Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

List of episodes - when to split

Hi all. Wanted to start this discussion here because I think it needs to be had. Currently, I know of two discussions going on about wanting to split episode tables off to LoEs: Riverdale (discussion here) and This Is Us (discussion here). There was also a recent discussion for Legends of Tomorrow (discussion here) regarding this. All the MOS has on this (which really isn't anything directly related to this) is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Multiple_pages. Somewhere along the lines, the practice of this project was, a series has begun airing its second season, let's create the LoE. However, the reason this was okay a couple of years ago, was all of your television seasons were 20-26 episodes long, and having two episodes tables of say 24 episodes each, with plot summaries, became a WP:SIZE/WP:SPLIT issue, so that was at least somewhat justifiable. Today, a season of a show can range from 8-26 episodes, so automatically splitting once a second season has started is not an automatic. A variety of factors, unique to each show in question, need to be considered (all going back to WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT): How many episodes does the first season have? How many episodes will the second have? Does a season article already exist for the first season, resulting in a transcluded episode table? Do plot summaries exists, and how detailed are they, lending to the size of the article? We also shouldn't be quick to jump on this either, because what if the series only has 2 seasons total? An LoE may not even been necessary then. Again, these were just a few factors I could think of at the moment. I hope we can have this discussion here to help us move away from the simple idea of the LoEs existing because a second season started, and more because of why they were started in the first place: the main article holding the tables got too large with them and necessitated a split of the content. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Thank you for starting this discussion, I think this was a long time coming, and it will be good to get a consensus on this. I'll start by saying, whatever is decided here should apply only to new shows going forward, that is to say, if we establish a minimum number of episodes, I don't think we should go back to older shows and remove their "LoE articles" if they have less than that minimum. For broadcast shows, if a full season has already aired (20+ episodes), then the LoE article should be created once the second season starts. However, if the show's first season is less than 20 episodes, then I think the LoE article can be created at the point in its second season (or third) when it actually reaches the 20 total episodes mark. Less than 20 or so episodes seems okay to keep on the main article page, but once you start to get 20+ episode summaries, I think it's a little much. I've always thought of the main TV article as the overview and background of the show, and the episode summaries as more in-depth (i.e requiring a second article). Rswallis10 (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm all for having this discussion, but aren't we in the middle of revising the MOS? With regard to establishing a criteria more specific, I do think we should go back (eventually) and adjust where we should adjust. Shows that did it too soon, but are well into their 3rd, 4th, etc. season won't be affected. It would ultimately affect shows of 1 or 2 season length that never progressed any further (so, arguably don't need a separate page) and future pages. THe easiest way to determine splitting should generally go down to WP:SIZE, not simply number of episodes or seasons. We get happy-go-lucky with splitting simply because an arbitruary number of reached with regard to episodes or seasons. Except WP:SIZE isn't arbitrary. It's based on downloading of the page (e.g., pages with lots of info take longer to download) as well as general readability. I'm not sure we need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to splitting, so much as maybe more clearly define what is already stated. If you want to base it on "episodes", then it's simply enough to look at how many episode summaries would likely put a page at a size limit that suggested splitting. THen that becomes your basic threshold. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

My "simple" formula: most shows that have been renewed for a third season can have a LoE split off. Yeah, you can wait until there's third season episode info (i.e. wait to start the third season episode table is started), but I don't think it should be "required". Of course, the issue with 4-to-8-episode-season series (e.g. Endeavour (TV series)) does complicate this... Where things get muddy is splitting after a second season renewal (for, say, a 20-to-22-episode-per-season series) – I'm ambivalent on this issue. Also, there is the issue of the total number of episodes – List of Sam & Cat episodes technically covers only a single season, but when the issue of merging it back to Sam & Cat came up the consensus was that it was too long and should stay as a standalone LoE article... This may be my long-winded way of saying that I'm not sure a specific criteria will be possible for this, and it may just end up being a case-by-case issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

In thinking it over more, I say keep any guideline on this generalized, and just point to WP:SIZESPLIT. Even WP:SIZESPLIT isn't definitive – e.g. note that the wording "< 40 kB Length alone does not justify division..." does not preclude splitting even below 40 kB. But it will generally be satisfactory in most cases. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC):::

I think what we can do, while pointing to SPLIT, is provide more explanation for how SIZE is measuring actual size. I think people click "edit" and see that a page is 100kb large, but that's including HTML code. When you look at actual readable prose, it might be 20kb large (thank you everyone that loves to create tables). Hence why I said we can help them through saying "this number of episodes usually equates to this size of readable prose". I say this because tables hide text from the readable prose counter, thus making it appear smaller than it is. That said, I've seen shows that had 3 or 4 seasons of episodes, but the main page was bare. There isn't a real reason to split that off if you haven't bothered to expand the main page (hence the rationale of keeping with SIZE as our basis for splitting first). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You know, it's this kind of shit that makes people not want to contribute here. People try to do something new to enhance the Wiki, and then they get reverted, then they try to stay with the precedence and they get reverted. You just can't fucking win here. Almost every show with over 2 seasons has a "List of Episodes" article and that is what readers are used to. I literally google "List of XXX episodes" when I want information on certain shows. Now we're talking about page size and loading time? This must be a joke. It also begs the question why this needs to happen now? We've been going with this system for as long as I can remember and nobody has ever really had an issue with it - it was just known that the second season meant a split and the readers knew it, and the editors knew it. I really must be missing what the tangible problem is? Rswallis10 (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do try to remain civil during discussions, else you'll find yourself having a hard time trying to discuss. Times change, and so do guidelines. There is clearly dispute here on what appears to be an outdated practice, so we need to discuss this and gain a consensus on how to go forward; if this never happened, Wikipedia would never update with the times. What you Google is not what the guidelines of this site are based upon. You ask why this is necessary at all, but you yourself stated Thank you for starting this discussion, I think this was a long time coming, and it will be good to get a consensus on this. -- Alex^TW 00:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Realistically, it's entirely dependent upon the series and how many seasons and episodes it has, as well as whether the episode summaries are displayed or not. For example, with the Sherlock episodes, the summaries are displayed on the episodes article as there are no season articles; however, if there were season articles, then the content displayed would be minimal, meaning that the tables should be displayed on the main article. To my knowledge, there has never been a solid consensus to split after two seasons, that is just local consensus through minimal discussion and outdated practices. Splitting after the second season is perfectly fine, only when there is enough episodes to split. When there's a 26-episode season, and you're on your way to a second table of another 26, that makes sense. However, if you have a 13-episode first season, and the second only has 10, no, it makes no sense to split, as the main article has not become unwieldy enough to split the content away. The guidelines that have already been presented for splitting articles apply to the whole of the site, not just all articles except television ones. We are not a separate entity, the guidelines of the encyclopedia still apply to us.

My belief is that the number of episodes is what should the primary decision on when to split, closely followed by if the episode's summaries are given or not. Not the number of seasons, because as Favre said, the number of episodes in a season can be anywhere from 8 to 26 episodes; three seasons of Sherlock is not the same as three seasons of The Big Bang Theory. For example, it may make sense to split away 30 episodes with full 200-word episode summaries, but if it's simply 30 simple table rows because the summaries are included in another article, then there is no need to split. Sticking to the number of episodes can provide some conformity between all articles, because thirty summarized episodes in one series displays a similar amount of content as thirty summarized episodes in another series. If there is a new guideline presented from a consensus after this discussion, it should definitely apply to all series, not just those in the future. The Television WikiProject and its Manual of Style applies to all television articles, not just a few. But what do I know? I'm just Australian, not American. -- Alex^TW 00:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't care anymore. Precedence matters when it does, then doesn't matter when a select few don't want it to. Anyone in WikiProject: Editor Retention would have an aneurism reading this discussion. Wish you all the best of luck in finding consensus. Rswallis10 (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

An issue that we may have here is that the guidelines at WP:SPLIT refer to readable prose size, but that isn't going to cover a lot of elements of a TV article, including the episode tables. Perhaps we need to come up with some guidelines based on complete prose size that is inspired by the readable prose size guidelines? If we do look into that further, we also may see some sort of correlation with episode numbers that we could use, though of course it is also going to depend on the rest of the article which is why splitting based on size is going to be more helpful. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think trying to tease out "prose count" from "table code count" is just an invitation to go down the rabbit hole. It's better to just keep things as simple as possible – I'd advise to sticking to the kB counts in WP:SIZESPLIT, and try not to get lost in the details. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

But like I said, those counts don't cover the episode tables. For instance, This Is Us currently has 3505 B of readable prose (so "length alone does not justify division" according to the current guidelines), and that does not change if you just delete the episode tables from the article. Any guidelines that we try and produce for these articles need to take into consideration the size of the tables as well. I may be misinterpreting this, but the Wiki text reading may be more helpful to us than the Readable prose one. Perhaps we could use that as the basis for our guide? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

A two-headed consideration is that a one-size-fits-all recommendation has the problem that many shows have or only need very short episode summaries (e.g. talk shows, saying who the guests were), and saying something like its okay to split when the third season starts implies that it is always permissible to do so, even when the material doesn't warrant it. So, yes, stick with tying this to article size and complexity; it really doesn't have anything to do with number of seasons (which do not have a fixed number of episodes anyway – some shows are daily and continues without a season gap, some are weekly with 20+ episodes, some are weekly with 8 episodes per season, etc., etc.). But it doesn't have anything to do with number of episodes either; the summary for an episode of The Daily Show is apt to be much shorter than that for an ep of Game of Thrones. What does matter is total volume of content. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 09:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out, we can figure out readable prose for a 200 word episode summary within an main page. We don't have to be perfect, but we can provide an estimate for size that helps editors make that decision. We figured out what the typical readable prose is for episode summaries within tables (because the HTML hides it, like I said), and then we give that in the guideline. Along the lines of: "When determining the appropriate time to split an article based on WP:SIZE, you will find that # of episodes, with an average word count of 200 words, will equate to approximately XXkb of information. Add that to the listed "readable prose" in the page size screen and that will give you a rough guide for how large the page is and whether or not it needs to be split." - This way, you don't have to worry about number of seasons. You've clarified the guideline for editors, and if at "two seasons people split" and they're actually meeting the size requirements, then you're good. I'm more concerned when using episode or season counts when main pages aren't developed, so instead of 1 undeveloped page, we have several undeveloped pages simply because people want episode summaries in more detail. We're not a TV guide, nor a substitute for watching the shows. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"Readable prose" arguments don't apply well or at all to lists, though. People generally do not read episode lists (or any other lists) the way they read regular article text. It's tabular data in which they're looking up something. It's actually unhelpful to readers to split seasons and such out to separate articles when there's not a technical reason to do so (i.e. because the page will be long enough to crash some mobile browsers). A show like Doctor Who needs separate season articles, but most do not. Some can be justified as existing when we have all sorts of production info on a per-season basis to include (and it's actually encyclopedic, not indiscriminate). Even then, <noinclude>...</noinclude> should be used to structure the season articles so their lists can be transcluded into the main show article to centralize the ep list for users who prefer to have that info in one place. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 21:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I honestly feel like this will never reach a consensus on guidelines. You will never find a criteria that will fit all situations, because every show is different and has its own set of circumstances. If you look at a show like Prison Break they have 3 pages on characters/cast, a page for each season, and episodes page, in addition to many episodes having their own page and main characters having their own. Then you look at a show like 2 Broke Girls which had many more episodes and better ratings during most of the comparable season numbers, and none of that same detail. There are probably many factors that came down to the distinction between the two, but mostly it was probably just because the person who watched it edited here for Prison Break, and the ones for 2 Broke Girls didn't. It would be hard to argue based on a predefined criteria that it would have wound up this way, but it did.

I personally see nothing wrong with the standard practice that is happening now, that once 2 season pages are created, you also create a list of episodes page. In my opinion, a page like the example above, This Is Us, just looks too visually unappealing the way it is now. If you go to a list of episodes page, you expect to see a series of consistent tables that are easy to follow. Right now on This Is Us, you see a table of show summary, then a bullet list of characters, then an episode table, then a couple of paragraphs, then another table on ratings and another on accolades. I feel like the readability of the article is increased with the episodes table moved to the list of episodes article. The article needs more prose added to it as well to increase it visually, but I think breaking them away is a good first step, its just too much on one page right now.

