not put them at the end of the list then we should be able to do that, but if either of those are not clear then it is safest to just stick with the current guideline. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I would add that the examples raised in the above thread with TheDoctorWho don't really seem to apply to what I was thinking, unlike The Falcon and the Winter Soldier which I think is an obvious candidate for making an update. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: - If editors were able to determine a set order for the Game of Thrones season articles, I do not see why it could not be done for other articles. Games of Thrones, like many streaming series, only credits actors onscreen for the episodes they appear in and has set spots for each main cast member. In the example I mentioned above, seasons 3 through 8 give Coster-Waldau the set spot of second. Ordering the Game of Thrones main cast by the onscreen credits is more difficult than other shows due to the sheer size of the cast, but the editors pulled it off. The season 1 article utilized this approach for over seven years (from the initial 2011 edit to 2018) and the article achieved featured status. Bluerules (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that he should be listed second for all seasons and the series article just because he is for season three onwards? Because I would disagree with that. Each season should have the correct order based on its own credits, and the series article should have the same order as the first season with new additions at the end. The only difference to the current guideline that I am advocating is within a season's listing. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: - No, I am saying Coster-Waldau should be listed in his set order on all season articles. I agree that he should not be second on every article with a cast order. In seasons 1 and 2, he is billed third and therefore should be third; in the remaining seasons, he is billed second. Every season article reflects his set order except season 3 because that's the only one where he wasn't in the premiere episode. There isn't a cast order on the parent article because of the sheer size of the cast, but there is a characters article that has him third. I agree that he should be third on the characters article because that was his original spot in the credits. My contention is towards the one article that doesn't have Coster-Waldau. Bluerules (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Option 2 I think this is the best compromise. The initial order to begin, subsequent appearances to build upon. It has logic and an easy identified direction/ doktorb _words^deeds 22:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – I'm confused both by the explanation and the options of this RfC, as there seem to be a few ambiguities. Are we arguing about changing the order in parent articles, season articles, or both? The sentence The contention here is with ordering main cast members from the same season seems to indicate that we're only discussing the order in the season articles, but then there are many examples referring to the order in the parent article. The difference between initial onscreen credits and just onscreen credits in the options is another problem for me. I assume that by initial we're referring to the intial credits within the season and not the initial credits for the series overall, but it's still not entirely clear. Then, if not the initial onscreen credits, which ones do we use? Is it using an amalgamation of all episoodes' onscreen credits what's being proposed, incorporating characters that didn't appear in the first episode but where on the onscreen credits when they first appeared?

I think it would be helpful to put forward one single example and apply each proposed option to it, in order to illustrate what exactly would change. I think using season 3 of Game of Thrones, as it has already been mentioned, would be useful, as it seems complex enough that all the options would render clearly different results, but at the same time only has ten episodes, so it wouldn't be as unwieldy as, e.g., a season of The Office with upwards of 20 episodes. (I just tried to write down the cast order for the first episode of the third season and I got traumatized by the sheer size of it and the speed at which they go through them. I hadn't realized that many of them were credited as main cast. An easier, shorter example should definitely be used) It could be laid out between the explanation and the options and then collapsed. —El Millo (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: - I added a table using Titans as an example, which will hopefully help clear up confusion. This is about both parent and season articles, which currently don't follow the same order guidelines and the distinction between the two should be retained. On parent articles, main cast introduced in the second season cannot supplant the original main cast, but they can be ordered higher on season articles if billed higher. Fear the Walking Dead is a good example of this distinction because of Colman Domingo's billing. The parent article has him below all the original main cast members because he didn't join until the second season; the season 2 article has him higher than three original regulars because he was billed higher than them. I want it to be clear that I am not advocating for season 2 cast to be ordered above season 1 cast on parent articles. There should still be an order distinction between these two types of articles.

With that distinction in mind, season articles would use the full onscreen credits. We would consider where a main cast member was billed in the credits, not place them at the bottom simply because they were not in the season premiere. The parent article would only directly follow the full onscreen credits for season 1. That order becomes locked and names from later seasons are ordered by their season's credits. To use Fear the Walking Dead as an example:

• The main cast for season 1 was Kim Dickens, Cliff Curtis, Frank Dillane, Alycia Debnam-Carey, Elizabeth Rodriguez, Mercedes Mason, Lorenzo James Henrie, and Rubén Blades. This is the order they were billed in the season's credits and no adjustments to this order can be made on the parent article.
• Season 2 added Colman Domingo and Michelle Ang to the main cast. Domingo was billed higher than Ang in the second season, so they follow the season 1 regulars in that order.
• In season 3, the new additions to the main cast were Danay García, Daniel Sharman, Sam Underwood, Lisandra Tena, and Dayton Callie. Again, the parent article places them below all the past season regulars. Where things get contentious is the fact that the credits bill Tena higher, but Callie received credit earlier. If the guidelines were changed under the second option, Tena would be above Callie. Tena and Callie are equally "new" to the main cast because according to production, they joined at the same time. The story simply had Callie's character appear earlier and production chose not to credit Tena for episodes she didn't appear in.

Let me know if you have further questions. Bluerules (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 - The reason that this has always been the case is because we don't give preferential treatment to new casts members just because they are newer. Eventually the show will end and putting new cast members above older ones (just because they may no longer be there) puts us more in recentism line of thinking. The reason we don't do the second option is because you're placing weight on number of appearances or importance of those appearances, which gets too close to original research. The most neutral way is to keep them in order of their original appearance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bignole: - This has nothing to do with weight on number of appearances or importance of those appearances. This is about the onscreen credits. In the second option, newer cast members would not be ordered higher under any circumstance if they were credited lower and they are prohibited from supplanting the original cast if they joined in a later season. They may only be ordered higher on the season articles if that particular season's credits bills them higher. In the example given with Fear the Walking Dead, Michelle Ang appeared in only two episodes of the second season. Rubén Blades appeared in seven episodes, but under option 2, Ang would be ordered higher because she was billed higher. The article already orders Colman Domingo higher above three original series regulars, despite not joining the main cast until the second season, because he was billed higher that season. Option 2 would maintain Domingo higher on the season article and lower on the parent article. The change would be to Ang's order on the season article because she was credited higher than Blades, even though she's not in most of the season. Bluerules (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 I think this is the option I want to support, but maybe it's option 3? I don't see the need to change the approach we've had really. Looking at a series that is lucky to have multiple seasons (and season articles here), the list at the "parent" article should be reflective of the series as a whole, with new starring actors being added after the first episode's credits appearing at the bottom. And then the season article should be reflective of how the cast appears respective to the first episode of such season. So for example, if episode 101 of series I Just Made This Up lists Actors A, B, C, D, E, F as starring, with no other additions in its first season, that's the order I would want to see on both the parent article and season 1 article. Then come episode 201, Actor G (who was a guest in season 1) and Actor H (totally new and the new "top bill"), join the series, while Actor B leaves, I'd expect the parent article to be Actors A, B, C, D, E, F, H, G, while the season 2 article showing Actor H, A, C, D, E, F, G, since that's what the credits are for episode 201. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I am going to take your example Favre1fan93 as I think it is the clearest one here so far, and use it to elaborate on what Bluerules and I are talking about above. In this scenario, if A and E are not in 201 and a few other episodes of the second season but when they do appear the credits are H, A, C, D, E, F, G, our current approach (which I believe is Option 1) would set the season 2 cast list as H, C, D, F, G, A, E. What I was proposing (not certain how this aligns with the RfC options) is that in such a case where it is clear that they are not new cast members and they have a set order for the season (as determined through local consensus where needed) that we use the "correct" season order of H, A, C, D, E, F, G for the season. But when that is not clear we should stick with the current approach and just add new onscreen credits to the end. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: - My issues with option 1 are inaccuracy to the subject, a reliance on an arbitrary factor that has more to do with the story than production information, and discrepancy when it comes to "new" cast members. Game of Thrones season 3 is perhaps the best example of these problems. The series itself says Coster-Waldau is billed second and even the lede of the same article acknowledges his second billing, which is contrasted by him being 22nd in the cast order. He is 22nd because the story doesn't have him to appear in the first episode. And Coster-Waldau is not truly a "new" cast member when he's been a series regular from the series premiere. I don't think there's anywhere outside of Wikipedia that would order Coster-Waldau 22nd for Game of Thrones season 3; even the editors on the page initially had him second. He was second on the page for over five years until the order was changed in 2018. This doesn't apply the parent article, of course - I'm open to maintaining the policy for parent articles. I find that the problems become apparent on season articles. Bluerules (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I just think trying to "synthesis" a "correct" order in a season potentially opens too many cans of worms, even if some examples are very "cut and dry". Think of it this way: when a new season is airing and the first episode airs, you've only seen those credits, so you have no idea (in theory) what's coming down the line, or who will be appearing. Our listing should reflect the fact that newer "starring" actors first appeared later in the season by putting them at the end of the list, even if in such episodes they are credited in, they have a higher billing order position. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 - I believe both approaches have a strong case. The reason I'm more inclined to use the overall credit order is because it seems more accurate. This approach has been used in the past without any issues that I'm aware of, so I don't think there would be serious contention. The articles that used the full credits order were changed because they didn't follow current policy, not because of debate.

Most of the time, editors will at least have an understanding of who will be appearing in the credits. There will be press information, official media, and for shows entering a new season, knowledge of the previous cast. Plus, if all the episodes are released at once, all of the title credits will be immediately available (hence why The Witcher parent article originally utilized the full credits order). But even if the editors have no idea what will happen, they just have to update the article accordingly by the season's end.

The television article I'm currently working on is Titans season 3. The main cast and their order has at least been implied by a press release. However, Titans does not credit series regulars for episodes they don't appear in. I'm expecting this to affect the production order because Teagan Croft and Conor Leslie aren't supposed to be in the early episodes, meaning they'll be last in the article order. It won't look accurate to have them at the bottom because the show itself bills them higher and they're not new to the main cast. Bluerules (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: I think most parent and season articles are this way anyway. I believe this is the best approach based on the examples. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@YoungForever: - From what I've seen, most articles utilize option 2 when first created before being changed to option 1. It makes sense that most articles presently use option 1 because that's the current guideline, but I think most editors instinctively lean towards option 2, especially if all the episodes of a season have aired. Bluerules (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 – I think trying to combine all the onscreen credits of every episode of a season to try and put each actor listed in the spot they were put in the first episode they appeared (or commonly appear) if they didn't appear in the season premiere is going to be a mess that will cause more problems than it will solve. —El Millo (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly, we can't be rearranging the starring cast every time that happens which would most likely result in a recipe for disaster. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 (or 3?...) – I'm finding this RfC a little confusing. But there have been multiple MOS:TV discussions over this issue, and anything other than Option #1 (ordering by initial crediting, and then ordering in order of appearance on the show), opens up massive cans of worms that will only serve to increase editor conflicts on this topic as editors argue over the "correct ordering". As it is, we still have examples like California Dreams#Cast and NCIS: Los Angeles#Characters where editors are clearly playing games to try to get around MOS:TVCAST. "Loosening" TVCAST still further is likely a recipe for disaster. So I'm very much opposed to Option 2. All that said, I feel less strongly about this at "season" articles than I do at parent TV series article (where I think "Option 1 approach" should be the only option), so I'm maybe closer to Option 3 there – but I don't like how 'Cast' are handled at current "season" articles anyway, put below the episode tables, as they generally are. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@IJBall: - I feel the opposite in respect to parent and season articles; I believe season articles would allow for a change in policy because there's a set credit order and less cast members to order. Changing the policy for the parent article could be tricky because of all the season credit orders we'd have to factor in, but season articles obviously only need the credits from the respective season. Bluerules (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Parent articles should be ordered based on when they received series regular status across the series; meaning, someone that was 6th in order in season one and left after that season will always remain 6th in the order. Seasonal pages should follow whatever the order is for that particular season (which itself doesn't conflict with our guideline). The same would then be true for any episode articles that have a list there. The fact that someone was moved halfway through the season is not relevant, because that again moves away from historical perspective in favor of recentism. If the next season has the "new" order, then that season has the new order. At the end of the day, readers are not coming to Wikipedia to verify an "order" of cast listing. The reason we have an order is for consistency across articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bignole: - No one here believes that a series regular should be removed from the parent article or a season 2 regular should be placed above a season 1 regular. The issue is when one series regular receives higher billing in a season, but another appeared in the credits earlier. This is not about someone being moved halfway in the season, but where to place the main cast members who weren't credited for early episodes. The producers intended for a main cast member to be in a certain spot and the season's correct order is disregarded simply because the regular wasn't in the premiere.

