Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 14) (bot
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 11:
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Manual of Style}}
{{WikiProject Television|class=Project|importance=NA}}
}}
{{archives|search=yes|index=./Archive index|auto=long|bot=MiszaBot II|age=2|units=months}}
Line 22:
 
__TOC__
 
== "Audience Says"? ==
 
[[MOS:TVAUDIENCE]] says "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including its "Audience Says" feature), as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." [[MOS:FILMAUDIENCE]] says approximately the same. I didn't actually find anything called "Audience Says" on Rotten Tomatoes. Is that referring to what Rotten Tomatoes now calls its "Popcornmeter", or is that referring to something else, such as individual comments submitted by members of the public? —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 20:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
 
:[https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/weve-updated-our-score-boxes/ Here]: {{tq|"Audience Says" is a short blurb that summarizes what fans think of a movie, drawing on common points made in user reviews written for the title}} [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 20:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
::OK, but are they still using that feature? That links to a blog entry from more than 3 years ago, and I don't see such blurbs for the well-known movies I checked on the site. Is it acceptable to use averaged audience scores such as the Rotten Tomatoes "Popcornmeter" or the Metacritic "User Score"? —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 20:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:Copying my comment from your talk page. Generally, I don't like to include the user-generated scores from anywhere - IMDB, Metacritic, RottenTomatoes in part because they are largely fed by either fans or haters of shows and are easily manipulated. If the only source for a user generated rating is IMDB/Metacritic/RT, I would 100% leave it out. If a secondary sources calls out the score and highlights something unusual about it, that's worth a second glance to see if it should be included with the full context - show XYZ was review-bombed and the user rating on DEF went from 9.5 to 2.3 in a month. That's notable and worth mentioning. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|<span style="color: darkred;">Ravensfire</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 20:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
::I think having this discussion is good just to get some definition here and use that to update the MOS. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|<span style="color: darkred;">Ravensfire</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 20:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:If the "Audience Says" aspect of RT has been retired, then I see no issues with removing that parenthetical. Really, I try to avoid the use of parentheticals in general. I'm assuming that was originally added to the guideline because there were issues with editors adding that specifically. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 12:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::It was presumably useful information at the time it was added. What would be useful now is to clarify whether the Rotten Tomatoes "Popcornmeter" and the Metacritic "User Score" are acceptable. I suggest they are not, and that the MOS should be clarified to say this. In fact I just discovered someone already added a mention of the Popcornmeter. I expanded it to also mention the Metacritic "User Score". —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 14:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate that you are refreshing the documentation and adding clarification[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film&diff=prev&oldid=1244184295] that you feel is necessary but it seems redundant to me. I would suggest instead (or in addition) to point up to the higher level guidelines and principles of [[WP:UGC]] or [[WP:RS]] because audience scores are fundamentally unreliable and that is why they not allowed. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.79.167.27|109.79.167.27]] ([[User talk:109.79.167.27|talk]]) 21:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks for those links. In my opinion, the statement at [[WP:UGC]] was not very clear about reported averages. I just added a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources&diff=prev&oldid=1244236857 clarification there]. Which specific sentence(s) at [[WP:RS]] would apply to this type of polling result? —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 21:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:: As I noted on your Talk page the point is not about any specific mechanism for expressing user scores, the point is that such user voted or crowdsourced information is not the Wikipedia kind of reliable and should not be used. I didn't decide the consensus I've just seen these same discussions before. I'm not claiming the documentation is well written or clear enough.
:: It might be helpful to note that as with every rule in Wikipedia there are always exceptions. Occasionally reliable [[WP:SECONDARY]] sources (e.g. Variety magazine) point out there has been a big discrepancy between audiences and critics then occasionally editors will use that source to mention that there has been a divergence of opinion, but even then it isn't about the score (or average rating) specifically but it is about the audience response in general. e.g. [[The_Acolyte_(TV_series)#Audience_response]] -- [[Special:Contributions/109.79.167.27|109.79.167.27]] ([[User talk:109.79.167.27|talk]]) 21:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power ==
 
I have started a discussion about potentially changing the approach to determining the cast lists for this series at [[Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power#Approach to the cast lists]]. It does not follow the standard Main/Guest/Co-star crediting style so needs a different approach from [[MOS:TVCAST]], and the release of the second season has raised questions about whether the current approach is adequate. Any regular television editors who have thoughts on the best way to determine cast lists for the series are welcome to contribute them at the discussion. Thanks all, [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 13:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
: Seems like this sort of overhaul rewrite happens frequently when a show hits season 2 and things need to be reorganised by long term editors more familiar with the project TV guidelines. Maybe wait until the season is finished and the article settles down and no one is likely to mind? The fact that you asked at all somehow suggests you think it might be contentious but you've started a discussion already so if the change already seems uncontroversial then there would seem to be no need to wait. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.76.194.168|109.76.194.168]] ([[User talk:109.76.194.168|talk]]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 23:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I asked for other opinions because it is an unusual situation that doesn't follow the standard process established at MOS:TVCAST. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 07:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
 
