Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dugwiki (talk | contribs) at 21:39, 23 September 2009 (→‎List of Rock Band Tracks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Per station television schedules

Today, I began removing a bunch of scheduling information from a large number of TV stations. Examples: [1][2][3]. I did this based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY #4, "an article on a ... station should not list ... current schedules". This seems clear and unequivocal.

Prior to beginning the removals (knowing there'd be resistance) I checked for background discussions. I found one that had been cited previously that occurred at the Wikiproject Television here, that happened in 2007. My take on that was it was irrelevant, since our policy at Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Exceptions notes "The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right." and that never happened. I also found a discussion that occurred in the global forum of Village Pump (policy) here which showed a pretty strong consensus that the schedules had to go.

Despite this, I am starting to get reverted.

So, I ask the question of everyone else: Is the display of current scheduling information in station specific articles a violation of WP:NOT? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cavaet on WP:NOTDIR#4 is important, that when the subject is a major national broadcaster, a historical summary of the schedule is reasonable, and so, for example, the upcoming fall season schedule (at the general weekly resolution, not a per-episode frame) for CBS or ABC would be fine, as these networks clearly fall into the realm of "historically significant". Now, the problem here is that I can't tell if the networks in the examples given would qualify the same way as "historically significant" that that we'd consider CBS/ABC in the States, or something like BBC in the UK. It would definitely need to be a national station (eg. something like the US's WGN would not count towards that even if WGN does get some national coverage), but that would be a starting point. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key factor between being a TV guide and an encyclopedic coverage of what shows a network airs is the fact we do not break this down week-by-week, episode by episode or include one-time events. Now granted, the data on the network pages should technically be put with the data on the historical schedule comparison pages, because after the current season is over, that's where that information will live. But that information itself should be somewhere on WP. But this is again for the national, over-the-air networks. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think what medium it is broadcast in or how extensive the coverage of the station/network is should be a factor. If it's important enough for a network, it's important enough for a station. Plus, in smaller countries the definition of "network" and "station" is very much blurred. I concur with your statement below that response to Rossami and historical articles. I do not see how keeping track of current schedules on every station/network article is in any way encyclopedic. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do need some level that designates a national station, otherwise, we'll have every tiny UHF station have their schedule posted. The US is easy, but probably more difficult for smaller countries, but also at smaller countries, you're less likely to have a large number of stations or stations that aren't national to begin with.
  • But I do think it's smart idea to discourage the schedule coverage on the station article and push it to national historical schedule pages - yes they are current, but in 3 months, they will be historical, so there's no problem with that information staying around after the fact. However, it will deemphasize the station-centric view that can occur on the individual station pages. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your removals of those sections were entirely appropriate and will make the stronger statement that sections like that would be equally inappropriate on the CBS or ABC pages. The whole United States network television schedule series should be reconsidered. Rossami (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that the historical comparisons are a problem. It's well established that one can look at the changing reception of a show, and in fact, how new programs are introduced and removed, based on what the competition was airing at the same time, at a level of high granularity, so these historical articles provide a key resource. The networks selected are discriminate: these are the major over-the-air broadcasters (even if a station like the CW doesn't get close to some cable networks). --MASEM (t) 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo! I have yet to see how such scheduling information continues to be "upheld" as an okay exception beyond a general fondness for it. Most are not historically significant, and current schedules certainly should be frowned upon. Wikipedia is not a TV guide nor is it a mirror for TV.com. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy to see such listings removed, although I think you (Hammersoft) should have sought this clarification first, rather than afterwards. If I understand you correctly, you believe that articles on historical schedules are acceptable, but articles on current schedules are only acceptable if phrased as historical ie "2009 season schedules". To clarify, would you accept someone going through the history of C4 (TV channel) (which you used as an example earlier) and extracting the 2008 season to create a separate article? Personally, I don't believe such an article would be acceptable and would not survive AFD, even though it could be reliably sourced to respectable publications such as the New Zealand Listener and any number of daily newspapers. Adding a series of sections to the C4 article as "2007 schedule", "2008 schedule" and "2009 schedule" would be equally unacceptable, but not testable via AFD. What makes 2009–2010 United States network television schedule different?-gadfium 23:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just giving you a heads-up, but Jon2guevarra (talk · contribs) has reinstated some of the schedules Hammersoft removed. It seems any communication with the guy seems to be futile because he reverted the edits despite the notes left behind on his talk page. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why some editors would want these listings based on subjective importance, but as topics for inclusion as standalone articles or lists, their notability is unproven until such time they are the subject of commentary from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the schedules. However, belief in measures subjective importance, such as inherited notability, no matter how strongly held, do not provide evidence that the schedules are compliant with Wikipedia's content policies. I beleive most of these schedules are comprised of synthesis and are magnets for original research, and should be deleted. Some editors may have strong views about creating these type of article, but unless there is evidence to show that they are notable, they are not encyclopedic.Wikipedia is not Movie, Book or TV Guide. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with User:Rossami in that "The whole United States network television schedule series should be reconsidered." I fail to see how, what amounts to a nicely formatted TV schedule is encyclopaedic? Wikipedia is not a record of everything under the sun. In my opinion Hammersoft was right to go ahead and remove that listing and any other similar -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 19:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will contact many of the editors involved in making these scheudules, there are 6 editors here, many veteran editors whose accounts overwhelming focus on attempting to delete other editors contributions, attempting to make policy for everyone else. Typical but not exactly overwhelming conseus. The overwhelming consensus is the hundreds of editors over several years, who have made and maintained these schedules.Ikip (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User:Ikip has started canvassing on this issue (see here, here, and especially here. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, why should a small group of veteran editors decide the policy for all wikipedians? Hammersoft was disrupting pages by deleting dozens of existing sections. When editors reverted these sections, he would write warnings on their pages. I was simply responding to these disruptions and Hammersoft warnings. If we all want to have an open, transparent discussion about deleting hundreds of editors thousands of edits, why didn't Hammersoft bother to invite these editors to discuss this on this page? True consensus will never be reached if we exclude those editors who are the most negatively effected by the dictated forced changes.
Also see WP:Don't template the regulars. Ikip (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikipedia community decided the policy, not a small group of 'elite editors' (I'm not an elite editor, and neither is anyone else here). The policy is quite clear. an "article on a ... station should not list ... current schedules". The stance against schedules has been in the WP:NOT policy for more than three years. For the record, I did invite people. See User_talk:Jon2guevarra#Program_Schedules. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since editors are not familar with the study which called influential veteran editors elite, and it is being read in the wrong way, I removed the term "elite" and replaced it with "veteran". Sorry for any confusion. Ikip (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well said! I agree. If you don't like it, then you don't have to go there. The large number of people who do go there for information, and have contributed to it over the years, are important. Is there any way to see just how many hits a particulate page gets? Bringing more people to the Wikipedia, for any reason, is always a good thing. Dream Focus 00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
The policy was already made, just unevenly enforced. It takes very little talent to imitate TVGuide. Abductive (reasoning) 00:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a good number of editors strongly disagree about a rule which, if history is any guide, was formed by a handful of veteran editors with no larger community impute. It take very little talent or diplomacy to delete other editors contributions. Ikip (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think ikip was within his rights to inform others of the situation, however, wikipedia is not a vote. If the members of a particular wikiproject want to make a change to policy (such us WP:NOT) then they need to convince the wikipedia community as a whole. I'm still in favour of removing and I haven't heard any, what I'd call "valid" reasons to keep them -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 07:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more than just this policy that is relevant here. Our policies on verifiability and prohibiting original research are relevant, also. Here are some specific questions to answer, to see the underlying general point here: How do we know that this edit has made the article more accurate instead of less? How can we confirm that the article is correct? If the answer is "Check it against this week's published listings for the channel.", how is such information, that isn't generalized beyond the specific week of the edit where it was introduced, actually useful information for a reader in (say) three months' time? And how, in that case, is our presenting a single week's specific schedule as if it were the regular general schedule not a mis-representation of fact?