Ordering the main cast by their credit billing isn't recentism because their order wouldn't be determined by how recent they are. Their order would be determined by their order in the credits, which could be higher or lower than other regulars. If the cast order on the Game of Thrones season 1 article was based on the full credits, Aidan Gillen would be eighth because that's where he was billed in his first appearance, between Iain Glen and Harry Lloyd. From the historical perspective, Gillen's original billing position was above Lloyd, Peter Dinklage, and the regulars between them. And he would still be below Glen, Sean Bean, and the regulars between them, who were all less recent to the credits.

Readers expect the order to be an accurate reflection of each cast member's prominence. We obviously can't decide that ourselves because that's original research, so we rely on the order provided by the producers. However, when we don't follow the set order from the show itself, our information is inaccurate. The Game of Thrones season 3 article itself is inconsistent by identifying Coster-Waldau as the second-most prominent cast member in the lede, but placing him 22nd in the cast order. Under the current policy, a series regular may go down 20 spots from their intended billing simply because the story doesn't have them in the season premiere and the show doesn't credit regulars for episodes they aren't in. Coster-Waldau would be second in the season 3 article if he was credited for every episode, not just those he was in. Bluerules (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, if Season 2 episodes 1 through 6 show one particular credit order, and episodes 7 through 15 show another, then the season article should reflect the first order with new members added to the bottom of that list. A show is typically (key word being "typically") not going to re-order a cast list in the middle of a season. I'm sure there are exceptions to that case, but that is not the norm. That's all I have to say about it from my perspective.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I agree that existing cast members cannot be re-ordered on their own. A show that did re-order the cast list was Fear the Walking Dead season 4, where Lennie James was billed last in the first half and received top billing in the second half. In the case of James, he should remain last because that was his original billing spot. The change I would argue for is having Jenna Elfman above James because although she didn't receive credit until the second episode, her original billing was one spot above James. Bluerules (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note Bluerules that replying to every single responder can be considered WP:BLUDGEONing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if my responses appear to be forcing my views, as that is not my intent. I am seeking further input and perspective on opposition to changing the guideline. Bluerules (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 Per reasons given above. I admit the vote is also due to finding the other two options confusing. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 This is really poorly worded in that it's not clear whether Option 1 is the status quo or not—if it's not, please disregard. MOS:TVCAST is one of the trickiest guidelines to initially start working with but it's phenomenally brilliant in that it completely does away with the whole "who's more important" bullshit that seems to permeate TV article editing. It bases everything on chronology, not a shifting scale of who is ranked higher in what episode. The whole argument that somehow streaming and/or release-at-once shows need some kind of special exception is nonsense: the whole point of MOS:TVCAST is that it doesn't care about using credits-prominence in later episodes to rewrite the initial cast order. Yes, it uses that as a starting point (because we have to start somewhere) but after that initial list, it's all when someone shows up/is credited. When I first started editing in this space, I admittedly found it weird... but I've since become thoroughly convinced of its brilliant simplicity—it monumentally reduces the kind of pointless bickering that takes away from actually improving articles, and if that's not a great guideline, then I don't know what is. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Black Mirror episodes § Ratings graph/table

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Black Mirror episodes § Ratings graph/table. To summarise: is six episodes enough to use {{Television ratings graph}}? -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

FOR template - Current series/season

Big question here, but should a For template be used on articles for television programs that are still being made and which currently have a new series being broadcast? GUtt01 (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Wikipedia is not a TV guide for a show's current season. -- /Alex/₂₁ 20:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit summary, Template:For and Template:About are two different things. What you are asking about is being added in the 'About' template. AFAIK (unless I've somehow managed to miss something...), there is no guideline or anything in any MOS/MOS:TV saying it is not allowed. As the template instructions itself say the purpose is, "linking the reader to other articles with similar titles or concepts that they may have been seeking instead."- information on the current/most recent/future season may be what the reader is looking for, not just the main article with general information, whereas the information they are looking for may be contained on one of the latest season-specific articles.

You also claimed using this is somehow an 'easter egg link', but that's not at all what that is about... that moreso pertains to hidden explanations, such as, "Another [[America's Got Talent (season 16)|incident]] occurred later on." versus, "Another instance of this occurred in the [[America's Got Talent (season 16)|sixteenth season]] where (explanation...)". Magitroopa (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I would think, regardless of whether the template being used is For or About, Alex 21 makes it clear that we should not be making Wikipedia out to be a TV guide. GUtt01 (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The original questioning barely explained the issue at all, WP:NOTTVGUIDE is not what this is concerning at all. This is the link at the top of the article directing readers to the current season of a show, as they are likely looking for information and what is currently happening. Again, this falls under the template instructions as a, "...similar titles or concepts that they may have been seeking instead." Going back to NOTTVGUIDE, this is not, "upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc." Magitroopa (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

If I had, I would have included About template as well, but the fact is, either one being used to link to a currently aired season of a program from the article about the program is not really a wise thing to do. There was an attempt to do that for one of these templates on a British television program, and someone pointed out that that was not an appropriate use. I believe that For and About templates should mainly link to related programs, spin-offs or the franchise itself, not to a currently aired season of a program, because that becomes redundant once the season has finished airing. GUtt01 (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Just did some looking- a previous discussion of this issue occurred at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 28#"For the current season" (From November 2018, no consensus). Magitroopa (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Also more recently, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 33#Hatnotes, from December 2020, though not as much of a discussion as the above. Magitroopa (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I read the two discussions, and... I have to admit this might actually be a grey area in terms of policy. Thinking on it some more, I reckon perhaps there is possibly a good argument for using it in this manner. But when to use it... hmm... that's the tricky part. True, I think someone issued WP:NOTTVGUIDE, but that would be hard to determine if this is the case for linking to an active season of a program. I would say that for For and About templates, leave it as is for now - but they shouldn't be used to link to a season before or after it has aired.GUtt01 (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for this, but if so, I would say it could be used for reality-based series only in which there are potentially odd "season" names. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Erm... what do you mean by odd "season" names, precisely? Let's be clear on that, in case someone gets the wrong idea. GUtt01 (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Something like how Survivor names their seasons, though the articles are at those given names, so not the best example. But maybe something like AGT, where someone just knows it comes on every May-September on NBC, but not necessarily what the current season is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Should WP:TRAILER apply to MOS:TV?

This yes/no/maybe discussion is about whether or not the MOS:FILM policy WP:TRAILER should apply to MOS:TV. This includes avoiding/removing sentences like "The official trailer was released on [date]" (which has been used a lot of Wiki), and paragraphs composed of simply marketing tactics without addressing how they impacted their target audience. Pinging @TheDoctorWho per Special:Diff/1041180377. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

In theory yes. Especially for TV series, in which many more trailers and teasers are shown for a series, especially a network broadcast show. Ideally, there should be some sort of commentary to go along with the trailer discussing it, or at the vary least saying something like "The trailer confirmed the castings of X" or "The trailer revealed the designs of character Y". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It should apply. Even in those latter examples from Favre, I would say that isn't a section on Marketing, that's for the casting section because it's related to that. If there is not third-party commentary on the trailer, then it shouldn't be mentioned. Even if a trailer breaks viewership records, just to be clear, there shouldn't be an entire section separated out just to say that single fact.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, yeah, I agree that in an instance of my later examples, the trailer could be noted in the appropriate section as the means for revealing the actual info, but if that's all there is, don't dedicate a single (sub)section to it. And frankly, many series outside of genre ones probably won't have the commentary, let alone an article talking about the trailer to warrant a mention regardless. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Season End Date

When a season is being broadcast, should editors denote the end date on the program's article, or wait until the season has concluded? I ask, because I wonder if that might be premature to do so, possibly because something occurs that might push the final episode of a season to an earlier/later date that was unplanned for by its producers.GUtt01 (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Within a season/show infobox, the end date is not put in due to the season/show still being in progress, with 'present'. If a season concludes, the date can be added immediately after the season has concluded (though most editors probably like to jump-the gun on that). For a main show article rather than season-specific article, the end date of the entire show is not put in unless reliably sourced, or 12 months have past since that 'last aired' date (as explained in the infbox instructions).

When it comes to a series overview table (like America's Got Talent#Season synopses), it's a bit different, with there being nothing denoting a 'present' like in the infobox, other than using your head and seeing the premiere date has passed and no end/finale date placed in.

Omitting the finale date, even with reliable sources, just because, "...something occurs that might push the final episode of a season to an earlier/later date..." is entering WP:OR/WP:CRYSTAL territory. Could something happen that changes the airdate? Anything is certainly possible, but we don't simply speculate on what could potentially happen. I can see the argument for shows that are live vs. prerecorded shows, so I'm interested in what others have to say for that.

Just as a quick example... The Chase and To Tell the Truth originally had new episodes planned to air on August 15. Neither of these episodes ended up airing that night due to ABC breaking news coverage about Afghanistan.

Neither was actually a season finale, but let's pretend they were. Prior to the original air date/times, we would have the finale date listed in a 'Series overview' table. When the time came for the breaking news coverage, the date could then be removed from there as it didn't turn out that way- we wouldn't just be waiting until it actually airs to include the finale date. I highly doubt anyone (apart from those working at the network) were thinking, "Oh, there might be breaking news coverage delaying that specific episode." days/hours in advance. If there were a reliable source in existence indicating it were the season finale date (prior to the breaking news coverage occuring), it would be fine to include the date in the 'Series overview' table with the source included.

TL;DR- final/end date acceptable in advance within a 'Series overview' table, but not in the infobox (due to 'present'). Magitroopa (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Was trying to find any similar in the archives- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 7#future-dated season end dates: should they be in series overview boxes? is worth a look-at in regards to the issue. Magitroopa (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That example, regarding a live news story pushing back an episode is the reason why I question whether it can be premature. I think what we might probably be best knowing, is that an end date given by a reliable source, even a primary source, is not always a guaranteed thing on television. Events may occur that can affect a broadcast schedule for television networks, and what might potentially be aired on a date, may get pushed back if something dramatic occurs. The death of a renowned figure who contributed greatly in their country, can be seen as an example, because this will likely impact the TV schedules of certain networks to focus programming on this. The best way to guarantee an end date for a season, I think in my opinion, is when the final episode has finally been aired - at that point, the end date can be fully confirmed as such, because nothing stopped its broadcast by then. GUtt01 (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

In terms of this, of course, one must also note the type of network the program is on - if its a major network, then the TV schedule for its main channels, but not its secondary channels, are likely to be affected by news coverage of major events. Networks that are less prominent (such as those dedicated to films, documentaries, and so forth), are less likely to be affected, in this situation. So if the program is on a major network, the factor of end date can't be guaranteed until the final episode has been broadcast. If a minor network, then such an issue is not a serious one, unless a disruption is caused by technical issues (which is another factor for both types that I realized can also be counted on to disrupt schedules) that can't be resolved that day of an episode's broadcast. GUtt01 (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, that is mostly just entering original research/crystal ball territory. If there is a reliable source saying the season finale date, it can be added to a series overview table. We aren't going to simply omit season finale dates on the off-chance that the airing of an episode is delayed; if it does indeed happen, then the information can be adjusted accordingly, but we don't not include it just because something might change the date. The point of future dates in a series overview table is to indicate when a premiere/finale date is projected/planned to air, not to just list what is 100% going to happen for a fact.

Essentially (from how I'm reading it, at least), what you're suggesting is just ignoring MOS:TVUPCOMING/MOS:FUTURESEASON and that any sort of season premiere/finale date should not be reported in an article at all until it actually occurs/airs- which is definitely not how it works. Magitroopa (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That MOS you put forward does not stipulate anything about finale dates; it only covers future or announced seasons, where a projected date for the premiere episode is absolutely fine to include, especially when sources are provided. Even so, I would say that the MOS for TV might be best updated on this matter, as you do raise some good points. I would say that, like a premiere episode's possible date, the finale date is a projected one, so potentially it is not premature in fact, but rather a hope of the program's network to air the episode to that date without something potentially disrupting its broadcast; if that did happen, then yes, we probably can amend and make note of this in the article for that season. All I say is that even if we got a projected date for an episode's finale, its not a cast-iron guarantee - we editors must be understanding that a projected date may not potentially be achieved if something disrupts it. After all, what information we put into an article may not be guaranteed to remain as is, because progress, new ideas and theories may change, correct, or rebut that information.

