Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Preferred Order of Episodes

I've noticed that this article doesn't seem to give any instruction on the preferred way to sort episodes for episode list articles. I would assume that it would be by air date, but I don't see any specific instructions for it. The reason I bring this up is because I've seen a couple articles where people seem intent on sorting episodes by production code rather than air date, even if doing so throws off the chronology of the episodes. Should something about this be added to the Episode Listing section of the article? –Nahald (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe episodes are typically ordered by the producers' intended format, as stated by reliable sources. For example, see List of Futurama episodes#Season 3 (2001–02) and Supergirl (season 1)#ep4 (and ep5): listed in production order. However, Arrow (season 4)#ep73 (and ep74) were produced in the opposite order they were aired, but listed in airing order. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Episodes should be ordered by broadcaster's air dates (or streamer's release date/displayed episode order). We include production codes, as a service to readers (to help figure out some series' "chronological order" of episodes), but listing episodes that way is in fact WP:OR – it would be elevating editors' preferences over the broadcast order of the TV network: it's the latter that gets to decide "episode order"... Personally, I would agree that this instruction should be added to MOS:TV – honestly, I thought it was already in there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Unless, of course, stated otherwise by reliable sources. Statements by producers trump the decisions of networks. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the only reason to order outside of airdates is if there was a reason why it wasn't aired in the order of production. Most of the time an episode is filmed out of order it's because of scheduling with those involved that aren't the series regulars. Unless there was something specific, like an episode has to be suspended because the subject matter became controversial (because of a real life event that happened at the same time) and was aired later, then I would put it in that proper order. Here's a good way to tell the proper order...look at the boxset order. If a network messes up an order, or if there was a different order intended than what was broadcast, it would be corrected in the box set of that show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Producers and writers are "hired guns": they're not "in charge". The network pays the piper – they get to decide whatever order to broadcast episodes in. The writers can certainly have an opinion on "the correct order of the episodes", and we can certainly report that. But the network pays the bills, they get to decide the order, and we should simply follow that. Again, prod. codes are also included for anyone who wants to "track" the production order (that's exactly why we do that), but episodes should nearly always, with very few exceptions, be listed in airing order. And the MOS should reflect this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently correct in ordering by air date - its just a good rule-of-thumb for being generally correct. Networks are fickle (see Firefly (TV series)#Broadcast history) and have been known to air episodes out of narrative order. I remember this issue came up at Talk:Earth 2 (TV series)#Episode listing: airing order vs narrative order. At least there we reached agreement to present both orders, but I still think the default order should be based on the intent of the producers, if known, and not the networks. The greatest value of these sections is to current viewers of these series, and they should be presented the order which they expect - that being narrative order (especially if that order has been corrected on home media or streaming services). Air date is a triviality compared to that. -- Netoholic @ 15:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not about "being correct". In general, that is WP:OR, and also note that "production order" is not always the "chronological (i.e. story) order" either. The only universal benchmark we have is the order of the episodes as broadcast. Anything else strongly risks being WP:OR, unless you have oodles of sourcing to show something else, and even then that should probably be reported in prose in other sections. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Bull. No one is advocating OR. In fact, it is OR to just "default" to airdates defining the episode numbers rather than citing a specific reliable source for the episode order. Unless there is a source saying "Episode name is episode number X" - then our practice is already OR. What I am saying is that consensus among reliable sources (weighted for recentness, such as home media or streaming orders) should be used to define the episode order. That is all. -- Netoholic @ 15:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

And that's utter bull – by following the airing order, we are doing the exact opposite of WP:OR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I disagree that following the airdate by default is "original research". That's not even close to the definition of original research. OR would be making an assumption of the producers intentions without a source to back it up, simnply because you know an episode was produced out of order from the rest.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

IJBall: Sorting a list by air date without any other information would be fine if that were the only issue and without any other sources which give a better order. But what really happens is that that airdate order is used by editors like you to assign an "episode number" - THAT is OR. For example, you created the article Family Affair (2002 TV series) which to this date has no source which states episode numbers/totals/order. Why is that? Your article says there are 15 episodes, but TV.com says 16 and EPG says 14 -- and both split the pilot into 2 episodes, yet you didn't, and that throws off the numbering of everything else. You created Fantasy Island (1998 TV series) which only has one source (and doesn't mention episode numbering/order). So what basis do you have for assigning those episode numbers? Seems OR to assign episode numbers without a source. Its not like episode number is a required column in the list, especially if they can't be verified. I am not saying you're doing anything egregious... but you are definitely on thin ice when you bring up WP:OR. Make a new section below with your proposed wording, let's see how far it gets, because right now you're the only one advocating for airdates as a "universal benchmark" for episode ordering. -- Netoholic @ 15:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, reporting things as they happened is not WP:OR in any way shape or form – all pretty much every Wikipedia episode table is doing is reporting how episodes aired. As Wikipedical points out, this is following WP:PRIMARY. In the case of Family Affair, the network aired the pilot as a one-hour episode, which is backed up by multiple sources in the article – so don't pretend that's in any way WP:OR. BTW, both the articles you mentioned were actually Split outs – I didn't "create" them... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah "intention" does not matter. What matters and what’s observable and most relevant to TV viewers here is how the media is put out into the world. Ordering episodes by airdate is most certainly not WP:OR per WP:PRIMARY. Relevant passage: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Intention, even by an author/producer, is specialized knowledge and inherently an interpretation. As mentioned above, the main reason we present production codes in episode tables is to show objectively when production order varies from airdate order. Delving into plot and interpreting narrative order should definitely not be our preferred method. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wikipedical: Again with the red herrings. No one is advocating independently "interpreting narrative order". What we're saying is that if, for instance, a later home media release of a series is presented in an order (and with episode numbers) that differ from pure airdate order, then that home media release is a much better WP:PRIMARY source. Even better still, if available, would be an episode numbers/order from a reliable secondary source, such as a review of that home media release. -- Netoholic @ 16:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

So many editors who don't seem to be aware of how we've been doing things for years? We traditionally list episodes by air date which works for most programs. However, there are some programs where episodes have aired out of production order to the extent that it significantly affects the program. The best example of that is Firefly so that list is (or was last time I looked) listed by production order since that makes a lot more sense. There are others, like Futurama, that are also not listed by air date for various reasons and some that have a couple of episodes listed like that (Supergirl) but for the vast majority, air date is used and always has been. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we traditionally list episodes by air date. One example I can think of are sitcoms. Sitcoms are often airing episodes not according to production codes, but by air dates. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Netoholic, you literally mentioned "narrative order" during this discussion. And the editor who started this discussion mentioned narrative chronology. Unless it’s implied that production order equals choronological order, that involves interpretation. I’m glad, however, that you’re steering the conversation toward exceptional circumstances, like the example you most recently provided – when airdate order might not be the best approach. But overall – and addressing the original question – airdate order definitely seems preferred for the vast majority of cases. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wikipedical: Production order and production codes shouldn't even be part of this discussion. Production codes are assigned only roughly in the earliest phases of pre-production, and the realities of how plotlines or scenes may be shifted around, whole episodes moved around, and the realities of shooting schedules which might film scenes for multiple episodes on one set in a single day. Production information/codes should never be used for ordering or for Wikipedia-assigned episode numbering. But likewise, airdate is only a rule-of-thumb that is correct most of the time, but not all the time. We cannot rigidly require our articles conform to that when later evidence (home media release ordering, streaming service ordering, reviews, analysis, etc.) demonstrate that a different episode order is called-for based on those sources. Wikipedia editors can certainly put lists in order by airdate lacking anything better, but they should not be assigning episode numbers to them arbitrarily based on airdates. We should simply leave the "Episode No." column out of the list unless there is a source for those numbers. And if there is a source, then we can reorder the list based on them instead of airdates. -- Netoholic @ 18:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The episode number column is used for management of the lists. It allows for easy counting of episodes and provides an anchor so that episodes in the list can be linked to directly, rather than a generic link to the whole season. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Yet, as presented in most cases, those episode numbers are unsourced and not straightforward facts that are verifiable from WP:PRIMARY source (the episode itself). Episode numbers are being inferred by Wikipedia editors. Now, this may be a pedantic point, but it is nonetheless true, and an appeal to tradition as you've made in comments above is not acceptable rationale. Convenience for internal linking is not an acceptable rationale either because linking directly to an episode entry isn't strictly required, and even if desired is technically possible in other ways without an arbitrary number (like making the episode title the anchor). -- Netoholic @ 19:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Counting episodes, in order, surely falls under WP:CALC... or WP:BLUE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Eh.... except when its not. If there are sources that consider a two-part pilot to be two episodes vs one long episode... then this isn't simple WP:CALC. Its also not simply CALC when sources point out that an episode was pulled and then aired later. Also, I think there is a difference between simple "counting" (as in total episodes) vs enumerating (assigning a specific episode number to a particular episode). -- Netoholic @ 19:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Determination whether a normally 30-minute series that airs an hour special is one or two parts is how it is sold on sites like Amazon and iTunes. That is the determining factor there and nothing else. Amaury • 19:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: Oh, it absolutely does. Agreed. He tried making the same arguments at Earth 2. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. Amaury • 19:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Most shows generally go in the order of the airdate of the main original network, but there can be exceptions such as with List of Miraculous episodes and List of Totally Spies! episodes where in some countries the main 2-part season finale was aired ahead of other episodes. And for strictly serial shows and shows that have an explicit episode number built into their episode title, they may override broadcast order as well since the episodes would not make any sense otherwise. As for counting episodes, that should be determined on a per-show basis, since there are all sorts of weird mechanics going on, like how to count segments, pilot episodes, and double-length episodes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say stick to the air dates, unless you 100% know for all episodes across a series the reasons for a different ordering, and here's two examples of that:

* List of The Prisoner episodes The current list is by original UK airdate because there's at least 2 different production orders, a second broadcast order, and then a "fan-based" ordering of note for the show. The first broadcast airdate avoids any and all complications with which is the "right" ordering of episodes.

* List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes, had only one show airing out of production order (Merlin's...) being in the tenth season due to rights issue. This was well documented because this was the "final" episode then to actually air, despite the fact that the episode intended to be the show's finale (concluding its narrative) aired before (Diabolik). It makes no sense to move Merlin after this just to make the air date order correct and make it look like a non-finale was the finale, when we can simply document the delay due to rights.

Most of the time you can't source these however and for non-drama shows where there's no strong plotline to follow and can only go off production codes, its original search to try to presume "order of production codes = order of intended broadcast", so airdate should always be the default. --Masem (t) 19:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Coincidentally, I will note that broadcast sitcoms like American Housewife or Young Sheldon tend to air in production code order, but that appears to be because there's more story to them compared to other series. Still, on other networks, with the exception of some episodes, like the premiere or finale, episodes for sitcoms are meant to be watched any in any order while still being able to understand the premise of the series. In other words, they are each standalone episodes. If you have an episode in a series where, say, a baby is born, episodes can still air out of the production order, as long as the episodes produced before the baby is born all air before the baby episode—in whatever order—and episodes produced after the baby is born air after the baby episode—in whatever order. So if you have 20 episodes and the baby is born in episode 11, you could have an airing order like this: 101, 106, 109, 102, 110, 108, 103, 105, 107, 104, 111, 116, 119, 114, 112, 115, 113, 120, 118, 117. Amaury • 19:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Columns and verbiage can be added to explain other orderings. An extreme case of this would be List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes, where the original series was broadcast in an intentionally scrambled order for the Pulp Fiction effect, and there are columns that try to reorganize it by home media order and chronological order. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and nothing prevents anyone from including other episode (order) listings in other sections of the article – something like this was actually done at Transporter: The Series, because the first season episodes were aired in a different order in virtually every country it was broadcast in! And, again, no one is saying that other sections of the article can't explain things like weird episode airing orders in the prose. But for the episode table itself, listing the episodes out of airing order is something that should only be done in very rare exceptional cases and only when there is strong consensus at that specific article to do so. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That is definitely one of the crazier examples I've seen, but I still have to ask - why is airdate order used as the default? Considering WP:Readers first, I can't imagine a reader would expect or even desire to see the list presented in airdate order - and if someone really wants to see it in airdate order, they can just sort by that column. What order do most recent sources present for this series? Why aren't we matching Funimation's ordering from their own streaming service? Certainly, -that- order is probably how most English Wikipedia readers would expect this list to be, right? -- Netoholic @ 20:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Why wouldn't readers expect the episodes to be listed in the order that they aired? Most readers know nothing about production codes and production order. The various TV guides list the episodes in the date that they are scheduled to air before they air, not in production order. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For the majority of shows the air-date order of the country of origin would be sufficient however there are notable examples like some mentioned above that benefit from organization based on production order (sourced of course.) In my option it really is a case by case basis. For example Degrassi: The Next Generation is a Canadian teen drama series that originally started out on CTV however the American network The N was a co-partner in this show. Both networks early in this show's run aired episodes out of production order. The N for example aired the two part episode Mother and Child Reunion from season one out of order as the season finale while in its original Canadian broadcast and in the production order it is the series premiere.

