Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 14 |
Proposed MoS change: Nationality
This discussion started here but the proposal belongs here:
Proposal: The two sentences at the end of the first paragraph of the relevant section of the MoS (from "If a..." onwards) should become a separate paragraph and be replaced with:
"A series's nationality should be referenced within the article by reliable sources and, if singularly defined, identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular or cannot be supported by appropriate citation, omit the information from the introductory sentence and cover the different national interests later, where these can be reliably referenced. Editors should be careful not to infer the nationality of a series or production entity where such information is not verifiable by citation from a reliable source." MapReader (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: For the benefit of new readers, please summarize (without referencing prior discussion) the following: a) each and every point where the existing policy is insufficient in your view, and your motivation why. b) each and every change to the text that your proposal brings, and what you intend that policy change to mean, in my and yours and everyone's editorial work.
- Having to hunt down prior discussion is a hurdle to participation, and by removing hurdles you encourage discussion. Also, it does happen that editors try to "sneak" in changes hiding behind formal language (not saying you do). Spelling out in plain text the current behaviors your change is intended to stop or change, also encourages discussion in my opinion.
- Finally, I hope you agree to solicit further discussion, eventually ending up with a formal RFC, if sufficient discussion has not appeared within, say, a week or so. You could probably already now benefit from advertising your proposal elsewhere. Until such time should you, again in my opinion, abstain from interpreting silence to mean consensus. And even after all of this, please be prepared objections might not appear until you actually change policy (as reverts, accompanied by well-reasoned talk page commentary of course). And it goes without saying, please don't implement changes to individual articles until policy has been changed and accepted. Thank you and good luck with your proposal. CapnZapp (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Capn, thanks; I wait in anticipation of comment: since my post, daily page views have risen to about twenty, and with no other new content I expect the proposal is getting reads. The straightforward summary is that the revised wording would clarify that normal WP:Verifiability applies to references to a TV series's nationality. It would also align MOS:TV with MOS:FILM - the film folk's MoS is here: mentions of nationality should be reliably referenced (and given in the lead if singular). So, if the reputable movie press and authoritative general media report a film as being "Italian", then it's an "Italian film" in WP; we follow the sources.
- MOS:TV currently contains contradiction: it begins by referring to nationality as "defined" by reliable sources, but then offers examples in brackets that refer to the nationality of production companies. Whether intended or not (and I suspect not, given that these are preceded by e.g.), this is having the effect of fuelling objections to the singular nationality of reliably referenced series, such as (in my view, based on RS) Downton Abbey, being referred to in articles, and is also supporting editor synthesis of multi-nationality based on an analysis of production entities unsupported by direct referencing. The bottom line is that, after the proposed change, statements that a series is "American"/"Italian"/"British", or whatever, would, if contentious, be supported by citation, and that editors would not be able to decide that a series is "British-American" (or whatever) unless this reflects the way in which it is actually reported by the RS. MapReader (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- My view is this. The current metod for arriving at nationality as established by consensus is by analyzing technical data = production company nationality (maybe not for all articles, but certainly for a significant part of them). If one company is American, the entire production becomes wholly or partly American. This irregardless of how reviews and other entertainment pieces describe the production. In assuming good faith, I choose to believe the body of editors agree this is not synthesis or any other kind of no-no - but wholly in line with policy as it stands. Changing this to make policy tell editors to follow what our sources say (that The Times or Washington Post say "this British series" or "that French-Italian coproduction") is in blunter terms a change from one correct and appropriate way to do it, to another correct and appropriate way of doing it. I dearly wished a) MapReader would stop characterizing one method as better than the other, and b) insisting that the policy can be kept vague, yet inform us editors we need to change methods. In my view, if we agree we should ignore production company data (one type of RS) and instead value what the papers say (a second type of RS), this should be easily understood by glancing at the policy. In the light of this I must oppose the current proposal. It is simply not clear enough what we did before and what we should do instead. I am neutral to the change itself, I just wish it to be explicit (not implied) and neutral in tone (not characterized as fixing an error). Good day CapnZapp (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Can the latter concerns be addressed by dropping in some of the wording you suggested in separate discussion, in place of the last sentence. So that we would have:
- "A series's nationality should be referenced within the article by reliable sources, not the nationality of individual production companies. If singularly defined, it should identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular or cannot be supported by appropriate citation, omit the information from the introductory sentence and cover the different national interests later, where these can be reliably referenced." MapReader (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is hair-splitting and WP:Wikilawyering. Our WP:NOR policy has to be interpreted in light of the WP:Common sense meta-policy. I think it's more reasonable and practical to suggest that we should defer to "nationality" statements found in sources, but in absence of any, or in the case of conflict between them, it's fine to use the nationality of the production companies. Just because, you know, we live in reality, not a weird Platonic fantasy land. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Extended discussion of the proposal
Stop trying to brow-beat users into submission, SMCandlish! Do you really feel you're making a constructive contribution when you accuse users of wikilaywering? CapnZapp (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
As for the hair-splitting, the case is this: currently editors interpret policy to support using production company nationality as one main way to derive a show's nationality. My view is that this is neither better nor worse - only maybe inconsistent. The originating editor MapReader wishes to amend policy to disable this, and to instead encourage editors on the (in my view equally viable) method where nationality is derived from what reviews and articles say. Hair-splitting? Well, if you have a show like Downton Abbey, its editors are currently using the former method which gives a different result than the latter; and thus quite reasonably resist changing the nationality of the show. Only if policy is amended on a wiki-wide level (i.e. here) can the nationality of that particular show be changed from British-American (its production companies are British and American) to British (as per the overwhelming majority of RS characterizations). There, simple. No absurd characterizations needed. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Absurd characterizations and accusations like "browbeating"? Why are you following me from thread to thread to start weird, ranty, hypocritical shit with me? It's especially strange in this case, because we appear to have similar viewpoints on this matter.
Substantively: We have a page at WP:Wikilawyering, which we wrote to address a particular kind of policy-bending and consensus-bending argument technique, and it is in evidence in this thread and in the nature of the proposal. To wit, it's a bending of our normal WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR approach – "follow the sources" – to engage in a new form of OR: that Production A "is" a Nationality B production because Newspaper Z (which may have had incomplete information or just not given a damn about the details) said so, even if we know for a fact that it's actually a joint Nationality B and Nationality C production based on multiple reliable sources about the production companies and the work's funding; the excuse is just that a source didn't say the exact thing "it is a joint Nationality B and Nationality C production". This kind of idea is not how we do things; it's an obvious transgression of the WP:ENC, WP:5P, and WP:Common sense meta-policies that blanket our entire policy system. We have an actual responsibility to present the facts accurately, not to distort them to mimic the exact wording in particular sources (or to pretend the facts don't exist if source wording provides us those facts but not the exact phrase we're looking for).
By contrast, we have no WP:BROWBEATING, so there isn't something for you to rely on to justify such an actual accusation. I'm making a "WP:TEA WP:POT" point here, not some kind "you hurt my feelings so I'm gonna ANI you" threat; WP:DRAMA doesn't interest me). Observation about WP:WIKILAWYER problems in a proposal isn't an "accusation"; it's a reference to an important community essay about how to not mis-interpret WP norms in a legalistic, technicality-minded, non-common-sense fashion.
- You hit the nail right on the head with this: "currently editors interpret policy to support using production company nationality as one main way to derive a show's nationality." Yes, and our guidelines are supposed to reflect actual community best practices, not try to legislate changes to them. "My view is that this is neither better nor worse - only maybe inconsistent." Sure. It's no different in this topic area than in any other. This kind of source- and fact/event-interpretation matter comes up encyclopedia-wide, from military history to botanical classification to sports rules and their governing bodies. "The originating editor MapReader wishes to amend policy to disable this" – Yes, and I'm critical of that idea because it relies on a too-literal view of how we treat sources, and would result in reality-defying claims in our articles (e.g., that an obvious French–British production was just "British" despite being in large part funded by Canal+, just because Entertainment Tonight called it "British" and someone hasn't run across the exact phrase "Franco-British", "British/French", or "French and British" in another source yet, but 10 of them agree it was a joint BBC and Canal+ production. It's one of those "WP:V isn't a suicide pact" matters, a.k.a. policy exists to serve the project not vice vera, a.k.a. the tail does not wag the dog.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Remark: This does sound sincere, except SMCandlish promptly hit me with [1], a big scary discretionary sanctions alert. I will leave it up to each of you to evaluate the preceeding comment in this light. CapnZapp (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- There haven't been any more "bully", "browbeating", etc. "personalization of style disputes" comments, so it had the effect that ArbCom intended. I strongly oppose discretionary sanctions being applied to MoS, but if ArbCom dictates that it is the dispute resolution regime that applies, I can't do anything about that. until their collective mind changes. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Very unusually for you, this seems way off beam, SMcC, please see below. Also note that the current "method" has become custom and practice based on some examples ("e.g.") given in brackets within the MoS, but may well not have been what whoever crafted the original wording actually intended. The relevant paragraph does start off talking about nationality being referenced by reliable sources, after all. MapReader (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am pleased that SMcCandlish has joined the debate but, as the Capn says, this is very much not hair-splitting. Research into production company data is being treated currently as superior to direct referencing. I note his suggestion that the preference be reversed, which would be a step in the right direction, leaving only the question as to whether editors should be able to infer a composite nationality from production data at all? I also agree with his ref to Common Sense, which would clearly apply in uncontentious cases where the production companies are from the same country, where the nationality of the creative product would go without challenge. WP:Common sense and wp:blue already cover this. The MoS ought however properly to address the more complex situations. MapReader (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- What we may need is to concede that both approaches are sometimes necessary, and to lean toward one or the other (presumably the RS one, for obvious reasons). My concern here is that the COMMONSENSE and BLUE factors can't simply be dumped in the trash. I agree strongly that we do have to sometimes deal with complex situations; as in any other topic, this is best done in the body of the article, not in an infobox parameter on nationality. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Not sure where else to put this: More broadly, I think this relates strongly to an overall trend I've been noticing in our coverage of film, TV, gaming, and fiction, which I've been trying to figure out how to describe and address in more detail. We're writing – in terminology but also conceptually – far too often like a reviews publication rather than like an encyclopedia. Our articles positively wallow in strange distinctions that are meaningless to the reader, are not encyclopedic, and really don't have anything to do with anything but individual and guild/union contract negotiations, like whether someone is listed in the credits as a "guest star" or "special guest star", what order they appear in the credits (which credits?), whether a role is "continuing" or "supporting" or "main" (most of that assessment is pure OR of the forbidden kind – it's film-studies and entertainment-journalism assessment, evaluation, and interpretation; even when it can be sourced it's WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE trivia-mongering), and a lot of other such claptrap. Obsessive dwelling on such extraneous labeling and hair-splitting is producing poorer and poorer article content, some of which is downright confusing and misleading. Nationality labeling of productions often wanders into the same quagmire and seems predicated on the same mis-focus.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- On this last point I feel the same; it's a consequence of the most interested editors of many such articles being "fans" to the point that their neutrality becomes questionable. But to be honest I'd put the nationality question that I raised originally into the same box, and I am surprised at the nature of your comments above, which don't live up to your normally level headed and analytical standard. The article that prompted this debate isn't one where a random RS "forgot" to mention a dual nationality; almost every RS describes Downton Abbey as a British series - yes, PBS put up some of the funding, but it is clear that PBS Masterpiece's mission is and always has been to bring "British television productions" to an American audience. Its own executives have said as much. Yet editors' own analysis of the financial arrangements is being purported as a reason to put WP out of line with the overwhelming balance of reliable opinion, including that of US headquartered Encyclopaedia Britannica. MapReader (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please, Mapreader - "editors own analysis" and "purported" and "out of line" are wordings designed to throw shade on the "analyse production companies" method of arriving at nationality, but again, those practicing it hold the opinion it is a perfectly valid manner in which to execute the current policy wording. In other words: this is not about making "corrections" (where one method is less valuable or outright wrong), this is about choosing our preference for the sake of consistency - or rather: deciding whether this issue is important enough to take action or not. We can choose to make policy clear (by rewriting policy to mandate either method A or method B to the exclusion of the other) or we can choose to leave it up to the editors of each article (most simply by doing nothing). Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'll try to clarify; I hadn't realized I was being unclear (though all the "browbeating", "bully", etc. psychodrama distraction probably has a lot to do with it.) In a case like this, I would think the infobox-level and lead-level nationality bit would be "British", with some American investment being covered in the production section, and maybe mentioned in the lead if it seems due weight. (The problem is rather mitigated in
{{Infobox television}}because it uses "Country of origin:", which isn't a more vague "nationality of production"). I don't see any wording we put into an MoS page as likely to affect that, because it's a WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR policy matter. I.e., MOS:TV could just be deleted entirely and the result would probably be the same. Almost any film or TV series is going to have some investor somewhere in the money chain, and some person on the production staff, who isn't a citizen of the same country. If The Americans (TV series) has one Canadian co-producer among 12, and 15% of the money for the show came from Canadian companies or grants, due to filming a lot in Toronto, that doesn't make it a Canadian–American production in an encyclopedic sense. But if a show is announced as a joint BBC / Canal+ production, it's surely fine to describe it as a British / French production even if we don't find that exact label in the sources we've looked at yet. And for Downton Abbey we have a river of sources calling it British, so there's no call to ever go try to figure out from production analysis if it's British. I see a baby/bathwater issue here. Forcing a "British and American" label on Downton Abbey seems pretty straightforwardly nonsensical. So why change guideline text in either extreme direction to get at a single odd case of someone being boneheaded when UNDUE already has it covered? If we changed guidelines every time someone was a bonehead and wanted to try to WP:GAME-play, all the guidelines would change every day.That said, there are cases that can be surprising and which require judgement. There is no question whatsoever that season 4 of the Doctor Who spinoff Torchwood was an American–British production; it was more the former than the latter, and the changes that it made to the show were quite palpable and the subject of much commentary. But the lead says it's a British TV series and that's probably fine. "Country of origin" in infobox is also "United Kingdom", and that's correct. The American production company is included in the list of such companies in the I-box, and listed in the lead as being a season (BrEng: series) 4 producer, but no one's writing "it then became a US–British production" nationalistic twaddle in the lead. The body of the article probably should touch a little more on the production/funding changes and what effects it had on the show and critical reception, but this is covered in more detail at the season article. This seems typical and okay. Are we encountering cases that are so off-kilter so often that the guideline needs to change? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish, on Downton you have nailed the position precisely. Yet go look at what happened when I tried to make such an edit in the article! MapReader (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think what I'd do is open a talk page post about it, pointing to this thread, then restore your edit. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Done. I do nevertheless also think that CapnZapp had a point in earlier directing the discussion here; the MoS is currently drafted in a misleading and unhelpful way. MapReader (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- SMCandlish, your advice comes across as someone not having read up on the specific article talk history at Downton. MapReader has already tried all the usual ways, that's why he's here trying to change policy! "If we changed guidelines every time someone was a bonehead" - it's not that "someone" is a "bonehead", it's that Mapreader is encountering an entrenched consensus that the production company method IS an entirely valid and reasonable way to interpret policy. Dismissing this as "boneheaded" displays a lack of good faith, and ties into my earlier criticisms against your discussion style, although Mapreader is not helping with his inability to conceal his belief that one way is more right than the other. On that account, I think he's conflating two things: One, in interpreting current policy I believe he's simply wrong. In suggesting that articles should reflect how newspapers and editorials characterize shows; yes - and that makes two - I believe that makes for a less confusing and arcane Wikipedia with no loss of encyclopedic value. That said, I guess one more try can't hurt... although why he doesn't just boldly edit the policy to be unequivocal on this matter, I will probably never understand. As discussed previously (and in private), the current passage leaves more to be desired. CapnZapp (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it didn't take long for SMcCandlish's suggestion to generate another revert from the same editor who insists that it "is British-American, like it or not", despite the wealth of sources indicating otherwise. P.s. @CapnZapp, it is reasonable to wait a bit longer, but given the multiple attempts I have made to direct people to the discussion, you are right that a bold edit may be appropriate soon. Meanwhile, it is my view that direct referencing is the better method, and I don't see why you think I should conceal it. At the end of the day it is reasoned argument based on WP policies that should win through. MapReader (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, so it could be a WP:CONLEVEL matter at that article. I've been trying to address "what the guideline should say and why" from a geralized perspective, like we always do for WP:P&G matters (WP:AJRULE explains why). But if the one-article dispute really comes down to just "The series first aired on [UK station] on [date], and on [US station] on [date]", this seems to be a tempest in a tea pot. It's not the same thing as declaring it to be a British/American production. I think the argument's going to come down to whether a combination of partial US funding and a huge US audience makes including the US commencement airdate in the lead WP:DUE, or whether it's "the US should always be listed" nationalism and systemic bias. Video game releases and other stuff (e.g. films in English or with English subtitled/dubbed versions and with more than art-house distribution in the US) tend to include US release dates (then again: WP:OTHERSTUFF). It seems to be a different argument than the one we've been having. Drmargi's revert summary suggests that particular editor is actually using a production nationality argument, but I suspect that it wouldn't be maintained throughout the dispute as the central one if an RfC was held about it on the article talk page or somewhere else; it unravels too quickly for reasons we've highlighted above. The relapse into trying to tone-police me isn't helpful, CapnZapp. If I want to highlight the fact that one side of the opposition is being stubborn and not absorbing policy – thickheaded or boneheaded debate – that's my prerogative. You've not disproven it, and have instead turned the same sort of argument against Mapreader, but in an actually worse way, an assertion that he actually has an "inability" to approach the issue differently, a alleged mental flaw. You really need to just drop the nightstick. Being Wikipedia's politeness cop is a job no one asked you to fill and which you're failing at dismally. AGF? I've been assuming in good faith that the dispute was being described accurately, as about people asserting in the article text that DA is a British / American production. But that's not what's happening; it's just someone using that idea to include a US airdate in the lead, and it's not clear that's an incorrect outcome, even if that particular rationale for arriving at it is faulty (it's a variant of the red herring fallacy). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I appreciate your joining this debate SMcCandlish, and I know there has been a lot of previous discussion. But this really isn't about the inclusion of a US airdate, which is non contentious. There is no disagreement with PBS having a big audience and helping fund the series, and so that its air date is notable. The substantive difference between my edit and Drmargi's is that mine contains the phrase "British television series" in the lead, whereas hers deletes this and refers to it as "British-American" as a wikicomment. As you say above, insisting on a dual nationality doesn't stack up here given the creative contribution to the series and the way that it is widely described in reliable sources. But you can see from her edit history that she will edit war it to the end (as she has other British/American matters). The question also affects other pages, both because there are other Masterpiece shows where similar considerations probably apply, and because the method of concluding that a production is dual nationality if there is any second-country funding is widespread throughout the wikiproject. Hence why I got directed toward the MoS in the first place. MapReader (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hmph. Okay. Well the suppression of "British" does seem significant and contentious. If it's really turning edit-warrish, I think you'll have to take the high ground and open an RfC on it. I return to my central theme throughout: this is really a WP:NOR policy matter at its core, so tweaking the guideline wording (boldly or not) is unlikely to have any effect. A conclusive RfC would be likely to affect how the guideline is worded, though. Some key points for such an RfC might be inconsistency between "United Kingdom" in the infobox and nothing (or two countries) in the lead, and the really iffy nature of trying to declare something an American–British production on the basis of a nebulous concept of "some" American involvement, and "American exceptionalism". If we have a lot of sources calling it British and can't find any that call it "British/American" or "American and British" or whatever, that's a strong point in favor. If PBS's involvement can be shown to be really substantial, like approaching 50/50, then it's a point against. I'd do an RfC at the article talk page, in neutral terms (save the point-making for your own comment), and neutrally advertise it at WP:VPPOL, WP:NORNB, WT:SYSTEMICBIAS, and other relevant places. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- The key questions are "what reliable sources should we use/prioritize?" (aka the "method" for arriving at a series nationality) and "is consistency in method desirable?". While "production company data" might remain a perfectly good RS, analysing it as "the method" is what's up for discussion. Let me quote Mapreader here:
CapnZapp, they are of course reliable sources, but only for the information they actually provide: the fact of an entity's involvement in the series and its own nationality (leaving aside arguments such as whether Sony subsidiaries should all be considered Japanese, which is the sort of blind alley up which the current approach sometimes leads). But the technical data doesn't say "this series is British-American".