Anyway, some good points made I think, and I think that the discussion has satisfied my question now. I think if any editor can, they might want to ensure MOS:TV considers finale dates as much as premiere dates for a television season. And @Magitroopa:, returned the finale date to that AGT season - I'm satisfied with this thanks to your responses, as they ease my concerns. Thanks for your input. GUtt01 (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Episode date

Can anyone tell me what date we put if a TV show airs at midnight? The current day or the next day? I would like to get a definitive answer on this. 71.58.56.214 (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Midnight is the following date from what the date was at 11:59pm. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice for establishing Wikipedia:Notability (television) as a guideline

This is a notice that an RfC has been started requesting comment on if the draft of Wikipedia:Notability (television) should be implemented as a guideline and a WP:SNG. Comments are welcome at the discussion, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Differentiating prod, filming loc etc. in infobox acc to season

If S1 was filmed in Canada but S2 was filmed in Japan, or s1 was prod by X but s2 was prod by Y, does the distinction need to be noted in the infobox? I saw something like this on Jonas (TV series) but haven't come across many other articles where this is done to know whether it's okay or not. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be definitely be discussed in article if possible, but it doesn't hurt to do so in the infobox for a couple season differences. I'd say anything more than 3 (as in noting changes for three seasons), might be considered excessive notation in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Seasons and cast categories

Hey IJBall re: your reversion on Legacies (TV series): I've never encountered an example or guidance where we overlap seasons for designations of main/recurring or main/guest in the parenthetical descriptors or seen any indication that the presence of "(main, seasons X–Y)" means the person was main-cast credited from the beginning of season X. (The "from the beginning" actually makes zero sense, since that means if someone was recurring in s4 and upped to main later in season 4 and continued on for the next three seasons, we'd list them as "(main, seasons 5–7; recurring, season 4)", which completely misses that they were main-cast credited in s4.

Can you point to where else this happens (where it's not you who's made that kind of edit, I mean) or where consensus says this is how we do it? I've only ever seen non-overlapping ranges. It seems far more sensible to simply list the top designation and, as I said earlier, if we really need to capture that someone was not made "main" until later in a season, to indicate that with {{efn}} notes. (I personally don't think indicating when in a season someone's status changed is particularly useful and kinda goes against WP:NOTAGUIDE but I guess others may disagree. At most that seems like something that should be in a season article, not the main article for the program.) —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen a case where following a MOS demands we be straight-up inaccurate. To say something like "recurring, season 1; main, season 2–4" is straight up wrong if someone was recurring for the first half of season #2. I really do not understand why some editors think that following their unique interpretation of a MOS is somehow "more important" that having an accurate (and not misleading) encyclopedia. Accuracy should be our first concern, with everything else second. Now, if you want to cover this with 'notes', I don't think that's better, but it's certainly better than leaving a straight up inaccuracy in our articles. But one way or the other, this has nothing to do with "NOTAGUIDE" (which seems to be everyone's favorite stalking horse when they can't come up with a substantive objection to something like this, and has nothing to do with anything), and has everything to do with actually accurately reporting what happens with casting levels change during the course of a show. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

And, no, in your example, it would correctly be: "(main, seasons 4–7; recurring, season 4 [previously])" – if anyone thinks that's confusing, it can be supplemented with a note. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I asked for some examples of where things are done elsewhere in the project as you indicated they should be done at Legacies (TV series) or to be pointed at where in MOS it says to do it/interpret it as you are interpreting it. Do you have any such examples? —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Tiger King 2

There is currently a discussion on the talk page of Tiger King 2 about 1) needing to move the article, but more importantly 2) how it goes not meet MOS:TV guidelines at all in existing as a separate article, even if it were to be expanded. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:Notability (television) is now a notability essay

Per the results of the recent RfC, WP:NTV is now a notability essay. It can be looked to for reference on notability matters, but do note it is simply an essay and not a notability guideline or WP:SNG. There were some good criticisms brought up in the RfC (such as possibly trying to emulate WP:NMUSIC's layout/format), but I feel now that this is an essay, it can still be worked on and expanded upon, which I would encourage from anyone interested. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Plot Summaries on TV Shows with no defined seasons

If a tv show has say 600+ episodes (like an Indian serial), and are not broken up into seasons like other tv-shows, enforcing the 500 word count on the plot summary doesn't make any sense. Yes it should be concise, but outright reverting is not the solution. Maybe we should come up with a new system for shows that do not follow seasons and are posted daily, or maybe instead of outright reversion maybe edit to show a tag that this needs to be edited down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrowIce (talk • contribs) 18:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

For situations like that which are not common I would think it is fine to develop a local consensus that editors agree makes sense for the situation, the MOS is just a guideline and does not need to be rigidly followed in all circumstances. Perhaps it makes sense to treat each year's worth of episodes as a "season" in this context? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we could settle at episode 1-100 being considered one season? Reason being, I've seen that one should aim for 500 words per season, and condensing 365 episodes into 500 words, will lose track of major plot points, and would mean 0.73 words per episode which doesn't seem fair.CrowIce (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Cast/characters info and capitalization after a colon

Background

I noticed what I believe to be incorrect capitalization after colons in the Star Trek: Prodigy#Cast and characters section and applied a correction. It was promptly reverted by another editor, whose edit summary suggested discussion on that article's talk page. We discussed guidelines at MOS:COLON and MOS:TVCAST, though continue to have different interpretations of their applicability or meaning. The other editor referred to past discussions during development of MOS:TVCAST that support capitalization of the first word after a colon, even when what follows it is not a grammatical sentence. I did not find such discussion in the talk archives here, though the other editor suggested I raise the issue here for broader discussion and possible resolution.

My understanding of the MOS guidance is that a word following a colon should only be capitalized when it begins a grammatically complete sentence. Do others see the guidance and examples at MOS:COLON and MOS:TVCAST as showing lower-case is otherwise appropriate after the colon? —ADavidB 04:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You could also do Actor A as Character B, a loveable character from the planet Earth. That avoids the issue altogether and is what is normally done in many television articles. Amaury • 04:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I had raised the option of making what follows the colon a complete sentence, but that was dismissed by the other editor. Your suggestion of using a comma followed by lower case would work as well. My intent is to reach agreement on a guideline-compliant revision that others won't insist be reverted. —ADavidB 04:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

As the "other editor" in question I would like to make clear that I asked to bring this discussion here because any change made would likely need to be replicated across many other TV articles that use the same style. The standard formatting that I have used and seen at many different TV articles is to capitalise the letter after the colon. Previous wording at MOS:COLON had supported this (or at least it did the way I was interpreting it, which is to say that if there is multiple sentences after the colon we should definitely capitalise the first letter) and the discussion we had about MOS:TVCAST during the big MOS:TV overhaul referred to MOS:COLON and came to the consensus that the MOS should not prescribe whether to use upper or lower case after the colon. Further reasoning for why it makes sense to use the capital letter is because most of the TV articles that I am talking about also add a break after the colon if there is a paragraph of details after the actor and character names. If there is a break after the colon then we definitely want a capital letter. So if editors agree that using the capital after the colon is grammatically incorrect then we should probably explicitly say that here and then we will also need a plan to change all the TV articles that do this. If that is not consensus here then it would still be good to confirm whether clarification of MOS:TVCAST is required to avoid this confusion in the future. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:COLON already explains how to use colons. Correct letter case after a colon is dependent on whether a complete sentence follows it. Incomplete sentence? Use lower-case. Otherwise, capitalize it, especially when additional sentences follow. As the first responder suggested, use of a comma instead would seemingly get past the issue. I don't believe every TV article needs to use the exact same grammatical structure, just be grammatically correct. —ADavidB 14:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

We could also just use lowercase if there isn't a break after and capitalize if there is a break after. That doesn't seem terribly inconsistent. —El Millo (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Mass-deletion of categories

I don't know precisely where to take this concern, but this is a start:
I have recently been seeing the mass-deletion of categories in tv and film articles. The latest (on my watchlist) to get hit: Degrassi: The Next Generation, which had 13 categories deleted on 16:17, 18 January 2022. This is a tv series known for its inclusion of LGBT characters and I have seen lesbian and gay characters with story arcs about them unfolding in episodes. These individual characters are found in the article List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters.
In the third paragraph of the Degrassi: The Next Generation lead you find this: "The episode "My Body Is a Cage", in which a character is outed as transgender, won a Peabody Award in 2011." In the "List of awards and nominations received by the Degrassi franchise" you see that Degrassi: The Next Generation has received two GLAAD Media Award nominations for Outstanding Drama Series.
The deletion of categories from Degrassi: The Next Generation was done recklessly -- without regard for the history of the tv series and the reason why the categories were included. The HotCat gadget is being used without a second thought about the damage it can cause to articles. Some editors are handling HotCat like a gun, where they just point and shoot, and maybe think about the collateral damage later. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the issue Pyxis Solitary. I have reverted the edit per WP:BRD and hope constructive conversation on the topic can happen in that article's talk page. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Such is the case with much of the mass-scope repetitive minor editing when it actually intersects with quite substantive content questions ("is X a defining feature of Y?"). These categories shouldn't have been removed as LGBT inclusion is a significant part of Degrassi. We don't need people to create amorphous work to be done ("removing unnecessary categories") when there are actually hundreds of backlogs that are critical or have substantial reader impact. Anything to do with categories is neither. — Bilorv (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The same editor deleted 15 categories from The Prom (film) on 22:10, 9 January 2022. This is a film musical about a lesbian teenager who is prevented by the PTA from taking her girlfriend to the high school prom. The film is an adaptation of the 2018 Broadway musical hit (the performance of one of the songs in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade made history as the first same-sex kiss seen in the parade's entertainment segment).
Among the categories deleted:

• Category:2020 LGBT-related films
• Category:2020s high school films
• Category:American musical comedy-drama films
• Category:American teen LGBT-related films
• Category:Films about anti-LGBT sentiment
• Category:Lesbian-related films
• Category:LGBT-related musical comedy-drama films

I undid the deletion; however, I'd hate to think that LGBT-related articles are being targeted. The careless use of HotCat in Degrassi: The Next Generation and The Prom (film) are examples of why something needs to be done to stop the misuse of HotCat. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Current season dates

Question on when to add announced episode dates to a season table when you have a source? An editor stated that there was a consensus to not add dates of upcoming episodes in a season table where the season was already underway but didn't link to the consensus. MOS:TVUPCOMING doesn't state that and it seems like that is about forthcoming seasons. I looked at some other TV shows to get a sense (ex: A Discovery of Witches (TV series)#Series 3 (2022), Legends of Tomorrow (season 7)#Episodes, Peacemaker (TV series)#Episodes, The Book of Boba Fett#Episodes) and it seems like most add the episodes when they have any kind of sourced basic info (like dates). Is there a stated consensus by the project or is this just a personal style thing? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The standard practice is when there are at least two cells of information available; a title and a date, a director and a writer, etc. Definitely not just singular dates, such as this edit, as I've explained at Talk:The Legend of Vox Machina#Upcoming episodes. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Right. You said it had project consensus so I was hoping to read through the discussion that established that. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent MOS changes

