Wikipedia talk:Television episodes/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Consensus for this guideline

I have not participated in the discussion above partly because I have gotten sick of this debate take place among the same TV editors on many different talk pages, including an arbitration case. Bignole above suggested that if this guideline were to be delisted, it would need a bigger audience of unbiased, neutral editors, and thus I have listed this issue for RFC.

To briefly frame some of the points made: some editors feel that WP:EPISODE should be trashed entirely because it encourages editors to spend their time removing episode articles rather than constructively work on them. They feel that WP:WAF and WP:FICT are suitable enough to govern episode articles. Supporters of WP:EPISODE feel that feel that television episode articles are not inherently notable, and such a guideline is necessary to appropriately define notability for episode articles. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The users who are "disputing" this guideline are not are judging the guideline by it's merits, but rather they are trying to attack the guideline because of how other situations were dealt with. WP:EPISODE has been a great guideline that never called immediate mass cleanup. All the people coming in from the mailing list notice seem to be completely missing that point, and parentally can't be bothered with actually reading what the guideline says. This has had consensus since 2006, long before it even has the WP:EPISODE shortcut, or was given a specific guideline tag. That consensus is that not every episode should have an article. We note that, citing existing policy and guidelines that reenforce that. Then it goes into very good advice about how to make make a good episode article. Then it goes and encourages article improvement over taking things to AfD. Top it off with some good examples, and you have what WP:EPISODE is. Does anyone actually disagree with what the guideline says? Most of the people on this very talk page don't, even by their own admission. -- Ned Scott 03:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The only contentious part of the guideline is the section on what subjects deserve articles. There is no consensus that there should not ever be inherited notability when it comes to episode articles. I agree it is unfortunate that there have been kneejerk reactions to the mass deletions, but legitimate concerns about this aspect of the guideline have been raised. There are two, separate issues at hand: 1. The apparent misinterpretation (so it is claimed) of this guideline which was used to justify the mass deletions; 2. The nature of the guideline itself. We are here to discuss #2, and legitimate, germane concerns have been raised here. Johnleemk | Talk 05:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you're very incorrect about that. Wikipedia talk:Television episodes/Archive1 points out the original consensus, and this has been upheld in several AfDs, WikiProject discussions, and other such discussions. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
However the content has significantly changed from a "do not fork articles by creating thousands of stubs" to a "episode stubs with only plot information and an infobox should be merged into a more general article and more advice" type of guideline. As such I say perhaps it is time to restore an older version (of early 2007 for instance) of this page as the CD outcome, fork the current version into an essay and start with a blank WP:EPISODE. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the problem in "episode stubs with only plot information and an infobox should be merged into a more general article", obviously if all that an article can provide is OR than it should be merged... It seems like the people who are oppossing this guideline are using it as a scapegoat for releasing their childish frustration of the "published sources only" principle of WP:V. 76.10.141.232 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
What OR? A plot summary and an infobox can be filled in from watching the episode and the credits. That's published information, and is perfectly verifiable - more verifiable than many of the printed sources that are commonly relied on elsewhere in Wikipedia. BTW, please refrain from ad hominems. This displeasure over the recent bout of deletionism is hardly "childish". Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
One also should consider the fact that merging non-notable episodes (as long as the original page is redirected) to episode lists retains that information such that if notability is established later, the article can be easily recreated without admin assistance. Merging shouldn't be a snap judgment reaction, but it should be done if after a reasonable good-faith effort to find notable information fails. Merging is not a point of no return. --MASEM 16:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
That's all pretty ironic, considering critics of this guideline include the founder of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians and former arbitrators. It would seem, at the very least, that the people most likely to be in favour of the guideline (assuming it has consensus and is derived from existing core policy) actually oppose it and/or its effects. As an aside, this emphasis on original consensus is a red herring - the point is not whether there was consensus then, but is there consensus now. Judging from the discussion above, there is no such consensus.
I would also add that plot information is not necessarily OR, and that infoboxes can easily contain valuable information not gleaned from the episode. The guideline specifically implies that inherited notability is never a sufficient reason to have an episode article, when existing practice runs counter to that (look at all the South Park episode articles). Having a plot summary and an infobox is by no means original research, considering both of these things are all citeable to the original episode. You can argue that this means we shouldn't have an article at all, but by reductio ad absurdum, why should we have a list of episodes when all it does is give the episode titles and the order they were aired (this itself being "original research")? This cut-off point seems entirely arbitrary. Johnleemk | Talk 17:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is making the claim that the information in the infobox is OR, nor is many obvious things that can be said, or found out in credits, etc. As for the point of noting past consensus, I do so given that many of the same arguments apply, and have gone unchanged. It also shows that this wasn't just something that got slipped into the guideline pages, but at least had a reasonable starting point. Like you noted, people seem to have more of an objection on the effects of the guideline than what the guideline actually says, so I don't consider the comments on this talk page to debunk the consensus of the guideline.
Regarding the arbitrary cut off point with Lists of episodes, I think that has more to do with WP:NOT#PLOT. It is somewhat arbitrary, but it's also a way to summarize episodes without being excessive (when all you have is plot). I also support season articles, which can dive into a little more information, and sometimes even "story-arch" articles, depending on the situation, and often these are considered acceptable for the over-all plot summary without being too much. It's a level that no one really has had any objections to. -- Ned Scott 18:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no particular interest in this issue and do not edit (or usually even read) TV articles, but as I was led here from the bulletin board I will give you my opinions anyway. I feel that there is far too much "froth" on Wikipedia of Popular Culture sections and not very important books, films, TV and music. If there are no limits on what can be in Wikipedia, then you will end up with an article on every obscure band, every mediocre TV episode and every repulped book. Anything that is tending to keep a lid on this process should be kept, if not reinforced. Spinningspark (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I have a hard time talking about this subject without using words like fancruft. This guideline is consistent with WP:NOTE, and content deleted per WP:EPISODE is probably not (almost by definition not) a loss to Wikipedia. Considering how difficult it has become to remove the non-notable material enthusiasts like to see, and considering the preponderance of episode articles, I find it hard to believe this guideline has led to unreasonable deletions. I favor retention of WP:EPISODE, and do not look forward to this guideline being merged into WP:NOTE (or into wherever it is proposed to be merged). / edg ☺ ☭ 08:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:CRUFT is an essay, and a horrible one at that. There would be no reason to merge this guideline into WP:NOTE because this is not a notability guideline. And the notion that an episode is not notable unless IGN has a review of it is absurd. The valuable parts of this guidelne need to be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article. --Pixelface (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You are replying to an argument I am not making. I am citing WP:NOTE as a guideline. WP:FANCRUFT is linked as an explanation. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I was offering my opinion of the essay you linked to. --Pixelface (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what your issue with the existence of episode articles is when you explicitly say that you don't actually read them. Wikipedia doesn't have space limits, so it's not like they're using resources for the articles you would rather read instead - they can all coexist perfectly well together. This is the main point I've never really understood behind the drive to delete "fancruft" - the why. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Now's the time to trot out the term "encyclopedic". "Cruft" is by definition low-quality information. One imagines an encyclopedia would have some kind of quality control, and would aspire to some scholarly standard. Nothing in Wikipedia is required to reach that standard immediately, but by such a standard, information about a non-notable TV show that includes a plot summary, titles of songs in the soundtrack, and Goofs does not merit inclusion, even if all that is desirable to fans of that series. Even if it's fun. And managing such information presents a load on Wikipedia's human infrastructure (availability of admins, policy development, software development, dispute resolution, copyright policing, and so forth) that saps its ability to perform its intended function, no matter how unlimited the technological infrastructure may be.
There are plenty of things I would like Wikipedia to do that it does not, much in the way the Funk & Wagnalls in my bedroom never provided much in the way of the porn I needed when I was a kid. I'm someone who would like spoilers prevented; not strictly, not in a backflippingly complicated way, but as much as possible. Wikipedia will not let me rewrite articles in this fashion. I'm okay with that.
Encyclopedia are not fanzines. Wikipedia is not free webspace for one's fansite. And Wikia are, so it's not like anyone is being deprived here. People who write television articles on Wikipedia should aspire to contribute in a way that will help Wikipedia be encyclopedic, not just dump everything they see on TV. And if they should boldly dump, that's actually okay as long as they are prepared to be edited merciless, and see many of their articles deleted. This is quality control. Please do not rail against it. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you take your notion of "quality control" and apply it to every sub-article of List of The Simpsons episodes. And I find the idea that this kind of material is only acceptable when accompanied by advertising laughable. --Pixelface (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I, of course, support this guideline. I believe that the spate of talk here is largely driven by the current ArbCom case and the fact that the outcome of it is looking like a cop-out lack of consensus among the arbitrators. The remedy amounts to "make talk, not edit-war" and here we are. The process by which tv episode and character articles are reviewed, merged, redirected, deleted, or whatever, will undoubtedly change somewhat, but the non-conformant ones will still attract withering criticism. Those who object to this guideline because they object to articles being redirected or deleted would be well advised to go beef-up articles they care about instead of railing against encyclopaedic fundamentals. --Jack Merridew 09:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to "beef up" an article once it's gone. Also, many of the articles deleted were already pretty beefy; the reason they were deleted was "notability", which is a subjective concept that won't necessarily change simply by adding more material. Indeed, some of the objections I've seen here to the existence of these articles hinged on them being too "beefy". Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It's actually quite easy. Ask on DRV or ask an admin to restore and move into your userspace. From there, you can use your userspace as a sandbox. Once the reason the page has been deleted has been invalidated, move it back into meatspace. Will (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
you've never tried to do that on any scale have you?Genisock2 (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The former? No, but I doubt that many admins would be opposed to provisionally undeleting for rewriting in userspace? The laztter? Yes, 1 FA, 1 GA, 1 DYK from pretty much the ground up, and I often use my userspace for sandbox articles. Will (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
And risk being accused of wheel waring? Please.Geni 00:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're getting accused of wheel warring in that situation, You're Doing It Wrong™. I hardly believe anyone's going to believe the complainant in any case. Will (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the points made above as well. And I think that AfD regularly supports the general consensus. The guideline and its prescribed remedies should stay. The arbcom case seems to support such a finding as well. Eusebeus (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I assume that Bryan Derksens comment,
"I don't understand what your issue with the existence of episode articles is when you explicitly say that you don't actually read them . . . "
was aimed at me. I did not say I had a problem with episode articles. I said I had a problem with mediocre froth. Actually, I would not really have a problem with this either if I never saw it. The fact that a user (me) who, not only does not read this stuff but actively tries to avoid it, is continually coming across it, must tell you that something is wrong. Where do you get links to this stuff? Trivia and Popular Culture sections for one thing and sometimes embedded in the article itself. No thanks - I have no need for a link to every episode of Star Trek that has such-and-such mentioned in it.
