Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/PSE reception

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Current text

Reception

Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the television show was received. The reception information should include broadcast ratings (though it may be easier to maintain seasonal averages for the main page, while the season and episode articles could contain a list of ratings for all the episodes) and critical response. For the main article, it will be best to seek critical reviews that look at the series as a whole, while season and episode articles can use more selective reviews. Reviews should preferably come from the conglomerates (Associated Press, Reuters, Canadian Press), major newspapers (USA Today, The Toronto Star, The Times [London]) and major periodicals (TV Guide, TIME, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Entertainment Weekly). These reviews can either critique the show, or comment on its impact. They should not just be descriptions of the episodes, and preferably should not exceed two or three sentences per critic, so as not to apply undue weight to any given reviewer.

Reviews should be paraphrased as much as possible, with editors avoiding vague, non-descriptive claims about an episode (e.g. John Smith felt like Ray Romano was horrible in Everybody Loves Raymond's 50th episode.). Non-descriptive claims do not provide the reader with the context necessary to understand why the reviewer liked or disliked an episode. If a review only contains such claims, without providing any rationale and examples to back up their opinions, then the review, in most circumstances, should not be used in the article. Be careful when searching for reviews, and make sure they are coming from professional reviewers, and not simply a fan of the series. In the case of the general public, we use Nielsen ratings to determine popularity of a show, as it would be extremely difficult to find an accurate representation of fan opinion. This means that IMDb, TV.com, and the other similar websites that give "fan polls" are not reliable sources of information.

This section can also contain information on how the show has impacted society: If the show created a craze, popularized a word (Seinfeld with "yada, yada, yada", etc.), revolutionized the medium (Sesame Street in children's television, or the mini-series Roots), or something similar (many stores and businesses closed early on Mondays to allow employees to get home in time to watch I Love Lucy). When this resulted in merchandise, movies, books or computer games be sure to name those. Awards and nominations can also go in this section. As Wikipedia is not the American Wikipedia, it would also be beneficial to the article to find international reception.

New, updated text

to be discussed

Previous discussions

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 1#Reception section
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 5#Reception sources
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive_8#"Critical reception" sections in articles on individual episodes? Also Rotten Tomatoes.
• WP:TVFAQ - for more detailed breakdown of some sources

These were some major discussion. More potentially in the archives of MOS:TV and WT:TV

Discussion

• I don't have any major issues with this section at first glance. Perhaps we could mention something about commentary for ratings from reliable sources, to help give context to the numbers? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with that. As I say below, I think what this section really needs is a copy edit. The bulk of what needs to be said is there, it just needs a nice "modern practices" polish. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• I also don't see any real problems with this section (it's the next section I've been waiting for!...). Though I am tempted to give "Awards and nominations can also go in this section." more emphasis (maybe it can go at the start of the last paragraph?...) – really this section covers "Critical reviews", "Ratings", and "Awards and nominations" (subsections), and should perhaps be organized in 3 paragraphs thusly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• I also agree with IJBall, that we should structure and group this section in a clearer way to cover "Critical reviews", "Ratings" and add info for "Awards and nominations". Other than that, I think this as a whole just needs some copy-editing. And maybe a mention of including Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic info? The wording at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Critical response and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Audience response might be helpful to pull from. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The second sentence can include template links, just like we've done for {{Series overview}}, to use the standardized templates instead of raw wikitables. Something like though it may be easier to maintain seasonal averages for the main page using {{Television season ratings}}, while the season and episode articles could contain a list of ratings for all the episodes using {{Television episode ratings}}. -- Alex^TW 05:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to add more info for "Awards and nominations" (subsections), then let me put in a plug for adding text that awards tables should follow WP:ACCESSIBILITY (i.e. WP:DTT) – I've seen far too many 'Awards' tables that use 'rowspan' horribly and inappropriately, and which must be unreadable for our text-to-speech readership... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• I like the clearer structure idea between reviews and ratings as mentioned. My main issue with this section is that it is too 'American focused' with respect to ratings. I'd like to replace "we use Nielsen ratings" (which doesn't apply anywhere outside America) with something like use reliably sourced official ratings data and possibly linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/FAQ for suggested sources. I also agree with Alex's idea to mention the ratings templates, with a link or a footnote to the Australian version of the episode template Template:Australian television episode ratings -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the Nielsen ratings comment, especially for shows where the origin country isn't the US. I've also gone ahead and added {{Australian television episode ratings}} into the documentation of {{Television episode ratings}} as a related template. -- Alex^TW 07:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I think something about Rotten Tomatoes or MetaCritic should be mentioned. I see people using those scores for the "season" when in fact most of the time the "season ratings" are really just selective reviews of specific episodes put together. That's not really a season rating, as they are not assessing the season as a whole. That's probably less true for something on Netflix where you have access to the whole season and write a review once you're finished. But in the idea of regular network shows, if you actually go into RT you'll find reviews for episodes here and there, not reviews of the season as a whole. That makes the number skewed, and not reflective of how it is being presented in some articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a line (or even footnote) about presentation of viewing figures would be useful, to avoid arguments over things like rounding to 2 or 3 significant figures, and rounding by millions/thousands for less popular shows with viewership under 1 million. This was, I think, most recently discussed here. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyone still out there?... It's been over a month. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it is easy to let these discussions lapse. If there's no further points, perhaps its best to put what's here into a proposed wording -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Bumping thread. -- Alex^TW 08:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposal 1