@Reywas92: You can discuss your changes here. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The show's premise should be in the lead. I don't why the heck anyone has a problem with this. It should be common sense that as the lead section summarizes the article and topic, this would include a basic premise of what the show is about in the first paragraphs. This section Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Lead_paragraphs does not explicitly mention the premise but it should, even as implied by "a quick introduction to the topic". Reywas92^Talk 01:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I see no issue with the addition about the show's premise. I can't envision a situation where a show can't be summarized into a single sentence. --Masem (t) 01:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The section covers two things, the lead in general and a basic introduction to the series within the lead. The lead should summarise the entire article with due weight, which covers the premise/plot, but those details do not necessarily have to be in the basic introduction part of the lead. Your change suggested that they do, which there is no consensus for. And for context for anyone else joining here, this editor was reverted by multiple others for trying to insist that the first paragraph of Moon Knight (TV series) must include the series' premise. Instead of starting a discussion about that over there they came here and apparently tried to change the MOS so that it would support their changes to that article. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm baffled why you think this article on a series shouldn't contain its premise in the lead. Again, you are falsely saying I'm trying to put something in "the first paragraph" when I just want the premise to be somewhere in the lead, but you weren't having that. My edit did not say they "have to be" in any particular part of the lead, because the first paragraph of this section describes "The lead paragraphs" plural. Yes, yes, yes the premise is a basic fact about a film or TV series and should be given as early as possible, but this does not specify that it must be in the first paragraph not the second or third. If that's your interpretation of it, this should be more broadly rewritten, but I'm always astonished when I see such poorly written leads about media that don't include the simplest one-sentence plot summary, and this MOS should indicate that they should. Reywas92^Talk 03:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I never said the lead should not have the premise, but you definitely are trying to say that the premise should go in the first paragraph of the lead. If you read MOS:TVLEAD properly, you will see that its first paragraph says this: an article on a television series should begin with basic information about the show, such as when it first premiered, genre(s) and setting, who created/developed the show, its primary broadcasting station (typically the studio that produces the show), and when the show stopped airing (the first airing of the final episode), etc. Later in the section we have this line: Subsequent paragraph(s) should summarize the major points of the rest of the article: basic production information (e.g. where the show is filmed), principal cast of the show, critical reception, influences, place in popular culture, major awards, and anything else that made the show unique. The first quote is specifically about the "basic information" that the lead "should begin" with, which is where you were putting the premise, and then the second quote refers to "subsequent paragraphs". Now, I will note that the second lin includes stuff that also can possibly go in the first paragraph if we want to, such as the cast, so if we want to specifically mention the premise somewhere (we don't need to because these are just examples and all sections in the article are covered by "a concise overview of the article itself, as per the Lead section style guideline") we could put it in that second quote, but putting it in the first quote means that we are recommending all TV articles begin with the series' premise and that is definitely something that would need to be discussed properly. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

A premise could possibly be included in the lead, but it doesn't necessarily have to be in the first paragraph, which this edit was claiming (based on the existing ... should begin with ... terminology). I would also caution on any potential wording additions in terms of plot, because any lead mentions should, if at all, be more plot elements/broad overview, which might not be a "premise" per se. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I also want to comment too regarding Reywas92's editing at Moon Knight: the solution wasn't coming to the MOS to add something to win an argument. A discussion should have been held at that talk page (ideally) first, to discuss the issue, and then MOS edits or a discussion should have branched from that if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to "win" anything with this, WP:LEAD is more than adequate for what I'd think would be common sense that the lead of a TV article should include what the show is about! You're making the same unclear interpretation: that under "Lead paragraphs" says the article "...should begin with", immediately following "The lead paragraphs of an article..." so no, this does not state it must be in the "first paragraph". It subsequently says "All genre classifications throughout the article, including in the lead,..." again not specifying that this information is only for the first paragraph. If you think we should be prescribing what goes specifically in the first paragraph, it should be changed to say that, but it does not currently, and it'd be better remove that exact structure anyway. Basic plot concept, premise, or whatever you want to call it belongs in the lead – and I'd certainly consider that "basic information about the show" ahead of production information, critical reception, influences, etc. – to adequately summarize the article and subject. Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a shittily drafted section then. When the paragraph begins with "The lead paragraphs", the rest of that paragraph applies to the lead paragraphs. That lead as a whole is how "an article on a television series should begin" (emphasis added), not specifically how the lead should begin in the single "first" paragraph. We shouldn't be prescribing such a narrow format specifying what goes in what paragraph. But the premise should be in the first one or two. Reywas92^Talk 14:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"It is a satirical parody of the middle class American lifestyle epitomized by its titular family, which consists of Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie." sounds like a premise to me! If this is "A good example of a first paragraph", where is when it first premiered, as is supposedly directed to be in the "first" paragraph? Should the premise be removed from that since you don't like it going at the very top? No, this shouldn't go "in that second quote", because we shouldn't be recommending articles not begin with the premise and direct it be relegated to "subsequent paragraphs" and restricted from the first! Somehow you're saying the "subsequent paragraphs" stuff can go in the first if we want (obviously!) but stuff that's as you claim to be specified to go in the first (but it's not) can't be moved later if we want to? Reywas92^Talk 14:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL. The fact that different sentences in the same paragraph talk about the rest of the lead is completely irrelevant. Multiple editors now have explained that the sentence you updated is specifically about the beginning of the lead, trying to talk your way around that isn't going to work. And obviously that example shouldn't be changed, it's just an example. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in to remind editors that the WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH way to approach a disagreement is to take it to the talk page. While the discussion is in progress, don't try to push through the same or similar edits, knowing that other editors have not yet consented to those edits. Try to build WP:CONSENSUS. If there isn't a consensus to move forward, the status quo remains. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Add the sentence "The lead section should also include the premise of the show." This is basic information that is needed for the lead to adequately summarize the article and the topic. Reywas92^Talk 18:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Change "Subsequent paragraph(s) should..." to "The lead should also..." There's no reason to require that these can't go in the first paragraph. The Simpsons example is just two sentences long, which is hardly a full paragraph, and as was said above, "Now, I will note that the second line includes stuff that also can possibly go in the first paragraph if we want to." Reywas92^Talk 18:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that these are two separate proposals or options that we are choosing from? I would support this second proposal but I think the first one would then be redundant. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

These are separate, but the first would not be redundant because there's still nothing specifying that what the show's actually about should be in the lead. Reywas92^Talk 21:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

If we go with this second proposal then there would be no issue adding the premise to the "lead should also..." sentence. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You just agreed to this and there's no objection to it. Word it however you like, but this shouldn't be a problem. Reywas92^Talk 02:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Very well, I have made the agreed upon change myself. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for Ratings in TVLEAD

I propose that TVLEAD (for TV movies) clarifies that ratings information belong in lead paragraphs, albeit mentioned briefly and if information is reliably available. TV movies should include information about whether they were widely viewed. My proposal is only inconsistently applied to TV articles; Descendants (2015 film) and The Day After includes ratings information, but some TV movies like Zombies (2018 film) do not include ratings and viewership information mentioned in the lead. By including a small amount of ratings information in the lead whenever a reliable source can be accredited to such information, readers can easily determine how popular a program is. InvadingInvader (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The LEAD of this page doesn't dictate everything that needs to be there, it's just a guide of how to write an overview. So, if a page has some rating info in the lead, that's fine already. Now, it's far easier to do that with a TV movie (as it's a single viewership), over a series that spans multiple years. Even saying "Series X held an average of Y million viewers across 10 years" can be potentially misleading if the first few years were say 6 million viewers and the last several years were say 1 million. It's about context and you want to make sure that it isn't misleading.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I personally agree with TV Movies; thanks for responding. Some editors have been opposed to including brief ratings information for TV movies, and I can't understand why such information is excluded from the lead. I can understand your point for shows or long-term stuff, but for singular events, ratings should definitely be mentioned if they're included. InvadingInvader (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the argument against including the viewership ratings for a TV movie in the lead? Per WP:LEAD, that section is to summarize the article as a whole...and ratings and critical reception are part of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ratings should only be mentioned in the lede if they are actually relevant. Most TV shows get middling ratings – there is no point in mentioning ratings for shows like this in the lede. It's not ledeworthy. Now, if you are talking about a show that was consistently ranked in the Top 10 or Top 20 TV shows on U.S. TV from the 80s or 90s, then clearly that and the ratings for such shows is relevant... But I agree with MOS:TVLEAD leaving ratings out of the discussion – in general, for most shows, ratings are not germane to the lede. And that is especially true of shows from the "streaming era" of the last 15 years. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree; ratings can be used as a measurement or indicator of popularity. Audiences coming to Wikipedia should know immediately whether a movie was widely watched, and the lead is where a subtle mention deserves to be. If a tv movie is popular, mention the ratings. If a tv movie is unpopular, mention the ratings to demonstrate that it was a failure. Same idea if it's in the middle or a mid-level success. Every TV movie in between should have reliably-sourced ratings data if such data exists. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Except the ratings here are for a single television film. But even for television series, if this were something like The Big Bang Theory, then yeah, but it's not. Additionally, other articles doing things wrong does not set precedence over other articles. See WP:OSE. Furthermore, with the significant decline the last several years in ratings, particularly L+SD, since that's what we list here, ratings alone aren't even a determining factor as to whether or not a series is renewed, etc. by a network. In other words, ratings aren't as relevant as they used to be. And even back then, there were plenty of times they weren't relevant. Amaury • 19:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree with this sentiment that it isn't "relevant". That's a matter of personal opinion. Is the fact that a show on TruTV only gets 500k viewers relevant when compared to The Big Bang Theory...no. But how is that compared to the shows on TruTV. That might be the highest rated show on the network; might be the lowest rated show. The point is, it's still standard information about the show. Ratings are not a niche area of article development, they are frequently a substantial part. As WP:LEAD says, you summarize the key parts of the article. It doesn't say, unless they are "irrelevant compared to other shows". If there is a way to summarize the ratings so that you're not being interpretive, and misleading, then it should be allowed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarize the important points of the article. If the ratings are an important point, you mention them in the lede. If reviews and critical response to the series are important, it goes in the lede. If a show wins important awards, it's ledeworthy. If none of those are true, then it doesn't go in the lede. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, if a show wins awards you're only supposed to say it has won awards, not what specific ones (to remain neutral). Ratings are important enough to be considered a must when you're establishing a featured article. Thus, it's "important" enough to include a single sentence in a lead. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill regarding this. We include the network a show is on, which isn't important in the scheme of the show. Given that ratings are part of the determining factor in a show remaining or being cancelled, that would argue that it must be important on some level.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: exactly….ratings are important. Ratings tell readers immediately if the program was popular, which is different than critical reviews, which tell how much quality professionals think a program has. Rating were and still are the best way to measure popularity, which in the TV business usually equals success. More often than not, main incentive for TV production is popularity, which leads to money for those involved. If results don’t matter, what does?

It’s also worth mentioning that broadly, it does seem that a small group of users seems to impede many of my suggested changes to the lead. I always try to assume good faith, but I often see that essential information is removed from the lead which I try to briefly mention. I understand that you guys are trying to make Wikipedia constistent and brief, but not too many articles will reach good status if leads keep getting trimmed and additions cited by reliable sources are removed for subjective reasons. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Audience scores

The section WP:TVRECEPTION says: "This means that IMDb, TV.com, and similar websites that give "fan polls" are not reliable sources of information." I would like to suggest making a small update to that text since TV.com is defunct and it has been a while since anyone thought it was appropriate to add TV.com scores to television articles. I do not have an exact wording change to in mind but I propose removing the outdated mention of TV.com and instead highlighting other "similar websites", specifically I recommend making it explicitly clear by name that the Rotten Tomatoes audience score is also just another fan poll WP:UGC and not allowed either (per WP:UGC and WP:RS.) -- 109.78.199.168 (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I would support this, have had recent issues with users trying to add Rotten Tomatoes audience scores to articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure we could copy some of the text at MOS:FILM#Audience reception. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking the most minimal changes possible to avoid disagreement (as close as possible to just deleting TV.com and replacing it with "Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score" more or less). If editors wanted to a little more than that or to avoid naming specific sites that happen to be an issue at the moment it might be best to point upstream to the guidelines WP:UGC/WP:RS to give readers a better understanding of not only what to do but also why it is done that way. It really does help when the guidelines make the existing consensus and best practices clearer, there are plenty of knowledgeable wikipedia editors who edit in good faith and are simply more familiar with other topics and do not edit TV or film articles very often. I'm sure there will always be some users who continue to add Audience scores (and act like not including it is a conspiracy against their favorite show) no matter what, but I think even a small adjustment would help. If nothing else being able to point to this discussion might help a little too. Thanks. -- 109.78.199.168 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe in the short term someone could go ahead and remove the specific mentions of the dead website TV.com from the guidelines? (lead, reception, external links) -- 109.76.139.121 (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. -- 109.76.130.202 (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Can we add or mention in the lead section of a series article what time a series or a show airs on telivision? because it sounds like a promotion, as it is not mentioned in our Manual of Style. For example Snowdrop (South Korean TV series), and my other recent reverts, because it seems to indicate a promotion.—Ctrlwiki (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ctrlwiki Specific air times should not be mentioned as noted in MOS:TV#Broadcast: Days or timeslots are not inherently notable, but if covering a series that switches these during its run, it may be helpful to note them for each season. (bolding mine). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Writer parameter - Written by

Please see a relevant discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_film#Writer_parameter_-_Written_by. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Image section revision

I believe that with the pattern of what I've seen many TV main articles are doing, I suggest these edits to the first point to match said common practices:

• For a show's main article, an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or simply the show's official logo with a blank or transparent background should be used to represent the show itself should be used, especially if the show has multiple seasons. If the show only lasts one season, or is a limited series or miniseries, a promotional poster is acceptable. Due to promotional posters usually advertising one specific season, using them should generally be avoided if the show has multiple seasons, unless there are no other available options. If all fail, a home-release cover is acceptable

Thoughts and improvements so an update can be "officiated"? Iamnoahflores (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm mostly okay with the changes, but it needs some adjustments and retaining of existing working. Counter proposal:

• For a show's main article, an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a free, fair-use version of the official logo should be used to represent the show. If a show has multiple intertitles throughout its run, the one most representative of the show should ideally be used; the intertitle does not need to be updated each time a new version is used. If the show only lasts one season, or is a limited series or miniseries, a promotional poster is also acceptable. Due to promotional posters usually advertising one specific season, using them should generally be avoided if the show has multiple seasons, unless there are no other available options. If all fail, a home-release cover may be used.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That seems fair, I can work with that. Iamnoahflores (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Let's see if any other users weigh in on the suggested changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on order of sections.

