Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are known to be subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Television Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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