Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Manual of Style This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations. Television This page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

WikiProject Television

Project main page Project discussion Project assessment talk Television portal talk Descendant WikiProjects and task forces Showcase Project organization Article alerts Deletion sorting Popular pages New articles Project banner talk Project category talk Project templates talk Television stubs Guidelines Project manual of style talk Project notability guidelines talk TV article naming convention talk Broadcasting article naming convention talk Related WikiProjects Actors and Filmmakers Albums Animation Anime and manga Comics Film Literature Media franchises Radio Screenwriters Westerns view · edit · changes

There is an editor adding a "Listicles" section to many television articles. Example: 1. MOS:TV does not include a section for "listicles". I have notified editor Илона И. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 09:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't first one, who began to add Listicles to mostly Korean series articles. So we need to decide is it okay to add it in Wiki articles or not. I will waiting for other opinions for consensus.

But Listicles become common thing for Enternteintment journalism either for Year's end or for current ones.

External links for article examples:

Time: [[1]]

Entertainment Weekly: [[2]]

South China Morning Post: [[3]]

NME: [[4]] [[5]]

Илона И (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I wasn't first one, who began to add Listicles to mostly Korean series articles." As an occasional contributor to Korean TV series articles I am very familiar with what you can find in them. They are the Wild Wild West of Wikipedia television series articles and their editing is, inexplicably, allowed to not adhere to the Manual of Style. Not only do they have a propensity to include indiscriminate information (many of it duplicated from AsianWiki), but they also tend to attract WP:OWN editors. While articles about American, British, etc., television series comply with MOS:TV, Korean tv series articles have become the exception. So I would not take my cue from their divergence from the Wikipedia norm. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 03:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why I added Listicles in my comment above. Also, IMHO it is mostly bcs American and British shows have more wider range of editors, while Korean series articles mostly created and supported by fans, particularly fans of actors/actresses who is in this series. I encountered severe case of WP:OWN while editing article about one of Korean series last week.

Илона И (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support removal. These are not notable in any way, and the lists of 'listicles" could never truly be complete. One also wonders if you could pay to have your name added to these sorts of things; I can't imagine these publishing organizations having high standards for openness and transparency. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 12:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment Weekly is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles, good source for entertainment news and media analysis. So I vote for allowing listicle but only from a reliable sources such as from Entertainment Weekly, Variety, Rolling Stones or Forbes etc. Preferwiki (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Just because listicles exist does not mean they are relevant in an article. On the contrary, the vast number of listicles that exist, even when considering only reliable sources, suggests that being mentioned in a listicle is fairly trivial and does not merit mention (see also WP:NOTSTATS, which says to not include "excessive listings of unexplained statistics"). I think exceptions for "best shows of the year" lists from major critics, such as the lists here, are fine, but that's a very narrow subset and none of the examples above fit into that. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But Metacritic didn't include Korean series in such Listicles so discussing source that focused mostly at English-language series seems unfair.

Major English speaking critics also didn't quite interesting in Korean series outside ones which went viral as much as I know. So are we discussing that all world's shows out there needs to be treated from their popularity in the English speaking world or discuss if they are different and needed to be treated as it is?

IMHO for Korean series already an achievement that major English Enternteintment magazines began to make Listicles like this which shows that people over the world are interested in this content.

Илона И (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to imply that the lists at that Metacritic page were the only valid lists; they were just examples of the "best-of-year" lists that I think are acceptable. If there are similar lists from Korean critics, they would work great, as significant coverage can exist in any language. My point is that there are differences between that style of list and other styles that simply exist to fill the online 24-hour news cycle. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:S.W.A.T. (2017 TV series) § Merge proposal. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @119.94.167.39 created Controversy part here When_Life_Gives_You_Tangerines#Controversy but there is no part like this in MOS:TV. Is it okay to separate it from Impact part? Also is it okay to put in TV series article about anonimous acccusations which wasn't confirmed and only received answer from Netflix that they look at it? Илона И (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many film articles have controversy sections, which may explain why one was added for this series. I looked at the sources given. The Naver source is a copy of the original Osen article: (1) “밥도, 난로도 없었다”..‘폭싹 속았수다', 촬영장 폭언·갑질 폭로 등장 [Oh!쎈 이슈] / “No food, no heater”... Allegations of verbal abuse and mistreatment on set of ‘When Life Gives You Tangerines’ emerge [Oh!Thorny issue]. Osen news is a reliable source. (2) “노예 부리기 따로 없었다”…‘폭싹 속았수다’ 현장 갑질 의혹 제기 / “It was no different from exploiting slaves”… Allegations of abuse of power on the set of ‘When Life Gives You Tangerines’. The Chosun Ilbo is a reliable source. (3) [인터넷 와글와글] '폭싹 속았수다' 갑질 의혹…넷플릭스 "확인 중" / [Internet buzz] 'Completely deceived' power abuse allegations... Netflix "is looking into it". MBC (Maeil Broadcasting Network) is a reliable source. Considering that this matter has been reported in legitimate sources, imo it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 10:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Pyxis Solitarybut there is no main part like this at MOS:TV, so I asked. It still not confirmed till now. Илона И (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Илона И: – I think you misunderstood my first sentence. I was not suggesting that many TV series articles have controversy sections — only that they're included in many film articles and the editor who added the section to the series may have done so based on their being accepted in film articles. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 11:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Pyxis Solitary, I think you also didn't understand what I meant. I said that I asked my initial q about Contriversy part because it don't included in MOS:TV.