Is there an agreed upon standard order of sections, specifically cast/characters and episodes, for television series? In television articles that have sections for those, I've always seen cast listed and then episodes. However, recently another editor has tried to claim that the MOS clearly say to put episodes before cast. However, after reading this " The basic order of these pages tends to follow: Lead, plot, cast lists, production, broadcast and home media, and reception, with any other miscellaneous sections coming afterward. If a section consisting of an article-spanning table (i.e. the "Episodes" section with {{Episode table}}) is being pushed down by the infobox creating a large amount of whitespace (example), then that section can be moved further down in the article. However, if said section contains plot or episode summaries, it should ideally be as high up the page as possible, since Wikipedia uses plot information as context for understanding the real world information to follow in the article." it seems very ambiguous on where exactly to place episodes in the article. So I was hoping for other editors to help clarify what (if anything at all) policy says to say on the matter. Thank you. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Once again, quoting the relevant section of the MOS: "However, if said section contains plot or episode summaries, it should ideally be as high up the page as possible, since Wikipedia uses plot information as context for understanding the real world information to follow in the article." As I said at User talk:Amaury: "IOW, episode summaries go as high up in the page order as possible – this includes episode overview tables. These should be paired with, or included inside, the 'Plot', etc. section... FTR, this is exactly how season articles are supposed to be done as well – e.g. Arrow (season 1): note, 'Episodes' before 'Cast' listings... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

WandaVision (B-Class), Family Guy (Good Article), Supernatural (season 1) (Featured Article), Supernatural (season 2) (Featured Article), Firefly (TV series (GA), Better Call Saul (season 1) (GA), Gilmore Girls (B), Animaniacs (FA), and Loki (TV series) (B) all have the cast/characters listed before episodes. You're also refusing to actually read what you're quoting. "However, if said section contains plot or episode summaries" when the list of episodes is just a table linking and a link to the season and/or list of episodes article, then it does not actually contain plot or episode summaries. However, cast/characters very often contains a lot of plot details. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

If it's the case list, then it's fine if that comes first. I think it depends on the page. For instance, on a parent page I wouldn't put a cast list first, because the order doesn't make logical sense. If it's an LOE page, then it's fine (but also not likely relevant to have a cast list on an LOE page for a long running show). For seasonal pages, it's fine with it first, second, or even non-existent depending on the article topic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The specific scenario that was discussed involves a transcluded 'series overview'. Many of the examples JDDJS referenced are either episode tables which would clash with the infobox (notice that MOS:TV specifically says "...ideally be as high up the page as possible..." for that very reason – sometimes episode tables need to be further down the page to avoid "clashing" with the IB), or are from articles that got their GA/FA status before MOS:TV "matured". There is absolutely no reason not to include the 'series overview' table (which do not clash with IBs) either directly below, or inside, the 'Plot' or 'Premise' section – it makes no sense to put it anywhere else, especially given the direction from MOS:TV. And that is basically how we have handled these lately. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall You continue to outright ignore the fact that it specifically states to list as high as possible only when it "contains plot or episode summaries". This debate simply cannot continue in good faith if you keep ignoring the part of the MOS that doesn't agree with what you say. It is extremely common for the episode section on a series page to not contain any plot or episode summaries, while the cast list extremely often does contain some plot details. So if you want to actually have a good faith and productive conversation, please stop ignoring the context of the guidelines that you are quoting. Otherwise, this conversation is completely pointless. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The intention of that wording is that any plot/premise/episode sections should come first, but sometimes an episode section will clash with the infobox and need to be moved down. It isn't really any more complicated than that. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but that includes series overview tables as part of that – they need to go up high up with 'Plot' etc. sections. Basically, I recall the thinking being – where does "plot" come from? it comes from the episodes themselves. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense for being over production sections, but I see where a cast section (sometimes) would be fine being above that. There have been multiple debates in the past, with no real clear consensus, about cast sections and if they should be above (because they are introducing the characters you're about to read about) or below (because they are technically real-world content) the plot descriptions. It was never as cut and dry as plot above production information, reception, etc.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is confirming what I initially thought: there really isn't an actual agreed on "right" way to order them. Later, when I have more time to write it out, I'm going to start an RFC here to try to get a consensus to establishing a more specific guideline on how to order them. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You are likely not going to get that for 2 reasons. One, this is a guideline and guidelines are not policy. They are written to provide guidance, not dictate every action. Consensus on a particular page can overwrite guidelines (so long as it isn't egregiously flying in the face of it). The other would be based on "CREEP" when it comes to the guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The current guideline seems sufficient in this regard – put episodes/overview tables "as high on the page" as possible. Gives guidance, but leave wiggle-room, and provides an "out" for clashes with the infobox. And I agree – while I personally would prefer to see cast lists above episode tables on "season" articles, I am quite sure there is no consensus to change the current preference. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Rewritten

For the cast and characters section, If a character is played by two different actors in two different seasons, what can I do so that it is not confusing when we read it? This is what an editor did to this. Take a look at the first character. One actor played the character from 2010–2021 and the second actor played the same character from 2021–2022, then the first actor returned to play the character since 2022. It reads like this:

• Michael V. and Sef Cadayona (2021–2022) as Pepito "Pitoy" Manaloto

Others may be confused because it appears that both the first and second actors are playing the same character in 2021–2022. How to rewrite this? —Princess Faye ^{(my talk)} 04:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I would probably do "Michael V. as Pepito "Pitoy" Manaloto. Sef Cadayona portrayed the character from 2021–2022." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. —Princess Faye ^{(my talk)} 00:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Can I use a small template? because it has been used for the majority of the cast. It looks and reads like this.

[[Michael V.]] as Pepito "Pitoy" Manaloto. [[Sef Cadayona]] portrayed the character from {{small|(2021–2022)}}.

Michael V. as Pepito "Pitoy" Manaloto. Sef Cadayona portrayed the character from (2021–2022).

Doesn’t it violate guidelines? —Princess Faye ^{(my talk)} 01:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You should avoid it because there really isn't any reason you should be using it to begin with. See MOS:SMALLTEXT. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Rerun ratings for streaming shows

Our guidelines on ratings don't really cover this, not sure if we need to or not, but how should we handle ratings for streaming shows that later get aired on broadcast TV? My thought was that we should generally avoid these since they are ratings for reruns, but I can also see an argument for including this data if there is coverage and commentary for it. I am raising this because someone is trying to add such data to Star Trek: Discovery without any commentary establishing why it is noteworthy or putting it in appropriate context, and I came to see if we had any guidance for that sort of situation. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we should add a line to the MOS to say ratings should cover initial release/run, unless ratings for another release are notable (ie what you're describing possibly, or say a US series doesn't do well here but blows up in another country/vice versa, etc.). Something like the wording at WP:TVINTL. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I have added a first attempt in. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Reverted, in line with WP:POLSILENCE, so that more editors can voice their thoughts on wording/necessity, in more than 4 days and 2 replies. Especially under the circumstances that @Adamstom.97: may not be WP:NEUTRAL to implement the change, at this point, considering the charged language he is using to reference an edit on a page, that would fall into the category of the change. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 20:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to add ratings of reruns though. For example, a HBO Max series initial release and then broadcast in USA Network and Showcase later. We cannot include ratings of every reruns. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what we are saying. But there will always be noteworthy exceptions, so the wording I added does allow for those. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree noteworthy exceptions that have actual coverage and commentary, not just ratings themselves. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I think, as with most edits, it's a matter of notability, which is a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE. It isn't a case that every show that has entered syndication or has been rerun, now has its page overrun with coverage. While I do not necessarily disagree with including suggestions for considering rerun ratings, it is short-sighted to force exclusions, without more examples on how to implement it (e.g. how mentioning a show is now on X streaming platform's top 5, compared to a show going from streaming to network Y and being watched by Z people). And, as the "offending user" who is the "someone" mentioned above and below, it would be inappropriate to swiftly make changes to suit one user's need for WP:OWNERSHIP of a directly affected article, in order to usurp the policy of WP:DR; it should be for a WP:NEUTRAL user to confirm the consensus and then implement, when appropriate. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 20:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no minimum number of editors required to update the MOS, especially not for small, common sense additions that align with the existing best practices at most TV articles. The change does not "force exclusions" in anyway, so it is clear that your only objection is that I am the one who made the change. But I did not personally just add a change to support my own argument at another discussion, as you are suggesting, I clearly proposed the change above and let other neutral users "confirm the consensus" just as you have asked. The fact that you have completely ignored that and once again forced your own personal view upon multiple other editors shows why it is still laughable for you to accuse me of ownership when it is you who is just doing whatever the hell you want. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This has been the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS of the Television project. Adam just started a formal discussion on the matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Your disregard for differing views and other editors, and it hasn't just been me, in general is unfortunate - particularly as you desperately need to separate what is your own viewpoint/interpretation and what is irrefutable fact because you definitely come across as confused. In this matter, my concern is twofold:

1. Your swift action to add a change, then immediately using it as a citation to bypass ongoing discussion on another article (procedural concern)
2. No clear separation of media, with priority implied to whichever was first, which may be unreliable, especially when potential audience size is not a concern; example with X, Y and Z above (content concern)

There has been no assertion on a specific "minimum number of editors required" or, as you often like to do elsewhere, an attempt to dismiss this discussion altogether. Favre1fan93 was that additional check, when it was added back. Your realisation of your WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR on another page, which you brought up below, is mostly separate and I will not stoop to your level to drag it in here as a distraction. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Once again you are accusing me of ownership when I clearly have the support of multiple editors and you do not. This is starting to feel like you are WP:HOUNDING me and I am getting sick of it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Star Trek: Discovery#CBS Nielsen Ratings (2020-2021 TV Season)

Requesting input at this discussion from other experienced television editors. I have pointed the offending user to this discussion, but they have ignored my explanations and continue to add the information. It is especially significant that we avoid misleading data for an article like this which has a long history of editors and IPs trying to add negative opinions to the article that don't align with the sources and wider coverage. Any help in handling this situation would be most appreciated. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

MOS:TVSPLIT

Our section discussing splitting off list of episode articles assumes that the episode tables have the full summaries in them, but this is not the case when there is already season articles and we are only showing the main details in the episode tables. I feel like this was discussed before at some point, but should we be treating these two situations the same (since I think the summaries are still being transcluded and then hidden) when considering a split? It may be something that we want to clarify in the MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree – episode tables should only be split out if there are actual episode summaries. Otherwise they should not be. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

SAP

Some articles (especially those on the topic of television in the U.S.) use SAP (an Ameircan analogue standard) to refer to the use of multiple audio tracks on television, when in reality, all analogue systems are shutting down worldwide. Should the use of the term "SAP" be discouraged for the sake of technical correctness? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: 'Plot' vs 'Premise' sections, and MOS:TVPLOT

As per WP:TVPLOT, it states "...an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary." This is because we don't want articles to have a long 'Plot' section (of hundreds of words with specific plot details) and episode summaries (also with plot details) in an episodes table.