The N also held the last produced episode of season one and the Canadian season finale, Jagged Little Pill, over to air as part of season two along with the third produced episode of season two in an edited form. CTV aired two episodes of season two out of production order while The N aired the seventh, eighth and twentieth produced episodes of season two as a 90 minute special during the second half of the American run of the second season. This kind of scheduling happened for many years and in the sixth season resulted in The N airing episodes before CTV. It seems the editors of these articles organized all the episode lists based on their production order as presented from the home video releases in order to rectify the differences between the two countries broadcast patterns. For this particular show listing the episodes in their production order actually is a benefit to the reader and the clearest way to present the available information. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 04:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

In the case of this series, I'm actually surprised anyone cares! – Degrassi: TNG was an entirely "plot-driven" show, not a "character-driven" one, and events from one episode to the next are almost completely unrelated to one another. IOW, you can virtually watch Degrassi episodes in any order, and it generally makes very little difference! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Totally agree, which is why I said above that production codes should have no bearing at all in this - they can be as inaccurate for ordering as airdates. But there exist plenty of sources for episode numbers and ordering (PRIMARY to home media releases, listed order on streaming services, reviews, etc.). All it takes is for us to use the same sourcing rules we do for everything else when determining how episodes are numbered and ordered in the list. This is a WP:Verifiability issue, and is exactly this easy to do. -- Netoholic @ 06:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

And there is no reason the different episode order can't be noted in the 'Home media' section. But for the episode table itself, ordering by air dates is the obvious benchmark (and can generally be verified by sourcing – e.g. TV Guide, The Futon Critic). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

But they often haven't been sourced to any of those, and that's a mistake that violates the core policy of WP:V. This MOS should be updated to actively require a source for episode ordering. When none is available, such as a show which is currently airing, then we need to specifically inform readers that the episode numbers are assigned based on airdate. To accomplish this would be trivial - a simple update to {{Episode table}} such that if {{{overallR}}} is blank, that it produces a note on the page something like "The episode number order below is based on the original airdate." And as soon as sources are available for an episode order (such as a PRIMARY home media release), then we can fill out {{{overallR}}} and change the assigned episode numbers and order accordingly. -- Netoholic @ 15:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly – the MOS needs to make clear that air dates need to be sourced (they aren't covered under WP:PRIMARY): the "episode numbering" would flow directly from that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Episode number is a not an arbitrary, inconsequential thing. It is just as important and intrinsic to each episode as the title, writer, director, etc. and important to communicate accurately and with sources to the reader. They are part of TV listings/EPGs, they are used on home media releases, streaming services, and even online pirates are diligent about accurate "3×05" or "s3e05" notation. Episode numbers should be based on sources - not assigned by Wikipedia editors. -- Netoholic @ 16:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Which is exactly what's being done, despite your claims to the contrary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, if we're in agreement that all the information in the episode listing should be reliably sourced, I've made that change. -- Netoholic @ 17:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

New wording in the MOS, re: Sourcing episode tables

I've had to revert your change. The issue is your wording – writers and directors are always covered under WP:PRIMARY, as they are always in the credits, and do not require secondary sourcing. Episode titles and prod. codes are sometimes in the credits, and sometimes not – I agree that these need to be sourced when they're not in the credits, but they don't need to be sourced when they are in the credits, as per WP:PRIMARY. Overall episode numbers don't need to be sourced, as we've all explained, because counting broadcast episodes is a straight WP:CALC situation. Now air dates and viewership numbers always need to be sourced to a secondary source, because they are never covered under WP:PRIMARY (unless an episode's title is its airdate, and that would likely only happen with news programming, and almost never even then). So you can't just add your change to the MOS because it doesn't cover the nuances of this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: My edit retained the "reliably sourced" phrase from the prior versions - not mentioning anything about PRIMARY/SECONDARY. I believe that the episode itself (and its credits) are often considered WP:RSPRIMARY... but of course if available, SECONDARY is always better. So my edit in respect to your concern has changed nothing - writers/directors and anything else appearing in the credits can be reliably sourced as PRIMARY. If you want to add wording about PRIMARY/SECONDARY to that section, that'd be new material you'd have to propose. -- Netoholic @ 04:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a larger conversation. Look, personally, I think it would be a good idea if {{Episode table}} added automatic "sourcing" to the writers and directors column (and optionally to the episode title and prod. code columns) that said something like "Sourced to the specific episode's credits." IOW, I think it would be good if there was a source in nearly every episode table column. But your wording seemed to imply that editors were going to have to look up secondary sources for everything. Again, I would approve of wording that made it clear that certain things require secondary sourcing. But there likely needs to be a broader discussion on the exact wording for that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The word "secondary" was nowhere in my edit, so you cannot say my wording implied any such thing. Perhaps what you should instead suggest is adding a restatement of the core line of WP:RSPRIMARY: Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. -- Netoholic @ 05:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That wording would not be fine. A statement that air dates and viewership numbers require secondary sourcing is fine. So, something like, "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources will be required for certain information such as air dates and viewership numbers." But like I said, the wording requires a consensus of all of us. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: We've already had a really long conversation here, so the consensus process should move forward and progress through edit iteration - rather than your full reverts (now twice) that I've shown CLEARLY are based on the flawed accusation that my wording implies forced secondary source for everything. Can you PLEASE acknowledge my edit did not include the word "secondary" at all, and retract that accusation? I am totally fine if you want to propose an additional line about primary/secondary. I'll even work with you on it, but for the sake of both of us stop edit warring via full reverts. How about using this: Information available in the credits (writers, directors, etc,) can be used, but secondary sources that present the same material are preferred (see WP:RSPRIMARY). Just self-revert and add that and we're probably close to done and can tweak as we go. Let's preserve what we can agree on so we're not distracted when talking about what still needs discussion. -- Netoholic @ 05:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't support that wording because again it implies that people should go hunt up secondary sourcing for writer and directors when generally there won't be secondary sourcing for this info. Again – the wording should be clear that certain things require secondary sourcing, not that we should be forcing editors to try and find secondary sourcing even for things that are clearly covered under WP:PRIMARY... Also, the discussion before this point was not about wording – it was discussing what should be the primary basis for ordering episodes (with the consensus seeming to be pretty firm that it should be based on broadcast order, except in a few exceptional cases which are supported by ample secondary source coverage of the situation (e.g. Firefly). It's only recently that the conversation has turned to new wording in the MOS – I'm going to section this part off. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: You're speaking nonsense. We should always be encouraging people to find secondary sources... that's what WP:RSPRIMARY tells us and that applies across the project. At worst, this wording is nothing more than a gentle nudge in that direction - it is certainly not a direct demand upon editors. -- Netoholic @ 07:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've incorporated the feedback in this edit. -- Netoholic @ 12:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed wording for episode ordering

Getting back to the original request, there seems to be broad agreement that internal production codes should not be used for default episode ordering. I would propose the addition of this instruction to the section: Episodes should be numbered and ordered by original airdate, unless reliable sources, weighted in favor of most recent, describe a different episode numbering/order - for example, when episodes had been preempted or rescheduled by the network, but later corrected on a home media release or streaming service. -- Netoholic @ 17:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've got to oppose this change. Episodes should always be ordered by airing date, except in those rare cases where there is a clear consensus at a TV series article to not do this – but these will be very rare, exceptional cases, and MOS's really can't cover these really rare scenarios. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per IJBall. Amaury • 06:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall and Amaury: - this really wasn't an RfC or a vote. How about you post your suggested wordings to address the concerns raised in the main discussion? Pinging the participants in the original discussion above to also make their wording suggestions or get feedback on my proposed wording - @Nahald, Alex 21, Bignole, Wikipedical, AussieLegend, YoungForever, AngusWOOF, Masem, and Alucard 16:. Perhaps we can come to a consensus, or maybe we'll have to provide a few options to choose from that will go into a formal RfC. Overall, I think we do benefit from adding some brief guidance on numbering/ordering episodes in the list, and basing it on the most recent sources would seem to be the way to go to ensure WP:Verfiability. -- Netoholic @ 07:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Jesus Christ this escalated quickly, here I was thinking I'd be lucky to get three replies to this. Anyway, I think air date should take priority save for very specific instances such as a program scheduling error, and even then it should only be for serialized shows in which viewing episodes out of a certain order would affect the viewers' understanding of the story in some way or another. Continuity should definitely take priority, but only in television series that are heavily serialized. Otherwise, airdate should always take priority and production order shouldn't even enter into the conversation at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahald (talk • contribs) 02:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Guidelines about the narrator

Is appropriate to add the narrator as part of the Cast and Characters section in bulleted list form? The narrator is only credited as "Narrated by: Name". They are not credited as part of the main cast nor the (guest starring) recurring cast. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of where this is being done? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Love Life, Lesley Manville is only as credited as Narrated by: Lesley Manville. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That show's new, so it will need to be seen if Manville narrates every episode, but if she does, that's easy – at the bottom of the Main (Cast) section, you simply add a sentence: "The series is narrated by Lesley Manville." Also there's a narrated parameter for the infobox which would be appropriate in this case. Problem solved. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I can only confirmed that she has narrated the 6 episodes that have been released and we know if she narrates the season when the rest episodes release next Thursday. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd probably wait until Thursday then. But even if she narrates, say, 8 out of 10 episodes, I'd still suggest my solution as the way forward... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree with IJBall's suggestion of using the infobox parameter and then putting a prose sentence regarding Manville. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I know some TV series actually credit the narrator as part of the starring cast or the recurring cast which would be on the bulleted list form on the Cast and characters section. But, this isn't the case here. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I can think of Young Sheldon in which Jim Parsons is part of the opening credits and acts as the narrator of the series. In that instance, Parsons is in the infobox under both cast and narrator, and is bulleted in the cast section because he is in the opening credits. But as said, in this case for Love Life, use the narrator field and include as a non-bullet statement in the cast section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Update: It is now confirmed that she narrated the whole season, but wasn't credited as part of the main cast nor the (guest starring) recurring cast. However, when I added in unbulleted prose, another editor quickly reverted saying it is better to be in bulleted list form in the recuring subsection. I am starting a discussion there. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going give a similar answer as I did when LaMonica Garrett came up at Batwoman – if the narrator is a consistent part of the series then they should be included in the 'Cast' section, but should not be included in the "bulleted list" of cast, but should be included instead in "paragraph form" either at the top of the (Main) Cast section or at the bottom (as we did with LaMonica Garrett at Batwoman). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Note: I notice they've come up with another possible solution at The Wonder Years (which, BTW, is an article that's a MOS:TV mess if someone wants to fix the section ordering, etc.!) – The Wonder Years' solution will work when the narrator is a "future version" of one of the TV series' existing characters. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed the section order at least... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Love Life (American TV series)#About the narrator

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Love Life (American TV series)#About the narrator. This discussion is about where and how to include the narrator in the particular TV series. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Lenox Hill (TV series)#Yet to release episode with reliable source

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lenox Hill (TV series)#Yet to release episode with reliable source. Since when did including episode titles, release dates, and etc. on episode table when it is reliably sourced is considered to be WP:CRYSTAL? Editors are needed to weigh in on this. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Inspired by parameter

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Inspired by parameter. This is a proposal to add a parameter to the Infoxbox television template. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Update: Since no one seemed to object the inclusion of |inspired_by= , it is now an optional parameter on the Template:Infobox television. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Television splitting into individual episode articles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Television splitting into individual episode articles. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like people are responding there, but this page already addresses when to split articles. It's pretty clear in most situations.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: On determining series end dates

Normally, when a series is cancelled or ended, we list the end date as when the final episode was aired/released. But sometimes, a show is taken off the air with no word as to whether it has been renewed or canceled; under current practices, we presume a series to have ended if no new episodes have aired in over a year and it has not been officially renewed. The end date is listed in the infobox and the page is added to the appropriate subcategory of Category:Television series endings by year, but we do not list it on a (YEAR) in (COUNTRY) television page. (This is not currently mentioned in the MOS. I can't find where the consensus for this rule was decided.)