The reception information should include details such as audience viewership (ratings), critical reviews, analysis, any award nominations or wins, and any cultural impact.

Information about audience viewership should use reliably sourced official ratings data, such as Nielsen ratings (US), Numeris (CAN), BARB (UK), OzTAM (AU) and similar reliable sources (see the Television FAQ page for suggested sources). Depending on the nature of the article, it may be easier to maintain seasonal averages for the main page using a template such as {{Television season ratings}}, while season and episode articles could contain a list of ratings for each episode using {{Television episode ratings}}). Unless the ratings of all episodes are below one million viewers, viewership should be presented in tables or templates as being rounded to the nearest million (for example, 2,653,000 should be written as 2.653). Ratings should only be included from the program's country of origin or where it debuts, unless viewership is particularily notable in another territory and can be reliably sourced.

For the main article, it is best to seek critical reviews that look at the series as a whole, while season and episode articles can use more selective reviews. Reviews should preferably come from global media outlets (such as the Associated Press, Reuters, Canadian Press), major newspapers (such as USA Today, The Toronto Star, The Times) and major entertainment publications (such as TV Guide, The A.V. Club, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Entertainment Weekly). These reviews can either critique the show, or comment on its impact. They should not just be descriptions of the episodes, and preferably should not exceed two or three sentences per critic, so as not to apply undue weight to any given reviewer.

Reviews should be paraphrased as much as possible, with editors avoiding vague, non-descriptive claims about an episode. Non-descriptive claims do not provide the reader with the context necessary to understand why the reviewer liked or disliked an episode. If a review only contains such claims, without providing any rationale and examples to back up their opinions, then the review, in most circumstances, should not be used in the article. Reviews from the show's country of origin are recommended, though evaluations from several English-speaking territories are desirable. Be careful when searching for reviews, and make sure they are coming from professional reviewers, and not simply a fan of the series. In the case of the general public, we use ratings to determine the popularity of a show, as it would be extremely difficult to find an accurate representation of fan opinion. This means that IMDb, TV.com, and similar websites that give "fan polls" are not reliable sources of information. Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews; caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates, or where reviews of selected episodes are averaged to form a incomprehensive season or series score.

Awards and nominations can also go in this section. In order to present a global perspective, it would also be beneficial to the article to find international reception. Any awards tables should follow WP:ACCESSIBILITY.

This section can also contain information on how the show has impacted society: If the show created a craze, popularized a word (Seinfeld with "yada, yada, yada", etc.), revolutionized the medium (Sesame Street in children's television, or the mini-series Roots), or something similar (many stores and businesses closed early on Mondays to allow employees to get home in time to watch I Love Lucy).

Proposal 1 discussion

Pinging previous contributors: @Adamstom.97, Favre1fan93, IJBall, AlexTheWhovian, and Bignole:

I've put together a proposal in hopes of wrapping this section and moving the discussion forward. Given there were no major objections to any particular part of it, I've mainly just given a bit of a rewrite and restructure and incorporated some of the points raised in the discussion. Specifically:

• Removed original first sentence
• Amended the first section to list the three areas the section primarily deals with, per discussion
• First paragraph details broadcast ratings, incorporating Alex's points about templates, offering examples of reliable ratings data outside America, and the presentation of figures.
• Second and third paragraph details critical response, incorporating discussion about review aggregation websites and taking some points from MOS:FILM per discussion and minor tweaks to the original
• Final paragraph hasn't changed too much from original text, dealing with awards, nominations and cultural influence, adding in tables should follow WP:ACCESSIBILITY per IJBall in discussion