But this doesn't seem to say anything about a much shorter 'Premise' or 'Overview' section. Are the latter "OK"? It would seem that they are, following the example of Hellcats, which has a short 'Series overview' section (akin to a 'Premise' section) and an episode table, and is a WP:GA. It seems to me that a 'Premise' or 'Overview' section, that provides a quick summary of the TV series 'set-up' (and doesn't cover specific later plot developments), is not "prohibited" as per MOS:TVPLOT. (And, FTR, I've seen lots of single-season TV series articles do it this way: 'Premise' with an episodes table.)

Is this correct? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this has always been standard process for most TV articles, as long as it is actually a short premise/overview and not a second plot summary in disguise. Like you say, that wording in the MOS is intended to avoid longer plot summaries on the same article as an episode table. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Would it be worth it to reword so that, at this point, TVPLOT says: "...an article should not have both an episode table with summaries and a prose plot summary." (emphasis mine)? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that would be useful, to clarify. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll wait several days to see if there are any further followup comments or suggestions. But if there are no objections, I will make a revision like that then. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Can someone point me to an article where the problem exists so that I can understand what is being referenced when we some "plot" vs. "premise" and episode tables?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

See Saved by the Bell: The College Years. For the past couple of days, @IJBall and I have been bickering over whether it needs the Premise section when it already has an episode table. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I agreed that the former 'Plot' section at Saved by the Bell: The College Years was overlong, and replaced it with a more concise 'Premise' section. FTR, here are some other (mostly one-season TV series) articles that are done the same way (aside from the already mentioned Hellcats WP:GA), with both a 'Premise' (or something similar) section and an episode table with summaries: The Wizard (TV series), Max Headroom (TV series), The Flash (1990 TV series), Uncle Buck (1990 TV series), Eerie, Indiana, The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. (a WP:FA), Social Studies (TV series), Mortal Kombat: Conquest, and presumably lots of others.

So it is in no way unusual to have an article like this to have a 'Premise' or 'Summary' type section and episode summaries, and MOS:TVPLOT in no way is designed to "disallow" this – what it is designed to do is prevent 'Plot' sections (with actual series plot developments) of hundreds of words, and an episode table with episode summaries, at the same article. A 'Premise' section doesn't do that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I think a premise like that is just fine. If there are summaries that are basically prose versions of all the episodes, then no, that shouldn't be there. If anything, I would expect the premise to actually be above an episode table though, because they are talking about the same thing essentially. It would be like creating a section to summarize reviews of a film, and then another section, not sequentially below it, have a list of specific reviews.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

In theory, the episode table would go right below the 'Premise'- or 'Overview'-type section, and above the 'Cast' section. (Which, FTR, I don't necessarily agree with – e.g. I don't think this works at 'Season' articles – but it's how it's currently supposed to be done...) But there's the perennial issue of the episode table "clashing" with the infobox. So, in practice, at single-season TV series articles, the order is very usually 'Premise' → 'Cast' → 'Episodes' – this is actually allowed for under MOS:TV, which is why it says "However, if said section contains plot or episode summaries, it should ideally be as high up the page as possible... (emphasis mine) – if it's a (transcluded) 'Series overview' table, it can go up near the top, but if it's an episode table it often can't. MOS:FILM is fortunate in that they only need to worry about 'Plot', not 'Episodes', sections, so 'Plot' is always at the top in film articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The clash is more prominent in articles where the cast/crew list is very large, which is not common for young shows or shows with only 1 or 2 seasons. Additionally, the browser your using can play a role in that. Some of them autocorrect the issues and some just push it down creating a large white area. That said, given that most of the time the cast list is just that...a list, you can easily put that above the premise/episodes first. I actually never understood why a basic cast list would not come before the plot, because we turn around and say "don't put the actor names in the plot/premise".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The reason that it is preferred to have the plot first is because it gives context to readers who haven't seen the show, so when the article discusses other things such as the cast, production, reception, etc., they will have a basic understanding of what is being discussed. This is the same for film articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The reason plot come before production is for context of the production. That isn't true for a cast list. There doesn't need to be "context" before a cast list unless that cast list happens to contain spoilers present in the plot summary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I have implemented the proposed wording clarification, as there have been no objections to that here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If anyone needed a good example, after having their single season episode table split off, and now since merged back, Moonlight (American TV series) as with this edit now has a very long plot summary and the episode summaries that goes against what TVPLOT was trying to avoid. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Quantum Leap (2022 TV series) § Ep 1 writer credits

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Quantum Leap (2022 TV series) § Ep 1 writer credits. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Reception section and review aggregators

I could have sworn the MOS specifically stated that a 'Reception' section should not just consist of review aggregators and nothing else. Did I just make that up? Or did the MOS once say that, and it has been removed?... The specific issue is at Miss Match where an editor has added a 'Reception' section with just Rotten Tomatoes (and based on just 12 reviews, which is generally less than we like to see before inclusion of an aggregator in the first place) and nothing else. I strongly believe we should never do 'Reception' sections with just aggregators, and I was pretty sure that WP:TV generally agreed with this view. Looking for guidance here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

By the time an article is GA or so, the reception should be more than just an aggregator, but having an aggregator as the sole reception during development of the article seems fine. Masem (t) 03:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is one editor who thinks that is not fine, that we use aggregators too much as it is, and we definitely shouldn't use them when they have less that about 15-20 reviews anyway. And to be clear – Miss Match is not a "new" article: it's almost two decades old. But even for a "new" article, "aggregator-only" 'Reception' sections should not be considered "OK": there should always be actual individual reviews (preferably reviews of "quality"); then the aggregators can be brought in on top of that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

But remember that there is no deadline and we are always a work in progress. Yes, it would be better if the first person to add a reception section did more than just the aggregator, but we can't require more than that. Masem (t) 03:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean, it's not fine, but it's better than an empty section or not having any reception info. Perhaps we could set a time limit since a film or TV show's release after which having just the review aggregators is no longer okay and an {{Expand section}} template should be added. We can add that to the guideline too if we can get consensus. —El Millo (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

See, I disagree with that – I think no 'Reception'/'Critical response' section is better than one with just aggregators. And that is especially true is the aggregators have less than 15-20 reviews in the aggregation (which is what we have in the Miss Match case...). But, as a general practice, I think the MOS should actually say a 'Reception'/'Critical response' must have more than just aggregators to justify a separate section. (If you can't find one or two decent individual reviews... well, there shouldn't be a section, and there is probably real question as to whether they should be a standalone article for that show!) In the case of Miss Match, I am quite sure there are actual reviews out there, but it's not like I have a lot of time right now to go hunting for them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Aggregators are a good place to start from, and many times IP editors are the ones going to add this in. I'm not a fan of a blanket "ban" of sections just being aggregators, nor excluding sections altogether if that's all there is. Should there be more than them? Yes, and as Masem said, we aren't on a deadline, but maintenance templates may be helpful to let editors/readers know an expansion is needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I can understand your point IJBall. The problem that I would see with using the aggregator with 12 reviews is that it's being used to imply a level of consensus among critics that doesn't exist because there's only 12 reviews. That said, it also is probably less work to just go to RT and pull a handful of reviews and write a summary and then remove the percentage.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

MOS:FILM has had discussions about this, and aggregators that have less than about 12–15 reviews should not be used at all (not enough reviews to be statistically significant, etc.), and I personally remove esp. Metacrtic mentions from articles all the time because there are less than 10 reviews. There absolutely should be a minimum "count", though neither WP:FILM or WP:TV has ever pulled the trigger on that and settled on a number. But <12–15 reviews is definitely not enough to merit inclusion IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

there are far far more film reviewers than television reviewers. It makes sense that a film with only 12 reviews from an aggregator should not include them, but 12 seems about average for many tv shows. Masem (t) 20:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

How is, say, 10 reviews "acceptable" for a TV series, but not for a film?! (Short answer: It's not.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, the base of regular TV reviewers out there compared to film reviews is smaller.

Also, keep in mind that presumption of notability is in play here. An RT listing itself is not sufficient for long-term quality, but I can check through the RT listing and see who has reviewed and to what degree, and if that gives us a good number of in depth reviews from quality sources, that's meeting the presumption of notability. That's the other rub here. Now, mind you, there are nuances here (season vs epiodes, for example) but the view about not including RT if no other reviews are also included is not a healthy approach. Masem (t) 04:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This starts an incredibly slippery slope where people are going to use just Rotten Tomatos and Metacritic links/refs to justify creating an article. WP:NTV even says as much when it says "The scope of reviews should extend beyond recaps and simple review aggregator coverage, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.", though in the 'Episode' section, unfortunately – it really should be broader than the 'Episode' article discussion. There's a reason why WP:NFILM says "...has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. – that explicitly rules out using the aggregators for notability.

But the real problem here is that the aggregators are Tertiary sources and we really should not base significant article content, like entire sections, on just tertiary sources. (WP:TERTIARYUSE seems pretty good on this, and I think includes some suggestions which are directly applicable here.)

As a general rule, I think we should take "The scope of reviews should extend beyond recaps and simple review aggregator coverage, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic." from WP:NTV and add it to MOS:TV as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's the real problem with using RT and other aggregators with TV shows. They aren't typically writing reviews of "seasons". They are writing a review about an episode (maybe a couple of them), but then you're using the percentage as if the overall critic reception was a certain level of approval that it wasn't. Let's look at Miss Match for a specific example. I pulled 8 of the 12 reviews on RT. On RT, they are all listed as November 2019. That gives the impression it must be a review of the show, given that the show ended in 2003. Except, if you go to the reviews, they are actually dated for September 2003; these were a review of the pilot. So, I would actually argue in the case of Miss Match, using RT in any capacity outside of noting it's for the pilot is misleading to readers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

That's another excellent point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I oppose to a blanket "ban" of sections just being aggregators, nor excluding sections altogether if that's all there is as well. WP:NORUSH. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Really, then why is "The scope of reviews should extend beyond recaps and simple review aggregator coverage, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic." in WP:NTV (which is about new article creation), but not in MOS:TV itself?! – Note: That's not even a "ban", it's just a very strong recommendation, which implicitly everyone here has agreed with (even you). --IJBall (contribs • talk) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd be okay pulling that wording from NTV over to MOSTV, but I don't think it will outright prevent sections just of aggregators. We'll have something we can link editors to if we see its a consistent problem, but I also don't see this addition as ground to outright remove current sections that look like this. Again, tagging for expansion or another maintenance tag would be useful to indicate there's a perceived problem. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm A-OK with that. (Though I personally still intend to remove aggregators from articles that have less than 10 reviews, for sure.)

There just needs to be something in the MOS that says, "Hey! Just having aggregators is not enough for a 'Reception' section!!" As long as that's in the MOS, I'm fine with being realistic about what happens after that.

(Though, note – this is actually even more important for WP:NTV, as use of just aggregators should not justify article creation under any circumstances! – if that's all you've got, it should be in WP:Drafts-space!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The quote is specifically for television episode articles as seen on the WP:NTVEP section though, it is not on the WP:NTV section. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

If you think it doesn't apply generally – and that it shouldn't apply generally – I have a bridge to sell you. 😜 --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

International Distributors in Infoboxes

There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#International Distributors regarding the listing of International Distributors in the Infobox. Thank you. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Imperfects § Clauses

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Imperfects § Clauses. Editors are needed to weigh in on this discussion. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox air dates for extended hiatus TV series

The Template: Infobox television instructions state "In the event that a program resumes airing after a long hiatus, such as more than 12 months between episodes or cancellation and subsequent renewal, the date is simply replaced with "present" to reflect the "current" status of the program." Am I understanding this that regardless of how long the hiatus lasted only the very first and last date should be listed? Just bringing this up after this revert when the recent King of the Hill revival was announced.

The reverting editor brings up the point that Will & Grace, Arrested Development, Roseanne, The X Files, and Murphy Brown all split their original series and revival series. I know that Doctor Who does this as well. Meanwhile, other articles like Veronica Mars, Law & Order, Futurama, and Phineas and Ferb don't. Of course there are others of both and some syndicated series or those that switched networks mention that within the air date field as well.