The Amazing World of Gumball last aired a new episode on June 24, 2019 and has not been renewed, so it satisfies the "presumed ending" criteria. (The spinoff miniseries, Darwin's Yearbook, aired later, but it doesn't count.) However, various users (including myself) have objected to this because the series has also not been confirmed to be canceled. It didn't help that the matter was already controversial from the day the possible finale was announced. Conflict over Gumball's status is the main reason why the show's article was protected today.

In light of the applicable policies/guidelines, should a series be presumed ended if no new episodes have aired in the past year? If so, which pages should list this presumed end date? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason you went straight to RfC on this instead of opening a normal discussion first? It doesn't seem that you have followed WP:RFCBEFORE. RfCs should not be the first step and the RfC question should be neutral and brief. This is neither and no useable outcome is likely. In any case, the guideline on using |last_aired= is in the infobox documentation. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed – there should not be a formal RfC on something like this until previous discussions have shown that WP:CCC... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: Please see Template_talk:Infobox_television/Archive_6#Proposal_to_change_last_aired_parameter_instructions. The chief rationale was that networks never announce children's series as cancelled, and it seems stupid to have shows listed as "present" in perpetuity, which is possible for any show where the fate is unclear. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I was concerned about WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Is this convention supported by reliable sources? I couldn't mention that without upsetting the neutrality of the RfC. Either way, the rules for this should be mentioned in MOS:TV. Can I get this closed? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If you're wanting to get the RFC closed, you can simply remove the {{rfc}} tag per WP:RFCEND. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Image for main articles of television series

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Image for main articles of television series. Need some pairs of eyes to watch several articles to do repetitive disruptive edits by an editor — YoungForever^(talk) 23:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TVIMAGE conflicts with WP:NFCC

Hi. I'm concerned that the MOS:TVIMAGE guideline purports to override the WP:NFCC policy. Among other things, the third bullet point of MOS:TVIMAGE seems to imply that an "episode-specific title card or home media cover" may be used without regard to WP:NFCC, whereas "a screenshot of a significant moment or element from the episode" must comply with WP:NFCC. However, per the WP:NFCC policy, "all copyrighted images... that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the [WP:NFCCP] are met." How should we clarify this? --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree that the current wording implies that, especially since the section includes clear links to the non-free use rationale for title cards and home media covers. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Sure, but "if a promotional poster or image exists then it may be used" sounds pretty general (to the point that, if unqualified, it could be interpreted as overriding WP:NFCC). Indeed, Levivich interpreted it that way at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 16#Multiple Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episode posters. Such a blanket statement is unsupported by policy. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

None those non-free posters related to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. are being used on their respective pages (except for this one), ¿why haven't they been deleted? El Millo (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

They were deleted. They've just been restored (quite incorrectly IMO) at DRV. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think using the episode poster in the episode article meets NFCC 8 (and the others). I just don't see the contradiction. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think there's a difference. Posters for individual episodes aren't nearly as recognizable to common audiences as film and TV seasons posters are. These images don't really add anything to the episode articles, they don't serve as "primary means of representation". El Millo (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily primary means of representation, but in some cases they could be. It's hard to paint all posters with the same broad brush :-) Even if not the primary means of representation, they could be used to illustrate the "marketing" section of an article, if there is one. As between using a title card, a screenshot, or a poster, as the lead image on an episode article, I think, depending on the particular article, there may be editorial reasons to pick one over the other. But, I think any of the three could be used in compliance with NFCC, for the four enumerated reasons in my comments below. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't paint all posters with the same broad brush, I was referring specifically to posters of articles on individual TV episodes. El Millo (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: How does File:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Secret Warriors poster.jpg, for example, "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"? It doesn't. Most of the posters are just nice artwork. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It's no different than any other picture that represents a film. In the same way that a movie poster tell you something about the movie, a TV show poster tells you something about the TV show, and a TV show episode poster tells you something about the episode. For example, the "Secret Warriors poster" uses black and red, which sets a certain mood. The seal is metallic and industrial, it looks military, i.e., "warriors". And it's got the logo cut-out, so it's partly-revealed, i.e. "secret". The whole suggests a hatch that has been containing, well, secret warriors, and as the text above it says, this episode is about calling them in. At a glance, the reader gets an idea of what the episode is about, and a "feel" for the episode, which you can't really replicate with a written description of the plot.

Compare that to other episode posters: File:Agents of SHILED Who You Really Are.jpeg tells us which character is starring in this episode (Sif). She's holding a sword so she's probably fighting someone. Another character is seen in the logo, which is crumbling. As the article, Who You Really Are explains, "For "Who You Really Are", the producers enlisted Marcos Martín to create the poster, which highlighted Sif's return to the show, as well as an "inside look" at S.H.I.E.L.D. as the logo crumbles, with Skye in the center of it, ambiguously leaving the viewer questioning if the logo was crumbling due to Sif's sword, or Skye's powers." If we don't show the poster to the reader, they don't get that meaning or understanding. The written words are not a sufficient substitute. A written description of a picture is never a sufficient substitute.

File:Agents of SHIELD One of Us.jpeg, meanwhile, is completely different from the others. The dark colors, the depiction of one character, gun drawn, surrounded by villains. Another character looming above, in front of an eagle. This, too, is mentioned in One of Us (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.).

On an entirely different level, the posters show the reader what posters were used to market these episodes. It's no different than showing the reader an example of a Coca-Cola magazine ad in an article discussing the marketing of Coca-Cola.

When we're writing an article about an artistic work, we want to have a visual depiction of that work. The book cover, the album cover, the film poster... the episode poster, whatever. It's just... an encyclopedia should be illustrated, because illustrations add to reader understanding. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. You've perfectly shown above how you can use one of the posters with critical commentary (the Sif one). But then you look at The Team (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), and that image is pointless (and has no critical commentary). Others (i.e. The Dirty Half Dozen, One of Us (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)) are simply drawings of the characters who appear in the episode. I think some of these are getting a bit of a free pass because there are sources about the artwork. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that's true, some are definitely more justifiable than others. But I think all of them, like every episode or movie poster, are justified as (1) illustrations of the topic and (2) examples of the marketing of the topic, even if they're not justified as (3) works of art subject to artistic commentary. Plus, there's another factor, which is (4) they are publicity materials. The copyright holders are definitely not going to object to fair use of their publicity materials to illustrate articles about their products. I don't believe film posters violate the letter or the spirit of NFCC. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Listing episodes to support Emmy nominations

With Emmy nominations recently being released, actors and studios are currently submitting episodes to support their nominations in various categories. However, I think it is worth discussing whether those details should be included. This may have been addressed elsewhere — if so, please point me in the right direction — but I can't find it, so I'm including it here.

To explain: Many categories include specific episodes for the nominations. For instance, Modern Family received a nomination for Outstanding Directing for a Comedy Series specifically for the episode "Finale, Part 2". For these categories, I see no reason to exclude the specific episodes receiving the nominations in Wikipedia articles and lists. However, for lead acting, supporting acting, and overall series nominations, the nominations are listed without any specific episodes attached, and actors and studios get to choose the episode(s) they submit to voters after the nominations are released. These submissions are not listed anywhere on the Television Academy's website but are found elsewhere (i.e. on Gold Derby). Therefore, should this information be included?

Currently, I lean towards no. I know that people may disagree with me — people are already including the submitted episodes for this year's Emmys — but I think there are three reasons to consider this. First, unlike the other categories, the lead acting, supporting acting, and overall series nominations are supposed to represent the overall body of work. The submitted episodes may help voters make their decisions, but it is ridiculous to assume that is the only thing they use to choose their votes. Second, since the Television Academy does not openly reveal which episodes are submitted for these categories, it would seem that this information is not supposed to matter to the general public. Third, since all of the submissions are listed only by third-party sources, there is no way to rigorously verify their validity.

If this information is to be included, I think there should at least be better sourcing of the information; since the Television Academy does not include that information, it would need to have additional sources in beyond the link to the Television Academy's list of winners. (For example, in the article 71st Primetime Emmy Awards, source 18 would not suffice as the source for every nominee and winner as it currently does.) However, I would appreciate hearing what other people have to say on the matter. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) § Season naming convention (continued)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) § Season naming convention (continued). -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Lovecraft Country (TV series) § Production codes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lovecraft Country (TV series) § Production codes. This discussion is about production codes from end credits. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Editors are still needed. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Live PD: Roll Call § RFC on tables in the article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Live PD: Roll Call § RFC on tables in the article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Warrior Nun (TV series) § Positive reviews

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Warrior Nun (TV series) § Positive reviews. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars posters

Hey, just wondering what should be done about the poster images on the articles for the most recent seasons of Dancing with the Stars. This would be regarding:

• Dwts athletes.jpg
• DWTS Season 27.jpg
• DWTS Season 28 poster.jpg
• DWTS29Poster.jpg

I'm not the best regarding images and the info listed on the image pages, which is why I'm asking this here. The user in question, Sharkman720, uploaded all of these images claiming they are the copyright holder of the work, which they are clearly not- especially given the fact that the 'source' listed on some of them are something along the lines of, "i found it on google". The most recent image from today for season 29 also says it was obtained from a fan-run Wiki, which should definitely not be where we get images from (unless that's fine on Wikipedia...?) Either way, that image is currently listed on the ABC website here. Any help is appreciated with fixing these issues/images, thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ratched (TV series) § Production codes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ratched (TV series) § Production codes. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The Great British Bake Off series overview table: wikicode vs. template

For those interested, at The Great British Bake Off, a recent revert over the series overview table has restored a raw wikicode format over the standardized templated format. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Plot section: incomplete or complete - teaser or summary

As I understand it, our section (at MOS:TVPLOT) blithely assumes it is discussing a complete summary, including plot resolutions, with no fear of spoilery context.

But this just isn't true in practice. We have many many articles that only present the barest of introductions - basically the premise of the show, but few or no developments once the show is underway. Basically, a teaser - "watch the show to find out what happens". (Sometimes it's out of concern for spoilers, but as we all know: WP:SPOILER) In some cases, this is temporary until a concerned Wikipedian comes by to fill out what happens at the end. In other cases, no such effort ever happens and the section (semi)permanently is good mostly for answering questions like "what is this show about?" and "would I be interested in this show?" but not questions like "what is a complete summary of events during the show" or "how does it end?".

Yet, our Manual of Style provides no advice on how to approach and handle this difference, because it doesn't seem aware the section might be incomplete. I would argue "Plot" sections and "Premise" sections serve distinctly different purposes. We would do well in having our MOS:TVPLOT discuss both. A concrete suggestion:

We currently say In addition to "Plot", other appropriate headings for this section may be "Premise", "Synopsis", or "Overview" but I suggest we clarify that a section containing only a short intro should never be allowed to carry a section title such as "Plot". When the section only describes the initial idea the show is based on, use "Premise". Then, when the whole show is adequately covered (including any relevant revelations at the end), an editor may change the section title to "Plot".

CapnZapp (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, that just sounds like common sense. I don't know if it needs to be specifically called out here. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

"Upcoming redirects" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Upcoming redirects. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 9#Upcoming redirects until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"Template:Netflix original ended series" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Netflix original ended series. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 25#Template:Netflix original ended series until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Editors are still needed to weigh in on this. It was relisted twice already. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TVCAST

Do we think this section is clear enough that you should not have both a 'Cast' section and a 'Characters' section in the same article?

Because I see far too many articles with both, like Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!, especially in the suite of animated TV series articles. I'd really like it clear(er) that these animation articles need to generally eliminate their separate 'Cast' sections, and just leave the 'Characters' sections... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. It begins with Generally, information about cast and characters should be presented in one of two ways: [...] Cast list [...] Characters list (emphasis mine). I'd support the immediate removal of that article's cast list. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TVCAST means no last names?