    For extra credit, attempt to check for accuracy what the article says about the Monday schedule for the channel. Is it true for next week? Is it true for this week? Was it even true for last week? What can be said of the general Monday schedule? How do you know? It's interesting to see how many edits are being devoted to defending, and amassing support for defending, content that is a falsehood. Uncle G (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is the reason why WP:NOT says not to include schedules; the sources for the schedules will always be better than Wikipedia because they are either the stations themselves, or corporations that make money providing the information, and can afford paid staff. So it would be appropriate to include a link to reliable sources for the schedules, since one would need to be provided anyway as a reference, and let users click on it, but not migrate the schedule to Wikipedia. Seriously, if I wanted to find out when something was airing, I would not trust Wikipedia, but I would expect it to link to the channel's program guide. Abductive (reasoning) 09:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am now being reverted by User:Ikip who is citing this thread as support for including the schedules. See for yourself. In this thread, I see 9 people supporting the removals, with only 2 opposing. There's three others with possibly equivocal opinions not included. This isn't a vote, but after 5 days (inclusive) it's pretty clear where we stand. He's done this 11 times. I am reverting, but would appreciate some support. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain this inconsistency:
User:Gadfium reverted your deletions of other editors contributions:
citing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 5#Current primetime television schedules and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 23#NOTDIR and TV schedules[4]
You responded that:
"Please see our discussion on my talk page. There is consensus, and local Wikiproject consensus can not override policy"
You again deleted other editors contributions,
stating: rv re-inclusion of schedules against consensus at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules
Why does User:Dillmister quoting Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not not a good justification, but you citing Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not not is? Ikip (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different types of tv schedules being talked about here. The present case is about a specific station's TV schedule embedded in the station's article. The Archive23 talk section is about the historical TV schedules that are generally not station specific. They are apples and oranges in terms of how we should approach them, with NOT presently advicing that the former are not appropriate while we're still ok with the latter -- though as some see it, even those should not belong despite NOT's current long-standing wording supporting it. That is, if there is to be discussions on the merits of the historical, non-station specific schedules, that needs more detailed discussion - but we've long-standing advice that current schedules on a station's page should not be included. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am crying "uncle", i give up. This is something I am not to interested about anyway. At least the information is still in the edit history. Ikip (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree that this information is encyclopedic and should be removed.
    FWIW, there have been AfDs on some dedicated TV schedule articles in the past, one I remember was WP:Articles for deletion/1991–1992 United States network television schedule (late night). Amalthea 20:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I agree with Hammersoft and Uncle G that the schedules for individual stations are not generally appropriate. The stations can do it better themselves. The work it would take us to do it correctly should be better spent on writing articles on topics we need to cover--or perhaps improving the plot sections of TV shows. (Networks and some national stations are another matter entirely and I would not support deleting them). DGG (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot see any way in which tv or radio schedules for forthcoming programs belong in an encyclopedia - if we allow this, then we do become a directory. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue Please start an RfC. Per Protonk this shouldn't be determined here. If for some reason we are going to determine this here, I think we should have major network schedules here, where "major" is unclear in many markets (to me at least). The schedule of a show has a lot to do with the success of the show and even what the show does (follow on to another show etc.) It is clearly an important part of many shows. Hobit (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all the wrong venue. If an RfC started, the discussion would be right here. Further, it was announced at Village Pump (policy). The very large majority agree the schedules per station are inappropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An RfC would get a wider bit of input, as would announcing it to the appropriate projects (if that hasn't already been done). [Posted link to here at the TV project discussion page.] Hobit (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never been and will never be a fan of informing projects of discussions they may have an interest in. Such notifications inherently bias a discussion. Further, projects do not have ownership of any article and are not capable of writing policy nor breaching it on articles within their areas of interest. AfD discussions are not held at the project level. Neither are policy discussions decided upon at the project level. We've had this discussion now for the better part of a week. It's blatantly clear what the policy is, and it is blatantly clear that per-station television schedules are not permitted under this policy. I am not and never will be opposed to the community as a whole having input, which is why I informed Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (see diff) which has been read by about 50 editors since it was posted there, in addition to the ~30 editors who saw it here. Nevertheless, since you insist, I've added the rfc tag to this section per your request. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Sources discuss this stuff, and so should we. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm late to the party, but have to agree that some form of culling is in order. Some of the station articles have gotten completely out of hand, and the individual network schedule pages are certainly out of line and fall under the notion of TV Guide-ism (to coin a phrase). I would agree that the page that shows the broadcast network schedule for all the broadcast networks by year is encyclopedic, and gives a historic context, but the individual information (and specific times) does not. I've had this discussion on WP:TVS in the past, and have told folks that listing full blown times and dates certainly fails this test, and should be deleted. (bottom line: yes, do the culling; it's okay as far as I'm concerned) --mhking (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfC comment. It's not exactly clear where the discussion stops and the RfC starts, but I came here via the RfC. I think it is very clear that the primetime schedules violate NOTDIRECTORY, and should be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal Go to TV Guide, not an encyclopedia, if you want this information. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep network block schedules, remove specifics. The block schedule of an entire network for an entire season is encyclopedic. Ratings of various shows are discussed in RS'es, people can check what was on years ago, and so forth. This kind of schedule includes empty spaces set aside for local programming, and open-ended time on weekends for sports and movies. However, it is not encyclopedic to update a detailed schedule every week when things are moved around for specials, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep network and programming block schedules per Squidfryerchef. Powergate92Talk 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've said it before. The historic block schedules, consisting of prime time 1946 to present major U.S. network television schedules, must be kept: these block schedules are in use in television encyclopedias, and appear frequently in reliable sources (these are available upon request). These national schedules affected (and still effect) millions of viewers each year, and have a major impact on the television industry each fall, especially around Upfront time. Entire books have been written about these schedules: see Castleman's The TV Schedule Book: Four Decades of Network Programming from Sign-On to Sign-Off, for example. Local stations and minor (under ~100 affiliates) television networks probably don't warrant schedules: because of how the TV markets are set up in the U.S., networks with fewer than 100 affiliates in the U.S. can't or don't pull in Nielsen numbers higher than 1% of the viewing audience, and generally aren't the subject of extensive coverage in reliable sources. Sources exist, though, for ABC, NBC, CBS, DuMont, NTA, Fox, UPN, the WB, the CW, MNTV, PAX/i/ION, and a few others. Local station/cable channels don't average very many viewers. The gap is closing between broadcast and cable, but not that much that cable channels can attract giant audiences that would greatly affect the TV industry: NBC doesn't counter-program based on what Syfy is airing. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the schedules provide no evidence of notability, there is no rationale to keep them other than various editors views about their subjective importance. What seems to be missing is verfiable evidence that they should be kept - so far we have only various editors expressing strong view. The must be hundreds of different television networks in the US alone, but which one is more important than another is a matter of personal opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • TV schedules are printed in all sorts of 3rd party publications. They easily meet WP:N. The question is if they violate NOT#DIRECTORY. I think the historical versions certainly don't, but I can also see how one could reasonably conclude they do. But notability isn't at issue here. Hobit (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The national network schedules provide clear evidence of notability since many are clearly sourced to reliable third-party publications. Gavin, please go to your local library and check out some of the books listed as references on these pages. Also, there are not "hundreds of different television networks in the U.S. alone"; the number of broadcast networks is closer to fifty, and only a dozen or so are true nationally-viewed networks. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third part sources don't provide any evidence of notability unless they contain some sort of commentary on their subject matter, othewise they are classed as tertiary sources. However, most of these schedules are not even sourced, so I think Hobit is speculating, which not getting us any closer to providing verifiable evidence for inclusion. Notability is an issue here, in the sense that all of the topics in WP:NOT are not likely to fail WP:N, and vice versa. If these schedules were notable, there would be no doubt that they would be entitled to their own own standalone articles. But as they stand, articles such as 1954–1955 United States network television schedule (late night) are just random stuff that provide no commentary, context, criticism or analysis that are the hallmarks of encyclopedic coverage, which is why they fail WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except, as I noted above, television encyclopedias use them. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal of current lineups. Support retention of historical lineups with sourced notability. There's a reason why TV Guide is published every week, and we do not handle rapidly changing news, nor are we a crystal ball for future events. We only handle information after it has received significant discussion. Perhaps historical schedules, such as the 1955 schedule on NBC, could be considered encyclopedic (I have a manual in my library discussing such lineups) but current schedules are not encyclopedic at all. We are not a directory and we shouldn't be the place to turn if a user wants expansive tables of information without any discussion about them or significance in published media. ThemFromSpace 16:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retention of Major-network Schedules. Firsfron makes the very good point that entire books have been written about these network schedules, and that makes them notable. Per WP:5P, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." This is the sort of information that would be in a specialized encyclopedia, so we should keep it. It also serves a quite plausible navigational purpose, and so should be kept for that reason alone. — PyTom (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; subjective importance does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion. The schedules/lineups have no encyclopedic value unless they support commentary from reliable secondary sources in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies. I think Pytom knows that that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating notable elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. What is being missed by some editors is that these schedules come from the TV networks themselves and should be classed as primary sources, in the same way a railway timetable is a primary source. This does not change even if the schedules/lineups are reproduced in secondary sources; the schedules on their own cannot take the place of commentary, analysis or criticism that provide context for the reader and evidence of notability to justify their own standalone articles. No matter how many times these schedules are reproduced, without encyclopedic content of this nature these articles fail WP:NOTDIR because there is no rationale for inclusion, and the editors who are creating them should reevaluate their reasons for doing so. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single thing you've said in the above post is accurate, Gavin. These schedules 'do not come from the networks themselves. They come from reliable sources:
There are many others.
