Talk:The Masked Singer (American TV series)

Critical reception

Hi, I've revised the critical reception section. Keep in mind the 4k bytes in the version history seems like a lot, but it's mostly just references. In fact, the new one is about 1050 words while the previous was about 1200. I do plan on renominating for FA soon, so if there's any suggestions anyone has (I myself do plan on making some more tweaks, but certainly not to the extent I just did) but perhaps doesn't have the time or will to do, please let me know and I'll try to improve the article as much as possible. Heartfox (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

On the celeb pictures

Obviously, on this page the pictures of all the celebrities seen is not necessary, reverted by multiple editors. That that I think there is agreement. But that is a per-season thing, and it is fully reasonable there, and as long as all these are from Commons, there's zero harm to have them. There's only one performer that to S3 that lacks an image, so we're certainly not picking-and-choosing favorites.

That said, there is a per-row functionality to allow these to be a bit larger than the IP had had them on this page, in the season pages. They don't need to be too large, but they shouldn't too much smaller than thumbnails (the same as the host/judge images). As they are by the IP's setup, as one row, they are too small. When I added them to the season pages, I was addng per-row functionality to make them better, but this got revert, There's room to expand, so I see no reason why making the images just a bit larger cannot hurt on the season pages. --Masem (t) 18:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@CBFan: to bring discussion here on the use of celebrity pictures. Just because other reality TV shows (which I would assume include Dancing with the Stars, Celebrity Apprentice, and things like that) do not include the images of celebrities on it, there's no reason we can't opt to use it here. As pointed out, there's no requirement to be consistent with those (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to delete material), and this helps to make the article more visually interesting. --Masem (t) 17:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It's inconsistent. The other Masked Singer pages (such as the German and Australian versions) don't have them, so why just the American and British versions? Besides, this may just be my opinion, but it looks awkward the way it's currently set-up. CBFan (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There's no requirement for consistency between different international versions of the same show, since they may have different rules and processes. There should be consistency between the seasons of the same show when possible, but that's as far as we'd expect.

And there would be no reason why there couldn't be such images on the other pages, as we have pictures for most of the celebs that are presented there too.

The formatting looks odd only because we don't have consistently sized free images for each celeb. We could probably do some cropping to get some images all closer to the same aspect ratio that would help but I personally think that's less an issue unless we were going for GA/FA at some point. --Masem (t) 17:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There should be requirement for consistency. Just saying. 79.74.194.242 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

At this point, likely not. IIRC, King of Mask Singer is the real 'original version'. As seen through the articles listed here, there is a much different layout of episode/contestant tables than is used on other adaptations such as the American/British/German/etc. versions. The current layout/format of tables has worked fine for some time now, I find it highly unlikely that it'll be all changed to match the formatting of the KoMS articles/tables just for consistency purposes. Magitroopa (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Masem has explained it all quite well. Different adaptations/countries can have similar/the same layouts, but is not required, but whatever is used on those adaptations should have the same think through all its own season articles (Ex: I would expect the same formatting among the season articles for Dancing with the Stars, but the formatting among season articles for Strictly Come Dancing does not need to follow the same formatting... though seeing Dancing with the Stars (American season 28) and Strictly Come Dancing (series 17), it seems like they've decided to use basically the same formatting for season articles between the two series... can also be likely due to the same editors across both articles with an interest in dance related shows). Magitroopa (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

No, that literally makes no sense at all - Masem has not explained my problem at all. The fact that the original version has a completely different show format has nothing to do with consistency regarding which articles get pictures and which don't at all. If you're not going to make an effort to be consistent with the articles and add other photos, then there's literally no reason to have them on JUST the American pages...and the British page. If the only reason you claim that only the American version articles should get pictures and not, say, the Australian version is because the show uses a different format, then you may as well argue that the price of cheese can help calculate the weight of a gorilla - they're completely unconnected. 79.74.194.242 (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Series overview direct links

Why do the season numbers in the Series overview table link to sections in the episode list? In almost every other TV show page, the equivalent section links directly to the seasons in question (e.g. The_Voice_(American_TV_series)#Series_overview, America's_Got_Talent#Season_synopses, and Survivor_(American_TV_series)#Series_overview. I don't understand why my edit on this was reverted; currently, the page has no centralized way for a reader to find and go to a specific season in one click. Personally, I think it's nonsensical. Jedzz (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:TVOVERVIEW, "it is preferable to link the season number within the table to the appropriate section at the List of episodes article..." Heartfox (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The Masked Dancer