Spinningspark (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
its been said before: if you don't care to read it, and actively avoid it, why does its presence in one form or another concern you? the only way you can continually come across it is if you accidentally open an article about something which looks like the title of something you do care about, --the solution is to look at another article. So how do you keep running across it? DGG (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I don't really care much about this issue, I just followed a link from the noticeboard asking for opinions from people not heavily involved. My opinion is this material is unencyclopaedic. I am not going to actively campaign for mass deletion or otherwise get involved. But that is my opinion, as requested. If you don't like the answer you should ask a different question. Spinningspark (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This guideline seems to provide good sound advice based on policy and common sense. Deleted articles can always be undeleted and moved to a userspace sandbox (to preserve GFDL compliance). That is a well-established and fairly non-controversial practice. If someone truly feels compelled to detail every episode of a series they love, there's always Wikia or any other number of similar sites available for that purpose. Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - This guideline is in conflict with WP:SIZE and WP:NNC. Episode pages are essentially just content that has been moved off an article page due to size or style problems. They shouldn't be assessed in isolation; they are part of a topic that happens to span multiple wiki pages. Until this conflict is resolved, this guideline should be ignored. Torc2 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    I doubt that a 200-word plot summary, e.g. That's So Raven, even with 70 episodes, pushes WP:SIZE at all. Will (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:SIZE doesn't only refer to overall length, but also to organization and style: "This page contains an overview on issues related to limits on article size, which are set by ... reader issues, such as readability, organization, information saturation, attention spans, etc." Torc2 (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually find it easier to read conjunctive plot summaries instead of hopping from one page to another (and in some cases, to another). I also find my attention span decreases when I'm article hopping - I severely doubt someone will have the time to read through all 214 summaries of Stargate SG-1 in one sitting. Will (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that's all anecdotal. Not everybody thinks like you, and not everybody is looking to read through the entire plot summary of every episode of a show. Your comment about Stargate contradicts the rest of your point - no, hardly anybody is going to do that, so why put all that information on a single page and force user to try to remember where they were, instead of on separate pages with nav boxes where it's much easier to recall what the last episode you viewed was? I'd venture most people are looking for information on a single episode anyway. Torc2 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NNC says notability doesn't necessarily limit length of the topic, and that's very much true. There is, however, a limit on plot-only text, as pointed out by policy at WP:PLOT. That is the vital flaw in your logic. We could theoretically have ten articles about a single episode, as long as it wasn't just plot summary. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
How is that a 'flaw in my logic'? I don't even see how that's applicable to what I said. For that matter, I haven't seen a single article yet (including any of the Smallville summaries) that remotely limits itself as severely as WP:PLOT prescribes. It's simply unrealistic and not what users want. Every decision and every consensus on TV series have been somewhat arbitrary to what the group of regulars to that topic chooses to interpret WP:PLOT to be relative to that series. (At least until some bull comes through unilaterally deleting everything and ignoring consensus to further their own agenda.) There is essentially no reason to have any plot summary for Smallville, because none of it supports the real-world information accompanying those article, and the same applies to most series. And there's editors who would love to see that happen, and they adore this guideline because it is far too broad in its support and far too susceptable to abuse. Yes, of course, plot summaries cannot be infinite; I never said they were. I just said that what length is "acceptable" varies from series to series, and shouldn't be prescribed based on some editors' favorite shows. I also said it was possible that length might force articles to be split, which I eventually got Bignole to acknowledge, and that split doesn't mean the resulting parts are totally independent, wholly isolated articles, but are sub-articles that are parts of a whole, and which should be treated as a single, multi-part article when evaluating WP:N, WP:V and all the other WP:alphabets. That length might not always be excessive plot; it might be real-world information, a series with a lot of episodes, or a series that includes a dense plot that is appropriately long. It might not even have to be split due to kilobyte size, but due to readibility or organizational issues. All I'm saying is that there may be times when editors agree that individual episode articles are more readable and more stylistically and/or organizationally appropriate than one-size-fits-all approach, and this guideline goes too far in preemptively forbidding that. The model used for Albums recognizes that listing albums on separate pages is necessary for organization, and the music guidelines allow that. I think that makes as much sense for TV episodes as the consolidated full-season approach. Torc2 (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Your logic was that WP:NNC applied to this situation, which it doesn't. You also don't seem to understand what WP:PLOT is saying. This guideline does not preemptively forbid anything. I mean, for crying out loud, I just re-read the guideline (again) after reading your message to make sure I wasn't going insane. Have you read the guideline, or is this a response to how some people have dealt with such articles? -- Ned Scott 04:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't? "As a rough guide, this amounts to no more than ten words per minute of screen time." That's not preemptively forbidding an accurate description of a dense, fast-moving plot? "Things to avoid" isn't telling users not to do certain things? If this isn't telling people how to do anything, why does it exist? What does this guideline provide that isn't better provided by one of the other dozens of guidelines and policies? Several guidelines recognize that throwing everything on one page isn't always appropriate. Even WP:FICT says "Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material." So the idea that a single topic can span several pages isn't new. It's just something this guideline hasn't caught up to. Torc2 (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"That's not preemptively forbidding an accurate description of a dense, fast-moving plot?" Nope, it's just saying that, normally, a lot of plot can be adequately described with a rough guide. That is why we say a "rough guide", because it won't apply to every situation. Are you telling me you read "a rough guide" as some kind of in-stone-holy-rule? ....
A guideline does tell people to avoid things, because it's a freakin' guideline. "Things to avoid" is hardly making something forbidden, and some of that advice deals with legal policy issues (copyrights for lyrics) and that we have a sister project for quotes. "Unsourced sections about technical errors or continuity issues should generally be avoided. If there is a major mistake that is discussed by a reliable source it can become a part of the production section." You're saying that we shouldn't tell people that? Are you honestly saying we shouldn't be telling people that? The trivia notice might be the only thing someone could have a problem with, simply because the definition of trivia can have different meanings to different people (fun facts vs pointless facts, for example).
Nice quote from WP:FICT. Did you know that I wrote that? Did you know that in WP:PLOT, I proposed to change the wording to "topic" instead of saying "per article" (which it now says)? I know that a topic can span more than one episode, but I also know that plot recap can get excessive.
This guideline does not discourage episode articles, it discourages bad episode articles. We have a growing number of excellent episode articles, and we encourage those kinds of articles. People who helped write this guideline also write those articles. This is real, practical advice, that has been proven time and time again. -- Ned Scott 02:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways. Either the guideline is asserting some authority, or it's basically useless. (Maybe both, in this situation.) And even though you proposed "topic", it doesn't say that for good reason. Torc2 (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
So it's holy-law or nothing? The reason why WP:PLOT says "topic" and not article is similar to why you believe that sub-articles can be justified by parent articles.
We can have it "both ways", because that's what guidelines are defined as on Wikipedia. Note how we define the difference between policy and guidelines at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Guidelines are more advisory in nature than policies, and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Pages that are guidelines do assert some authority, which are subject to reasonable exceptions. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with the points that Torc2 just made. Moving content from a set of individual pages to an aggregate page like a list just seems to be churning to little purpose. The only practical issue that I notice is that article titles for episodes sometimes are unqualified and this tends to cause conflicts because the episode titles are often phrases or quotes used in a wider context, e.g. Command Decision which was the title of a Dad's Army episode. But this is not hard to deal with using the common sense naming standard and a routine article move when this has not been followed.