The schedules themselves are the subject of independent, extensive coverage in reliable sources. The people arguing for the deletion of these schedules clearly aren't checking out the references; such lack of basic scholarship continues to be a problem on Wikipedia, where someone who doesn't know anything about the subject can make the decision that something is "not notable" or "not encyclopedic" even if the subject is noted in multiple references already listed in the article, and the content already appears in encyclopedias. Editors who fail to note references should re-evaluate their reasons for doing so. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have no way of telling if the schedules are discussed in any meaningful way at all in these publications, so your assertions are pure speculation. My guess is that the topics of these publications are either the netweorks themselves or the television programmes they produced, and that the network schedules are used merely the framework to discuss them. To back up your statements, you will have to come up with citations, not rumours of citations. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin, I have each and every one of these books in my collection. It's not "pure speculation", and when you say "my guess is..." it is you who is engaging in pure speculation. Check out these books yourself if you refuse to believe that I have these books. Also, can't you tell from the title what The TV Schedule Book might be about? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand then why you did not you cite some coverage from these publications that supports the notability of one or more schedule/lineup articles from the begining of this discussion. Can you add some citations now, so we can examine what you have in in your library? Evidence in support of your assertions would be most welcome. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin, these are already cited in the articles themselves. I presumed if you were seriously discussing deleting the articles that you would have taken a look at the articles themselves before vehemently calling for their deletion. That would only make sense. However, you missed the fact that the prime time U.S. network schedules have been sourced since I sourced them myself nearly two years ago. All primetime network series between 1946 and 1980 were sourced to Castleman and Podrazik (1982), Brooks and Marsh (1985), and McNeil (1996). Brooks and Marsh have a 62-page section covering network schedules. McNeil's is only 50 pages. In Castleman and Podrazik's book each chapter begins with a network schedule, followed by pages of text discussing said schedule (and in the early years, ABC's and DuMont's problems with their schedules), what hits resulted from each schedule, and what programs were doomed because of being scheduled against tougher competition (the obvious examples are the programs scheduled against Texaco Star Theater; only Life is Worth Living lasted long, according to David Weinstein). A fourth work, Bergmann and Skutch's (2002), was also referenced for the years 1946-1955. A great number of other references could also have been used, but I chose these four because I own them. In addition to these four, I can think of the various books by William Boddy, Michele Hilmes, James Roman, Leonard Goldenson, and David Weinstein which discuss early network schedules. Please see 1946–47_United_States_network_television_schedule#References, 1956–57_United_States_network_television_schedule#References, 1966–67_United_States_network_television_schedule#References, 1976–77_United_States_network_television_schedule#References etc., for a list of works you can use to verify the content in the schedules. As I said, these are already present in the articles, and have been for a very long time. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a misunderstanding here. If the schedules are reproduced without any commentary, criticism, or analysis to provide context, then they are simply a regurgitation of the primary source (from the network itself). Without any commentary, these articles provide no evidence of notability. If these publications voice some sort of comment on the schedules themselves (not just a regurgitation) then you have knockout evidence of their notability. But if there is no commentary, then why on earth would you think they were encyclopedic when WP:NOT has various prohibitions (WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOT#GUIDE & WP:NOT#STATS) against listings of barebone information? As state earlier, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia: the schedules need to have been noted (i.e. commented upon, not just reproduced) to be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a misunderstanding here, it is your own. I believe I already stated that the schedules in Castleman and Podrazik's 1982 book are reproduced with commentary, criticism, and analysis of the network schedule themselves; each chapter is a discussion of the network line-ups and what happened because of them. Each of Wikipedia's prime time network schedules from 1946 to 1980 are referenced to Castleman and Podrazic's 1982 book, but there are other books which also provide the level of detail that you require. However, do not quote WP:NOT and WP:DIR to me when WP:DIR specifically allows for the annual U.S. television network schedules. That clause was added specifically because the people who work with these articles, the people who study early TV history, the people who research early television in reliable sources, realized there was a problem with good-faith but misinformed editors quoting WP:NOT randomly. It's still happening, however. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there can be any misunderstanding. Unless there some clear evidence of notability, such as commentary from reliable secondary sources that are independent of schedules, then they should be removed. If the schedules are not notable, then they are no different from a railway timetable, and nothing you or any "expert" editor can say can change that unless it can be backed up with citations to demonstrate their notability as standalone article topics in accordance with WP:GNG.
If some of the publications contain commentary, then you should add it to the articles to provide some form of context for the reader, otherwise they are just not encylopedic. There can be no exceptions to these rules: just because your views on their subjective importance are stronger than mine, that is not a verifiable reason for keeping them; what is needed is verifiable evidence of notability in the form substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the schedules themselves. The way that WP:NOT#DIR is written to give an exemption to articles on schedules is, quite frankly, special pleading and is not in accordance with the spirit of this policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a guideline (and based on RFC earlier this year, will likely remain one for a long time) meaning there are common sense exceptions to it. Now, presuming Firsfron is accurate in his description of the books, then there is notability here, but that's not the point. Not every single page on WP needs to pass WP:N - WP:NOT, yes, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV yes, but WP:N is a guideline for a very good reason, as everything that we are by the five pillars, including works like almanacs, may mean that we include significant data that is completely appropriate per all other content policies but may fail WP:N. --MASEM (t) 12:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to set aside the issue of the schedules' notability, because if they fail WP:N, then they fail WP:NOT and vice versa. I can see where you are coming from: you are arguing that these articles are encyclopedic because they are sourced, but are ignoring the point that merely being significant, true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You are trying to sidestep the issue that the verifable evidence of notability is required to demonstrate these articles' suitability as standalone articles. Evidence of notability comes in the form of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the schedules themselves, and these articles contain none. Clearly reproducing the schedules on their own means these articles are verifable (this is not in question), but merely reproducing the schedules (the primary source) does not constitute evidence of notability. However, what is more obvious is the complete lack of commentary, criticism or analysis that is needed to provide context (significant coverage per WP:GNG). So when I say that these barebone schedules are not encyclopedic, I mean that they do not provide any context for the reader, which is a symptom of their lack of notabilty. You can continue to argue that they are encyclopedic in the same way a railway timetable could be argued to be useful and verifable, but without evidence of notability, there is nothing to support your assertion. In their current form, they are clearly prohibited by WP:NOT, because they do not contain balanced coverage of their subject matter, by which I mean they don't contain a mix of primary and secondary coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again Notability is not a policy, it is only a guideline and thus applied with common sense exceptions. This clearly seems to be one of those cases. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the only alternative to notability, subjective importance, is not accepted as a basis for article inclusion in Wikipedia. It is a matter of personal opinion to argue that these schedules are significant and important if you don't provide a shred of evidence to support your view point. Simply arguing that these schedules are "significant", "important", "informative", "worthy" or "valuable" does not carry any weight in Wikipedia. You have to provide verfiable evidence for a standalone article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it, Masem. Gavin is never going to understand. This is the same editor who was still arguing for the deletion of Theba, Arizona after the discussion closed as keep, and after several inline citations had been added, including one from World Book Encyclopedia. Gavin was still claiming the article was "unencyclopedic", citing lack of notability: check the talk page. I feel that Gavin is so caught up in Wikipedia policies and guidelines ("There can be no exceptions to these rules") that he's missing the forest for the trees. While I know he's a good-faith editor, he doesn't seem to understand the premise that if something has already been included in other encyclopedias, calling it "unencyclopedic" and "not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" is silly, and only makes Wikipedia look less encyclopedic. Sadly, once Gavin has made up his mind about something being unsuitable for inclusion, it won't be changed: I know this is true based on the Theba, Arizona incident: even after the article went from one in-line citation to eight, he was still arguing for deletion. Above, Gavin is requesting that more "notability" be provided for the schedules (presumably citing more stuff). But I won't waste my time, knowing already from the Theba incident that my work won't make any difference. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We all know that the argument that places are inherently notable without evidence is questionable to say the least. I think the same principle applies here - the existence of these articles on television schedules is questionable too, and their subjective importance is a matter of opinion, not fact. If Firsfron can't add commentary to these articles which he passionately cares about, then I don't know who can. He may as well have supported deltion from the begining. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please stop repeatedly linking to that essay? I've already linked above to multiple books which verify the content, which are sourced, and which are presented from a neutral point of view. I've conceded that the local station schedules should go, and I just wish you could have met me halfway. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have missed a point, that even though the schedules are sourced from secondary sources, you are in actual fact repoducing the the primary source because no commentary, criticism or analysis accompanies accompanies the schedules. Without such commentary from reliable secondary sources there is no evidence of notability, and your arguments that they should have their standalone articles runs contrary to WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TV guide doesn't list annual national programming grids, Garion: it's a place to check local listings for the week. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, so Wikipedia is not an annual national programming guide. The information doesn't belong here per Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY. Garion96 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read the policy you've just quoted? Please read #4 all the way through. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to put words in Garion's mouth, but you seem to be overlooking the presence of the qualifier "historically significant" in #4. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Do you think Garion was talking about the historically significant national schedules or current station schedules? Firsfron of Ronchester 06:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since it is clear that my request to move this to a better forum didn't find widespread agreement, I'll vote. I feel that we should include fewer, not more of per-station schedules. We aren't a directory and we aren't TV guide. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with removal; Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. Schedules are ephemeral and have no encyclopedic value, Wikipedia is not a directory. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe most are historically insignificant and should be removed (Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide). There are certainly some exceptions, such as those critiqued in the references given above, but generally speaking, these aren't encyclopedic. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the information should probably be removed, but having something that points out when a notable TV show or program comes on, in the article about that show, would be acceptable to my understanding of policy. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse removal per WP:Fancruft. These schedules change almost on a weekly basis, and I would concur it is unencyclopaedic. If the basic structure of programming (ie of historical significance) is changed from one year to the next, there need to be an agreed way of presenting it, possibly juxtaposed with historical schedule or competitors' schedules. but these should be the exception rather than the rule. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation. Although it is difficult to follow the thread of this talk section, I would like to suggest that, among those editors who, like me, came here in response to the RfC (as opposed to some of those who are continuing an ongoing argument in this section), there is really a pretty strong trend towards consensus that the TV schedules should largely be removed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal and suggest strengthening policy. Past program schedules are of historic interest to lots of people, including those doing serious research, but I can think of no reason why WP should include current program schedules. We're not a one-stop reference for any and all info, we're an encyclopedia, and such info is readily available elsewhere on the Web, on TV, and in print. Rivertorch (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100% support removal The ONLY time I would ever include schedule information is where the info is notable, such as for Must See TV, or in discussing how the timeslot pertains to a particular show (perhaps Firefly (TV series)#Broadcast history for example, IIRC Firefly got moved around in timeslots and that's thought to be one of the things that killed the show). Staxringold talkcontribs 15:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep historic block schedules for major networks, remove current schedules and suggest week-by-week schedules for historic periods should not be created. It seems few contributors here recognise the (large) distinctions between the different types of article being discussed - hence comments like "the networks report this anyway" or "they're transient and will quickly get out of date", which are pretty good reasons not to list current schedules but are bizarre if applied to the historic block schedules. On the other hand "it's all fancruft" or "why reproduce what's in reliable sources updated by professional editors anyway, let's just link to them" are poor arguments all round - in the latter case, why would we bother writing Wikipedia at all? My take on this: nobody would claim this week's TV guide is a form of encyclopedia, and I don't think it belongs in this particular encyclopedia either. Nor does last week's TV guide (or one from three months, or twelve years ago) become encyclopedic by virtue of age. However, Firsfron has given a very clear explanation of why the historic block schedules pass the general notability requirements - multiple reliable sources have been published which document and discuss them. The only remaining issue for me is whether the format of article is suitable for Wikipedia. For comparison, there are multiple reliable sources on how to assemble bookshelves, but we disallow articles of the how-to guide format. I can't see anything as clear-cut to disallow block schedules, particularly given PyTom's excellent point that we allow content usually found in "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (and of course, the old block schedules can be found in the specialized encyclopedias that Firsfron pointed out). If anything, these articles most closely resemble lists in format - an area for which suitability for Wikipedia has always been contentious, and guidelines comparatively fuzzy. For what its worth, the old block schedules do not appear to me to contain "indiscriminate" information (an issue often debated when considering whether lists should be deleted), especially since they contain information systematically-arranged, context-rich and clearly valuable to readers researching old TV series. I was initially going to suggest transwiki to Wikisource for these articles on the grounds that few of them seem to contain editorial content (just a referenced, fixed table that has no need to be updated) but Firsfron has indicated that there is non-tabular information that could be added too (viz the schedule analysis contained in his specialized encyclopedias). That would clearly not be suitable for Wikisource, and moreover would make the articles more closely resemble other Wikipedia articles with substantial textual content. So we should view the articles that contain only tables of information of historic schedules as stubs and when considering whether they should be deleted, it's best to imagine what the articles should look like post-expansion - unlike the modern TV guide schedules that change week-by-week, I think it is clear that the historic block schedules would be kept. TheGrappler (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough analysis, Grappler. Stax, what does "EV" mean (surely not WP:EV)? Above you mention Must See TV as an example of "The ONLY time [you] would ever include schedule information is where the info is notable". NBC's more recent line-ups are a very good example of noted schedules which were highly successful. However, NBC had earlier schedules which were much more successful and which are just as noted, but you must dust off a book or a microfiche to find these notes. DuMont's 1953 schedule has received a great deal of attention from critics for being highly unsuccessful, with a weak line-up of programs (I'm thinking specifically of Castleman and Podrazik's detailed commentary of the schedule starting on page 87), and DuMont's craptacular 1955-1956 schedule, which fizzled into nothing at all, a point of commentary by TV historians even today. (Brooks and Marsh, pages xiii and 174; Weinstein, numerous pages). DuMont, though, had a few scheduling successes, for example, scheduling Life is Worth Living against Uncle Miltie with decent ratings, as discussed in Weinstein, pages 156-157, or scheduling a raucous game show against a public service program on other networks. ABC's early scheduling woes, too, merit attention from historians, such as Goldenson on ABC's 1953 schedule, pages 116-124, many others) Let's not forget Newton Minow's "vast wasteland" speech which was directed at the Big Three's 1960–61 United States network television schedule (Boddy, pages 225-228), and the subsequent scramble by the networks to avoid similar criticism the following year. Syndicated programmers' struggles against the Big Three's schedules is documented in many sources, but especially in Boddy's book (page 180, for example, where the three networks' use of scheduled "option time" helped kill any chance of a syndicated network seriously challenging the Big Three, and led to the decline of non-network programming to the point where the number of syndicated programs in 1956 (29) had declined to just 1 in 1964. I could go on, but I don't deal with much TV history past 1962. Now, I'm sure the Firefly scheduling might have helped kill it, but criticism and commentary of network television schedules goes back all the way to 1946, when two tiny TV networks began sending their signals to a handful of TV sets (literally in Washington DC, according to Bergmann). Let's avoid recentism when discussing policy. You say "Must See TV" can stay, because you know of it; however, plenty of other network schedules have received similar (or even greater) attention from the people who study such trends. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking EV is short for "encyclopedic value". Which I believe you address sufficiently above, but more to the point, the historic block schedules are verifiable, not original research, are neutral, and are not indiscriminate (if we did it for every cable channel, that would be pushing it), and based on your analysis, they pass notability guidelines - even if indirectly. Current schedule per stations, yes are sketchy (that falls into both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TEMP), but historical ones are a much different beast --MASEM (t) 06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah; thanks for the EV definition. I'm not aware of any cable channel receiving a printed "network" block schedule in any television encyclopedia or reliable printed source. I could be wrong, but I've never seen it. Cable channels don't need to please 200 local affiliate stations like the networks do (and can thus be pretty careless about scheduling; we've all seen the all-day marathons of reruns that many cable channels air, even in Prime Time; broadcast networks never do this) and cable channels don't rely entirely on the ratings/advertising cycles to support their operations. Cable channels generally attract very small audiences, and the major broadcast networks historically didn't counter-program based on what cable was airing, (and in the 1980s-'90s many cable channels were mostly airing old network programs anyway) making (eg.) "what did CBS air against Lifetime?" a senseless question. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The argument that a schedule is "historically significant" is just basically a restatement of WP:IKNOWIT. These schedules are no different from any other schedule unless verifiable evidence of notability can be provided to show that they merit their own standalone articles. While we are at it, lets also put aside lots of other spurious arguements for inclusion:
  1. these schedules are for the "biggest" networks, not little ones;
  2. these schedules only include "important" television programs, not insignificant ones;
  3. these schedules are for "national" networks, not local ones;
  4. these schedules are for "broadcast" networks, not cable ones;
  5. these schedules are for "top rated" programs, not low rated ones;
  6. these schedules go all the way back to "Noah and the flood" and are not recent.
To be honest, all these arguments are a load of intellectual garbage. Just find some significant coverage from reliable secondary sources (not just the barebone schedules) to provide evidence of notability - this is the only real defence against deletion or merger. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you scroll up a bit, you'll see that Firsfron has posted information about 5 books devoted to the subject. So the significant coverage requirement is more than met, for the major-network schedules. Frankly, I'm not sure there's anything left to debate: Major-network schedules are notable due to being written about in multiple books, while per-station schedules should be removed. — PyTom (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you a scroll up a bit, you will see that the sources merely reporoduce the schedules direct from the primary source, but they don't add any evidence of notability. Don't forget that just because a TV schedule appears in more than source, it is still the primary source, and in itself does not provide evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The clear majority says these things don't belong because they are "unencyclopedic." This is worse than them being notable or not; that doesn't matter. 'TV schedules should be and all will be deleted. Let it go. Abductive (reasoning) 08:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. *Current* television schedules for television networks/stations are not appropriate content. Schedules are only appropriate if there is a historical context, and not if they are specific to now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recently some old television schedules from decades ago came up for deletion. [5] My argue for keeping all the old ones was this: Showing a historic list of every show ever shown on a notable network, is perfectly fine by almanac standards for the Wikipedia. Television plays a massive role in shaping people's opinions, and affecting the world. If someone wanted to see where and when shows were at, and then do a study to determine how each one affected someone, this might be of use. It also shows how the taste of the people changed over time, what sort of thing they watched year by year. Dream Focus 11:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some. For me the test would be, "if the Wikipedia version of the schedule were not updated for 6 months, would it be of any worth?" A schedule for a small station, or one that changed rapidly, would fail that test. But a schedule that was described in a slightly more generic way (eg, 4am: "Varies. Teletubbies, British sitcom repeats."), for a massive station might still be useful. I agree that providing another place to look up what's on TV tonight fails to be encyclopaedic. Being able to compare what two networks were running at 7pm on tuesday nights in 2007 is useful and encyclopaedic. Stevage 15:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal of directory information. It is reasonable to have an entry on, say, NBC's long-running and successful Must See TV schedule/marketing campaign which includes schedule info., and we do; but the current articles are like what 2008_New_York_Mets_season would look like if only the game log were present in the articles and not the context. It's simple directory info. in the most literal sense of the term and is unencyclopedic. Only the relatively few historical significant schedules should have entries, and those should provide context explaining their significance. JJL (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal and endorse our current policy as expressed. I have just closed a couple of AfDs as No consensus in order to channel the discussion here, as it is more appropriate to have everything centralized. The only way I believe the information about when something was on TV is relevant is if it is included in the article about tv series or another programme, such as in Lost (TV series)#Ratings. --Tone 13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Network block schedules. This is consistent with WP:NOT, which should not be changed. Remove station schedules, do not have TV Guide listings of what is on tonight. Numerous reliable abd independent sources cover the network block schedules, such as books listed above as well as "The complete directory to prime-timenetwork tv shows 1946-present," by Tim Brooks and Earle Marsh, Ballantine Books, 1979. Additionally I have seen TV columnists in major newspapers discuss the networks scheduling choices for many seasons in the past. Scheduling decisions have included moves such as trying to line up a block of programming so people stick with a particular network on a particular night, or stupid decisions like a network putting a popular show up against a (then) unbeatable show, like Ed Sullivan, then cancelling the contender when the ratings drop. Edison (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep network block schedules, per Firsfon, Edison, and others. I'd hate to remove verifiable content that appears in specialist encyclopedias, especially when those calling for its removal base their arguments on some of our vaguest policies and guidelines. Zagalejo^^^ 23:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Per Firsfon, Edison, and Zagalejo. This "delete everything" crap needs to stop. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal in current form. I'm now convinced (particularly by JJL's baseball metaphor above) that these standalone schedules are too much out of context to be useful, and that scheduling issues are better off discussed articles about the individual series and notable programming blocks. BryanG (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal of most. A comprehensive TV schedule guide is unmaintainable and is much better suited to a more specialized wiki. -- œ™ 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support full removal per cited policies, WP:DIRECTORY, etc. Agree with above comments regarding removal. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support full removal. These schedules have no encyclopedic value and no place on WP. Get a TV Guide. Save it if you want. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support full removal. I thought it was obvious. Wikipedia is not a TV guide, not a directory, not the place for looking for such staff. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical schedules

