Wikipedia:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability: Difference between revisions
→Statement by Lquilter: works can grow in notability over time |
→(short) Statement by Guest9999: I support this teehee |
||
Line 259: | Line 259: | ||
In order to keep with [[WP:CCC|current]] Wikipedia [[WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]], which were formed by the [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] of the community; articles for TV episodes should only exist if they have recieved [[WP:NN|significant coverage]] from [[WP:RS|reliable, third party sources]] and there is enough [[WP:V|verifiable]], [[WP:INUNIVERSE|real world]] information available to make that article more than just a [[WP:NOT#PLOT|plot summary]]. [[[[User:Guest9999|Guest9999]] ([[User talk:Guest9999|talk]]) 03:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)]] |
In order to keep with [[WP:CCC|current]] Wikipedia [[WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]], which were formed by the [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] of the community; articles for TV episodes should only exist if they have recieved [[WP:NN|significant coverage]] from [[WP:RS|reliable, third party sources]] and there is enough [[WP:V|verifiable]], [[WP:INUNIVERSE|real world]] information available to make that article more than just a [[WP:NOT#PLOT|plot summary]]. [[[[User:Guest9999|Guest9999]] ([[User talk:Guest9999|talk]]) 03:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)]] |
||
;Statement supported by: |
|||
*[[User:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="FF69B4">Seraphim</font>]] [[User_talk:Seraphim Whipp|<sup><font color="black">Whipp</font></sup>]] 03:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC). Our views are very similar...in fact they are the same but yours is far more eloquently put :). |
|||
==Statement by [[User:Seraphim Whipp|Seraphim Whipp]]== |
==Statement by [[User:Seraphim Whipp|Seraphim Whipp]]== |
Revision as of 03:32, 18 January 2008
- Please note, this RfC request is just a continuation of the above conversation which must also be taken into consideration.
Template:RFCpolicy In order to resolve this issue, we need to achieve a community-wide consensus on notability issues regarding episodes.
There are two possible statements that community consensus would go a long way towards resolving the present editing conflicts on TV episodes.
- WP:MUSIC states (and seems to have community consensus) that if an artist or group is notable, then released albums from that artist or group are
automaticallylikely to be notable (but not necessarily the songs on that album). Applying this concept to television shows, Are individual episodes automatically notable (and thus deserving of their own article without additional notability demonstrations) if the television show itself is notable? - If this statement is not the case, then, Does an article about a television episode considered both notable and "more than just a plot summary" if it contains no more than a lead, a plot summary, and an infobox with relevent data on the show's airing and cast and crew? (add) More specifically, with such an article, is no further improvement necessary to ultimately meet present policy and guidelines?
Please provide your input to help in this matter. --MASEM 05:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- WP:MUSIC does not say that. seresin wasn't he just...? 05:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, the arguments we've been having on this blurred the language. It suggests notability in MUSIC but people are stating here that episodes are automatically notable. Slight adjustment to the question --MASEM 05:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Like I mentioned above, we might want to consider some form of structured discussion to avoid repeating ourselves, allowing things to be easier to follow for newcomers, etc, before diving right into this. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think a poll on just these two questions is fine. At least, if we get this information, we can see what consensus says about episode articles. Ursasapien (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to see what consensus says about episodes articles, look at episode articles. Look at the articles that have existed for years and years. Take these for example. --Pixelface (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Articles who's existence/content/format has not been challenged directly do not indicate any consensus. If they challenge and survive or are dropped, that's consensus. --MASEM 14:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, so you're saying AFDs like these[1][2][3] can be used to indicate consensus? --Pixelface (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, those can be used in conjunction with all other AfDs to determine where consensus is, along with merge discussions and any other discussion on what to do with such content. You cannot just pick and choose which AfDs and merge discussions you want though, you have to consider the whole body of episode articles, and also must be aware that consensus can change. --MASEM 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Although I like your example of Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC, I do not know that the for and against arguments have crystalized to the point where we can articulate them in this way. I am not sure we could even say with what we agree and disagree. However, if you would like to tak a stab at it, I would support a nicely laid out page similar to Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC. Ursasapien (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would not suggest anything relating to television episodes be handled like spoiler warnings have been handled. --Pixelface (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Pixel, check the dates on those things. That was an older spoiler warning RfC that happened a year or so ago, and is unrelated to the semi-recent events where the warning was removed. -- Ned Scott 20:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I added one clarification on the second question. This is to imply that if the article only contained that information, then there would be absolutely, ever, no need to add anything else to meet policy or guidelines. It's one thing to have a stub during the editing process, but consider the case if that episode article would never be edited again - is such an article appropriate then. --MASEM`
Are we adding Statement not supported by under each statement now? --Pixelface (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- To avoid spamming this page with a lot of agrees/disagrees, I encourage people to:
- Make a statement if you feel it adds something new to the discussion - don't just say "I agree with what X wrote".