Regardless of what the "right" way is to do this, I thought it may be useful to gauge a consensus and gain some uniformity between the articles mentioned. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The infobox does indeed say to ignore all the time that the series was not airing and simply call it "present". Is that actually good? That is a different thing. I personally would say that the first and last values (and potentially also the network if that changes with the renewed series) should represent the actual time the show aired. If at any time the show was later renewed, then new parameters can be created and used for this, making the data more reliable. This also fixes improper uses where this split is already done by users (see Will & Grace). Gonnym (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of South Park episodes § "Films"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of South Park episodes § "Films". The discussion concerns how to list films as episodes for a television series, where films are considered major works and television episodes are considered minor works. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Track listings for soundtracks

Arrow (season 1) has a section discussing the music which includes a track listing for the associated soundtrack release. MOS:FILMSOUNDTRACK explicitly discourages track listings for soundtracks unless they include individually notable tracks (typically songs versus score). I checked the MoS here and there doesn't appear to be any equivalent guidance on this. Nevertheless, I removed the track listing since I would think the same logic would apply, only to be reverted by Gonnym (talk · contribs). Can editors weigh in on whether we should be including such track listings? If so, I'm curious as to why there's a perceived difference. If not, we may want to update the MoS, perhaps adapting the language used at the MoS for films. Thanks for your thoughts! DonIago (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

We generally follow the same guidelines as MOSFILM, and I don't see why we would do something different here to be fair. Basic musical scores are indiscriminate information items.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I see no issue with including it, as long as it is reliably sourced. This is standard practice, at least along the television articles I've edited. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Just because it may be 'standard' practice doesn't mean it's good practice. Track listings take up a fair amount of space, and seem like WP:INDISCRIMINATE information if the tracks themselves have likely received no real attention (such attention would obviously be demonstrated by sources). DonIago (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Accused (2023 TV series) § Content dispute

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Accused (2023 TV series) § Content dispute. Editors are needed to weigh in on this in order to reach a consensus. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Streaming service coverage

When did we add "The addition or removal of a season or series to a streaming service (Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.) or other on-demand service can also be noted here." to the 'Release' section of MOS:TV?! I could have sworn that it was decided a long time ago that we should, in general, not note when (old, former broadcast and cable) TV series are on streaming services, as they often switch services (which is not worth noting) every couple of years, and doing so is basically trivial (in kind of a WP:NOTTVGUIDE kind of way). And also because generally only low quality sources will even cover this kind of thing.

Shouldn't this issue be revisited? I personally don't care for the current wording on this, as it implies that inclusion in a streaming service library should be noted for old TV shows. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, ping Favre1fan93 here to see if they remember something about this topic from the MOS:TV discussions from a few years ago that I don't remember. But I am puzzled that this was left in the MOS, especially as this is little different from "rerun syndication" which is something else we generally don't include in TV series articles (for similar reasons – e.g. series "jumping channels/streamers every few years" anyway...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall: If I recall, it was to cover an instance where a series individually, or per its production studio, fell under a blanket streaming deal (ie ABC or CW series from the early and mid 2010s going to Netflix) and thus would appear on there relatively consistently at a certain point each year. It never was meant to cover something where a series hops around a lot, and at least these days is probably less important as it was back in that timeframe of the mid 2015s. So while outright removal from the MOS might not be necessary IMO, clarification probably is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I would definitely favor a reword. The current wording doesn't even mention a (secondary) sourcing requirement. It's also seems to nonchalantly imply that such info is always relevant to TV series articles, when it most cases it isn't (and is likely be a kind of WP:NOTTVGUIDE-type violation)... As I said, it's analogous to including every channel a TV series has been rerun on in backend syndication!

I don't know exactly what the new wording should say for this. But I know the current wording is not at all good, and is encouraging IP editors to continue to add "This seres can be found on [X] streamer as of November 2022..." type statements (nearly always either unsourced, or sourced directly to the streamer itself with a primary source) to various TV series articles. If we can put something in MOS:TV to more directly push back against this trend with new wording, I would certainly welcome it, for one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

How about this after the existing first sentence (I may not love the wording entirely but its my thoughts on it): All additions or removals should be reliably source from third-party sources, but note that not all additions or removals are notable to mention. Some examples of when a mention might be notable include when a production company signs an agreement with a streamer for all of their series (ie The CW-airing Warner Bros. series appearing on Netflix), streaming rights for a series are split between multiple streamers (ie Modern Family on Hulu and Peacock), the streaming rights of a series get significant coverage (ie the rights to Friends), or when a streaming original is removed from their original service (ie Westworld/many other HBO Max originals). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Support new/additional wording. Love it. I think it basically addresses my concerns including importance of third-party sources (though there's probably nothing wrong with just saying "secondary sources") and noting that "not all additions or removals are notable to mention". With that, reversions of trivial additions can simply say "As per MOS:TV" in the edit summary now... Let's give this a few days to see if anyone else comments, but if there's nothing further, this language should be put into the MOS in the second paragraph of the 'Home media and streaming services' section. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Great discussion!

Think we should reword it where the mention is the exception, as in something like:

In most cases, do not note the addition of a season or series to, or its removal from, a streaming service (Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.) or other on-demand service as most such changes are not notable. Exceptions, which should be reliably sourced using secondary sources, include when a production company signs an agreement with a streamer for all of their series (ie The CW–airing Warner Bros. series appearing on Netflix), streaming rights for a series are split between multiple streamers (i.e., Modern Family on Hulu and Peacock), a change in streaming rights of a series gets significant coverage (i.e., the rights to Friends), or when a streaming original is removed from their original service (ie Westworld/many other HBO Max originals).

Because otherwise I can see people just taking the first sentence and being like... "well clearly it's fine!" when from the sound of it, it's not fine in most cases. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That's fine with me. At least for the first example, I want to make it clear (in my opinion), that for instance saying the date the new season of Riverdale drops on Netflix is ok each year, along with a home media release if ones exist, because that fell under the larger WBTV series deal. Obviously if it isn't there already we don't need to go and add it, but if it is already or does get added, that in my eyes is an ok inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I also like this. Add: Though those should be "e.g." not "i.e." Also, I would only use Westworld as an example, as this practice has now spread well beyond just HBO Max. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I just had an example, NewsRadio reverted and called inappropriate, and while I kind of get it, I don’t understand what therefore leaving its Hulu stint up does except leave the impression that the show hasn’t been streaming in over a decade 108.41.81.126 (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to link to the secondary sources discussing these examples? I've found the CW/Netflix one, and can get the Modern Family, Friends, and Westworld ones if deemed helpful. I think at least the CW one might. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we normally link to real sources in the MOS (IOW, I think that is probably "overkill"). However, I would make sure that those respective articles contain the sources in question!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

So... sorry for the ie vs. eg errors:

In most cases, do not note the addition of a season or series to, or its removal from, a streaming service (Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.) or other on-demand services as most such changes are not notable. Exceptions, which should be reliably sourced using secondary sources, include when a production company signs an agreement with a streamer for all of their series (e.g., The CW–airing Warner Bros. series appearing on Netflix), streaming rights for a series are split between multiple streamers (e.g., Modern Family on Hulu and Peacock), a change in streaming rights of a series gets significant coverage (e.g., the rights to Friends), or when a streaming original is removed from its original service (e.g., Westworld).

and maybe we could link to the relevant sections of the given examples? I guess we'd need one specific one for the Warner Bros. series appearing on Netflix:

(e.g., The CW–airing Warner Bros. series appearing on Netflix, such as The Flash) ?

—Joeyconnick (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The Flash would be a good example. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Note also that the line Any syndication deal can also be noted. should also be similarly clarified, as this again implies that mentioning any "backend syndication" is legitimate, when generally it is not, for the same reasons. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This almost got away from me, but I realized today that I still haven't moved on a rewording based on the discussion here. I will try to get to that in the next few weeks... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Just commenting to say I am generally opposed to listing streaming services unless that is the sole outlet EvergreenFir (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

There might be rare cases where "back-end streaming" might be worth mentioning at a specific TV series article. But those instances are very rare! That's why we need to reword this – in general, back-end syndication and streaming should be entirely left out of most TV series articles. (I just cleaned up Go, Diego, Go! earlier today, which involved having to remove a pointless section on the streaming services it could be found on – again, that's pretty clearly WP:NOTTVGUIDE territory!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Clarification of present tense standard for MOS:TVNOW

Regarding: [...] the program's existence should still be in present tense (e.g. "The Afternoon Show is a British talk show which was broadcast by Channel 1 between 2008 and 2011 [...] in MOS:TVNOW, this does not make sense as a blanket rule. In print, a former newspaper's existence is most often described in the past tense (e.g., Cayman Observer and Rocky Mountain News). Many former television news shows are already described using a past tense copular verb (e.g., I.N.S. Telenews, After the Deadlines, Camel News Caravan, DuMont Evening News). I've searched the talk page archive and haven't seen this exact point. Yannn¹¹ 18:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

If the series is still available to be watched then it still exists and should not be discussed with past tense. The only time it is appropriate to describe a series with past tense is if no physical or digital copies of it exist and it can no longer be watched. The fact that other articles may not follow this guideline is irrelevant. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, I agree that it makes sense to describe most series in the present tense. However, MOS:TENSE has an exception for periodicals that are no longer produced. I should clarify that I wasn't trying to use the news broadcasts as an authoritative example, but just to show that editors are already naturally describing no longer produced news series in the past tense. Yannn¹¹ 22:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I see now that the RFC for the periodicals exception considered television media in aggregate to no consensus. I expect that specifically news broadcasts would likely find consensus for "was"; so, the resolution may be another RFC. Yannn¹¹ 22:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion re move of "Van der Valk (1972 TV series)"

Van der Valk (1972 TV series) is the original series — Van der Valk (2020 TV series) is the reboot. The broadcast name of both the original and the reboot is "Van der Valk".
The original article's name was moved to "Van der Valk" without prior discussion. A discussion is now being held to restore "(1972 TV series)" to the article name per WP:TVNAME Additional Disambiguation. You are invited to join the discussion. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 20:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the first move that had no prior discussion was on 2 April with the addition of the disambiguation; the move on 4 April removing the disambiguation was to revert this. Which move were you were referring to? -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I've just seen the strangest claim from the above editor; here, they claimed Production, Release, Broadcast, Home media sections appear BEFORE Episodes section. In their version, the Episodes section is the very final section before References. Any MOS:TV editors agree here? I've never seen this. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Television channel/network VS television company/owner

Hello. I already read http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(broadcasting)#Network,_channel,_or_station? but I'm still confused because of the Breakfast television article. Each table has a "network" header and it mostly refers to the network/channel (example: CCTV-2, France 2, Das Erste, NHK G, BBC One, CNBC) but some sections like Mexico refer to the owner TV company instead of the network/channel (example: TV Azteca instead of Azteca Uno). Which rules or MOS applies? Lars JayShiro (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Fantasy Island (2021 TV series) § Recurring, guest starring, and co-starring

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Fantasy Island (2021 TV series) § Recurring, guest starring, and co-starring. Editors are needed to weigh in on this in order to reach a consensus. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of The Great North episodes § For Whom the Smell Tolls

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of The Great North episodes § For Whom the Smell Tolls. Editors are needed to weigh in on this in order to reach a consensus. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Production credits sections

Hi, I was looking through the MOS and the talk page archives for any indication for whether to include production credits such as the ones in this article, but I did not find anything. For the record, I feel like these credits should be removed, but I was looking to cite a policy when removing them to avoid conflict. Does this fall under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? Thanks. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 22:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe you might be looking for MOS:TVCREW. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Repeated linking change at Manual of Style/Linking

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#DL, sections, and mobile readers and change. Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh... good to know. Now another thing to put on the list of maintenance tasks when going through watchlists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Season articles and MOS:BOLDLEAD

Is there a way for season articles to follow MOS:BOLDLEAD (and MOS:BOLDLINK)? If so, how would an article like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) be modified? Gonnym (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, no, because any combo for a season article will need to include the main series name, which in turn is likely to be the first mention of it in the lead and would need to be linked, which would violate MOS:BOLDLINK. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD seems to be what's happening has currently formatted, and I think that is the best way to convey this without trying to bend over backwards to find a formatting that would allow bolding. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

And this would also be a possible violation of MOS:AVOIDBOLD and MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Could we give the constant tweaking a rest?

