Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Grease: You're the One that I Want!

Hello, everyone. I've just expanded this article. I'd be grateful if folks would take a look and edit my purple prose. Best regards! -- Ssilvers 06:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broadcasters lists

This discussion is moved to WT:TV#Removing Broadcasters to aid linking, and so it is read by more editors. / edg ☺ ★ 00:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navbox Television duplicates navbox generic

It looks to me like {{Navbox Television}} does the same job as {{navbox generic}} but with fewer features, a suggestion has been raised in Template talk:Navbox Television to turn it into a wrapper for the more general template. Figured I should drop a note here to draw more input. Bryan Derksen 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template List

Since the {{Tv-program-logo}} template was deleted over two months ago, shouldn't it be removed from the template list? Collectonian 04:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVDs

Is referencing commentaries and features on the DVDs of a show appropriate? If so, how would one do this? <ref> Disc 4, Bonus Features, The Life of Clark Kent </ref>? Howa0082 (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people have made the claim that commentaries are not reliable secondary sources because they are not distanced enough from the episode however it is generally accepted at Featured and Good article reviews for production info. Take a look at Homer's Phobia (a featured article), particularly the production section, to see how the citations can be done. As for featurettes, if they address the topic from an out of universe perspective I don't see a problem with using them but I'm not sure how exactly to cite them. Hope that helps. Stardust8212 18:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section order

I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Section order regarding the section order displayed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs. --UpDown (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Character description question

copying in: Character, general description, usually contains profession, habits, psychological; character may be explained more indepth later. Played by First Name Last Name
my question: I'd like to know why you ask for psychological info without a request for confirmation/citation through an episode of the show to justify a supposition about their psychological state. It seems to me you'll have more guessing than information that is true to the show and may lead to a character bashing if the editor and or contributor do not like the character. What do the editors think? MissRaye (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)MissRaye

Answer: This guideline is a little out of date, and a rewrite has already been suggested but never been acted upon. There is so much potentially revolutionary discussion going on at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) that almost everything else (usually sub-sub-sub guidelines like this one) cannot be rewritten until the (new) basics are in place.
You are right that every information should be cited (at least) from an episode. You are usually on the safe side if you look at Good and Featured Articles and copy their style of information presentation. At least that's what I do. – sgeureka t•c 22:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cast order

I've seen this on other pages, and it's a discussion that pops up every so often over at Smallville (TV series) (see the current discussion), but I think this page, since we don't really have any MOS for television articles in general (not like the WP:MOSFILMS anyway), should discuss the order of cast members in the article. What I mean is, the discussions that I see are about re-ordering a cast listing whenever a character leaves to represent the "Current" cast of the show. To me, this provides undue weight and recent events in the show, and goes against Wikipedia's stance on being based on historical facts instead of current events. We're supposed to be looking at the information in articles and asking "is this going to be relevant 10 years from now".[1]