Unless you're correcting spelling, grammar, etc. it is best to comment on changes in this sub-section rather than editing the proposal as is, in case there are objections or modifications suggested by others, to avoid edit conflicts and confusion as editors come and go. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Not a fan of the line "As Wikipedia is not the American Wikipedia" - it sounds a bit snarky. Perhaps something like: "In order to present a global perspective, it would also be beneficial to the article to find international reception". -- Netoholic @ 07:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of those rating tables. They largely duplicate information from the episode table (episode, date, total viewers, sometimes DVR figures), only adding a few more numbers that most people don't full understand. To me, when you have to start explaining on every page what "shares" means and the like, you're losing the value of the information being presented. The average reader, for the most part, understands the notion of "total viewers". Now, we understand that "shares" the like have bigger impacts on show renewals, but the average reader doesn't understand how that works (hell, I barely understand how it works and also what's good from one network to the other). I feel like we got into the habit of just copying down everything that these sources had on ratings to be encompassing and didn't think that most of it is (whether important to a studio) not that important to readers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with removing ratings tables, and that the information is unimportant. If readers don't understand the information presented, they can read Neilsen ratings and the references there to learn more. Shares are also only relevant to American programs, as many other countries don't use them in the same way. Including DVR ratings presents a fuller picture, and the information is available and can be reliabily sourced. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I also disagree with removing them. These days, single day ratings just aren't the most informative as many people watch shows over a week rather than live. It is definitely beneficial to give our readers more data to create a clearer picture. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• A couple thoughts from me.

• The very first sentence should add "analysis" or "critical commentary" as something to include in the broader "Reception" section. That is generally separate from "critical review". Also, "cultural impact" as you touch on that in the fourth (big) paragraph (see below on that).
• I like the ratings paragraph.
• I'd include The A.V. Club to the major periodicals list, remove Time and maybe change it to "major entertainment publications" (since AV Club isn't a "periodical")
• As I suggested above, I think pulling some of the wording from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Critical response could be helpful around the sentence you have on the aggregators.
• First, in the fourth paragraph, I agree with Netoholic about the reword. I'd also separate out awards info (first three sentences), and then a new paragraph for cultural impact (rest). Or at least adjust the connecting sentence to move away from it reading as if "cultural impact" info could/should appear under an "Awards" subsection, as that's how it reads now. Perhaps add a sentence or two on "analysis" and have that be combined with the "cultural impact"? Also, I'd lose the final sentence, since the next section of the MOS covers "other media".

• Overall good job. I'd also like to apologize for severely slacking in terms of following through with these discussions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I've made a few edits to the proposal based on discussion so far (given they're relatively minor I've edited the above proposal rather than duplicate, see diff if necessary), but the changes are:

• removed the "American wikipedia" line
• added "analysis" and cultural impact to the first sentence
• swapped Time for A.V. Club and rebadged as "entertainment publications" (I don't think I changed those from the existing text)
• to Favre1fan93's point on pulling from MOSFILM, that is actually where the review aggregation stuff came from, just adapted slightly for TV purposes
• Separate awards and cultural impact info (which is nearly completely unchanged from the original text). If you would like to offer a sentence for "analysis" then it could be added to the awards paragraph, but I tend to think analysis is a bit subjective and variable per program, thus hard to give guidelines or examples here.
• Removed final sentence from final paragraph

Do continue to offer suggestions and we'll look to implement and move on as soon as possible -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Whats new?. With this response, I've added "such as" in front of each publication listing you had, so it does not indicate only those listed should be used, we are merely highlighting some. It's a slight change, but wanted to note it. How is something like this as a start for an "analysis" sentence?

The section can also include commentary on certain aspects of a show, such as how it portrays character, casting controversies, or has how it evolves of the course of each season.

