Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Release

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

Release

A section titled "Release" can be added if information exists for the following two subsections. If only one of the subsections below is able to be used, that should be the sole section, to avoid single subsections.

Broadcast

When detailing a show's international broadcasting, simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged; Wikipedia is not a television guide. Apart from the channel of origin for the series, editors are encouraged to instead detail noteworthy (see next paragraph) foreign broadcasts, from English-speaking countries, through prose form. This section is best named simply "Broadcast" and should also address broadcasting in the country of origin.

Special mentions can be used where a show does something noteworthy for a country/international channel, and are best addressed in the appropriate sections. For example, if an American show aired its series finale in France a month before the U.S., this should be added to the "Broadcast" section; a British series breaking the viewership records for a German channel on a particular date should instead be addressed in the "Reception" section.

Shows should be categorized by original broadcasters but not by other ones. All information should be reliably sourced.

Home media

This section should be used to detail the series release on home media (VHS, DVD, etc.; written as prose) and other general distribution such as being added to a streaming service (Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.). Features listed about a DVD should be presented in prose format, with focus only going to unique features. Listing of every episode with a commentary track or deleted scenes is discouraged—this is typically found on every television DVD set—this type of information can be readily provided by any sales vendor. Instead, focusing on special featurettes that discuss something unique about the season would be appropriate. Ideally this section also includes reviews about the DVD (e.g., special features, sound and video quality, price/quality-quantity, etc.)

New, updated text

Release

A section titled "Release" can be added if information exists for two or more of the following subsections. If only one of the subsections below is able to be used, do not use any subsections under "Release" to avoid single subsections. It may be beneficial to forgo the inclusion of this section if the only information available results in a single sentence such as "[Series] aired on [Network] from [Date 1] to [Date 2].", as this information can be noted in a preceding section.

Broadcast

This section should cover broadcast or release information about the series or season. This can include: the original network or streaming service it airs/releases on in the country of production (i.e. the British network for a British series such as Doctor Who, or the American and British networks for a co-production series such as Sherlock); a change in network throughout the run, such as with Futurama; start and end dates; and discussion of technical data such as picture and audio format when it is accompanied by critical commentary. Days or timeslots are not inherently notable, but if covering a series that switches these throughout its run, it may be helpful to note the day and timeslot for each season. Please note that if episodes are released on a streaming service (ie Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.) all at once, it may be more appropriate to have this section titled "Release" over "Broadcast". Additionally, should a series receive a syndication deal, that can also be noted in this section.

As Wikipedia is not a television guide, this section should not include an indiscriminate list of every network that a series has appeared on in countries outside the country of production. To help with this, editors are encouraged instead to add noteworthy foreign broadcasts, when reliably sourced. These can include: broadcasts in primarily English-speaking nations such as the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand; special cases such as an American series airing its series finale in France a month before the U.S.; or a mass international distribution deal, such as Netflix acquiring the international rights for Riverdale and Designated Survivor. If reliable sources exists for additional countries broadcasting a series in English, a talk page discussion should be started to determine if it is notable enough to mention.

Home media and streaming services

This section should be used to detail release on home media (VHS, DVD, Blu-ray etc.; written as prose). Features about a home media set should be presented in prose format, with focus only going to unique features. Listing of every episode with a commentary track or deleted scenes is discouraged — this type of information can be readily provided by any sales vendor. Instead, focusing on special featurettes that discuss something unique about the season would be appropriate. This section can also include reviews about the home media (e.g., special features, sound and video quality, price/quality-quantity, etc.) and sales information.

The addition or removal of a season or series to a streaming service (Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.) or other on-demand service can also be noted here. Given the information available, it may be beneficial to combine this information with physical home media information, rather than having separate sections for each.

Previous discussions

MOS

TV discussions

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television/Archive_6#TVINTL
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television/Archive_5#WP:TVINTL.2FWP:TVRECEPTION
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 5#Broadcast/TV:INTL section
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 4#International Broadcasts
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 3#Broadcast
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 3#International broadcasting discussion
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 2#Broadcast section - What exactly is meant by "English-speaking countries"?