IF [this method is deemed undesirable] AND [consistency is deemed important] THEN the policy needs to change to reflect this, in my view. Also don't forget a point that I nearly forgot: a "series' nationality" is discussed by MoS in the "Lead paragraphs" section, but not again in the "Background and production" section. This is wonky and should be fixed in the same MoS edit. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- The key questions are "what reliable sources should we use/prioritize?" (aka the "method" for arriving at a series nationality) and "is consistency in method desirable?". While "production company data" might remain a perfectly good RS, analysing it as "the method" is what's up for discussion. Let me quote Mapreader here:
- This may well require an RFC, as SMcCandlish suggests. But the MOS matter stands in the way of posing the right question. For if, as appears the previous consensus (the wording of the MoS read literally being unclear), the appropriate way to determine the nationality of a tv series is to composite the nationalities of all production entities that are credited with having made a contribution, then an RFC is pointless, as CapnZapp has argued from the beginning. Yet this "method" is a creation of WP that can, as in this case, produce a conclusion that diverges from the consensus of reliable sources. The world sees Downton as a British series and PBS Masterpiece itself sees its mission as bringing British drama to an American audience - yet because PBS put some of the money upfront, according to WP it suddenly becomes British drama no longer. MapReader (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- That's a great nutshell summary of the issue for your RfC post. :-) Seriously, it's the compelling argument that we've created a self-reinforcing OR loop. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hmph. Okay. Well the suppression of "British" does seem significant and contentious. If it's really turning edit-warrish, I think you'll have to take the high ground and open an RfC on it. I return to my central theme throughout: this is really a WP:NOR policy matter at its core, so tweaking the guideline wording (boldly or not) is unlikely to have any effect. A conclusive RfC would be likely to affect how the guideline is worded, though. Some key points for such an RfC might be inconsistency between "United Kingdom" in the infobox and nothing (or two countries) in the lead, and the really iffy nature of trying to declare something an American–British production on the basis of a nebulous concept of "some" American involvement, and "American exceptionalism". If we have a lot of sources calling it British and can't find any that call it "British/American" or "American and British" or whatever, that's a strong point in favor. If PBS's involvement can be shown to be really substantial, like approaching 50/50, then it's a point against. I'd do an RfC at the article talk page, in neutral terms (save the point-making for your own comment), and neutrally advertise it at WP:VPPOL, WP:NORNB, WT:SYSTEMICBIAS, and other relevant places. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I appreciate your joining this debate SMcCandlish, and I know there has been a lot of previous discussion. But this really isn't about the inclusion of a US airdate, which is non contentious. There is no disagreement with PBS having a big audience and helping fund the series, and so that its air date is notable. The substantive difference between my edit and Drmargi's is that mine contains the phrase "British television series" in the lead, whereas hers deletes this and refers to it as "British-American" as a wikicomment. As you say above, insisting on a dual nationality doesn't stack up here given the creative contribution to the series and the way that it is widely described in reliable sources. But you can see from her edit history that she will edit war it to the end (as she has other British/American matters). The question also affects other pages, both because there are other Masterpiece shows where similar considerations probably apply, and because the method of concluding that a production is dual nationality if there is any second-country funding is widespread throughout the wikiproject. Hence why I got directed toward the MoS in the first place. MapReader (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, so it could be a WP:CONLEVEL matter at that article. I've been trying to address "what the guideline should say and why" from a geralized perspective, like we always do for WP:P&G matters (WP:AJRULE explains why). But if the one-article dispute really comes down to just "The series first aired on [UK station] on [date], and on [US station] on [date]", this seems to be a tempest in a tea pot. It's not the same thing as declaring it to be a British/American production. I think the argument's going to come down to whether a combination of partial US funding and a huge US audience makes including the US commencement airdate in the lead WP:DUE, or whether it's "the US should always be listed" nationalism and systemic bias. Video game releases and other stuff (e.g. films in English or with English subtitled/dubbed versions and with more than art-house distribution in the US) tend to include US release dates (then again: WP:OTHERSTUFF). It seems to be a different argument than the one we've been having. Drmargi's revert summary suggests that particular editor is actually using a production nationality argument, but I suspect that it wouldn't be maintained throughout the dispute as the central one if an RfC was held about it on the article talk page or somewhere else; it unravels too quickly for reasons we've highlighted above. The relapse into trying to tone-police me isn't helpful, CapnZapp. If I want to highlight the fact that one side of the opposition is being stubborn and not absorbing policy – thickheaded or boneheaded debate – that's my prerogative. You've not disproven it, and have instead turned the same sort of argument against Mapreader, but in an actually worse way, an assertion that he actually has an "inability" to approach the issue differently, a alleged mental flaw. You really need to just drop the nightstick. Being Wikipedia's politeness cop is a job no one asked you to fill and which you're failing at dismally. AGF? I've been assuming in good faith that the dispute was being described accurately, as about people asserting in the article text that DA is a British / American production. But that's not what's happening; it's just someone using that idea to include a US airdate in the lead, and it's not clear that's an incorrect outcome, even if that particular rationale for arriving at it is faulty (it's a variant of the red herring fallacy). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Done. I do nevertheless also think that CapnZapp had a point in earlier directing the discussion here; the MoS is currently drafted in a misleading and unhelpful way. MapReader (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think what I'd do is open a talk page post about it, pointing to this thread, then restore your edit. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish, on Downton you have nailed the position precisely. Yet go look at what happened when I tried to make such an edit in the article! MapReader (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- On this last point I feel the same; it's a consequence of the most interested editors of many such articles being "fans" to the point that their neutrality becomes questionable. But to be honest I'd put the nationality question that I raised originally into the same box, and I am surprised at the nature of your comments above, which don't live up to your normally level headed and analytical standard. The article that prompted this debate isn't one where a random RS "forgot" to mention a dual nationality; almost every RS describes Downton Abbey as a British series - yes, PBS put up some of the funding, but it is clear that PBS Masterpiece's mission is and always has been to bring "British television productions" to an American audience. Its own executives have said as much. Yet editors' own analysis of the financial arrangements is being purported as a reason to put WP out of line with the overwhelming balance of reliable opinion, including that of US headquartered Encyclopaedia Britannica. MapReader (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'll put my piece simply - who do RS record as the nationality of the commissioning producers? Pre-sales to viewing should be noted later - they helped it 'get along' - but not in lead or info-boxes. AnonNep (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Welcome to the debate! Your short contribution addresses the key issue directly. Do RS on the nationality of the production companies justify WP arriving at a conclusion about the nationality of the creative product that conflicts with the large majority of RS? MapReader (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes! RS is the standard. If the RS majority clearly designates a country of origin then that is what we go by. AnonNep (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- You don't appear to have parsed the question. If someone asks "Are you going to let your elder daughter cut the head off your younger daughter?", "Yes! I side with my daughter" isn't a meaningful response. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- His "designates" is clear. The choice is between referencing something directly and explicitly ("Hollywood Reporter and three reputable newspapers say this is an Italian film, so let's put Italian film") or indirectly and by inference ("I looked at the credits which list three production companies; I did some research and two of them are Italian owned - one of these is a subsidiary of a Japanese company - and one is French owned, so let's ignore the Japanese parent and call it an Italian-French film, except that we won't put that in the lead as it's a dual nationality but we'll use it to revert anyone who might suggest the film is actually Italian"). I suggest that WP:Synthesis is relevant here. MapReader (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, in that scenario. I guess the question is how similar the scenarios are. A variant one would be the Torchwood season 4 case, where RS generally call it a British show, and don't really label the fourth season a US–UK production, yet the same RS dwell on on it without labeling it – they focus on the near-takeover by an American production company, the moving of the filming to the US, the plot-approach change to a kind of "Independence Day blockbuster-style doomsday story", and the injection of American actors into the cast, even how this shift ended up ensuring there'd be no S05. There is no question that S04 was a US–UK production; it's a WP:BLUE matter, based on the RS themselves (and I don't mean primary sources establishing what country the production companies have corporate registrations in). So, I'm not 100% certain how we get at the distinction between such scenarios in guideline wording. The primary vs. secondary sourcing bit may play a role. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment*: Language like that comes across as biased and resentful, and will do you no favors if used in instances where you will want to win over the minds of your fellow wikipedians. Compare to "the choice is between two methods for arriving at a series nationality: A, prioritizing production company data; and B, prioritizing the characterization of the series in the press. Furthermore, do we feel it important to make this choice, or is it alright if, C, the method differs between our various articles. C is the status quo option. A and B requires changes to the MoS to enforce, as detailed..." I consider this neutral (or at least more neutral). Then, in our respective yay or nay response (and as originator, yours will come first), you can lay on thick with your personal opinions. The result? A professional-looking question sure to gain more respect and thus more attention in the community: "a clean RfC" as it were. *) Please note I am not rebuking your discussion here - this place is not that formal question. I just took the opportunity to contrast two ways of doing a possible rfc. CapnZapp (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- CapnZapp's getting at the same thing I am. An "option C" (i.e., use either A or B as best suits the article) does seem to be needed. But MapReader's legit concern is: how to do we keep a clique at one article from insisting on A even when it's not appropriate for the case at hand, and contradicts factual information arrived at via option B? It's a conundrum, and is why I keep returning to the "RfC it" idea. I.e., get broader community input on how to handle this. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't WP have a policy that we follow the sources even if they aren't "right" in editors' opinion? I am sure I have seen such somewhere. SMcC's penultimate post above strays into dangerous territory, imo: BLUE is intended to cover things that are blindingly obvious to the person in the street, which is some way from the minutiae of television production. Method A requires editor research and analysis, which should immediately raise a concern as regards WP core principles. Further, method A treats putting up some funding as a national(istic) creative expression, which (as SMcC recognised a few days back) doesn't make sense, and wouldn't be accepted in any other creative field; Titian's late paintings are Italian paintings despite the King of Spain paying him to paint them. PBS itself never claims that its involvement in commissioning British drama makes the end product British-American. The only utility of looking at production companies is where they are all from the same country and hence the nationality of the product is entirely incontentious in the first place. Any 'third way' will enter a minefield as soon it reaches a situation where there is a variety of national entities involved, or where there are parent-subsidiary issues (such as the periodic debate about whether Sony is actually Japanese), because weighing this information up against RS that reference nationality directly would be an impossible process to define. Which is why the only way it can be made to work currently is to ascribe multi-nationality to all such situations (strangely, except Homeland, where editors seem reluctant to concede American-Israeli despite the Israeli company in the credits..!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MapReader (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- If you don't like WP:BLUE, then try WP:COMMONSENSE which is not an essay but a meta-policy. On sourcing and facts, we have two countervailing principles: We don't discount the sources because an editor's opinion differs (And we don't even refuse to report what the sources are saying if it's wrong according to other sources; we "teach the controversy".) But we also don't present clearly false information as true just because it can be found in a source that is otherwise reliable. The central issue here is worse: using forbidden OR to come up with false information is worse that using normal source analysis, which is not really OR, to come up with correct information. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree (I think?). I was simply trying to point out that it would appear difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a middle way between two fundamentally conflicting approaches. MapReader (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is thorny, which is why I keep saying "RfC it". :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- It isn't obvious what the right question would be, but then maybe that is because it doesn't seem as complicated to me. Like many potentially thorny matters, an encyclopaedia simply has to follow the sources. Many series are domestic to one country, and nationality is uncontentious. That remains the case if they later come to international prominence by way of being exported, and in such an event the nationality is usually easily referenced anyhow. Where there is some international co-operation, RS generally identify the national origin of the creative product (i.e. where the creative control lies; PBS has no control over its British series and only time-limited rights to distribute them). Game of Thrones is accepted as an American series, despite the international cast and $15 million of funding from Northern Ireland Screen. Ditto Homeland with respect to the Israeli involvement. Amelie is described by WP as a French film despite the considerable German production involvement (indeed the film wikiproject seems to have a more mature attitude to such matters). Direct referencing should work easily in such cases. Where there are fully transnational co-productions this too is identified in RS, for example The Last Panthers, Top of the Lake, and Medici. MapReader (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- p.s. Isn't creative control the missing element here? If we need to go looking for indirect referencing it should be to the question 'where lies the creative control?', rather than obsessing about the nationality of each production company or where the financing comes from? That is why Titian's late works remain Italian, after all. MapReader (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think I can buy all of that. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- p.s. Isn't creative control the missing element here? If we need to go looking for indirect referencing it should be to the question 'where lies the creative control?', rather than obsessing about the nationality of each production company or where the financing comes from? That is why Titian's late works remain Italian, after all. MapReader (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- It isn't obvious what the right question would be, but then maybe that is because it doesn't seem as complicated to me. Like many potentially thorny matters, an encyclopaedia simply has to follow the sources. Many series are domestic to one country, and nationality is uncontentious. That remains the case if they later come to international prominence by way of being exported, and in such an event the nationality is usually easily referenced anyhow. Where there is some international co-operation, RS generally identify the national origin of the creative product (i.e. where the creative control lies; PBS has no control over its British series and only time-limited rights to distribute them). Game of Thrones is accepted as an American series, despite the international cast and $15 million of funding from Northern Ireland Screen. Ditto Homeland with respect to the Israeli involvement. Amelie is described by WP as a French film despite the considerable German production involvement (indeed the film wikiproject seems to have a more mature attitude to such matters). Direct referencing should work easily in such cases. Where there are fully transnational co-productions this too is identified in RS, for example The Last Panthers, Top of the Lake, and Medici. MapReader (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is thorny, which is why I keep saying "RfC it". :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree (I think?). I was simply trying to point out that it would appear difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a middle way between two fundamentally conflicting approaches. MapReader (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- If you don't like WP:BLUE, then try WP:COMMONSENSE which is not an essay but a meta-policy. On sourcing and facts, we have two countervailing principles: We don't discount the sources because an editor's opinion differs (And we don't even refuse to report what the sources are saying if it's wrong according to other sources; we "teach the controversy".) But we also don't present clearly false information as true just because it can be found in a source that is otherwise reliable. The central issue here is worse: using forbidden OR to come up with false information is worse that using normal source analysis, which is not really OR, to come up with correct information. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't WP have a policy that we follow the sources even if they aren't "right" in editors' opinion? I am sure I have seen such somewhere. SMcC's penultimate post above strays into dangerous territory, imo: BLUE is intended to cover things that are blindingly obvious to the person in the street, which is some way from the minutiae of television production. Method A requires editor research and analysis, which should immediately raise a concern as regards WP core principles. Further, method A treats putting up some funding as a national(istic) creative expression, which (as SMcC recognised a few days back) doesn't make sense, and wouldn't be accepted in any other creative field; Titian's late paintings are Italian paintings despite the King of Spain paying him to paint them. PBS itself never claims that its involvement in commissioning British drama makes the end product British-American. The only utility of looking at production companies is where they are all from the same country and hence the nationality of the product is entirely incontentious in the first place. Any 'third way' will enter a minefield as soon it reaches a situation where there is a variety of national entities involved, or where there are parent-subsidiary issues (such as the periodic debate about whether Sony is actually Japanese), because weighing this information up against RS that reference nationality directly would be an impossible process to define. Which is why the only way it can be made to work currently is to ascribe multi-nationality to all such situations (strangely, except Homeland, where editors seem reluctant to concede American-Israeli despite the Israeli company in the credits..!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MapReader (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- CapnZapp's getting at the same thing I am. An "option C" (i.e., use either A or B as best suits the article) does seem to be needed. But MapReader's legit concern is: how to do we keep a clique at one article from insisting on A even when it's not appropriate for the case at hand, and contradicts factual information arrived at via option B? It's a conundrum, and is why I keep returning to the "RfC it" idea. I.e., get broader community input on how to handle this. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- His "designates" is clear. The choice is between referencing something directly and explicitly ("Hollywood Reporter and three reputable newspapers say this is an Italian film, so let's put Italian film") or indirectly and by inference ("I looked at the credits which list three production companies; I did some research and two of them are Italian owned - one of these is a subsidiary of a Japanese company - and one is French owned, so let's ignore the Japanese parent and call it an Italian-French film, except that we won't put that in the lead as it's a dual nationality but we'll use it to revert anyone who might suggest the film is actually Italian"). I suggest that WP:Synthesis is relevant here. MapReader (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- You don't appear to have parsed the question. If someone asks "Are you going to let your elder daughter cut the head off your younger daughter?", "Yes! I side with my daughter" isn't a meaningful response. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes! RS is the standard. If the RS majority clearly designates a country of origin then that is what we go by. AnonNep (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Welcome to the debate! Your short contribution addresses the key issue directly. Do RS on the nationality of the production companies justify WP arriving at a conclusion about the nationality of the creative product that conflicts with the large majority of RS? MapReader (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Revised proposal
Picking up views from the above discussion, I would propose amended wording as follows:
A series's nationality (country of origin) should be referenced by reliable sources, directly if possible, but otherwise by referencing the country or collaboration within which principal creative control was exercised. If singularly defined, it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular or cannot be supported by appropriate citation, omit the information from the introductory sentence and cover the different national interests later, where these can reliably be referenced. MapReader (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Works for me. That seems quite reasonable. Suggested copyedits: I would use "A series's nationality (country of origin)", to match the infobox. Change "where" to "in which". There's a missing "be" in "should identified". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Absolute garbage. What is creative control? Country of production? Nationality of writer? It's unenforceable. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- So, with this example, Downton Abbey (following RS) would be a British production with later funding (noted in article body) by American sources? If so, I agree. (Also, if there's any Infobox issues, they should be incorporated into a lede/body proposal - the fewer Wikipedia lawyers later going on endlessly about minutiae the better.) AnonNep (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. Just as Homeland (despite the Israeli production company), Game of Thrones (despite the British funding) and Hannibal (despite the French involvement and financing) are clearly American creative products, as recognised by RS. If what some people are describing as the current approach were applied consistently, that would be unenforceable. MapReader (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. That's why this sprawling mess-thread even exists. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The wording "referenced by reliable sources, directly if possible, but" is terrible - there should be no "buts". Please note there are reliable sources that note Downton as a British-American co-production so who is going to be the arbiter of which sources are used and which are ignored. What is the determining factor in creative control. So many have series are multinational creative teams that this wording is likely to cause more edit wars not less. MarnetteD|Talk 21:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Weighing sources is what we editors do. Yes, there is a minority that refer to the dual nationality tag that sat in our article for some years; for some WP is the most likely source. Nevertheless, the balance of media and reputable commentary is clear that it's a British series. Genuine transnational partnerships where creative control is shared do happen (The Last Panthers, for example), but it is far more common for the creative decisions to remain under the control of one national team. For Downton, PBS itself is very clear that their co-operations are 'British' products - Eaton herself is on record as saying "We don’t make them here. They’re made by British companies and British broadcasters - for the BBC and ITV - and once they’re done, we bring them back here."[2]. PBS doesn't even have any broadcast rights after the initial run. Downton is as British as Homeland is American. MapReader (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, when 10 sources say "British" and 1 says "British–American", and the sources aren't trash, the real-world consensus is clearly "British". If we get close to a 50/50 split, then sources are in sharp conflict, and it shouldn't be in the lead or infobox, but covered in the article body (or maybe a brief lead mention, like "Fooville is variously described as a British or British–American production.", then get into the details outside of the lead). This isn't rocket science, and we deal with such RS conflicts routinely in other topic areas. It's weird that this is such a big debate here, and I suspect it's editorial over-focus on entertainment-related editing. Try editing other topics for a while to get some broader 'Pedian perspective? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I do spend a fair bit of time on geography and politics articles, as well as some history and film. Mostly, the problem here stems from a single editor, as a review of the edit and talk history of various PBS Masterpiece tv series will quickly confirm. If there were other editors who went about insisting that Homeland is not American but "American-Israeli" and Game of Thrones "American-British", the nonsense of simply compounding the nationalities of every company involved in producing and financing would have been exposed long ago. MapReader (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, when 10 sources say "British" and 1 says "British–American", and the sources aren't trash, the real-world consensus is clearly "British". If we get close to a 50/50 split, then sources are in sharp conflict, and it shouldn't be in the lead or infobox, but covered in the article body (or maybe a brief lead mention, like "Fooville is variously described as a British or British–American production.", then get into the details outside of the lead). This isn't rocket science, and we deal with such RS conflicts routinely in other topic areas. It's weird that this is such a big debate here, and I suspect it's editorial over-focus on entertainment-related editing. Try editing other topics for a while to get some broader 'Pedian perspective? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- User:MarnetteD wrote
Please note there are reliable sources that note Downton as a British-American co-production so who is going to be the arbiter of which sources are used and which are ignored.
I fully acknowledge this. However, you make it sound as a real problem when in reality that's clearly well within standard Wiki procedures to sort out (editors arriving at consensus is business as usual). The problem is/was that this fact (that RS said things) weren't even considered, because a different method took precedence (one where production companies were analyzed). The problem was/is that the consensus-forming part weren't even allowed, since an alternative method was firmly in place. No actual discussion took place - it was a done deal. I do observe that the alternate resolution route of discussing "should we abandon the production company data method of rriving at nationality in favor of looking at what RS say directly?" never took place. CapnZapp (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Weighing sources is what we editors do. Yes, there is a minority that refer to the dual nationality tag that sat in our article for some years; for some WP is the most likely source. Nevertheless, the balance of media and reputable commentary is clear that it's a British series. Genuine transnational partnerships where creative control is shared do happen (The Last Panthers, for example), but it is far more common for the creative decisions to remain under the control of one national team. For Downton, PBS itself is very clear that their co-operations are 'British' products - Eaton herself is on record as saying "We don’t make them here. They’re made by British companies and British broadcasters - for the BBC and ITV - and once they’re done, we bring them back here."[2]. PBS doesn't even have any broadcast rights after the initial run. Downton is as British as Homeland is American. MapReader (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. Just as Homeland (despite the Israeli production company), Game of Thrones (despite the British funding) and Hannibal (despite the French involvement and financing) are clearly American creative products, as recognised by RS. If what some people are describing as the current approach were applied consistently, that would be unenforceable. MapReader (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- User:Drmargi: I'm willing to discuss your concerns, but I need to ask you to be more specific. If you think "creative control" is too vague, please offer an alternate phrase. What about "country of production" or "nationality of writer" is problematic? In what way is the new MoS more or less enforceable than the old? If you lay out your specific concerns, I'm sure we can arrive at a modified language that's satisfactory to all. As your comment stands, however, I fear it is hard to take it into account. Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Allowing for wording suggestions, offered early on, I'm in agreement as well. AnonNep (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the lead of DA does not state that it is a British/American series - it states that it is a British/American co-production which is a different thing and a fact with plenty of RS's out there (over 5,000,000 google hits for the term.) If someone can direct me to the spot in the MOS that says that some reliable sources can be used and others can't that would be helpful. Also WP:INTRO mention "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" the co-production nature of the series fits that guideline. One other thing - there had been previous discussions about this at the DA talk page and other places. If the series is called British in the opening sentence that is fine but that does not necessitate the removal of the mention of co-production info in the lead of this or other articles when it is mentioned in WP:RSes. MarnetteD|Talk 04:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Certainly, after describing the series as British the article should give proper weight to PBS's involvement. I never sought to exclude reference to the PBS support for making of the series, but simply point out that when even PBS describes its Masterpiece output as British (the interview linked above is worth a read), it makes no sense for WP not to. The problem with "co-production" is that it carries an implication of equal involvement that simply isn't there; PBS typically puts up 10-15% of the funding, gets the chance to input high level ideas (such as asking for more American storylines in Downton), and receives distribution rights for a time-limited period only (for example three years). But it isn't involved in day-to-day production, doesn't exercise creative control (in terms of taking the final decisions on casting, writing, production etc.), and after the time-limited period doesn't retain any rights at all over the product. In such circumstances I'd suggest that co-production maybe isn't the right term? MapReader (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Much of this entire debate basically comes down to this: "does not state that it is a British/American series - it states that it is a British/American co-production which is a different thing". But says who, on the basis/bases of what? Is this a hair we want to split? If some think so, what are the policy and/or RS rationales for the split and for the definitions that would be required to make such a distinction possible here? And what are those definitions? Where did you pull them from? I'm skeptical that this is a possible split to maintain, but am open to being convinced otherwise. The central issue I see with it is that a core requirement of encyclopedic writing is to organize/categorize/summarize in ways that blur distinctions that a) don't really matter, and b) aren't consistently maintained in the real world. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think we are on the same page. That it is a British series is notable and relevant to an encyclopaedia (and indeed is key information to someone who has never heard of it before, hence the importance of the opening sentence). That an American network helped to bring it about by contributing some $ and ideas is also notable. Both of these can be very reliably referenced. Beyond that, we should be wary of trying to use WP to introduce distinctions that don't really work in RL. MapReader (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the lead of DA does not state that it is a British/American series - it states that it is a British/American co-production which is a different thing and a fact with plenty of RS's out there (over 5,000,000 google hits for the term.) If someone can direct me to the spot in the MOS that says that some reliable sources can be used and others can't that would be helpful. Also WP:INTRO mention "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" the co-production nature of the series fits that guideline. One other thing - there had been previous discussions about this at the DA talk page and other places. If the series is called British in the opening sentence that is fine but that does not necessitate the removal of the mention of co-production info in the lead of this or other articles when it is mentioned in WP:RSes. MarnetteD|Talk 04:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Just a gentle reminder: our job isn't to ask questions like "is this series Canadian?".
Our job is to ask: "does reputable sources consider this series to be Canadian?"
This proposal is about steering us editors away from using production company data as a priority method of answering this latter question. What we ought to discuss is: do we want this? does the proposed language achieve that? Are new loopholes or confusing language introduced? And so on... CapnZapp (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- That said, making a distinction between nationality of (co-)production and series is not helpful. The contentious issue is what to write in the lead, and this is what this MoS change is about, regardless of what you want to call it. At most, we should make sure the MoS language covers all "sorts" of nationality to avoid the issue in the future, and in that regard - thank you for bringing up the issue. Also note that the way MoS discourages mentioning nationality in lede when not singular is not intended to change: the DA article lead should never state the series to be British-American, regardless of where future consensus ends up. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Both of those posts seem entirely reasonable to me. My quibble would be that even deciding there are "sorts" and what they are is as much an OR exercise as anything else we've been talking about, or so it seems to me. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- So, if RS overwhelmingly states one nation was responsible for initial idea/ongoing creative control (i.e. 'greenlight' & 'showrunner' in entertainment terms) then we go with that nation in lead. Additional funding/some creative input that came later is mentioned later, again based on RS (e.g. additional funding that took a pilot to a first series &/or international series). In rare cases where a production is multi-national from initial conception (i.e. it wouldn't move beyond an 'on paper' proposal) the multi-national involvement is in the body, not the lede, again based on RS. Is that where we are, or have I missed something? AnonNep (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think that's a reasonable summary. There's a fuller survey of the issues in this article[3], which addresses directly a lot of the stuff we have been discussing above. It also contains yet another quote from PBS describing its product as "British drama" as well as another source for Downton being considered a "British program". Also worth noting the Capn's two questions above - the previous approach is very much aimed at answering the first, whereas the revised MoS is more fully aimed at his second and more appropriate question. MapReader (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Read & agreed. Do any substantive objections remain? AnonNep (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- If the answer is "none", then maybe it's time to discuss which article are impacted by the change, so we can check their status? (Put otherwise: "Was Downton Abbey the only case?") Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, there is a batch of British programmes shown on Masterpiece, which are likely to fall into a similar position. The 'creative control' position is the same for all of them, and it would be easy to make a batch of changes on this basis, but it would be better to establish the position under the RS for each of them separately, which I will look at when I get some time. MapReader (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- To update, most of the more recent/prominent Masterpiece series articles are now edited, together with talk page comment linking back here and to the MoS. PBS's role in supporting production is properly credited. There may be some older articles that still refer to dual nationality, and I will review a fuller list shortly. For American series where the previous approach should have directed to dual nationality, editors seem to have already taken a common sense approach of American nationality; the 'old' method was not applied consistently. For other series, I suggest Hannibal (TV series) needs looking at, as apart from listing the company in the infobox, the significant French involvement isn't mentioned at all. Also Medici: Masters of Florence looks wrong as Italian-British when it appears to have been an international co-operation mostly Italian and American. Generally I suggest editors keep an eye out for references to dual nationality within series articles, as it remains the case that genuinely transnational co-operations (such as Medici) are the small minority; most series still retain creative control within a single country. MapReader (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, there is a batch of British programmes shown on Masterpiece, which are likely to fall into a similar position. The 'creative control' position is the same for all of them, and it would be easy to make a batch of changes on this basis, but it would be better to establish the position under the RS for each of them separately, which I will look at when I get some time. MapReader (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- If the answer is "none", then maybe it's time to discuss which article are impacted by the change, so we can check their status? (Put otherwise: "Was Downton Abbey the only case?") Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Read & agreed. Do any substantive objections remain? AnonNep (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think that's a reasonable summary. There's a fuller survey of the issues in this article[3], which addresses directly a lot of the stuff we have been discussing above. It also contains yet another quote from PBS describing its product as "British drama" as well as another source for Downton being considered a "British program". Also worth noting the Capn's two questions above - the previous approach is very much aimed at answering the first, whereas the revised MoS is more fully aimed at his second and more appropriate question. MapReader (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Cases where series switches production nationality
Note: Subdiscussion nipped off. The question is "Do any substantive objections remain?". Regards CapnZapp (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, more of a "what about outliers?" quibble. My go-to example of this is Torchwood S04, which was US-dominated, practically a takeover by an American network. I think the main show article would identify the show as British in lead sentence, mention in the lead that the 4th season (series) was a US/UK co-production, and at the season article identify that season as a US/UK co-production. But I'm not sure how to encapsulate that in guideline wording, even as an exception point. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- I can't speak to that example, but would expect what you have said to be referenceable in sources? For the effective sharing of creative control in S4 (assuming that is what happened), if not for nationality directly. In which case it is covered within the space the new wording gives editors to weigh sources in the normal way. MapReader (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it's sourceable. I'm just concerned that what we're kind of "drafting in pseudocode" here might not be clear enough that such as case is covered within the "weighing sources in the normal way" space, that's all. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- So, if I have this understood, a series (Torchwood) has British due weight RS from 2006 to 2009 but US due weight RS in 2011? Either (a) initial lede British nationality & US change in body, (b) nationality of both in body (as we seemed to have reached agreement on keeping multiple nationalities out of the lede) or (c) initial lede with years & secondary shared with years eg. Torchwood.... was a British series (2006-2009) & British-American (2011) ... all with weighted RS refs in body. (Infobox issue here?) With Torchwood, I'd go for (a) as it was British for 3 years & 1 US (total due weight 2006-2011 RS is likely to favour Britain) But we have to allow for a series that could be created in one country but get a much longer life in another (leading to due weight on the second nationalty). Difficult (but necessary) example. Ideas?
- Right. I lean toward (a) for simplicity, and to follow the sourcing that generally just call it a British series/production. The "US takeover" in S04 is a bit of a specialty topic; it's found in secondary and primary analysis of the show and its eventual demise, but not generally in tertiary, brief summary material. Approach (b) would have us avoid "British" in lead and infobox, for no particular reason in this case (there might be a legit reason in others). Approach (c) would probably make a mountain out of a molehill, and cause the kind of dispute we're trying to avoid in what we've been hashing out here (like the one about Downton Abbey). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- I can see the sense in (a) in terms of initial creative endeavor. A series may receive additional/different funding/production (a Netflix revival, for example) but the creation is still most likely to be RS to one nationality. Later funding/production is later history & should go into body text. That only leaves rare shows that from the outset (first media release & accompanying ongoing RS) as multi-national co-productions.Any more thoughts &/or ideas on wording? AnonNep (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- As a point of detail, although some editors speak as if the MoS advises against referring to dual nationalities in the entire lead section, actually its wording relates to the opening sentence only. There is nothing preventing multiple national interests being referred to later in the lead, if sufficiently notable, and indeed MOSFILM, which uses a similar formulation to MOSTV, explicitly directs toward this. For Downton it may well be appropriate to refer to the PBS involvement later in the lead section. Nevertheless since Torchwood was a British creative conception, the article rightly identifies it as a British series, and the later US direction probably belongs in the article body, and in the lead section for the Series four article. MapReader (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's definitely something to consider. We go for (a) as above, based on RS, but if a production shifts (eg. Netflix, etc), then when due weight of notable RS appears in the body, then such a change should appear, as per general lede/body due weight rules, into a later part of the lede but NOT opening sentence or infobox. That could deal with a possible 'Torchwood' that had a number of later, more successful years. AnonNep (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Mapreader: Sure, except I said so in the specific context of you wanting to insert "British" into the leading sentence of the Downton Abbey article... ;-) Other than that, you're right of course. CapnZapp (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Right. I lean toward (a) for simplicity, and to follow the sourcing that generally just call it a British series/production. The "US takeover" in S04 is a bit of a specialty topic; it's found in secondary and primary analysis of the show and its eventual demise, but not generally in tertiary, brief summary material. Approach (b) would have us avoid "British" in lead and infobox, for no particular reason in this case (there might be a legit reason in others). Approach (c) would probably make a mountain out of a molehill, and cause the kind of dispute we're trying to avoid in what we've been hashing out here (like the one about Downton Abbey). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- So, if I have this understood, a series (Torchwood) has British due weight RS from 2006 to 2009 but US due weight RS in 2011? Either (a) initial lede British nationality & US change in body, (b) nationality of both in body (as we seemed to have reached agreement on keeping multiple nationalities out of the lede) or (c) initial lede with years & secondary shared with years eg. Torchwood.... was a British series (2006-2009) & British-American (2011) ... all with weighted RS refs in body. (Infobox issue here?) With Torchwood, I'd go for (a) as it was British for 3 years & 1 US (total due weight 2006-2011 RS is likely to favour Britain) But we have to allow for a series that could be created in one country but get a much longer life in another (leading to due weight on the second nationalty). Difficult (but necessary) example. Ideas?