Whyyyyyyy... do we have to go through this whole multiple articles thing again like season 3??? There is already an article (The Masked Dancer (American TV series)) which redirects to The Masked Dancer section here. Hiwilms proposed a split but then didn't start a discussion on this talk page? And then Rider0101 created an entirely new article without reading WP:COPYWITHIN. Why y'all gotta do this and complicate things so much 😞 Heartfox (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added a dummy edit for appropriate attribution on The Masked Dancer (American TV Series) and redirected it to this article's section as a discussion should take place on an article split, not randomly get around process by adding a capital letter and creating a new article. Heartfox (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Sorry about that. I was waiting for my instructor to enter the room while I was doing that edit. I did not have the chance to start a discussion since he arrived after placing the split template. I just finished class a couple of hours ago. HiwilmsTalk 12:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hiwilms: No problem, but would you like to propose your rationale for the split/start the discussion? Heartfox (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a discussion for this a split in the first place? The spinoff is its own separate show and should have it's own page, what's there to discuss? --Babar Suhail (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Particularly with COVID causing numerous scheduling issues, we don't want to split off the separate show until first broadcast or we have significantly more production details than just who's involved (the sort like the behind-the-scenes this article has). If we're a week before the first broadcast and there's no other details to add but certain the show will go on, the split can then be made, but there's still enough time between now and Dec than the show could be moved or pulled completely. --Masem (t) 17:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. We shouldn't split it until about a week before the premiere. There's still at least a month to go here, and only two short paragraphs worth of information have been released about the show, which doesn't really make sense to split into an entire article when it fits fine here. Heartfox (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

There definitely isn't much info yet to warrant splitting it just yet, but in response to the above, there is no 'absolute' as to when the split should occur. There's not a mandatory 'week'/'month' before premiere thing to only then be allowed to create/split the article. Actually, by now, the series does pass WP:NTV:

• it has been announced at an entity's upfront presentation as being scheduled and advanced to series [1]
• a promotional trailer has been released: Not as of yet
• it has a scheduled premiere date: While not a specific premiere date, the announced December premiere month timeframe would count for this.

There's already articles confirming production is underway ([2]) and the host/panelists have now been confirmed as well ([3], [4]). Honestly I'd say at this point, once the first promo/trailer for the series is released, it should be fine to go ahead and create/split the article, even if it's more than a week before the series premieres. This would be a much different discussion if they still hadn't started filming by now and they only thought it could possibly still premiere in December. Magitroopa (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I think once a premiere day and the masks have been announced then a split would be warranted (same process The Masked Singer season articles have followed). Heartfox (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Except this is not the same thing as The Masked Singer season articles, so I don't get why you are bringing those up. This is about the article for the show as a whole.--Babar Suhail (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)--Babar Suhail (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It's just a precautionary thing in the COVID age. Movies and shows being pulled "last minute" and all that. Doubtful this will happen to Masked Dancer, particularly if Fox announced a premiere date and introduces the participants as they did when S4 of Masked Singer started, at which point I would agree that a full article is then prime. If then for some reason its delayed or pulled, we can deal with it then. Basically, this is just evoking WP:CRYSTAL, making sure the show is set to go as best as Fox intends. --Masem (t) 15:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

However, as I've pointed out in my previous response, even now the show would pass WP:NTV. There is no set-in-stone rule that we must wait a week before the premiere before creating the article, even in a pandemic. With the December timeframe revealed, production already underway, and plenty of info (including host/panel), the last thing to wait for at this point would be the first promo/trailer for it. Even if it were to be released today/tomorrow, I'd say the article would be good to go. Any sort of delay/last-minute pull can then be included in the production section (with a source, of course). Magitroopa (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Also going to point out that right now, The Masked Dancer (TV series) would be the correct spot to do the article, not The Masked Dancer (American TV series). As far as I'm aware, America is the only one doing a Masked Dancer TV series at this point in time, and the only other current articles are a film of the same name and a disambiguation page. There's no reason to use the nationality article unless there were other countries doing a TV series of the same name. Magitroopa (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Which shows have been pulled last minute because of COVID? --Babar Suhail (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Most of the ones I can think of weren't 'pulled', but simply had production delayed which would've just delayed the release of the series/new season as well. For example, I Can See Your Voice had one episode filmed prior to production shutdown, then resuming production in August and already started airing in September. Magitroopa (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, The Masked Dancer (TV series) should be the correct article. Look, I wouldn't really care or revert if someone split the section literally today but I just think it's good practice to at least wait until a premiere date/cast announcement before doing so. I think it's more a matter of WP:WHENSPLIT and whether "the specific material within one section becomes too large, or .. the material is seen to be inappropriate for the article due to being out of scope" than notability. Is that the case right now? With only two short paragraphs, I would argue a split isn't necessary. However, I would consider a large table with a cast in a spin-off series section out of scope in this article (which is about The Masked Singer). Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

First promo has been released, see here. I'd say article is good to go now. Magitroopa (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Costume names also being released [5]. Magitroopa (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Was about to link that article to say that I agree you're good to go with the separate article. --Masem (t) 22:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Executive producers

In the credits at the end of each episode, it says format created by mun hwa broadcasting... and then it lists 3 people from them designated as "executive producers" on the show (who are mostly symbolic). Should those be added to the infobox? Heartfox (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd assume you're talking about these people. I tried looking up any helpful information about them, but haven't really found their names anywhere (apart from those credits on TMS...). With that in mind, I'd say to just stick with those listed as EPs in the press releases (such as here and here) and those listed on the FOX PR site here.