# If you strongly agree or strongly disagree with a statement, indicate your support or lack of such appropriately; you can comment additionally on this. If you are somewhat agreeing or disagreeing or impartial to the view do not add anything - otherwise it will be hard to determine what has the strongest support and/or strongest contention.
# If you do wish to comment on a statement but you don't strongly agree or disagree, make sure to add it as a comment under that statement.
- If you strongly agree with a statement, sign your name below it with any additional comment.
- Do not use this page to create discussion threads on editors' views.
- I think a "Not supported" vote is less meaningful than a "Supported" vote, and having these will promote simple gainsaying instead of contributions. Perhaps I expect the worst, but I'm worried if we start discussion threads this will be yet another repetitive, vitriolic thread that decides nothing. I've left a comment with the Not voter and asked if they can withdraw their vote. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good point; instructions have been struck and fixed. --MASEM 22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphimblade
To the first, I have no problem with saying "X is more likely to have sufficient sourcing available if the following is true...", so long as that doesn't turn into "We should have an article on X even if in this particular case that sourcing isn't actually present." Unfortunately, that seems to happen in many cases, you just see "Keep, professional athlete" or "Keep, album from a notable band", resulting in retention of sourceless, garbage articles without any discussion of actual source material available. If that is done, we should make crystal clear that sourcing is still required, we're just giving suggestions as to when a search for sources is more likely to prove fruitful. Notability (or the lack thereof) is verifiable, just like anything. In its case, the verification that something is notable is that reliable, independent sources have chosen to write significant quantities of material regarding it, the lack of such indicates that it is not. We do not second guess reliable sources, we simply mirror them—mirroring includes writing little or nothing when independent and reliable sources have chosen to write little or nothing. Anything else is undue weight. To the second, no, an article regarding a television episode is acceptable if it includes substantial reliable independent source material on that episode, and unacceptable if it does not. Formatting is irrelevant. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Statement supported by
- Farix (Talk) 14:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Stardust8212 14:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- edg ☺ ☭ 15:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC), with the exception that while "reliable independent source material" may satisfy WP:NOTE, an article may be unacceptable per other policies, current or future
- Lquilter (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Collectonian (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Carcharoth (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC) - clear statement that accurately summarises the key issues.
- Seraphim Whipp 18:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gwinva (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- -- Ned Scott 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Karanacs (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Ursasapien
Either episodes are part of a whole or should be considered as individual works. I think part of this depends upon the television show. If they are part of a whole, then I think it is more of a style concern rather than a notability issue. Episode list articles vs. individual episode articles, in this scenario, would be just sub-articles split out for summary style reasons. If they are to be considered individual works of fiction, then I would say most any show that makes it on television should be sufficiently notable for episode articles.
The second question is more interesting. I would consider that to be great stub with much potential. I think it should have all those parts, but I think this would be a proper Wikipedia article. Ursasapien (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Dimadick
Concerning notability, I think general coverage of a subject in both written and online resources should be taken into account. In past discussions online sources seem to be dismissed out of a hand even when (1)they state their sources, (2) contain detailed analyses of our subject, often going beyond plot (3)Point to the notability of the subject around the Internet.