[edit] Update

Has anyone given any thought to reworking this page and nominating it to be a MOS for the television articles? We have an MOS for film articles, it would be good to have a recognized MOS for television articles as well. I know from my experience with the film articles that the film MOS is always looked to for support when cleaning up articles. I mean, right now the page is bare in its explaination of how to create a better television article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Take some information from WP:EPISODE as to make EPISODE more strictly about notability, and that would make sense. --MASEM 16:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, if we can create a style guideline that covers all television related articles then I think that would work best. It would clear out the MOS stuff from EPISODE (removing that need to merge it into the MOS for fiction). I think the first start would be to change the name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines. Then we could have a style guideline for parent articles and sister articles that are subsequently broken off (but making special note to point to the relevant notability guidelines so editors know when to break out an article; but nothing more, because we should be here to talk about once you have gotten to that point, not if you should).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've created a sandbox were we can all refine the page, beef it up and merge relevant information from the other pages in order to get a comprehensive guidelines (built on consensus - we can have discussions here or on the talk page there).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I tried to start an effort months ago, but no one seems to have any interest. I wrote a first draft of guidelines for an episode list that was originally made for the Anime/manga project that would work well here too, if that would be of use. Collectonian (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't compeletly aware of this page, I think I stumbled across it once a long time ago but forgot all about it. I usually use the MOS for the film page, when I'm editing, as a guide. They're virtually the same territory. Anyway, interest is here now so please feel free to jump over to the sandbox I created; I've already gotten it started.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've finished my first draft of the new style guideline. I need some fresh eyes to look over it, tighten prose, include links to relevant policies and guidelines that I may have missed, and question whatever is on the page that they disagree with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the rearranging of sections in the series article. The current ordering is actually one of the few more recent improvements to the current structure, based on feedback and trends with our FA series articles. Also, where do you forsee cancellation/future information going? I was bold and reworked the character section to fit what is actually being done with GAs and FAs of character articles. Hope that's okay. :) Collectonian (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Because, as a style guideline it isn't set in stone. I've seen article with the production first and articles with the plot of the show first. The ordering isn't always pertinent, as it is based on the subject. To me, Aquaman (TV program) works best with the production info first because it never aired and the plot is the least of importance to the article, while Pilot (Smallville) is structure differently to what works best for it. Both are FA, and both structures work fine for their respective topics.
I disagree with your merging "Appearances" into "Characterization" and calling it "Character history". There are a couple of problems I see. First, I understand how it could be better for say a SOAP character to have all this information put together, given how much the character appears on television, but for general characters that appear once a week it just opens the door to have a character biography. For characters that appear on a weekly series, it is better to separate the IU information from the real world personality information (e.g. stuff critics and scholars interpret). You start blending too much and you lose quality. Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) uses this format, and it's a format also used by film characters. You can name "Appearances" something else, if they've only appeared in the one show, but I believe the two areas are distinct from one another. Troy McClure uses "Role in the Simpsons" instead of "Appearances"; his characterization information is spliced in with the creation information and the reception section. By putting it all under one heading your "History" section, which is misleading since we write everything in present tense, would become odd if the character appears outside of the show..like a comic book. The more new mediums they appear in the more subsections you'll have to create. You'd potentially have "Character history"-->"History"-->"Show"->"Comic"->"Book"->"Film" (I can cite at least one character that has appeared in all these mediums). It's simpler to have their IU info separate when you have these multiple mediums. When you start getting into critical interpreations of characteristics and personalities then it would be better to have that separate. IMO.
As for the future of the series, I included that information in the production section of the article. If a series is going to end, then obviously the production is going to end as well. Otherwise, you'd create an independent section just to state a single line of "The series will end May 12, 2008", or "The series was picked up for an eighth season."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I based the changes to the character section on what we use in the anime/manga project, and its worked extremely well for us (when people follow it, anyway, which is really the main issue with most character articles, people ignoring all style guidelines). I think it is important to emphasize real world info and an out-of-universe perspective. I'm also concerned that having an "appearances" section will result in a lot of character articles with a list of every episode that the character appeared in, even if its every episode in the series. Collectonian (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