Also if you look at the page Income Property you will see that there are 11 seasons all on the main page. The main page is 35kb, so its under the size limit for splitting but do you really think it needs 11 seasons on the main page? I think this should be something that is the exception to the rule in WP:SIZESPLIT. - Galatz ^Talk 14:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Except you just pointed out the problem. People are doing what they want. It has less to do with "every show is different" (because they really aren't when it comes to organization of information, only in availability of information), and more to do with people not following any guides and doing what they like. This is a major issue across Wikipedia, and shouldn't be simply "well, that's the way". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 21:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: "do you really think it needs 11 seasons on the main page?" – Absolutely, positively yes. It will help zero readers find information to split it up, and help zero editors doing maintenance to do so either. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 21:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Having a giant wall of text on the main page is not any better. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It's essentially infinitely better when then text is a searchable episode list in sortable table format. If you think episodes lists are "walls of text" feel free to nominate them for deletion and see how far that goes. You're simply not understanding the purpose of lists on Wikipedia and how they differ from paragraph-formatted prose. They are different, and we have a whole set of guidelines about them that differ from those pertaining to regular text, for a good reasons. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 23:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I never said episode lists are giant wall of texts. I said having a giant wall of text on the parent article is not any better. You said you'd be fine with having 11 seasons all on the same page instead of having a "list of episodes" article, hence my response. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

More like hence your stubborn refusal to address anything substantive about my argument, such as the searchable and sortable utility of having episode lists in a single page. Please stop thinking like a fan and think like a reader who has not already memorized which episode in what season had which events with what characters in it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 23:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to sit there and be unnecessarily combative and rude when I made a simple comment, then consider this my final response directed at you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's reset. Posted a simple list of points below. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 01:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

People still seem to be missing a crucial point here: the readable prose size of an article does not include tables like the episode tables, so that seems to me to be a pretty major oversight. Perhaps we should take this discussion to WP:SPLIT and come up with a new splitting guide that somehow includes episode tables and the like, which can be used for TV articles, and then we just need to direct people there. That seems like a simple and easy-to-implement solution to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Splitting#Splitting size guideline and TV articles to see if there are any helpful responses there. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Substantive reasons (maybe not all of them, but numbered for convenience in responding to them) to keep the episode lists in the main article:

In-page searchability.
Sortable tables.
Centralized location of show information.
3A. Consistent episode list formatting, table columns, entry length, and other presentation matters.

3B. No need to figure out episode list article names or how to navigate between them.
No presumption of knowledge on the part of the reader beyond the show's name.
Maintenance ease
5A. fewer pages to maintain

5B. less navigation needed

5C. easier wikilinking

5D. consistent and centralized sourcing
Still well within article length limits (except in extreme cases like Doctor Who, which is arguably a minimum of two articles, since the rebooted series begun in 2009 is a different production run, akin to Star Trek the original series versus Star Trek: The Next Generation).

The arguments for splitting them up seem to be:

A. The article is long if we don't. Rebuttals:

A1. It's still within WP:LENGTH / WP:SPLIT limits.

A2. Prose "text wall" concerns do not apply to lists, which are governed by separate guidelines that are concerned with utility and comprehensiveness, not reading time, because people almost never read them top-to-bottom but refer to them for specific entries. The entries should be short, and we're already covering that in MOSTV.

B. Lots of TV shows have seasonal episode-list articles. Rebuttals:

B1. This is just the WP:OTHERSTUFF "argument to avoid", not a real reason.

B2. Not mutually exclusive anyway; use <noinclude>...</noinclude> to transclude list tables into main article for cases when we have well-developed season articles with real prose; when we don't, merge to main show article.

Obviously, this is just my take on it, and others may have additional pro or con reasons in either direction. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 01:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I said I was done responding here, but I have to make an exception. @SMcCandlish:, my counterpoints:

2. I don't see how "sortable tables" is a pro of keeping the episode list within the main article. I feel like that would be a pro regardless of where the table lies.

3A. Is this not the case on the List of episodes articles? I believe AlexTheWhovian has gone back through the vast majority of LoE articles and implemented the standardized format for all of the. I'm not finding examples of shows where "formatting" differs between LoE articles and main articles.

3B. You make this sound like it's some big issue. We've been doing this perfectly fine for many many years now and editors with experience in WP:TV understand how to split episode lists from main pages and how to split them into season articles. Pretty basic stuff.

4. I don't really get this point. I guess the presumption I'm making is that the reader knows that the show has episodes. Which logically - every show does. Don't see how it's a stretch for readers to put together that a show has an episodes list. The link to the LoE article is put into the main page 2 different times - once in the infobox and a second time in the series overview. It's really never been an issue for the user to navigate to the LoE article.

5A. On the surface this is correct, but once the table is split, it's really the same amount of work. Whether or not the LoE table is in the main article or separate, we still have to go in every week to add new episode titles, new summaries, new ratings, etc. It's the same amount of maintenance whether it's separate or together. I mean go take a look at the maintenance that goes into List of Modern Family episodes - it not only has a separate article for it's LoE, but also has 9 seasons of individual season articles, and there's not really anymore daily maintenance than any other show.

5B. This is true.

5C. Kind of the same thing as 5B. Less pages means less wikilinking, not necessarily "easier" wikilinking.

5D. Again this is kind of surface-level reasoning. Are we talking about consistent sourcing between different shows or between different articles of the same show? Either way, if the information is the same, I don't see what's wrong with having 2 different sources. If Deadline says show XXX is renewed, and Variety says show XXX is renewed, then does is really matter if Deadline is used on one article and Variety the other? The info is the same. And this really was just an example - if you look at the majority of TV articles, the sources used on the main page are very often the same ones used on the LoE page.

6. I think this is what we should be focused on. This discussion seems to have been de-railed to discuss whether or not LoE tables should even exist, when in actuality the original intent was to discuss when it is okay to split. So let's get consensus on that. Rswallis10 (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

2. Being able to sort them all the same in series in one place is the benefit. Not a huge deal, of course.

3A. There isn't anything constraining editors at the article on season 2 to construct the same table at the article on season 5, or whatever. I've run into cases with inconsistent episode tables between season articles. More than once.

3B. I simply don't think it's a good presumption that casual WP readers, versus long-term WP editors, understand our naming conventions. Long experience at WP:RM teaches me that this assumption is false. So does a quick skim of the numerous inconsistent ways in which truly long lists get split up into sublists; even editors aren't clear on what the best practices are.

4. Covered above. If you are looking for the episode in which Jimmy stole Kim's favorite sweater, lost it, and tried to replace it with an identical one but it was the wrong size, and various funny stuff happened as a result, you may have no idea what season that was in. If you know that the shuttlecraft was hijacked but alien terrorists, you might not know the names of any of the characters involved in the episode. If you're looking for episodes written by a particular scriptwriter, it'll be a hassle to track them all down in 10 different articles. And so on. I suppose point 4 is really a restatement of point 1, for the most part. I cobbled this together quickly.

5A. It may be the same amount of work for someone updating the episode list, but it's a lot more work in a lot of other ways for many more editors, from category and template maintainers, to RM admins, and many others. Any time something changes that affects the "set" of articles, it has to be done page by page. Anyone who does a lot of WP:GNOME work understands how significant this time investment is. Another editorial-drain factor is that season splits vastly multiply the number of pages that have to be "policed" for destructive or just non-encyclopedic editing, in an area (entertainment content) that attracts much, much higher levels of non-constructive edits than average.

5C. It's both simpler for the editors and faster for the reader to have a [[#Season 3]] link than [[The Unlightable Being of Bareness (season 3)#Episode list]]. But, yes, it also means fewer actual links; [[#Season 3]] might not even be needed.

6. Agreed that's the main thing – if the conditions for doing a split are not actually met, then don't split. It's even an argument to merge some previous "just 'cause I wanna" splits when the splitting wasn't actually necessary.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 03:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Just off to the side, regarding the comment of except in extreme cases like Doctor Who, which is arguably a minimum of two articles, since the rebooted series begun in 2009 is a different production run, akin to Star Trek the original series versus Star Trek: The Next Generation, there have been multiple discussions on splitting the new series away from the serials/episodes article and the consensus has been strongly not to. While they are different production runs, the episodes are still part of the same series, so not akin to Star Trek the original series versus Star Trek: The Next Generation, which are different series. -- Alex^TW 03:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I know; my point was that if the seasonal side articles were all compressed back into the main article, the size of the final article, on a series running for so many decades, would probably require a split for technical size-limit reasons; at that point, the logical first split would be at that particular boundary. Not advocating anything be done with those articles in particular as they stand now. This is what I get for digressing, I suppose. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 08:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: - I actually did specifically address readable prose and episode tables, multiple times. WP:SIZE isn't going to adjust their guideline because we use tables to house information. You're welcome to try, but they're going to tell you what I already proposed above, that we just determine the readable prose with the HTML from the table removed (thus allowing us to figure out what the actual readable prose is). It seems that we're already overthinking this as a whole. It's not complicated, we're just making it complicated. WP:SIZE already determines a guide for splitting. The only thing we need to do is determine readable prose when you have tables of episode summaries. That's fairly easy to determine when you think about it.

If you check my sandbox, you'll see the first season of Arrow. No HTML, just the summaries. That's 23 episodes, with an average of word count of about 190 to 195 words (where we want it). That amounts to approximately 25kb of readable prose. So, on average, if a person is writing summaries at around 200 words, they are doing about 1kb of information per episode. Given that the threshold for splitting lies between 50kb and 60kb (i.e., think about splitting to you probably should), that means that unless the article is very well developed elsewhere (e.g., production, reception, etc.), that you're probably not going to look to split a main page until about roughly 45 episodes in (for main stream shows that's 2 full seasons). Obviously, for well developed pages, you might actually split that off once you finish a first season, because shows on CBS or ABC tend to garner a shit ton of press and there's probably more information to build in an article than just a summary and the cast.

This approach doesn't require us to rewrite anything, or go against already established guidelines for appropriate splitting (which we seem to do quite a bit in this area). It only requires us to better explain how WP:SIZE affects TV related articles and what editors should look for when determining a split. It should NOT be because "other articles to do it", or "it's 2 seasons, so I can now". That's not a guideline, that's arbitrary decision making and is why so many articles seem so different. Different groups of editors working against guidelines instead of within them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bignole: What you're saying here seems reasonable to me – about 40 episodes (i.e. after 2 full seasons for most standard U.S. broadcast primetime TV series) is roughly around where splitting off a LoE article would seem to be justified for a variety of reasons, among them SIZESPLIT. I would advise that you write up whatever (new) wording you think can/should be added to MOS:TV, and the rest of us can either sign off on what you write, or suggest modifications... At this point, this seems like the best way forward. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is a rough draft. I apologize for the wordiness of it, I have that tendency when I write. Anything can be cleaned up. I'm just one to err on the side of over explaining, since I come across the "I'm not told 'no'" response too much. If you look, I tried to make these align closer to typical practices when dealing with "traditional" episode count seasons (e.g., 40+ episodes to split from main page...or 2 seasons, 80+ episodes to split from LoE page...or 4 seasons). This should really help to control the early splitters or shows that live on shortened episode counts. Hoepfully. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Bignole, I must have completely missed that. Everything you have proposed sounds good to me, and though I do think your draft wording is quite big, I think most of the explanation is helpful. The only question I have is in regards to articles that are transcluding the episode table but not the summaries, such as at Daredevil (TV series). There are discussions about splitting those off to a separate article as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I also think it is important to mention what do to with series that have season articles before a LoE page and transclude the episode table(s) without the summaries on the series article. This is also the case for This Is Us (TV series). - Brojam (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Bignole's page looks like it would actually work better as a standalone essay (which is probably worth doing in its own right...). To be incorporated into the guide, that probably needs to be cut down to about 1 paragraph. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries Adam, there's a lot of text to filter through in this discussion already (thanks Favre! ;) lol). With regard to THis is Us, I thought about that, and I thought about making a note that there is no requirement that you go straight to the LoE page. THe requirement when you split is the same for anything...you have to justify the notability. THat's why I said that notability isn't inherited, nor is it established for a particular season or show if you're copying and pasting general series or season (respectively) information to a more specific page. That seems to be what is happening with Daredevil, except that they are transcluding the table data to the main page. Technically, I kind of address it in that basic tables without prose aren't counted in readable prose size and thus shouldn't be split simply because of that. Now, there are obvious exceptions, like I wouldn't do that for The Simpsons, but there aren't many shows that run that long. Every split page must stand on its own, even LoE pages. WP:NOTE doesn't disregard them simply because they were split. I don't know if you think we should spell that out more?

As for that being an essay and us having a paragraph on the MOS, I'm not opposed to that either. I would imagine that you would use part of the first paragraph, all of the second, and part of the 4th paragraph (trimming some wording to tighten the prose) as a "summary" of this. If that's what you'd prefer. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. I do apologize for not contributing in the discussion since I started it on Monday (busy off-Wiki). I think the write-up Bignole created is a good start. If they don't mind, since most of it was what I had a feeling about, I can write up the "reduced version" to add into the MOS, and then maybe, with a c/e, we can keep Bignole's larger text as an essay to link from the additional section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Go for it. :) BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If we do decide on keeping the elaborate portion as an essay to refer back to for more detail, I would suggest Wikipedia:Article splitting (Television) as the essay page name. Unless someone else has suggestions. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a related issue at The Grand Tour (TV series) which is due to start airing its second series shortly. The episode list for series 1 is still in the main series article and there is no series 1 article but an editor is insisting on creating a series 2 article. How best to handle this situation may have a bearing on this discussion, which I have not yet read fully. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: - Based on what we've discussed and what I wrote up (which is based on WP:SIZE), the short answer is they shouldn't. Looking at the page, it's 11kb of readable prose (sans the episode list), which based on how I calculated, at best it's 24 kb of readable prose. That's far short of what any article would use to justify a split, let alone a TV article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep. This "give me season/series articles or give me death" stuff is the central issue we've been going over. There's just nothing in our policies and guidelines that support the idea of unnecessary season/series spin-off pages. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 07:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Victoria (TV series)‎#Requested move 28 November 2017

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Victoria (TV series)‎#Requested move 28 November 2017. -- Alex^TW 14:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#No. of episodes + aired?