It appears the consensus is clear about per-station current schedules from the above - they change too much and too often to be effective in an article about the station. So I suggest focusing on the other issue (which many have ID'd above, but there's too much to separate one aspect from the other) and consider the historical TV schedules, which presently is called out as an acceptable allowance.)

I for one think they are fine, per WP being aspects of an almanac - they are not indiscriminate, they are sourced, and they are associated with notable topics (television in country X). There may be a hint of OR in that they have to gloss over the details with the case of rapid cancellation and timeslot changes, but this is not OR towards a specific POV, and falls well within acceptable synthesis (particularly as the specifics of changes are outlined below the schedules, at least for US television). They are as "inappropriate" as the listing of the results of every game a professional sports team has played, which are also perfectly fine for an almanac.

I think the key point here is that the specific NOT phrase this falls under includes as the catchall: "resource for conducting business". Current television schedules can be seen as that, since they inform the reader as what's on or what is coming. Once the event has happened, however, there's no value in that information as a business resource, but it is an information resource to those that study past history of televsion (as evidenced by the books referenced above). I also think it's important that there is a layer of discrimination going on here as only the major network broadcasters are included, and the resolution is, at worst, at the fall/spring/summer schedules, which is a very broad stroke and appropriate for encyclopedic summation. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of Wikipedia's content polices support this view. Special pleading only makes you bid for an exemption more obvious: in the absence of veriable evidence of notability, all barebones schedules fail WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose some lunatic started transcribing the ingredients list from different food packages. Would that be tolerated? Would people argue that some readers might want to know this information? Would people argue that food is notable, so that the ingredient lists must therefore be encyclopedic? I can only assume that a few of the people here would so argue, blind as they are to what an encyclopedia really is. Abductive (reasoning) 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you guyes doubt that TV Guide similar sources have produced articles or listings for every years schedule? I don't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you doubt that ingredients lists are printed on the sides of the bags of chips? An the serving size too! Abductive (reasoning) 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I doubt you can find articles on those labels. Big difference, red herring, all that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only because some lunatic hasn't done it yet. Abductive (reasoning) 20:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of ingredients from food packages would be indiscriminate, since there's 1) an infinite possibility of ingrediants and 2) an infinite possibly of foodstuffs. Nor is this info verifiable without turning to the primary source (most of the time), being the wrapper or container itself. On the other hand, these lists are selectively looking at certain blocks of programming (prime time schedules) for specific networks of a certain quality (national affliates) that have been covered by non-primary sources.
Again, I point out the question: if these historical tv schedules are inappropriate, then what makes the full record of every pro team's every season appropriate? That's just as much a "directory" as these schedules, and are just as discriminate/indiscriminate and have the same types of backing sources. As noted below, we are more than just an encyclopedia, we include specialized encyclopedias and almanacs, both which these can be derived from. --MASEM (t)

A subsection I started below, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#The reason why the "unencyclopedic" argument just doesn't fly shows coverage from a reliable, independent source for historic national-network evening schedules in the United States. The source I cite actually has one-year-per-page schedules that look remarkably like our own. My source was published in 1981, but there have been more recent editions. If this kind of thing gets covered in reliable sources like my source or like TV Guide (and it does), then reliable sourcing and the question of whether or not the articles are "encyclopedic" should be resolved. If this independent coverage exists for many of the historic, nationwide schedules, then it's reasonable to assume it exists for all, and there should be no justification from this project page for deleting them. -- Noroton (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point you are missing is that when an independent reliable source simply reproduces the primary source, then it is still the primary source you are reading. There has to be some sort of commentary, criticism or analysis from the source to provide context to the reader, otherwise what you have is just a directory entry without any notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a content requirement. That said, and in comment to a few points above, the current historical schedules could be expanded to include information that talks about the general trends in television for that year (in that country). For example, the 2008 writer's strike has significant impact, and while it had its own article, the impact on scheduling can be summarized on the schedule page. There's bound to be both critical preview comments about which networks were doing well and poorly, and post-season summaries. Add in the inclusion of limited Neilsen data to show the top shows for that year (and any analysis of those). In other words, these can all be changed from purely a schedule to something like "2007 in United States Television" or something like that. Some of these already have information that leads to this, and I'm pretty sure the books mentioned above, simply based on what I can garner from reviews and the like, can support this. It would help improve these. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I think you may have misunderstood the General notability guideline in terms of content. For a topic to be included in Wikipedia as a standalone article, it must be the subject of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, so in a way notability is a content requirement. It is therefore correct to say that notability does not give guidance on the content of articles, but only in so far as the topic in question has been the subject of significant coverage. In the context of US television schedules, significant coverage would take the form of some sort of commentary about the schedules themselves, rather than the programs listed in them or networks who broadcast them.
This is all very abstract, but if your are right, and these schedules are more that just barebone schedules, then we would expect to see some sort of basic information above and beyond the schedules themselves: who drew them up, how they were developed, what the objectives of the schedules were, and whether they were successful or not in achieving these. This basic information is absent, which is a symptom of a disinct lack of significant coverage. Instead, we are left with barebone schedules, and bits and pieces of trivial coverage that is vaguely related to the schedules themselves. I agree that they need to be expanded, but I suspect it might be easier to merge them together under one article topic which is the the subject of significant coverage of this sort. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Unless some critical commentary is found on a given schedule itself (whether past or present), as opposed to mere tabular duplication, said schedule is not notable and thus does not merit an article; for the majority of the schedules, I suspect this is not the case. Articles about overall trends, history, strategy, etc. in television scheduling however, are more solidly notable judging by the existence of the aforementioned specialist publications on the topic. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go IAR in this case, closing the AfD as No consensus and redirecting the audience to this page. And leave Ironholds a note on his talkpage. --Tone 21:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can believe it, considering that Iron hasn't edited this section or shown any positive indication that he has read the discussion here. Protonk (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus so far

People's views range from "Allow all articles on TV schedules" to "allow none". Also people are getting snippy... Maybe we should chill as articles on TV schedules will not bring down the world (or Wikipedia) - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have argued for the overturning of a key tenet of WP:NOT. In order to achieve that goal, they must gain a clear consensus. In fact, the opposite has happened; the majority has argued for the retention of this policy, and even its extension to the highest level of guide. I've toted up the comments so far. If I made a mistake, please move yourself into the proper spot.