Currently in a debate with two other editors on the Big City Greens page regarding the cast listing. I and other editors have attempted to add the last names for a small handful of characters, but have been repeatedly reverted by these editors because only their first names are listed in the credits, despite their surnames being frequently used in the show's dialogue. I even added a citation for an episode where the characters directly acknowledge and discuss one of their surnames, but was still reverted. It feels like a "letter of the law vs. spirit of the law" argument, and I'd like to get some insight on this. I won't deny the article could use a fair amount of work, but this feels like a weird hill to die on. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Generally, you list characters based on their credit. When you start adding additional in-universe details like that you open the door to "well what about this, and what about that". Next thing you know, you have character sections written from the perspective that the character is real, as opposed to fictional. Now, I cannot speak for that show in question, merely providing a generalist viewpoint regarding the issue you bring up. What then stops articles from being "Clark Joseph Kent" for Smallville, and "Jonathan "Johnny" Quest"? That is neither their common name, nor the credited name the actor is getting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's a slippery slope and detail can get excessive (I haven't added confirmed middle names, for example, for that very reason), but first and last name seems like the kind of base-level detail that should be standardized. For example, there's a character named Chip Whistler in the show. He constantly refers to himself as "Chip Whistler", other characters refer to him as "Chip Whistler", and the credits list his father as "Mr. Whistler". But the credits only list him as "Chip", despite his last name being used roughly five times an episode. So should the page only list him as "Chip" despite his surname being well-established by the show? At what point does "credited name" become a hindrance rather than a helpful guideline? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

First, why are you starting this discussion here and not at Talk:Big City Greens? Second, no there is no "wiggle room" here – names as per credits is in there so editors don't add "any old name they think should go there", but instead we rely on the show's own credits to determine character names, as per WP:PRIMARY. All that said, the specific situation in Big City Greens is actually complicated because the beginning and end credits differ – if you want to have that discussion, then please take it to Talk:Big City Greens. But the way the 'Main' cast section of that article is currently set up makes it perfectly clear that their name is "Green" – I have no idea why so many editors have a problem with this! Apparently they don't bother to read the whole section! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, and now I see – your removed the intro text from that section with your latest revert. I will restore it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

A, I removed that text because it was easier to just add Green to the end of their names than to add an entire sentence saying they're the main characters and their last name is Green, which is unnecessarily convoluted. B, this is more about recurring characters like Remy whose surnames are well-established but not listed in the credits. C, I asked here to get a more official concensus and to potentially establish a precedent going forward for incidents like this. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The producers get to decide how Remy is credited – they've gone with just Remy. You putting in the surname in is effectively WP:OR – elevating your own opinion above the people who create the show. That is a no-no. And there already is a consensus – the guideline. Which you are trying to ignore. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I would point out that isn't original research to put the surname in. That's verifiable. I think the catch is that it implies to a reader that it is the credited name for the actor in the role, which may not be the case. It's certainly worth having a discussion about as a whole on this page (probably a separate section to discuss the wording in the guideline overall). It technically says "credited name or common name supported by a reliable source". In certain situations, one could argue that the first and last name of a character is their "common name" if sources support that. That may be a way of keeping in line with the MOS, while also having a first and last name listed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bignole: This is kind of how I look at it. If the credited name is Andrew Jackson as John, but we have a reliable source saying Andrew Jackson as John Smith, we can list Smith and source it to whatever the source is. Also, there is a caveat, especially when it comes to live-action series. While live-action series generally show who their guest stars portray, when it comes to the main cast names in the opening sequence, it only shows us the actor names and not their character names as well. So in the absence of both a credited name and a reliable source stating what their name is, I guess we then default to the common name, which in most cases, we just list the first name. Amaury • 01:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It's actually pretty clear, which is why the guideline is worded that way – basically it's saying, "you go with the credited name, or you need to show that the credited name isn't the common name by citing sources". That's pretty much the gist. (It's also worded that way because plenty of TV shows don't actually include credited names for their main cast, and with some shows not even for their "guest cast", so in those cases you pretty much are forced to use other sourcing to establish the common name.) But the bottom line is, you need a pretty good reason to deviate from the credited name, and "because the full name is stated in a couple of episodes" doesn't cut it (and, yes, I would argue the latter actually is WP:OR, in the same way that "counting" episode credits is). That kind of malarkey is what leads to the kind of situation that Cyphoidbomb indicates below. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:TVCAST, All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I would hope the community might refine the character name guidelines a bit, largely because I've been witnessing pure insanity in this area in the last few years. Some big issues I see are editors over-focussed with every permutation of a character's name, "maiden name", nickname, alias, impostor character, etc. And all of this is usually separated by slashes, which just gets stupid. This is a real world example of one that I've seen: Giaa Manek/Rubina Dilaik as Jeannie/Jenu/Chutki/Gita/Mitram/ Rajjo Ji/Jwala/Roopa/Mrs.Khanna (2012−2013)/(2013−2014) I defy anyone to tell me what all that means! Also, a character might grow over the course of a series, and it would be helpful to have guidelines that indicate how we should treat that. A character might start the series as Jane Doe, but then might become a doctor, might get married, might get divorced and remarried, etc. Dr. Jane Rasmussen (nee Doe, intermediately Smith)? No, that's stupid. Anyway, this is a common issue from my perspective. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not TRYING to add on excessive titles or alternate names or nicknames or anything like that. First name, last name. Two words. The same name they have had (and likely will have) for the whole series. That's it. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This is pretty much exactly why All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. is in the MOS:TVCAST guideline. MOS:TVCAST empowers you to remove this kind of nonsense – if it's not credited, and it's not supported by a reliable secondary source, it can be cut! What you are showing here is the kind of thing that belongs at the Wikia, not here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• If their full name (first and last name) is the COMMONNAME and it's supported by reliable sources, then it should be perfectly fine to include the last name in accordance with TVCAST. El Millo (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The key word there is "sources". One source doesn't cut it – you kind of need to show the preponderance of WP:RSs use that version of character's name to establish that it's the WP:COMMONNAME. (And, FTR, I'm not sure that "Cosmo Kramer" actually meets that burden.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: It depends on the source, I think. For example, the Walt Disney Television Press site, which we often use as the only source to source names—last names in particular—for the Disney networks like ABC and Freeform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaury (talk • contribs) 01:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, yeah, because in that case, something like the official website for the TV show is being used as a "stand-in" for the show's credits (if the credits don't list character names). But I'm thinking about TV shows, pre-internet. For example, is the WP:COMMONNAME "Magnum" or "Thomas Magnum" for the 1980s TV series?! Well, I'm not sure! – So, in a case like this, you'd have to check the sources, and see what most of them say. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

See RfC on changing DEADNAME on crediting individuals for previously released works

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works
This potentially would affect a significant number of articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) § Wear Your Magazine quote

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) § Wear Your Magazine quote. Editors are needed to weigh in on this discussion as well the discussion below it. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

New Guideline Regarding U.S. Broadcast TV Ratings and Households Vs. Viewers

I want to propose a new guideline. It's about U.S. broadcast TV ratings, and whether household ratings and viewership figures should be used.

We've had a user named TVBuff90 who, int he mid-2010s, changed the ratings figures on all the post-1997 U.S. broadcast primetime TV schedules from viewers to households, and adding/altering the series overview tables on their list of post-1997 TV shows' episodes to only include household ratings. And in both processes, he erases sourced non-top-30 rankings of shows. Previously, household ratings applied to pre-1997 TV seasons, and their corresponding primetime schedules up to that point, and viewers applied to post-1997 seasons and schedules. The household-figures info (both pre- and post-1997) came from Tim Brooks and his "Complete Directories of Primetime Network TV Shows". Some of the viewership figures that TVBuff90 erased might have had reliable sources other than those "Complete Directories", and i'm not sure what excuses TVBuff90 had in committing such alterations. For the reasons I've previously stated, those changes by TVBuff90 were needless. Between June and August of 2020, I've had talks with TVBuff90 (on his talkpage), and then with Heartfox and IJBall (on the WikiProject Television talk page). During our discussion at WP:TV, Heartfox said that household ratings were declining in the 21st century and were rarely reported to the media, and therefore were considered irrelevant, and Tim Brooks was the only one reporting such figures. Heartfox also stated that the average reader doesn't know what in the world "Rating" means, especially when there's no wikilink or source provided for those [post-1997 household] figures, and they shouldn't have to read the entire Nielsen ratings article to understand what the "Rating" column means. The justification for going with viewers after 1997 instead of households is because households are simply outdated, and the top-rated/most-watched show on U.S. broadcast TV can barely get a household rating of above a 10. For example, in 1996-97, the top-rated/most-watched show in the United States was ER (21.2 household rating, 30-79 million viewers); in 1997-98, it was Seinfeld (22.0 households, 34.9 million); and in 1998-99, it was again ER (17.8 households, 25.4 million).

Now, because of TVBuff90's damage, I'm going to be stuck changing all the ratings figures on those post-1997 U.S. broadcast TV schedules back to viewers. Jim856796 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

To be blunt, this is too long and a bit vague. Per WP:RFCOPEN, the RfC statement should be "a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" and what you have written fails that. If you want to start an RfC then you should have already discussed the problem you perceive here so that others can get some background. Pointing to discussions on other pages really doesn't help anyone coming to the RfC, especially when what you're proposing isn't clear. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I have read what you wrote above and still don't know what you are actually proposing specifically. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Following on from what AussieLegend said, at over 2,700 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines (diff). The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: FWIW I arrived here via the Feedback request service. Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

What I'm proposing is a rule that, if the ratings figures on the post-1997 U.S. Broadcast TV schedules are already in viewers, please do not remove those viewership figures and replace them with household-ratings figures. (Household ratings for pre-1997 broadcast TV schedules and seasons are perfectly fine.) That goes for the individual shows' series overview tables on their own articles, too. And no "Tied With" columns on those tables, either, because they are unnecessary. Jim856796 (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't something that needs to be "written in" to MOS:TV – it's too narrow and specific. I do agree that it should be common practice to prefer "Total Viewers" ratings over "Household" ratings (when available). I advise just being bold, and doing this. If there is any pushback, head back to WT:TV and report that. I'm pretty sure that those of us in WP:TV would push back against any editor trying to replace Total Viewers ratings with "Household" ratings. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I don't know why this is such a big deal. I don't personally mind but this is really not something to send an email for... you could've just pinged. Heartfox (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Cast/character lists

The "Cast and characters information" section (MOS:TVCAST) appears to say that cast/character information should be presented as lists by default, and recommends using prose only "in some cases, such as unscripted programs with few cast members, or series where the cast frequently changes." This doesn't seem right. While lists are of course the default mode of presentation when developing new articles with limited information, surely the goal as articles are further developed would be to write the information out as proper prose? Few of the featured articles on television shows present the cast/characters as lists without accompanying prose. WP:MOSFILM, to compare, says, "A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways." Perhaps that should be the case for television as well. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't discourage prose information, and is really only referencing how to set up the basic display of the cast. There may very well be a casting section that talks entirely about the casting of actors and what went into that process (which may not be appropriate for the "Cast/Character" list itself on the main page, as that section is most often not part of the "Production" section. Most advanced TV articles have a separate character list page, thus what's on the parent page is frequently a basic list (basic being there is still some prose describing the characters) and possibly the overall casting process under Production.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It doesn't seem very clear from the guideline's current wording, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It may need to be more clearly written. I think the point was that you want a clear "list" to see who the characters/actors are, but you don't necessarily want a huge amount of prose between each name so that it looks like blocks of text (as opposed to actual paragraphs). That's generally why you separate it out to a "Casting" type section. For accessibility. Some film articles have moved to just having a casting section with a table of the cast list built into it and off to the side.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Magnum, P.I. § Requested move 10 December 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Magnum, P.I. § Requested move 10 December 2020. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Criteria for including actor awards?

Hey there I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. It raises the question of whether MOS:BIO should include clear criteria about what sort of awards to include in actor biographies. Please comment if you are interested! Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

FTR, I think MOS:TV's section on awards under 'Reception' should explicitly cite WP:FILMCRITICLIST – I didn't realize this existed before now, otherwise I would have mentioned this back when we had the previous discussions on revising the MOS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion should be of interest to many regulars here, so if you have opinions one way or the other, please comment. WP:FILMCRITICLIST from MOS:FILM tells editors that awards should not be added to articles unless notability has been established for the award, i.e. there is an existing article about that award. It is not clear as to whether or not this includes articles about actors as well, which is why the discussion was opened at WikiProject Biography. This potentially could result in minor changes to MOS:TV. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Question about MOS:TVCHARACTER

As per the Character article structure section, character names at those articles are bolded as per MOS:BOLDTITLE.

MOS:TVCHARACTER then says "Treat individual character sections within articles about programs as if they were mini-character articles and refer to the above style guidelines for assistance." This would seem to imply that character names should be bolded at LoC articles, as is done at articles like List of iCarly characters and List of CSI: Miami characters.

But this actually isn't justified (MOS:BOLDTITLE does not apply), and would seem to contradict WP:TVCAST – "In accordance with the guideline on boldface, actors and roles should not be bolded, nor should they be italicized." And I notice character names are generally unbolded at, say, List of Arrow characters.

So, which "bolding style" is correct, and if bolding is "incorrect", should we copyedit MOS:TVCHARACTER to make that clear? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Different types of content, or more specifically the intent is different. The bolding is usually a sign to a reader that they were searching on the character name and were redirected to the list of characters where that character is discussed. (This is in general how when searchable terms are redirected should be handled to be clear it is what the reader was searching on). But rarely the redirect goes to a cast list that would be part of a show's main page.