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#No. of episodes + aired?. - Brojam (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

where to locate "Episodes" section when there's only a series article

So given I think there's quite a few editors invested in stopping the proliferation of premature splitting of 1- and 2-season series articles into multiple articles (either "List of..." or "[series] (Season X)"), I was wondering if there was any guidance on where to place the "Episodes" section of such single-article series... I couldn't find any here. Consider, for example, Mindhunter (TV series), a so-far 1-season show which is thankfully only covered by one article at the moment. I recently moved the "Episodes" section higher in the article because it seemed weird to be discussing reception and accolades without acknowledging what were garnering those before they were discussed but am I missing guidance on this in the MOS:TV guidelines? —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the standard procedure is to typically place the episode list between the Cast/Characters section, and the Production section (so, between sections 2.4 and 2.5 of this MOS). However, if the episode table and infobox conflict with each other and cause a great deal of whitespace, content beneath the episode table can be moved up to above the table to eliminate any whitespace caused. In the case of Mindhunter (TV series), this wouldn't be the case, so the sections for the episodes and production should be swapped in terms of position. -- Alex^TW 23:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks... that sounds reasonable and I agree with the infobox conflict thing. I'll wait to see if anyone else has strong opinions for a bit before I make the change. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and to me "Episodes" falls into the "Plot" section of the MOS, so generally should be towards the top. But I don't think there is (or should be) a hard and fast rule. Some articles will warrant it higher, others lower, for formatting reasons or based on what other content exists. But your reasoning, that episodes should be above reception, makes logical sense. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick, AlexTheWhovian, and Whats new?: We actually do mention this, in the 'Parent, season, and episode article structure'; the episode table should be as close to the start of the article as possible. Ideally, we would tell people to have it as the first section, but because of the massive TV infoboxes causing issues we changed the wording to allow for other sections to fill in that space. The reasoning for this, which Whats new? has also mentioned, is that the episode table is a plot summary, and we always want plot summaries first or as close to first as possible because they provide context for the rest of the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: thanks! All makes sense to me. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Need clarification on plot size again

Hi all, I was hoping to get some clarification on this part of WP:TVPLOT:

"If appropriate, [a main series article] could instead include a prose plot summary of no more than 500 words per season (such as Scouted) instead of an episode table, but an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary."

My confusion is this: Scouted is an eight episode reality series that never went past one season as far as I can tell and has a scant 113 word plot summary, not multiple 500 word summaries. Is this the wrong article being linked or is the guideline wording wrong?

Relevant discussion is at Talk:Ishqbaaaz. This main series article has no episode table, but apparently ran for 7 seasons. Should we expect to see a 3500 (max) word plot summary in the article? Thanks for the clarification. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The short answer to the 3500 word limit is no. We probably need to clarify the wording of that. 500 words is a lot, and for more complex shows you'll need more words to summarize a season. I think part of the problem is that people feel that need to touch on every major point in a season summary, and haven't learned how to actually summarize content. This leads to including things that can be detailed or discussed later. I generally like what we did at Smallville. We were able to summarize a 10 season show into about 300 words. There are things that could be minutely elaborated on, but the point was that once you break away from a main page, there doesn't need to be elaborate summaries everywhere. The season pages or LoE page can handle that. We should probably re-look at that point and tighten the wording up a bit. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a key point that bears repeating: plot size should be essentially static, but the coverage should vary with the granularity of the article: a show, season, and episode article can all have the same size plot section, but the granularity of the plot summary increases as the scope of the article or list decreases. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bignole and Jclemens: I appreciate the responses and would love to hear from more people about this, since the explicit language in the MOS seems like it needs to change. Indian TV articles are virtually never going to see episode tables or well-conceived standalone articles for seasons, and nobody's going to retroactively write loglines for 400 episodes, so I can understand contributors' frustration with wanting to communicate important aspects of each season, but being limited by a set word count. This is an example of a 3700 word plot summary, just for a visual. Perhaps another way to go is to relax our standards for standalone season articles? Granted, it's always kind of sad to see a season article that's little more than a repeat of the lead plus a plot. I'm wary of that solution, because I think India's TV promo machine tends to use standalone season articles to spread their tentacles at Wikipedia. More articles = more legitimacy or something. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with Ishqbaaaz as it stands. Given it has no season articles, episode lists or individual episode synopsis, it makes sense for the plot to be around the 500 words per season as TVPLOT says. If Scouted had of had a second or third season, the plot section likely would be longer too. Is Ishqbaaaz has episode tables, it would be longer. However, just because the limit is 500 words, doesn't mean the article has to use them all. I'm not familiar with the program, but it does seem a tad overdetailed, but it fits the guidelines of TVPLOT and I don't see an issue. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether the current plot there represents the entirety of all seven seasons or not. There's been no effort to divvy it up that way. That said, the version currently is 1400 words. Per the editor's argument on the talk page, would the community want that section to more than double from its current state? Kumkum Bhagya, according to the article, has one season, but 990+ episodes. I don't know if the one season thing is correct, but assuming it is, how much space do we devote to a plot summary for that many episodes? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It is a maxiumum - you don't have to use all 500 words. 1400 non-minutiae words for a 7 season show seems fine to me. As for the second show you mentioned, given it debuted in 2014, I doubt there is one season, but again, the length of the plot there is perfectly fine given a show that has nearly 1000 episodes across 4 years. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It's actually a suggestion or guideline subject to common sense: Some shows are pretty trivial and need minimal summaries, others are intricate and need more. Consider Veronica Mars (season 1), an FL quality article that predates the MOS word limits; it includes a 150 word season summary, and then 3-5 sentence summaries for each episode. The whole is undoubtedly over 500, but likely less than 1000, and is really as terse as it can be while including episode summaries. Current MOS would likely prefer to exclude the individual episode summaries, but the whole combined verbiage is far from excessive for such a complex, mystery-based show where key elements of the overall, continuing story are revealed in each episode. In other words, do what makes sense. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The only part of Veronica Mars (season 1) that isn't OK is the prose above the episode table per TVPLOT. All the episodes are well under the 200 word limit per ep. It really isn't much of a comparison to the article in question, which doesn't have episodic summaries or season articles. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I think you misunderstand: It's perfectly fine as-is, and nothing needs to be changed about it. MOSes are written for normal cases, and not to be strictly interpreted or retroactively imposed on articles that don't need the help, as this one clearly does not (well, at least not in that area). MOSes are not holy writ, and while they're assembled by a handful of people who're interested in the area and trying to write a concise yet thorough set of guidelines for a hugely divergent set of articles, they can be interpreted in an overly prescriptive manner. Most of the conflict on Wikipedia is due to varying understandings of "rules". If we moved or retitled that section, would it be fine? Sure. So why bother doing it just to meet the letter of an MOS, when the article's current approach (small summary, small episode summaries) was deemed good enough to meet FL? Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I think you misunderstand, but that article is not the subject here anyway. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

See, we go to all the trouble of putting 'if appropriate' and 'should' in, and still people treat it as if it were a hard and fast rule. Calling out such rigid inflexibility that is itself against the wiggle room allowed by the current/consensus of the MOS is, frankly, why I stay engaged here. Jclemens (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, and I'm not saying VM needs to change because I do agree that in the totality of word counts it's still far under the maximum suggested, I would say that when an MOS changes you should go back and review old featured pages to see if they still fit. Just because they fit with an old guideline does not mean that they are grandfathered in. That's why we have featured status reviews, which are specifically to review articles that are featured by guidelines and/or policies have changed over the years and they page needs to be adapted. With regard to some of the other pages being mentioned, I think those larger word counts for a series summary are probably find when there are no season or episode tables to go with them. To be fair, most soap operas are too hard to wrangle into the typical episode table to begin with. What I would say is that organizationally those sections seem hard to digest and need to be looked at from that point. You can summarize seasons and still be organized about it. I'm not talking about a subsection for each season, because I think that can be overkill at times. But it isn't a stretch to try to write a little more out-of-universe in those sections, which is what we should be doing more of anyway. I think where the rule probably needs to be adjusted is clarifying that if you have season pages and list pages and episode tables and even episode articles, then the main page summary of the season (whether it's 4 seasons or 20 seasons) probably doesn't need 500 words per season. My feeling is that the more spread we have that plot information (e.g., list page to season page to episode page) the less detailed the main page needs to be, because they can simply go to those pages and see the more detailed content. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

These are all reasonable points, and I agree with it in most situations. I was mainly referring to the original article in question Ishqbaaaz which doesn't have any spin-off articles, so my point of view is that the article is fine as it currently is in terms of TVPLOT. More generally though, I agree with that, especially reviewing older articles. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft proposal: Don't cite the TomatoMeter for articles on individual entries in episodic television series

I'm posting this here to see about the viability of it and I don't want to make this a "Support"/"Oppose" !vote yet, but what do people think about this?

My reasoning is that RT binary "fresh"/"rotten" system was originally meant to apply to (and only really works when it applies to) complete works that people pay a fee to consume, and a critic's review can be taken as advising the consumer on whether or not they should pay to consume the work. This can't possibly apply to individual episodes of, say, Game of Thrones, some episodes of which (Beyond the Wall (Game of Thrones) comes to mind) were actually critically panned, but the TomatoMeter gives a skewed result because it includes "episode recaps" written by and for people who are committed to watching every episode anyway, and determines whether those "reviews" are positive or negative based on whether they seem to be recommending that their readers skip the episode.

Our article on the above-linked episode includes the unsourced and unqualified claim that it "received mostly praise from critics", which is honestly laughable to anyone who has actually read any of the (highly mixed) reviews RT analyzed. I really feel like clarifying the problem of RT in cases like this in the MOS would solve such problems.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Shortcut cleanup

Someone with a few minutes on their hands, please replace all the "WP:TVFOO" shortcuts in here with "MOS:TVFOO" ones (and remove the old "WP:" versions, except for WP:MOSTV at the very top). We've been doing this across all the MoS pages. A recent thread at the template categorization page suggests the canonical format for this is something like (using whatever name for the redirect category layout template you like, the shortest show here):


#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Section or anchor name]]

{{Redr|

 {{R from shortcut}}

 {{R to project namespace}}

 {{R to section}}

}}

(or {{R to anchor}} in cases of links to manually-inserted anchors rather than section headings, though I don't think this page has any). Some also want to include {{R to subpage}}, but MoS guidelines are not subpages; they're independently guidelines.

It's just clutter to have redundant shortcuts shown like {{shortcut|WP:TVFOO|MOS:TVFOO}}, and using the "MOS:" versions here helps distinguish MoS from naming conventions material on the same topic. Like some of the other longer-term topical MoS pages this one has a lot of old "WP:" shortcuts in it that pre-date the "MOS:" shortcut convention. Those shortcuts will still work, we just don't need to advertise them in the MoS page itself any longer.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 06:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Done -- Alex^TW 10:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Rockin'! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 13:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Word count

Per the MOS, episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words. Individual season articles, which cover 10 to 22 or more episodes, have a prose limit for the introduction of 500 words.

Yet we don't seem to have any word count for TV specials, and some of their plots are running 900, 1000 words or more ... even though even the most complicated or lengthy movies, such as Titanic or the entries in the Mission: Impossible (films) manage to get everything into WikiProject Film's 700-word limit.