TV project discussions

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_19#International_broadcast

(potentially more, but some are very old and may not be as applicable any more)

Discussion

Streaming section

• First thoughts here: this section needs updating! Why? – Because we now need to make some accounting of the release of TV series via online streaming (e.g. Netflix) and via OnDemand. That means we probably need to add an entirely new subsection to go along with 'Broadcast' and 'Home media'. I'll admit, I don't have any specific ideas on this, beyond the fact that we need to cover streaming and OnDemand somehow now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • One other (small) thing: if no other part of MOS:TV links to it, this section (esp. WP:TVINTL) should probably include an explicit link to WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It does link to NOTTVGUIDE in the prose, but do you mean as a side-shortcut? And yeah, I think this could just do with a general overhaul. It also has some redundant sentences in it and the like. I think we should just have the general "Release" section info, and at some point mention that subheadings like "Broadcast", "Streaming", Home media", etc. are possible. Also, would we want to include marketing information here? Almost every film and TV article I work on includes marketing info in the release section. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right – it does. (I think I would advise linking to it as WP:NOTTVGUIDE, though, just to highlight it more clearly...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

As for "Marketing", what do you mean by that? If you mean, video games and books, etc., and such I'm going to want a "rewrite" of that section as "Other media" when we get to it; but no – I think that 'Other media' (e.g. video games, books, etc.) belong in a separate section from this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk)

Marketing as in trailers and other promotion for the series' release. For instance, Star Trek: Discovery#Marketing, which is separate from the other media section. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Need to be careful when discussing marketing. Star Trek is a big, iconic franchise, but most trailers for tv shows don't get press outside of the fandome websites.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

We could do with something along the lines of WP:FILMMARKETING that makes it clear that marketing info be supported by decent sources and commentary. Just realised that there isn't really much on marketing at all in MOS:TV, so we should cover that somewhere at least. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

International broadcast

This really needs to be sorted explicitly: when should an international broadcast be mentioned. Several sentences in the broadcast sub-section contradict each other. simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged is at somewhat at odds with encouraged to instead detail noteworthy (see next paragraph) foreign broadcasts, from English-speaking countries and noteworthy for a country/international channel, and are best addressed in the appropriate sections. The interpretation among most lately seems to have defaulted to 'international broadcast dates in English speaking nations can be mentioned in series articles.' Apart from which countries merit mention of broadcast, it should also be explicitly stated what should and should not be mentioned: premiere date of series or each season, channel/network, timeslot, etc. Also, does an international premiere qualify as a "noteworthy broadcast" - if it does, I don't see why excluding non-English speaking countries is OK; and if it doesn't I don't see why the fact a show has been sold and distributed out of its home market/country of origin isn't noteworthy. My strongly held position: The premiere of a series, its date and network, in any country where a reliable source can be cited, should be included at a series article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

First, the reason we don't include "non-English speaking countries", especially when there isn't something noteworthy about it, is because they have their own Wikipedia. The reason we don't simply include every premiere date that happens is because they aren't noteworthy most of the time. All shows when they reach syndication length get sold. This is not uncommon or rare. So, there needs to be something of note about it. Per WP:DISCRIMINATE, we wouldn't list every single premiere and channel a show appears on, because we would be listing forever. Not to mention that the average reader doesn't care that a show appeared in India.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, India is an English speaking country so under the current definition would be included. Secondly, if the "own Wikipedia" argument holds, why does it apply to television distrubution but not (eg. music releases and sales or store expansions? Thirdly, 'all shows are sold at syndication length' only applies to U.S. network shows, and even then doesn't always hold true (eg. Chicago Fire has run for 5 seasons and not been sold into U.S. syndication but has been sold internationally). Finally, just because it has the potential to be a long list isn't reason enough in my opinion to exclude based on an arbitrary criteria of official language status. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

My use of India not about it being "Non-English", it was about it being irrelevant. What music projects do and what film and tv projects do rarely match up. That's why you see Music or Game Project with ratings tables and other stuff that we don't do. So, pointing to another project doesn't really mean that we should do it, when that project is very different. As for syndication, that has more to do with the buyer. Chicago Fire is eligible for syndication, but the fact that no other network has purchased the rights speaks more to the show than to how long it's been on the air. And again, we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. Shows get released internationally all the time (you just pointed out that they even get released internationally when they aren't run in syndication in their country of origin). The simple fact that it happens doesn't make it noteworthy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I would again point out the syndication argument to which you refer is only relevant in America and not in any other country. International broadcast is surely more notable than domestic syndication (ie. repeats on a cable channel versus first run in a foreign market). By the same measurement, why is a DVD or streaming release notable but overseas release not? What is the criteria that makes an Indian premiere of a U.S. series non-notable but the American debut of a British series notable? Notability is established by the existence of reliable sources, so if a RS for the Game of Thrones premiere date on Indian television exists I don't see why it should be omitted. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