==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:Featured lists#FLs for television seasons|Wikipedia talk:Featured lists §&nbsp;FLs for television seasons]]==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:Featured lists#FLs for television seasons|Wikipedia talk:Featured lists §&nbsp;FLs for television seasons]]. &#x0020;A discussion regarding whether season articles should go through the GA/FAC or FLC process. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 21:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->
 
 
==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Released: Airing vs streaming|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television §&nbsp;Released: Airing vs streaming]]==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Released: Airing vs streaming|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television §&nbsp;Released: Airing vs streaming]]. &#x0020;Editors are still needed to weigh in on this. This is affects the {{tl|Series overview}} and {{tl|Episode table}}. — [[User:YoungForever|<span style="color: #E63E62;font-family:Georgia;">'''Young'''</span><span style="color: #414A4C;font-family:Georgia;">'''Forever'''</span>]][[User talk: YoungForever|<sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)</sup>]] 13:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->▼
 
== Guidance on characters' names in the plot summary? ==
Line 74 ⟶ 46:
 
:The episode count is based on episodes being released anywhere, not just the original network. The idea is that episodes being produced does not guarantee them being released, so we wait until an episode is released before increasing the count in the infobox. All of the episodes that have been released on Disney+ are confirmed, available, and should be counted in the infobox. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 18:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:Agreed with adamstom97 as those nine episodes are already available and can be watch on Disney+ via subscription, so it should be 9 not 4 in the infobox. [[User:Windborne Rider|<b style="color:#008080; text-shadow:0.1em 0.2em 0.1em #FFF8E7">𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎</b>]] [[User talk:Windborne Rider|<b style="color:#008080; text-shadow:0.1em 0.2em 0.1em #FFF8E7"><small>(𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔)</small></b>]] 19:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:The point is they have been released and available to the public. Doesn't matter how. They should be counted. [[User:Geraldo Perez|Geraldo Perez]] ([[User talk:Geraldo Perez|talk]]) 19:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
▲[[File:SymbolI watchingstill bluesay lashesgo highby contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;Youwhen areit invitedairs toon joinDisney theChannel discussionas atit [[:Wikipediais talk:WikiProjectthe Television#Released:only Airingprimary vsnetwork. streaming|WikipediaIf talk:WikiProjectnot, Televisiona §&nbsp;Released:note Airingshould vsbe streaming]].included &#x0020;Editorson arethe stillinfobox needednext tothe weighepisode incount onuntil this.all Thisepisodes ishave affectsbeen theaired {{tl|Serieson overview}} and {{tl|EpisodeDisney table}}Channel. — [[User:YoungForever|<span style="color: #E63E62;font-family:Georgia;">'''Young'''</span><span style="color: #414A4C;font-family:Georgia;">'''Forever'''</span>]][[User talk: YoungForever|<sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)</sup>]] 1322:2807, 103 OctoberNovember 2024 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->
::I still fail to see the reason of only counting what's aired on the primary network. If the first 9 were released for free on YouTube before airing on DC, it's still undeniable that those episodes had released. There's also a precedence for this, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_School_Musical:_The_Musical:_The_Series&oldid=925368962 High School Music: The Musical: The Series listed one episode having aired on the Infobox as early as November 9], when Disney+, it's "only primary network", didn't even launch until November 12. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 21:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
 
:Agree that it should be only Disne Channel as it is the primary network it started on. This has been done with Raven's Home and a few other shows that were released on Disney Plus later. [[User:Magical Golden Whip|Magical Golden Whip]] ([[User talk:Magical Golden Whip|talk]]) 20:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
 
== Plot summaries for multi-part episodes/multi-episode serials ==
 
The plot section states that "Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words," a standard also mentioned on [[WP:PLOTSUM]]. This handles standalone episodes fine enough -- however, it runs into problems when we account for articles that cover multi-episode stories. For instance, the first 26 seasons of ''[[Doctor Who]]'' consist of stories that typically span four to six episodes, with a couple more extreme cases encompassing [[The War Games|ten]] and [[The Daleks' Master Plan|twelve]]. Similarly, ''[[Avatar: The Last Airbender]]'' has several multi-part episodes across its three seasons, such as the two-episode "[[The Secret of the Fire Nation]]" and the four-part "[[Sozin's Comet]]".
 
In cases like these, my approach up to this point was to consider each article's contents one "episode" despite being produced and aired as multiple interconnected ones; this resulted in a lot of trimming in order to fit the plots within 400 words, sometimes throwing out plot-relevant details that connect these episodes to other installments or elaborate upon things like character motives and backstories. However, another user sent me a message arguing that these articles would probably benefit from a higher word limit due to how the stories in question were put together and how this reflects on the plots. Given this, would it be a good idea to expand the word limit for articles on multi-story episodes (within reason of course -- I'm not suggesting that we need five thousand words to concisely summarize "The Daleks' Master Plan")? [[User:Game4brains|Game4brains]] ([[User talk:Game4brains|talk]]) 07:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
 
:I think this may be best left to local consensus as it depends on the situation. If one article is about two episodes I don't think there is an issue with having two 400 word plot summaries in one article, but if it is more than that it makes sense to go with more of a high-level summary i.e. 500 words covering the plots of 10 or 12 episodes (I say 500 as that is the limit we have for a season-long summary so we shouldn't need to go above that for one story arc). - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 09:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television"