I've never seen any MoS page, or any guideline page of any kind for that matter, subject to so much constant change for so long a stretch. This material is supposed to be stable, especially when it comes to the substantive meaning of what it is saying (versus exactly how it's punctuated or whether a sentence has proper plurality agreement or other cosmetic matters). But there has been such a firehose of changes, for a week or two now, that it's very difficult to have a clear idea of where the meaning has shifted, where what it's saying is going to result in a need for changes across numerous articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There have been 57 consecutive edits by MapReader, including changes to MOS:TVUPCOMING that state that season headers should be of the form "Season eleven" rather than "Season 11", for which there is no consensus (this change appears throughout the MoS). I'm in half a mind to restore to the late stable version. -- Alex_21 _TALK 19:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the material is badly written in many places, and I have been careful not to change the meaning; each individual edit corrects pretty obvious flaws in grammar or needless repetition of words like “television show” that are implicit from the context. It’s pretty easy to use the history page to review all the changes in one go - from which you’ll see the considerable number of errors that were in the original text - and obviously if anyone thinks any of the edits changes the intention of the text, I am not going to argue about it. MapReader (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend changing the season numbering formats back to their previous state, and open a discussion if you wish to change it. These [1][2] are not acceptable changes. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@MapReader Given your recent contribution history, I see you're trying to make the MoS conform with WP:MOSNUM. Can you show where you a consensus for this? If not, are you able to separately restore the numbering format from before your edits, or will the recent edits to the MoS need to be restored completely? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Doesn’t the site-wide MoS apply to the formatting of project MoS pages in the same way as to other articles? MapReader (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

MapReader should draft their proposed changes in a sandbox rather than making an excessive number of consecutive edits and triggering everyone's watchlists. I agree with Alex 21 that the most recent stable version should be restored. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I would invite you to use the history page to review the large numbers of basic errors, of spelling, punctuation and grammar, as well as incorrectly quoted leads from other articles, and unnecessary and often repetitive duplications, that I’ve removed from the text. Almost every edit has reduced the word count, representing good practice copy-editing, with nothing intended to be added to the long-standing guidelines. By any objective standard the drafting of the original text wasn’t that great. MapReader (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the previous stable revision was perfect or free of errors, or that your version is terrible. I'm saying you should copy-and-paste the entire text of the MoS, move it to a sandbox, make as many consecutive edits as you'd like, and then present your revised version here if there are any major changes. If it's just spelling and grammar changes, you are free to implement those changes directly, but the key is to make them as one bulk edit so our watchlists are not inundated with repeated notifications. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I had assumed that one bulk edit would be unwelcome since it would contain a large batch of small spelling and grammar changes, no easier to review than using the history page to review those I have made one by one, and making all of these at once would stop anyone reverting any particular change if they had any issue with it. MapReader (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a reasonable concern, though clearly the change to "Season Two" style does not have consensus. We use numerals for various things that numerals are more customarily used for, such as sports scores, book volume and page numbers, issues of comic books, etc. I think there's a good bet that TV show seasons/series numbers are one of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I also recognize that there's a lot of fixes to basic errors in grammar among the edits, but the onus is not on other editors to have to sort through them all to find the singular edits that need restoring. MapReader, kindly restore the edits to the season numbering style as soon as possible, else the last stable version may have to be restored. Thanks.

Concerning the number of edits, this is why {{uw-preview}} exists; too many edits (i.e. over 60) can clog the edit history, and, as SMcCandlish, spam the watchlists of those watching the MoS page. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Your assumption is (in my opinion) correct. If you had a huge list of changes there is a more than likely chance that no one will really want to look at it. Whoever has an issue with any specific change you did (and article history is there to view those) should raise it here, like Alex did, and then either restore it or get consensus for it. There is no reason to revert anything else. That said, you could make bigger chunks of edits to reduce the number of edits total. Gonnym (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, my issue concerning the edits changing "season 1" to "season one", is that this style of edit (quoting NUMERAL) by the same editor was already disputed at another article, taken to AN to no avail, and then those same changes made to the MoS without consensus and witin 24 hours of the dispute, knowing there was previously disagreement to them. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with changing them back, and will do this shortly. Nothing however got changed within the Mos as to how numerals are presented within film articles themselves; simply the formatting of the MoS document itself, as basic copy-editing. I have yet to find anything that refers to how series numerals are formatted within film articles, and if there is indeed a specified exception to the general rule within WP:MOS I would appreciate being pointed to it. MapReader (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not really necessary for any MoS section to list every conceivable exception. Guidelines are guidelines not policies, and that one clearly even says "generally". We're not listing various other exceptions to MOS:NUMERALS, like volume and issue numbering (to which series/season and episode numbering are rather exactly analogous), page numbering, etc. The fact that the section does list some examples of exceptions does not mean we must wrack our brains for every imaginable example. Until you got a wild hare about this, there was no dispute on WP about how to write series/season and episode numbers, and MoS should not include line-items about things which are not subject to repetitive editorial dispute, because it is over-long already (see WP:MOSBLOAT). The very fact of MOS:TV providing examples written with numerals is already enough guidance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

There should not be any exception. The heirarchy of page development should start at Policy, then move to generalistic guildeines (e.g., basic writing), and then to speciality guidelines (e.g., WikiTVMOS --> WikiTVCharacterMOS, etc.). This guideline does not supercede any general guideline on writing. This has always been the case, and the reason why we have frequently referenced other guidelines when it came to how to handle titles, page splitting, etc.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

If you and MapReader really, really, really want to go add season/series and episode numbers as an enumerated "exception" at MOS:NUMERALS, have at it. But don't be surprised if someone reverts it as unnecessary instruction creep that is not addressing any actual problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

My understanding was that season/episode numbers were proper to be shown as numerals in tables and infoboxes, but follow MOSNUM (i.e. in words for numbers below ten and for others to achieve consistency) in the body of the text. I've seen a fair few articles where that is the case, and in the body of an article it does read better to say "season two was well reviewed..." rather than "season 2 was well reviewed" IMHO. Clearly my understanding is wrong, or at least not shared by others; not having it spelled out anywhere isn't helpful and while the core MoS isn't the place to do it, surely MOSTV would be? MapReader (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess, but how is it not already clear when MOS:TV is written with examples using numerals? Anyway, maybe draft some language? If we insert a "rule" about it, it should be clear that "second season" or "seventh episode" would be written that way; we have no reason to abbreviate it to "2nd season" or "7th episode" (though we would do "24th episode" per MOS:ORDINALS).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

For the body of text within an article, it's not obvious why "season two was well reviewed" would be subject to any different consideration than any other sentence containing "two"? For example, it took just a few seconds to pull up Friends, an extremely well-known article which I am pretty sure I have never edited myself - and a WP:GA - while the infoboxes, titles and tables all show season numbers in numerals, much of the text follows Mosnum - for example see the cast and characters section here, or indeed the linked article List of Friends and Joey characters. There will be tons of others. The wording I would expect to see would be along the lines of "Season/series and episode numbers should be written using numerals within titles, subtitles, tables and infoboxes, but otherwise within the text (body) of an article the normal guidlines of MOS:NUM and MOS:ORDINALS apply" MapReader (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

That would just result in very inconsistent treatment, veering from one style to another in the same article, like unto writing "Superman #8" in one place (following the "#N" convention for comics) but "Superman no. eight" elsewhere in the same piece, and we just don't do that. (But we would write "the eighth issue of Superman").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I've personally always followed the rule of "the second season" over "season two" as well, and I support that usage. However, yes, for (and not limited to) headings, series overview tables, and cast listings, WikiProject Television has always used numerical values. There is no "heirarchy" outside of policies, guidelines are solely recommendations, and I could absolutely find many series articles out there that don't follow this MoS to a tee for the benefit of the article. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

When you say "there is no heirarchy", I point you to the literal first paragraph of WP:MOS, which states: "This Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles (though provisions related to accessibility apply across the entire project, not just to articles). This primary page is supported by further detail pages, which are cross-referenced here and listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Contents. If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence." Yes, we do have heirarchies. The fact that you can point to many pages that don't follow this guideline or some other guideline does NOT mean that there isn't an heirarchy, that they shouldn't be followed, or that those pages are operating correctly. There are certainly aspects of any guideline that may be ignored, but those are exceptional cases, and not the rule. Otherwise, it would simply be part of the guideline. When this MOS was originally drafted (and I know, because I fucking wrote it with several others), we frequently were checking to make sure it did not say anything that contradicted other guidelines. You cannot have guidelines contradicting each other. They can handle certain things differently, but they cannot outright contradict each other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Then if it is such a violation of guidelines (note, not policy), then I recommend you gain a consensus to change and correct those thousands of articles, instead of just talking about it and not presenting a solution. No point suggesting this to an editor who cannot remain civil, my bad. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The wider point here is that we actually don’t have a guideline. We have site-wide policies, which are specific and clear, and then we have actual practice for TV articles - which is heavily inconsistent, and for MoSTV I don’t buy SMcCandlish’s presumption that, merely because some examples (put there to illustrate unrelated points) happen to use a particular format, this in itself somehow constitutes a guideline. Clearly it doesn’t and that isn’t the WP way, which is to be as specific as possible when it comes to matters of format or style (even if that specificity is that editors have a choice, or we leave things be). It also seems peculiar to be so specific on ordinals - so within article text we want “second season” not “2nd season”, without the same applying to “season two” not “season 2”, when the visual interruption to the reader of coming across an unnecessary numeral mid-sentence is broadly the same? MapReader (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

And what we don't want is a WP:POLICYFORK or a perception of one. If we think there's a perception of one here (a minor, topical guideline creating a "magical exception" to a general rule that seems like it should apply to this topic), then the solution is to open an RfC here to hammer out the details; put the resulting wording in MOS:TV (if a result is reached that indicates a particular convention in this topic); and (under the same "if") put a one-liner summary of it in the list of exceptions at MOS:NUMERALS. I'm generally resistant to codifying topical exceptions to general rules, but this actually seems to be a conventionalized (even if not yet universal) case for one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I know that comment about "someone who cannot remain civil" wasn't aimed at me, because I made no such uncivil remarks to you. If you're trying to claim me saying "I fucking wrote it" is uncivil, then you're misunderstanding civility. I didn't attack you in anyway, and I don't appreciate the attack on my character when the only thing I've done in this entire section was point out that there is in fact a hierarchy to guidelines (as even stated directly by our parent MOS page). I haven't argued a point of what should happen one way or the other. I'm not entirely sure where this weird belief that "because it's a guideline we really don't have to follow it" has come about, because that's not true. Guidelines aren't policies because they contain gray areas that Policies do NOT contain. Not because you can simply ignore them when you don't like them. Gray areas of understanding that articles might be structured in different ways, and guidelines cannot force you to order things one particular way (like a policy would), but if there are guidelines on how to literally write your article (e.g., how to use quotation marks, how to write numbers, etc.) then you don't simply ignore that because you don't like it or "other articles aren't doing that. No one can police every article, and you know as well as I do that there are a lot of things that never get corrected on pages because the main editors of those pages typically don't know what the guideline is for writing. It's also not helpful to take this strawman argument of, "well, why don't you go fix the X number of articles that do it this way?" You have been around long enough to know that when we have mass articles doing something wrong we don't simply let them be. We have banded together and divided them up and got them (at least the majority) fixed. Or someone was kind enough to write a bot that auto corrected simple issues. So, please stop throwing this in people's faces like it's proof that we should just accept whatever the problem is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Quit the personal attacks. Bottom line, both MOS:NUM and :ORDINALS direct that numbers and ordinals within the body of articles should be written in text, rather than numerals, certainly below ten. There’s nothing in MOS:TV currently that has any consensus to do anything different, although I accept that for infoboxes, tables and lists, sticking with numerals does make sense, as it does probably (although it is arguable, on grounds of readability) for titles. For text within articles, such as commentary along the lines of “season two received mixed reviews”, having the season number in text is clearly preferable for readability, reflects MOS:NUM, and doesn’t contradict anything currently written within MOS:TV. MapReader (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

And is there anything dictating between the usage of "season two received mixed reviews" and "the second season received mixed reviews"? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Not that I can see. Both formations are readable, and clear. Both read best in lower case text. But it wouldn’t make sense to prefer one over the other solely because one is allowed to be in words and the other not, when the problem would be with the latter guideline, if it existed. MapReader (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of MapReader's intent of being "careful not to change the meaning", I re-added a few things that are significant enough to change the meaning, based on my reading. I agree with this thread that substantial changes in meaning should be discussed, even if they seem uncontroversial to some. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries at all. The paragraph you have edited begins by saying “…not offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens…” and you have added back in, to avoid “scene-by-scene breakdowns”, which I took to be making the same point twice. But if you think this is a substantive change your revert is welcome. MapReader (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)