First, simply listing the releases of international broadcast is already discouraged by section anyway (I know people don't practice it enough, but it is addressed and the whole point of the revamp is to give us a better guide to point to and start holding articles accountable). So, the release on a country by itself is rarely notable in its own right. It may be that China has never allowed a US show to be aired in the same year of its original release, but they doing it with show Y. That would be notable, regardless of language spoken. So, you cannot boil it down so simply to the location. We specifically speak about any release should come with something noteworthy attached to it. That's why we DON'T list every channel a show starts airing on after syndication.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Where it reads "channel of origin for the series", should we be concerned with shows which are co-productions by different channels in different countries? Some shows are partnerships with several channels/countries, which might blur the line about what is considered an international or domestic broadcast. (Perhaps I'm overthinking. "channel(s) of origin" would probably be sufficient). Reidgreg (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I cannot imagine that that is a common issue. Most co-productions are generally not cross country (not that that isn't a thing, just not the typical way) or cross channel across countries. We see co-productions, but in they are in the same country then it's only on one channel. I would hesitate to add "(s)" to that, because it would encouraged the a inclusion of multiple channels that are not really "channels of origin". Can you provide some examples of what you're referring to?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I would imagine Reidgreg is referring to something like Cleverman which is a co-pro between the US and Australia and premiere within 24 hours of each other in each country by Sundance in America and the public broadcaster in Australia. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, like that. Some other examples: Humans is British-American, Vikings is Irish-Canadian, The Tunnel is British-French (itself based on a Danish-Swedish co-production), Highlander: The Series was Canadian-French, and Lexx was Canadian-German.

I've been thinking about this for a little bit, since we always seem to have a debate come up regarding listing countries outside those of original broadcast. So I thought of this, which we can maybe work from to get the wording just right: list country of broadcast, and then, if available info it, US, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand broadcasts (I think I can safely assume we all agree these are the "big 5" of English broadcast television, and the majority of our English-language series articles in the projects come from these countries). After that, any additional noteworthy country can be added if and only if the sourcing 100% confirms the series in question aired in English, without any overdubbing etc. And finally, if any non-English broadcast (ie a German one in Germany) had some sort of notable feat, that could be mentioned. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

There could be a compromise option around something to that, but I still come back to the issue of why some countries are in (in this case the "big 5") but other are omitted. The English language requirement idea isn't a bad one, but if the issue is this being the English Wikipedia in regards to broadcast info, then why is there not a rule banning articles for a Japanese drama series or a Bulgarian reality show. If a realiable source has Game of Thrones airing (whether dubbed, subtitled or native) in Estonia, I'm not clear on what the basis for its exclusion is other than 'the paragraph will be a longer.' For my mind, that argument isn't reason enough to exclude it. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think at that point (looking to your GoT example), we need to consider WP:INDISCRIMINATE in that we are "not an indiscriminate collection of information". What is notable about the Estonia info that it should be included? If it is merely the fact that it is, then we really shouldn't be listing it. And typing this now, I can see even how my suggestion would fail this. That is why I feel we've had such a difficult time over the years with this, because we want to control the amount of info we include, without it becoming a laundry list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is a recurring and difficult issue. I would argue that deliberately omitting the fact the program was distributed outside its home market is just as bad. The fact the program was successful enough to be sold internationally is a significant feat for a program, and is more notable in my opinion than the DVD release date or the (sometimes exhaustive) details on casting or visual effects. To prevent it becoming indiscriminate, I don't think we should be including foreign timeslots and the like, but I strongly believe foreign distribution is a notable topic, and adding "The series premiered in the United Kingdom on 1 January 2017 on BBC Two" doesn't take up a whole heap of space. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to go ahead with some proposed replacement text for this section of MOSTV, and we can go from there?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Certainly it would be helpful for the text to be clear that "foreign" means "not in its home country" and not "not in the US" as is still too often assumed on WP MapReader (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Refresh

