| Revision as of 18:01, 23 May 2013 editAussieLegend (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers173,395 edits →Articles should reflect the entire history of a series: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:38, 23 May 2013 edit undoBignole (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers67,638 edits →Articles should reflect the entire history of a seriesNext edit → | ||
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
| The "Cast information" section says, "Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." The phrase "articles should reflect the entire history of a series" clearly applies to the whole article, not just the cast section, but use of this is being claimed as being misapplication of the MOS. I think it would be prudent to tighten this up, as the statement appears nowhere else. --] (]) 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC) | The "Cast information" section says, "Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." The phrase "articles should reflect the entire history of a series" clearly applies to the whole article, not just the cast section, but use of this is being claimed as being misapplication of the MOS. I think it would be prudent to tighten this up, as the statement appears nowhere else. --] (]) 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :How would you propose that it is tightened up? I glanced through the Terra Nova discussion to see what the argument was about, and I noticed that last comment about it only being about the cast section. That is incorrect, but I can see how its placement in the MOS would make people think that. I can tell you (and you can send this message to those on Terra Nova's talk page), since I'm the original author and was here for all the adjustments with the other editors, when it was written originally we were talking about the entire article, but placed in the cast section because it just happened to be the place where we had the most issues of people wanting to remove cast members no longer on a series. Obviously, we can place it in a way that it's more clear that we're talking about the entire show/article, and not just one section. I'm just curious as to how the argument on that page is connected to the MOS. ] ] 21:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:38, 23 May 2013
 | Television Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Manual of Style   | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives | ||||||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Overview sections
Do you guys think we need to officially address these "overview" sections that are just table summaries of the season premiere, finale, viewership, DVD, etc? I've been seeing them pop up more and more for shows that are only 1 or 2 seasons old (especially with the first year shows), and to me it seems completely unnecessary and redundant to have a table list the season dates when you're on a "List of episodes" page that is nothing but summary tables to begin with. I see no point of having a table summarize 1 or 2 seasons worth of information immediately above where you're going to see that information. I don't really see a point of it period, unless we're talking about The Simpsons or something of that nature where it's been on for multiple decades, because we're on a page that is in an of itself a summary of dates of episodes. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of how many seasons a series has, the overviews sum up the information is a nice, clean way. True, it doesn't provide new information, but neither does the infobox. It's organizes the information in a helpful way to readers.Caringtype1 (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- What organization is needed to summarize a single season's premiere and finale date...which you can see directly below the overview table in the first place? Also, why is DVD information there in the first place? We don't put home video release in the infobox of film pages. We're not here to sell a product, so the release of said product is the least important information in the entire article. So, why should it be at the top? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Of course you could take the DVD part off -- but someone else could put it back at some point. And I agree that a show with only one season doesn't really need an overview. It would be helpful to have an MOS for it. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Further more, without DVD information the only reason use of the overview section is collecting viewership and airdates. For a List of Episodes page, there isn't a need to summarize a page that is nothing but tables that summarize a show. Viewership has its own section on LoE pages, and dates can be summarized in season section headers (see List of Smallville episodes). I don't think readers are so lazy that they can't scroll through a LoE page to see dates. Especially when a show gets so large that it gets season pages and all the plot information is removed from the LoE page and you're left with nothing but titles and air dates. To me, this removes (even more) the need for a table that collects the same information that is already being presented in list form. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- So, what are we thinking? Probably need more opinions. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Why did International Brodacasting is "a TV guide"
I mean why do Misplaced Pages think it's a "TV guide" and who created this? 99.229.41.79 (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- It means that we don't simply catalog channel appearances (ala what TV Guide does). If there is a significance to the international broadcast then we can note it, otherwise, anything that is NOT an English speaking country would have its own Misplaced Pages page in its language and it can be mentioned there. Also, if you get into listing different channels the show appears on, you end up with an endless list that serves no real purpose to a reader. I would never come to Misplaced Pages to find out what channel Vegas or some other show was on in Japan, because I'm not in Japan. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is controversial I can't even watch any show without the channels of a country. 99.229.41.79 (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Placeholders in episode lists
Hi, was wondering if there's a policy on the use of placeholders in episode lists. The scenario is this: a show with a 3 season order is currently airing its first season, and its episode list continues to grow. A user adds a new row to the episode table, and fills in all fields with TBA, because ostensibly a new episode will air soonish. Is this discouraged? Would this be a WP:CRYSTALBALL issue? Original research? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have an issue with the TBA entry itself, which is just filler. There's no harm in leaving cells blank; TBA is implied, and it reduces the visual clutter that TBA over and over again creates. Moreover, we have to think about low-vision users who use speaking screen readers; they end up reading "TBA", "TBA", "TBA" over and over again, like a Dalek. TBA adds nothing a blank cell doesn't already tell us and creates unnecessary clutter. My view is less is more: create and comment out the whole table when a season is announced, add what we know and can reliably source, reveal/add a row when we know something substantive and abolish TBA/TBC. I'd also avoid posting projected and assumed dates from Futon Critic, which are subject to lot of change. That keeps crystal-ball issues and OR down to a minimum. --Drmargi (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I like the comment-out idea. Thanks for the input! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Why International Brodcasting is discouraged
Why International Brodcasting is discouraged? This is controversal because many user many not know which channels aired in a country. 99.229.41.79 (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- You asked this above, see that reply. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The international Brodcasting rule
The International Bordcasting rule is controversial is because they won't know if they what they are watching 99.229.41.79 (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Spoilers in Character/Cast Sections
Lately there has been some edit-warring and general debate on the House of Cards pages about whether details on Frank Underwood murdering Corey Stoll should be included in the Cast and Characters section. I have brought up the example of Revolution (TV series) cast section where it reveals Danny's death (a spoiler for the show). After reading through the MoS and some of the talk page/archives, it is still unclear what the proper format should be. Hopefully some more experienced editors could help here. Rgrasmus (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is it mentioned somewhere else on the article, like in an Episode table? If so, then I would say don't include it in the other section. Per WP:SPOILER, readers need to understand that spoilers will be present and we don't remove them for the sake of it. That said, if it's already mentioned on the page I would keep it there for the time being. Unless I'm missing something. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I think the cast section need not contain plot information. Between episode articles, episode list capsules, season articles, character articles, there are ample opportunities to provide information on all elements of the plot and characters, and in areas where the reader will intuitively expect to find them. --SubSeven (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Stylized titles
 |
|
Should creative works' stylized logos be mentioned in their articles' lead sections? —David Levy 17:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the 2 Broke Girls article's lead contained the the statement "(stylized as 2 BROKE GIRL$)". This is a description of the program's on-screen logo. I'm aware of no reliable sources (even counting the show's producers and broadcasters around the world) that use such a spelling in type, as it isn't actually the show's name; it's merely a fancy logo style (all uppercase, with a decorative "S" resembling a dollar sign). A different logo, used by CBS in virtually all promotional contexts, lacks the dollar sign.