I would consider the article style described by Masem to be an average stub. Nothing to write home about but not too embarassing. A basic skeleton. Dimadick (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Kww
Repeating myself here, I think: episodes do not inherit notability. Plot summary + infobox is insufficient to support an article. I think we need crisp, clear definitions of what makes an episode notable, and not leave it vague. I think we also need to be extremely clear that 99%+the vast majority of all episodes, even of the Simpsons and South Park, should never have an independent article.Kww (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Statement supported by
- Farix (Talk) 14:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- edg ☺ ☭ 15:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC), but per Lquilter the 99%+ figure may be too high
- Lquilter (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (I'm not sure of the exact percentage but am taking 99%+ to be rhetorical hyperbole indicating a large majority.)
- Collectonian (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (and agreed, it is time to stop playing favorites and hold all to the same standard)
- — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC); albeit w/o the quantity assumption stipulation.
- Seraphim Whipp 18:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Stardust8212 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Generally agree excepting that there will likely be a wide variety of views on what the crisp clear definition should be and what % will or will not be included based on that, that's a question for after this initial stage though.
- BIGNOLE (Contact me) - But, that "should never have" is a little strong. I don't think the idea of "never having" is good, if one day they "can have". I think "will probably never have" is a little more accurate, because we don't know exactly how far down the line someone may pick some random episode and analyze it ten fold for some reason.
- Gwinva (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC) with the proviso mentioned by Bignole above
- ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Karanacs (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Carcharoth (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC) - while agreeing with Bignole's caveat.
Statement by Farix
I am simply going to restate what I have already said above.
The root of the issue is the distinction between collective notability and individual notability. As a series, it is fairly easy to presume through reliable third-party sources that a series is notable. But this kind of notability is collective. When taken together, the episodes that make up the series can be presumed to have notability. This is just fine when working on the series articles, such as a list of episodes.
However, collective notability can only extend so far, and that usually is when you begin dealing with individual subjects. When an editor splitting off the episodes into individual articles, the episodes is being treated as an individual subject and can no longer is covered by the collective notability of the whole series. Instead, the episode should establish individual notability separate from the notability of the series. While the individual notability of the episode adds to the collective notability of the whole series, the individual notability does not affect the individual notability of other episodes.
Let's take for example a notable forest, say Sherwood Forest. Now Sherwood Forest does have notability do to its connection with the stories of Robin Hood. Now the forest has collective notability, but does that imply that the individual trees that make up the forest are automatically notable as well? Of course not. While you can't have a forest without the trees, the individual trees do not have individual notability because they belong in a collectively notable forest. Instead, the Major Oak is notable for reasons separate of being a part of Sherwood Forest.
The same goes for songs and albums. Just because the collective album becomes notable doesn't imply that the individual songs that comprise the album are automatically notable. Instead, the songs must establish their individual notability separate from being a part of the collective notable of the album. --Farix (Talk) 14:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Statement supported by
- Stardust8212 15:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- edg ☺ ☭ 15:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lquilter (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Collectonian (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Seraphim Whipp 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- BIGNOLE (Contact me) - Make some good points with regard to the "inherited notability" idea.
- Gwinva (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC) a key issue: notability cannot be inherited or assumed but must be demonstrated. (applies to across Wikipedia).
- ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Karanacs (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC) - Great analogy!
- Carcharoth (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC) - with the caveat that there are (rare) situations where WP:SIZE calls for articles to be split off if there has been so much coverage that the article is becoming too large.
WP:EPISODE has been repeatedly determined to be a reasonable interpretation of WP:NOTE (and other core policies) in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and in other decisions regarding redirects by TTN. It also provides a helpful (and probably necessary) explanation of how WP:NOTE (among other policies) can be applied in writing episode articles. The redirecting of non-notable episodes is a reasonable implementation of this policy. Editors who wish episode articles to not be redirected should endeavor to find article content that will create articles which merit inclusion on Wikipedia per Wikipedia policy. Continued attacks on policies that have broad acceptance in the Wikipedia community (beyond certain editors of TV-related articles) will probably not help matters.