Honestly, seems kinda similar to others who 'are/are not' part of the role (such as 'producer' vs. 'supervising producer' or 'executive producer' vs. 'co-executive producer') where only the main ones should be listed in infoboxes for shows. Same with how channel executives for shows are not listed in infoboxes- example of that would be Danger Force which has Omar Camacho serving as, "Nickelodeon's Executive in Charge of Production for the series"- which is not listed. Magitroopa (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement Quality Predictions

Hi,

The below statements were identified by an AI as having minor POV issues. The aim is to automatically detect weasel words and inflated/ambiguous language in the statements to aid in article review. Please let us know inline if these below statements indeed have NPOV issues. Feel free to leave general comments on my talk page. Your valuable feedback will help us evaluate the AI and refine it for practical use. See the discussion on FAR for more information. Sumit (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• The perennial format is a taped interview with a celebrity's electronically masked voice narrating a video showing cryptic allusions to what they are known for.
• John Doyle of The Globe and Mail cited it as a cultural change in the United States away from the competitive and often exploitative essence of reality shows like American Idol.

Hi, Sumit.iitp, these statements don't seem to have NPOV issues. I assume it flagged "allusions" for the first statement and "exploitative" in the second statement maybe? I don't know. Heartfox (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Heartfox, it is correct, the statements got flagged because of those words but we needed to understand when such predictions may not be relevant. I am not a super experienced editor so it seemed to me that "often exploitative essence" is stating an opinion rather than a fact. Your feedback is greatly appreciated! Sumit (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Season 1 and 3 images changes

Going to attempt a formal discussion to try and solve this... for those unaware, a wide range of IPs (very likely the same person) has been edit warring/disruptively editing images changes without any discussion whatsoever, even after multiple reverts. I've already requested page protection for the two articles, so hoping that will solve it.

Here's the two that keep getting changed:

The Masked Singer (American season 1)

Antonio Brown vs Redskins 2016.jpg --> Antonio Brown, 2021.jpg

The Masked Singer (American season 3)

190326-D-SW162-1977 (46564316465).jpg --> Rob Gronkowski 2021.jpg

Would appreciate others' inputs on these changes, but I'm of the impression that these image changes are really unnecessary. Just because there is a 'more recent' image available, it doesn't automatically mean that's what must be used, especially when the more recent images obstruct their faces even more, which leads me further into believing that the current images are fine as-is. Magitroopa (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also adding in here why page protection will likely be necessary...

• 2600:1014:B125:7B90:0:0:0:0/64
• 2600:100A:B01D:BA3C:0:0:0:0/64
• 2600:100A:B11F:206E:0:0:0:0/64
• 2600:100A:B11F:B5E0:0:0:0:0/64
• 2600:100A:B11B:AC61:0:0:0:0/64
• 2600:100A:B11B:6747:0:0:0:0/64
• 2600:100A:B11D:C591:0:0:0:0/64

All within just this past week. Even if everyone who chimes in here is in agreeance, their disruptive image changes will likely continue nonstop unless there is page protection. Magitroopa (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I will agree that a less-recent picture but that shows the participant's face is better than a more recent, helmet-covered one. This is about the person as a personality, not an athlete. --Masem (t) 06:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In both cases, the original image is preferrable, for the reason Masem notes. Have you requested page protection? ----Dr.Margi ✉ 06:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I Can See Your Voice

Can we agree to get rid of the I Can See Your Voice section, or at least drastically reduce it and move it somewhere else like the "cultural impact" section? I feel it's inappropriate to include an unrelated show in the article. Yes it aired after it and Jeong hosted it, but it's a totally different franchise than Masked Singer and I've never felt right about pretending it's "related" to TMS. Heartfox (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