Should article about TV specials be free to have 1,000-, 2,000-, 3,000-word plots? What's a reasonable limit for readability and avoid needless tangential fancruft in which the average reader will get lost in the weeds? If TV episode, TV seasons, films, etc. have maximum word counts, shouldn't TV specials? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly a QTWTAIN. Suggest 500. MapReader (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the special the length of a typical episode, television film, or mini-series? The plot length should reflect that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Word counts are not hard and fast rules, so there are no "maximums" per se, else Titanic would be in violation. Use common sense, edit incrementally and judiciously, and work collaboratively to address the objections of anyone who protests. If you swoop in and chop stuff down, you're more likely to trigger a defensive response, even if an MOS agrees with you: MOSes are not excuses to shortcut collegial editing practices. Jclemens (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with AngusWOOF in that the plot should match the best equivilance. Generally, I would argue 500 words for a special. Is there a particular article on a TV special an editor could point to with ~1000+ word plots? -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please consult with WT:MOSFILM on this; TV movies are actually subject to that guideline. It's out-of-scope for the page on TV series to wander into rules about rules one-off films just because they happened to be on TV. That's not only a confusion of the format (film vs. series) with the transmission medium (projector vs. broadcast), it's a distinction that isn't even real any longer, since any given film or TV series may appear in multiple media simultaneously (I watched a Doctor Who episode in a movie theater, the same night I watched episodes of the TV show on my computer, and had recently watched one of the non-canonical Peter Cushing "Dr." Who films (originally theatrical) on my TV). Theatrical films have been airing on TV since at least the 1970s, when I was little. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 13:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Titanic (1997 film) has a WP:Hidden note, a refn note, and two references in its Plot section, which add to its plot summary word count; I don't think those things should be considered part of the word count. But, yes, Tenebrae, others and I worked to tighten the Plot section of that article by leaving in the essential or otherwise needed aspects. It was thought that the section needed a lot more detail, given the film's length, but we showed otherwise. I agree with Jclemens about using common sense. Sometimes plot summaries will go a little over the length or will need to, and WP:Film plot notes that it may need to in the case of complicated plots. As for television films, it should not be that much difference since they are even shorter when you cut out the commercials, unless we are talking about television movies that consist of two or three parts, like a miniseries. But some may not consider a miniseries a movie. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

And like I stated at MOS:FILM about this, some word counters report differently. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Like it matters? The object of an MOS word count is to get people writing sections that are in the right ballpark, not to quibble about a handful of words over or under. MapReader (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This. Unfortunately, even with all the 'should' verbiage, a lot of folks are still treating word counts as hard-and-fast rules, of which Wikipedia has (almost) none. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

When checking the word count properly, only what is visible should be counted so the hidden note shouldn't come into it at all and the "[Note 1]" adds a single word. My text editor says there are 692 words without "[Note 1]", 693 with it. Alex's script says it's 702 words. That's not worth quibbling about. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not, but I've seen hidden notes and references counted at times, which is why I mentioned it above. I think Jclemens may have counted them for the Titanic (1997 film) article since he stated "else Titanic would be in violation." Well, unless, he got the 702 word count. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The word count for plot size should only be the words the reader sees, and should exclude cast names and any referencing elements (editors shouldn't be "penalized" for wanting to include these). Anything that is in wikitext that the reader does not see (piped linked, citations, hidden notes) absolutely should not count towards the plot word count. --Masem (t) 19:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Cast names don't need to be in a plot section at all when there is a separate cast section in the article that gives that detail. Redundancies should be removed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

wot he says MapReader (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Technically, yes, but there are editors that insist they be there. There is no preferred style here either way. I'm just saying that if editors opt to include cast names by choice, that those names don't count to word count. --Masem (t) 20:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think they should count double to discourage the practice. Parentheticals in general, particularly lots of them, make things harder to read. Joking aside, at the very least I disagree that they should be excluded from the word count. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

An arts-and-media MoS proposal

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposal: Adopt WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines into MoS, it's been suggested to merge that WP:PROJPAGE into MoS, as one of the last remaining genre/medium-specific style guide kinds of pages that isn't in MoS, especially since someone's already put a guideline tag on it, and given it a misleading MOS:VG shortcut.

Strangely, several people from the WP:VG wikiproject have shown up to make what appear to be WP:OWN-based arguments against the idea. I hope that people from other media and arts projects, all of which have MoS pages (largely authored and maintained by people from those projects, but without a claim of absolute control by them) can participate in this discussion and assuage the unreasonable fears of people in that particular project. Promotion of topical style advice pages into MoS has not proven any kind of problem for WP:VISUALARTS, WP:ARTS, WP:FILM, WP:TV, WP:COMICS, WP:ANIME, WP:NOVELS, WP:MUSIC, etc. Meanwhile, the continued fragmentation of such a page to an "un-MoS" page (while simultaneously claiming to be an MoS page, somehow), is misleading and a recipe for conflict.

Or, if you think there's is some kind of problem, feel free to give the opposite opinion. I'm not telling anyone how they should !vote. I'm pointing out that that all the arts-and-media projects and arts-and-media MoS pages share a common sort of history, as well as the same practicality of their advice being included in MoS or shunted to a wikiproject backwater where no one is apt to take "guideline" claims seriously; it's the same across all these projects and pages. So is the increased level to which they agree instead of conflict, by virtue of MoS maintainers ironing out WP:POLICYFORKs between them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 23:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Actor names in episode summary

I've looked everywhere and haven't found an answer. In an episode summary: when a character name is included, can you also include the name of the actor that plays the character? Example. The guideline for the Plot section in the main article says no — but it's about the main article. There's no guideline included in the instructions for {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}}. And if MOS:TVPLOT also applies to the Table and List summaries ... why doesn't it say so in TVPLOT and in the template instructions? Thanks. Pyxis Solitary talk 03:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This point was discussed in some detail by editors during the recent review of the TV MOS. The epidode summaries are simply an alternative way of structuring the plot section, as the fourth paragraph of that section of the MOS explains. The second paragraph of the same section is explicit that actors' names don't belong here (the main reasons being duplication and readability, breaking up the storyline information with lots of bracketed names); this point is made earlier because it applies to all plot summaries, however structured. The separate section relating to Cast and characters information is clear that this data belongs in the cast section. MapReader (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what was discussed. Whatever the ping-pong was, and as redundant as some editors might think it is, the 'no name' should be repeated in the MOS paragraph about episodes, and definitely specified in the {{Episode list}} instruction for the "ShortSummary", which repeats the per episode wordage limit of MOS:TVPLOT (so why not repeat the "actors' names" of it, too). Pyxis Solitary talk 11:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Tom & Jerry "English", and italics

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation#Tom & Jerry "English", and italics
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 18:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

MOS:TVNOW only applicable to lead paragraphs?

An editor has made the claim that MOS:TVNOW only applies to article lead paragraph because it is listed in this project page under a section called lead paragraph. Would that be true? If so, it would contradict the statement in MOS:TVNOW that References to the show, and its characters and locations, should always be in the present tense. Perhaps MOS:TVNOW should be in its own paragraph to remove the ambiguity. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The sentence in question does not relate to the show, it refers to its parent show. Per your edit, you had an issue of "Speckerman is a classmate"/"Speckerman was a classmate", but no problems with "Barber had previously played" or "who used to bully him" - why is this? You never explained. MOS:TVNOW refers primarily to the lead sentence of "NAME is an American television series" rather than "NAME was an American television series", as a series still exists after its concluded. Real-world information about an actor should be portrayed in the correct tense. -- Alex^TW 06:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Barber played a character. The character is a bully. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

He is a character that used to bully? He was portrayed as such. There is no such character within the series of Young Sheldon. Either we're discussing the sentence specifically, in which case this needs to be taken to the article's talk page, or we're here to discuss TVNOW, which belongs here. -- Alex^TW 06:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be inconsistent to only apply the rule to the lead section. It should be in a paragraph of its own, to avoid this type of confusion.RJ4 (talk)

Then you would need a discussion to gain consensus for this. For a discussion on recent updates to the lead sections, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/PSE lead paragraphs. -- Alex^TW 06:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be a description of a character and storylines, which isn't really what TVNOW covers. The tense here, I would think, should relate to whether the character is or was a classmate (I don't watch the show so can't help with which is best, but there's nothing wrong with "is" or "was" in reference to a storyline) -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The full entry is "Lance Barber as George Cooper Sr., Sheldon's father and the head football coach at Sheldon's high school. Barber had previously played the character Jimmy Speckerman in an episode of The Big Bang Theory; within the series, Speckerman was a classmate of Leonard Hofstadter who used to bully him. According to Barber, the dual role that he played confused some viewers." The part being questioned is "Barber had previously played the character Jimmy Speckerman in an episode of The Big Bang Theory; within the series, Speckerman was a classmate of Leonard Hofstadter who used to bully him." What tense should this be in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexTheWhovian (talk • contribs) 06:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If Speckerman was a classmate in TBBT but is something else in this series, then "was" seems appropriate to me, as does the whole entry -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at Alex's edit it seems entirely appropriate, but I can understand the confusion. Prior to the creation of WP:TVNOW we only had WP:FICTENSE and as soon as a series ended people were changing "<show_name> is a" to "<show_name> was a". WP:TVNOW was derived from WP:FICTENSE to specifically address that problem. WP:FICTENSE still applies to the rest of the article but it doesn't support "Speckerman is a classmate of Leonard Hofstadter who used to bully him." Speckerman was not a classmate in the series, he was a classmate prior to the series commencing, so "was" is appropriate. However, "former classmate" is a more accurate description of his role. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The over all MOS:TENSE clearly applies to the entire article as well. - Galatz ^Talk 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That is an excellent point. It appears that to avoid confusion that the policy of referring to shows in the present tense only applies to the lead paragraph, the paragraph should be moved to its own section and a reference should be made to MOS:TENSE as the larger MOS guideline. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it is silly for TVNOW to apply differently in the body than in the lede. The tense applies the same everywhere. In this specific case, it comes down to what the character's Speckerman's role is on TBBT, nothing else. If in the show's present (not backstory), if he is a bully, or had been a bully in earlier seasons and transitioned from that, "is" is the right verb to describe the character. If the bully aspect was flashback/backstory, then it would be "was". No other factors metter here. --Masem (t) 17:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The mention of Speckerman is in Young Sheldon, a series in which he has not appeared. The actor who played Speckerman in TBBT plays Sheldon's father in Young Sheldon. In TBBT, Speckerman was an adult who, years prior to the TBBT timeline, was a classmate of Leonard who bullied Leonard. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Then yes, "was" is correct though I'd suggest "was, prior to TBBT's present" or "was, in the backstory for TBBT", to be clear. (I have and prefer to keep minimal familiarity with TBBT :) but do not assume the reader of Young Sheldon is 100% clear on what TBBT is). --Masem (t) 21:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with this diff but I think its missing two cases that should be discussed where using present tense breaks down:

First is the case of Speckerman discussed above. The nature of being the bully character is prior to the show's present. This is a case where past tense should be used, though as I note above, this should establish that it is past-tense within the timeline of the show, not the real world.
A more difficult one that might need more discussion, is for a character that has one role within the show's timeline but then moves to a different role later. One example that comes to mind is Ken Jeong's character on Community, Chang. He starts off as the main character's teacher and semi-antagonist, but then moves to become one of the group. This is a case that I think if necessary to describe him as a teacher, "was" /past tense makes the appropriate sense, but again, clarifying that as within the show's current timeline. --Masem (t) 21:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, I don't think it is necessary to use past tense in the specific case of Jimmy Speckerman on The Big Bang Theory. Yes, it is true that the character meets with one of the main cast characters and is introduced as a former high school bully, but that does not mandate use of past tense. A sentence can easily be constructed using the present tense to say that the character is a former high school classmate who used to bully. Such a construction uses the present tense in the is verb and past tense to describe behavior that occurred prior to the show. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe that gets to the point. Regardless of a show's status (ongoing or cancelled), a character is always on a show; as long as the show exists, that facet can never change. After that "is", if there's any tense issues, that's when to introduce the right tense, depending on what the show's present is and what character description is required. I agree with your sentence above for Speckerman. Another situation I recall would be for Jack Crusher, Wesley's father on TNG (by the time TNG events start) who only appears as flashback/recording. Eg Jack is a TNG character, who was Wesley's father. The key is that in identifying a character on a show, that absolutely has to be present tense, but establishing the character's role beyond that could be mix, with the advice to consider the show's shown timeline as the "present" in determining the right tense. --Masem (t) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Your statement a character is always on a show is critically important, and not necessarily well understood. See this edit for how it is misunderstood (not to mention grammatically incorrect because it implies that the character is dead). Therefore, we have to make sure to fully clarify this point. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

No, that does not imply that the character is dead at all. It just means he is no longer a classmate. Speckerman appeared on TBBT as an adult. Many years previously he had been a classmate of Leonard but that was no longer the case. People stop being your classmate when they are no longer in your class. They then become former classmates. Remember, the content was in Young Sheldon, not The Big Bang Theory. It referred to a different series altogether, not the one that was the subject of the article, and it was talking about the role the actor had previously played. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

In American English, saying "X is a former classmate" means that X used to be a classmate and is no longer a classmate. Referring to a person in the past tense means that the person is dead. That's actually written in MOS:TENSE which states that Generally, do not use past tense except for dead subjects. Your example is not an exception and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the need to use present tense. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

In any form of English, the phrases "X was a classmate" and "X is a former classmate" both mean the same thing (and neither of those is that X is dead). Now, if you say "X was alive"... - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Fully agreed that the two are equivalent, and MOS:TENSE says that "X is a former classmate" is the preferred style to write. What AussieLegend (talk · contribs) is promoting is "X was a former classmate" and that is plain and simply wrong because it suggests that X is dead. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes the sky is blue said "Referring to a person in the past tense means that the person is dead".