After Stevage changed some of the category names, I've changed them a bit more, to indicate the positions, and to point out that the middle position is the one currently taken by WP:NOT, and the one we'd need to achieve consensus to overturn. This is because WP:NOT currently reads: "mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable". I believe the reason the US Network TV schedules are mentioned is that is a series of articles that is acceptable (in category where some may be, and some may not be), and so the current position of NOT is that at least some lists are acceptable. — PyTom (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reconfigured again. Next I will collect opinions from the AfDs, where people not heard from here have expressed opinions on TV schedules generally. Abductive (reasoning) 05:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow articles on TV schedules
    • Ikip
    • Dream Focus
    • Peregrine Fisher
    • A Nobody
    • Neutralhomer
    • Power.corrupts
    • Ret.Prof
    • WWGB
    • Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)
  • Allow certain guides (a variety of opinions)
    • Firsfron
    • ViperSnake151
    • Squidfryerchef
    • Powergate92
    • Themfromspace
    • DGG
    • Pytom
    • Protonk
    • Cybercobra
    • TheGrappler
    • Stevage
    • Edison
    • Hobit
    • Masem
    • Casliber
    • Power.corrupts
    • Hiding
    • Hammersoft
    • mhking
    • Rivertorch (?)
    • Zagalejo
    • Noroton
    • Mandsford
    • Uncle G
    • Nmajdan
    • VasilievVV (?)
    • Gnangarra
    • PhillieLWillie (?)
    • The-Pope
    • Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
    • JPG-GR (?)
    • Anime Addict AA
    • John Z
    • 67.187.92.105
    • Attmay
    • MichaelQSchmidt
  • No TV schedule articles
    • Rossami
    • Collectonian
    • Abductive
    • gadfium
    • Gavin.collins
    • Cabe6403
    • YellowMonkey
    • Amalthea
    • Tryptofish
    • Madcoverboy
    • Juliancolton
    • Garion96
    • Stifle
    • Jclemens
    • Irbisgreif
    • Ohconfucius
    • Staxringold
    • SmokeyJoe
    • JJL
    • OlEnglish
    • Eusebeus
    • Dahn
    • DreamGuy
    • Tone
    • Wikipedical
    • Dalejenkins
    • Ironholds
    • Lithorien
    • Bidgee
    • Joe Chill
    • Kevin
    • Mangoe
    • Dcheagle
    • Drawn Some
    • Smile a While
    • Jeni
    • Niteshift36
    • Magioladitis

7:26:25, 9:36:38. Abductive (reasoning) 05:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abductive, what were the criteria you used to assign positions to people? I'm in support of removing per-station program guides, while keeping network-level guides. I _think_ that's the same position as, for example, DGG... but you listed us with two different positions. I'll also point out that the policy currently explicitly calls out network-level program guides, saying that "Historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules)", so a departure from this position would be overturning NOT. — PyTom (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like the US-centric part (bias) of the policy, which said "may be acceptable" has been deemed unacceptable by 20+ editors. Abductive (reasoning) 22:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the current policy is particularly US-centric, just because it uses a US-related article as an example. A sourced article giving network schedules for national networks (or stations with national distribution) in other countries would be fine, too. — PyTom (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can move me closer to 'uphold'. I think that editors should be free to include programs guides insofar as they are contextualized by a reliable source (in the sense that Gavin argues). The core of NOTDIR is valid and shouldn't be changed. Which means that as it applies, we should follow it. Program guides which are functionally and largely just tables of times and shows don't need to be here. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't there be two lists, for the two questions? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoughts on striking out the parenthetical special exception (which is rather nationalistic)?: "(such as the annual United States network television schedules)" --Cybercobra (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is complete not my feelings. I support what NOT currently reads for this: current per-station guides bad, historic guides good. --MASEM (t) 04:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure who should be where, but seeing Masem in with us usual suspects is amusing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, if Firsfron has books on material which can be sourced, then I am all for keeping that material. Whole books on subjects should be enough for verifiability and sourcing. So keep the historic and national guides at least. i need to think about finer details. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep historic, nationwide (or almost nationwide) TV schedules They can be sourced, they are clearly "encyclopedic" as I show in the subsection below, and they can be assumed to meet WP:N based on the sourcing we've seen on this page and on some of the "References" sections of these articles. In-depth coverage for what is essentially a WP:LIST exists in TV Guide and other publications that have articles on network TV schedules (such as The New York Times). There is no reason to change WP:NOT to ban these kinds of articles. -- Noroton (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late to the party, but I think I agree with Firsfron's view that articles which meet WP:V and WP:NPOV are always acceptable, unless we have renounced such policies? So yes, keep the historic and national guides. The finer gradations are probably something better resolved case by case for the time being. Articles without sourcing are better served by adding sources to, that sort of thing. I agree with Noroton that there is no reason to change WP:NOT to ban these kinds of articles. And I don;t see any sort of consensus to do so on this page, either. Hiding T 19:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold and even strengthen current policy Really, there is absolutely no reason why not to, other than an attempt to flip wikipedia on its head. These things really have no encyclopedic relevancy, and no amount of lawyering will change that. Dahn (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edison. The assessment of no "Encyclopedic value" is entirely subjective and narrow minded. To me it has no specific value either, but I would never claim it wont have any value to anybody. In fact, I could opt for deletion of very large swaths of Wikipedia, if the criteria was what I narrowly felt had "Encyclopedic value". Wikipedia is a project that benefits from the largest common denominator, not the least common denominator. Key values are laid down in WP:5 above all NOR, V and NPOV. This is an attempt by elitists to define what is not important to the general reader, to protect this poor person from moral corruption of course. History has shown over and again, that the end results of this are invariably poor. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep! See below The Real Issue - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical concerns

I've altered the columns presented above. There were many mistakes in the original compilation, all erring for deletion. For example, user:Hammersoft argued that the historic schedules should be kept, but was placed in the 'remove all' column. This was done to several other editors' opinions as well. There were no errors the opposite way: no editor who argued for deletion was placed in either of the 'keep' columns. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Firsfron. There is an obvious bias in the way this issue is being handled! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The reason why the "unencyclopedic" argument just doesn't fly

WP:PILLAR, first pillar, first sentence (boldface mine): Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Content should be verified with citations to reliable sources.

Clearly, if Wikipedia incorporates an element of a specialized encyclopedia, that incorporation can't be called "unencyclopedic". Well, these historic schedules can't be called "unencyclopedic" for just that reason.

The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network TV Shows; 1946–Present is a one-volume, specialized encyclopedia with more than 3,000 articles in alphabetical order on individual evening, national-network TV programs, and, in the back, a section titled "Prime Time Schedules: 1946-1980" (my copy, the second revised edition, is from 1981). If this specialized encyclopedia can include dozens of pages of block schedules (pages 852-886) just like our own, then we can't really be "unencyclopedic" by following their lead.

Is this really a specialized encyclopedia? It says it is (from the Introduction, page x): "This is an encyclopedia [...]" It is called an "encyclopedia" or "encyclopedic" by others (from the blurb at the top of the front cover): "'This is the Guinness Book of World Records ... The Encyclopedia [sic] Britannica of Television!' -- TV Guide"; (from the back cover): "'Hilarious and Encyclopedic!' -- Newsday"

Is this book reliable? Well, it won the American Book Award and the San Francisco State University Broadcast Preceptor Award, for what it's worth (page vii, "Preface to the Second Edition"). According to this Google Books search, the book seems to be cited by hundreds of other books: [6] The book has aspirations, at least, to scholarly reliability (from the "Introduction", page x): "This volume has been carefully researched for the scholar who wants to know what happened and when. But it is also — like TV itself — for your enjoyment." The book went into multiple editions.