The example taken from WP:MUSIC describing individual albums as automatically notable is policy shopping. If anything, WP:MUSIC's policy on individual albums should be brought into line with WP:NOTE; it is not an example of how episodes should be treated. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Statement supported by
- Lquilter (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Collectonian (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Kww (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The only issue I disagree is that using WP:MUSIC as an example is policy shopping. While how it defines the notability of albums is a bit problematic, the relationship between the notability of albums and the notability of songs is very similar to the relationship between the notability of television series and the notability of the episodes. Even under WP:MUSIC, the collective notability has a clear limit. --Farix (Talk) 18:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Adding the italicized phrase "describing individual albums as automatically notable" for clarity. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gwinva (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC) WP:EPISODE is consistent with all other policies and is a useful "joining of the dots" for editor reference, to make it easier for people to see the connection between the policies, and how in practice they apply to the specific case of writing about television.
- These are still guidelines, so not sure on the wording of policy, but I agree with this. Because it is not a policy there will be limits to how this is enforced, which seems to be the main issue, and not the guideline itself. -- Ned Scott 20:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The opposition to this guideline shows that it does not have the claimed consensus. Consensus is the willingness to live with the rule, and that is clearly not present. Somewhere between one-third and two-thirds of the many people interested do not agree with the current guideline. One-third disagreeing with the guideline, and not willing to accept it even as a compromise, is enough to destroy consensus either way. The question raised, about what WpP people in general think, I think would also come out between one-third and two-thirds. There's no fixed numerical value for consensus, below which a splinter group cannot be taken into account to block the consensus, but I think for a matter affecting so much of wikipedia, 1/3 would be more than enough dissent. We could probably emerge with a compromise working, but it would not necessarily be accompanied by real compromise in practice with respect to merges and AfDs. Still, such a wording, accompanied by a statement that further details are specifications are not settled, would be the best solution--the only practical one we are likely to achieve. DGG (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Statement supported by
- --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Catchpole (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- --Nydas(Talk) 22:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Television episodes are not always noted in the historical record. Many episodes come and go without record, there are probably over 10 000 television stations in the world, and thus in any given day there is the potential for over 120 000 television episodes to have been transmitted. Are these all discussed, critiqued, disseminated, analysed and their cultural impact evaluated? No. Is there discrimination in which ones are covered so by the wider world? Yes. Does Wikipedia cover every television episode ever transmitted? No. Is anybody stating that be the goal? It appears not. Therefore there is agreement that we should discriminate on which episodes to cover. How do we do that? Well, our policies state that when we are writing an article we look for sources to summarise, and that we are very limited in how we can use primary source. Why do they state that? Because Wikipedia is contributed to by anyone. Unlike other encyclopedia, its authors have no credentials, therefore everything added must be sourced to prove its reputability, if Wikipedia is to be trusted as an encyclopedia.
So our policies guide us to use secondary sources. Therefore we need to look for third party sources and summarise them. A plot summary and a summary of transmission data is not enough to satisfy WP:PLOT, which notes that an article on a fictional work needs to do more than regurgitate plot. It should first cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, and then a brief plot summary is acceptable. If there is no sourced analysis, no detail on the work's development or no commentary on a works impact in other sources, then there is nothing we can write on the article.
Therefore, to answer the two questions, it is quite clear that Wikipedia cannot cover every television episode, and it is quite clear that an encyclopedic article on an episode needs more than a plot summary and an infobox. It needs to source opinions on the episode, development data, reception and legacy. Hiding T 16:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Statement supported by
- edg ☺ ☭ 16:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Stardust8212 18:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Seraphim Whipp 18:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lquilter (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Farix (Talk) 18:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gwinva (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Karanacs (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Statement by sgeureka
An idealistic yet noble goal of wikipedia is to have every article Featured (or at least Good) someday. Notability (i.e. the existance of significant coverage in reliable sources) is a must for this goal, but since wikipedia is a work in progress, the proof usually just needs to be brought forward when notability is challenged (at Newpages patrol, by tagging, in merge discussions, or at AfD), but ideally already at the point of article creation. Editors defending their articles against this need aren't helping the situation, and usually just postpone the merger/redirection/deletion.