Adamstom.97 replies "In any form of English, the phrases "X was a classmate" and "X is a former classmate" both mean the same thing (and neither of those is that X is dead)"

Sometimes the sky is blue's response was "Fully agreed that the two are equivalent". Do you not see that your response is contradictory? You say initially that "was" means deceased but when Adamstom.97 says it doesn't you agree. In any case, the text in Young Sheldon was about the role that the actor played, not the character per se. The role was presented in the episode as a former classmate. Historical present doesn't have to be used everywhere. For example, "Buzz Aldrin was the second man to walk on the moon" is quite correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

"Buzz Aldrin was the second man to walk on the moon" is correct because he is dead. During his lifetime, the correct sentence would have been "Buzz Aldrin is the second man to walk on the moon". Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, what? Buzz Aldrin is most definitely still alive. What are you talking about? And as can be seen at his article: "As the Lunar Module Pilot on Apollo 11, he was one of the first two humans to land on the Moon, and the second person to walk on it." -- Alex^TW 09:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind, everything is about context. In a larger article, we'd have room to develop the status: "John Smith is a Senator. He was a classmate of Joe Black." it is clear from context that Smith is a) alive and b) a former classmate. We can save words in the context here. In the case of the situation above, the goal seems to be to minimize how much has to be said about the TBBT role on the Young Sheldon page (which is fully appropriate - we have the TBBT page for that), so here, it will likely be a single sentence, and that's where we're going to lose context. That's where it would be better to use the MOS guideline to be clear that the character lives in the show's present, but used to have a certain role in the show's backstory, ie "is a former bully" or something to that line. --Masem (t) 15:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

On the maturity of the consensus

The WP:BOLD edit to MOS:TV has been reverted. Please allow this discussion to conclude so that you can gain a proper WP:CONSENSUS. -- Alex^TW 22:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A very WP:POINTy move on your part. I saw 4 support for the change with no objections. As far as I'm concerned, a WP:CONSENSUS has been achieved. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I recommend you read the latter link you just posted and gain an understanding of it. -- Alex^TW 07:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation -- upon re-reading, I am even more convinced that your behavior fits the bill. This is especially true since you are the once whose confusion triggered this discussion. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I said the latter. -- Alex^TW 08:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed you did. I got confused because AussieLegend (talk · contribs) thinks I should re-read the former. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Alex here. Moving it requires actual discussion about moving, not just some suggestions in a discussion. As for Alex's suggestion to read and gain an understanding of WP:POINT, I suggest you take that on board too. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You actually wrote I can understand the confusion vis a vis the location of the paragraph within the page, indicating a support for a move. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant if he agreed - he can agree and still not appreciate your behaviour. -- Alex^TW 08:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreeing that the paragraph is out of place, with nobody thinking that your interpretation of the location of the paragraph is correct, is certainly a consensus that the paragraph needs to be moved. We can wait a few more days, but I doubt that anything will change.

It is worth noting that you are not trying to defend your interpretation. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I never agreed that the paragraph is out of place. In fact I specifically noted that TVNOW was meant to address the problem of people changing "<show_name> is a" to "<show_name> was a". I also pointed out that WP:FICTENSE still applies to the rest of the article, although it actually applies to the whole article, as noted by someone else. When I said I understand the confusion, I was referring to Alex's assertion that TVNOW only applies to the lead. It does specifically apply to the lead but, as I pointed out, it's derived from FICTENSE and that applies to the whole article. We don't normally create policies and guidelines and then pick and choose where they are applied. They're normally applied everywhere consistently so while TVNOW might specifically refer to the lead, the practice of writing in the historical present applies everywhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough - so why don't we write into MOS:TVNOW that the guideline is derived from MOS:FICTENSE and MOS:TENSE? Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that mention of FICTENSE, which is actually part of MOS:TENSE, would be appropriate as a general guideline. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Episode Summaries

I've been looking, but can't seem to find the length an episode summary should be. If someone could point me in the right direction, that would be appreciated. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:TVPLOT. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Episode counts in filmography

I've started a thread over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Trimming episode counts in filmography. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Proper structure of a character table

I have not been able to find a clarified answer, so I thought I would try here. The structure of a character table for television shows is rather broad, every editor has their own opinions and own styles, yet what would be considered the most universal answer? Should an actor be considered a recurring character 3+ episodes or 4+? Should the actors be arranged by appearances, title credit, alphabetically? So many styles yet what would be considered the "correct" way to structure these tables? Please let me know, if there is such a rule. Cheers! MSMRHurricane (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:TVCAST. But to answer most of your questions, 3+ or 4+ can be considered recurring, depending on the series. Generally a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is created, but do note that recurring generally means something beyond "an extended guest appearance" (ie a name actor being cast for a short episode arc and never appearing again). For sorting, it should be done by credit order. For example, when arranging starring/main characters, you order them per the opening credits from episode 101. Any other actors who become main later in the series, get added to the end of that list you started from episode 101. Same goes for guest characters. You list by the order given in the credits of episode 101, and add new guest characters to the bottom of that as they get credited moving forward. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I would go by MOS:TVCAST, with some notes. First, whether a character table is needed at all. It works for most live-action dramas where the actors are presented in the opening credits / segments, and have defined main and recurring billing status, but it is not appropriate in other cases like cartoons which goes by character lists rather than cast lists as with The Simpsons. If the show does not have a changing main cast or if they only have a season or two, then it is not needed. If the characters table is larger than the actual content of the list of characters, then no, don't put in a table; it isn't helpful, especially when it's just dictionary definitions for the character descriptions. You may need two tables, one for Main which could be transluded into the main article, and one for recurring that would go with the characters list. If criteria for establishing who is recurring is complicated as with List of RWBY characters, put in a legend to help. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

New wording for WP:TVINTL

Hi all. Remember that thing we started back in August 2016 to update MOS:TV? Sorry for the lack of drive to complete. Anyways, there has been a proposed update to WP:TVINTL that seems to have consensus from the users who commented. Hoping to get more eyes/thoughts on it before it is implemented. You can find all the info regarding the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Release, with the proposal specifically at the "Proposal 1" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Doctor Who#‎RfC: Infobox image

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Doctor Who#‎RfC: Infobox image. This discussion has quoted TVIMAGE and NFCC concerning an infobox image, with the discussion relating to whether that image should be free or non-free media. -- Alex^TW 22:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: References for key or complex plot points in plot sections

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#RfC: Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

MOS updates: Reception section

Hi all, we have finally moved on to the next section for our larger MOS update. It is the "Reception" section pertaining to parent, season and episode articles. You can find and join the discussion regarding its text here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"List of episodes - when to split" consensus

Hey, all. I've just had a discussion at User talk:AlexTheWhovian#ACS episode list about when to split episode lists from their parent article, my basis of which was the discussion that was held at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 9#List of episodes - when to split - was a proper consensus ever formed on this? If so, what were the changes made? I can't seem to find any. -- Alex^TW 05:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe we ever quite finished that one, but Bignole was drafting some wording for us to use moving forward. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought we had. I had put some wording out there and I thought it had finished..... BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually going to point the finger at @Favre1fan93:. :-) LOL. I technically finished my write up, and he said he would write up a condensed version to go to Wikipedia:Television splitting (or whatever you want to call it) to be an essay to which we could point to so as not to bog down the MOS. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry all! I'll take a look at this again on Monday when I have more free time. Thanks for bringing this back up, because I completely forgot! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we all forgot. I don't recall, but did we put an abridged version in the MOS about splitting? THe essay was just supposed to elaborate further on what was briefly stated in the MOS. If we didn't, then maybe we do that now (we have the discussion from prior already) and work on the essay piece later? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

We didn't put anything in the MOS if I recall. I think that was what I was going to work on, the "MOS-friendly" text, pointing to the larger essay. If we do add text into the MOS, I think it should include all split options (which really, would be including a mention of when to split characters off to a list of characters). I think just list of episodes, season pages, and character lists are our main "split" options, yes? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Season/episode articles. I feel like so often it's done so backwards, where you end up developing episode articles before season articles and most of the episode articles contain production information that's generic to the whole season (or series) just to fluff up the episode page. IF you want to do it all together, then we'll probably need to go back and look at that discussion and re-hash some things because at the time only the LoE and season pages were really discussed. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

All, I've started a "MOS version" of Bignole's essay. I put it has a subsection at of Big's subpage, so it can be compared to the essay proper, and we can discuss it further if needed by. If we still want to have Big's original proposal as a separate essay, I think we should try and cut down my "MOS version" some. But as I was trying to craft it, I felt like everything Big wrote initially was info we should have on the MOS, so maybe we don't have a separate essay, and just cut down a bit the original? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ya, I don't think we need a separate essay since Favre's shorten version seems to have covered all the important parts. I do think we should have a little mention of what to do for splitting off to a characters list and awards list. - Brojam (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If we do want to only have one section on this, I will instead look to copy-edit Bignole's original text, rather than use what I created. Also, ultimately I think yes this section in the MOS will cover all splitting, but the discussion was only on episodes, so to start we should just keep it focused on that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It may require us to write it more "generally" about splitting, and then provide examples after for LoE, season, episodes, character, etc. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Question: MOS:NUM and TV

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Question: MOS:NUM and TV. -- Alex^TW 21:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Unaired episodes

Is there any past consensus on what to do when an episode is completely written, produced, filmed, etc. and was pulled from the schedule at the last minute such as an episode in Black-ish (season 4)? I made an edit to an article that was quickly reverted regarding this matter. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

If an episode guide shows an episode airing on so and so date, if that date passes and it doesn't air, but the guides still show it, everything except the title and production code—if the latter is available in the first place—should be removed and the episode should be moved to the bottom of the episode table. This means every section will be displaying TBA, including the season and episode number. Once a new date is known, you can re-add the appropriate information and place it where appropriate based on its new air date. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: According to sources the network has no plans to air the episode and this was announced prior to the original air date. Which would mean there is no new air date. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: My advice? In this very exceptional case, I wouldn't include the episode in the episodes table for that season. But I would write up a couple of sentences of prose (sourced, of course) and mention this episode either above or below the table. In this case, it doesn't make any sense to list an episode that is never going to air. But it should definitely be mentioned, so I think doing so in prose would be best... I'd also start a Talk page topic on this very issue, and maybe link to or mention what was said here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There is already a section of prose about this episode and it being "shelved" on the season article: Black-ish (season 4)#Shelved episode - Brojam (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep – that looks good to me!

(Though I suspect that could be expanded upon with additional sourcing...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Lucifer episodes#Season 3 (2017–18) has a similar case, take a look at it. You'll find a similar case in the same article if you go back in the history to around the start of Season 3, when there were four unaired episodes. -- Alex^TW 02:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly the same: In Lucifer's case, Fox decided to hold season #2 production-episodes back, and air them in season #3. But they were always going to air eventually. FWIK, in Blackish's case, ABC has... I dunno, "quarantined" the episode, and it sounds like it will never air (not even overseas or in syndication!!). Something somewhat similar happened with an episode of Hannah Montana, but it sounded like in the HM case Disney "re-engineered" the episode in production, and eventually aired a version of it. But, in the case of Blackish, it sounds like that's not even an option... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Luckily I said it was only an example for a similar case, not to follow it exactly. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 04:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Naming conventions section

To be clear, this edit is in response to this edit from a couple of months ago (that I didn't notice at that time). I don't have a problem with the second "RfC" part of the edit. But I object to the first part of the edit, as unneccessary for MOS:TV – it's fine to handle rare "edge" cases like this at WP:NCTV, but it is unnecessary that they be mentioned in the overall MOS:TV here. (Note: By my count, there are only 4–5 instances where "double disambiguation" has been necessary, out of thousands of TV series articles, so it's very rare indeed. In short, we don't need to worry about this here – the simple reference back to WP:NCTV is sufficient.) So I do not consider the removal of that to be a "bold" edit, rather the original addition of this was the "bold" edit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the real edge case is the mention of (animated), and its covered in the next bullet point about using RMs, which aligns with the main guideline. I put back the YEAR COUNTRY item as that may not be as well-known since lately we've been getting rid of several genre disambiguators. Also added reference to (TV program/me). With that, the summary here should be able to cover 90%+ of cases, which is fine. -- Netoholic @ 03:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

And I've removed it again. For all of the reasons I have already given. You boldly added it in Feb. I'm challenging that. It needs to stay out – it just adds confusion, as this RM demonstrates. We don't need to encourage more of that. Leave it out of the MOS, and let the NCTV "experts" around here deal with these rare cases when they come up... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Frankly, I have so many other issues with this section - the order of presentation is terrible, its wordier than necessary, the formatting of the examples is unclear and blends too much with the rest of the text - that the year/country rare case is of a minor concern. It was added in February, with no complaints, until a recent RM. This section is a SUMMARY of NCTV, and as such its a stupid edit war to have. Anything we can fit in here from the main NCTV should be acceptable as long as it is brief. If you disagree with its inclusion here, then you must have an issue with it also being in NCTV, and you should address that, not fight over this short bit. -- Netoholic @ 04:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't have a problem with it at NCTV, because MOS:TV is the general guideline and NCTV is the detailed guideline on naming. (IOW, it's more appropriate to handle weird cases in the "detailed" guideline but not in the "general" one.) Also, the way it's handled at NCTV is much better than the way you were trying to include it here – the way you added, it looked like a "co-equal" option with "YEAR" and "COUNTRY" (and was guaranteed to cause more confusion like the RM I cited) when it's not at all: it's a weird exceptional case that almost never crops up. In short, it should not be included in the general naming guideline here on MOS:TV, where simply covering the YEAR and COUNTRY scenarios is sufficient. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

