Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television

"Acclaim"

Notification: A user insists that the word "acclaim" mentioned in MOS:TVRECEPTION is not loaded language or an exceptional claim, therefore shouldn't be attributed to multiple high-quality sources. Apparently, they think that saying "critical acclaim" is different from just saying "acclaim" when talking about the critical reception of a series. And "acclaimed" is MOS:PEACOCK, but not "acclaim". ภץאคгöร 08:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to join the discussion, instead of duplicating it, see Talk:The Last of Us season 2 § Alex 21: "'Acclaim' is not loaded language" (very specific title, I know). -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Ignore what Alex wrote. The discussion there is not a duplicate of this one. The issue here is that he does not see (critical) acclaim as a loaded language/claims that it is not, the issue there is about the season of the show. So far only he has made such a statement, so the TVRECEPTION section will have to be changed here if there is a consensus... ภץאคгöร 10:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Ignore what Alex wrote. Aren't you a gem? Unfortunately, you don't own this talk page. I look forward to seeing the consensus that you have been building towards here. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I am a gem. I didn't say I own this page, I just corrected your misinterpretation. And the outcome is already clear. No one has endorsed what you have been pushing. It was obvious that this would be the case, but since there's always a possibility, I mentioned it above in case of a consensus. ภץאคгöร 17:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Not at all. You've misunderstood the word "acclaim", which is on you. A local consensus certainly works for the singular article. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Because I'm the only one saying "acclaim" is NOT a loaded language and opposing MOS:TVRECEPTION, not you 😒... ภץאคгöร 09:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Displaying year information for Television shows in development/references

Not sure if this is better for the main project page or this page: I was wondering if there was any broader input here for discussion on talk page for the List of programs broadcast by CBS about the possibility of listing the years that in development shows were first announced as a (sortable) column in table form on the relevant page beyond the references. Overall there doesn't seem to be much guidance on how to handle in development shows, though there seems to be an informal practice among some editors of removing them after three years of no updates, but would appreciate some broader input and also when to include references for pending status for shows (when they exist). The article for List of Paramount+ original programming includes in development shows in table form with only two columns. newsjunkie (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Would seem that such a list might be a list of non-notable entries. Projects get pitched and worked on regularly and most don't ever get picked up even for a pilot. Gonnym (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be some consensus to include in development shows across network pages with citations (at least from what I can tell so far) but was more curious about the question or any objections to adding dates for context. newsjunkie (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

A bad list is a bad list. I have nothing more to add to this. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by CBS has an RfC

List of programs broadcast by CBS 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. newsjunkie (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Listicles

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Discussion at Talk:S.W.A.T. (2017 TV series) § Merge proposal

 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)