Furthermore, I hang out on AFD and it doesn't seem to me that this guideline has consensus support. There just seems to be a small number of editors like TTN and AnmaFinotera who are riding this particular hobbyhorse. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You guys mention problems with moving episode articles to aggregate pages, um, Smallville (season 1) does just that and there aren't any problems. You're more likely to find information (more specifically reviews) on seasons than every single individual article. Many times, which I have found true for Smallville and other shows, creators like to talk about how they developed the show for that season. Occassionally, they get into specific episodes, but even then you may not have enough to support an entire page. When it comes to reviews, I can find more reviews on a single season than a single episode (because DVD releases tend to bring wider attention from professional reviewers, than do 22 separate episodes of a show). That doesn't mean that there won't be episodes that are notable outside of the fanbase (i.e. professionals talk about the episode), just that out of 20+ episodes a season maybe 10% (unless you're like The Simpsons which is probably due to its age and popularity as a whole) will have enough secondary sources to assert separate notability from its respective season; sometimes not even that much. Some shows are just "freaks" and garner a lot of attention from secondary sources; not every show can be The Simpsons or "fill in the blank of another hugely popular show that's been on the air for more than 10 years".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No, but not every show can be a Smallville either. Why insist that a format that works for a series with a linear plotline like that will work for shows with an episodic nature, like The Simpsons or Aqua Teen Hunger Force? A single-page-per-season approach shouldn't be used for a one-size-fits-all solution for every TV show. Torc2 (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The Smallville (season 1) article is 52K which exceeds the WP:SIZE guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I just count 36.9K of readable prose, so the page doesn't exceed WP:SIZE (yet). Seeing how Smallville (season 1) is probably the most comprehensive season article currently on wikipedia, I don't think season articles for other shows would exceed WP:SIZE either. – sgeureka t•c 20:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Torc, I'm not saying that the Smallville article is the be all end all of season articles, I'm just saying that it's proof you can incorporate 22 episodes into one page coherently, and in good quality. Second, has anyone actually tried to bring episode television shows into one page, or have they just decided from the start that it would be "too hard"? The only problem I see would come in the production section, and it wouldn't be that hard to incorporate, in my eyes at least. For Smallville, as you pointed out, it is a little easier because a lot of things tie together for the whole season, but it wouldn't be a problem for episodic shows either. The difference would be that a production section would deal more on a paragraph/episode style, as opposed to the seasonal arc styling of Smallville's page. I can also see where you can easily tie episodes together by the way certain directors or writers or artists take different approaches. You don't have to draw conclusions to say "Artist Y chose to draw the characters first and the background second, as opposed to Artist X who did it vice versa" (it's a weak statement, but the idea is clear on how you can tie information together so that it runs more smoothly throughout the page. To Colonel, as Sgeureka pointed out, 52kb isn't the "readable prose", which is what SIZE measures, but also 60kb is where it is stated that an article "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". In Smallville's case, a large portion of the article is just plot summaries for 22 episodes, so the page could be 60kb of readable prose and still be fine, because about 15kb of that is strictly plot information, not to mention the lead paragraphs that summarize the article. This is why SIZE isn't generally followed any longer, unless an article is extremely long and can be better served if it was broken up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am not saying that it cannot be done; I will totally conceed that it can in some, maybe most circumstances. I'm just saying that we shouldn't prescribe that as the only method for handling episodes or that we should preemptively disallow individual episode articles. I'm also saying that there will be shows that, in that format, violate WP:SIZE either in raw kilobyte size or in readability', which is a factor of WP:SIZE. In any case, this is kind of beside the point for my concern. Even if all episodes were on one list, this guideline still creates a problem. If that single long list is included in the main series article, it's governed by WP:NNC and the primary sources are allowed; if it's chopped out due to SIZE, it's suddenly covered by WP:N and considered "cruft" because it's primarily in-universe material. That's a problem. In other words, notability and secondary sources are inherited if the list is within an main article; if the list exceeds WP:SIZE, it's forced out. My argument is that the list, for all intents and purposes, is still just content of the main article. It's still part of that article; it just exists on a different wiki page. Asserting that it's somehow now totally independent and must be read in complete isolation is counterproductive. If a series itself is notable, we should be able to include a limited amount of totally in-universe information, bound only by WP:OR, because we're essentially just describing plot elements for something that is already proved notable and has established its real world impact, and it shouldn't make any difference if that information is included in the main article, or on a different page just to keep things managable and readable. I'd just like to see content handled consistently. Torc2 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree there's a problem here. Information in an article does not have to be notable, but when an article gets too large and is split into sub-articles per WP:SIZE and WP:SS, suddenly WP:N is applied. I think that's the wrong way to go about this. If episode articles could be merged into a single page, but it would exceed WP:SIZE, perhaps WP:N should not apply to each sub-article. --Pixelface (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching/reading/listening to whatever fiction you want. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and fictional topics are intended to be built on real world information. Why would you need to separate plot information into its own article? If that's too large then it says to me you have too much detailed plot information. Plot information is necessary to understand the topic, but it is not the primary focus of the article. The level of plot detail should be reflected by the amount of real world information in the article. You use what is necessary to help readers understand what the article is talking about. If they want to know what precisely happened, they should watch the show. Why do we need 22 episode articles that do nothing but rehash the plot? Why cannot they be better summarized in a generic LOE page? It's about quality, not quantity. Now, if you have real world information about episodes, but not enough to support a separate article then maybe one should think about creating a way to incorporate it into a seasonal article, where all the cummulated real world content can be summarized (as summary style is what we follow on Wikipedia) into a decent seasonal page. Again, there will be shows that work better and can support the idea of individual episode articles (to sound like a broken record The Simpsons is the best example of that, because those editors have managed to turn a sizable portion of their indy ep. articles into really good articles that clearly pass notability and every other guideline and policy), but most shows won't be able to compete with that type of structure because they simply aren't covered in secondary sources. Not every show needs episode articles, hell, not every show needs anything other than an episode list with maybe a basic premise given for the episode. If the only thing we know about an episode is the plot details, then why do we need a separate article for that?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You're right, The Simpsons is a good example. See the sub-articles of The Simpsons (season 16) to see what continually gets ignored by people using this guideline like a knife. If you could merge every sub-article of The Simpsons (season 16) into The Simpsons (season 16), great. But if it exceeds WP:SIZE, I see no reason the list could not be split into individual episodes articles per WP:SS. Either every episode article has to assert notability or it does not. The sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes seem to indicate that each article does not have to assert individual notability. --Pixelface (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Why would you need to separate plot information into its own article? If that's too large then it says to me you have too much detailed plot information. - by this logic, the more space that real world information an article includes, or the longer a series is aired, the less plot information it would be allowed to share. In any case, the argument that there's "too much" plot information is totally subjective. You're basically arguing that because you personally can't see a situation where a show's plot summary would be reasonable and still be too large for a single article that we should codify rules that say it can never happen. So let me ask you, why is Smallville (season 1) its own article? Why aren't all the Smallville articles, Smallville (season 1), season 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 part of Smallville (TV series)? Should we edit the season 4 plot summary down to a tenth of its current size so all the series articles will fit into 60kbs of the main article? Or should we delete it because aside from viewer numbers and awards, there's no real world information? Why are there articles like Smallville characters (season 6) that include absolutely zero real-world information? What's independently notable about the Smallville DVD releases, and why can't that be part of the main article? Torc2 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Colonel Warden and Torc2. Additional Comments: Too many generalizations are being used. It is being said that most people or the majority agree with the guideline and that it has garnished consensus when this is entirely farce. There was never a consensus call on this guideline and as the majority (thus consensus) of editors disagree with how things are being handled by the WP:Episode cabal. It is even disputed that it is an accepted guideline by the community. When backlash started happening with them citing a suggested guideline, WP:Episode, as the reason for article deletion, the cabal has now shifted to notability, and TV Episode and MOS as the reasoning for the rampant deletions. It is apparent that there is an agenda, and the reason for this agenda to be carried through, will change from guideline to guideline, so long as it can be carried through. Another correction needs to be made is that this has been accepted and around since 2006. This very thing was addressed in an AfD, or was it arbcom, that this has changed in the past year from what it used to be, formed by this tyrannical club to support their agenda. Although, contrary to what the cabal is saying, arbcom was not leaning one way or the other. Arcom did not want to create, shape, or change policy, so they had to deal with the problematic issue at hand...TTN, which really went no where. Anyway, this article/issue is creating more unrest than it is creating peace and needs to be blighted and killed from wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The main article of a show is a summary of the show as a whole, why do you need to detail every last thing that happens in the show? A basic plot premise for each season is probably all you need, and if your article becomes even larger than you can trim the plot down. I already have plans of trimming Smallville's plot information in its main article when the series is finished (which will probably be in another season), so that it looks more like a series overview than seasonal overviews. It's called summary style. If you look at Smallville (season 1), I think you can clearly see notability...it isn't questionable. Right now, I can see how season 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (I'm excluding 7, and will explain why in a second) are questionable. Personally, I have the books for production information on season 2 - 5 (season 6's book won't be out for a few months), I just haven't put it in because I have many projects I'm working on (just to show a little proof, I've started season 2). I also had season reviews for all those seasons, plus season 6, but unfortunately my computer crashed and I had to buy another--thus loosing all the links to the reviews. Not an excuse, but with some effort I can easily find them again because it wasn't that difficult to start with. Plus, season 2 through 6 all have awards sections which amount to many secondary sources (which, season 4, ironically, has probably the second most award mentionings). We don't need that level of plot detail on the main article, why are you fixated on plot detail? Plot detail is for context, not for substitution of watching the show. The question of whether we need the season articles is secondary to the question of whether we need 22 episode articles to tell what can easily be said on one page. We don't need 22 pages for that, nor do we need 22 pages to say "it got 3.4 million viewers", as you can easily put that in the table with the episodes (see Smallville (season 7)). It's all about summarizing. You don't need to spread everything out when it works fine, and probably better on one page. If the time comes that it needs to be spread out, then great, but why is everyone wanting to jump the gun? As for the Smallville characters, I've also started cleaning up those articles in my sandbox, so that they have more real world content in them and fall in line with a more encyclopedic tone. In regards to the DVD page, I don't see a reason to have it frankly. I wouldn't mind if it went, because the DVDs are covered on the main page, on the LOE page and individually on the season pages. We don't need to know the specs on each DVD, that's something for Amazon, or whatever vender, to do when they sell the product. Unless there is context behind listing the special features, there really isn't a reason to list them. It just becomes indiscriminate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The amount of plot you choose to include is completely arbitrary, so what makes the amount you've chosen more correct than the amount another editor chooses? Why include any plot summary? Even if Season 1's notability is not in question, the amount of plot summary is still 10x the amount of real world information, so why not slice it down to one or two sentences per episode? You agree that seasons 2-7 are questionable, so why not AfD them? How would you vote on an AfD for Season 4? Torc2 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Doing a quick word count, there's actually about one-and-a-half times more real-world information than plot summary. Will (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The plot is 10x that of the real world information? The real world information is something like 20kb, whereas the plot info is like 15kb (so, that's a little less than 1 kb of plot info per 1 kb of real world info). Hell, the only reason there is that much plot information is because a couple of editors gripped that it wasn't "enough". I originally limited it to about 3 lines of plot information, which looked close to what is in the other season articles (particularly 3 through 6). I didn't say that season 2 - 7 were questionable, I said that I could see how that could be said. I don't believe that they are. First, season 7 is not questionable, it has 15 secondary sources (out of 25 overall sources) which is pretty darn decent for any article to have regarding "coverage from secondary sources". As for the others, they all have secondary sources in them. The only thing missing is production information, as they have real world content in the awards section. They fit fine on one page, instead of 22 separate pages. Not really seeing a reason to AfD them, nor do I see any possible chance that an AfD would even result in deletion of those pages based on the fact that they do have secondary sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I missed the section at the bottom. Fair enough, my mistake. Still, that's true for most of the other season summaries. The point still stands that it's a rather arbitrary amount of plot summary, and there's no clear reason why there shouldn't be less detail, or why there shouldn't be more detail. Editors "griped" that it wasn't enough, so you added more? So, why stop listening when many editors want even more? Why assert that your opinion is more valid than theirs? As for sources, let's look at, say, season 4. Over half the sources are primary, the sources for most of the articles are trivial mentions or just descriptions of what happens in the show from entertainment rags, and lots and lots of WP:RS-questionable blogs. Maybe two or three are legitimate sources. And you know, I'm in actually favor of keeping these, but let's just stop pretending that Smallville deserves this kind of treatment when other shows do not. Basically it's a lot of fluff to make the article look more important than it is, and clearly every one of the sources here could be applied to the episodes and shows being deleted. Sources like that - minor snippets in TV Guide or People - doesn't make Wiki any better, just more bureaucratic.