Individual episodes are notable when they can prove that they are notable, or are presumed to be notable if comparable sibling articles can demonstrate notability (but the presumption can still be challenged). The lead and the infobox of an article are supposed to summarize the whole article, the plot summary exists to support the real-world information (sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise), trivia and popcult sections are generally discouraged, and unsourced sections have no right of existance per WP:VERIFIABILITY. A cast list is usually already included in the show's main article and doesn't need repetition. So (generally speaking), without a sourced production and reception (at least), what would such an article consist of if it got cleaned up with the reasoning above? "Episode X is an episode of show Y, was written and directed by A and B, and had plot C." This stub can be covered in Lists of episodes, or season articles. But there should never be a blanket ban for episodes; if someone can establish notability of an episode beyond a doubt (e.g. awards), or has so much production information that the LoE/season article would get too long, then he should not be barred from writing a good article (edit: I don't mean a Good Article) because of a guideline that doesn't apply in this particular case. – sgeureka t•c 17:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- In reply to what some people said below, I agree that winning an award is not a claim of notability that would justify keeping a poor separate article forever, but it should be enough to pass Newpages patrol and driveby redirecting/AfDing (if it is noted in the article, that is). – sgeureka t•c 19:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Statement supported by
- edg ☺ ☭ 17:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Stardust8212 18:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Seraphim Whipp 18:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Scorpion0422 18:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- BIGNOLE (Contact me) - Agree. I don't think it needs to be a "Good" (i.e. the Wiki ranking) article to exist, but it needs to be able to support itself beyond what can easily be covered on an agregate page (like an LOE or season page). Even awards can be covered on aggregate pages if they are few and far between (i.e. a single episode was nominated for a single award). Sometimes making the bare minimum of notability means that you would probably benefit from being part of a larger scope. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't originally sure to what extent I supported sgeureka's statement. Even an episode that wins an award, that doesn't imply that there is sufficient verifiable information from reliable sources to sustain an article seperate for a LOE. I do agree with the idea that the plot section should be the least significant part of an episode article. If you can axe the plot section and still have a perfectly viable article, then it's a good indication that you may have enough information to establish notability. --Farix (Talk) 18:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Collectonian (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC) with the same caveats as Bignole. It it won a single award, but nothing else can be said, keep it in the list and note the award there and/or in the main article.Collectonian (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lquilter (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (awards are one example of a way in which notability can be established)
- Gwinva (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC) agree: EPISODE does not apply a blanket ban, but encourages good articles about episodes, and discourages unnotable ones; but as stated above, an award is not always sufficient to determine notability.
- ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Pixelface
To answer the two questions above...if a television show is notable, that suggests an episode of the show is notable. An episode with an infobox and a plot summary is a perfectly acceptable stub and does not violate WP:INFO, because the article "is not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot."
WP:POL says "Policy change comes from three sources..." One of these sources is "The codification of general practice that already has wide consensus. These are statements of practice that document the way Wikipedia works. A single user cannot dictate what best practice is, but writing down the results of a well-used process is a good way of making policy. The easiest way to change policy is to change common practice first." The general practice among editors is that television episode articles do not have to assert notability by citing significant coverage from reliable sources. Take the articles in the category The Simpsons episodes, season 2 for example. That is common practice. The episodes are considered notable because they are part of a notable show and millions of people have seen them. The episode is not some topic that exists separate from the television show. The List of The Simpsons episodes article is a featured list and does not contain significant coverage from reliable sources. The episodes are presumed to be notable.
WP:N is a guideline. WP:POL says "Guidelines are more advisory in nature than policies, and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." WP:N says notability can only be presumed and suggested. Unless a reliable source comes right out and says "X is notable", notability is an assumption. We are taking the presence of significant coverage in reliable sources as a suggestion that something is notable. I do not think that is the only way of suggesting notability. I think a television series needs to be notable in order to have an article. But once it has an article, the episodes of that series are notable. If millions of people watch an episode, the episode is notable. If an episode stars notable people, the episode is notable. If a television network is willing to bet their primetime advertising revenue on an episode, the episode is notable.
Television episodes are like short films. Wikipedia has hundreds and hundreds of articles on short films. Many short films are considered notable, even if the articles do not contain significant coverage from reliable sources. Just because an episode article does not currently contain "significant coverage from reliable sources", that doesn't make an episode non-notable. Newspapers don't really have the space to review each and every new television episode that airs.