That said, if a show does not have a separate character list from the show's page, then whether to bold the list depends on whether the list is presented more as a straight up cast list with little character information, or if the cast list is a mini-list of characters as well, each character getting about ~paragraph of information about them. If it is more a cast list, then don't bold. If its more a mini-LOC, bolding could be appropriate if redirects are pointed there. --Masem (t) 06:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

That seems to be an inconsistent policy to me – so if you have a LoC article, and 2 or 3 of those names are redirect targets, the names should be bolded, but all of the other entries in the LoC articles (which are not redirect targets) should not be bolded?! (And even if they're redirect targets, we still would never bold the names in the 'Cast' list at the main TV series article.) Like I said – seems inconsistent. But even if this is how it's decided it should be done, then it definitely needs to be written in to MOS:TVCHARACTER. Because, right now, there are plenty of LoC articles in which all of the character names are bolded, and in most of those cases, there aren't redirects pointing to those names/sections! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The particular guideline of interest is MOS:BOLD

The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article in the lead section. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not. These applications of boldface are done in the majority of articles, but are not a requirement. It will not be helpful in a case where a large number of terms redirect to a single article, e.g. a plant species with dozens of vernacular names.

As well as MOS:BOLDREDIRECT:

To follow the "principle of least astonishment" after following a redirect, for terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the subjects of redirects to the article or section (for example, subtopics of the article's topic, rather than the synonyms as already boldfaced per the above)

--Izno (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, if we're going to go by this, MOS:TVCHARACTER needs to be made clear that this is then not an excuse to bold every name in a List of Characters article, only those names which have redirects pointing there. But, in practice, I am warning everybody that this is going to lead to problems, because novice (IP) editors are going to see a few names bolded at many LoC articles, and then assume that "all the names should be similarly bolded"... But, bottom line – MOS:TVCHARACTER needs to be made clear that character names should not be bolded as a matter of course, as they currently are at many LoC articles.

There is also a separate issue as to whether character articles and LoC articles should follow WP:BLP conventions, and list "full characters names", even if those names are effectively never used on the show (e.g. List of Arrow characters#Oliver Queen / Green Arrow starting with "Oliver Jonas Queen", a name as far as I know was either never even stated on the show itself, or stated at best once of twice), or whether the listed name there should be the "name per credits or WP:COMMONAME" (e.g. just "Oliver Queen" there in the first sentence), which is pretty much what WP:TVCAST says/requires. FTR, I don't think character articles should follow WP:BLP conventions on this at all. IIRC, this discussion has come up before, in wider venues, but I don't believe a consensus has ever been established on the question as to whether character articles should follow WP:BLP conventions or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless BLP has changed, it's always had the key word of LIVING in the name. Fictional characters are not living and we have always set the expectations that we do not treat them as living. I'm pretty sure that's always been the consensus as well. Whether there was a specific discussion back in the day, I know that it's always been the understanding in the 16 years that I've been on Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the point of this original thread: I think it should be in line with Boldface, and sections should not contain bolded names. I think that the idea behind that piece of guidance was more about it not being just another plot section and should contain real world information in the same vein as an actual article (but not being one because maybe it didn't meet the GNG).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Bolding character names underneath a sub-section dedicated to that character, is excessive bold face, IMO. I also tend to dislike bolded cast/character names in simple bulleted lists as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Unbold everywhere for stylistic reasons is my opinion. Looks terrible in bulleted lists, and not really necessary even if there's a paragraph or more about the character. It violates common sense that we would bold something if there's a redirect to it, but not if nobody has bothered to create one. (A character discussed on a LoC page should always be a suitable redirect target.) Change whichever guidelines are necessary to make this consistent. — Bilorv (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Bilorv: how about sections? If there's a whole section dedicated to a character, do you still think that looks bad? El Millo (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, I do. The section is already named after them, I presume. I'm less bothered by this one though. — Bilorv (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'm getting closer to proposing that a language clarification be made to MOS:TVCHARACTER along the lines of "Character names should not be bolded or italicized in character listings, in accordance with MOS:TVCAST." then, as it seems there is some consensus that names in LoC articles should generally not be bolded. I agree that bolding the name just because the section is a redirect target is rather nonsensical (though if it's decided that that should be done, then MOS:BOLDREDIRECT should be explicitly cited)... I'm also inclined to add something about the first sentence using the name "as per credits, or by common name supported by a reliable source", though maybe that's a bridge too far right now? – But I definitely think that something like List of Arrow characters#Oliver Queen / Green Arrow should say "Oliver Queen (portrayed by Stephen Amell; main: season 1–8) is a..." and not "Oliver Jonas Queen (portrayed by Stephen Amell; main: season 1–8) is a..." as it currently is, like this is some WP:BLP and using a "full name" that to the best of my knowledge was basically never even used in the TV series itself... So I guess what I am saying is, now is the time to object to the modification/clarification (at the top of this posting), or to suggest specific language to this modification. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's consensus to disallow bolding characters in LoC articles. At least not yet. I think they're useful if there's a whole section about them and they're a redirect to that section. Citing for example Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation), the sections on individual characters are treated as if they were mini-character articles, with their respective names in bold inicating that. The minor characters that are only included in the table are not in bold, even though their names redirect there, because they don't have an entire section dedicated to them. Same with the more important characters that have an article of their own, were they to have an individual section there, they shouldn't be bolded either. El Millo (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

As I suggested above, there's an easy contingency for that: "Character names should not be bolded or italicized in character listings, in accordance with MOS:TVCAST, unless it is the target of a redirect as per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT." But I think there is consensus for not bolding when MOS:BOLDREDIRECT doesn't apply. What's a more open question right now is whether there's support for ignoring MOS:BOLDREDIRECT as well in the case of LoC articles or not. Like I said above, I think maybe we should, because otherwise novice editors are going to see some names bolded and think that they should all be bolded. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If novice editors do that, we can revert them and direct them to the respective guideline. We should do what's correct, irrespective of whether novice editors will understand it at first glance or not. El Millo (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, have we come to a consensus here? If so, what is the consensus? I would like to know so we could update (or not) the iCarly sub-page accordingly. Prcc27 (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Season or series

Please see Talk:A Discovery of Witches (TV series), where I ask if we should "series" or "season". Debresser (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It's generally tied to the country of origin. In the US, we say "season", as "Series" means the show as a whole. In Europe, they say "series" instead of "season".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Bignole Then how do they call a series in Europe? Debresser (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It's just a "show" or "program" when referring to it as a whole. The reason they use "series" instead of "season" is because they don't measure things in "seasons". For instances, we might say a show starts "Fall 2021", but "Fall" doesn't have the same inference in Europe.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Bignole That is precisely the problem. Because the article is at "A Discovery of Witches (TV series)", so using the word "series" again for the individual seasons is very confusing. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It's only confusing to Americans. LOL (which I am, to be fair). You're getting into an argument about "American Wikipedia" vs. "English Wikipedia", and recognizing that "English Wikipedia" (which is what we are) covers every country that English is the primary language. That means you have articles that may use the words "color" or "colour", "season" or "series", etc. We go by the primary language of the country of origin for our articles. It's the only way to be fair. Some British people do refer to a TV series as a "series" and the seasons as "series". Instead of saying "The television series Smallville has 10 series", they would say "There are 10 series of the Smallville that have been broadcasted."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The technically correct British English would be to describe the whole thing as a ‘serial’ and the individual series of episodes as, well, the series. Whether or not this is confusing is up to the beholder; you might just as well argue that “series” is confusing for the whole lot, when there are big gaps between one batch of episodes and another, and “season” is confusing as their timing bears no relation to the time of year. MapReader (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It is actually confusing for all readers of Wikipedia, because the article is at "series" and the seasons are also called "series". This may be British/American-related, but the confusion is real, and should be avoided. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

So the solution, for articles confirmed as being written in British English, is to entitle them “Title (TV serial)” and then to refer in-article to the individual series of episodes as “series” MapReader (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Bignole. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have moved A Discovery of Witches back to its original (TV series) disambiguator, as there is no clear consensus at this discussion for a (TV serial) disambiguator (two editors commented on it and that was it), and it should be taken to a formal Requested Move. Per WP:NCTV, for the special case of episodic television known as "miniseries", when disambiguation is required, use: (miniseries) or (serial) according to common usage in reliable sources. I see nothing in this discussion conforming with this. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I take offense at this action. I made a bold move, inspired by this discussion, and I would be fine with a revert because of any serious objection, but only because I didn't go through some formal discussion? That is not a sufficient reason, not in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, nor is it acceptable on a project that is based on collegial, community editing. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It was a bold move, and it's been reverted, yes. Not just because there wasn't a formal discussion, but because there was no clear consensus despite editors' saying otherwise (two editors is not a consensus, nor is being "inspired"), and it goes against NCTV, as I've quoted. Will you be commenting upon the quote provided? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see Talk:A_Discovery_of_Witches_(TV_series)#Requested_move_30_December_2020. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Very good. I'll be moving all my further responses to the RM. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § List of Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt episodes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § List of Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt episodes. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

How much is too much information that may only interest particular audiences for articles

Though I have withdrawn my deletion nominations for ten Super Sentai programs, I'm wondering how much detail that may interest only a particular audience can be on Wikipedia as one of the oldest listed has been an issue described since October 2012. Also, if we were to start fresh on these articles if there anything salvageable that could interest a wider audience other than Super Sentai and Power Rangers fans and leave the further information to RangerWiki on Fandom, or are these articles just targeted to particular audiences with nothing to be done about it.

Below are a few of the articles featuring the issues described.

• Battle Fever J
• Kagaku Sentai Dynaman
• Hikari Sentai Maskman
• Chōjin Sentai Jetman
• Denji Sentai Megaranger
• Mirai Sentai Timeranger

Pahiy (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Relative status in infobox

Is it common for the character infobox to contain character status (alive/deceased) (love interest) about relatives and such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terasail (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Common and appropriate do not always go hand in hand. LOL. The infobox guideline has always been that in-universe information should be "essential to understanding the character". So, typically you shouldn't find family trees, relatives, etc. unless they are essential to understanding the character in question. For example, Pamela Voorhees would list Jason Voorhees, because he is essential to understanding her. Jason would not list Pamela, because she isn't essential to understanding him (he has vastly surpassed her in pop culture that most people don't know who she is). So, it's a matter of looking at it from that perspective. As far as "status" goes....I'm not sure how that would be appropriate in most situations since fictional characters cannot die. What would be the purpose of this information in an infobox without context attached to it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that status is not appropriate, echoing Bignole's comment about the literary present. Further, "status" for the character the infobox is for is, imo, inappropriate, just as it's inappropriate for relatives listed there. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Common practice around episode lists

WP:POLICY says that "policies and guidelines are pages that serve to document the good practices accepted in the Wikipedia community". I wanted to document the common practice of ordering episode lists by their air date. It's been a long time since I've seen anyone dispute this, but it's worth documenting to avoid the rare and frustrating dispute. We typically note out-of-sequence plot information (such as a Flashback or prequel) in the plot summary. I'm fairly sure this is a widely accepted practice and the only thing would be to find the appropriate wording. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. As the reverting editor, while I do agree the common practice is to use original air date to order episodes, I felt this is probably something best discussed to get wording that is agreed upon. Because for instance, there are situations where it might be beneficial to use production order of the episodes over air order (see Firefly (TV series), or in perhaps another situation where a network is just trying to kill off episodes and ends up airing things not as intended. So that wording is important, more so than what was included about flashbacks and prequels. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a rare issue, but I see how it's come up on a pretty notable series on a well written article. How would we describe that? Would it just be a simple matter of saying "production date" instead? Shooterwalker (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Production order" would suffice. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Want to take a shot at adding it? Or if no one else gets around to it, I'll re-add with the modified language, and we can sort it out through minor edits. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I still feel like other editors should weigh in on this before any implementation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with giving it some time. It's also encouraged to be WP:BOLD as that can trigger further discussion and editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the argument about writing in the use of production order over original airdate? There are a lot of times that shows produce episodes out of order, but it does not impact the overall show. I would be careful that we aren't placing undue weight on situations like Firefly, that are abnormal for the television world.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker, Bignole, and Favre1fan93: Well, if we really have to make a rule... (I don't believe everything has to have A Rule™, especially where there's reasonable expectation that editors will — appropriately and out of necessity — end up invoking the fifth pillar and deciding to IAR anyway. Firefly may be the most recognizable example of disputes around airing order, but it is far from the only case.)