But this is all beside the point. The main question remains: why should content be treated differently when it's part of a larger article than when it's on a separate page due to size? How is a list of episodes substantially different when it's part of an article than when parsed off due to size? Why don't you concatenate all the Smallville seasons into one page? They'll fit if we slice them down to appropriate size, as you recommend. Torc2 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Because it was agreed that a couple more lines would be sufficient to be able to summarize all the major points of the episode. What about you talking about "questionable blogs"? The most important thing that you are missing is that it has nothing to do with "can you use this to make an episode article exist," but with "is this enough for a separate article on one single episode of a show". Season 4 is 26kb, and a good portion of that is coding from the table and other things. Let's say we apply all the real world content to separate articles; you're talking about 5 articles (as only 5 episodes were nominated for any awards) that have any thing other than plot summaries in them. Given the size of the entire season page, you're talking about articles that would most likely contain your description of 10:1 plot to real world ratio. There's no reason why they cannot be placed with the rest of the episodes in their respective season. If an episode stood out, like Pilot (Smallville) (or, to get off Smallville, Pilot (House), Through the Looking Glass (Lost), or any Simpsons episode in season 8), then there's no reason why they couldn't/shouldn't have their own article. You asked why would couldn't put all the season articles on one page...well, because they wouldn't fit. Let's say, that when all is said and done and the rest of the seasons look like Season 1, you put them all on one page. By taking just the real world info from season 1, no plot information, and multiplying it 7 times (more if Smallville goes into an eighth season) you come up with approximately 136 kb of "readable prose", that is far too large for a single article. Granted, that is an educated guess based on season 1's size, and each season could be smaller or larger depending on what info is available to them, but the fact remains that there won't be that much of a difference between my calculation and the real thing. So, the question becomes "what should be split" when an article becomes too large. Since fiction articles are based on real world information, not their plot information, and Wikipedia isn't a simple plot summary (i.e. we shouldn't have articles that are only separated because they have too much plot information), the information that is separated should be real world content. What real world content should be separated? Well, the RW content that has more than enough information to support a separate article on itself. Why would you separate a plot when a page is large, if the only thing that will be on the separated page is that plot summary?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
What about you talking about "questionable blogs"? Check Season 7, ref #5, 8, 9, and 12. But just for kicks, let's go through Season 4's sources in detail. 1-3 are Amazon pages (ads), #4 is just TV Guide's summary, which they do for every TV show, #5 is a badly formatted ratings chart, #6-27 are primary sources, #28-31 are IMDB pages for individual actors (why, I have no idea), and the rest are single-line entries verifying that the show was nominated for some awards. (The last one isn't even about this season.) Most of the cites are just fluff, and there's relatively little real world information aside from some awards and nominations; clearly not enough to warrant separating this from the other seasons. None of the references have any in-depth coverage, and notability isn't established for most of the episodes; there's no reason we should anything besides a title. Why shouldn't we delete plot descriptions for episodes that we not nominated for any awards? It'll save on space, and in the end we'd have one nice article that included only notable information.
You asked why would couldn't put all the season articles on one page...well, because they wouldn't fit. Wow, so what you're saying is that SIZE is a factor in whether or not an article might have to be split up? That begs the question: if SIZE forces an article to be split, why should we treat the two halves as totally isolated, independent topics instead of as two parts of a whole? There's no logical reason to pretend they're distinct, unrelated objects. Before you were arguing that every TV show should be sliced until it fit into some arbitrary space because if it didn't fit, there was obviously too much information; now you're acknowledging that in some cases that's not possible. Shouldn't the guideline reflect that possiblity? Shouldn't the rules recognize that some articles are related and are just pieces to a larger topic? Torc2 (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Where to start, Ausiello is a TV Guide journalist; the fact that it's a blog is irrelevant to the fact that it is TV Guide's editor's blog and not some random schmo who wants to talk to himself on the web. The next is Allison Mack's personal website, again, not a question of reliability. The same is for the other "blogs" on there. Separating "this season from others"? They don't congregate anywhere. If you feel there is an issue with them, feel free to act as you see fit. If they're gone, then they're gone and I already know I have the books that will put the real world information in their respective articles (sorry that I work and go to school full time and can't do that for you now). As for SIZE, again, you're missing the point. What I said was that splitting information should be done for "real world information", not plot descriptions (because Wikipedia isn't a plot summary, we aren't here to get readers up to date with the latest TV show they missed). You're original argument was that episode pages were split because of SIZE reasons, but they weren't because they were never part of the main page of the shows to begin with when they were split, they were part of an LOE page. When it comes to these episode articles, they ARE NOT being split because of SIZE, they are being split because some editors think they are notable in their own right without needing to provide any sourcing to prove it. What they want are trivia sections, original thoughts on the episode and images. Unfortunately, most of what they want in an article on episodes are things that are either not allowed, discouraged, or require real world content to be used. You cannot claim SIZE and not actually back it up with article size problems. What are these episode articles diverting from? LOE pages? The logical separation of an LOE page is into season pages, not into individual episode pages. They only way going from LOE to indy ep. articles would be realistic would be if the LOE page contained real world information on the entire series and a couple of individual episodes stood out from the rest in their amount of real world content and notability. Otherwise, you're talking separation into half a dozen pages, as opposed to over 100 pages. Why would you even separate 1 article into 100 tiny articles under the guise that the article is too large? You talk about separating plot info from an overly large article, well that's generally what LOE pages are, the separated plot information (just summarized plots). Some LOE pages don't have plot information (which is my preferred idea), while some do have plot summaries (other people's preferred idea). The fact is, there's no reason to have so many tiny articles when they can be organized into one page. If you want to play the "other stuff" card with Smallville's season pages, fine. They can be "merged" into an LOE page until enough real world content comes along to separate them individually. Whatever you think is fair and balanced with everything else.