From articles I work on, what I'm trying to highlight with this sentence are sections like Iron_Fist_(season_1)#Casting_controversy and Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D.#Analysis. Let me know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

What's New? and Adam, you've highlighted my point for me. In order for someone to understand what's being represented on the page, you have to send them somewhere else to learn about what it means. You also point out that "shares" are rather American centric and not something easily understood outside of the United States. I'm not saying that DVR information isn't valuable, that's why most ratings sites put out the Live+7 ratings to include DVR viewing. I'm saying, the share information itself is too convoluted to use, because you'd spend more time away from the page you're trying to learn about just to understand what a share is and how it relates to the show. The problem with including "shares" is that they are based on estimations that are no where near as accurate as the total viewers (which just measures households tuned into the program). Shares are based on a sampling to determine a overall general idea of the number of TVs in a house and the number of people watching said TV. It's all guesswork. Given how difficult it is to full under how shares operate, their importance, as well as the fact that they are based on guessed figures, I would say we're better off without that. We'd be better served trying to amend the episode tables to include total viewers with DVR ratings, or God forbid you absolutely need a share rating, that you just add a column for rating shares. This age share range just adds to the confusion and isn't necessary...not to mention that it again is based on a huge level of guess-work. That is based on 1) an average age range of the individuals in the home 2) the hope that that age range is who's actually watching the show. Why duplicate information for an unnecessary table when (at best) the episode table really just needs 1 (maybe 2) additional small columns to house that information?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

There is an option to remove the word "share" from the table using the parameter noshare for non-American series and cable series so it's just the rating. Also, completely disagree with you about removing these tables. This information (18-47 rating and DVR) is in fact far more important than the viewers since those are what determine renewals and cancellations of shows, not the L+SD viewership.

Except the problem with that is that it is several contingent upon the network and doesn't translate across all networks. Also doesn't impact shows outside of the U.S. We're also back to the fact that the number is largely a guess. The share is based on an estimation of the number of people in that age group in the U.S., except they have no way of knowing if that age group is actually watching said show. They extrapolate those figures based on their 9000 participating homes. That makes it far less accurate than the simple (easy to understand) total viewership and DVR viewership ratings. This is not a dismissal of how networks value those figures, but there's a difference between what is valuable to a network and what is valuable to the average reader who doesn't understand how that stuff works.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ratings tables can be adjusted to suit the purpose as has been pointed out, and not all articles warrant the use of ratings tables - they're not mandatory. If enough relevant data fails to exist, the table shouldn't be included, just like if there's no critical commentary or reviews, there won't be those sub-sections either. Wikilinks exist to broaden knowledge, so having readers unfamiliar with terms should not be an issue, and when read once will be understood the next times the reader comes across a ratings template. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I don't mind that sentence, but I'd add in something about it needing to be notable and reliabily sourced, otherwise I fear editors may add in all sorts of things: The section may also include critical commentary on certain aspects of a show, such as how it portrays a character, casting controversies, or evolution throughout each season, if notable and reliabily sourced. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Having people go to a page to read further is one thing, requiring them to read another page just to understand data points that are blind guesses is another thing entirely. Networks might put stock on those numbers, but the average reader doesn't understand that stuff. Not to mention, from one show to the next, what a "share" means with regard to whether it's good or bad is largely different. You're presenting data as if it carries equal weight, when it doesn't. You're placing importance of specific, guesswork data because of what a Network deems and not the reader of the article. Also, this notion of "the table isn't mandatory" is b.s., because you know as well as I do that people add those tables when there's barely anything there and end up edit warring over them because "they are status quo" (when in fact they never used to be, nor was the share figures...which have been around for ages).

The other issue is this need to cover every individual episode as if each one requires that level of coverage. The ratings shares are not relevant even to a network from one random episode to the next. They pay attention to the overall share of a show, and being down or up in a week is irrelevant to several weeks to the whole series. It makes better sense to focus on prose content discussing when those things are relevant to a particular show and not swamping the article with needless tables, duplicating information, and adding lots of indiscriminate data simply because we can.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, I have to disagree. Ratings data aren't "blind guesses" as you put it, they are statistically calculated based on a considered sample. The tables/templates are not mandatory and if they are used when minimal data exists, then it should be removed or discussed locally at the talk page. Networks certainly do pay attention to ratings and shares between episodes: for example, a sudden drop of 2 million viewers for episode 5, but a rise of 2 million to episode 6, may be attributable to other factors, such as the episode airing on a public holiday or competing with a major sporting event on a rival channel. An episode may see a surge in viewers if the episode is somehow controversial or special (eg. a wedding, a death, an elimination). Where reliable data exists that can be sourced, I think it adds value to continue including it as appropriate -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

FTR, I haven't forgotten about this – I'm just super busy right now. That should change shortly, so I'll try to look at this soon... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Bumping thread. -- Alex^TW 06:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Bumping thread. -- Alex^TW 08:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me like the proposal is sitting there, either awaiting specific opposition or being implemented -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.