That's why it clearly states that it isn't to catalog their every move, or what they did in every episode but provide a summary of their major plot points for the series (or season if they have story arcs). I don't know many Anime characters, and less that are featured articles. My basis has always been on how the film community handles their character articles. To me, saying "Character outline" and then having subsections of "Personality" and "History" gives rise to the idea that it should be filled with IU information. I see those headers and I assume that the stuff going in there should be strictly from the show. "History" really gives me the impression that you want some kind of character biography". Personality, unless explicitly stated is subjective, and not always equivalent to the intentions of the creative team that developed the character. Whereas "Appearances" or even something like Troy McClure with a "Role in Show" title, gives the idea of a more streamlined section. "History" implies more detail than simply "Appearances", though I do think that using "Appearances" when the character has only appeared on the single show, could insinuate that you want a list of the episodes they appeared in...which is why I stated in the opening paragraph for characters that the headers themselves are not mandatory. "Role in Show" or some other relevant title would probably work better, but I think whatever the title, the IU information should probably be separate from the rest. All fictional topic articles boil down to the same structure (plot, production, reception), it's just about how you label them and where they're ordered.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think film is a good model here, as they rarely have character articles at all. But ah well. Collectonian (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
How do you figure that? They have lots of character articles (more than they need, the same can be said for television articles). As far as featured articles go, I think there are more film characters in featured articles than there are television characters. Based on who actually has the TV Project banner on their talk page, I only see 3 television characters that are featured, while the film project (again, based on who has the Film Project banner on their talk page) has at least six featured film characters. That's not a lot for either medium, but it certainly doesn't prove that there are more television characters with articles than film characters with articles, though there are more featured film characters. If anything, it appears that there are a whole lot of Anime characters with individual articles (though, none appear to be featured articles). I see where your article structure is coming from, but Anime is a whole other field in its own right, and not restricted to just television (as you can have Anime films), which is probably why it as its own WikiProject. The purpose of this MOS would be the same as WP:NOTE is to WP:FICT or WP:NOTFILM, and that's a general MOS for most television articles. I personally disagree with the format that project is using, because (and I pulled a random example in Kakashi Hatake to support my fear) it allows for a higher volume of IU information to be used in an article. Look at "Personality", it's cited by what happens in the chapters of the anime. Random sentence, "What is known of Kakashi's personal life is that he spends much of his free time at a memorial site where Obito's name is engraved. He tends to lose track of time when he is there, and is frequently late to his appointments as a result (another trait adopted from Obito)." -- This is plot information. With that set up, you've turned a single section of IU information into 4 sections (3 subsections under "Character outline" and then another section title "Plot overview"). Plot information should be found on the seasons, episode, or series pages. Only a general overview of the character as he pertains to the show is necessary on his page. Based on what I can see, at least half of that article (which is rated as GA as of March 1, 2008 -- so it wasn't that long ago) is nothing but IU information. That goes against WP:WAF, and borders on WP:PLOT. Now, it's presented in a nice, organized manner, but the majority of the info comes from the show itself. To me, I believe that character articles should have a focus, even in the section headers, of real world context.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
How about the wording "Character arc" (see Vala Mal Doran, which I intend to take to FAC soon-ish)? The title is a real-world description of in-universe info, and "arc" implies (at least to me) that the in-universe info is kept to the basics. – sgeureka t•c 07:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I read through Bignole's sandbox version, and the advice is good there. However, I wouldn't mix the style advice of single episode and character articles - I have edited both types, and my sectioning of the articles looks extremely different, with the style of the episodes actually closer to the TV series than to the characters. – sgeureka t•c 07:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think "Character arc" works well for a character introduced in the middle of a series, but what about a character that's been there from the beginning? They don't really have an "arc", they have the whole show. Like, Clark Kent doesn't have an "arc" in Smallville, he is Smallville. Now, Jason Teague would have an arc, because he was a main character for just one seasons (season 4). That's why I'm beginning to favor Troy's "Role in Show" title if the character has appeared in just the one show, and if they have been there from the beginning (though, I don't believe Troy was there from the beginning of The Simpsons). Another possibility would be "Character storyline(s)".
As for episodes and characters, I wasn't saying the page is the same, but that you're looking for a plot description of the character and behind the scenes information on the character, as well as some kind of character interpretation from critics and scholars. Not much different than any fictional article. We can just scrap the sentence if you think it's going to confuse the readers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
So where are we lads?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
If there are no objections, in the coming days I'm going to paste in the new version of the page, change the title to the above, and place a proposed guidelines tag at the time. I'll also notify all of the relavent pages about the proposal.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I've put in the new material, and put a proposal tag at the top. Not to mention changed the title of the page to be more appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOS proposal