We could describe all 410 episodes of The Simpsons in the Simpsons article, but then the article would be too long. We wouldn't have to establish notability for each one of the episodes in the Simpsons article because notability pertains to article topics, it does not limit article content. When splitting articles into sub-articles, you do not have to re-establish notability for each sub-topic. To say that Hand or Finger is notable, but Thumb, Index finger, Middle finger, Ring finger, and Pinky finger each have to establish notability is absurd.
When a television network decides to air a pilot in primetime and millions of people watch it and newspapers and magazines and TV critics write about it, the show is notable. When millions of people watch an episode, the episode is notable. The viewers have declared it notable. When a television show gets poor ratings, it indicates that few people think the show is worthy of notice and a television network will cancel the show. In this way, ratings can help determine if an episode is notable or not. I also think iTunes television episode downloads could be used to indicate notability.
The television episode Make Love, Not Warcraft was watched by 3.4 million viewers when it originally aired. The episode is considered notable. The episode was considered notable even before it won an Emmy Award. The television episode My Intern's Eyes was watched by 7.7 million viewers when it originally aired[4], yet some editors claim it is not notable. I can understand their point of view. The article does not contain significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. But I have to ask, have they looked?
I know that the burden of evidence is on the editor who wishes to keep or restore material, but if someone is going to claim an episode of a notable show is automatically not notable and won't bother to check, and if this sort of thing is done hundreds or thousands of times a day, and the editors who have worked on the articles are not notified that the articles are considered a problem, I have to question the intent of all this redirecting.
Could the article My Intern's Eyes be improved? Certainly. But sweeping the article under a rug does not improve the article. Redirects are an obstacle to improvement. Redirecting the My Intern's Eyes article does not improve the Human skeleton article. We need to consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. Improving articles improves the encyclopedia. Redirecting articles that need improvement damages the encyclopedia.
I certainly don't think we need an article for something just because it airs on television. I think a television show needs to be notable before we have articles on its episodes. But the idea that a show is separate from its episodes needs to stop. --Pixelface (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Statement supported by
- --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- A drama episode with 20 million viewers but Google doesn't spit anything out? Not notable! A sci-fi episode with 3 million viewers, a creator forum post and a mention on a reliable fansite? Notable!--Nydas(Talk) 22:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is a clash between notability as defined by Wikipedia, and real-world notability. I think that Nielsen Ratings or surveys like Britain's Best Sitcom should be the way to decide which shows should have episode articles. Bláthnaid 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- ~Floppie(talk • contribs) 00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC) - if 20 million people watched the episode, a decent portion of them will be looking for information about the episode.
- Limited support of the "don't sweep it under the rug" point. It is possible to keep track of the redirects and the page versions before redirecting, and maintain records for projects that want to work on episode articles, or indeed any redirects with possibilities. This is one of the strengths of Wikipedia and its page histories. Don't support the hand and finger analogy, purely because, other than big toe, we don't have articles about the other four individual toes of the feet. Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Lquilter
Wikipedia is not a directory, not a media database for production details, and not a recap service. These are all great reference tools and each of them have different purposes and functions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which produces prose articles about notable topics.; the prose articles synthesize previously published commentary.
There are no special rights or special handicaps for TV episodes. Notability, sourcing, process, and so on, are all as applicable to TV episodes as to any other work of fiction or any other type of article whatsoever.
Television episodes are unique works, published in a series. Episodes and series have independent claims to notability, although they are related and influence one another. It is conceivable to imagine a TV series that was not notable but had a single episode that was notable. Similarly, it is conceivable to imagine a series that was notable that had no single particularly notable episode.
The notability of a series, season, individual episode, or specific arc of episodes is, as all works on wikipedia, based on WP:N. An individual TV episode is not notable simply because it is part of a notable TV series. Moreover, an episode of a fictional work must have REAL WORLD notability. For example, significant (reported) response politically, artistically, critically, or in levels of popular reception. Works can grow in notability over time as they are appreciated or rediscovered.
As with any source, the level and depth of attention to the specific episode is a key factor in evaluating whether the source supports the notability of the episode: A passing mention is not much evidence; a brief discussion comparing an episode to something else is more evidence; a detailed discussion is even more evidence; and a scholarly or journalistic work dedicated primarily to the episode is strong evidence of notability.