Oh, I tested the "merging" idea out, and the page would be 145 kb (includes all the coding), with the Awards section alone being between 16kb and 20kb of readable prose alone (the range is dependent on how season 7 does with awards). The page only included the same lead that was there, the episode list with plot summaries and awards section...something every page had. It didn't include the development information for season 7, or the Writers' Strike information. I left the plots the same, so they could have been shortened to a couple of lines, but you're still talking about 40kb of readable prose, give or take a bit depending on how much you cut from the plot. You can't play this and that and only include plot summaries for episodes that won awards, it would just look awful on the page; it would lack consistency.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What the people think

Every tv show that has had its episodes redirected has had its talk page filled with people speaking out against it. For example, the Scrubs page has around 30-40 and maybe even more people who've voiced their opinions against the merge, while a group of 10 or so people have been patrolling the page to make sure no one tries to revert anything back. The people who use wikipedia for information do not like this move, while the people who are supposedly trying to help it are ignoring their cries of disapproval. If wikipedia is acting in the interest of those who edit it, then yeah take out the articles, but if it's working in the interest of the people who use and read it, reinstate them. Look page your thoughts about "episode stubs" and think about what the people who read it want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 18:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Being useful or liked does not dictate what Wikipedia does, as odd as that sounds. This is the same reason we are not used as a travel guide, even though that would be very useful, given our editing resources and being able to directly tie into high-traffic articles. This is also why we don't do things by vote or by popular demand. We are, however, trying to find homes for these articles, such as the Srubs Wiki. Wikipedia is great, but it's not an episode guide, and it's not the end-all dumping ground for anything useful. -- Ned Scott 18:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikia is great, but I find it convenient that this material suddenly becomes acceptable when accompanied by advertising. --Pixelface (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I just read WP:NOT, and I don't see anything there that provides a rational basis for excluding summaries of past TV episodes. It would be helpful if someone could provide a brief but reasonably detailed rationale of the case for excluding them on the basis of WP:NOT. Lou Sander (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT does - "Wikipedia is not a plot summary". Will (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT#PLOT says articles should not only be a plot summary. --Pixelface (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how saying this helps your argument, but it's likely Will meant the same thing. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As Will points out, the topic has its own bullet point in WP:NOT, at WP:NOT#PLOT. -- Ned Scott 00:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. But it's VERY hard to see why plot summaries are not to be here. We've got every municipality in Pennsylvania, every railroad station in England, every this, and every that. But we don't have plot summaries. Why? Lou Sander (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the reasoning for NOT#PLOT is copyrights (though I'm not entirely sure) - a page full of "he did this, then she said that" is in danger of being a derivative work, with a lower chance of being fair use than on a TV-only wiki or on TV.com Will (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It's unrelated to copyrights, although it has been preposed to mention copyright issues in that bullet point. The reason, as I understand it, is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia grounded in the real world, and when we summarize fiction, we do so only because we have other information that relates to the real-world. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to continue on Scrubs, I just watched the episode My Long Goodbye, then looked up the episode for the song that was featured in it. The page has production details, the songs, guest stars, and of course a plot summary. In fairness, I then changed the Scrubs Wikia page, which had all of those, but with holes in the information. It didn't have all the songs in the episode, or the guest stars, and gaps in its summary. Along with that, on the Scrubs Wikia, it says the last aired episode is My Inconvenient Truth, and that episode's page has no information on the episode, as opposed to the page on wikipedia. Not only that, but the actual last new episode to air, My Number One Doctor has no page. Clearly, the Wikia page is not sufficient, and if the people who took away the articles on wikipedia were willing to help recreate/transfer these pages to the Wikia it would be very helpful instead of just getting rid of them and doing nothing. I believe that's pretty ignorant and single-minded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 01:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
(I have moved to wikia most of JD's article and will do so for the rest of the characters. Your point is well-taken & it is worth porting the content to the Scrubs wikia. Eusebeus (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
Some of us are doing just that. Having just learned much of this stuff myself (and am still learning), I'm very eager to help not only build up a guideline for the transwiki process, but also start a pool of editors that are willing to assist people in moving articles and supporting smaller wikis. While I don't think that Wikipedia is the place to have many of these articles, I too want to preserve them, and all the hard work done on them. It's something that a lot of us are learning, because Wikipedia's relationship with third-party wikis is mostly new ground. -- Ned Scott 07:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
That's part of the problem, Ned Scott. some are doing that. But then there are such editors like TTN who display the sensitivity of an rampaging elephant in a porcelain shop, - intentionally or nor - "talk down" to people (what else am I suppose to interpret ignoring all opposition and uttering things along the lines of "what you think does not matter" and "if this does not get merged I'll AfD the bunch" as?) and effectively delete information - which might not be entirely notable enough for Wikipedia, but would greatly enrich the more specialized Wiki - on a big scale, which causes only further inflammation. So the actions of a single editor cast a deep shadow on a mainly very sensible guideline. CharonX/talk 02:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ned Scott, If Wikipedia is not an episode guide, what is List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, List of Futurama episodes, and List of Doctor Who serials and their associated articles doing here? --Pixelface (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, excuse me while I fix every problematic article-at-once so you can't use the othercrapexists argument. I haven't looked in-depth to every episode article of each of those shows, but obviously The Simpsons GA and FA episode articles are pages with real world information presented in an encyclopedic tone. (and the others likely have potential to do so as well). An "episode guide" is typically just a series of summaries. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I really don't care what WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS says. Those articles indicate that Wikipedia does contain episode guides. And every article linked to from those lists do not each assert notability. The sub-articles of those lists appear to be the norm. --Pixelface (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does contain a number of episode guides, but they are currently being removed (when inappropriate, and excessive in plot-only information). -- Ned Scott 04:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This has largely turned into the same small handful of people pushing their arbitrary interpretation of what they insist WP:NOT means. It seems to be getting clearer that the consensus is that articles on individual episodes of television program should be the rule. Alansohn (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The sheer number of episode articles constantly nominated and deleted in AfD would seem to indicate otherwise. As a very dedicated member of the TV project, it is rather aggravating having to deal with so many fans who just want articles for every last episode and every last minor little character on a show to have their own article, even though it goes against Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and even our rather meager TV project MOS. I suspect if you checked, you'd find that quite a few episode article nominations are coming from the TV project itself to try and clean up our area of focus and get it back on track. I have a lot of shows I love that I work on, particularly anime, but I also firmly believe in Wikipedia's core policies so I am always very careful to try to remain neutral in my editing of those show articles and to only include verifiable information from reliable sources. I also don't believe Wikipedia was ever intended to be the world's largest TV guide, and that's all individual episode articles really do most of the time, give the entire plot of the show. There are plenty of wikias for that sort of insane fan level detail about shows, and that's where most of tat kind of stuff goes. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Go nominate for deletion the sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes and List of Futurama episodes that do not assert notability and then tell me what you see. --Pixelface (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course most of the people here want individual articles. I'm rather sure that most of the people editing TV-show articles are people who would like to see the entire contents of their favorite shows' websites merged into Wikipedia. But however interesting such a work might be, it isn't what Wikipedia is for.
Wikipedia's basic purpose is to collect information about the world previously published by reliable, independent sources, and summarize it, just like any other encyclopedia. The two unique features are that it is not limited by physical media binding or publication cycles, and anyone can edit it. That doesn't mean that anyone can put anything they want to into it. Wikipedia has very clear requirements for verifiability through reliable secondary and tertiary sources. The vast majority of TV-show episodes simply don't have enough independently published information to create meaningful Wikipedia articles.
I happen to be a huge fan of many shows, for some of which I've written considerable information that wasn't necessarily well-sourced. (I originally wrote most of the material in the Firefly articles, for example.) I readily concede that, although I'd like to see this material preserved, Wikipedia is currently not the place for it, based on its general principles. I have a hope someday that we will be able to create a useful "encylopedia of everything", but I fully stand by the demands that Wikipedia makes on sourcing, neutrality, and verifiability. We can copy the information (with credits) to other projects before it's deleted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The "Wikipedia has a greater purpose" excuse is simply one's way to arbitrarily decide that what doesn't appeal to you doesn't belong here; basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Individual episodes of most popular programs are regularly the subject of reviews, all of which provide ample sources for inclusion in articles. It's the same narrow group of deletionists pushing the same narrow interpretation on these articles. Alansohn (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
IDONTLIKEIT is a strange thing to accuse someone of saying when they just told you that they do like it. And while many shows do have a lot of real-world information about them, it's not always in a "per-episode" format. Like when an actor talks about their character, that information is better presented on the character article, rather than splitting it up on each episode where development of that character occurred. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
"The vast majority of TV-show episodes simply don't have enough independently published information to create meaningful Wikipedia articles" evidences?Geni 19:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Past experience would be the evidence. A lot of us do go looking for this information before recommending merges or redirects, as well as during those discussions. -- Ned Scott 04:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, the consensus that we see at AfD seems to be the very opposite - that individiual articles are to be avoided (unless the episode is significantly notable on its own, see The City on the Edge of Forever and Abyssinia, Henry. Lankiveil (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC).
We need a paragraph at WP:NOT#TVGUIDE that expands on the notion that Wikipedia was [n]ever intended to be the world's largest TV guide. --Jack Merridew 08:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not the world's largest TV guide, yet we still have List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, List of Futurama episodes, and List of Doctor Who serials and their associated articles. Does that make Wikipedia a TV guide? --Pixelface (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
But it became the world's biggest tv guide, and people liked it. Laynethebangs (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
See WP:ILIKEIT and WP:CCC. We are free to pass that 'honor' to wikia - along with a huge PageRank boost. --Jack Merridew 08:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I've left a message on the village pump discussion a day or so ago asking if anyone knew who to contact about the nofollow settings on the interwiki links. I'll try to do some more follow up on the issue. Also, I think WP:NOT did used to say something about not being a TV guide, but that was before WP:PLOT, so I suppose they thought it was repetitive. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Jack Merridew, are you a Wikia employee? --Pixelface (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To make a more general point and incidentally respond to what Laynethebangs has correctly identified as an outpouring of concern at the Scrubs LOE page after we undertook the redirect, it is clear that episode retention is not really the issue. Scrubs fans - I'll speak for them since I know that case best - want

  1. the songs featured in the episode + performer info
  2. in-universe and continuity details, such as character family info, peripheral character info, guest stars etc...