Woof. Completely forgot about this discussion. Sorry all. Hoping we can figure something out for this section and continue on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes forgot about this also. It is a section that often causes debate so hopefully it can be resolved -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it needs another refresh... -- Alex^TW 01:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does. Wow, I'm sorry that I let this slide, but you know, life. I still am sticking by my proposal to deal with clarifying TVINTL, of having wording that allows: 1) mention of the country of origin; 2) any info on broadcast in the "main" English broadcast regions (US, Canada, UK, Australia, NZ) reliably sourced; 3) any "noteworthy" broadcasting information, similar to the wording we have now, reliably sourced; and finally 4) any additional country of broadcast if any only if there is a reliable source for it being broadcast in the country in question, and explicitly states the series is being aired in English and not aired with a dubbed audio track. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

We still need to deal with the issue of streaming, as the recent post at WT:MOSTV drives home. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I just saw that post about streaming, and I personally don't have a problem with the wording as it is. Just because most shows end up on a streaming service at some point does not mean that we shouldn't mention it. Most shows end up released on Blu-ray or DVD, and nobody is proposing that we not mention that at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Either way, my original point was that 'Streaming' needs to be dealt with in its own section/subsection now, along with 'Broadcast' (which is nearly always its own section in most TV series articles) and 'Home media' (ditto). IOW, the current text needs to be revised to have a dedicated 'Streaming' subsection. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that depends on the context. I see streaming being used as general release info, like we would for a movie, and for home media info if it is after the show has already been broadcast. I think both of those are fine, as well as a dedicated Streaming section. I don't think we should be trying to restrict this one. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But I'm saying that in this very MOS:TV, 'Streaming' needs to have its own subsection now, just like 'Broadcast' and 'Home media' do. Or, at the very least, in the MOS, the subsection should now be titled 'Streaming and home media' rather than just 'Home media'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it should be lumped with "home media" because that implies that streaming is therefore a secondary distribution channel, and what with Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc, that is clearly not the case anymore. I.e. there's a difference between something released "traditionally" first and then made available on a streaming service vs. something that originates via a streaming service. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. So then 'Streaming' would need to be its own subsection in the MOS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, sorry IJBall. I understand what you meant now and agree with you. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, I've written up a text proposal below. Please discussion that proposal specifically in the section below. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"English-speaking"

I vehemently oppose any changes to the "Release" section that retain any form of geographical restrictions. We essentially have a tiny group of editors blatantly abusing WP:NOT (and ignoring WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) to exclude very important and fully legitimate encyclopedic info. This has gone on for far too long already, and absolutely must be fixed now.

Now if someone wants to drop broadcasting info entirely (other than original network info), that is a completely different question. Modernponderer (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No need to shout, it puts less emphasis on your arguments. This server is the English-based server of Wikipedia. Other servers for other regions and languages can include the relevant information there. And the local consensus has been to not include non-English countries for years, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. -- Alex^TW 02:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying that nobody, including me, cares (or ought to care) about a local consensus that flies in the face of global policy. And global policy is to include ALL encyclopedic information regardless of its geographic relevance. We even have templates like {{globalize}}, for crying out loud! Modernponderer (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to inform you, but WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is a policy, which means that we need to adhere to it, and you seem to be the only person who looks at it that way, according to this discussion. Another policy to look at is WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", so no, we do not need to include every available piece of information. What is this "global policy" that you're stating? I see no links to any policies or "global" policies to support your argument. And there's still no need to shout. -- Alex^TW 02:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You're twisting WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to mean the exact opposite of what it actually says: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

The link you requested is WP:NPOV which, as it happens, also says: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Modernponderer (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in that about having to include global information; that does not support your supposed "global policy" at all. I'm asking for a policy that states that every country must be noted. -- Alex^TW 03:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