So your issue is that it was a bullet item? Then why not include it in the way it is in WP:NCTVUS does and copy the "If the year, country, or a combination of both is still insufficient to disambiguate the topic..." line here to replace the current line about using RMs? -- Netoholic @ 05:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just say I'd have a lot less problem with it if it were done that way – the way it's done at NCTV actually forces people to read the text to pick that up, so it's vastly preferable. I still think it doesn't even need to be included here, but if it is, this would be the way to do it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"show"

We've long held that "show" is not the correct word to use when referring to TV works and that instead we should use "series", "program" or "programme" but somehow the MOS has become full of references to "shows". is there a reason for this? --AussieLegend (✉) 03:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Likely because that is part of the title The Carol Burnett Show, The Ed Sullivan Show basically variety shows as opposed to episodic dramas. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It could possibly be because the MOS pages are written less formally than the actual articles and "show" is a more informal way to refer to a series/program/programme. I think it would be good to model good vocab in this case, though. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of the term "TV show" should be avoided even in the MOS. One reason this may have happened is the ENGVAR "program" vs. "programme" issue. But, regardless, the term "TV program/programme" should be used preferentially over "TV show". "TV series", OTOH, should only be used to refer to those TV programs with continuing characters and storylines (which is usually "scripted" TV programming – e.g. dramas and comedies). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about with reference to the article title or in the lead sentence? Wouldn't TV show be affected by what the work typically refers to itself as, unless you're trying to remove the redundancy of "The Carol Burnett Show is a variety show"? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I think your last example there would actually be correct use of the word "show", as "variety show" is a term. What would be "wrong" would be something like "The Mentalist is a police procedural television show." – it should be either "The Mentalist is a police procedural television program.", or (better) "The Mentalist is a police procedural television series." But if there's a choice, the term "TV show" should be avoided (whereas "variety show" and "game show" are accepted terms, and are therefore OK...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, we should avoid it in articles discussion a specific show (since that show should be more narrowly called "series". But in a MOS or in an article when broadly speaking about programming in general terms, television show is the primary term used. -- Netoholic @ 15:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"show" (as in television show) is a broad word for any type of television programming, whereas "series", "program", etc. have more specific meanings. Its easier to say "studio that produces the show" when you mean "studio that produces the series/program/miniseries/etc.". -- Netoholic @ 14:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

What's the specific meaning for "program"? What TV "show" isn't a program/programme? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"TV show" is vernacular – it's basically an idiom. As such, its use should be discouraged. A "TV program" is pretty much anything that airs on television (that's not a commercial!), and is the "correct" terminology to use IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

A television show can be any titled entry you might see in a typical programming schedule or guide - such entries might more specifically be a series, a sports event, a recurring news program, a one-time special, etc. In an article about any specific show, you should use one of those more specific terms, but if you're talking broadly about programming, "show" is just fine especially since it matches the primary topic article at television show. Saying "my son enjoys watching children's shows" is fine, calling Bob the Builder a "show" within that article should be avoided though, in favor of referring to it as a "series". -- Netoholic @ 15:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the use of "show" in the MOS, I think in part it has been used in instances when stating "series" could be confused as "season", for regions that preference "series" over "season" (ie Series 1 vs Season 1). Quickly doing a search, it does seem as though most of the uses are in the "Parent, season, and episode article structure" section, so the reasoning I presented could indeed be correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

There certainly is an ambiguity when using "series", so why not use "program"? --AussieLegend (✉) 03:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but wouldn't it become an issue of using American "program" over British "programme". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Ironically, this is an issue at this current CfD which is what prompted this discussion, although it shouldn't be. As an Australian who was educated during the 1960s and '70s, when we actually learned in school how the English language works, I was taught that "programme" was the correct spelling. However, with the influence of primarily US media, "program" has become more widely used. In articles I fully support WP:ENGVAR but in the MOS I don't have an issue with US spelling when it's a convenience issue. We can't use both spellings so let's just pick one and use it. Our main focus should be to get rid of "show". This CfD resulted in no consensus as to whether "program" or "programme" was preferred so the closer just picked one and ran with it based on the spelling of the parent category so now we have a series of categories using "program". Since that spelling is established it seems logical to continue with it in the MOS for consistency. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The plot thickens. I just became aware of this poorly attended RM discussion from November that resulted in Television program being moved to Television show and I can't see where it was notified to the TV project. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The WikiProject was notified via their Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts page (diff of notification). -- Netoholic @ 20:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I never saw that RM and I would certainly support a new WP:RM to move the article back to television program. Again, "tv show" is vernacular that should be avoided. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The two words are almost synonyms, and neither word sounds explicitly formal. There is nothing that could be called a "TV program" that can't also be called a "TV show", yet the reverse is not true in all cases. If you're watching a concert, a play, a live fireworks display, a parade.... would you really ever call these a "TV program"? I'm willing to bet you and most people would call them a "TV show". "Television show" is more encompassing in a very natural way. -- Netoholic @ 08:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and while it may not be wrong, it does not appear to be universally shared. I think a wider-attended WP:RM on that topic would be worthwhile. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

And now we have another edit, propagating the issue. I will reiterate again - every instance in the MOS where "show" is used, the word "program" should be used instead. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be also noted that when a star hosted and/or starred in a half-hour dramatic series or a sitcom, it was common to use "Show" within the title (The Loretta Young Show, The Danny Thomas Show, The Jane Wyman Show, The Betty Hutton Show, The Lloyd Bridges Show, The Debbie Reynolds Show, The Jimmy Stewart Show ...) Such practice carried into the late 1960s and occasionally extended to hour-long dramatic anthology series such as The Richard Boone Show or the shows hosted by Bob Hope (Bob Hope Presents the Chrysler Theatre/The Bob Hope Show) and Danny Thomas (The Danny Thomas Hour/The Danny Thomas Show). Jack Benny's long-running half-hour hybrid sitcom/variety show was always called by the same name as its radio predecessor, The Jack Benny Program. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Only my two cents here: from what I'm seeing: there does seem to be a difference between series/serial where the overall work is fully scripted, whereas a ahow is less scripted (though may include scripted elements) which all those listed "Shows" seemingly well fall into. Then a program is any series/serial/show that is otherwise first broadcast in a regular timeslot/schedule, which nearly accounts for any of the works covered by the TV project. But this is probably floating towards OR; irregardless, I don't think "show", "serial/serial" and "program" are interchangeable as might be first suggested. --Masem (t) 20:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No one has suggested they are "interchangeable". "TV program" encompasses everything. "TV series" implies continuing characters and stories (so that's mostly scripted drama and comedy series, plus some "reality TV" programs). "TV show"... well, "show" is the term I find nebulous – as I said above, I consider "TV show" to be popular vernacular, not a proper "television term" to use. We should be using "TV program" as the "catch-all" term. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

A program is simply something that is "programmed" to appear on air. It encompasses everything as IJBall has said. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The "nebulous" nature of "television show" is exactly why it is the best word to use as a catch-all. Both "program" and "series" have a special, defined meaning in our naming conventions, and so using "show" allows us to speak about all of them in a generic way. -- Netoholic @ 03:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, it's clear that that is your view on the subject. The issue is that I'm not sure that anyone else sees it that way. On my end, when I see "TV show" I don't consider it a "general term" – I consider it the wrong term! "TV program" is the "general" or "generic" term, as AussieLegend said. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A possible further complication is that as I read it, both FCC and the Canadian equivalent call a "television program" not just "shows" or "series/serials" but also commercial ads and other content. So "program" may be too broad a word. --Masem (t) 04:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how anyone can suggest using "show" as a catch-all when it has a specific meaning. It would be like using "Tesla" to refer to all electric vehicles. As for program being too broad, how is that a bad thing? It seems entirely suited to being a catch-all. That it covers ads is not an issue because we don't create articles for ads but if we did, then program would cover them. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that the root cause of this disagreement is that the language usage with regards to "show" and "program" has shifted very rapidly in recent years, and that people in this discussion might basing their views on usage they may have grown up with, but is less popular today. Here is a Google Ngram which shows this trend, comparing usage of TV/television show(s) vs. TV/television program(me)(s). While "program" is still currently more popular in British English regions, there is a precipitous drop in usage there too, so it seems like its only a matter of time. But, since Wikipedia goes by overall English usage, "show" is the most common word as shown in the Ngram and the one that we should accept, even grudgingly, even if it doesn't "sound right", even if there is disagreement about the precise types of content it may or may not apply to. Its a word we currently do not use for disambiguation, so it is an ideal broad term to speak about those. -- Netoholic @ 08:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

My problem with that argument is it supposes that Wikipedia should follow the "popular" usage of words and terms, rather than their correct usage... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This WP:COMMONNAME evidence is why we have the article at television show, and we should be consistent and use the same within our guidelines.There has been no evidence provided that any alternative is "correct usage". -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason the article is at "Television show" is because the RM was poorly attended. The two supporters gave no reasoning as to why they supported the move, which wasn't to your proposed destination anyway. You proposed that "TV show" was the common name while none of the participants agreed. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Should SAP broadcasts count towards the first English language broadcast in episode listings

We have a situation over at Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir, a French animated television series that is distributed worldwide. Normally for episodes we are listing airdates for first French release on French television, and first major English release (Nickelodeon for season 1 and Netflix for season 2). This leaves the worldwide releases that are aired ahead of those releases to be stated in the individual episode sections. One of the most recent episodes would normally show in English on 12 May 2018 but Spain has apparently broadcast the English version on 5 May but using Second audio program SAP. Original research issues put aside, should the 12 May date for Disney Channel UK be removed? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

TV Show or TV Season?

A while back I created Celebrity Undercover Boss under the impression that it would be a separate television show but now I'm not so sure. The production website and CBS'official press release page lists them as independent shows apart from the parent series (Undercover Boss (U.S. TV series) however CBS' official website and the Futon Critic list it as part of the parent show (season 9). The CBS website even has a link specifically for the celebrity edition however it redirects to the parent shows page. Most independent sources aside from network and production websites seem to with it being an independent series: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. The series/season also received it's own title card for the first time apart from the regular show / other 9 seasons. So I'm wondering which way we should go on this? With a bit of work the article could be moved and become a season article but I'd like to get some other editor's opinions. TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

With all of links provided, I'd definitely go the season route. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Confederate (TV series)#Requested move 13 May 2018

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Confederate (TV series)#Requested move 13 May 2018. This move request concerns the move of a television series article to the draft space, based on the fact that the series' production is still in development and has yet to receive a series order. -- Alex^TW 09:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Question, re: "season" articles

At "season"-specific articles, is it 'Episodes/episode table' then 'Cast/Characters' in that order? Or is it 'Cast/Characters' then 'Episodes/episode table' in that order? Or does it not matter, and either way is "correct"?