  3. detailed plot outlines
  4. trivia

Per our existing standard at WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF & WP:TRIVIA episode retention would focus on

  1. production
  2. external reviews
  3. wider, real-world cultural significance
  4. episode specific awards

and would have a modest amount of in-universe details to provide context. Well, frankly that is not what "the people" named above likely want - and neither would I if I am looking for a detailed episode guide. WTF do I care if some camera guy named Frank won a $#^%# award for special angle work in My Random Episode. What I probably care about is like OMG why is JD bald?? or in which episode did Carla get pregnant or other such info. To caricature those of us undertaking these sitewide revisions as rabid deletionists may make people feel better, but such slander (intended or otherwise) does little to resolve the basic tension that is at work here. Even if we keep individual TV episodes, the onus to focus on real-world significance is not going to deliver the content fans want. Consistently, via AfD and policy discussion and now arbcom, there has been strong consensus that Wikipedia not be a fanguide, that this not be a place for extensive in-universe fan-driven content. Consensus can change, of course, but if people want to change our policies, going after a specific guideline is not the right place. We need to rewrite our standards - not to be undertaken lightly - at WP:N and WP:NOT, since this guideline - and consequently the actions of us evil deletionists - are a sincere reflexion of those principles. Eusebeus (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Unlike other examples given just before and after WP:NOT#plot, the one about plot summaries offers no justification. It's just a fiat says don't include 'em. That sucks. IMHO, if folks thought about justification, they'd have a hard time finding any.
Those who drink the "no plot summaries" KoolAid are reminiscent of Alec Guinness (as Col. Nicholson) in his climactic scene in The Bridge on the River Kwai. I, and hordes of others, gaze on them from our lurkplaces and say "Madness!... Madness!" Just like in the movies. Lou Sander (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Any discussion of dismantling WP:NOT#PLOT should take place at the WP:NOT policy talk page. When you bring it up I'd go lightly on the koolaid/obsession/madness motif. Some people, crazy fools that they are, don't view such information as compatible with encyclopedic content. Eusebeus (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I took a look over there. No, thanks. We'll just wait for someone to fall on the detonator. Lou Sander (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to cite any actual policies? You say "Wikipedia is not a fanguide" but fans are pretty much the only people who would work for free on most articles. Do you think today's featured article, 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl, was written mainly by fans of football or non fans? The only thing this guideline provides is an excuse to redirect articles for television episodes that individual editors don't care for. They can conveniently ignore the television shows they like and make other fans angry in the process. This guideline needs to be rewritten or marked historical. --Pixelface (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just tossing my comment in here, since I'm on vacation and don't want my relative lack of participation to look like acquiescence. I remain quite thoroughly against the notion of deleting episode articles for arbitrary reasons like what's been going on, and as soon as I'm back on my regular net connection I intend to spend some time pushing back on the matter. When there's controversy (as there most definitely is in this case) deletion cannot be the default without some pressing reason for it (such as in cases of potential libel or copyvio). If that NOT#PLOT guideline needs to be dispute too then by all means I'll dispute it. This pointless removal of good content has gone far enough. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally with Bryan Derksen. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. I too will be going on vacation and be largely offline, but I second it heartily and all the other comments opposed to the brutal application of EPISODE. --Gwern (contribs) 03:48 24 December 2007 (GMT)
That really sums it up. If you have a problem with how some people apply a guideline, take it up with them instead of blaming the guideline. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, eh? --Gwern (contribs) 04:09 24 December 2007 (GMT)
The problem with your suggestion, Ned, is that talking with people like TTN hasn't had and won't have any effect. That's why we have the arbcom case. As with what has been going on recently, if one takes up questionable application of EPISODE with an editor, the editor will just say that he/she is following policy and consensus and has every right to. It's the stubbornness of the application of our policies and guidelines which leads us back to our policies and guidelines. You've seen that in the arbcom case- no behavior has been admonished. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The arbcom has been pretty clear that mass redirects shouldn't be happening at this rate when there are objections, and that more discussion is needed. Maybe I'll ask them to make a statement (or reword an existing one) to make this clearer. All of us involved don't want to be at each other's throats. If you don't believe TTN is capable of being more understanding, then you are mistaken. The stubbornness you speak of will be improved, and we're all going to try harder to make these things go more smoothly. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I deeply hope so. The way TTN acted might have been in short term "improvement" (in the sense that some articles about really unnotable episodes have been redirected) but he caused so much inflammation and drama this way that the feelings of many editors towards WP:EPISODE have deteriorated significantly. CharonX/talk 02:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
guidelines have to be written with an eye to how they can be misused. We are here primarily because the already existing guidelines have been being quoted widely and inappropriately in every possible direction. There was a post right today on an Admin. noticeboard threaten a mass redirection of just the sort you deprecate. We really do have to include such things in the guideline. We need more thinking about this, and right now is not the time for general participation. previous guidelines have been ignored for just that reason--inadequate participation of wp people in general. We dont want this to fail for the same reason.
At this point, the guideline does definitely not have enough considered consensus. I want to think about the wording and the integration with other pages. Ned, didnt you say somewhere earlier today that the misinterpretation or misunderstanding of WP:NOTY was a part of the problem? DGG (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Wanting to improve the wording to prevent abuse is one thing, and I'd like to help to continue to improve that, but that's not the same as disputing a guideline. I would say that, while how they were handled was far from ideal, most of the redirects made by people such as TTN have been justified upon review. Not a single person here has been able to show otherwise. I can think of a few examples of where I did disagree with TTN, and said so (reverting a few times as well), but even then his conclusions were not unreasonable. Debunking a guideline based on misuse needs to actually have evidence of such misuse, and showing more than just a few isolated examples. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I myself can only think of one article that got merged despite passing the baseline. Will (talk) 11:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The policies stated on this page are in contradition to Wikipedia's goal: "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available...". The existence of tv.com and epguides.com, along with the thousands of sites specializing in episode guides for a single TV show support the idea that Wikipedia should allow contributors to generate articles on every episode of every show, for all the world to benefit. Wikipedia policy on notability says that "notable" is defined as "worthy of notice" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Geĸrίtz (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, last I checked TV.com and EpGuides.com were not encyclopedias. More specifically, the project (not a policy or guideline) you cited has a list of encyclopedias that are their main focus. TV.com and EPGuides.com are not on that list. As a matter of fact, IMDb.com is not even on that list. As a matter of fact, the only mention of television is for missing articles on television shows (not television show episodes). If you follow that project's link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of TV shows, you'll find your TV.com, EPGuides.com and other websites there. But, the big issue on the page is not "episodes" but the television show itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, books like the Brittanica aren't the only encyclopedias. I pulled this definition straight out of Wikipedia: "An encyclopedia... is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge" (italics are mine). This one comes from dictionary.com: "a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." Geĸrίtz (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
(Continuing) Moreover, Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales publicly expressed the desire to encompass "the full body of human knowledge" made available to the entire world.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs) 23:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
TV.com and EPguides.com are not "branches of knowledge", or "sets of ooks containing articles", they are merely guides that list the plot summaries of television episodes. There is nothing on them that would be considered a "comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge". They don't fit either of your definitions. As far as Wales is concerned, "the entire body of human knowledge" does not constitute "every single topic in the world", as not everything is really "knowledge". My personal life story would not be worthy of an article on Wikipedia. More importantly, let's just say we include the idea that ever television episode should be included on Wikipedia as part of Wales's idea that Wiki should contain all the world's knowledge. What that does not say is how that information is displayed. What this guideline, and many other policies and guidelines state, is that not everything deserves their "own page", not that they shouldn't be mentioned. We have List of Episode articles and season articles that can encompass all there is on an individual episode that would not otherwise be sufficient to support itself on its own page. See Smallville (season 1) for how that is possible. Just because it should be included on Wikipedia does not mean that it should, or deserves, its own page. This is why we have a notability guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course your personal life story would not be worthy, as indicated in the notability guideline. And of course TV.com and EPguides.com are not "branches of knowledge" - they are MEDIA, containing a branch of knowledge (television episodes aired to date). Whether you personally consider them unimportant or not, television episodes aired to date constitutes a branch of human knowledge, and meets notability guideline. Geĸrίtz (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't meet NOTE. NOTE says "significant coverage". TV.com and EPGuides are in the business of cataloging all television shows and episodes, that is their business. They do not provide coverage on the episodes beyond plot summaries. That does not constitute "significant coverage" by NOTE's standards. Having 50 sources that do nothing but recite the plot of a show's episode is not "signicant coverage" either. There is a difference between many sources providing significant encyclopedic information about a show, and many sources providing the exact same, limited information (limited as in just plot summaries) about a show. One is the criteria for article creation, the other is not. We don't put every movie on Wikipedia just because IMDb has a page for it. IMDb has pages for films that are not even being made. TV.com is an episode guide (i.e. lists episode titles/airdates/plot summaries etc etc, all the same stuff you typically find on the show's official website), nothing more.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly where to come in here but I will just say that I am very upset over the deletions/merges of episode pages. Those pages contained useful information that people who weren't as lucky as myself to have seen the information when it was available won't be able to now. I used Wiki as a primary reference for TV episodes since other sites aren't as good or organized and now my work is being hindered because of it. I wish that they would allow individual episode pages. I mean, if they can have individual pages for singers' radio singles which are usually nothing more than a line or two, much less than even the smallest episode stub contains, then why can't we have episode pages as well? And as was said only a handful of people patrol against people adding the info back while hundreds complain about it.