- Yes, it's sourceable. I'm just concerned that what we're kind of "drafting in pseudocode" here might not be clear enough that such as case is covered within the "weighing sources in the normal way" space, that's all. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the Torchwood situation is in fact very similar to Netflix picking up a show and continuing it after the original network cancelled it, and the Netflix situation happens much more frequently, so it's kind of the "canonical" example. I hadn't really thought of that. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- The Last Kingdom (TV series) is a good example of the latter; it began as a BBC series, screened coincidentally at around the same time as the early series of Vikings were showing on Amazon; Netflix got involved in the second series in supporting the BBC, and is now producing a third series on its own. MapReader (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've been puzzling over this for a number of days. What I take from it all is this - unless a show is clearly set out as a multi-national co-production from the outset (based on RS & due weight) then the originating country should get lede & info-box. If there is significant later funding/creative control (the two rather go together), then additional countries (based on RS & due weight) may need to be added to lede - as in e.g. '... a British production until 2018, revived by Netflix in the U.S. in 2019' while Infobox should change from British to U.S. In the case of Torchwood & The Last Kingdom they'd detail British origins in lede (as in U.S. lede addition & U.S. infobox). In the case of Downton Abbey, U.S. involvement based on RS & due weight is not significant (the show would have continued without them) & would remain in body. My thinking is origin MUST be maintained while significant later funding MUST be acknowledged (I'm thinking of a show that would have been canceled without new funding). Thoughts? As to the much rarer multi-nationals, I'm still not sure... AnonNep (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- To add: as I think origin MUST be retained as well as significant later funding/control (i.e. RS is show wouldn't have continued without it) then Infobox writers/key directors should also be moved to lede & given prominence. As in '... a British production until 2018, revived by Netflix in the U.S. in 2019. First commissioned by Fred Smith at the BBC, co-written by Glady Smith & John Brown, with Emmy & Bafta award winning episodes of Season 2, produced by Gary Green & Wendy Woodville'. ??? AnonNep (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- And that whole "logical" idea is going to fall apart the minute there's a Netflix or other "adopted" series in the US (or wherever) that has produced more episodes/seasons than its original run in the UK (or wherever), and is thus now more American than British (or whatever). This has probably already happened. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- and there is still the argument that the creative contribution in conceiving the series, the premise and all of the characters, deserves more weight than just adding more episodes! I think we need to accept that no MoS is going to be able to cover ever situation - there is always room for and a need for editors' good judgement. The MoS should cover the essentials and point people in the right direction. MapReader (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- We're in a money versus ideas dilemma. What is Wikipedia about? Reliable Sources. What next? Due weight of reliable sources. At times we'll have to decide what within due weight is more significant. So looking at hypothetical equal articles in the London & New York Times, what do we disregard? Original idea, creation of concept, story & characters? Or pure cold hard cash? AnonNep (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- In the large majority of cases, RS coupled with sensible editing will resolve the matter. In the circumstances you describe, third country sources would carry more weight than those internal to the countries of production. As per the MoS, where RS are conflicted, it is normally clear where the final decisions on casting, writing and production sit, according to the sources, or alternatively that there is a genuinely balanced transnational partnership. I don't see anything here that a bit of good writing cannot overcome? For example in the scenario originally posed above, it might be appropriate to write something along the lines of "originally a British series, from season X onwards it was produced in America" MapReader (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- And that whole "logical" idea is going to fall apart the minute there's a Netflix or other "adopted" series in the US (or wherever) that has produced more episodes/seasons than its original run in the UK (or wherever), and is thus now more American than British (or whatever). This has probably already happened. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- To add: as I think origin MUST be retained as well as significant later funding/control (i.e. RS is show wouldn't have continued without it) then Infobox writers/key directors should also be moved to lede & given prominence. As in '... a British production until 2018, revived by Netflix in the U.S. in 2019. First commissioned by Fred Smith at the BBC, co-written by Glady Smith & John Brown, with Emmy & Bafta award winning episodes of Season 2, produced by Gary Green & Wendy Woodville'. ??? AnonNep (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've been puzzling over this for a number of days. What I take from it all is this - unless a show is clearly set out as a multi-national co-production from the outset (based on RS & due weight) then the originating country should get lede & info-box. If there is significant later funding/creative control (the two rather go together), then additional countries (based on RS & due weight) may need to be added to lede - as in e.g. '... a British production until 2018, revived by Netflix in the U.S. in 2019' while Infobox should change from British to U.S. In the case of Torchwood & The Last Kingdom they'd detail British origins in lede (as in U.S. lede addition & U.S. infobox). In the case of Downton Abbey, U.S. involvement based on RS & due weight is not significant (the show would have continued without them) & would remain in body. My thinking is origin MUST be maintained while significant later funding MUST be acknowledged (I'm thinking of a show that would have been canceled without new funding). Thoughts? As to the much rarer multi-nationals, I'm still not sure... AnonNep (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Actors in plot summaries
– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed MoS change: actors' names (not) in plot sections
Gist: MOS:FILM and MOS:TV are in conflict about whether to give actors' names in plot summaries. The outcome of this WT:MOSFILM discussion might affect the MOS:TV wording as well. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's a clear example of what I'm talking about above: "Recurring actor Kai Owen was promoted to the main cast in series three". Later: "Recurring characters are Rhys Williams (Kai Owen) ... and Andy Davidson (Tom Price).... Kai Owen becomes a main cast member in the programme beginning with the third series ...". Pure WP:OR nonsense. Williams is an integral part of the show from the first season. What's going on here is someone is looking at who gets mentioned in the opening credits in what order (if at all), then making up this crap and building "my personal cast analysis" tables like Torchwood#Cast. Who gets mentioned when in what credits has F-all to do with their encyclopedic importance to the show and is entirely about contract negotiation between studio execs and actors' agents.
Some of our articles go far beyond this minor bad example. One of the worst I can find is List of The 100 characters#Character appearances. I did see one that was actually worse, since it also included season numbers or airing years along with these "Recurring", "Main", and "Guest" labels, such that if you looked at a particular actor or character you'd see them listed as, e.g. "season 2–3", and be unlikely to notice "season 4–6" in another column, and be mislead into thinking it was a two-season role. The same The 100 article illustrates a similar problem, though, in the main prose under the table: "Echo: Portrayed by Tasya Teles, Echo (season 5–present; guest seasons 2–3; recurring season 4) is ...". This stuff just needs to be killed with fire. It's someone's personal analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis, on top of the WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE issue. And it's "reader-hateful"; the reader should get "(seasons 2–present)" or "2–" or "2–6", or whatever; I don't want to get into an argument about whether "present" should be used.
A different example of this kind of problem is all the "opposite" and "alongside" jargon-mongering I've pointed about before; to the extent these things even have clearly defined meanings, they're often used wrong in WP articles.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- These are very basic facts that are widely known, not just reviewer jargon, and there is a very significant difference between starring in a series and guest starring in an episode or a run of episodes. As for the counting of season appearances and statuses, that is something we discourage in the MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Being a guest star in an episode or two is indeed distinct from being a regular on the show. The rest is far less clear, and when our editors are making these determination on their own, which appears to be the case the vast majority of the time, they're engaging in OR. Worse, writing INDISCRIMINATE crap like "(season 5–present; guest seasons 2–3; recurring season 4)" in a characters articles is great disservice to readers. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's actually all very simple, and what it does is avoid issues like this where an editor decides they don't like how something is being represented or disagree with which characters are more important than others. If we just follow the credits (which, again, are very straightforward) then there is no room for disagreement. Also, as I literally just said to you, this MOS is specifically against listing out season appearances and statuses like you are highlighting there so don't pretend that your arguing against it s some righteous railing against the establishment stand or something. Calm down. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just because I don't post exactly like you do doesn't mean I'm not calm. I've been sitting on this for years. Now that people are actually working on this guideline in earnest and GaF about it's in-article implementation, this is now the time to apply some clarification and cleanup pressure toward cleanup that actually matters instead of bickering over style minutiae. What the MOS:TV pages says is meaningless if it's not being implemented programmatically. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- The cast section of this MOS, including how we divide listings based on regular/guest status, was extensively discussed last year. This is not a long-neglected issue that only you care about. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- When I shut down your tone-policing and personalization from one angle, it's not time to try again from another. It's time to focus on the substance. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the points raised by SMcCandlish were put directly in these discussions, particularly sections 4.7 and 4.8. Yet the status quo was, again, defended fiercely. He does however raise some valid concerns. In particular the term "recurring" is often used unencyclopaedically based on definitions that have been produced and agreed within WP rather than RS. MapReader (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, "recurring" is used based on the actual real-life definition of that word. For more, see here. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- This was never properly evidenced. I am sure you are right; it likely derives from terminology used when contracting actors to American television series. The problems for WP are that it is rarely (or often even able to be) referenced properly - so WP editors have created our own definition - and it is not clear that the term has such (or indeed any) relevance to series produced in many other countries across the world? MapReader (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- And see also WP:CONVENUE. If the question of whether this labeling and charting of who's supposedly "recurring" versus "main" (and judgements asserted in relation to it, like "promoted to the main cast in 2017") were put to a broader set of eyeballs such as WP:VPPOL, I don't think there's any question that the response would be that it's impermissible OR based on primary sources. It's also unnecessary: RS can immediately make it clear who the main star(s) of a show are, in almost every case (for an ensemble one, e.g. The 100, that might be a slightly longer list than normal). After that, list everyone else alphabetically, the end. There is no solution more "very simple" than that, and it provides no wiggle room for "disagree with which characters are more important than others". That should have been a dead giveaway this is off-kilter, since it's not WP's job to decide what's "important" in the first place. We decide what's notable enough to have an article at all (WP:N), then what's relevant, neutral, and sourced enough for inclusion WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE).Honestly, I find this all amazingly ironic, given the dispute above about production nationality leaning toward over-interpretation of OR in this context so far it's crossing the WP:Common sense line; here's it's under-interpretation or OR doing the same thing in the opposite direction, ouroboros style, to produce a nonsensical result that primary-based OR is permissible just because a wikiproject likes it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that all of your issues are the result of editors enjoying making decisions about how individual series are written up and resisting WP's normal approach of citing only conclusions that are already contained within reliable sources. MapReader (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds likely. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that all of your issues are the result of editors enjoying making decisions about how individual series are written up and resisting WP's normal approach of citing only conclusions that are already contained within reliable sources. MapReader (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- And see also WP:CONVENUE. If the question of whether this labeling and charting of who's supposedly "recurring" versus "main" (and judgements asserted in relation to it, like "promoted to the main cast in 2017") were put to a broader set of eyeballs such as WP:VPPOL, I don't think there's any question that the response would be that it's impermissible OR based on primary sources. It's also unnecessary: RS can immediately make it clear who the main star(s) of a show are, in almost every case (for an ensemble one, e.g. The 100, that might be a slightly longer list than normal). After that, list everyone else alphabetically, the end. There is no solution more "very simple" than that, and it provides no wiggle room for "disagree with which characters are more important than others". That should have been a dead giveaway this is off-kilter, since it's not WP's job to decide what's "important" in the first place. We decide what's notable enough to have an article at all (WP:N), then what's relevant, neutral, and sourced enough for inclusion WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE).Honestly, I find this all amazingly ironic, given the dispute above about production nationality leaning toward over-interpretation of OR in this context so far it's crossing the WP:Common sense line; here's it's under-interpretation or OR doing the same thing in the opposite direction, ouroboros style, to produce a nonsensical result that primary-based OR is permissible just because a wikiproject likes it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- This was never properly evidenced. I am sure you are right; it likely derives from terminology used when contracting actors to American television series. The problems for WP are that it is rarely (or often even able to be) referenced properly - so WP editors have created our own definition - and it is not clear that the term has such (or indeed any) relevance to series produced in many other countries across the world? MapReader (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, "recurring" is used based on the actual real-life definition of that word. For more, see here. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- The cast section of this MOS, including how we divide listings based on regular/guest status, was extensively discussed last year. This is not a long-neglected issue that only you care about. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just because I don't post exactly like you do doesn't mean I'm not calm. I've been sitting on this for years. Now that people are actually working on this guideline in earnest and GaF about it's in-article implementation, this is now the time to apply some clarification and cleanup pressure toward cleanup that actually matters instead of bickering over style minutiae. What the MOS:TV pages says is meaningless if it's not being implemented programmatically. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's actually all very simple, and what it does is avoid issues like this where an editor decides they don't like how something is being represented or disagree with which characters are more important than others. If we just follow the credits (which, again, are very straightforward) then there is no room for disagreement. Also, as I literally just said to you, this MOS is specifically against listing out season appearances and statuses like you are highlighting there so don't pretend that your arguing against it s some righteous railing against the establishment stand or something. Calm down. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Being a guest star in an episode or two is indeed distinct from being a regular on the show. The rest is far less clear, and when our editors are making these determination on their own, which appears to be the case the vast majority of the time, they're engaging in OR. Worse, writing INDISCRIMINATE crap like "(season 5–present; guest seasons 2–3; recurring season 4)" in a characters articles is great disservice to readers. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
While there are many instances of overkill when it comes to specifying cast "status", it all comes out of our longstanding practices of reflecting contract status, particularly in soap opera character articles where contract vs recurring is routinely reported by the soap media. And sources like Dynasty Promotes Nicollette Sheridan to Series Regular for Season 2 support the practice. In that case, the character appeared in seven episodes of the 22-episode first season, which to me seems worthy of differentiation from an actor who was in all 22 episodes. I get your point that some editors are actively interpreting contract status, but often the sources are provided in a Casting or Production section; the major trade publications routinely report recurring vs series regular in their coverage.— TAnthonyTalk 16:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Thread nesting matter; resolved.
|
|---|
|
|
We can't just go on lists given by reliable sources, because that is not always going to be the same. Some articles will just note the lead actor, others will highlight a couple of notable ones, some will give the full main cast but in alphabetical order, others will do it by the official order. Some will note a couple of big name quest stars who are actually only in a couple of episodes. Not following the official credits is just an obviously bad idea. Also, asking whether non-TV editors will agree is not a great idea either; I can just see a whole lot of people who have no experience with the problems that arise in TV articles collectively deciding to do something that in practice just doesn't work. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- That last bit is a classic piece of WP:OWN by a wikiproject! Issues aren't so complex that they can't be explained to others. Besides, the issue raised above is more to do with the classification of cast members than of who they are, and using a system of classification that I remain to be convinced has genuinely international, rather than American, relevance. MapReader (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand what WP:OWN is. Anyway, as I have said before it actually isn't complex but it is becoming apparent that some people will decide it is and put zero effort into understanding this very simple concept. And why does this have to be relevant to a particular country? That's not how it should be applied. Cast lists should be created on a series-by-series basis, so series that don't follow a system of "regular" and "guest" actors like most American series do will have to be listed differently. For instance, I am aware of some British series (and also some American animated series) that just list the whole cast in one, alphabetically. In that case, the cast list could still get overlong and the suggestion from this MOS would be to split it based on who has a recurring role and who does not. Remember that "recurring" isn't really a thing, it is a description for a guest star who is appearing a lot that we use to avoid just having a big indiscriminate list of guest stars in articles.