- Awards to a particular episode are evidence of notability. Because nomination and voting processes can vary, particular awards, placements, or nominations must be handled on a case-by-case basis.
- Detailed critical commentary in the peer-reviewed literature or in professional, non-trade, journalism is strong evidence of notability, because peer-review and editorial review provide strong indicia of reliability to those sources.
- Extraordinary levels of coverage within trade and fan publications may also be evidence of notability. Trade publications that routinely publish reviews of works may provide supporting references, but if the only sources available are fan publications, non-independent publications (books of essays done by or with show creators; DVD commentaries); or short reviews by trade publications, then this alone may not be sufficient to demonstrate notability.
- Homages, remakes, or influences on other works -- where acknowledged by the creator -- may be evidence of notability.
- Extraordinary levels of popular reception, such as record-breaking ratings, purchases, downloads, etc., if verifiable, may be evidence of notability.
- Strong reactions in the world -- boycotts, censorship, political discussion, effects on consumption or culture or health -- may be evidence of notability.
--Lquilter (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Statement supported by
- Collectonian (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC) strongly support and very well written! And as a side comment "it is conceivable to imagine a series that was notable that had no single particularly notable episode" is actually shown already. We have multiple articles on television series notable for the fact that they never aired, but the never aired episodes have no notability at all (can't even give them a plot summary).
- Gwinva (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Strong support: a very good summary of the issue.
- ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Seraphim Whipp 21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Karanacs (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Kww (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC) - with the strong caveat that this kind of analysis usually only applies to contemporary episodes and contemporary reactions. It is difficult to assess what the notability was of episodes broadcast 30 years ago, and similarly it is difficult to assess how things will have changed 30 years from now. Some episodes currently assessed as non-notable may get increased attention in future years, and episodes that made a big splash now may have dropped off the radar and become no more than a footnote in history in 30 years time. Wikipedia can only mirror what the current coverage is, but should be flexible enough to change as the coverage changes.
- good point - I'm adding a note (in italics) above to recognize. --Lquilter (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Nydas
I've turned against harsh fiction guidelines since I realised that their principal effect was to accelerate our institutional bias against certain kinds of fiction. It's a safe bet that the 'notable episodes' will be even more disproportionately concentrated in Wikipedians' favourite fiction than the current episode line-up. As for the notability rules, they will always be bent, broken or rewritten to suit the shows we like.--Nydas(Talk) 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Statement supported by
- The redirection of the classic 1970/80s comedy Open All Hours episode articles is a good example of this institutional bias. Bláthnaid 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support the thinking behind this, but I am more optimistic that Wikipedia can be aware of and work to overcome this systemic historical bias. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- ~Floppie(talk • contribs) 03:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Statement by ThuranX
Much has been made of the premise, repeatedly exressed by Pixelface, among others, that each Episode is inherently notable and heritably notable. He argues that any episode comprises the larger 'Series' and is thus notable, that there is no Gestalt, and the whole is only the sum of its' parts, and not greater. However, any number of shows, and the way they have been referenced later, put this to the lie. For example, I have heard, on News & Notes, an NPR program which often focuses on racial issues, references to Friends as being unrealistic for an NYC show where only white people appear. Seinfeld is regularly referenced in ways that only make sense if one's familiar with the overarcing premises of the show (mostly the small pettinesses and lack of any meaning). As such, there's a clear gestalt. The sum is notable independent of its parts, and in fact, the mention of the sum (show) does not necessitate the mention of particular episodes.