But if there has to be a rule about it, I'd suggest a statement that episodes should be listed in their "viewing order". While very intentionally and deliberately letting the exact meaning of that remain somewhat vague. Then, follow that with a far less vague admonishment that specifically addresses what seems like the central concern here: under no circumstances should the plot descriptions or other details in a Wikipedia article be presented according to an in-universe chronology. Unless we're talking about a series like 24 (every rule has exceptions!), where the production explicitly followed the in-universe chronology. Then they're one and the same, so there's no other way we could present it. (...At least, that's how 24 supposedly worked in the beginning. Did they actually stick with that, for however-many seasons?)

Anyway, if I'm understanding the primary concern that drove Shooterwalker here originally, I think those issues can be satisfactorily quashed without unnecessarily constraining editors who are properly operating within the bounds of some appropriate real-world perspective — whatever form that may take. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I can accept any of these suggestions. "Production order", "publication order", "viewing order", or even some combination. "Episodes should be arranged by their order of production or publication (reflecting the order in which they were first viewed)." Could take or leave the bracketed part. We could also be more direct about how to handle the in-universe sequence. Mostly trying to build a consensus here. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Episodes should be listed in their original air date, and then if there is a reason that we need to point out that the order is different than intended then you do that with prose. When you put episodes into an order outside of their original air date, you end up confusing readers as to why they are not in order. Then you have to provide context (which you have to hope they go find that context on the page instead of getting into edit wars with you about how January 15 comes before January 22, etc. etc.). It makes the most sense that the order should remain air date, because that's the most verifiable thing. Then, you include a note (if you need to) or in a prose section below, that explains why they were filmed in a different order.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This was honestly my first thought and first attempt to summarize how we approach it. I'd be fine with giving preference to the order they are aired (with or without an exception for production order), and advising people to note any verifiable alternate orders in prose, in the same article. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I tried my best to summarize what we discussed. Feel free to tweak the language if it helps more accurately represent this consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I altered the text to simplify it and remove some of the link you added that were not appropriate (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Real-world_perspective as that doesn't have anything to do with an episode's air date, and the flashback/prequels as that's plot info, not something episodes would ever be ordered by) and info (the prose part) that is covered later in that section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • You edit doesn't appear to follow from the discussion here, and risks being out of step with consensus. I do want to make room for the Firefly exception, but keep in mind we have editors here who all say that we should do that without letting the exception obscure the overall rule. Can you explain to me how you reconcile your altered text with your above comment that "production order would suffice"? It's alright to change your mind, or go back to the drawing board. It's just going to be easier to write something simple and accurate if we really understand each other through discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I think it actually does. And your text put too much "definite" nature on only going by air date. My text doesn't "change my mind", it says order should by be airdate, yet there are instances such as Firefly where that order might be helpful, such as how they were filmed. That's "production order", not anything to do with its plot. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I essentially summarized Bignole's comment above from 16:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC), which you agreed with. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
        • You can read my previous comment as one of genuine misunderstanding than trying to assume your position. I like the version you just added, and I think that's a good representation of all of the comments here. I added another comment about reliable sources, which shouldn't be controversial. Thanks for working with me. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Refs in episode tables

When it comes to each season's table of eisodes, where is the best place to insert the ref? At the end of the summary or in the air date column ? Esp if the ref contains both the air date and info for the summary. I'm trying to determine the best placement for this article—most refs have so far been placed somewhere in the summary (I'm testing a diff placement in S3's table). Could a separate "Ref" column be used instead? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The standard practice is to use the |RTitle= parameter, which we then consider sourcing the entire row. For the example given, however, a source in the summary would also be completely acceptable. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Proposing an Addition to MOS:TV's 'Cast and characters information' to Deal with "Future/Upcoming Casting"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Proposing an Addition to MOS:TV's 'Cast and characters information' to Deal with "Future/Upcoming Casting". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on anachronistic and transgender names

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Clarification on anachronistic and transgender names for a discussion which affects part of this guideline under MOS:TVCAST. -- Beland (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Firefly Lane § Special guest star vs. guest star

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Firefly Lane § Special guest star vs. guest star. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the phrase "Certified Fresh" a peacock term?

I was redirected here to ask this, as this page was apparently more appropriate of a place than the Rotten Tomatoes talk page. Anyway, there's a discussion here that began over the deletion of the phrase "Certified Fresh," the Rotten Tomatoes designation, for being a peacock term and thus inappropriate to include alongside the percentage rating. I do not agree with that stance. "Certified Fresh" is just a designation applied to shows and films meeting a certain criteria on RT, not a subjective statement of quality. If the work in question does have that label and it's cited appropriately, I don't see an issue with including it. This doesn't apply only to TV, of course; the discussion just happened to spring up related to a show. Caivu (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, its a clarification specific to RT that the film falls in the range of aggregate scores that they consider to be a generally positive review score, but to avoid WPians giving any other type of peacock term (like "overall positive" ,"generally positive" etc.), using the quoted RT term is the best way to present that information. --Masem (t) 18:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It's maybe a little more of a peacock term than "five stars", only because it's a term coined by their site rather than a term used widely across the industry. I'm not crazy about it, but Masem is right that it's better than editors substituting their personal opinion of what that percentage might mean. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's best to avoid it, as it provides little new information and it's a bit JARGONy. The percentage, the average rating, and the critic consensus are more than enough for Rotten Tomatoes. —El Millo (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Caivu: I disagree with the use of this phrasing. While I appreciate the desire to avoid editors interpreting percentages as some measure of good or bad, the superlative language is unnecessary and noting that a film was "rotten" or "certified fresh" sends the wrong message about encyclopedic tone. For years in Indian film articles I've been dealing with use of phrasing like "the film was declared all-time blockbuster status" or "the film was declared a disaster" even though these are the hyperbolic terms the various trades use. I don't think it belongs here any more than Hustler's "three-and-a-half erections" or "steaming pile of crap", which is my personal rating for bad films. If a film is rated 5/10 or 3/5 stars, readers can draw their own conclusions about what that means. Similarly, I think we should just be including the percent ratings and the supplementary "with an average score of 8.20/10, based on 537 reviews" content and readers can figure that out without the proprietary, cutesy labeling. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The term has a very precise technical definition as a technical RT term (basically, it signifies a film that has generated enough interest to have generated an unusually high number of professional reviews upon release, *AND* simultaneously received at least 75% positive reviews), and it doesn't just mean "awesome" or "the greatest". Also, there's a reason why RT is a legitimate, authoritative source, akin not only to other aggregators such as Metacritic, but also to sources such as the Rolling Stone, which over the course of its history has also published a lot of lists with descriptive titles that we use millions of times on pop-culture related articles. It's not "peacock terms" either when we mention that RS has ranked such-and-such in xth place in their list of "1000 Movies to See Before You Die". I agree that it must be used in quotes with attribution and treated as a specific technical RT term, but it's definitely not a peacock term. I'd also like to point out that Cyphoidbomb's reply doesn't really answer the OP's question and is a rather general stance against RT as a source and its technical terms altogether, as what he'd like to maintain boils down to treating RT a lot like IMDB scores. --2003:EF:170E:7F46:E8A1:8329:2F1F:12F7 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You have misrepresented my opinion. I don't object to RT as a source, I disagree with using the unnecessary summaries. A reader can infer from percentage and average score what the film's response is without us having to regurgitate their proprietary, cutesy, and imprecise labels. BTW, Mulan is "Certified Fresh" with a score of 72%. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § List of Awake episodes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § List of Awake episodes. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § About series overview

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § About series overview. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Awake (TV series) § Merging proposal from List of Awake episodes into Awake (TV series)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Awake (TV series) § Merging proposal from List of Awake episodes into Awake (TV series). — YoungForever^(talk) 13:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Mighty Ducks: Game Changers § Co-starring

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Mighty Ducks: Game Changers § Co-starring. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Star original programming

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Star original programming. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. This discussion is about exclusive international distribution of American TV series on Star (Disney+). — YoungForever^(talk) 18:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Prodigal Son (TV series) § Catherine Zeta-Jones

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Prodigal Son (TV series) § Catherine Zeta-Jones. Editors are needed to weigh in on this in order to reach a consensus. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Editors are still needed to weigh on this discussion. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC about elimination-style reality programs

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus that in articles about elimination-style reality television programs, by default progress of contestants should be presented in a table but there are circumstances that may justify excluding a table and that such tables should comply with accessibility guidelines. There was further a rough consensus that in general the presence (or not) of tables should be consistent across a particular show, that tables supplement and enhance prose, and that the existence of vandalism alone is insufficient a reason to exclude tables from an article. Beyond that there was no consensus about what kind of criteria may justify an exception to the general default of inclusion for tables. Further discussion may be helpful in determining these criteria and/or in establishing manual of style guidelines (particularly about accessibility) for tables in these kinds of articles. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Question: In elimination-style reality television programming, how should the progress of contestants be presented? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Explanation

Reality television programs are often presented as elimination-style competitions, with one or more contestants removed from the program in each episode. Examples: Survivor, The Bachelor, America's Next Top Model, etc. Some such programs use additional mechanics such as immunity or returning contestants. It is standard practice to describe these events in prose in articles about such programs. These events are also often summarized in a table. Such progress tables attract controversy, good-faith errors, disruptive editing, and personal attacks in some shows. See here or here, or here for examples. The widespread use of these tables in such shows demonstrates and implicit consensus at the project level that these are useful. This record of disruption has also caused edit wars and talk page discussions about individual franchises or seasons/series. A recent RfC that removed such a table from one season of one version of the RuPaul's Drag Race show has been challenged on the basis that the explicit consensus at that page makes it incompatible with the implicit consensus at a larger level. It would be beneficial to the project if a MOS-level explicit consensus on the inclusion or exclusion of those tables.

Note: This RfC has been placed here because of the existence of prior-authorized discretionary sanctions should reduce the disruption that has previously attended questions about these programs. It is not a WP:PROPOSAL for a new guideline. It only seeks to establish a WP:CONSENSUS at a general level about these tables. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)updated links to address Heartfox's concerns. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 11:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Added link to this discussion to WP:CD per request of Rhododendrites below. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Options

Please select only one of these options:

1. In articles about elimination-style reality television programs, progress of contestants should be presented in a table.
2. In articles about elimination-style reality television programs, by default progress of contestants should be presented in a table but there are circumstances that may justify excluding a table.
3. In articles about elimination-style reality television programs, by default progress of contestants should be presented in prose only but there are circumstances that may justify including a table.
4. In articles about elimination-style reality television programs, progress of contestants should be presented in prose only.

Survey (elimination-style reality programs)

• Option 2, with the circumstances to be based principally at the per-show level - rarely if ever at a per-season level. That is, each season of a show should be consistent in its use of such a table, and the table presented consistently across that show. I can see some elim-style reality shows not requiring that and thus allowing case-by-case by show, but I can't see this case-by-case per season (as with the problematic RuPaul Drag Race season) unless a show undergoes a major reformulation of its rules to change how elimination may work. I would add that this should not need apply to international versions of the same show though I would argue if the rules are fairly consistent in these versions, the approach should also be consistent between show pages (eg I can speak to the various international versions of The Amazing Race having fairly consistent rulesets so expect the format of each season page of any version of that show to be about the same). --Masem (t) 17:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• I'm closest to Option 4 (i.e. should be reported in episode summaries in the episodes table), but there may be merit in Option 3, in some cases. But presenting reality TV show results in tables as the pro forma approach is massively problematic due violating WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE – and the more "detailed" the table is, the more it violates the latter (well, both, really), esp. when not secondarily sourced (which is pretty much always the case). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • There is definitely an issue with far too much detail, OR, inuniverse stuff going on on some of the tables. eg with the Survivor articles, while the elimination table makes sense, the voting tables and contestant tables tend to become overkill. But most elimination shows as tracked by RSes when they do cover them clearly stress the elimination progress as a key factor, so it makes sense for the elimination tables to be present. However, this itself would be a separate RFC or discussion elsewhere. --Masem (t) 19:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 (to avoid a blanket rule that doesn't allow for exceptions) and I agree with Masem that it should be on a per-show basis. I think elimination-style reality shows have more in common with sports than with fictional TV shows (dramas, sitcoms, soaps). The progress tables can be a useful reader-friendly summary of the season, though I'm not saying every show has done the best job at that (there's a tendency to try to cram in too much detail). Schazjmd (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• After witnessing the multicar pile-up at the RuPaul 2 talk page/RfC I am keen to avoid any usage of tables whatsoever, putting me right off Options 1 or 2. I'd say my preference is Option 4, with a second choice for pragmatism of Option 3. For me, the main thing about any use of tables is that they are useful, which appeared to be a low priority in the discussions (arguments? firefights? carpet-bombing?) I witnessed. Any such table should be clear and quickly understandable by an uninitiated reader, accessible to anyone with color-blindness or low visual acuity, using a dinky phone, a wide-screen browser or a screen reader. If those conditions are held, then Option 3 is less of a problem. I absolutely do not believe a table is a must. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 (first choice), Option 2 (second choice). I am very disappointed in the RFC close at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)/Archive 2#Ground rules. That RFC is essentially a microcosm of this one. It was an RFC to keep, reformat, or remove a contestant progress table from a reality show article. Forgive me for going into detail about that RFC, but because it is so similar, I think it is relevant.