- So in general we would have a list for the regular stars, and a list of guest stars with a preference for recurring guests over one-offs; if a show doesn't have the main/guest split, then there would just be a list of stars with a preference for recurring stars. Simple. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have to agree with MapReader on this, plus my own concern that the "system" being used is OR. It's classification of actors in a non-encyclopedic manner based on something that, in the real world, is matter of contract negotiations (money), and has nothing to do with how important a character is to the plot. It's like deciding that we should recategorize call canids by whether they're brown or not. While it's something we can observe and confirm, it doesn't have anything to do with anything our readers would care about. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- So in general we would have a list for the regular stars, and a list of guest stars with a preference for recurring guests over one-offs; if a show doesn't have the main/guest split, then there would just be a list of stars with a preference for recurring stars. Simple. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- If real-world sources are making these distinctions (series regular vs. guest or recurring performer), then shouldn't we? All we need to do is be stricter with sourcing the lists in regards to this. No one needs to know how many episodes an actor may appear in, but I think it's of interest which performers are signed for episode and which ones have appeared a haandful of times. And if you're suggesting that lists be structured based on "how important a character is to the plot", I fail to see a way to do that that isn't OR.— TAnthonyTalk 23:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- That's a big "if", is the problem. As this thread makes clear, it's being done here on the basis of someone's personal analysis of the credits and who appears in them where. Pure OR. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- If real-world sources are making these distinctions (series regular vs. guest or recurring performer), then shouldn't we? All we need to do is be stricter with sourcing the lists in regards to this. No one needs to know how many episodes an actor may appear in, but I think it's of interest which performers are signed for episode and which ones have appeared a haandful of times. And if you're suggesting that lists be structured based on "how important a character is to the plot", I fail to see a way to do that that isn't OR.— TAnthonyTalk 23:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the status of main, recurring, guest, and so forth should just be listed in that cast table as with List of Parks and Recreation characters. If there are sources that make their character promotion/demotion a big deal then they can be written in the character description, but having (season 2-4 recurring, season 5-6 main, season 7 guest) is redundant with such a table. Character debuts can be written into the character description. It's not OR to read opening credits, but the rules defining Recurring and Guest vs. Main and Also Starring, should be laid out carefully as with the Parks & Rec list or the one on The Walking Dead (TV series). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- The key part of adam's comment above is "recurring" isn't really a thing" and the explanation following. Yet this creation of convenience by WP - to avoid long cast lists - is presented to our readers as if it is somehow encyclopaedic information about each actor's status. Often the same information is presented in tabular form, reinforcing the false impression of real world fact. Even the "main" v "guest" distinction is an Americanism that has little relevance to many television series across the world. MapReader (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Aye, and I'll quote again: "promoted to the main cast in series three,", at Torchwood. It's not just misleading tables, it's claims that these made-up categorizations are real hierarchies involving promotions and demotions. It's patent bullshit/bollocks. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Be careful SMcCandlish, you're getting a bit caught up in fairy-land here. Main vs. Guest cast is still a real thing, some reliable sources do use the term "recurring", and being "promoted" to the main cast is a common thing. TV editors are just following actual terminology and source wording there. Also, basing something off the credits of a TV show does not, in any way, violate WP:OR or WP:PRIMARY. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish, I do see what you're saying about the use of "promoted": it's common for trade publications to use this lingo [4], but it may not be something we should emulate because of the inference you point out. Still, the designation of lead [5] vs recurring [6] vs. guest [7] should definitely be somehow reflected in our cast lists. Beyond the detail of negotiated contracts—which may or not be encyclopedic—these classifications reflect a real-world separation that can be helpful in understanding/reading about a series. When I read an article about a show with which I'm not familiar, I do want to know which performers/characters are in the bulk of a series/season and which are just in a handful of episodes. I'm fine with cast tables, but they shouldn't be the rule, and it seems redundant to have such a table in addition to a traditional list with descriptions of the characters (though I like the layout of List of Parks and Recreation characters).— TAnthonyTalk 15:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- What Adamtom.97 is missing is that the fact that terms like "supporting" exist in the world does not mean that they are found in reliable sources specifically in regard to that particular role in that particular production; it's OR in almost every case on Wikipedia; someone from a wikiproject is making up their own personal mind who is and isn't "supporting" based on their own analysis of episode-by-episode credits placement. This isn't how we do things. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. Conceptions like this also push the MoS toward presenting as apparently universal terminology (like 'guest stars') and features (like opening credits) that are actually uncommon in many parts of the world. MapReader (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- When did "supporting" become a problem term? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- This has been patiently explained to you many times already. The word is not a problem. Original research to apply it as a label to particular roles in particular episodes or seasons is the problem. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well that's news to me. I thought we were talking about some particular problem words that you wanted to be stopped. If this discussion is just a general "please don't use OR" discussion then I'm not sure why I've wasted so much time on it. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Let this be an object WP:ICANTHEARYOU lesson, then, in reading and absorbing what people are actually saying instead of engaging in reflexive, defensive reactions to what you imagine they might have been thinking. The WP:OR problem being the central issue was mentioned in the very first post, and has been the consistent theme throughout. If this were a discussion about particular words being "bad", it would have been at WT:MOSWTW, and the nature of the argument would have been radically different, grounded in WP:NPOV policy (which has not been mentioned in this discussion until this sentence). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- The problem, as I have touched on before, is that film and television particularly attracts 'fans' of the product who actively want to make value judgements about it (not just good or bad, but who deserves credit, which performances or aspects of production should be singled out, etc.). Which can be a big problem when writing a neutral encyclopaedia. Every topic has enthusiasts and POVs but, as a broad generalisation, history or geography or science or whatever articles do have editors genuinely interested in presenting all aspects of their subject. Whereas in film and tv these are in short supply; most come to an article as already fan or critic. ISTM that this should be countered by an MoS that is more strict on NPOV, verifiability, and so on, to reduce the space for editors to invent their own rules for judging and describing. MapReader (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- No doubt! I didnt' mean that there is no PoV stuff going on; rather that it's manifesting as weird OR labeling exercises, and the thread's not been dwelling on the PoV background. Most OR is inspired by PoV. It's easier to shut down OR than PoV problems more broadly, because OR is more narrowly circumscribe (more objective, less subjective). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish I suggest you have a read back through this discussion. The entire thing is very specifically about the singular issue of cast crediting and how you believe OR has been applied to it, not OR in general. If that was not your intention, then you have fundamentally failed at explaining your basic argument. MapReader the "rules" that have been established here have often been created as a direct response to such "enthusiasts", and if you are suggesting that specific editors are biased due to being interested in the topic they are writing about here then I feel that is both inappropriate and silly. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Cast crediting and OR applied to it certainly is the point. I have no idea how you can veer from "I'm confused, I though you were trying to ban some words, when you're really talking about OR" to now "I"m confused, I thought you were talking about OR in general when you're really talking about OR narrowly in the context of writing about TV and films". Of course I'm talking about OR in that particular context, this page being what it is. There is nothing unclear about this thread. No one else is not getting it. MapReader, for one, understands not only the issue but the cause. And "editors are biased due to being interested in the topic" bears no resemblance to anything anyone has said here.
- The problem, as I have touched on before, is that film and television particularly attracts 'fans' of the product who actively want to make value judgements about it (not just good or bad, but who deserves credit, which performances or aspects of production should be singled out, etc.). Which can be a big problem when writing a neutral encyclopaedia. Every topic has enthusiasts and POVs but, as a broad generalisation, history or geography or science or whatever articles do have editors genuinely interested in presenting all aspects of their subject. Whereas in film and tv these are in short supply; most come to an article as already fan or critic. ISTM that this should be countered by an MoS that is more strict on NPOV, verifiability, and so on, to reduce the space for editors to invent their own rules for judging and describing. MapReader (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Let this be an object WP:ICANTHEARYOU lesson, then, in reading and absorbing what people are actually saying instead of engaging in reflexive, defensive reactions to what you imagine they might have been thinking. The WP:OR problem being the central issue was mentioned in the very first post, and has been the consistent theme throughout. If this were a discussion about particular words being "bad", it would have been at WT:MOSWTW, and the nature of the argument would have been radically different, grounded in WP:NPOV policy (which has not been mentioned in this discussion until this sentence). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well that's news to me. I thought we were talking about some particular problem words that you wanted to be stopped. If this discussion is just a general "please don't use OR" discussion then I'm not sure why I've wasted so much time on it. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- This has been patiently explained to you many times already. The word is not a problem. Original research to apply it as a label to particular roles in particular episodes or seasons is the problem. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- When did "supporting" become a problem term? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. Conceptions like this also push the MoS toward presenting as apparently universal terminology (like 'guest stars') and features (like opening credits) that are actually uncommon in many parts of the world. MapReader (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- What Adamtom.97 is missing is that the fact that terms like "supporting" exist in the world does not mean that they are found in reliable sources specifically in regard to that particular role in that particular production; it's OR in almost every case on Wikipedia; someone from a wikiproject is making up their own personal mind who is and isn't "supporting" based on their own analysis of episode-by-episode credits placement. This isn't how we do things. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish, I do see what you're saying about the use of "promoted": it's common for trade publications to use this lingo [4], but it may not be something we should emulate because of the inference you point out. Still, the designation of lead [5] vs recurring [6] vs. guest [7] should definitely be somehow reflected in our cast lists. Beyond the detail of negotiated contracts—which may or not be encyclopedic—these classifications reflect a real-world separation that can be helpful in understanding/reading about a series. When I read an article about a show with which I'm not familiar, I do want to know which performers/characters are in the bulk of a series/season and which are just in a handful of episodes. I'm fine with cast tables, but they shouldn't be the rule, and it seems redundant to have such a table in addition to a traditional list with descriptions of the characters (though I like the layout of List of Parks and Recreation characters).— TAnthonyTalk 15:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Be careful SMcCandlish, you're getting a bit caught up in fairy-land here. Main vs. Guest cast is still a real thing, some reliable sources do use the term "recurring", and being "promoted" to the main cast is a common thing. TV editors are just following actual terminology and source wording there. Also, basing something off the credits of a TV show does not, in any way, violate WP:OR or WP:PRIMARY. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Aye, and I'll quote again: "promoted to the main cast in series three,", at Torchwood. It's not just misleading tables, it's claims that these made-up categorizations are real hierarchies involving promotions and demotions. It's patent bullshit/bollocks. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- The key part of adam's comment above is "recurring" isn't really a thing" and the explanation following. Yet this creation of convenience by WP - to avoid long cast lists - is presented to our readers as if it is somehow encyclopaedic information about each actor's status. Often the same information is presented in tabular form, reinforcing the false impression of real world fact. Even the "main" v "guest" distinction is an Americanism that has little relevance to many television series across the world. MapReader (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've come to the conclusion that the most likely way to deal with this is a thread at WT:NOR or WP:NORN; see, e.g. Wikipedia talk:No original research#Rfc on How we interpret "published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article" – the regulars there are plenty happy to identify OR problems in a scenario presented to them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- While dropping off a notice about something else, I just ran into a case of the kind of OR I mean on someone's user talk page here. Very clearly deciding who's "regular" and who's "been promoted" based on personal analysis of who is mentioned where in the credits of episodes they're watching. I get the impression that the majority of this labelling of cast on Wikipedia is being "determined" in this manner. This is a terrible idea for so many reasons, the most obvious of which is that credits are a matter of contract negotiation, and may have little to do with on-screen time or centrality of someone's role to the plot. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Late to the party: ultimately all content is decided on 'due weight' of [WP:RS] - no compromise. But there is a time issue with weekly shows.... Case in point, 'Walking Dead', season 6, mid-season finale/2nd half, known to 'Walking Dead' fans as 'Dumpstergate'. Steven Yeun, cast regular, as Glenn Rhee, appears to be killed by 'walkers' in mid-season finale while falling off a dumpster. In the second half of the season, he's revealed to have survived by crawling under the dumpster (hence 'dumpstergate'). But network AMC took him off the credits of regular cast until the reveal (he also said he was told to avoid interviews & hide!). Show credits can't be trusted as a regular guide given fakeouts & all other contract issues that could decide regular & reoccurring. There's nothing left but 'due weight' of RS & that can take time (given RS time to publish!). Can we accept that this is the greyest of grey areas? Show credits could be used in the short term but 'due weight' of WP:RS ultimately decides the final result? Just my (late) 2 cents worth... AnonNep (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. Another case the famous actor (I forget who) listed as a major star of The Shield then shot dead early in the first episode with hardly any screen time at all, just to shock the audience. (And they borrowed that trick from another show, British I think.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- In cases where someone is listed as starring but only appears in a single episode, the standard practice is to discuss the situation and come up with some new consensus based on the particular situation. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. Another case the famous actor (I forget who) listed as a major star of The Shield then shot dead early in the first episode with hardly any screen time at all, just to shock the audience. (And they borrowed that trick from another show, British I think.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Using the word "simulcast"
Please share your comments on proposed rules for using the word "simulcast". 12:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
To tackle the misuse of the word "simulcast" in the articles, I'd like to suggest that the following rules be added to the Manual of Style:
- The word "simulcast" can be used to refer
- the act of broadcasting a single broadcast programme at the same time on multiple outputs, regardless of platforms; subtle differences in graphic overlays do not matter, nor do the differences of commercial advertisements, promos and trailers shown during a commercial break within a programme on individual outputs (for example, how a BBC News bulletin is shown on BBC One, BBC News Channel and, in some occasion, BBC World News, and how an award show is shown live on multiple Viacom channels in the United States)
- television to radio simulcast do apply (for example, how a Nine Gold Coast News bulletin is heard on some local radio stations)
- the old practice of providing stereo sounds on radio (like radio networks A and B simultaneously broadcasting a classical music concert; network A for right side, network B for left side) do apply
- the act of one broadcast channel simultaneously copying an output of another channel; subtle differences in graphic overlays do not matter (for example, RTP2's simulcast of EuroNews, complete with the latter's channel watermark)
- time-delayed broadcast does NOT apply (for example, Channel Nine Darwin's one-hour delayed broadcast of Nine News Queensland on weekends)
- the act of broadcasting a single broadcast programme at the same time on multiple outputs, regardless of platforms; subtle differences in graphic overlays do not matter, nor do the differences of commercial advertisements, promos and trailers shown during a commercial break within a programme on individual outputs (for example, how a BBC News bulletin is shown on BBC One, BBC News Channel and, in some occasion, BBC World News, and how an award show is shown live on multiple Viacom channels in the United States)
- But it cannot be used to refer
- the act of a broadcast channel showing a programme at the same time as another channel, but by the former playing the programme out at the same time as the latter, and not by simultaneously copying the latter's output (for example, a station in country O starts showing a translated version of The Day of the Doctor at the same time as BBC One in the UK, but goes into a commercial break to show advertisements)
- the act of broadcasting or releasing an episode from a foreign television series within hours or days after a broadcast in the country of the series' origin (for example, an American streaming service releasing an episode from a Japanese animated series one hour after a Japanese broadcast, and a channel in another East Asian country broadcasting the said episode 4 days later); it should NOT be referred as "simulcast" despite common usage (like in promotional materials), and editors must use appropriate word (other than "simulcast") to describe the type of release
JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 12:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Have I missed a previous discussion about this? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- In that case, why do we need to address an already defined term in the MoS? Has it been causing problems at multiple articles? If so, I'd expect some previous discussion elsewhere. Since there has been none, is this trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- For the "cannot use" case, state that it does not apply to any on-demand releases where the viewer can start watching at any time. As for the hours or days after, it doesn't have to be foreign. Plenty of US programs broadcast on US Eastern Time, and are delayed three hours before they are officially broadcast in US Pacific Time. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- WP:CREEP. This doesn't appear to be anything MoS would need to address. If we ever did, all that could just be compressed into "Simulcast means broadcasts that are actually simultaneous, not just near each other in time." The end. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Question regarding television airdates and time zones
Is there a policy set forth to handle what the airdate for a show is considered to be if it premieres at 12 AM ET / 11 PM CT? I'm asking because someone is insisting that shows premiering at that time count as having premiered on the latter of the two date possibilities despite it seeming obvious to me that it should be the former. (If it aired before midnight somewhere, then the earlier date was the initial airdate, right?) Their latest reversion requested a source that they premiered at 11 PM CT despite TV show articles generally not seeming to require a source for episode airdates in the first place after they've already aired, and despite the fact that anything airing at 12 AM ET also airs at 11 PM CT pretty much by definition... But I could be wrong, and I decided that I should ask this here rather than just getting into an edit war.
The two specific shows in question are Mostly 4 Millennials and Ballmastrz: 9009. Even Adult Swim itself has promoted them as premiering on Sunday, not Monday (which makes Wikipedia look wrong in comparison to pretty much any other source). And the Wikipedia articles listing the episodes for Mike Tyson Mysteries, Joe Pera Talks with You, Robot Chicken, and FLCL, which all premiered episodes at 12 AM ET / 11 PM CT this year as well (I haven't checked any older dates or other articles yet at this point), have all used the earlier possible date for their particular case (Sunday in the case of the first three Joe Pera Talks with You, and Saturday in the case of FLCL). Both approaches can't be right. Alphius (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've invited the other user to join the discussion here, too. Alphius (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- It would make sense to me to list the show as having aired on the earlier of the two dates if it did in fact air on that date somewhere in the United States. However, in doing research into the issue I have been unable to find a source that supports the claim you are making. In fact, the only information that I've been able to find mentions that both series premiered at midnight on both the East Coast and the West Coast. It is frequently the case that shows that air at one time in eastern standard time air an hour earlier (technically speaking they air concurrently) in central time. However, this is not always the case. Quite often shows are aired on a delay much in the same as they are on the West Coast (PST) often due to content. As of right now your edits are based on supposition and speculation. Until such time as a reliable, secondary source can be found that confirms both series aired before midnight somewhere in the US, then they should be left the way they are. And, honestly, if no such source can be found for the other series that you mentioned then they should be changed as well. Just because a great number of articles have inaccurate or unsourced information doesn't give justification to do the same thing in other articles. Hope that clarified a few things and I hope you have a nice evening. – BoogerD (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, this particular case is just driving me kind of crazy because I'm absolutely, 100% sure that all of those shows did air at 11 PM CT and that saying the later date is factually wrong, but I suppose I can't use original research as the justification. How about this? The AdultSwim.com schedule itself shows that the "Interfacing" and "Entitlement" episodes of Mostly 4 Millennials will air at 11 PM CT on July 15th. https://www.adultswim.com/schedule/ It's a primary source, but it seems pretty fair to assume that a TV network would know its own schedule. I suppose it doesn't prove the past airtimes for anything, but would you at least consider it to raise reasonable doubt for those, too? Alphius (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Seems like compelling evidence to support what you have suggested. However, before any changes are made to the two pages in question I'd like to see if a few of the editors who frequent this talk page (and television articles in general) would chime in and give their opinion and add to the discussion. I'm tentatively in favor of the edits you've made but I think giving it another day for others to have the opportunity to air their thoughts seems reasonable. – BoogerD (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- In the interest of full accuracy, I need to make a correction here. Despite my earlier comment about being "100% sure" that all of the shows I listed aired at 12 AM ET / 11 PM CT, I've realized upon double-checking myself that both Mike Tyson Mysteries and Robot Chicken actually premiered at 11:30 PM ET / 10:30 PM CT and thus weren't relevant to this discussion. I guess I was too focused on finding other examples of relevant articles and ended up remembering that incorrectly because of it. I sincerely hope that indiscretion won't tarnish my actual main point, which was really just the fact that Adult Swim airs everything - including Mostly 4 Millennials and Ballmastrz: 9009 - an hour "earlier" in Central Time, thus causing the original airdate to be correspondingly earlier as well in cases like theirs. At least that fact is still corroborated by the Zap2It thing. (And it was still true for the two shows that I incorrectly referred to, too - the only correction I'm making is regarding the half-hour difference error.) Alphius (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Pshah! We will definitely hold this against you, until exactly 11:59:59 (Hovd Summer Time), May 2, 2028 (a leap year). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
It's supposed to be the primary time zone of broadcast, so for US that would be Eastern Time so I would list 12am Sunday. But a note can be added that Central Time is shown the hour before, and whether other time zones also technically showed the episode before hand or it was made available on web. This would be like if Japan released an episode on 12am Sunday but the same episode was simultaneously released to the US on Saturday. If on occasion they move the time up to 11:55pm, then list the Saturday time and add a footnote to explain what happened that week. I've actually had a case over at Najica Blitz Tactics where one of the television stations in the same time zone changed their time from after midnight to before midnight and since it was a major station it took over as the premiere dates from there onwards. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 11:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:TVLEAD clarification question
Quoting MOS:TVLEAD: If singularly defined, [series's nationality] should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular or cannot be supported by appropriate citation, omit the information from the introductory sentence and cover the different national interests later, where these can reliably be referenced.
