Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television

"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? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Here: "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 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"? —⁠ ⁠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. 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. 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. 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". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are refreshing the documentation and adding clarification[1] 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. -- 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 clarification there. Which specific sentence(s) at WP:RS would apply to this type of polling result? —⁠ ⁠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 -- 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, adamstom97 (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. -- 109.76.194.168 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I asked for other opinions because it is an unusual situation that doesn't follow the standard process established at MOS:TVCAST. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists § FLs for television seasons

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists § FLs for television seasons. A discussion regarding whether season articles should go through the GA/FAC or FLC process. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Released: Airing vs streaming

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Released: Airing vs streaming. Editors are still needed to weigh in on this. This is affects the {{Series overview}} and {{Episode table}}. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Guidance on characters' names in the plot summary?

Hello all,

Recently was comparing MOS:FILMPLOT and the TV MOS guidance on plot sections and noticed that, while the movie MOS provides guidance on whether or not to include actors' names in the plot summary, this article does not. I don't mind either way, but was just look for some clarity.

Thanks so much! Have a great day!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | 19:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:TVPLOT does include this guidance. ("Also avoid information that belongs in other sections, such as actors' names.") It is much less visible than the same sentiment in MOS:FILMPLOT though, and TVPLOT might benefit from emulating FILMPLOT's placement and wording. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, I see.

I made the sentence more prominent, but not sure if it should stay exactly like I have it - change it if you feel it could be improved.

Thanks! Have a good day!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | 01:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Episode Count in Infobox

Quick question because a few of us have disagreed over on Wizards Beyond Waverly Place. Two episodes aired on Disney Channel on October 29. Six hours later the first 9 episodes released on Disney+. Two more episodes aired on DC the next day, and from here on out they'll air weekly. Once caught up, Disney+ is set to release additional episodes only after they air on DC. Most of us agree that DC is the sole original network, despite the early release on D+

The main question: should the Infobox list the 9 that have officially released overall on Disney+, or only the 4 that have broadcast on Disney Channel??? Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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. - adamstom97 (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. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 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. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I still say go by when it airs on Disney Channel as it is the only primary network. If not, a note should be included on the infobox next the episode count until all episodes have been aired on Disney Channel. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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, 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. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)