But I did not argue that "every country must be noted". I am stating that a guideline, such as this one, that deliberately excludes certain countries or regions applies (or rather forces!) undue weight, and therefore violates NPOV. Modernponderer (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Except that you are. You are stating that every country must be included, and that there should not any geographical restriction. However, there is nothing under WP:NPOV#Explanation of the neutral point of view that supports your argument. -- Alex^TW 04:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that. Stop making false claims about my views. What I am stating is that the guideline may not prohibit doing so. And as I already mentioned, I am referring to undue weight: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Modernponderer (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Whats new? to this discussion, as he started the original discussion about WP:TVINTL up-page. On my end, I probably come down in the middle on this – On the one hand, I understand the impetus to try to restrict TV series articles' 'Broadcast' sections to just English-language broadcasts as there definitely has been a proliferation of "international broadcast" WP:LISTCRUFT in WP:TV articles, esp. at some of our older TV series articles. On the other hand, I'm against a blanket "ban" on including non-English language broadcasts in the MOS, because in some cases non-English language broadcasts are relevant and have secondary-sourcing support. For example, I believe Baywatch and CSI: Miami, as well as Dallas and Dynasty before them, were actually either the #1 highest-rated, or at least among the highest-rated, TV shows in a number of countries, including non-English language ones – that kind of situation can, and should, be mentioned in the 'Broadcast' section of a TV series article... So, the indiscriminate unsourced listings of foreign-language TV broadcasts have got to go, as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and MOS:TV needs to make that clear... So the issue here is getting the balance between these two competing extremes right in MOS:TV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The kind of info about a series being the highest rated or most watched in XXX country belongs in the 'Ratings' section. - Brojam (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree – I think Ratings/Reception info should basically only cover country of origin, or at least English-speaking countries. Being a highest-rated program in a foreign, non-English speaking country probably makes more sense in the 'Broadcast' section. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources are required for all information on Wikipedia, and if there is a claim made without any it may be removed, without question. But for those cases where an international broadcast is in fact reliably sourced, how dare the community make a guideline forcing its removal!? Do you not realize how valuable this information is, and how difficult it is to find? (Particularly for readers who do not speak the language of the broadcast that they are looking for – I have personally been forced to translate Wikipedia TV series articles online numerous times because of this absolutely insane policy.) It is not in any way, shape, or form "listcruft" because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT!

(And by the way, a "TV guide" is an actual schedule. Not just a mention that a show aired on a channel, even with airdates.) Modernponderer (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

How dare we? Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't keep something just because it is sourced. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that listing the channels a show aired on was actually just a summary of the work, or a lyrics database, or a list of statistics, or even a software update log. Modernponderer (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

For what its worth, I don't particularly like the geographic restriction either - I'd prefer any country's premiere broadcast be included (provided its reliably sourced). However, other editors prefer to omit all foreign broadcasters entirely. The English speaking only version proposed here, which has been in practice for some time (if not explicitly written), was essentially a consensus position. I don't think there's enough support to go towards either all or none still, so unless that's changed with new voices or changed opinion, the English speaking policy seems the best way forward. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You are literally arguing for the golden mean fallacy. That is unacceptable, as in this particular case either "extreme" is vastly preferable to this horrendous, blatantly policy-violating "compromise". Modernponderer (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

As someone who seems to have been indefinitely blocked three times, I'd recommend you keep the attacks to a minimum - just because you disagree with it, doesn't mean it's wrong. -- Alex^TW 07:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Unlike you, I'm not making any personal attacks. I am "attacking" the ridiculous text of the guideline, and the fallacious logic behind it. Modernponderer (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You're calling this discussion "horrendous" and "blatantly policy-violating", and through extension, the same of its contributors. I'm just stating facts, that you need to watch your words, given that your last indef block was for personal attacks. And now back to the discussion... -- Alex^TW 08:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am calling the guideline horrendous and blatantly policy-violating. Not this discussion, nor anyone in it. Modernponderer (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

And who do you think the guideline was created by, through discussion? -- Alex^TW 08:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia was created by editors, sure. But that doesn't mean it cannot be criticized without making personal attacks.

I did follow your suggestion and tone down the "yelling" somewhat, though. Modernponderer (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the MoS is going to be on broadcasts outside country of origin, it just needs to be explicitly stated so we don't have editors adding or deleting them on their own interpretation of the current unclear section. DVD releases in regions outside of origin are mentioned, and the same increasingly with streaming services, so I have never seen a justifiable reason to curtail ALL foreign broadcast premieres, but I do see other editor's points of view (even if I don't wholeheartedly agree) about endless lists of potentially 200-odd separate debuts. Thus the English language consensus position seemed to make the most sense, and somewhat satisfy the needs of those involved. If that's changed, we should discuss it further, but otherwise keep the status quo, write it in explicitly and move on -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposals

Proposal 1

Release

A section titled "Release" can be added if information exists for two or more of the following subsections. If only one of the subsections below is able to be used, do not use any subsections under "Release" to avoid single subsections. It may be beneficial to forgo the inclusion of this section if the only information available results in a single sentence such as "[Series] aired on [Network] from [Date 1] to [Date 2].", as this information can be noted in a preceding section.