Does this mean that if a TV show's nationality is not "singularly defined", it shouldn't be mentioned in the lede at all? Or does this mean that if a TV show's nationality is not "singularly defined", it shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence of the lede, but can be mentioned later in the lede (esp. if referenced)?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- This wording was reviewed and changed recently, but in respect of the opening sentence keeps the long-standing formulation (which is the same in MOSFILM) of a restriction applying to that sentence only: i.e. Do not put "BigTVshow is a Gambian-Egyptian series", or whatever, in the opening of the lead. If there is a transnational partnership my assumption is that this would normally be mentioned by a later sentence in the lead: for example "The series was produced by a partnership between Gambian and Egyptian television companies", or by a couple of sentences spelling out the production arrangements. Or, alternatively, that the lead would simply say something like "was produced by a multi-national partnership" with the full details set out and referenced in the production section. MapReader (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- The wording means don't try shoe-horn it into the first sentence if there is more than one nationality or if the single nationality is not reliably sourced. So if it was a co-production between two studios of different nationalities, that could be explained in the second sentence of the lead if necessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Listing what networks air a show in syndication in the show's article
Under WP:TVINTL, it reads As Wikipedia is not a television guide, do not include an indiscriminate list of every network that a series appeared on in countries outside the country of production.
This applies to international broadcast of a series, like with Seinfeld airing in Australia or Friends airing in the Philippines. But what about listing where a series airs on a network (different from its original) in the same country as where the series was produced? Is that violating WP:NOTTVGUIDE as well? I would say yes to that, perhaps unless there's some notability to a show being on a particular network in syndication. One article I've been tackling where IPs have been constantly adding this kind of info is Saved by the Bell, like this. Is this noteworthy or a violation of WP:NOTTVGUIDE? MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Basically, yes, it's not notable. Immediate back-end (i.e. rerun) syndication deals, if sourceable, may very well be notable. Subsequent back-end syndications are much less likely to be notable, though there will be a few exceptions (e.g. NCIS and the various Law & Orders that have gone through several successive and generally notable rerun syndication deals that have actually generated press "buzz"...). For a show like SbtB, I would guess that only the original back-end syndication deal (was it to TBS?..) is sourceable, and thus notable. Certainly, its, what? – seventh or eighth?! – rerun cycling, this time on MeTV, is not going to be notable, and should not be included... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- @MPFitz1968: IP hopper is still at it, so I am applying for page protection. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- WP:Notability doesn't actually apply to this (only to whether something can have a stand-alone article). The applicable policy is WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The guideline wording is careful on that point. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'd also say that the change would perhaps only be notable if the show was still airing (i.e. like how Supergirl moved from CBS to The CW due to production costs). However, re-run information probably isn't worth including unless notable, as stated. QueerFilmNerdtalk 06:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Repeat: [8]. The distinction is important to maintain. Just because something like a TV station is notable doesn't mean it's discriminate (non-trivial) in the context of a particular article, section, infobox, etc. Notability test is an encyclopedic importance guideline pertaining to creation of an article; the indiscriminate test is a policy of contextual relevance, pertaining (in concert with WP:DUE policy) to mention/inclusion in an article. "Notability" doesn't matter for inclusion within an article, except in stand-alone list articles that have notability as a criterion for listing, to keep list length manageable. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Again, the first cycle of back-end (i.e. rerun) syndication is often worth mentioning (a number of these deals have been worth quote a lot of $$$$). Subsequent back-end syndie cycles, not so much though... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Recent edits 23 July 2018
To the rest of the community, is this edit acceptable? I see no issue with shortcuts, especially when they're used as [[WP:SHORTCUT|text]], and I'm seeing a lot of rewording, in an edit that wasn't discussed, or a consensus gained for, nor do I see anything that supports that shortcuts can only be used by experienced editors. -- AlexTW 10:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- The one issue with shortcuts is that they can get out-of-date, and end up pointing to nothing – for example, I know I've needed to update the destination for the WP:EPHEMERAL shortcut several times over the years, and sometimes it's difficult to figure out the correct new target. But that's probably true of "direct" links too, so... [shrug] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's utterly routine to replace newbie-confusing gibberish like
[[WP:COLOR|color]]with[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color|color]]. This is cleanup we're doing through all the MoS pages (and other guidelines and policy, for that matter) make the material less confusing for new editors (and for longer-term ones who do not live and breathe policy debates). Shortcuts exist for experienced-editor convenience on talk pages and in the URL bar; they're "user-hateful" to use in piped links, because the URL that one sees when hovering over the link is meaningless to anyone but the long-timers who already know what the stand for. If you have some particular objection to or question about one of the minor copyedits, aside from the link cleanup, then please state it and don't beat around the bush, or handwave about "undiscussed". Trivial improvements do not need to be discussed; no one needs your permission; WP:EDITING policy applies, and so does WP:BOLD (though it applies less to substantive changes to guidelines pages). I didn't make any substantive changes; zero rules' actual meaning was altered, just linking made less redundant, etc. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)- I don't really have a problem with this, but I also don't think it was particularly necessary. Readers of the page would have been taken to the same destination anyway and do not see the redirect wording, so the claim that there was "newbie-confusing gibberish" present rings false to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- You're not following. If you hover over the link, somewhere in your browser interface (unless you have a very incapable user agent) you'll get some indication where that link points; if it tells you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles this is going to make some kind of sense to a new user. If it's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AT this isn't going to mean jack to you. PS: "Necessary" is not a precondition for an edit being made. Even "marginally better" will do fine. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Okay. I get it. I still see it as unnecessary, per Adam as well. However,
This is cleanup we're doing through all the MoS pages
? Who's "we", and from what central discussion? Clearly, if there's a "we", there was some agreement of some sort. -- AlexTW 09:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)- "We" is whoever else is bothering with it. I'm hardly going to trawl years of MoS-page edit history to provide an answer for a pointless question. If you really care, WP:YOUCANSEARCH. Why do you think that every idea has to have a prior discussion? WP:Common sense applies. The fractional amount of best practices we've chosen to immortalize in RfCs and WP:P&G pages and well-reasoned essays are only those things we considered non-obvious enough to bother recording. Also: [9] — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't really have a problem with this, but I also don't think it was particularly necessary. Readers of the page would have been taken to the same destination anyway and do not see the redirect wording, so the claim that there was "newbie-confusing gibberish" present rings false to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- If you don't have a substantive objection to an edit, then please do not waste people's time by objecting just out of "change resistance" or whatever this is. We have way better things to spend our time on. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Then don't respond, or believe you can dictate what I can and cannot question. -- AlexTW 12:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- See: wikt:please, wikt:request, wikt:dictate, and wikt:hyperbole. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Then don't respond, or believe you can dictate what I can and cannot question. -- AlexTW 12:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've no issue with shortcuts, although I try & save them for wiki edit summaries, but I have absolutely no issue with anyone expanding them to the full link. Why would I? AnonNep (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. No one does; it's standard operating procedure in pages like this. No one's going to do that to people's talk page posts, or whatever, but it's important in our core documentation. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Is television its own source?
Perhaps this is a good place to raise an issue which may be of general interest. I should say at the outset that I am perhaps not the best person to discuss this - as my User page makes clear, COI might be thought to warp my view - so having raised the question I'll leave this to others to follow up.
Are television shows their own sources or not? For example, here is just one sample page of (conservatively) many dozens of articles, all of which provide detailed information about network tv shows while not citing any sources for much of that information. What sources are, or could be, cited for the names of the directors and the plot summaries in that article (and the many others like it) without referring to the original show?
Looking at the Style guide, this section appears to take it for granted that episodes of a tv series can be their own sources but this is not spelled out explicitly.
Transmitted network tv seems akin to other sources which are perhaps difficult to access but could be consulted if necessary (for example books held in specialist libraries and not digitally available). Certainly most British network television shows transmitted in recent decades are held in archives, both by the original broadcaster and often also by the BFI, which provides public access to its holdings.
There is benefit in being able to access encyclopaedic information about television (particularly given the well-known problems of IMDB) and so it seems a pity to restrict Wikipedia's television coverage to only those shows which, say, have been issued on dvd or are permanently available online. Is there consensus on this point?
It may well be that this issue has been asked and answered many times in the past, in which case apologies. AnOpenMedium (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- TV shows are considered reasonable sources for information on plot and casting one the show/episode has been aired. It would be considered a primary source so not sufficient for nearly any other purpose like notability, original research, etc. It doesn't matter if the series is available on DVD/Streaming, as long you know a record of the series exists in a form that meets WP:V (even if that means paying for access to a service). --Masem (t) 16:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, your example demonstrates exactly how we should be handling articles; as long as an episode has aired, it is an acceptable primary source for plot, cast lists, and writer/director credits. Other production info (Conception, Development, and Casting in your example) is backed up by inline citations from reliable sources. One exception would be plot summaries in which the editor attempts to interpret or explain events seen onscreen; any explanation of vague plot points would require a source.— TAnthonyTalk 19:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- I would add that the show itself is ok if you're just sourcing plot on either the List of Episode pages, the season page, or an episode page. Namely, because those would contain all the information needed to verify it in the medium (e.g., air date, name of the episode, etc.). But, I would say that although we don't use in-line citations on those pages (because it would be redundant to the episode tables or the infobox on an episode page), it would be more necessary to do that for say an article on a character of a show. Reason being, if I'm reading a summary of their fictional history (the plot of the episodes they were in), it would be good to know when these events took place should I need to verify the content at some point. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Bignole, if the page does not include the information that we would usually find in an in-line citation then actual citations for the appropriate episodes should be provided. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- I would add that the show itself is ok if you're just sourcing plot on either the List of Episode pages, the season page, or an episode page. Namely, because those would contain all the information needed to verify it in the medium (e.g., air date, name of the episode, etc.). But, I would say that although we don't use in-line citations on those pages (because it would be redundant to the episode tables or the infobox on an episode page), it would be more necessary to do that for say an article on a character of a show. Reason being, if I'm reading a summary of their fictional history (the plot of the episodes they were in), it would be good to know when these events took place should I need to verify the content at some point. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- All published works are reliable primary sources for what they contain (who said what, who appears in the credits, etc.), provided no WP:AEIS (analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis) is done with the material. Some more analytical plot summaries require secondary sources, but the average one does not. Where people run into problems is they they try to draw connections between events in a plot which are not explicit; when listing uncredited cast members; when trying to determine on their own whether someone is "featured", a "regular" cast member, a "supporting" one, etc.; declaring something in the plot to be an homage or allusion to some other work; or some other kind of AEIS or insertion of claims that cannot be found in the original source material. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I've encountered an issue which I can't find addressed in the MoS so was hoping someone here might know. Do contestants on TV shows get added to the TV show navigation templates? The reason I'm asking is that I've noticed that Template:The Amazing Race contestants and Template:Big Brother in the United States both list contestants and that the templates are added to each person's article as can be seen at Jordan Lloyd's article. --Gonnym (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 16#Template:Japanese episode list. The discussion is a proposal to merge {{Japanese episode list}}, {{S-Japanese episode list}} and {{S-Episode list}} into {{Episode list}}. -- AlexTW 02:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Basing major layout changes to a Featured List on the consensus of two editors
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Basing major layout changes to a Featured List on the consensus of two editors.
This discussion regards the recent proposal to merge the prose plot summaries from the Game of Thrones season articles to the Game of Thrones episodes article, a Featured List, and the apparent consensus to do with by the support of two other editors. -- AlexTW 08:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Does WP:TVNOW also apply to radio programs?
So, should it be "Monitor is an American radio program that aired...", as per WP:TVNOW (and MOS:TENSE?...)? Or does WP:TVNOW only apply to the ledes of TV programming articles?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe there should be a difference in Wikipedia between the styles, though sadly there is no MoS that I could fine. Checking the only FA radio show articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio: Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) both use the TVNOW style.
Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel is a situation comedy radio show
andThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a science fiction comedy radio series
. --Gonnym (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)- Yes, the whole concept is that the show/film/book/toy still exists, even though it may no longer be aired, sold, or produced. The exceptions, of course, are lost works which no longer exist in any form.— TAnthonyTalk 16:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- MOS:TENSE applies to all articles. "By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering products or works that have been discontinued." WP:TVNOW just gives us more specific guidance for TV articles. It was based on MOS:TENSE so it can be applied to radio articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the whole concept is that the show/film/book/toy still exists, even though it may no longer be aired, sold, or produced. The exceptions, of course, are lost works which no longer exist in any form.— TAnthonyTalk 16:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Runtime
If an episode is 21.40 long, would the runtime parameter be 21 minutes, 22 minutes, or 21-22 minutes? — Lbtocthtalk 20:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I usually go by what Amazon says for runtimes to avoid this very problem since they don't include seconds. If some lengths are different, then I just range them. For example, if out of 20 episodes in a season, one is 25 minutes, one is 20 minutes, and the other 18 are 22 minutes, I would do 20–25 minutes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Feel compelled to make a note here. Lbtocth and I have been engaged in debate over this issue. And the question of runtime is as it relates to the parameter in infobox television. I patently disagree with the second and third versions listed above. When writing it in that third manner, the implication becomes that one of the episodes actually reaches XX number of minutes in length. Which is patently false. When the runtime is put into a range it means that one episode of the series was as few minutes as the first number and another episode was as many minutes as the second number. Rounding up is disseminating incorrect information. I Feel Bad has yet to be as long as 22 minutes and Manifest was only reached as long as 42 minutes in its first episode. No one is "cutting off seconds"; they still exist. But the infobox should only reflect a runtime that is actually met, not one that it almost meets. – BoogerD (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with how people calculate runtimes on Wikipedia but if an episode was say 20 minutes and 40 seconds I would say it was 21 minutes long, and if the episode was 20 minutes and 20 seconds I would round down to 20. Esuka323 (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- It depends on what the main disseminating media calls it. If they're advertising the show as 12x22' then 22 minutes. Time ranges would be for shows that don't have a consistent value across episodes. Double episodes (44 minutes) would be excluded. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Again, I'd have to disagree. In both, cases the rounding down or rounding up is entirely arbitrary. What makes an episode 21 minutes long just because it's 20 seconds longer than another episode that was 20:20? It makes the most sense to put the number of minutes that an episode actually reaches. In the situation provided above, the episode actually was as long as 21 minutes so it is appropriate to list the show's runtime as 21 minutes. It is does not, however, reach 22 minutes in length at all. Claiming it does in any manner is wrong. – BoogerD (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Esuka323:: That's what I thought 30 seconds or less round down and 30 seconds or more round up.— Lbtocthtalk 20:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Being more than 30 seconds over or less than 30 seconds over does not make it any more true/accurate that, say, a 21:31 episode ever reaches 22 minutes at any point. – BoogerD (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- 21 minutes is not accurate either. What happened to the 40 seconds? The 40 seconds is cut off which means this would cut off possibly put of the end credit or the last scene.— Lbtocthtalk 20:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I see, until there's further clarity I think things should remain how they are on the page. If the outcome of the discussion requires a change I think people should respect that, if that doesn't, ditto. Esuka323 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Lbtocth: That's typically how it works. If you're keeping a weekly log with times for something, something like 1:24:29 PM would become 1:24 PM, while something like 1:24:46 PM would become 1:25 PM. 00–29 stays the same (or rounds down–however you want to word it). 30–59 rounds up. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Even something like YouTube can be approximate. It can read 21:40 in one display and 21:41 when you actually click on the episode. I would still look for the official news media designation like [10] for Talking Tom and Friends (TV series), "Talking Tom and Friends features 52 x 11’ episodes each season" rather than trying to measure the actual videos. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- To be honest though, when it comes to broadcast networks in the United States, the "official news media designation" will more likely than not label shows that are 20-something minutes in length as "30 minute episodes" and shows that are 40-something minutes in length as "60 minutes episodes". Either way, what's being reported is usually not accurate in any way to how long these episodes actually are. So I'm not sure that's helpful here. – BoogerD (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Here you go [11] "S1 E2 | 22 min | TV-14 | Full Episode | Comedy | Primetime" [12] " S1 E1 | 22 min | TV-14 | Full Episode | Comedy | Primetime" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- @BoogerD:: 30 minutes and 60 minutes with with commercials usually. Runtime is without commercials.— Lbtocthtalk 20:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: But what relevance does that have here? Where in the MOS or WP does it state the rounding up is the preferred course of action. 30 seconds, at the end of the day, is an arbitrary delineation. It makes the most sense, in my opinion, to list the number of minutes that an episode actually, definitively reaches and not one that it almost reaches. – BoogerD (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
It makes the most sense, in my opinion, to list the number of minutes that an episode actually, definitively reaches and not one that it almost reaches.