This information should refute a number of statements above, especially that these kinds of pages are somehow "unencyclopedic." -- Noroton (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually try to avoid saying the word in debates, but there are times when something clearly is unencyclopedic, such as writing articles in the first person with original research. Most everybody here would agree on that and I believe that calling it unencyclopedic would be backed by consensus. Any debate that is contentious shouldn't revolve around this term, as obviously some editors would feel that the element in question is encyclopedic. Just calling something unencyclopedic in this manner would probably lead to a shouting war with no analysis of why people believe it to be encyclopedic or not. As for the question of whether this is a specialised encyclopedia or not, I note that the word "elements" that you quoted above is vague, probably intentionally so. In the end it is us who determine what elements are fit for discussion. ThemFromSpace 19:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to take some of the subjective judgment out of "unencyclopedic"/"encyclopedic" from the argument by pointing to the objective fact that something recognized as a specialized encyclopedia does just the thing that our historic schedule pages do, but I agree that it might be better if we stopped using these terms altogether. Of course, we can't blindly follow what just any publication does (even if it's a reliable specialized encyclopedia). -- Noroton (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with themfromspace. The issue isn't "encyclopedic" or "unencylopedic" (two words destined to be volleyed back and forth in bouts of pointless gainsaying). The issue is, WP:NOT says we aren't merely a directory of stuff. We aren't the phone book. We aren't a cast listing. We aren't an ingredients listing despite the fact that all those things come in dead tree editions. So, insofar as reliable sources can be used to contextualize information (meaning, can we say "this show in this slot is significant because" or "this show in this slot meant XYZ for this network"?), the information belongs here. If we can't contextualize it then id doesn't matter how many sources are out there. If all those sources allow us to do is make a table of times, shows and networks, we run afoul of WP:NOT. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't "encyclopedic" or "unencylopedic", well, maybe it shouldn't be the issue, but to several editors in the discussion it is an issue and it's clearly influencing editors. My point is mainly that specialized encyclopedias, so long as they're considered reliable, are a type of reference book that we officially try to emulate, per WP:PILLARS, and this gives us some guidance when "encyclopedic" and "unencyclopedic" come up. We still have judgment calls to make, but identifying specialized encyclopedias and what they cover should help us in making those calls. Too often, I strongly suspect, editors think "encyclopedic" means "in a general encyclopedia". As to your point about contextualizing, I think this part of WP:DIR applies: there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic [...] Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.. I think these historic lists fit these descriptions to a 'T'". -- Noroton (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I should say that broad appeals to the pillars are totally unconvincing to me. I could just as easily argue that per PILLAR we should delete these and make way for something else. The five pillars aren't specific enough to offer any good guidance. IMO when encyclopedic/unencyclopedic come up just replace the words with "butter side up" and "butter side down". You'll get about the same content. As for the specific section in DIR you mention, are you going to tell me that those television programs are famous for having been in those time slots in the same sense that elements of this list are famous for being elements? That part of DIR admits that significant consensus exists to make list articles (even when those lists are in tabular form). I don't think it supports the claim that tables of schedules can be made where contextualization is absent. Protonk (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My reply to DGG below (same timestamp as this one) also replies to some of your points. WP:PILLAR is a very general, but extremely authoritative policy. It should play a role in how you think about this, and maybe a role in convincing you. I don't think you can just as easily argue that per PILLAR we should delete these because the whole point of the parts I quoted was to be careful about deleting things like lists. Since we have to apply common sense and other, more specific policies like WP:DIR, WP:PILLAR doesn't work alone and isn't always obvious, but it's a useful part of the mix, and to delete something like the historic TV schedules, we should be prepared to explain how they're very different from what we could expect to see in a specialized encyclopedia (just as we should be prepared to say how a particular list advances our knowledge in some area), or how our standards applied here might apply to almanac-type or gazetteer-type content. -- Noroton (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try an analogy. the "core values" of the United States Navy are Honor, Courage and Commitment. I can agree that those core values are broad, authoritative and all encompassing with regard to behavior but still be in a bind as to how I should follow them. If I am given an order that I disagree with, do I follow it, obeying commitment or do I declare it to be unlawful and disobey it (presumably invoking courage)? If all I am given to work with are those three broad mission statements (As it were), how do I act when they may come into conflict? Wouldn't I be better off following some more precise instruction from military law or custom regarding unlawful orders?
And frankly your invocation of the pillars depends desperately on the word "encyclopedia". Do we include anything on wikipedia that is included in something called an encyclopedia? Or do we include things that make wikipedia look like an encyclopedia? Answers to those questions may differ based on prior assumptions and so I could approach the first pillar from a completely different perspective than you might. indeterminacy dominates the debate and so we end up arguing about the wrong thing, rather than using rules as a tool for guidance toward an objective. Protonk (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was wrong to call WP:PILLARS policy: It's just a longstanding description of policy -- useful for judging the spirit of policies, but not authoritative in the same way a policy would be. You're approach is too granular here (and I think mine was in the first post in this section). I guess my modified position is that WP:PILLAR is and should be an important influence on how we look at what is "encyclopedic" for Wikipedia (especially if we're going to invoke the word "unencyclopedic"). To say that in individual cases we could take WP:PILLARS and come to different conclusions is true but doesn't address the real point: We're more likely to come to similar conclusions after taking WP:PILLAR into account. WP:PILLAR necessarily provides some kind of a check on the WP:DIRECTORY section. Wouldn't I be better off following some more precise instruction from military law or custom regarding unlawful orders? Your approach is to say WP:PILLARS is useless if it doesn't give you a precise answer. But there is no precise answer until consensus comes up with one, which is what this discussion is all about. For that role, WP:PILLAR is very useful in pointing out the spirit behind the policies. This ain't the Navy.
Or do we include things that make wikipedia look like an encyclopedia? According to WP:PILLAR we also use things that make Wikipedia look a bit like an almanac, a specialized encyclopedia, a gazetteer and a general encyclopedia. It's evidently a broad subject area, and meant to be, and WP:PILLAR describes pretty well what we've been, by consensus. -- Noroton (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"We're more likely to come to similar conclusions after taking WP:PILLAR into account." But that's just my point, we aren't. Clearly you have articulated a convincing case as to why the pillars should point us in a direction. I'm not accusing you of invoking them in lieu of argument. But the weight behind the persuasion comes from the argument and not the pillar. The pillar says that (linking WP:NOT) wikipedia is an encyclopedia that includes materials from various sources, including other encycloepdias, almanacs, gazettes and so forth. If I make an argument which stresses the first half of that sentence, I can use the first pillar to support a claim that this sort of material isn't meant for an encyclopedia. If I make an argument which stresses the second half of the sentence, I can use the first pillar to claim that almost by definition this material is fit for an encyclopedia. Neither case is derived from first principles and in both cases the meat of the statement is interpretation of the sentence. But the existence of the pillar itself is not an argument one way or the other.
My analogy about the navy was to argue that the pillars are so broad that reasonable people operating in good faith can come to completely divergent conclusions on the same subject if the subject is narrow enough. I wouldn't admonish a subordinate to consider the core values (Aside from the fact that I thought they were lame corporatist nonsense) when weighing the merits of a decision like that because it wouldn't offer a good decision rule. I would tell him (well, I would usually tell him to shut up and follow orders) to read about what did and didn't constitute a lawful order and what role feedback played in the senior-subordinate relationship. Your point that the pillars represent the spirit behind policies is well taken, but what form the spirit takes is inchoate at best. Discussion about the spirit of the rules is better carried out at the level of the rule, rather than (as I say below) invoking some higher tier rule.
Another point which I will raise now (but didn't before because I didn't want you to think I was accusing you of it) is that PILLAR gets used as a weapon sometimes (just like NOT and N and NFCC). They are the 'big guns' in a debate. If I want to argue that something is of great importance to the project or that core principles support an argument, I bring in the pillar because it kind of silences 'lesser' rules and guidelines. At a deletion discussion? Invoke the first pillar and say that the content belongs in an encyclopedia and so it should stay. It will look like rank pettifoggery to reply by citing chapter and verse of some guideline or wikiproject suggestion. I certainly don't want to say that (pardon the expression) the first pillar is bullshit, because I'll never live that down. So I'm left making defensive arguments about interpretation and applicability. Ya know? I mean, if the first pillar supports the inclusion of all this stuff, then what's all the fighting about? Sort of shuts out debate. Protonk (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a lot of great points here and your (and comments from some others) have already caused me to modify my initial position. I see what you mean by invoking some link in a deletion discussion in a way that avoids and tends to silence discussion and thinking rather than help them along. But the first WP:PILLAR isn't as elastic as you say, even though it's more flexible and general than I initially described it. It states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it doesn't say WP is only a general encyclopedia. You can't remove "specialized encyclopedias" from our scope no matter how you read that first pillar. It is unambiguous that we are meant to be an encyclopedia and to some extent mirror what specialized encyclopedias do (or at least act like a specialized encyclopedia). Whatever limits are placed on that must come from elsewhere.