While a different franchise, the show is very much connected to TMS on Fox; the only reason "I Can See Your Voice" is on Fox is due to the success of TMS on Fox, and its broadcast was planned to be next to TMS to take advantage of Ken Jeong. (I don't see any immediate sourcing for this, but I suspect this "Game of Talents" has some development roots in TMS' success. However, I can't confirm this yet, and thus would not include at all). --Masem (t) 02:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking on this more after seeing this article related to Game of Talents [6], and perhaps what can be done is if a section, what usually would be "impact" or "legacy" for single works (but I have no idea for TV series) were present, both ICSYV and GoT can be moved to there and discussed in the context of Fox looking to expand its game show/variety show concept offerings with these two shows that they paired with TMS. That way, they're still appropriately discussed in this context, but don't take up the space that you're concerned about. --Masem (t) 14:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Great that there is finally a source linking Game of Talents with TMS! There is currently a "cultural impact" section; I believe ICSYV and Game of Talents could be combined into a paragraph there discussing their connection to TMS effectively :) Heartfox (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The Futon Critic/Fox Flash

I do not understand why a good faith edit to improve the article sourcing by changing the URLs of press releases to their original sources (common sense) is being reverted. So far, no guideline or policy has been cited for reversion; the only justification provided is the editor's aversion to change. It is odd to me that someone who apparently cares so much about this article reverts such minimal changes yet I am the one who updated it today with the format changes for season 5. Of all the edits that could be made to improve the article, this is what you focus on?

I am trying to make this as impersonal as possible, but the editor's conduct elsewhere and in the past impacts my opinion of them, and thus my response to their edits here. I'm sorry but they really lack communication skills and are not very collaborative or have much mutual respect for other editors. I'm tired of them reverting small changes everywhere as if they know best yet they often revert other users and IPs without providing edit summaries. You don't have the moral high ground here... Even with Drmargi's original table removal, can we at least commence a discussion on the talk page (like I just did above for the ICSYV section)? Reverting someone and then reverting yourself is really not a good look. Stop treating fellow editors like your opinion is supreme. We're not all vandal IPs here, Magitroopa. Heartfox (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ideally we should avoid press releases if possible, using third-party sources (which may be summarizing press releases, not republishing them). If we have to use a press release, then yes, that's when one directly from Fox's website would be best, as at that point, using a third-party republisher doesn't help improve reliability. --Masem (t) 06:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The Drmargi issue is irrelevant to this- I am perfectly fine with the table removal (and am also willing to discuss that here if necessary), but the edit summary here makes it clear the revert was meant only for the table to be removed, not everything else such as the awards/nominations updating (which I had brought back/fixed, only for everything non-timeline/table related to get reverted again for no reason).

The matter (as per the the discussion title) is on using The Futon Critic/Fox Flash for press releases. As far as that gets, both would be WP:RS (yes, including TFC). The Futon Critic republishes press releases, yes, but they are still the same exact press releases and are still provided by the network, not another source. Per the edit summary here, it seems like the (only?) main reason for the change was just to use the 'direct source' so the via no longer needs to be used... How exactly is using this specific parameter a problem whatsoever? We've been using the TFC press release citations for sometime now, there really is no need to change them all of a sudden unless they are deadlinks or some special case where a specific press release appears on the networks own press site, but not TFC. And FYI, TFC is considered a reliable source per WP:TVRS.

There is a reason the press releases and episode listings provide the notes that are shown on TFC- because while it is republished information, it is certainly still provided from the network. It is still considered to be a reliable source (unless it were a press release posted in some random forumboards discussion, etc.)

The Futon Critic notes

"NOTE: The following article is a press release issued by the aforementioned network and/or company. Any errors, typos, etc. are attributed to the original author. The release is reproduced solely for the dissemination of the enclosed information." "via press release from xxxxxx"

TL;DR- TFC is generally considered to be a reliable source despite being republished press releases/other information, they've been fine for sometime now and there shouldn't be a need to all of a sudden change them unless some special reasoning makes the change imperative. Magitroopa (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the "special reasoning" is that using "high-quality" sources is a requirement for a featured article, and if there is potential to improve the sourcing anywhere, why not do it? The publisher of a press release is (obviously) more high-quality than a republisher (for example, why would you cite an article referencing the BBC, if you can cite the BBC article?) This does not diminish the reliability of The Futon Critic; it is still used elsewhere in the article and I have no issues with it. I would just like the next FAC source review for this article go as smoothly as possible, so it has better chance of becoming a featured article the next time it is nominated. (Note to anyone reading this that these press releases are citing the executive producers per season in one place, which are not really reported in secondary sources, so that's why they're used). Thank you, Heartfox (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"The Unknown Singer (U.S. TV series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Unknown Singer (U.S. TV series). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 18#The Unknown Singer (U.S. TV series) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Heartfox (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Article's disambiguator

Per WP:NCTV: "Non-series television shows tend to be produced on either an on-going basis (airing daily or weekly) or as a one-time event. [..] for all other programs use (TV program) or (TV programme) according to common usage in reliable sources."

So it should be The Masked Singer (American TV program) instead of the current use. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 03:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)