The RFC was closed against numerical consensus. This close upset some editors, and left that article as the only article in a 25-article series without a contestant progress table. The closer cited MOS:ACCESS and anti-vandalism concerns as reasons to override the de facto WP:SILENT consensus for these contestant progress tables. I find this to be a dangerous precedent. Just because we have policies and guidelines against vandalism and in support of accessibility, does not mean that we should use these PAGs to go nuking contestant progress tables in articles. In my opinion, this is an unnecessary destruction of useful, concisely presented knowledge.

Additionally, I find the anti-vandalism argument to be unconvincing. Many of our articles (perhaps even millions) have been vandalized. It is the nature of having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Because vandalism is such a perennial problem spanning all types of articles, we have excellent tools for dealing with this, such as WP:RFPP, WP:HUGGLE, etc. In my opinion, stopping vandalism should not be used as a reason to mass delete useful content.

I also think this issue affects public relations and editor retention, in the sense that uglifying or deleting these tables, and full protecting their corresponding articles in order to enforce it (the article in question was full protected for months, both before, during, and after the RFC), is very offputting to the IP editors that are probably our main content creators for these articles. Evidence of this is, in the aforementioned article and RFC, the many full protected edit requests we received to put the table back from IP editors who were not aware of the RFC. Despite the RFC closing system being set up to ignore arguments like this because they don't cite a PAG, we should consider the bigger picture of what forcing through these unpopular RFC closes does to the editing experience and motivation of IP content creators. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• (Not sure if I'm allowed to comment here as an IP, if not, ignore this.) Option 2 or 3, but I think we need a further RFC to come up with some guidelines on how to design these tables. I think these tables are a reasonable way of presenting information, and as evidenced by the large number of complaints on the talk page for RuPaul's Drag Race after the table was removed they seem to be useful for our readers too. I think that the issue that results in most of these disputes is that we don't have a Manual of style or set of guidelines on how to design these things, which results in every TV series essentially doing it's own thing with a huge variance in the style between articles. Naturally there is going to need to be variance between shows due to each having a different structure, but some overarching guidelines on usual levels of detail, use of colour and how we should use text would help resolve most of the disputes. I think it would also be worth specifying that summary tables can only use classifications\data that is properly sourced in the main body of the article, as a lot of these tables seem to contain major elements of original research and/or fancruft. Looking at a few examples:
  • RuPaul's Drag Race (season 1)'s table requires a key with 12 elements to understand. Where is the data on who got positive/no/negative critiques coming from, I can't see it anywhere else in the rest of the article. Despite the table using acronyms in each box these aren't tied to the key in any way, so it still relies solely on colour to convey information. Two of the boxes are coded as "white with the word SAFE written on it" and "Pale cream with the word SAFE written on it" which even as someone with no issues seeing colours are almost impossible to tell apart.
  • The Great British Bake Off (series 1) takes a completely different approach, the main table contains basically no text and relies entirely on shades of blue and purple to convey information (again, accessibility). I can't see where the information on who was the judge's favourite has come from? Do we need a key to say that the box with "winner" in it means they were the winner?
  • MasterChef Australia (series 1) Contains an absolutely enormous elimination chart so big it won't fit on my screen, that includes a breakdown of each individual event within the show. It's a complex beast and there's no key explaining what any of it means (what does IN mean? why are various contestants in cells in the table? what does I.T. Winner mean?).

Again I don't think the major issue that leads to conflict here is the existence of the tables per se, it's that we have no master template or overall guidelines for designing them which leads to a huge variation in content. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: This RfC explanation needs better links. Two of the "here" just link to an archive with no section link. I'm not looking through an entire noticeboard to find one section. Also, two of the reality TV articles linked are disambiguations. Heartfox (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. In many cases the elimination table works as the reality TV form of a "cast and characters" section. I don't see people advocating for the removal of those sections in fictional series with long character descriptions... In the RuPaul RfC, the closer wrote "the disruption and accessibility arguments must be given precedence". What? The two things that can be fixed via page protection and simple syntax justify the removal of the entire table? If some tables have an unjust amount of detail, then there should be a consensus to remove such info. If there is a consensus to remove all of a series' tables, then remove them. The arguments against the tables here are mainly about other issues which already have guidelines. Information is already not to be presented in-universe. It is supposed to meet accessibility standards. So make the tables meet them?? To nuke thousands of tables because one had an edit war is ridiculous. Heartfox (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like better options in the RfCs to choose from. In that, I mean, I'd like to see a proposal for a MoS supported table and for prose sections that convey the important information. The examples above from the IP user are exactly the type which make me back away from every reality article I've come across. The content, style, colors and minute information problems are so massive that those tables can't be "fixed". If someone can present their idea of how these should look like, I'll be able to much better give an opinion on this matter. Sadly, if no version is presented until this RfC closes, then to the closer, my opinion is no tables at all. Please ping me if there are examples. --Gonnym (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• I don't know that any of the options in this RfC match my views, but I hold to three major principles: 1) Tables for these reality shows should never contain information that isn't also already in the prose; 2) Tables must be designed for WP:ACCESSIBILITY; and 3) Shows should be consistent in the use and design of tables across all seasons. Tables aren't always necessary, and may not be valuable in particular cases - the normal edit process and consensus should be used to make that determination as well as design considerations on a per-series basis. On ACCESSIBILITY in particular - no information should EVER be presented by color *alone*. If you design the tables without any color first, and they are readable, then you can add light color to accentuate. Most problems are from editors designing tables backwards. -- Netoholic @ 13:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: FTR, I fully agree with this, and all of the other previous comments, that if there are to be "elimination" tables they must following guidelines like MOS:ACCESS and MOS:COLOR, and as I said earlier cannot run afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and WP:INUNIVERSE). Further, I am seeing a definite consensus against "Option 1" – IOW, I think there appears to be a consensus against "requiring" that "elimination tables" be used. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 I don't believe a prose-only approach will work well for articles such as Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, The Bachelor (American season 25), The Amazing Race 31, etc. without everything being cumbersome and disorganized. If the result is to go with Option 2 (my second choice), then it should be on a per-show basis as others have mentioned above. Some1 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, the table is the least cumbersome option most of the time. I won't vote for option 1 because some elimination reality shows may differ from the norm.--Droid I am (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 - per WP:ACCESSIBILITY, MOS:COLOR, unwarranted abbreviations, nondiscrimination resolution and Accessibility. We shouldn't be deliberately denying access to content to our visually impaired readers and editors. If a table must be used, then it must be accessibility compliant, like this one, (mistakenly and rudely described by an editor above as "uglifying"), this table would work with a few minor tweaks. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  There is 100% an issue with these tables become inaccessible, overly detailed, etc., and I would strongly propose that, assuming the tables are kept in this RFC, a second RFC is used to established fundamental formatting aspects as to address these problems. It would require a bit of some standardization across tables (as to maximum number of colors, the colors to use for accessibility, etc.) but that is fixable. --Masem (t) 02:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  And the legends invariably stink. I agree about the follow-up RfC if consensus is found in favor of allowing or (gulp!) mandating tables. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• The reality WP never stops to surprise me. I've now learned that they've created single-use templates that hold the table content such as Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5. I'll be nominating this batch this week as content should not be held in templates (unlike a table format, which is fine). --Gonnym (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  Gonnym, I think I read they did this for anti-vandalism reasons. You may want to reach out to the table creator CCamp2013 and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race to get clarification. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  I saw the reason, it is still not valid. We'd end up with thousand of templates if we go down this path. Gonnym (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2: I agreed with Masem's explanation and believe this option makes the most sense. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 is the fairest compromise. It does appear that reality show articles have crossed into Wikia/Fandom territory, perhaps unchecked, and perhaps given more allowance than is fair on other parts of Wikipedia. I know how passionate editors are about these pages, but also how the tables have become creatures that are never full no matter how much you feed them. Let's row back, and as Masem suggests, agree a structure going forward so the tables don't become monsters again. doktorb _words^deeds 03:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 feels like the best going across the board for reality TV programs. A majority of the time these tables tell more about how contestants generally perform throughout their respective competitions than the descriptions do (in terms of those who excel at that specified challenge or struggle), especially when it is ultimately a larger investment to put that kind of detail in to the episode summaries themselves that usually aren't being done (which usually get shortened per wikipedia guidelines). I myself being color blind do find these tables easy to read if the variety of colors is the main concern for some users! *apologies if I as a non-registered user cannot comment* 199.8.28.39 (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 It seems to be the better option. Sea Ane (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 avoiding a table is better per the arguments I gave at the RuPaul RFC (accessibility, less prone to fancruft, ...). Additionally, by explicitly favouring prose instead of tables, this will avoiding a table encourages writing in a more encyclopedic style, by using independent, secondary sources and favourising summary of content instead of listing too much information and sticking in WP:FANCRUFT and WP:RECENTISM, as well as solving potential issues of accessibility, since prose is unambiguously more accessible. Now, this might seem an argument for option 4, and it is. However, as per WP:IAR/WP:5P5, there might be instances where a table format could be used without being too much in Fandom territory. This should of course be an exception and not the rule, unlike at the moment. Hence I'm open to option 3, but that's already a natural corollary of option 4 combined with normal Wikipedia policy and guidelines, hence I don't think we need to state it explicitly, lest it be taken as implicit encouragement to find such exceptions (which should be rare). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I actually have an issue with prose in some reality show formats because they also lead to fancruft and WP:WAF-type problems (in terms of interpretation of what's important, etc.) A prose only approach could work for shows like The Amazing Race, where the format is pretty much fixed (there's locations teams go to, they do tasks that are set for them, and move on, so we only describe the race from those simple data points). But then you get to shows like Survivor (TV series) where the fundamental aspect of the show isn't the challenges that are put to the players but the scheming that happens outside those parts, and that's where I've seen our articles get far too in-depth there. Even with the Drag Race articles, using the one with the progress table removed RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2), the prose per episode is too much and gets into details that are unnecessary. As (at least from the little I've seen of it), Drag Race is not a backstabbing/scheming type show, and simply one that involves challenges and judging rather than inter-playing voting-off, these should be able to written very flatly, and that's where a table (without all the cruft) can help quickly with summaries. I agree the current tables on other Drag Race articls are too excessive in level of detail, but prose here isn't a suitable replacement for how they are currently written either. --Masem (t) 21:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    • That's a decent point. But, as you say, not all shows share this format. The many examples of unhelpful, Fandom-style tables suggests we should be enforcing guidelines about writing an encyclopedia and not a fansite more strictly than less. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pretending almost everything will work perfectly in prose shows a complete lack of awareness about the consequences of your opinions. You clearly aren't familiar with this space either because you think secondary sources are required for basic results verifiable by the episode. They're not. The episode descriptions in the RuPaul episodes are way more fancruft-y than the table that was deleted. For stuff that doesn't meet MOS, you're supposed to fix it, not remove everything as if it's a massive copyright violation. I'm tired of people treating tables as automatic fancruft and useless. Tables are in the MOS and there are easy ways to make them accessible. If you want to remove tables from Wikipedia then go make an RfC. Maybe it'll end up like the one you withdrew because it had universal opposition. Like an editor said there, "The proposal to change it with prose description is merely table-phobia". The solution is not to delete everything, it's to come to a consensus about what the level of detail should be in the tables—which for some series at the moment—should be reduced. Heartfox (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Your insinuations about a legitimate question which was asked via RfC (and which had some support in the preliminary discussion) are not helpful, and borderline impolite. You're also misrepresenting my position. TV plots don't require secondary sources, but using only primary sources without any secondary ones leads to style issues and fancruft. WP:PRIMARY tells that such sources should only be used for indisputable facts (with some margin for encyclopedic summary), or interpretations which are obvious to any educated reader such as simple arithmetics. Seeing how often we end up with WP:PLOTBLOAT - for all sorts of stuff, not just for reality TV - I'm not convinced that giving free rein in an area which so far looks closer to Fandom than reasonable is helpful, either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, with second preference being 4, and expressing a strong wish for a followup RFC if anything but 4 becomes consensus on establishing fundamental MOS level guidelines for progress tabel layout. While I truly think these tables provide a use, a lot of the current ones have becomes bloated, and far worse in accessible due to a over use of colours and acronyms. Making tables the default, with the option to not have them and establising fundamental guidelines in a follow up RFC seems the best way to resolve this issue. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• [Option 5]: Tables are an excellent visual aid for competitions, and should be included, but they're not a substitute for prose, which should ideally also be present in some way. - Seemed like this one was missing. To be clear, though, I'm not saying that all of the details present in the table should be in prose or vice versa, but that they're not mutually exclusive and both have value. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • BTW this will affect quite a lot of pages, so should be linked from WP:CENT IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 - in general, I'm of the opinion that better prose makes for better articles, but prose about the progress of contestants can too easily lead to overly intricate detail, vastly overwrriten "plot summaries", and in general make for worse articles. By default, this material should be presented in straightforward, easy-to-read tables, with prose reserved for other parts of the article. These sections are generally, on some level, synthesis and original research, so tables make them much less messy. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 We are an encyclopedia. We deal in prose. ~ HAL333 15:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 with the same caveat that Rhododendrites gives. Prose is useful, but so are tables. No one says we shouldn't use charts, graphs, or images to distill information, our guidelines just point out that we should not use images as a complete replacement for textual information. The same for tables. Tables and text are not mutually exclusive, in fact they almost always are most useful together. Why would we make a casual reader search through multiple paragraphs for a simple fact when we can present it in a simple, structured fashion? More detailed prose should be available for those who want more detail, but we should not be making it harder to find information quickly since helping find information quickly is the whole point of a reference work. Anyone who thinks encyclopedias don't have tables should go read an encyclopedia. No one has given a compelling reason that contestant progression in elimination-style TV shows as a class are unlike any other elimination-style competition. 2018 FIFA World Cup#Group stage is also based on primary sources, and football articles are routinely vandalized by fans and rival fans, yet tables still manage to work fine. FIDE World Chess Championship 2004 uses brackets and tables to supplement textual descriptions of the tournament. We use tables for those articles and across hundreds of elimination-style reality TV articles because they are useful. In the rare instance that a table makes an article worse, then we obviously should remove it, but not liking reality TV shows or not wanting to do the work of maintaining an encyclopedia isn't a reason to deprive readers of useful visual aids. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 An efficient, well-designed way to present information and the natural consensus here so far. Maybe there is some circumstance where prose would be better, hence not option 1, but I imagine that 99% of the time, a table is the best way to do it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 tables are a useful way to present information - which should also be present in prose. Per Masem, it is reasonable to allow exceptions to be considered. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2', although I have spent FAR too much mental energy on this topic now. A useful visual aid and summary that restricts overly-repetitive prose ("x, y, and z were high; a, b, and c were low" every week). Spa-Franks (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Edit: Just because I wasn't particularly clear, I'm either misreading option one, or it implies we add tables where there are currently none, which sounds a bit... silly to me. Spa-Franks (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2/1 These tables are excellent ways to summarize the season's cast and the major events of each episode. It's not clear to me when they should ever be removed. Reywas92^Talk 18:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• I'd like information from someone with experience, on the usability of these tables with screen readers. DGG ( talk ) 10:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. I completely and fully agree with everything Masem said, particularly that inclusion/exclusion should be at the show not season level. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, because its wording already implies that there could be exceptions. Or option 2 if some editors believe that that needs to be specified. The word "should" generally means that the practice is recommended but not required ("must", "shall", or "is required" would be used to indicate a requirement). I agree with several editors above who have noted that the elimination table serves as a useful summary of information, and that removing such tables would be analogous to removing the bracket graphic from 2021 Stanley Cup playoffs, 2018 FIFA World Cup, etc. Obviously there are issues that are separate from whether to include tables. The relevant policies should be followed such as MOS:ACCESS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:FANCRUFT, etc (and of course WP:BLP due to most of these TV show contestants being living people). 23:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
• Option 2 first choice over option 1, generally useful, well-maintained, and sensible. Accessbility is important, but removing information entirely is inferior to removing information for a small subset of users. Therefore, I encourage prose summaries in addition to tables. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 with a followup RfC establishing strong accessibility guidelines for the tables, particularly the use of colour. firefly ( t · c ) 16:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Tables are an excellent way to summarize complex information at a glance. However they are not always needed, so it should be somewhat up to local consensus. Tables should also be explained in prose, but I am against the idea that prose should take priority over tables, or somehow exclude tables. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, 2 or 5, per the mental smartness articulated by people like Novem Linguae and Rhododendrites above. I am sure that there are some tables that look like ass; this is not an argument against the idea of tables, any more than a section of prose that looks like ass is an argument against the idea of writing prose. I can go outside and take a poorly-exposed photo, is this proof that we should stop having images in articles? And, hey, images present accessibility issues as well. As for disruption, I would hazard a guess that the reason a bunch of people are getting mad and saying "this makes no sense" is probably because it makes no sense. jp×g 16:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 as tables are an effective way to present this sort of information, though there can still be exceptions owing to the structure of the show. While there are a number of bloated and inaccessible tables on this site, they do provide important information that readers of an article expect, and thus should be fixed, not nuked like a copyvio. — csc^-1 13:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Episode list titles