My second sentense was about this allegations for drama-it is still not confirmed till now as true and because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball I doubt unconfirmed allegations need to be included in series Wiki article even if it comes from reliable source. I am following Korean enternteintment news for decades already and unfortunately even reliable sources tends to make articles for unconfirmed rumors or allegations if buzz about it at Korean internet become big enough. Илона И (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my discussion with @Илона И from Talk:Kim Seon-ho filmography. Wheezythewave (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be more accurate, I'm not proposing to merge the two sections. Instead, many streaming television series have been inaccurately grouped under web series, and I believe this should be fixed. Wheezythewave (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Wheezythewave, because of this I renamed Web series to Streaming series. I think series that aired solely at OTT platforms need to be separated bcs it is quite different from series that aired at TV or simultaneously on TV and OTT platform because there is percentage ratings and also reach is quite different from solelt OTT series. But if we will agree to separate them we need to decide how we will call series that aired only at OTT platforms. Илона И (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the editors that originally split television series and streaming series, but when looking at the filmography pages of non-Korean actors, I notice none of them separate or distinguish the two. The definition of television series also includes content that is distributed digitally on streaming platforms. Would like to see the perspectives of more editors regarding this matter. Wheezythewave (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A television series is a television program whether it is a broadcast network series, cable network series, or OTT platform series. Because an OTT platform series is distributed via the Internet the term "web series" became the preferred term used in India, for example. However, a "web series" is a "short-form series" — the episodes running time is 20 minutes or less. An OTT platform series (Netflix, Apple TV+, Disney+, TVING, Coupang Play, etc.) with episodes that are :30, :45, :60 minutes, or longer, is not a "web series".
The filmography tables in biographical articles are supposed to be standardized and comply with WP:FILMOGRAPHY, regardless of nationality. The MOS:BIO for Korean actors and actresses is the same as the MOS:BIO for non-Koreans, and all actors and actresses fall under WP:FILMBIO. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 12:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input @Pyxis Solitary. Moving forward, can I use this discussion as the green light to change the sections back to television series? Or should we get more inputs from other editors? Wheezythewave (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wheezythewave: (and @Илона И:) Imo, I would combine all television works under "Television". I don't know why you are linking to "Seasons/series/strand" in the Television show article, but the lead states: A television show, TV program (British English: programme), or simply a TV show, is the general reference to any content produced for viewing on a television set that is broadcast via over-the-air, satellite, and cable, or distributed digitally on streaming platforms. (A television "series" is a television "show".)
The only time I have seen television career separated by broadcast & cable vs. streaming has been in the filmographies of South Korean actors. Since filmographies are a part of biographies, I think a discussion about these filmographies should be held at WT:BIOG. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 10:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that many Korean actors/actresses involve in long Variety shows and in many cases in multiple ones trough the years. If we put it all in Television it can be very confusing for ones who first time encountered Korean TV series and variaty shows. Илона И (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion at Talk:List of Star Trek: Discovery episodes#Merge or keep? about how to handle that list. Any thoughts from experienced TV editors would be particularly appreciated. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Jedi (TV series) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Stick (TV series)#Guest section. Editors are needed to weigh in if it is appropriate to list every single guest stars on the Guest section or not. I know this topic has been discussed in the past multiple times and what the general consensus is on WP:TV and MOS:TV, but the other editor still wants editors to weigh on it. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are still needed to weigh in on the discussion. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Television series. The issue pertains to the television section. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 14:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at the Blue Bloods discussion page where it would be helpful to get some more editor input about what content to include and how to resolve alternate versions of the page to move forward, and provide some clarity/feedback as to what kind of information generally is appropriate to include per MOS:TV/ for TV articles in general. newsjunkie (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]