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)