Please see the discussion I have started regarding episode list titles at WT:TV. The discussion is here. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Love Island (American season 3) "Exclusive episodes"

Starting a discussion here just because the article doesn't seem that active discussion-wise but I'll leave a message pointing to this discussion on that articles talk page. The third season of the American version of Love Island has introduced "exclusive episodes" that release only on Paramount+. These are full-length videos and follow the format of regular episodes (other than being a little less censored since it isn't on broadcast television) but don't follow the episode numbering of those that air on CBS. You can see how these are listed here on TFC and here on Paramount+. My question is: should these be inserted into the episode table and treated as episodes that air on CBS (including them in episode counts and treating Paramount+ as an original network) or is it more of a companion series similar to the Love Island: The Drop and Love Island: Laid Bare that also got introduced this season on Paramount+? All three of these are full-length 43 minute-ish videos but The Drop and Laid Bare are released under different titles while the "exclusive episodes" aren't. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Standardized terms for elimination-style reality program progress tables

The just-concluded RfC above established a consensus for progress tables as a default part of the articles for this type of reality TV programming. It also established a desire on the part of many editors for a set of recommended table designs that would accomplish goals such as quick readability and accessibility compliance. Before a table design can be proposed, however, a preliminary discussion on the table contents needs to happen. For many such franchises a standardization of terms has already happened but this discussion will allow a unified recommended progress table style to be proposed.

The following list of terms is not necessarily exhaustive but is intended to be generic and adaptable.

• Eliminated – contestant left the program due to the program's normal elimination mechanism (voting, judging, etc.)
• Left – contestant left the program on their own decision (including when asked to) or did not return when allowed (e.g., hiatus, Covid-19 filming break, etc.)
• Removed – contestant left the program at the direction or insistence of the production for reasons outside of the normal elimination mechanism
• Challenge Winner – contestant received a reward for a single-episode contest. Can be used for multiple contestants if there are multiple contests within each episode. Specify the particular reward or contest, e.g., Immunity Challenge Winner, First Challenge Winner, Main Challenge Winner, etc.
• Challenge Loser – contestant failed in a single-episode contest that does not eliminate the contestant from further competition. Can be used for multiple contestants if there are multiple contests within each episode. Specify the particular reward or contest, e.g., Immunity Challenge Loser, First Challenge Loser, Main Challenge Loser, etc.
• Judge's/Popular Winner/Loser – In programs where there is a winner or loser designated for the episode that does not determine elimination. Usually for franchises with both a judging panel and a viewer voting system.
• Won - contestant won the overall competition
• Runner-up or Second, Third, etc. – contestant was determined to finish in an on-screen placing in the final episode. Contestants that were eliminated earlier do not need to be designated in their placings unless the show uses those places on-screen. Fan or other media designations of an eliminated contestant as finishing fifth, seventh, etc. are not used.

Please feel free to contribute any additions, changes, etc. A shorter yet generic term for single-episode challenge winners or losers that would fit in a table cell would be particularly welcome. Thank you in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I have seen the word (or abbreviation) "SAFE" used on these things (rather a lot) and have no idea what it means, so I won't add it to the list. Maybe somebody knowledgable can determine its usefulness (and meaning). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

From what I've seen of these, "Safe" seems frankly useless. Unless the contestant was in the bottom jeopardy positions, everyone is safe. So you tend to get tables full of "Safe" for most of the cells. That's not actually informative. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep it super simple if we are talking a table. The bulk of the problem are around judge-based elimination shows (Project Runway, Top Chef, RuPaul's Drag Race, etc.), and here I think you basically only need four primarily labels: WIN for the winner (if there is one), TOP (for those also consider for winning but not selected), BOT(TOM) (those selected for possible elimination), and OUT (the one eliminated). Everyone else is safe by default and doesn't need to be marked/colored (to keep text down in the table). Any special case, like quitting due to personal reasons/injury should stay as OUT with a footnote under the table.

The other types of reality shows, like the voting type of Survivor, and the performance-based like Amazing Race, aren't as easy to simplify down to a similar set of runs, but the goal should be to minimize how many different colors/terms/symbols/etc. that are needed in the table for simplicity and accessibility purposes. For example, across the Survivor articles I know there's a want to use the color of the tribes to make those stand out but that goes against accessibility requirements. But it does seem to make sense given how tracking who votes for who's elimination to note immunities and voting record. --Masem (t) 20:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I included the Challenge Winner/Loser options for shows like Project Runway and Face Off that have usually a "quick" challenge at the start of each episode and then a main challenge that determines elimination. It's possible to win one of these but not be the winner of the episode. If it's too much, we can scrap it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

For shows where this non-eliminate challenge is a "safe from elimination" reward (which I agree you want to track), I would simply then use a special symbol in the table to mark that than calling it out (eg like †) with a key below. So someone may still win the judges vote, so their entry would look like "WIN^†", and keeps the text simple. --Masem (t) 01:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just my opinion, but sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me. We should let local consensus and WikiProjects handle it, rather than trying to breaucratically dictate it from here. So far from the example I've seen at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2), attempts by experienced editors to swoop in and override local and WikiProject consensus just ends up bungled and creates frustration and animosity. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • See the !vote above. While tables are fine, there's far too much detail in them and many break accessibility requirements in trying to document to trivial levels what can be put to prose or footnotes. The tables should be like a box score in a sports game - easy to read at a glance. Given the inability for this to happen, there needs to be base ground rules that then projects can adapt from but should stay very close too. --Masem (t) 21:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

    I do not agree. I witnessed what happened at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2), where outsiders came in and tried to force local editors and reality TV show WikiProjects to change their tables. Those actions were deeply unpopular (drama fest that resulted in 3 months of full protection and a bunch of animosity), and those actions did not improve the table (resulted in an uglified table, and a deleted table, neither of which is an improvement). I am not convinced it is worth the trouble. In my opinion, one-size-fits-all is not the solution. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

    The discussion on RPDRS2 is exactly what prompted the discussion above, and it closed that 1) these tables need to be accessible first and foremost and 2) there should be further discussion to lay out base ground rules to apply to all shows. If we have those, then that would likely have prevented the type of disruption that happened at RPDRS2 (with either the table becoming far too complex or being removed altogether). The goal is not to try to lay out one size fits all but a core set of guidelines that then each show can work from to make sure they're in reasonable compliance with, like a MOS for reality TV shows. --Masem (t) 22:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just my two cents, I think it may be useful to generalize the definitions for the terms but make the terms interchangeable per series. American version of Big Brother for example uses a number of these definitions but the terms for them all differently. Evicted instead of eliminated, walked instead of left, ejected instead of removed, etc. These terms can also very per season/version, the first U.S. season (as well as in one place of the twenty-first season) used banished instead of evicted. I only say this because reliable sources typically use the same term as the show, so if we're using "evicted" in sections about episodes, production, format, etc. and then "eliminated" in the table it seems like it would be a bit off. TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Big Brother. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Unless there is a template created for reality TV contestant progress tables, this discussion is going to be fruitless. Heartfox (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

As the original post in this section states, @Heartfox:, this is intended to lead to exactly that type of template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is just WP:CREEP. It might be useful to add a sentence somewhere which suggests avoiding show-specific jargon and to instead use recognisable terms and concepts if necessary. Mandating a specific format, however, seems unnecessary. I am in favour of making clearer expectations about accessibility, and if we can make a decent enough example accompanied with decent enough guidelines for a "MOS for reality TV shows" (as suggested by Masem), that would be great. The current proposal isn't that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Prodigal Son (TV series) has an RFC

Talk:Prodigal Son (TV series) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)