A user has requested comment on Wikipedia policy or guidelines for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCpolicy list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


A request for comment has also been made at:

If I missed a place please notify them and add them to this list so that we can keep a comprehensive list of every location notified in the event that there is any challenge to consensus later on. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I notified the Anime project (went for the whole project rather than Anime MoS as the anime project talk is more heavily trafficked. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Just stopping by to say that this MOS proposal has my support. – sgeureka t•c 12:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

The inclusion of a image parameter implies the need for an image, most TV images are non-free, and therefore should only be used in exceptional circumstances, an image should only be used if it's ommision is detrimental to the readers' understanding of the topic being discussed (WP:NFC). Including this parameter encourages editors to include non-free material as a matter of course whether it meets wp:nfc or not, and to engage in behaviour which is the antithesis of the goal of the foundation. If a non-free image must be included it should only be because it is needed(not desired) and cannot be conveyed with pros, and ideally it should be located in the section where it is being discussed. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Including an image of the title card for a show has been a natural part of Wikipedia for a long time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes it has and is something to disourage, non-free images are there as a necessity, not as a right! Fasach Nua (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It's the same principle behind film articles including the film's poster in the infobox. You'd never see a lawsuit against Wikipedia for them using the "non-free" poster in the infobox, but you would see a heavy backlash from editors if you removed them from all film articles. The idea behind limiting "non-free" images has typically gone to the screenshots of the episodes themselves, because you're actually showing a portion of the episode (which could really piss off the company). It's the same principle why we have allowed season pages to have an image of the DVD cover art, because television shows don't typically have seasonal posters that represent the entire season, and the cover art for the box generally substitutes as that. I'm not going to turn around and discourage something that has been a staple of television and film pages for years. It's just like using a logo in the article, as the title cards are the show's "logo". Now, if WP:FURG wants to specifically state the film posters and the like (not referring to general screenshots of events within an episode, which I'm perfectly fine iterating that they are only to be used when there is critical commentary, as the MOS currently doesn't address that) are not to be used at all, as you're not going to find any commentary on a poster for a TV show, or a film, nor one on the intertitles or DVD cover art. I have serious reservations being the first MOS to say "NO. STOP. You can't have that image even though you've had it for years, plus every other MOS says other pages can have like images". Address this issue somewhere else first, as this is an MOS page, and not a page meant to change the way pages have been set up for years.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Second Bignole. There has never been an issue with a single non-free image in an infobox for a television series, so long as it follows the usual fair use requirements: not excessively big, low resolution, and with a proper FUR. A title screen/logo is a visual cue and identifier of a television series. They certainly belong in an article about the television series, same as film articles have a poster or DVD cover, book articles have a cover of the book, music articles have the CD, etc. This certainly isn't the place to argue the issue if you want to strip all infoboxes of non-free images, an argument I strongly suspect would be lost anyway.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I would have hoped for a more robust arument than WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, there is not a problem with images that meet FU requirements. There is a belief amongst some wikipedians that every article should have a non-free image, even if it fails wp:nfc, a belief that should be discouraged. I feel the WP:FURG are fine, screenshots should be subject to the same requirements as other non-free content. If you look at Torchwood it clearly fails wp:nfc#1, gfdl text could convey the same information as this non-free image in the infobox. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The argument isn't just other crap exists, the argument is that the infobox images do NOT fail NFC at all. Their vast existence, including in every last featured television series article, shows that this is the overwhelming consensus of the project. As you said, it is YOUR belief that there shouldn't be a non-free image in the infobox. It is not an belief anyone else seems to share. As was already said, however, if you want to change existing policies and guidelines regarding their use, you would need to do it at NFC. This MoS, like all others, and our articles are perfectly inline with the existing guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If you were to exclude images from the infobox, it would be inline with guidelines too, I see no reason to change existing policies Fasach Nua (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
An aside, based on the precedent at Image:IBM logo.svg, I should imagine the intertitle at Torchwood would be eligible to upload at Commons. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the precept that TV series' intertitles meet muster for the NFCC. 2+ years ago, I uploaded Image:CSI Miami.png for CSI: Miami; but what is it showing a reader? A Miami cityscape with text and greebles; nothing requisite for understanding the article, and how much value of "identification" does it provide? Textual recognition? There may be a few instances where the intertitle actually warrants inclusion based on some reliably sourced importance of some kind, although none come to mind immediately.

That being said, I don't think this is the appropriate venue to dictate this. As said, this has become an unofficial SOP or an "under the table" exemption of the WP:NFCC. This decision would need to be established by consensus at WT:NFCC, and then that decision would influence the MoS/style guidelines being discussed here. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. I have no issues with saying "you can't unless you do this...", so long as the policy specifically dictactes that. My experience with the numerous debates that have arisen over posters and images in the infobox has been that the entire article constitutes "critical commentary" for the image that is being used to represent "the entire article". Now, you can continue to debate whether or not that is true (frankly, I don't care, I'm just tired of double standards and inconsistent application all the way around)...but that needs to be done on another page. No other MOS for fiction related articles (as they are typically the only ones this really affects..not counting BLP which clearly states "use a free image") states that there shouldn't be an image in the infobox unless, so I do not feel that this MOS needs to be contridicting so many other guidelines when the policy page itself does not dictate specifics on the image for the infobox. The main argument is always "critical commentary", which always turns into whether or not the article itself represents all the commentary you need, given that the image is supposed to be a representation of the article as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)