I saw no good reason for this trivial detail to be stated in the lead (where we summarize the subject's "most important aspects"), as though the show's title is actually written in the manner described. So I removed it, noting that this is a "logo element never used in type".
SnapSnap (whom I've notified of this RfC) undid the edit, advising me to "take a better look at the show's intertitle". As this ignored my edit summary (in which I acknowledged the logo and pointed out that the style doesn't appear in type), I reverted, noting that "2 BROKE GIRLS" (all uppercase, but without the dollar sign) appears as part of the same animation and comparing the lead to one in which we state that Conan's title is "stylized as CONAN, with a hair outline".
SnapSnap again restored the claim, asserting that "the 2 Broke Girls logo is stylized in the same way as shows such as Friends, Revenge, and Awkward, not Conan".
I don't see a valid distinction, but sure enough, those articles' leads contain comparable statements. This, in my view, is indicative of a problem that I now seek to address.
Some creative works' titles are notably stylized. Examples include the film Se7en and the TV series M*A*S*H and Numb3rs. Reliable sources actually identify the subjects by these titles. What reliable sources refer to Friends as F•R•I•E•N•D•S? (I don't recall seeing it outside fan sites and the like.) If the logo is even sufficiently noteworthy to mention in the article, why does this information belong in the lead? Is it really one of the subject's "most important aspects"? Should we include such a notation for any creative work whose on-screen logo font differs from conventional typography? I don't believe so. —David Levy 17:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would be inclined to support your contention that the so-called stylized titles are visual mnemonics for the viewer, but hardly notable with a few exceptions. Moreover, I'd go further and class them as fancruft. The three you cite have no alternate spelling; the others, such as Two Broke Girls do. That's the easiest line to draw. --Drmargi (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding alternate spellings, I believe that the film is commonly referred to as both Se7en and Seven (hence our article's title). That, in my view, is the key distinction; reliable sources (such as newspapers and magazines) have actually used the stylized variant in type. In the case of 2 Broke Girls, even the show's producers and broadcasters (to say nothing of journalists and the like) don't do that. —David Levy 17:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't see any problem with stating in the lead section that the title of a TV show (or some other creative work for that matter) is stylized in a certain way on its on-screen logo. Such information doesn't seem to take up much space in the lead, or affect the reader's understanding of the topic. SnapSnap 23:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- To quote Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section:
"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..."
- A subject's name(s) is/are important. When reliable sources indicate that a creative work's actual title is commonly written in an alternative/unusual format (as in the examples cited above), it makes sense to note this in the lead. Conversely, the work's logo design generally isn't among its most important aspects (and typically doesn't warrant coverage in the article, let alone the lead section).
- Even Warner Bros. and the relevant broadcasters around the world don't call the show 2 BROKE GIRL$, which simply isn't its title. In that case and others, we're misrepresenting logo descriptions as alternative names, despite the absence of corroboration by reliable sources. This does affect readers' understanding of the topic. —David Levy 00:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Articles should reflect the entire history of a series
The "Cast information" section says, "Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." The phrase "articles should reflect the entire history of a series" clearly applies to the whole article, not just the cast section, but use of this is being claimed as being misapplication of the MOS. I think it would be prudent to tighten this up, as the statement appears nowhere else. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- How would you propose that it is tightened up? I glanced through the Terra Nova discussion to see what the argument was about, and I noticed that last comment about it only being about the cast section. That is incorrect, but I can see how its placement in the MOS would make people think that. I can tell you (and you can send this message to those on Terra Nova's talk page), since I'm the original author and was here for all the adjustments with the other editors, when it was written originally we were talking about the entire article, but placed in the cast section because it just happened to be the place where we had the most issues of people wanting to remove cast members no longer on a series. Obviously, we can place it in a way that it's more clear that we're talking about the entire show/article, and not just one section. I'm just curious as to how the argument on that page is connected to the MOS. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)