Vala M (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability and "problem" articles

There does not appear to be consensus that individual episode articles have to assert notability, as evidenced by the hundreds of sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes. I also object to this guideline suggesting a {{notability}} template be placed on articles, because this is not a notability guideline. The suggestion that episode articles be merged or redirected also does not have community consensus. That is why I removed[2][3] what I did from this guideline. --Pixelface (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That is your interpretation and you very obviously have a conflict-of-interest in doing such edits because it pushes your very specific point-of-view. If consensus actually agrees with such, then a neutral editor who hasn't spend hours upon hours debating ad nauseum in here should do whatever actions is decreed by consensus, when it is agree that consensus is reached. As for the Simpsons article, it is my understanding that the Simpsons project is, in fact, actually working on establishing notability for those articles, hence those articles currently being left alone. Many Simpsons episodes have managed to gain enough notability (and notoriety) to support a full article, such as A Streetcar Named Marge. Now, if they are no doing what they promised, by all means merges, redirects, or AfDs should commence.
As for other shows, many people who love to claim "OMG, this episode is so notable for X, Y, Z" never bother to edit the article to reflect this notability, then complain if it is AfDed for being unnotable. There are several AfDs going on right now about some television characters and episodes where people are arguing at length that they are notable, but not actual working on the article (which would factor into the result of the AfD and could sway votes). Maybe if more people quit wasting so much time in here trying to change a perfectly good guideline and actually, oh, fix the articles they claim have notability, maybe there wouldn't be so many issues.
Is every last episode of every last television show notable? Not at all and they don't need individual articles. Despite the complaints, most people have yet to actually be able to provide evidence of notability for most episode articles. They just wan to keep certain articles because they love show X and want to turn its Wikipedia entry into a fan site and show guide (which Wikipedia is not Being a "fan favorite" isn't notability. This episode featured the first lesbian kiss and reaction. That's notable. The first episode of a series to deal with a heavy social topic (if there was a verifiable reaction) would be notable. The first episode of a season, not notable unless it broke some unspoke television taboo or had, again, heavy reaction, criticism, or other coverage. For probably 95% of television show articles, they will never be anything but the title and the plot (and an excuse to try to throw in a non-free image). Some episodes of shows are notable, and those individual episodes could warrant an article, but that doesn't automatically mean that every show in that series should get one too. It is a case-by-case thing. You see an article that doesn't establish notability, tag it. Nothing has been done in a reasonable amount of time, PROD it, redirect it, suggest a merge, or AfD it. All valid options for dealing with such articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Those editors build. The slash-and-burn editors destroy. The former take far more time than the latter. If you're constantly dealing with slashers in AfDs and on unilaterally #REDIRECTED pages trying to repair the damage, you don't have time to do much else.
Tag for notability. Give editors a warning. Then leave them alone so they can build.Torc2 (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not my view alone that individual episode articles don't have to assert notability. It's evidenced by the sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, and List of Futurama episodes. You might as well say that a neutral editor should have restored what I removed if it was determined there was consensus for that information being in this guideline. If The Simpsons WikiProject is working on establishing notability for The Simpsons episode articles, they clearly haven't gotten to all of them yet. I think the sub-articles of those 3 list articles show that individual episodes do not have to assert individual notability — or at least that notability is not entirely dependent on independent coverage.
Notability is a subjective concept. I don't think published reviews of episodes are the only way to establish notability. AfD should not be used to force people to work on an article. To completely ignore television ratings when it comes to episode notability is laughable in my opinion. Every episode of every television show may not be notable. But what about notable television shows? What about episodes that millions of people have watched? What about episodes of shows that have been on the air for years? The sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes seem to indicate that Wikipedia is being used as a fan site and show guide. Many of the articles have links to snpp.com, but that site is built upon episode capsules posted to the newsgroup alt.tv.simpsons on USENET. Your opinion of what content makes an episode notable is interesting, but I see no reason why an article should be redirected or deleted if it doesn't meet those standards. If an episode article has an infobox, it already goes beyond a mere plot summary which WP:PLOT advises against. I don't see how it's a case-by-case thing. The sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes are not evaluated on a case-by-case basis. People are saying that some of the articles are good so all of them should stay.
The notion that episode articles with plot summaries and infoboxes are a "problem" is strange to me. I removed what I did because I think it's clear from looking at what is actually done that individual episodes do not have to assert notability. If a list of episodes article gets too long, it should be split per WP:SIZE and WP:SS, and the question of notability should only apply to the parent list article. The idea that a show is notable enough for a Wikipedia article but the episodes of the show are not notable seems odd to me. The show is nothing but a series of episodes. There is no show apart from the episodes. If you say a television show is notable but none of the episodes are notable, how is the show notable? WP:N doesn't link to this guideline — and for good reason — this is not the notability guideline for television episodes. --Pixelface (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The Simpsons, Futurama, and South Park are cases where 1) a large number of episodes are on DVD and most of these have additional commentary from the directors and 2) are shows that, due to large numbers of fans, generally recieved individual episode reviews from reliable sources. Together, between the reviews and development, nearly every episode of those series can reasonably be expected to be notable. These are exceptions. Very few other TV series have both that level of reflection from creators, and reviews from popularity, to really allow for individual episodes to be notable. This is not to say that they cannot eventually achieve this level of similar coverage.
No one said TV ratings aren't useful information for notability. Anything dealing with the episode's creation or development, why (not just who) actors were selected or included for guest roles, broadcasting coverage (ratings, etc), and critical reception are all appropriate information for notability demonstration. Just one of these alone is not completely sufficient, but a combination of these helps to support it. If millions of people have watched an episode and that was a notable fact, likely there's a reliable source that says this episode topped the nielsen charts. Notability is not the same as importance or popularity, though the demonstration of notability can include the coverage of those aspects as long as they are reliably sourced.
Notability is "significant coverage in secondary sources". An infobox giving out details of a show, even if sourced to a reliable source, is not "significant coverage". Those are details that are important (and thus why they are included in episode list tables), but since every television episode can provide such, there's nothing unique about having that information.
Shows themselves may be notable for overall themes, actors and creators, or other aspects that occur in pretty much every episode, but the actual episodes may be non-notable. For example, "Sesame Street", sit-coms, soap operas, and game shows are notable, and general plot changes/format changes over the season/years are notable, but certainly all but a handful of episodes are non-notable. Notability can be thought of "what makes this topic exceptional (that can be shown through sourcing) that makes this topic worthy of inclusion on WP?" In the case of many television episodes, beyond plot changes, there is not much that makes them notable, and thus there's no purpose in covering them further than summarizing them in an episode list and discussing the seriers' notability. --MASEM 15:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, Scrubs DVDs have audio commentaries as well. And many articles about episodes from The Simpsons, South Park, and Futurama have zero reviews from reliable sources. So episode articles for The Simpsons, South Park, and Futurama are exceptions to this guideline? Then add that to the guideline. This guideline doesn't mention TV ratings. Notability means "worthy of notice." Frankly, I don't see how reviews in IGN make an episode worthy of notice. It was worthy of notice before IGN even reviewed it. Again, every sub-article of List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, List of Futurama episodes does not contain "significant coverage in secondary sources." That indicates that episode articles do not have to contain significant coverage in secondary sources to establish notability. There's really no purpose in redirecting and deleting episode articles en masse when the sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, List of Futurama episodes are ignored. Either every episode article has to contain significant coverage in secondary sources to establish notability or every episode article does not. The sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, List of Futurama episodes show they do not. That is the consensus among editors. --Pixelface (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Those shows are exceptions to typical television episodes, not to the guideline; if anything, they define the guideline. Now, cavaet - yes, not every episode yet has notability. But lets take the Simpsons: up through season 10 is on DVD (audio commentaries), and from what I've seen through GA reviews that pretty much every episode in that sublist of articles is notable. Now from season 11 on, there's no DVD out, but it can be reasonable expected that such will occur. Additionally, as Simpsons is a well covered show, there are usually news blurbs on important guest stars or the like. There is a reasonable assumption that each episode can demonstrate notability based on past episodes. Futurama and South Park -- maybe not so much, as while DVDs are out, they don't have the same detailed commentary or the level of media coverage. That's not to say the majority of the episodes can likely demonstrate notability, but I will agree that there's probably some trimming that can be done.
But still, even if not every episode is notable, these three series are exceptions, not to the guideline, but to most TV series, in that there is a lot of additional information that exists. But because these are "exceptional" they warrent the additional coverage that notability for Wikipedia allows for.
Scrubs episodes were removed because no one bothered to distill the audio commentary into notable information as well as added critical reception (commentary on an episode alone is not sufficient). Spot checking episodes that have been redirected, there was no such information or attempts to add that information, and they had at least a month to get them to speck. Even if there was a good faith effort to add them, such as an editor saying "I'm swamped right now, but I can add in the audio commentary!", then merging them should have been held off but I don't see anything like that. --MASEM 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, List of Futurama episodes show that this guideline is flawed. Even Bart the General fails this guideline, yet it's not redirected. The article Bart the General has existed since May 8, 2003. It's allowed to exist for over 4 1/2 years, yet each and every episode of Scrubs (TV series) has 1 month to meet this guideline? Why is that? It's clear to me that individual episode articles do not have to assert individual notability. The idea that certain television episode articles have potential should be afforded to all episode articles, not just articles about episodes from shows one is a fan of.
Like I said, episodes of Scrubs (TV series) are on DVD too and have audio commentary as well — although I don't see how an audio commentary would establish notability. The Simpsons, South Park, and Futurama are not exceptions to most TV series. They are not exceptions to this guideline. Their episode articles show the actual consensus among editors in regards to episode articles. And this guideline needs to be rewritten to reflect that consensus.