Broadcast

This section should cover broadcast or release information about the series or season. This can include: the original network or streaming service it airs/releases on in the country of production (i.e. the British network for a British series such as Doctor Who, or the American and British networks for a co-production series such as Sherlock); a change in network throughout the run, such as with Futurama; start and end dates; and discussion of technical data such as picture and audio format when it is accompanied by critical commentary. Days or timeslots are not inherently notable, but if covering a series that switches these throughout its run, it may be helpful to note the day and timeslot for each season. Please note that if episodes are released on a streaming service (ie Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.) all at once, it may be more appropriate to have this section titled "Release" over "Broadcast". Additionally, should a series receive a syndication deal, that can also be noted in this section.

As Wikipedia is not a television guide, this section should not include an indiscriminate list of every network that a series has appeared on in countries outside the country of production. To help with this, editors are encouraged instead to add noteworthy foreign broadcasts, when reliably sourced. These can include: broadcasts in primarily English-speaking nations such as the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand; special cases such as an American series airing its series finale in France a month before the U.S.; or a mass international distribution deal, such as Netflix acquiring the international rights for Riverdale and Designated Survivor. If reliable sources exists for additional countries broadcasting a series in English, a talk page discussion should be started to determine if it is notable enough to mention.

Home media

This section should be used to detail release on home media (VHS, DVD, Blu-ray etc.; written as prose). Features about a home media set should be presented in prose format, with focus only going to unique features. Listing of every episode with a commentary track or deleted scenes is discouraged — this type of information can be readily provided by any sales vendor. Instead, focusing on special featurettes that discuss something unique about the season would be appropriate. This section can also include reviews about the home media (e.g., special features, sound and video quality, price/quality-quantity, etc.) and sales information. Given the information available, it may be beneficial to combine this section with "Streaming services" if information also exists there.

Streaming services

This section should detail the addition or removal of a season or series to a streaming service (Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.) or other on-demand service. Given the information available, it may be beneficial to combine this section with "Home media" if information also exists there.

Proposal 1 discussion

• I don't think the streaming section captures the sentiment Masem articulated, and myself and others endorsed, here. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks Favre1fan93 for putting a proposal forward. I'd question why mentioning streaming should have its own section, and couldn't simply be included within broadcast or home media (with a more suitable heading). I'd also question why streaming in syndication is noteworthy at all - we don't typically allow mention of reruns airing on a cable channel for example, so why the difference for reruns on Netflix or Hulu outside a mass distribution deal? I'd also think it is worthwhile, in broadcast about noteworthy foreign broadcasts, to add in something to explain why those countries are there in particular (to a casual editor they might question why those countries are singled out), perhaps something like These can include: broadcasts in primarily English language speaking nations, such as the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand;.... Perhaps listing countries specifically in a note may be best, to avoid excluding obvious inclusions such as Ireland and Singapore but not having editors debate, for example, Tanzania (where English is an official language but not most widely spoken) -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  I'll remain neutral for now on the idea of keeping streaming info in one of the existing subsections since "with a more suitable heading" is the key part of such an idea, and we don't have any proposals for new suitable headings for the subsections that would be inclusive on online video services (much of the point of which is mobile access, so "home" doesn't really accurately address them). Also, "primarily English language speaking nations" is redundant, and we hyphenate compound adjectives. If we used some working like that, it should be "primarily English-speaking nations". But listing them is kind of pointless (the list provided is already missing some obvious ones, and a complete list is quite long, e.g would include over half of the Caribbean countries). We too frequently run into debates about this sort of thing. Having a list is probably not helpful, and addresses a "problem" that isn't real (no one is going around adding Tanzanian or Barbadian release dates to everything).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed with Jclemens that it still needs some work in that regard.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Jclemens: My apologies. I saw the discussion at the previous location, but failed to actually read what was being said. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  FTR, I don't agree with Masem on that – we already report when a show goes into rerun syndication for year (or more), the same should be true for streaming. I would probably agree though that any show that is streamed on a service for less than one calendar year should probably be omitted, unless it is some kind of "special offering" like AngusWOOF refers to, and even then it is only worthy of mention if this "special release" status is supported by a secondary source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Avoid "can" and "cannot" wording; MoS is not a policy. The first sentence's wording also needs adjustment, if there are going to be three (maximum) subsections. To combine both fixes into one, use: 'A section titled "Release" should be added if information exists for two or more of the following subsections.' An alternative approach to 'If only one of the subsections below is able to be used, that should be the sole section' would be 'If only one of the subsections below is able to be used, just use a "Release" section without a subsection'; this would avoid having to re-name the section later if more info is added and we end up needing subsections (commonly the case, e.g. when Blu-ray/DVD release happens after the theatrical run). Also, "on-demand" should be hyphenated under "Streaming services", since it's used as a compound adjective. Comma needed between "removal" and "should" in that sentence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• The Streaming removal should only be only notable if it is a limited engagement on the streaming service, like with theatre runs. Most of the time it will say it was streamed on (service) which would fit under the "Broadcast and release" section, and maybe explain whether episodes were made available prior to the television broadcast, or some release schedule. It could also be combined with "Home media", as many On Demand services are now moving to an online buying model. Streaming is also a bit tricky as there is live streaming / simulcast and the On Demand type of streaming. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • As per AngusWOOF above, I didn't mean to suggest "Streaming" should be its own subsection, just that it shouldn't be talked about in MOS:TV as the same as/equivalent to "Home media". Also don't think we should be including detailed info on when it became available and then left a streaming service, because we're not a TV guide... again, unless as above it's notable and sourced as such, like a limited engagement. If it's just part of the general rollover of shows on Netflix, Hulu, etc., the fact it was available through those services seems relevant but the specific start and end dates for each of those gets us back into WP:TRIVIA territory (and of course there will be different dates for different regions, and then maybe a show will return to and leave a service multiple times, etc. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
    • No, it should be its own subsection. It's in not equivalent to DVD and other home media (it is literally a "different medium"). As such, I'd like to see the proposed subsection above fleshed out a little bit, if that's possible. Essentially, streaming service coverage is somewhat equivalent to "rerun syndication", and should be treated similarly. In terms of start/end-dates, it's probably preferable to do something like, "The series was available on Netlfix from 2016–2017" or something like that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• There are a few bits of grammar and phrasing that could usefully be improved:

In the intro paragraph, "if information exists for the following subsections" is a bit clunky - why not say "for shows that are both broadcast and available on home media", since that is what we mean?

Under Broadcast, " it airs/releases on in the country of production" -> "of release in the home country", "ie" -> "i.e." as per MOS:ACRO, "of a series" in the third line is implicit and can be copyedited out, as is "by themselves" since it duplicates "inherently", "make note of" -> "note" (or "refer to"), series' -> series's for singular possessive, "over" -> "instead of" or "rather than", "that" (end of first para) -> "this". At the end of the first para, "exist" should be singular. In the second para, "editors are discouraged..", replace "To help with this, editors are encouraged instead to add..." with "Instead, add...", the "second cases..." phrase has no verb, I suggest "can include" after "cases", "additional countries broadcasting a series in English.." -> "additional countries' English broadcasts...".

Under Home Media, we don't really need "series" in the first sentence, or "listed" in the second (they can't both be listed and in prose format, which is what the draft literally says). In an editing sense I don't see that "focus only going to.." is clear, or indeed actually carries much meaning? Does it mean "mention" or "inclusion"? "Listing of" -> "Listing". The two phrases after the dashes are both saying the same thing and surely we only need one, or they can be copy edited together? Replace "as well as its removal should that occur" with inserting "or removal" after "addition".MapReader (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Bumping thread. -- Alex^TW 15:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

To help move this along, I've attempted to integrate some of the ideas/issues/concerns raised into the proposal. See diff for changes -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

With the line Features about a home media set should be presented in prose format, are we saying {{Television home release}} cannot be used? If that's the case, I think the line should be changed to allow the features to be described in prose or with this template (BUT only on season article pages or the main series page for one season series; we don't want to have a bunch of theses tables stacked one on top of the other like Scandal). Also might be good to add that specific information of the home releases (technical details, bonus features, and additional info) should go in the season articles instead of the main series articles to avoid tables like this. Also, shouldn't we have a section for "Marketing" and maybe "Copyright infringement/Illegal distribution"? - Brojam (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