I'd also like to present what I consider to be a particularly salient comparison. Sports articles. Pixelface, in another discussion on this, brought up the presence of all the sports articles here ,and wanted to knwo what made them mroe notable. I argued a few major points. One, it's all real people, not characters, thus, not subject to WP:FICT, that sports teams have notable and incredibly significant impacts on communities, neighborhoods, cities, states and even nations, by economic, political, quality-of-life, media (ie scandals) levels, to name just a FEW aspects. I'd like to take the comparison in a new direction. Sport is to Genre as Team is to Show as Game is to Episode. or:
Genre :: Sport Show :: Team Episode :: Game Actors :: Players
We don't write up ever sports game of every season, nor should we. We should explain a sport, just as we should explain drama, comedy, dramedy, and on. We generally explain a show, just as we generally explain a team, though we may not list all the A and AA minor league teams. We often explain actors, and players. We don't explain each game, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars just one can generate for a city, and likewise, we don't need to explain every single episode, esp. those that can't show serious real-world notability. I find that this shows that either, Wikipedia really is for nerds who don't like sports, or more likely, it's understood that the games make up a larger seasonal identity for the team, much like Episodes and Seasons. I went and looked up one of the most notable games I could think of that occurred during the internet era, making easy reference finding possible for editors, and instead, I found it as Pacers-Pistons_brawl, showing a far more neutral approach to focusing on the notable information. Please notice, there is no link to an article on the game itself.
If sports, which in a single game earn as much as a single episode can, if not more at times, and which is comprised of real people doing real things and which have far more individual effects on their hometown than the aggregate effect of Hollywood on LA, aren't broken down into Wikipedia articles, then why does every single episode need an article, if not for 'I LIKE IT' purposes? ThuranX (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Statement supported by
- Additional comments
Sorry to come in with a response here, but I find the sports analogy fascinating. Have a look at Category:FIFA World Cup Finals (a collection of articles about the finals in the Football (soccer) World Cups). Most of those articles are exactly the sort of "guide", "infobox", short, stubby articles being fought over here. Indeed, most of the finals don't have articles. There is, however, one famous game that does justify its own article: Uruguay v Brazil (World Cup 1950), known as the Maracanaço. It is notable both for the large attendance and being a big upset result. Looking at the 18 World Cup finals, articles have been written about the last five (arguably none of these are really notable), and about two historical ones (the 1950 'final' and the 1966 final). The 1966 final has had a lot written about it in the English literature for obvious reasons (England won). It could be argued that the other 5 'finals' articles are examples of "sportscruft" that should, like non-notable episode articles, be merged to the articles about the whole tournament. I am sure other sports will have examples of notable games (I can probably think of a few in chess, mostly found in Category:Chess games), but the pattern will probably be consistent - a few notable events at the microscale of individual games/episodes, but mostly a vast array of non-notable games/episodes. To take another field, that of academic journals and science, most individual papers or magazine articles are not in themselves notable, but there are always the exceptions, as found in Category:Journal articles and Category:Magazine articles. The classic examples are Frank Sinatra Has a Cold and Annus Mirabilis Papers. The overall point is that, as you look at any field of human endeavour or study, and move from the large-scale, overview topics, down the scales of granularity to the smallest, indivisible elements, the notability will, of necessity, decrease, but will not completely vanish. The situation will move from almost 100% notability at the large scales, to much smaller levels (maybe 5% to less than 1%) at the smaller scales. The same applies for people - large organisations of people can be notable, but only a few individuals will themselves be notable - the vast majority will be non-notable. The same principles apply to episodes as well. Carcharoth (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Girolamo Savonarola
The issue here comes down mainly to one policy: WP:FICT. If there is no real-world context, then the article is legitimately challengeable. Much like WP:V, the editing burden comes upon the challenged. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
(short) Statement by Guest9999
In order to keep with current Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which were formed by the consensus of the community; articles for TV episodes should only exist if they have recieved significant coverage from reliable, third party sources and there is enough verifiable, real world information available to make that article more than just a plot summary. [[Guest9999 (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)]]
- Statement supported by
- Seraphim Whipp 03:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC). Our views are very similar...in fact they are the same but yours is far more eloquently put :).
Statement by Seraphim Whipp
Notability is gained from significant, second party, reliable sources, independent of the topic (bolding my own). Episodes shouldn't be exempt from the notability guideline, just because it's a guideline. People have also said "a plot with an infobox means it doesn't violate WP:NOT#PLOT". An infobox does not cover "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance" in any way shape or form. So if an episode fails our notability guideline, cannot be sourced, thus fails WP:Verifiability policy and only contains a plot, thus violating WP:NOT#PLOT policy, they shouldn't exist (yet). Seraphim Whipp 03:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)