See my Amazon reference earlier in this discussion. Also, there is nothing in the MOS that prohibits rounding up, and remember that the MOS does not contain top-down rules that must be followed, just guidelines on suggested best practices, which can vary from article to article. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)- This isn't YouTube views / subscribers or single/album sales so rounding up isn't harmful. I'd also not want to see people verify films with stopwatches and DVD markings to see if they are the advertised runtime as that would introduce a lot more original research, unless it's grossly off, but that would then be explained in reviews of cut scenes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Took a look at what you said above.
I usually go by what Amazon says for runtimes to avoid this very problem since they don't include seconds. If some lengths are different, then I just range them. For example, if out of 20 episodes in a season, one is 25 minutes, one is 20 minutes, and the other 18 are 22 minutes, I would do 20–25 minutes.
This is exactly what I do among all of the episodes I edit. So on that we are in agreement. This whole discussion grew, however, out of a disagreement on listing a range "21–22 minutes" in the runtime parameter because on one particular show, where only 2 episodes have been released thus far, one episode was 21:40 in length and another was 21:41 in length. Writing it that way implies that one episode is 21 minutes long and another is 22 minutes long. So, in my view, writing it that way only creates creates confusion as to its actual meaning. – BoogerD (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Even something like YouTube can be approximate. It can read 21:40 in one display and 21:41 when you actually click on the episode. I would still look for the official news media designation like [10] for Talking Tom and Friends (TV series), "Talking Tom and Friends features 52 x 11’ episodes each season" rather than trying to measure the actual videos. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Being more than 30 seconds over or less than 30 seconds over does not make it any more true/accurate that, say, a 21:31 episode ever reaches 22 minutes at any point. – BoogerD (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
As what AngusWOOF said according to NBC's I Feel Bad official website it is listed as 22 minutes.— Lbtocthtalk 20:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Writing 21–22 minutes does not at all imply one episode was 21 minutes and the other episode was 22 minutes. It's a range, which means that of the episodes that have aired thus far, they were between 21 and 22 minutes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- MOS:UNCERTAINTY so rounding up is okay. My exception to the matter is as stated (youtube views, sales milestones) but the MOS example with the population of 9996 covers that case. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Consistent naming for split-episode articles
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Consistent naming for split-episode articles. A possible addition to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#List articles has been suggested concerning a guide for consistent naming for split-episode articles. -- AlexTW 05:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Special guest star VS guest star for cast
If a show specifically credits an actor or actress as a special guest star should this be reflected on the shows article or should they just be listed under a regular guest star section? I've noticed a few shows have separate special guest star and guest star credits and have seen some disagreements over it previously as well so just looking for some clarification, as I'm under the impression we generally follow how the show credits the actors/actresses within reason. Brocicle (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- If they are a recurring special guest star, list them under the "Recurring" section as normal. If not, just list them under a "Notable guest stars" section. It's also probably a good idea to note that episode(s) they appear in. For example:
Apple Blossom as Maggie (episode: "List of The X Show episodes#ep1|X Games". If no episode list, thenApple Blossom as Maggie (episode: "The X Show#ep1|X Games". Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)- I wouldn't get into listing either them as a "special guest" (You cannot determine if the show as doing that because the role was important or the actor was important), nor would I start listing the episodes they appear in. That just clutters up a list with minutia. Is this a parent article or like a character list page? If it's the latter, it may be easier to divide them up by first appearance per season, like was done with Characters of Smallville. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Whether the actor or their role was the special part is irrelevant—although I imagine it's pretty much always the actor who is special. The fact of the matter is that X actor was credited as a special guest star, and that's all that matters. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- But the determining factor of importance has no context and shouldn't be separated away from other guest roles unless it's because it's recurring. There are times when it says "special guest" because it's a recurring role, times when it says "special guest" because the actor is already famous but it's a one or two shot appearance, and times when it says "special guest" because it's a former cast member returning (which has no bearing on famous status outside of the viewers already knowing who they are). All of that is context, which you lack in almost all cases. So, it's best to be objective and not place undue weight on said use of "special" (especially just because Stevie Nicks decided to appear in an episode of American Horror Story), and simply go with recurring or not. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- It's typically on season article pages and not cast and characters pages/lists. I assumed we follow how the show credits them regardless of their recurring/non-recurring status. Just like how some shows have "starring" and "also starring" listed separately because that's how they're credited on the show.
- Also because the MOS says that even if a actor/character appears in two episodes doesnt necessarily make them recurring. So if an actor appeared in 2 episodes and was credited as a special guest star both times where would it be appropriate to list them? I know each show is different in regard to how many episodes distinguishes from a recurring to a guest actor/character. Brocicle (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- A guest star, is a guest star, is a guest star. It doesn't really matter if the credit is "Special guest star", "Special appearance by" or just "Guest start", etc. A prose sentence could be used in a "Casting" section discussing such credit, but at least in cast lists, we should just stick with "Guest cast". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- But the determining factor of importance has no context and shouldn't be separated away from other guest roles unless it's because it's recurring. There are times when it says "special guest" because it's a recurring role, times when it says "special guest" because the actor is already famous but it's a one or two shot appearance, and times when it says "special guest" because it's a former cast member returning (which has no bearing on famous status outside of the viewers already knowing who they are). All of that is context, which you lack in almost all cases. So, it's best to be objective and not place undue weight on said use of "special" (especially just because Stevie Nicks decided to appear in an episode of American Horror Story), and simply go with recurring or not. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Whether the actor or their role was the special part is irrelevant—although I imagine it's pretty much always the actor who is special. The fact of the matter is that X actor was credited as a special guest star, and that's all that matters. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't get into listing either them as a "special guest" (You cannot determine if the show as doing that because the role was important or the actor was important), nor would I start listing the episodes they appear in. That just clutters up a list with minutia. Is this a parent article or like a character list page? If it's the latter, it may be easier to divide them up by first appearance per season, like was done with Characters of Smallville. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- What we did with New Girl and Coach (New Girl) was put him as Special guest in the season cast listings and the characters table if they were just in one episode for that season, but Recurring if they ended up being recurring for that season. For Megan Fox's character, she was recurring but had "Special Guest Star" status for all her appearances, so we stuck with Recurring. For Heather Locklear in Melrose Place, she's credited as Main in the cast table, but has a footnote about how she's credited as a Special Guest Star for most of the episodes. This was because it was kind of a big deal that she was a regular but was always listed as Special guest star. [13] [14] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I thought the point was to follow how the sources refer to them? And if so, it doesn't matter why someone received a particularly named guest star credit (special guest star, special appearance, etc.)—that's what the (primary, and some might argue most authoritative) source refers to them as, so why on earth wouldn't we use that? We already follow the credits to determine the order of cast lists... why would we follow the credits there but not in how we classify them? Otherwise we are throwing out the fact that, for whatever reason, they were credited in a non-standard manner. If the unknown vagaries of Hollywood/the entertainment industry that go into determining cast list order are fine in that situation, I fail to see why the same unknown vagaries are problematic with respect to listing people as "special guest" etc.
- Barring, of course, widely documented special cases like Locklear on Melrose Place, where the given solution (listed as main with a note about the credit) is an elegant and appropriate way to address that weirdness.
- There is still the OR aspect of "guest" vs. "recurring" where certain editors seem to feel they have the authority to arbitrarily set number of episode "bars" actors must reach before being deemed to recur... but if someone recurs and is credited as "special guest", it seems like listing them as "special guest" is an easy way to avoid that conundrum in that particular case. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 17#Template:S-Japanese episode list and Template:S-Episode list
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 17#Template:S-Japanese episode list and Template:S-Episode list. This discussion is to request the deletion of the deprecated templates {{S-Japanese episode list}} and {{S-Episode list}}; these are old sortable versions of {{Japanese episode list}} and {{Episode list}}. -- AlexTW 12:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Mentioning the Episode table and Episode list templates in the MoS
Should the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Episode listing section mention that Template:Episode table and Template:Episode list should be used in episode lists instead of the current vague guide? This will create a more consistent style between articles, as currently some use tables, while others use lists; This will also promote more WP:Accessibility, as previous fixes done in this area won't have to be re-done article by article. -- Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think that should be "encouraged", but not "required", in MOS:TV, yeah. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- They are currently listed in MOS:TVPLOT, but the extra note in "Episode listings" wouldn't hurt. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Episode redirects
Does anyone know of a previous consensus or an entry in a guideline regarding episode redirects to list of episodes? I requested bot assistance in creating these as it's just takes so long doing it manually, but I was directed to first get consensus at WP:VPR. --Gonnym (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Citations in TV series articles
Should the title be using 'Title' or Title (italicized) in citations? On the links (as they appear in that source), titles are ‘Title’.
References
- ^ Welch, Alex (October 15, 2018). "'Speechless' and 'Dateline' adjust down: Friday final ratings". TV by the Numbers. Retrieved October 15, 2018.
- ^ Welch, Alex (October 22, 2018). "Last Man Standing adjusts up: Friday final ratings". TV by the Numbers. Retrieved October 22, 2018.
- I understand the issue is that some websites (like TV by the Numbers) may use single quotation marks for show titles instead of italics, but per MOS:CONFORM, text formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text (such as titles of works) should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment provided that doing so will not change or obscure meaning or intent of the text. It should be Speechless and Dateline regardless of how the website stylizes it.— TAnthonyTalk 18:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think you're wrong doing it that way, but I genuinely haven't seen anyone else do it that way besides you. When people are citing things like renewal news, casting news or whatever they seem to just straight copy paste the article title from the website. Then of course you have those editors that make the effort to change it to for example 'Speechless' and 'Dateline'. I really don't think the average Wikipedia reader will care which method is used, it all seems trivial to me. Esuka323 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Recent changes from U.S. copyright law to US copyright law
Can someone explain the recent changes from "U.S. copyright law" to "US copyright law" in Overly detailed summaries are unencyclopedic and can risk a breach of U.S. copyright law
in MOS:TVPLOT? The most recent explanation was consistent unpuncutated abbreviations throughout article
, except that "US" isn't used at all in this MoS and "U.S." is, four times. -- AlexTW 12:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Links directly to article titles are quotes and preserve the format of the title of the linked article regardless of inconsistency with the rest of the text: All four instances of "U.S." are links to article titles, as indeed also are four instances of "UK". There is therefore nothing in MOS:US to justify your earlier revert. "US copyright law" is also a link, but not a quoted one, directing to the section of an article that does however use unpunctuated "US" format. Within the body of this article we have numerous unpunctuated abbreviations such as TV, DVD, VHS, WP, BBC, TBA, MOS, CBS, IMDb; using US in the body of the text is the better option to maintain a consistent approach. MapReader (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- As MOS:US says, either US or U.S. is acceptable. The same reason why I suggested removing the line requiring the use of U.S. in titles here -- Whats new?(talk) 03:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. The wording to which you point is very badly formed in any case - the reference to WP:NPA actually only relates to the second phrase relating to the UK, but the way the sentence is constructed suggests to the casual reader that NPA directs to using US with periods - which of course if you actually check NPA it absolutely doesn't. I don't see how anyone could defend the existing wording which is clearly misleading? MapReader (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- As MOS:US says, either US or U.S. is acceptable. The same reason why I suggested removing the line requiring the use of U.S. in titles here -- Whats new?(talk) 03:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes wording
I have started a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#ASOF that would affect pages under this MOS, regarding the application of WP:ASOF to RT scores in articles. Thoughts from those watching this talk page would be most welcome. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Ongoing issue at Hotel Transylvania: The Series
This illustrates the problem: In recent months, various IPs have been replacing the end year in an Episodes section subheading with the word "present" (so it reads "Season 1 (2017–present)" instead of "Season 1 (2017–18)"). The MOS here doesn't appear to allow that, nor does it seem to prohibit it either (see MOS:TVUPCOMING). As this goes against the norm with various other TV articles (including LoE ones), this looks disruptive. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Guest stars and recurring
Hi all,
BoogerD and I am want to reach a consensus for Queen America. Please see history. When did it be ok to move put a character as a recurring when the character just appeared in 2 episodes? Set to appear for more than 3 episodes without a reliable source is not acceptable on Wikipedia as for as I know. After all, WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Lbtocthtalk 19:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- General agreement seems to be five appearances means recurring, regardless of number of episodes in a season. Now, there are special WP:IAR cases. For example, a character may appear three times only, but play such a major role that by that context, they are recurring. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'd rather push this back to local consensus, so define on that talk page what you consider recurring. I would discard cases where the person appears in back-to-back episodes of a single story, as that would just be a guest star. Outside of that, deciding between 2 or more vs. 3 or more separate stories for a season is up to you. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- That seems to be what the MOS currently suggests saying, "If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status." – BoogerD (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- MOS:TVCAST is also clear that 2 episodes is almost never recurring, and even 3 consecutive appearances may not be recurring. Reading between the lines, it's saying it's generally 4 or more to be "recurring", subject to the local consensus at the article. I would say, however, that 2 appearances is pretty much never recurring though. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'd also add that they should have a credited appearance. Flashback / video footage, or background, does not count. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- There's a few ways. Two is almost never a cast, as has been stated. If a reliable source says they are recurring, regardless of the number of episodes, that could possibly be a way. Someone could technically be contracted for 4 episode appearances that span 4 straight episodes. That is not really recurring either, that's just a guest arc that ends. Then again, you have some people that become recurring because they appear so often, usually small character roles that don't impact anything but the actor appears frequently throughout a show. Generally though, 2 would not be enough unless it was already known that they were recurring and it's only been 2 so far. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Again, I want point out the character has only appeared in 2 episodes so far and no reliable source to say that the character is set to recur. In addition, IMDb is not a reliable source. — Lbtocthtalk 21:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- @AngusWOOF: That one can also be a little complicated, though, because a lot of times, even in flashbacks or video footage, cast are still credited, whether main or guest stars. For example, guest star Jon Dixon on A Million Little Things. All his scenes have been as flashbacks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- As IJBall said which is stated on MOS:TVCAST, "A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a "recurring" role." — Lbtocthtalk 21:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'd also add that they should have a credited appearance. Flashback / video footage, or background, does not count. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- MOS:TVCAST is also clear that 2 episodes is almost never recurring, and even 3 consecutive appearances may not be recurring. Reading between the lines, it's saying it's generally 4 or more to be "recurring", subject to the local consensus at the article. I would say, however, that 2 appearances is pretty much never recurring though. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- That seems to be what the MOS currently suggests saying, "If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status." – BoogerD (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'd rather push this back to local consensus, so define on that talk page what you consider recurring. I would discard cases where the person appears in back-to-back episodes of a single story, as that would just be a guest star. Outside of that, deciding between 2 or more vs. 3 or more separate stories for a season is up to you. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I thought it is agree upon on MOS:TV that appeared only 2 episodes is not considered as recurring and WITHOUT a reliable source that says the character is set to recur then, it doesn't belong to the recurring subsection. — Lbtocthtalk 22:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Queen America#Guest stars and recurring
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Queen America#Guest stars and recurring . — Lbtocthtalk 23:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Update Episode Count Dispute. — Lbtocthtalk 15:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Les Misérables (2018 TV series)#Article title instability. Should Les Misérables be disambiguated as (2018 TV series) or (2018 miniseries)? -- AlexTW 14:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Formal requested move at Talk:Les Misérables (2018 TV series) § Requested move 12 December 2018. -- AlexTW 07:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Input requested at Template talk:Infobox television#first_run fails WP:TRIVIA, and should be removed
Note that this issue has been raised before with zero participation, so I am avoiding the standard template message which has already been cluttering up this page. Modernponderer (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
August 2016 updates/PSE reception
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/PSE reception needs closing and implementing by the editors involved. It's been open since March. Unfortunately, I don't see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates going any further after this discussion. -- AlexTW 13:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:New Warriors (TV series)#The end of the year
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:New Warriors (TV series)#The end of the year. — Lbtocthtalk 04:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Bulletizing episode summaries at Who Is America?