I can't say MOS:TV is clear on the question, and I've seen it done both ways at various "season" articles... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Historically we've listed characters first, which is always a good idea when there's not a lot of content before the episode list. In those cases, putting the characters first eliminates whitespace caused by the infobox. Traditionally, episodes have been part of the broadcast history and MOS:TV lists characters before broadcast. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will note that other discussions at WT:TV have come to the conclusion that for "main TV series" articles (i.e. not "episodes" articles) 'Episodes' (sections) with transcluded 'series overview' table actually go best either included in or immediately after 'Plot', though main TV series articles with "full" episode tables those have traditionally seemed to be placed either immediately before or immediately after 'Production' section... But, as to "episodes" articles, I agree with you that it works better if 'Cast/Characters' goes before the episodes table rather than after. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Just note that our official position is that any plot summary (including episode tables) should "be the first [section] in an article, or as close to the start as possible". - adamstom97 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm wondering if we want to "flip" that for "season" articles in the MOS, as they do "look" better having Cast -> Episodes table rather than the reverse... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't based on what looks better, it is the logical ordering. The very reason that plot summaries are allowed on Wikipedia in the first place is to provide context for our readers for the rest of the page (so the production info, reception info, etc. actually makes sense to someone who hasn't seen the show or film). The only reason that we don't insist on episode tables being the first section like any other plot summary is because of potential clashes with the infobox, but that shouldn't be a problem with season articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the infobox does create an issue with the episode section/table in articles like Dynasty (season 1) on larger screens.— TAnthony^Talk 20:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Though I realize that an expanded lead and a plot (overview) section would probably alleviate the issue in this example.— TAnthony^Talk 20:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I am assumming that there is a decent lead and toc, which is what I am generally working with to be honest. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Except we deviate from that "logical ordering" all the time at main TV series articles because of the aforementioned "infobox"/"episode table" issue. Also, 'Episodes' can logically argued to "belong" under either 'Plot', 'Production' or 'Broadcast', and have been variously placed near all of those sections in the past at various episodes (FTR, I don't care for them under 'Broadcast'...). So there's no use in pretending there's a hard and fast rule. Also, it's questionable that "logical ordering" is "better" than "looks better"... FTR, I agree with placing transcluded 'series overview' tables in or just after the 'Plot' section. The question here is really whether 'full-on' episode tables should also be placed up near the top of articles (incl. 'season' articles), or should be placed lower down in articles, as they often are even now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

We "deviate" out of necessity, since the gap caused by the clash between the episode table and infobox is just too ridiculous. And if the episode table includes plot summaries, it comes under plot whether it has a plot heading or not and the rule should apply that it needs to come as early as possible. I think we should be strongly recommending this whenever possible, since it reinforces the purpose of the plot summary in a Wikipedia article rather than people just assuming they should be added because "that's what we do". - adamstom97 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Lucifer episodes#Bonus episodes

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Lucifer episodes#Bonus episodes. -- Alex^TW 00:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Wayward Pines#RFC

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wayward Pines#RFC. -- Alex^TW 09:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Viewership ratings tables

Please tell me we don't have this kind of cleanup job to do in thousands of articles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Reunion (Westworld)#Move into main space

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Reunion (Westworld)#Move into main space. This discussion whether Reunion (Westworld) should or should not exist as a mainspace article based primarily on the existence of plot and reviews; the same applies for the previous episode, Journey into Night. -- Alex^TW 04:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

While there is discussion there for those two episodes, I think we need to revisit in general the topic of what is the minimum content that an episode should have to be considered appropriate for a standalone article. The last I can find was this unresolved thread from last April/May, and I don't see any language in MOS:TV or WP:EPISODE that reflects anything discussed there.

A principle issue is that may key dramas and other series today (like Westworld, The Walking Dead, etc.) are well-covered in the media on a per-episode basis, and there are countless reviews that can be incorporated along with a concise plot section and viewership numbers, but because these are often made in one large swath of filming time, production details are very very light to non-existence, in favor of overall season production details discussed in the series/season article. A tidbit or two may come out (a special guest actor, the departure of another guest), but that's a couple sentences or so at most.

From a broad WP view, as long as you have multiple in-depth reviews of an episode, the notability presumption is met and a standalone can be made. GNG does not require production information (and in fact, some of that may be sometimes taken as primary sourcing which doesn't meet the GNG).

A completely reasonable goal is to avoid episode articles that are only plot summaries, with the only one or two reviews with it and ratings, but zero production information (and the presumption that this is all the information that can be obtained from reliable sources). That describes the bulk of most sitcoms and more conventional dramas on television now; a few sites like AV Club may grade each ep beacuse they're recapping the series, but that's it. That's where the episode table makes more sense than separate episode articles. But I feel the attention that the media places on high-profile series on Westworld and the like, with significant per-episode coverage, suggests that these should be standalone articles, even if we cannot expand the production section. Yes, the above example of "Reunion" needs a more fleshed out reception section, but it is clearly possible to provide that with sourcing that is known to exist. We're probably not going to get much more in production as we'd like.

What the TL;DR of this is that how critical to having a fleshed-out production section key to a standalone television episode article, on the basis that an episode has otherwise gained a lot of reception attention to easily pass the GNG? Does the TV project or WP in general feel this necessary? --Masem (t) 15:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't think we have much grounds to say that an article can't exist if it does have a good plot summary, some viewership information and a thorough reception section. The only time a fleshed-out production section would be required is if an editor was trying to promote the article to GA, for example. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:GNG is likely to conflict with this interpretation. The existence of some reviews but not in-depth ones is not sufficient, because it's just trivial coverage. Otherwise every TV show episode would be automatically notable; someone has reviewed it somewhere, at least in passing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Raven's Home episodes#Should this article have been split?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Raven's Home episodes#Should this article have been split?. -- Alex^TW 05:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigg Boss (franchise)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigg Boss (franchise). TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This relates directly to Talk:Bigg Boss#Requested move 21 June 2018, also. In short, the RM left out the main article to move, so it's been nominated for deletion instead of moving; I've suggested that the AfD be closed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I took it to Afd on purpose completely unrelated to the RM. It wasn't an accident... Thanks!!! :) TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

When to add to infobox?

When it has been announced that a new cast member is joining a television series do we have to wait to add them to the Infobox until they actually appear in the series as a main cast member or can we add them as soon it has been announced? TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

If credited in a starring role cast should be added to the infobox after an episode has aired in which they've been credited. There have been plenty of cases where somebody has been reported to be joining as a series "regular" and people assume this means starring, but it often doesn't so we wait until they've actually appeared in an episode. However, it is permitted to include a note in the prose that a person will be joining the cast provided this is supported by reliable sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is something that I take issue with. We don't do this for the first season of a series, we just add actors who are announced as starring and adjust their crediting if so required once the show premieres. So why do we need to do it for seasons after the first? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Strictly speaking we shouldn't be adding cast before the first episode. WP:TVCAST says "The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list". If no episodes have aired, there are no broadcast credits and therefore names should not be added. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: That's what I thought but just wanted to make sure. Thanks. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in that quote says anything about not including cast members until they appear in the credits. If that is where this practice has come from, then there has been a lot of stretching going on. All that says is when we have a cast list, we should follow the order from the credits. Just like how we order the cast of a film based on the billing block on its poster. That doesn't mean we pretend there is no cast until we get a film poster or watch the show's credits. Common sense indicates that we add people as we learn of their casting (from reliable sources), and once we get the order that the MOS suggests we follow then we adjust our listing accordingly. And that is what happens at all the film and TV articles that I watch. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You might like to read the quote again, especially the bit I mentioned. Again, the quote says that cast should be listed "according to the original broadcast credits". If no episodes have been broadcast there are no "original broadcast credits" so they can't be listed. It doesn't mean that we can just add cast willy nilly if no episodes have aired. To do that is stretching. We had a huge problem with cast a long time ago. Because it wasn't specified, we had cast lists that were being reordered as credits changed, cast were listed by last name or first name according to editor preference, cast were listed according to the number of episodes or perceived importance and so on. When we have previously discussed including cast who hadn't been credited in an episode, the decision to allow them to be included in the prose listing was a compromise. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it says the cast should be "ordered according to the original broadcast credits" (emphasis mine). Are you seriously suggesting that television articles are not allowed to list cast members until after a series premieres? Because that is definitely not what happens now. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, exactly: it says the cast should be "ordered according to the original broadcast credits". If there are no episodes aired then cast can't be ordered according to the original broadcast credits so they shouldn't be included. It's not rocket science. However, we're talking about different things here. TheDoctorWho asked about adding new cast after a series has already started while you're talking about before the series has started. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait until after it airs, per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. The studio could change their mind at any time. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you suggest that we not create articles at all before a series airs, in case the studio changes it mind about any of it? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Depends. We'd create the article in anticipation of the show only if it passed WP:Notability: if there's significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, that't the WP:GNG standard. It applies at the meta level of whether to create an entire article for a top-level topic. It doesn't apply to whether to include various bits of alleged trivia inside an article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Then newly-announced cast should also be included if there's significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Cast isn't "alleged trivia", they are a possibly the most important part of a series; without a cast, you don't have a series. If new cast are announced, then they should be included with the other cast. A studio could change their mind at any time on the status of a cast member, yes, but the studio could change their mind at any time on whether or not to suddenly halt a series' production as well. Same concept applies. -- Alex^TW 08:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Your "Then ..." indicates that you did not understand what I wrote, or what our WP:P&G say. GNG has absolutely nothing to do with whether to include something in an article. That's generally controlled by WP:NOT, and both WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE both militate against it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Adam. As far as I can tell, cast have always been listed before the series premiere, typically ordered by the date of their announcement, and then reordered to match the credits once the series premieres. This should be no different to a season - the cast should be added to the end of the current cast list once they are announced, and then if necessary, reordered once they are credited, exactly the same as before the series premiere. It makes no sense to either 1) omit all cast before the series premieres, or 2) to have one set of standards for the series premiere, then another set for further seasons. As this is a standard procedure and not in the MoS, I recommend we update the MoS (particularly WP:TVCAST) as follows (this is only a suggestion, tweak as necessary):

The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. If new cast members have been announced by reliable sources but have not yet been credited, they should be added to the end of the list, ordered by the date of the announcements. They should then be reordered, if necessary, to match the original broadcast credits once they have been credited. The same procedure should be followed before the premiere of a series, when no original broadcast credits exist.

(Realistically though, we have a lot of "standard procedures" that need to be listed and put into the MoS...) -- Alex^TW 07:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree with AussieLegend on this – we shouldn't be adding cast to infobox until series/season airs, as per WP:CRYSTAL. It's fine to mention casting in the 'Production'/'Casting' section beforehand. But we really shouldn't be adding them to ledes or infoboxes "before the fact". Add: Incidentally, Aussie's first point is why I generally believe we should stay away from the term "regular role" – as he said, there are plenty of examples where a RS has stated that someone is "joining the cast in a regular role" on a show, only to have that turn out to mean a "recurring role" rather than a "main cast role", or even have it turn out to be just a 2- or 3-episode appearance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Is current practice to add cast members as RS appear? A definitive yes.

Should we keep doing this? Yes, it is certainly what the public expects of Wikipedia.

Isn't this "wp:news" or "wp:crystal"? No, I do not believe so. We aren't adding the news of a casting to any other page than the show's article. And wp:crystal is not meant for highly reliable but still not absolutely certain information. Waving wp:crystal around amounts to saying wiki should never talk about the future, unless it's "the sun probably rises tomorrow"-level stuff. Which is patently absurd, and not what visitors expect at all. Worst case, we simply remove info about casting that never came to happen (and if especially notable, we mention it as such "so-and-so were pegged for the role of Poseidon, but accidentally drowned the month before, and was replaced by so-and-so".

tl;dr: if the RS is actually a good one, I don't see why we can't add casting info about upcoming shows, as long as we have agreed to create the article in the first place. It follows that the same standards should then be applied to upcoming seasons of existing articles. Btw, if you come to another consensus, where wp:crystal prevents us from mentioning upcoming facts, this should probably be escalated to a higher level of discussion, since it will significantly diminish the value of Wikipedia to its visitors.

Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

No one's saying that: of course RS'ed casting info can be added – but it should be added to the 'Production' or 'Casting' section. However, adding it anywhere else in the article before episodes air is generally problematic, and should probably be avoided. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

So, you're saying cast should not be listed in the infobox or "Cast"/"Characters" sections before the series even premieres? That's not what I've seen being done; when has this become a thing? Can you provide instances of where this has been implemented? -- Alex^TW 14:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Before a series premieres is also problematic, because we don't know the credits ordering. Despite that, creating a 'Cast' section is still done, and I'm not going to really object to the practice. But let's not pretend that it's not at least somewhat problematic, because we don't know cast listing order, and sometimes character names change during production of new series. (Then there's the persistent problem of people adding "cast" or character names without using sourcing – I've been fighting that consistently at Legacies (TV series)...) In general, I do think it is best that we avoid listing cast in infoboxes or in ledes before series or seasons premiere, however – it might be OK to list the reported series "lead", or for continuing series to list the verified returning cast. But I don't think it's a good idea to add "new cast" in those locations before episodes air. (Note also: I'm not saying any of this should be added to the MOS – I'd prefer that it just generally be adopted as WP:TV editor "best practices"...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I quite agree that it can become problematic, because everyone wants their own version of ordering. That's why I made an MoS-update suggestion above, that covers both this and the use of reliable sources. I'd suggest keeping it to the MoS, as any non-WP:TV editor could come along and not know about it, then ask for a guideline. "Best practices" aren't covered by this. (Speaking of the devil, I've actually started to compile a list of our "best practices" that really need to be implemented in the MoS or FAQ). -- Alex^TW 15:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: You can still add something to a list without ordering it. But that isn't the point. The point is we are fine with actors being added to the infobox before a series begins, but not if we are between seasons. It just doesn't make sense. Either we should not be adding anything to the infobox before it has already happened, or we trust reliable sources. You can't have both. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, you're still talking about something different to what was asked. However, lets look at the things we don't add to the infobox before a series starts regardless of what reliable sources say:

num_seasons
num_episodes
released
first_aired
last_aired

Why should cast be any different? We need to be consistent. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn't something different, it's the whole point. At the moment it is standard practice to add cast members to the infobox before a series begins airing, but to not do so for subsequent seasons. You say we need to be consistent, well that's what I've been saying! - adamstom97 (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