To your points Brojam, yes I think the line about home media prose is mainly for "main" articles, if season articles exist. Currently, marketing info is covered at MOS:TV#Media information, but I would not be opposed to including it here. "Copyright infringement..." would apply to a very finite number of series, so I don't think we should have a whole chunk listed in the MOS, though we could maybe include a sentence or two in the opening sentence of this section saying how that info can be included here as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that this needs to be wrapped up'ed and closed; there's no further disagreements, so consensus appeared to have been made. -- Alex^TW 23:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, best to take what is here, and if there needs to be further discussion or there's future disagreement, begin afresh. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll make a post on the regular MOSTV and TV project talks about this to see if we can get more eyes to close and add it in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Commment - I don't think this bit--"This can include: the original network or streaming service it airs/releases on in the country of production (i.e. the British network for a British series such as Doctor Who, or the American and British networks for a co-production series such as Sherlock);"--should be there. We don't need a section that just identifies what station it is on. That's already done in the infobox and the lead. Nor the part about start and end dates and picture format. Picture format is in the infobox, and start and end dates are likely to be covered by the ratings section that usually has a table showing the ratings for each season. Instead, I think that should focus more on changes to a broadcast than just the basics of the fact that it is broadcasted. Otherwise, to me, it opens up pages to basically have sections that read: "Show is aired on the Disney channel in HD. Season one began on Date, and ended on Date Y. Season two began on Date Z and ended on Date A"." If nothing actually changes, then all of those items are covered in multiple spots elsewhere and we don't need extraneous coverage of basic data points about a show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

As the lede and infobox are actually just supposed to summarize what is already included in the article, it can be argued that that info actually should be included in the prose of some section like 'Broadcast'... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with IJBall on that first sentence you questioned Bignole. This info should be in the article somewhere, but I do agree that we should avoid a "Broadcast/Release" section if the only info is going to be "[Show] aired on [network]." Regarding start and end dates, remember, this section is also for season articles, where it would be beneficial to have this information included and sourced in a section like this. So I think that should stay, or at least maybe have wording added to discourage the type of situations you are describing. As to the technical data, that can be beneficial and useful to include beyond simply stating. For example, see Daredevil (season 1)#Release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the lead does summarize, but it also contains basic data points that aren't typically listed anywhere else. The show's broadcast format has never been historically discussed in other section before, unless there was something special about it. The lead and infobox are the only places you find that it's an American, Canadian, etc. show. The infobox is the only place you find that it's in "English", the genres, and format rate. Based on the wording you have, you're basically wanting to create a section that pretty much becomes simplistic sentences that state just that. Except, those are basic data points. With regard to the original network, again I don't think you need a whole section for that. You're going to end up with a section with a single sentence of "It appeared on Channel X from years Y to Z". Whether that's on a season article or not, you can't have sections for single sentences and season articles will suffer from this more than parent pages. Don't get me started on Netflix shows which appear to just regurgitate the same 3 sentences explaining how Netflix releases their shows for every single article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see any particular issues with the wording of the new proposal, and I feel it can probably be adopted pretty much as is. However, I would advise changing the wording of the opening sentence of TV:TVINTL to: "As Wikipedia is not a television guide, this section should not include an indiscriminate list of every network that a TV series has appeared on in countries outside the country of production.") --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added your wording in IJBall. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this a "wrap" now? Kinda seems like it... (So, after this, it looks like we're down to just 'Reception' and then 'Other media', yes?...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

For the most part yes. I know Bignole still had some issues with the wording which I think we should adjust/alter what we have. I'm going to try adding in something in a moment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added the following sentence to the opening info: It may be beneficial to forgo the inclusion of this section if the only information available results in a single sentence such as "[Series] aired on [Network] from [Date 1] to [Date 2].", as this information can be noted in a preceding section. I think this covers what Bignole disagreed on to avoid release sections with just a single sentence. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that helps, but one of my issues was under "Broadcasting". I think you're still opening up for a section of really irrelevant information. For instance: it says that timeslots are not relevant, but somewhere suggest that technical data such as picture and audio format are? Unless there is something special about it, which would have context and discussion, there is nothing relevant about the picture or audio format. These are really irrelevant details that don't enhance a page in anyway, especially since most are pretty standard across the board.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bignole: See this sentence I added in the middle of the broadcast section: Listing technical data should be included with critical commentary, as most data is consistent across every series.. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Could that not just be added to that original sentence? Like "the discussion of technical data (e.g., picture format, audio, etc.) when it is accompanied by critical commentary". I see your sentence now (not sure how I was still missing it), but as written it would contradict what comes first. Initially it's ok to include this, and then later it says "technical data when there is critical commentary". If we put it together, we'll save words and have less confusion (or people trying to justify sentences of "It was broadcasted in 480i because there is a line that gives that permission to do so).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done If there aren't any other major objections to this proposed wording, I'll add it in and we can finally move on! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep, definitely time to move on, and revisit minor changes if necessary later. The bulk of the work has been done here. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:42, 13 March 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.