I recast the plot summaries for the episodes of Who Is America? as a bulleted list rather than a paragraph because the episodes are composed of unrelated segments rather than a single coherent plot. I was reverted a couple of times by editors who cited this MOS. I find nothing in this MOS prohibiting the presentation of plot summaries as bulleted list, and I know that similar shows, such as Saturday Night Live do list episode summaries as bulleted lists (see 44th season of SNL article as an example). What would be the reason to not display the episode summary as a bulleted list? BarbadosKen (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
| Per Discretionary Sanctions noted at the top of this page, we will wait for the week from the first edit that BarbadosKen has agreed to. If there are no disagreements about the substance of the proposed change by then (i.e. 15:36, 2 Jan 2019), the edit may be reinstated. After that there may not be any reversions to the proposal by any editor without an accompanying note on this discussion page objecting to the substance of the proposal. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
How exactly are people going to state their opposition if the discussion is closed? For the record, I've just invited the two editors that BarbadosKen mentioned to this discussion to get their input on the matter. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- The only closed part is in the tan rectangle. Sorry if that was unclear. Feel free to discuss away below right here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thankyou for the notice AussieLegend, my reasons for reverting on the Who is America? page are that such a style of summary writing is not used on Wikipedia broadcast & cable television pages. The user who made this topic was displaying edit warring behavior and wasn't making the effort to discuss on the shows talkpage. I'm also disappointed that the topic creator made no effort to ping myself and BoogerD into this discussion, I wonder why? And for the record I'm against his changes. Esuka323 (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just noting that I have also notified the TV project, as those are the editors who most frequently edit this page. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
This should be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS decision on the talk page for the articles in question, to see if bullets are the best way to present the info. However, it should not be explicitly stated for or against here in the MOS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Myself and BoogerD responded to his initial post on the shows talkpage and briefly discussed. However the editor made absolutely no effort to discuss with us and I had to leave a notice on his talkpage because he was about to violate WP:3RR, which appeared to stop his behavior in its tracks. Esuka323 (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- You reverted my edits for lack of consensus in this project page, which is why I am seeking consensus in this project page. BarbadosKen (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm agreed with Favre1fan93. It's not much benefit to say "sometimes this thing" because that implies "sometimes not this thing" and that gives us no information on what to do in a particular situation; based on WP:CREEP, we should err on the side of not including it. This is a local consensus issue and as such, I've left a comment at Talk:Who Is America?. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- The bullets were rejected at the article in question because of lack of consensus in the MOS. Now that it's under discussion in the MOS, I think the MOS should explicitly state that bullets are OK, to avoid future arguments in other articles over this issue. BarbadosKen (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- To qutoe user:Esuka323,
I've seen once or twice users attempting to separate the paragraph on a show page only to be quickly reverted. There's just no consensus for changing the current plot summary style.
(written in this edit). To me, this sounds like it's a recurring issue that needs to be clarified in this MOS. BarbadosKen (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just because some editors have tried it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Bullets inside a table just waste space, making boxes and tables longer. And you're insulting the intelligence of readers, who are not likely to have issues with "separate segments" collected in a paragraph. All plot summaries combine chapters or scenes into paragraphs. Every show has multiple storylines that may or may not directly intersect. I don't see how this show is so different that it would require bullets. And I don't like it in your SNL example either.— TAnthonyTalk 21:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Heaven forbid I insult the readers' intelligence. It's all about readability. When you use a single (or at most two) sentences to describe a segment in a show, and then concatenate the different sentences for the different segments into a single paragraph it's not easy to follow. Under such a scenario, it is much easier to follow when the information is presented in a list fashion. BarbadosKen (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Seriously, no one is having a problem following three sentences. And speaking of MOS:ACCESS, a bulleted list inside a table cell may be an accessibility issue in the same way nested tables are, I'm just not sure how screen readers behave.— TAnthonyTalk 22:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- We are not talking 3 sentences. Take a look, for example, at summary of the sixth episode in Who is America?. It has 9 sentences to describe 6 different segment. It is much easier to follow when presented in a bullet list format than as a wall of text.
- I am not following your point regarding nested tables. Here is an example of a nested table in which a handful of rows are displayed, and then a couple of hundred rows are hidden. I think it looks great there. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- TAnthony, if the correct template is used such as {{plainlist}}, then it shouldn't be any more of an accessibility issue then doing so in an infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Seriously, no one is having a problem following three sentences. And speaking of MOS:ACCESS, a bulleted list inside a table cell may be an accessibility issue in the same way nested tables are, I'm just not sure how screen readers behave.— TAnthonyTalk 22:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Heaven forbid I insult the readers' intelligence. It's all about readability. When you use a single (or at most two) sentences to describe a segment in a show, and then concatenate the different sentences for the different segments into a single paragraph it's not easy to follow. Under such a scenario, it is much easier to follow when the information is presented in a list fashion. BarbadosKen (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just because some editors have tried it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Bullets inside a table just waste space, making boxes and tables longer. And you're insulting the intelligence of readers, who are not likely to have issues with "separate segments" collected in a paragraph. All plot summaries combine chapters or scenes into paragraphs. Every show has multiple storylines that may or may not directly intersect. I don't see how this show is so different that it would require bullets. And I don't like it in your SNL example either.— TAnthonyTalk 21:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Would you care expressing your viewpoint over at the article's talk page? It seems to be stretched out among this talk page and the one over there but, as others have pointed out, it may be more relevant to have this debate on that page to gain local consensus. Your input would be much appreciated. – BoogerD (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- You can put me down as opposed to adding the new wording to this page. It's classic WP:CREEP, and a dispute at Who is America? is better handled at the talk page of the page where the dispute started than by adding more weirdly ambiguous wording to the already enormous collection of policy material we have here. And I say this as someone who likes the idea of bullet points over at Who is America?. It's just inappropriate for a member of an ongoing controversy at an existing talk page to start trying to force changes through to policy to buttress his preferred option. That's not what policy is for. Alephb (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand why you think I did anything wrong. The two editors in the article objected to bulletizing citing that policy does not allow it. Since then, additional editors made that claim in the article talk page. Therefore, it seems to me to be completely appropriate to come here to have a discussion whether or not the policy should explicitly allow this. That would not be a WP:CREEP. That would address ongoing disputes. BarbadosKen (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Edit-warring, repeatedly changing the rule-book without anyone else's agreement, and sending people unwanted messages on their talk page is not an alternative to engagement on the original talk page when you have a content dispute. And despite this silly conflict now extending over five different talk pages, there's no signs that the other editors are going to give you want you want, so even though I agree with you that bullet-points are better over at Who is America?, it's time to ask just how long you want to keep fighting for something the other editors are so far showing no signs of giving to you. Alephb (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand why you think I did anything wrong. The two editors in the article objected to bulletizing citing that policy does not allow it. Since then, additional editors made that claim in the article talk page. Therefore, it seems to me to be completely appropriate to come here to have a discussion whether or not the policy should explicitly allow this. That would not be a WP:CREEP. That would address ongoing disputes. BarbadosKen (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Gap in MOS:TVNOW
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Gap in MOS:TVNOW. U-Mos (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC). U-Mos (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Recent changes
Concerning the recent changes, the wording of this section was agreed upon at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Cast and characters section. A firm consensus would be required to remove whole paragraphs. -- /Alex/21 05:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- The removal was a good idea, since the paragraph amounts to "if we're not sure, then we're free to just engage in WP:OR to suit our preferences". WP:TV's addiction to peppering our articles with reviewer jargon has gone too far. If RS do not consistently agree that a role is "starring" or "recurring" or "guest" or "main" or any other such term, then WP should not be using any such term in our article. 05:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Incorrect; it amounts to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, an acceptable policy. -- /Alex/21 06:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Apologies, I did not see this section had been created. Please see my rationale below. U-Mos (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see any issue with the existing text. It seems entirely appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Apologies, I did not see this section had been created. Please see my rationale below. U-Mos (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Incorrect; it amounts to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, an acceptable policy. -- /Alex/21 06:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Moved from below, the change I made removed this paragraph: "A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a "recurring" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status."
- Upon reading this section for the first time, this seemed entirely redundant and against the way pages are edited. I have edited multiple television series pages over the years, as well as holding a professional interest in the industry, and have never come across the notion that an actor appearing in two or more episodes over a season could not be a 'recurring' star. That is - quite literally - what recurring means, and it's how it's applied on every article I've seen across the project. Having been alerted to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Cast and characters section, and thinking about why this might be, I think the issue is a) leaning too much towards increasingly antiquated network television structures and b) a US TV focus. Most articles I take an interest in concern UK series (where 'recurring' is usually a dictionary definition designation, rather than a contractual one), which may explain why this paragraph's existence was confusing to me. As I said in my edit summary, I still believe that this paragraph invites WP:OR responses in deciding when a character is performing a "recurring story arc" rather than a series of guest roles - in earlier years, we may have consistently expected secondary sources to report on such matters, but that is not true today. I still believe this paragraph should be removed, and 'recurring' should simply be defined as two or more episodes in a single season. The distinctions discussed previously create more problems than they solve, in my opinion. I'd be interested in hearing more about the rationale behind this.
@AussieLegend: Would you mind expanding why you think there is no issue? I think the potential for WP:OR is very significant. U-Mos (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- I am comfortable with the existing text and don't see compelling reasons for changing it to the proposed text -- Whats new?(talk) 22:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#Initials
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#Initials. — YoungForever(talk) 14:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion of two WP:BOLD edits at MOS:TVCAST
Two WP:BOLD edits I made to this section have been reverted by Alex 21. I invite him and any other interested editors to discuss here.
- 1. Moved to the above section
- 2. Clarifying "The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list." to "The initial cast listing should be ordered according to the broadcast credits, with cast members added in subsequent seasons listed in order of first appearance."
- As I have discovered at Les Misérables (2018 miniseries), this sentence is too vague. In this case, Olivia Colman did not appear in episode 1 of the mini-series - I believe the spirit of the guidelines mean she should still be considered part of the "original broadcast credits", and listed in the place her credit appears rather than at the end of the list. This wasn't discussed in the above-linked discussion (although recurring cast are), but I don't see any benefit in diverging from the credited order by applying it on an officious episode-by-episode basis - if this were a multi-season series with cast changes (it isn't, but can still set a precedent), Colman would certainly be considered part of its 'original cast'. Season by season seems the natural way of applying this guideline, so my edit sought to clarify that. Either way, the current reading is imprecise as it fails to be specific about "original broadcast credits" or "new cast members".
All thoughts on these two matters very welcome, and I hope some changes can be agreed upon. U-Mos (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- A discussion already exists above on the first point, and that is where it will be discussed.
- As for the second point, the sentence is not at all vague. Colman was not credited, and thus was not listed. MOS:TVCAST states that
The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits
. The original broadcast credits are those seen in Episode 1. Colman was not credited. It then continues on withwith new cast members being added to the end of the list
. A new cast member was credited in Episode 2: Colman. Hence, she is to be added to the end of the list. I recommend seeing Young Sheldon as an identical example: Annie Potts is credited before a number of cast in the credits, but was only credited from the third episode onwards, hence she is listed at the end of the cast list. I have edited thousands of television articles, it's my primary area of editing, and this is the method that has always been used. If what you "believe the spirit of the guidelines mean[s]" is what you think the guideline should say, if it "seems the natural way" but is not written down directly, then I recommend you gain a consensus to change it. Until then, what is says is what it means. -- /Alex/21 08:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)- I disagree that Colman and Potts are "new cast members", just because they don't appear in the first one or two episodes. For instance, the Young Sheldon article cites this report of Potts' casting, dated prior to the series' premiere. She is part of the show's initial cast. That we're talking about this means there is room for different (or mis-) interpretation. No, I do not know for sure what "the spirit" of the guidelines are because of this ambiguity, and yes I would like to gain a consensus to alter the wording to make that clear either way - and in my opinion, as I have said, there is absolutely no WP:COMMONSENSE purpose in working episode-by-episode like this. Hence this discussion. U-Mos (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Additionally, even if we take a stance I disagree with and say that Annie Potts wasn't around for the first two weeks of filming for Young Sheldon so she's a later addition to the initial main cast, such a linear production schedule is not the case at all for Les Mis. There is absolutely no basis in that example to state that Olivia Colman was cast later, or joined filming after the rest of the main cast. U-Mos (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd also add that
with cast members added in subsequent seasons listed in order of first appearance
is very wrong. We don't list cast in order of appearance. They are added in order credited as already stated. Let's look at a series that has two cast members called Fred and Ginger. Ginger has been recurring in all episodes since the pilot and was promoted to main cast in season 2 episode 15. Fred is a brand-new cast member starting in season 2 episode 12 and is credited as starring in that episode. The quoted text gives the impression that Ginger would be listed before Fred when that isn't the case at all. It also makes what happens in season 1 vague. What happens if Fred and Ginger become main cast in the latter part of season 1? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)- The sentence is followed by a note:
Note that "new cast members" does not necessarily mean cast members new to a series, although it can. It refers to any cast member new to the respective cast list. For example, when a previously recurring actor is promoted to a starring role, such as what happened to Sara Gilbert in The Big Bang Theory, or Richard Harmon in The 100, they are moved to the end of the "starring" lists regardless of the number of episodes in which they previously appeared as a recurring character.
I considered writing "main cast members added", but was aiming to make as few changes as possible (aware that all this is likely to have been thrashed out at length in the past) and didn't want to alter the note at all. Of course there may well be better wording choices to express what I am intending most clearly. U-Mos (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- The sentence is followed by a note:
- I'd also add that
- Were Colman and Potts credited in the original broadcast credits as shown in the first episodes of their respective series? No. Then in regards to the original broadcast credits, they are new cast. Production doesn't come into this, unless you can show me what part of the guidelines states that it does. (It does not.) That means there is no ambiguity. If you think there is, and that production should be introduced, then you need to gain a consensus to modify the guideline, which you've stated you want to do. Then do it. However, as it stands, the guideline does not support your current position. This applies to both the cast of Young Sheldon and Les Misérables - no comments on production means no use of production when it comes to interpreting the guideline, and as such, the latter article needs to be restored to support the guideline as it stands. -- /Alex/21 13:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Bumping this discussion for interested readers; the question, put neutrally, is should cast credited in episodes subsequent to the first episode be placed where they are credited, or added to the end of the cast list? -- /Alex/21 04:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- It took me a while to get used to the procedure for determining cast member order when I started editing TV articles... but I have to say I quite like it because it's based purely on the credits and gives you an indication of who the later additions were. I think it's a sensible guideline and makes it relatively easy to sort out disagreements. Certainly no one should be boldly changing it without consensus because it affects thousands of articles. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- The intention of these guidelines is to reflect the producer's official cast listing, to remove any personal biases that Wikipedians may be affected by in constructing the list. In traditional television, this generally means that we can use the listing from the opening credits, and then if anyone is added in a later episode (whether at the start of a new season or just randomly due to contract re-negotiations) we can stick them on the end of the list. However, there are some instances where this does not necessarily reflect the spirit of the guidelines, and my approach then is to basically form talk page consensus to override the guideline. For instance, some streaming series are released all at once, so the entire series is completed before the first episode is released and the full cast listing is already known to the producers from the beginning. In a case like that, is a name does not appear until later episodes then it will be because the actor is only named if they appear in the episode, but overall they are considered to be part of the starring cast. If consensus for a full cast list including that actor as if they were always listed can be formed, then I think that is a perfectly reasonable alternative to the standard model. I haven't read the rest of this thread, but that is my opinion on what I believe this discussion is about. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Adamstom.97, and others for clarifying. I therefore suggest that the sentence be amended to
The cast listing should be ordered according to the first episode's broadcast credits
, to remove any misinterpretation such as has occurred here, and possibly also note the potential to diverge from this under certain production/distribution circumstances with consensus. U-Mos (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Adamstom.97, and others for clarifying. I therefore suggest that the sentence be amended to
- The intention of these guidelines is to reflect the producer's official cast listing, to remove any personal biases that Wikipedians may be affected by in constructing the list. In traditional television, this generally means that we can use the listing from the opening credits, and then if anyone is added in a later episode (whether at the start of a new season or just randomly due to contract re-negotiations) we can stick them on the end of the list. However, there are some instances where this does not necessarily reflect the spirit of the guidelines, and my approach then is to basically form talk page consensus to override the guideline. For instance, some streaming series are released all at once, so the entire series is completed before the first episode is released and the full cast listing is already known to the producers from the beginning. In a case like that, is a name does not appear until later episodes then it will be because the actor is only named if they appear in the episode, but overall they are considered to be part of the starring cast. If consensus for a full cast list including that actor as if they were always listed can be formed, then I think that is a perfectly reasonable alternative to the standard model. I haven't read the rest of this thread, but that is my opinion on what I believe this discussion is about. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- It took me a while to get used to the procedure for determining cast member order when I started editing TV articles... but I have to say I quite like it because it's based purely on the credits and gives you an indication of who the later additions were. I think it's a sensible guideline and makes it relatively easy to sort out disagreements. Certainly no one should be boldly changing it without consensus because it affects thousands of articles. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Bumping this discussion for interested readers; the question, put neutrally, is should cast credited in episodes subsequent to the first episode be placed where they are credited, or added to the end of the cast list? -- /Alex/21 04:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
RfC on using the "As of" template, or some similar wording indicating that the score may have changed over time, for review aggregators
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#RfC: Should the "As of" template, or some similar wording indicating that the score may have changed over time, be used for review aggregators in articles?. A permalink for it is seen here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Are italics really required?
Why should (or rather, why must) we use italics for show/episode titles even when publications such as TV Guide don't? I mean, episodes or shows themselves are not like literary work --Fandelasketchup (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, they are required. It's italics for series, quotation marks for episodes. See MOS:TITLE: italics for
[t]elevision and radio programs, specials, shows, series and serials
, quotation marks for[s]ingle episodes or plot arcs of a television series or other serial audio-visual program
. Wikipedia is not "TV Guide", we have our own guidelines and rules of style to abide by. -- /Alex/21 14:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 28#The Resident (season 2). TheDoctorWho Public (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Accessibility of Doctor Who episode tables
Discussions have been raised concerning the accessibility of Doctor Who episode tables; these can be found at Module talk:Episode list#Sandbox version update and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Accessibility disagreement. Different table suggestions have been put forward on how to fix these accessibility issues, including the use of horizontal rules, the separation of episode-specific information into tabular rows, and the rearranging of the header and table columns. Further opinions would be appreciated. -- /Alex/21 13:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)