So you agree that we shouldn't be adding cast to the infobox before a series starts, because that would be consistent. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it would be consistent, but I personally think that the cast is different from those other parametres you listed and should not be withheld from the infobox before release. For one, {{{num_seasons}}} and {{{num_episodes}}} technically could be updated after the episode or season is confirmed to exist per the original thinking on that, but waiting for it to air is just simpler. {{{released}}} etc. make sense to withhold, because they are definiteive facts that rely on the episode/season/series to be released to be 100% accurate. But we can be almost completely confident that we know who is starring before seeing the opening credits if we are told so by very reliable sources (especially the producers themselves). Just as we can be pretty sure what the title is before seeing it onscreen, or we can be pretty sure who is going to be credited as director or executive producer, etc., before seeing their credits if the right sources tell us beforehand. If we see the credits and it turns out our cast listing is wrong (including the ordering), then we can make the slight adjustment and there is no harm done. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please address the elephant in the room - we are about to deny our readers expected and desired information on a technicality. In other words, those of you arguing "consistency" or policy (wp:crystal) means we should stop adding cast information as it becomes available, please address the question of whether you really prioritize technical details like that over the fact that this is what our readers expect and want out of Wikipedia. Your arguments carry considerably less weight if they appear to be made in a vacuum, unrelated to how Wikipedia is really used. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Everything excluded from WP is excluded on the basis of policy. "You're excluding this based on policy" is an argument that isn't an argument. WP excludes all sorts of things (start at the top of WP:NOT, then read to the bottom of it). What you want to inject isn't "cast information as it becomes available", it's projected cast information based on primary-source announcement (i.e., speculative news and press-release regurgitation). WP is not an entertainment news e-zine. Wait until facts are confirmed. We sometimes articles on films and TV shows before there are released because there's already a tremendous amount of evidence that the production is real and on a schedule, and numerous independent reliable sources are already writing about it in-depth. (When there's not that kind of coverage, we routinely delete such articles, because many productions announced in the pre-production phase don't pan out after all, and WP is not a crystal ball.) In some cases we do include in an article on an existing show the announcement of a casting change before the change airs, but generally only where there's a lot of news about it. There is no requirement to include such announcements and projections. You seem to be trying to create one, but it's a matter that should be left to editorial discretion (subject to an RfC if necessary) at the particular article's talk page, based on considerations like WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE and WP:PSTS and so on. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong: You seem to harbor the view "Its up to each article" , and if so, that's great (business as usual). However, this discussion is about removing that (or rather, some views are) - enshrining in policy that no useful info about an upcoming show or season can be added ahead of time. This would be disastrous, so pardon me for speaking up. Was that really the intention of the thread-starter? No, I believe the question asked was a minor technical one. (To all) Don't make this into self-sabotaging Wikipedia, thanks! CapnZapp (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please don't be hyperbolic. WP isn't going to collapse because you don't get to insert iffy trivia a week or a month before it's actually provable. "[E]nshrining in policy that no useful info about an upcoming show or season can be added ahead of time" is more grandstanding. No one actually proposed that. What you still are not absorbing is that we already have policy about this stuff. Granted it's a bit nebulous (especially at WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE), but the community is pretty good about working it out. If you have not yet worked it out personally, look at 50 other articles, at least B class, on current TV shows. If none or only a few are doing what you want to do, it's a bad idea. If lots and lots of them do it, it's probably not going to be controversial. This is generalized advice that applies across any topic/category. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

"Please don't be hyperbolic." --> "WP isn't going to collapse". I rest my case :-) CapnZapp (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Stuff like "a self-sabotaging Wikipedia" isn't conducive to resolution of anything. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, a few comments: You appear to use a few debating styles I'd like you to stop using. Again, should I have misinterpreted you, my apologies. However: you appear to a) treat me as a complete newcomer with your redundant introduction to policy, b) misrepresent my position (I am not trying to create a policy change; I am trying to prevent a policy change in the opposite direction, which is something completely different), and c) you seem to think your argument carries more weight the more policy links you can add (I count 5), and d) still avoid my request to engage with the actual issue instead of relativizing (one change to policy is like any other, we mustn't think for ourselves): do you or do you not believe it is useful to be able to add casting info before the premiere? In this way I feel you create a position you can safely oppose, even though that was not what I was saying. Okay then CapnZapp (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

"You appear to use a few debating styles I'd like you to stop using" is a debating style you really need to stop using. To take your points in order: A) If you are misunderstanding (or just missing) policy, then being introduced or reintroduced to its details is necessary. I never said you're trying to create a policy change, so you're complaining about an alleged straw man by engaging in a real one. C) When people refer to you policies, it's because they say something relevant that you need to read, understand, and address if you're going to continue proposing what you're proposing. When 5 such seem to conflict with what you want, then, yes, in fact the position that sides with them is the stronger one. That's just a fact of how this project works. D) Doesn't it seem strange to you that multiple editors are telling you pretty much the same thing? Are we all just mad and/or stupid, while you're the a lone, visionary genius? Finally, whether I personally think it's "useful" to add casting info before the premiere is irrelevant. Setting this up as two-editor personality conflict is silly and pointless. We have a policy that is generally against pre-announced but otherwise unverifiable predictive "information", and we make some exceptions, generally when there's a whole lot of in-depth sourcing, and the details appear to be pretty well certain. When people decide everything should be an exception and start inserting iffy material just because it was mentioned as tentative plans in a few places, that's inverting the exception into a rule, and it changes the nature of what we're writing from encyclopedic work to low-end journalism.

Whether any particular TV-related "announcement of the forthcoming" is encyclopedic or is crystal-ball trivia is a case-by-case matter. By default, because of WP:NOT policy, interpretation is going to lean toward "trivia". The onus is on the person who wants to IAR their way around NOT#CRYSTAL and include predictive material. You have to bring the sourcing that shows it's worthy of inclusion, both as to not being very tentative any longer, and as to being subject to frequent, rich coverage not just occasional, passing mention. Prove people actually care and that's it not very iffy. And remember that if it really is forthcoming, we'll know for absolute certain on the air date anyway. WP:There is no deadline and isn't WP's job to provide up-to-the-minute news. It's perfectly fine for a more obscure TV show to have no article at all here until its second season, when we're sure it's actually notable. So there definitely is no necessity for WP to include recycled press-release material about who may [or may really not] be added to the cast 3 months from now.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, just knock it off. Your position is clear, and I'm opposing it. All that's left is me calling you out on your demeaning and pompous discussion techniques. A hint: consider not demanding that editors "prove people care". It paints you as a fool. You accuse me of strawmanning, and yet, you keep rambling on against a position I. Do. Not. Hold.

But I think we're done. Let's just leave it to the other editors to value the weight of your arguments, shall we? Bye now CapnZapp (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You're still mistaking this for a personality conflict. It's a conflict between policy- and sourced-based arguments (mine) and WP:ILIKEIT ones (yours). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No. That is your personal opinion - which you have a habit of confusing with facts. Trying to paint your discussion parter as inferior with inferior arguments won't fly with me. In short: stop being a bully. Now, please. Stop cherrypicking policy to only be a rule where it supports your position but a guideline where it does not. My position is that nothing in policy prohibits adding useful information. Wielding WP:CRYSTAL to combat any additions before they happen is entirely inappropriate and completely arbitrary. Also that the original poster of this section asked a reasonable question which you wrenched into a much larger scope. So just cut out the overbearing language, would you, and let others add their thoughts so we can arrive at a consensus in a civilized manner. CapnZapp (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You're still mistaking this for a personality conflict. It's a conflict between arguments with bases that WP considers valid, versus subjective ones like "useful". "[N]othing in policy prohibits adding useful information" is simply false; we have a policy explicitly about this, as you have been informed several times now: WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. For broadly consensus-accepted interpretation/application of it, see WP:ITSUSEFUL.
Side matter: You really, really need to rethink your habit of yelling at other editors about what you think they should be allowed to talk about and believe, and what you fantasize that their motivations are, and how you want to characterize them with name-calling like "bully". It's an inexorable one-way ticket to a bad place. You may find this page of value in getting off that train.
There is no post on this page (or, probably, anywhere else in living memory) where I've called a policy a guideline.
More side matters: You seem unclear on what "arbitrary" means (applying CRYSTAL to only some pre-emptive claims, e.g. on a topical basis as you're aiming to do here, would be arbitrary). Overbearing language? Like "you have a habit of", "won't fly with me", "stop being a", "stop", "combat any", "entirely", "completely", "wrenched" "just cut out", "let others", "civilized"? There's nothing "civilized" about that; it's argument to emotion and the injection of hyperbole into statement after statement.
To come full circle: I'm providing a policy argument, you're refusing to understand it, then asserting there is no policy argument. That's a WP:ICANTHEARYOU and proof by assertion issue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Who has change for an American dollar? Because I'm about to add my two cents. Any film or TV series in pre-production usually gets its draw from its creative crew member credits (producers through actors). Wikipedia gets its draw from the collaborative editors' effort to inform its readers of said crew (and tidbits) during pre-production. By having a generic infobox not stating anything relevant to the series defeats the purpose of an infobox. It's been my knowledge that most TV infoboxes get revamped anyway upon the premiere (example: Jessica Lange being cast in American Horror Story, yet mentioned last in the title cards for effect. I recall numerous reverts back then). As for subsequent seasons, I think adding new actors to the main infoboxes should also be delayed until they appear in their respective seasons. Some press releases may not state when their exact appearance will be, so adding them between seasons and them not appearing until halfway through the next season makes the above-mentioned collaborators seem foolish/uninformed (even with valid sources). Now, who has 95 cents? — Wylie pedia @ 06:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: "most TV infoboxes get revamped anyway upon the premiere" – Exactly. It can even be downright confusing to readers to come here and see (based on nothing but advance press-release materials) that so-and-so is playing thus-and-such character when, half-way through the season, no such character or actor has yet appeared or even been mentioned, and our article has no further information on them. WP is not IMDb. I remember this coming up at Colony (TV series) for at least two actors and characters who didn't show up until the second half of the first season, and who quite easily could have been replaced (or written out) before those episodes were even shot. It's blind luck that they weren't. Some iffy series even get cancelled by guillotine without any chance to resolve open and already-scripted plot points (e.g. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and Firefly), nor do studios always bother to air what did get filmed in the proper order (Firely again), or always even air all that was filmed (I think that also happened with Firefly – the DVD/Blu-ray episode 1 was actually the first pilot, which was rejected by the studio and never aired in the original TV run). In such a case, we should wait for DVD/Blu-ray and confirmation that the missing episodes with said actors finally appearing are actually present. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'm just looking for consistency with established series. The Resident already has its season 2 cast formation visible, while the three Arrowverse shows with cast promotions and demotions have the new series regular character bios hidden while a visible paragraph about cast changes visible for reading. I was brought to this page when I opened a discussion about it on The Flash (2014 TV series)'s page--Harmony944 (talk, Twitter) 21:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

First thing I would do is revert the collapse-boxing, per MOS:DONTHIDE and MOS:ACCESSIBILITY. Templates and tables that hide stuff (by default) should not be used in mainspace, except in navboxes and – some but not all would argue – in lengthy infoboxes (the counter-argument being to clean up the infoboxes per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE). Example: Even if you prune out the pointless "Sister channels(s)" collapsed list in the I-box at Sony Ten, the I-box is still way too full of cruft. In the body, though, nothing should be collapse-boxed. It's rare to encounter it in my experience; most occurrences are hold-overs of something the pop-music wikiproject was doing in album articles (collapsing track listing), before DONTHIDE was implemented after an RfC. So, it's not there by consensus, just by lack of extensive cleanup. It's fine to have collapsible containers in articles, they just shouldn't be forced into collapsed state. They're an accessibility problem, and even a usability one (various mobile browser can't expand them). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd be wary of actors who "join the cast", who usually get heavily promoted in previews to appear in an episode or season, only to receive special guest star or recurring billing. There need to be some sources to back up any main cast member billing, such as with New Girl (season 7) having a press release for the series opener episode listing "Rhiannon and Danielle Rockoff as Ruth" [5] Otherwise, waiting until the episode has aired or released is helpful. For season 1 episode 1, it'll have to be redone anyway to match title credits. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Except that's not the issue I'm having, it's about cast members explicitly promoted from recurring to series regular between seasons, like with The Flash. These aren't new cast members immediately signed to be new series regulars written in halfway through the season--Harmony944 (talk, Twitter) 15:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I would still add them afterwards in the infobox sequence as if they had guest appearances prior like temporary band members who become full band members later. Like with Parks and Recreation, Jim O'Heir and Retta were recurring in season 1 and 2, supporting starring in seasons 3-5 (not in the opening credits), and opening credited in season 6. They are listed in the infobox after Adam Scott and Rob Lowe who were guests in season 2, and opening credited in season 3. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS:VIDEO, MOS:AUDIO

I created a WP:Manual of Style/Video (MOS:VIDEO) disambiguation page, and a WP:Manual of Style/Audio (MOS:AUDIO, MOS:SOUND) one to match, with what I could find. Anything missing? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Good Doctor (season 1)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Good Doctor (season 1). - Brojam (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)