I suspect Scrubs episode articles were redirected because the editor who redirected them didn't care for the show. Episodes don't suddenly become notable when reviewed by IGN. Episodes are notable before that. Again, why should each and every episode of Scrubs (TV series) have 1 month to meet this guideline while the article Bart the General is allowed to exist for over 4 1/2 years? Is this some new guideline that applies to every television show except the ones an editor personally watches? --Pixelface (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that those articles need to be merged, feel free to put a notability tag on them and merge/AfD them in one month; that's why Bart the General has survived, because no one has tagged it yet. I know you feel WP:EPISODE doesn't have consensus, but it's consensus is what comes from WP:PLOT and WP:NOTE, and given that, even if the AfDs were made quick and hasty without giving editors time to improve, the AfDs for removing episode uphold the consensus. --MASEM 21:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel those articles need to be merged. Bart the General has not been redirected in 4 1/2 years because individual episode articles do not have to assert notability. Either that or episode articles inherit notability from other episode articles from a show. Saying WP:EPISODE's consensus comes from WP:PLOT and WP:NOTE is ridiculous. If we already have those, why do we need this guideline? WP:PLOT says articles are not simply plot summaries and WP:NOTE is a guideline which says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Go look up the word "presumed" in a dictionary. AFDs are not the place to determine whether or not WP:EPISODE has consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:EPISODE was born from a centralized community discussion regarding episode articles, which is far more community involved than how most guidelines start. WP:EPISODE's original consensus comes from the talk pages of this very page, and has been reenforced by the rationale arguments presented in AfDs, WikiProject discussions, article talk page discussions, and so on. I'll let you in on a little secret, this was consensus before we had WP:PLOT and when WP:NOTE was still tagged as an essay. When we say that this is consensus because of NOTE and PLOT, we do so because those guidelines echo what was being said here, and vice versa, not because those guidelines suffice on their own or not, when applied to a more specific situation. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it shows that no one has challenged the notability. Big difference. AfD shouldn't HAVE to be used to force people to work on an article, but most won't bother even if its tagged, issues raised on the talk page, etc. Unfortunately, the plain fact is, many merges and redirects have happened quietly, without much issue, in articles without a huge fan following. It's only when it gets down to "oh no, not my favorite show" that people tend to jump into this argument. I'd be curious to see how many people in this argument came here because one of "their" episode articles was merged/redirected or deleted, rather than because of a neutral interest in the discussion.
I don't think published reviews are a way to establish notability of an episode at all, but that's my humble opinion. I certainly would find an RfC or the like on the whole Simpsons thing interesting, since I do somewhat agree with you that it does throw the whole idea into whack and shows a certain favoritism. An infobox does not add ANYTHING regarding notability to an episode and just shoving one in does not in anyway negate it from being nothing but pure plot summary. If a list of episodes gets too long, you're probably right on a size split, but into separate lists for each season, not straight into single episodes. Also, size is not an absolute either. 30k? Ha, almost every decent medical article blows that one out of the water, as do many featured articles. I wouldn't mind seeing WP:SIZE challenged to go higher, or reconsidered as a whole, since a good part of the size of a list of episodes probably comes from the layout code. Size is also built on a deprecated software limitation, if I'm not mistaken.
"The idea that a show is notable enough for a Wikipedia article but the episodes of the show are not notable seems odd to me. There is no show apart from the episodes." Let's reverse that...is the episode notable apart from the show? If the episode were not specifically a part of X show, is it notable? Or, to use a more real world (if somewhat exaggerated) example: A star athlete couldn't live and do what he does best without his brain, right? So then, does that mean the athlete's notabiltiy automatically should extend to his brain and we should give his brain his own article, even if all there is to say about it is "its a brain, here's a description of it"? To return to the fictional realm, do you also advocate an article for every chapter of every book? After all, the book could not exist without the chapters so if the book is notable, each chapter must be notable as well, right? See my point?
The basic steps from going to series to episode should be
  1. create the article on the television series
  2. expand as more verifiable info is available
  3. include the list of episodes
  4. if the list of episodes gets to be too long (from my own editing, I've found that usually happens at around 13 episodes when there are plot summaries), move the episodes over to a List of Show X's episodes. And, for the note, lists of episodes are not fully sub-articles, but should be seen as stand-alone lists related to the show that must follow the guidelines of Wikipedia:Lists, including having proper referencing, a full intro that establishes its context and what the list includes, etc. Also, a list is not the same as an article, having different requirements of notability (which, I think, is really none...I've seen lists deleted for being NPOV, OR, etc, but I can't think of any deleted for being unnotable).
  5. fill in and expand the new episode list article, including a proper lead section, sourced air dates, summaries, writers/producers if different for each episode, etc); DVD and official downloadable episode information are optional as it can also go into the series article
  6. if any particular episode of the series is notable as an individual unit, not soley because it is an episode of a notable show, and it can sustain an article, then it should be created. Even though FICT is challenge, the basic notability guideline still notes "is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The episode airing is not significant coverage. A book about the series by the show creators is not independant. If the episode is controversial, ground breaking, award winning, etc. that information can be found in neutral, independant sources. However, even then, some discretion should be used. If the only thing one can say beyond the plot is "it won X award," without even being able to give a context for why it won, then why break it out?
I think, to me, that is the big issue. No discretion is used right now with the creation of episode articles, regardless of the current guidelines, either because people are unaware of them or just don't care what they say and ignore them. Would you consider every episode of Chip N Dale's Rescue Rangers notable enough to have their own articles? How about every episode of Dora? Or the infamous Sesame Street? Are all 4000+ episodes of the show notable enough to have an article each, or should only the few that were ground breaking or controversial enough to have independant coverage be given articles.
I'm curious, though...considering your views on spoilers, I'm honestly surprised to see you on the side of an article for every episodes, which would, by nature, be full of spoilers for the series and every episode. If anything, I would have expected to see you want to ax episode plot discussion at all. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No one has challenged the notability because the episodes are considered notable despite not having significant coverage in reliable sources. There's obviously a different criteria for notability being considered. Many redirects have happened quietly and that's the problem. Editors who put alot of work into an article may not even know it's been redirected. It seems to me that when it comes down to an editor's favorite show, WP:EPISODE is ignored. I think how WP:EPISODE is being applied shows favoritism, but I think the sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, List of Futurama episodes show the actual consensus among Wikipedia editors — episode articles do not have to establish individual notability.
An infobox means an article is not just a plot summary. An article with an infobox does not violate WP:PLOT. I didn't say an infobox establishes notability. I've certainly seen many list articles for separate seasons, but I still see individual episode articles to go along with them. Why should an episode have to show notability apart from the show? That's not what is done by actual editors who contribute to episode articles. If an athlete's brain was taken out of their skull and watched by millions of people, yeah, I would say their brain was notable. Saying each and every episode has to establish notability is like saying each and every bone in the human body has to establish notability. I don't advocate an article for every chapter of a book. But I would see no problem with individual articles for every chapter of The Green Mile, because they were released separately. If a book article got too long that the chapters had to be split into sub-articles, I don't think each chapter article would have to assert notability.
Your idea of the basic steps that should happen are nice, but that is not the consensus among editors and their edits. The Seven-Beer Snitch does not assert individual notability with independent coverage, yet it is not redirected. You quote the notability guideline but the notability guideline says "presumed". That doesn't mean significant coverage in reliable sources is the only way of establishing notability. If this guideline is being ignored, the guideline does not reflect consensus and needs to be rewritten to reflect consensus. And the consensus appears to me to be that individual episode articles do not have to assert individual notability. If a show is notable enough to have an article, the episodes are notable enough to have an article.
How could Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers be notable if none of the episodes are notable? How could Dora the Explorer be notable if none of the episodes were notable? How could Sesame Street be notable if none of the episodes were notable? I suppose you could say the shows are notable for being franchises used for merchandising, but I think the shows are notable for more than that. Scrubs is notable enough to have an article, yet only 6 of its episodes are notable? The show is notable for 6 episodes?
The only concern I have about episode articles is shows with thousands and thousands of episodes, like Days of our Lives, which has 10,735 episodes as of January 8, 2008 — and that's only because I can't quite imagine that many articles. If an editor decided to create an article for each episode, I wouldn't stop them. But currently it appears that an article for each episode is not the route those editors are going, instead they have Days of our Lives storylines. If an editor or group of editors did manage to create 10,735 articles that followed our policies, they would get my respect. And it would be a travesty if one editor redirected all of their work after 2 weeks of discussion or according to some decision reached on another page.
Frankly it's biased to say that The Simpsons can have an article for every episode but other television series can't. The editing policy says perfection is not required. The editing policy says "During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose." It's clear that TTN thinks The Simpsons episode articles have potential, but he does not think other episode articles for other television shows have any potential.
It's true that TTN has hidden many spoilers with his edits, but that was not out of some concern over readers being spoiled. I support removing plot summaries per WP:RS when editors say an article cannot have a spoiler warning and readers are upset by reading spoilers, but removing plot summaries entirely is an extreme move and turning articles into redirects is an even more extreme move. My opinion about spoiler warnings and my opinion about episode articles are based on current practice in article space. I really don't give much weight to what a handful of editors decide should be done on some page most of Wikipedia's editors have never even heard of. Policies and guidelines flows from consensus, not the other way around. --Pixelface (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes/Archive_5&oldid=1137457402"