Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Darkknight2149 (talk | contribs) at 15:34, 19 August 2020 (→Batman: The Animated Series and The New Batman Adventures merge: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Manual of Style

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

Television Project‑class

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

Archives

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

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

WikiProject Television

Project main page Project discussion Project assessment talk Television portal talk Descendant WikiProjects and task forces Showcase Project organization Article alerts Deletion sorting Popular pages New articles Project banner talk Project category talk Project templates talk Television stubs Guidelines Project manual of style talk Project notability guidelines talk TV article naming convention talk Broadcasting article naming convention talk Related WikiProjects Actors and Filmmakers Albums Animation Anime and manga Comics Film Literature Media franchises Radio Screenwriters Westerns view · edit · changes

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 13:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

 Update: Since no one seemed to object the inclusion of |inspired_by= , it is now an optional parameter on the Template:Infobox television. — YoungForever 04:10, 7 July 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 02:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

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

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television#Television splitting into individual episode articles. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. — YoungForever 14:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

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 , 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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television § Image for main articles of television series

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages 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 23:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

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 Misplaced Pages only where all 10 of the 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 Misplaced Pages: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  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  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  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  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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television) § Season naming convention (continued)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television) § Season naming convention (continued). -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

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 14:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Batman: The Animated Series and The New Batman Adventures merge

See WT:COMICS#Batman: The Animated Series and The New Batman Adventures Darkknight2149 15:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Project-Class television pages
• NA-importance television pages
• WikiProject Television articles
• Television series endings by year