You bring up a reading of incorporating elements that I hadn't thought of before by interpreting "elements" as simply material. Of course, we incorporate material (information) from all sorts of reference works and many other sources without becoming them, even in part. But "elements" doesn't just mean "material" or "information". It means our fundamental nature is something that is not simply an encyclopedia, traditionally understood. We have elements in this encyclopedia -- that is, mainspace subjects, purposes and goals, and ways of presenting information -- that are meant to go beyond what the word "encyclopedia" has normally meant. I think that's why the sentence is there. It isn't worth having the sentence there to simply state that we get material from other types of reference works (and if it was, why focus only on a few types of reference works anyway? Actually, go back to the original, May 4, 2005 version, which says in a separate sentence that we're not a newspaper or some other things, and I think it becomes clearer that "general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" is something we at least partly amalgamate into ourselves, not something we're supposed to be distinguishing ourselves from). It's interesting to see how Encyclopedia#Characteristics describes how encyclopedias overlap with other reference works and that technology has changed encyclopedias.
It's been a long time since I participated in a lot of AfD discussions, and I wasn't aware that WP:PILLAR was used more than rarely in them. You're right, it shouldn't be used to shut the door on some arguments, but it's a good door stopper to keep open some arguments, especially some that counter the "unencyclopedic" assertion. -- Noroton (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
" encyclopedia" is a word that has multiple meanings, and it can be used for lists, including lists that include everything indiscriminately. There are works called encyclopedias, for example, listing every major available at each US college, but we would not consider this suitable for individual articles on each. There is a very important reference tool available in any large library called Encyclopedia of associations. It includes every organization it can find at a national level. That's OK; But there is also the same publisher's Encyclopedia of associations. Regional, state, and local organizations. There is a limit to how specialized would count. Any rule in Wikipedia can be used to give irrational results if used without common sense. Given the diversity of people here, the best guide to common sense is compromise solutions: National network schedules, for example, not those of individual stations. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, common sense is the way we're supposed to interpret and apply all of this, but WP:PILLAR (which is referred to and linked to in the third paragraph of WP:NOT) is helpful in reminding us not to be too narrow. The name of a reference work doesn't necessarily nail down what it is, so we need to assess that in each case. I think the Encyclopedia of Associations is really a directory -- used and meant to be used (and best used) to look up discrete bits of information more than to get a well-rounded picture of an association the way an encyclopedia would give it; conversely, The Complete Directory to Primetime Network TV Shows is really an encyclopedia (best used as an encyclopedia), not a directory. We can't have indiscriminate lists under "What Wikipedia is Not", whether or not you might find them in a specialized encyclopedia, although I think the "gazetteer" and "almanac" parts of WP:PILLAR seem to suggest there should be limits to how far "indiscriminate" might be applied. These schedule pages seem to work something like 2009 in music works, and the best defense of them is that they're a WP:LIST, defensible as navigation aides as well as giving readers a useful idea of what class or category of things they belong to, and that provides the "context" that WP:DIR seems to want. But that "context", as I say, should be interpreted broadly, as a gazetteer or almanac would, and with the tolerance a specialized encyclopedia would, but yes -- ultimately it's still a judgment call figured out in a common-sense way. -- Noroton (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG and ThemFromSpace both have very good points, but I'd like to add one other thought: "encyclopedic" or "not encyclopedic" should be used only for gross discrimination, rather than fine discrimination. There's a large gray area of topics that are appropriate for specific encyclopediae, but perhaps not for general ones, as Noroton nicely points out. Thus, the question isn't one of encyclopedic vs. not encyclopedic, but rather one of "is this characteristic of the encyclopedia that Wikipedia is supposed to become?" A question that has less black-and-white delineation, and upon which a consensus may need substantially more discussion. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand people's feelings on both sides of the argument. Let me give more counterexamples: recipes are not appropriate for Wikipedia, even though there are plenty of meta/secondary sources that talk about the recipes. Lists of calories in various foods are not found on Wikipedia, even though the foods are. Lists of every single street in a city may be linked to, but not allowed. A lists of the lengths of all movies would not be allowed, even though the length of the movie can be put in the movie's article. Over at Wikiproject Baseball, they decided to delete stats tables from a bunch of players' articles, even though one could make a case that such stats tables belong in a sports gazetteer. Abductive (reasoning) 20:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And guess what? These schedules are not detailing the same minutea, but instead a bulk overview of television schedules through the history of the industry. It is completely possible, with a lot of legwork, to identify at the level of every half hour since the start of TV broadcasting what was being aired on every major station with verification. Of course we don't include that; that's similar to a gazetteer. A broad swath of that that avoids the level of indiscrimination is what the current historical schedules offer. They could be more complex; they also could be simpler, but (I presume) the television project editors have identified this level of detail to be broad enough to still provide necessary information for understanding the industry. See, there's a point here that we have to assume good faith that those that have created and standardized the approach of the list have considered how best to avoid indiscriminate information but still provide details they feel are necessary as "experts" within the field (experts in the sense they can talk about the field, but not that they would be reliable sources). That should be the case for every project to know when they cross the line - and if there is concern they have, then there needs to be discussion for it. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I feel the player stats - for an encyclopedia - are trivial. But I recognize that those in the various athlete projects place value on those. It seems perfect fair to extend the same assumption of importance to these historical guides, given, in both cases, no other content policies seem to be at issue. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own views fairly well mirror Noroton's: if Wikipedia is supposed to incorporate elements of both general and specialized encyclopedias, then that incorporation can't be called "unencyclopedic". Because multiple well-respected television encyclopedias (one in its 9th edition and one in its fourth) include such information, there's no reason Wikipedia can't, except that less-informed editors can't be bothered to actually crack a book on the subject. At the beginning of this topic, one editor actually claimed that I couldn't know what the books I was citing contained(!), that I was just guessing. Heh. These sorts of non sequiturs are what drag Wikipedia down from serious scholarship, the opposite of the intent of the deletionists, I believe. Please, folks: go to your local library. Many libraries have excellent interlibrary loan services where you can check out books on television history which include this information (examples given above), or libraries with access to on-line databases like JSTOR or the Journal of Popular Culture where such things as network television history are studied. My fear is that the people deciding that something isn't "encyclopedic" are the people who would never pick up an encyclopedia on the subject in the first place, ala WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Indeed, several of the editors here made claims quite similar to those found in IDONTLIKEIT: "cruft", "unencyclopedic", etc. The above claim that national television network schedules are akin to "lists of the lengths of all movies", etc, rings hollow: what printed encyclopedia, specialized or general, has published a list of the lengths of all movies? The analogy doesn't work well. Finally, most troubling of all to me, is the fake tally of users' opinions that user:Abductive gave above, which has numerous discrepancies from what was actually written by the editors. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there are some errors in my "fake" tally, it is clear that your position is not supported. Abductive (reasoning) 21:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know my position? You didn't get it right when you tallied my opinion in the fake tally. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is clear that you are for the schedules. I put you in that column. Abductive (reasoning) 22:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you put me in the Overturn WP:NOT an electronic program guide column. I do not support that position; I have already stated that only some of the schedules should stay: those concerning the national network television schedules, because only those are sourced and verifiable. In fact, many others were placed in the wrong column. Actually, there should be no tallying at all, but if it's done, it should at least be accurate. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, those of us opposing the inclusion of all these schedules have the maturity to treat your arguments with respect. I think that we are due something more than slurs about deletionists and ILIKEIT. Protonk (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it is so very mature and respectful to repeatedly link to WP:IKNOWIT. Of course your views are supported by people who honor and respect those who have differing points. It's the other side who use "slurs". Firsfron of Ronchester 22:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to treat me like I have something valid to say or aren't you? Protonk (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've said several quite valid things, some of which I agree with. Your point above, about maturity and respect being shown for my arguments, while I haven't shown your side maturity and respect, are not valid: I linked to IDONTLIKEIT just once, and you were quite upset: it was somehow a "slur". Imagine how upset you'd be if I had linked to it not once but seven times, as Gavin has linked to WP:IKNOWIT concerning my arguments. Please make your points without the "my side is mature, yours isn't" junk. It's just that. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying your side isn't mature (edit: I not saying that your side isn't mature by the virtue of it being your side), and I should have made an exception about gavin--I don't really agree w/ his style or behavior. I was saying that my eyes start to gloss over when I see the word deletionist or accusations about editor xyz being less well informed. I'm sorry I should have been more clear. Protonk (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if people's feelings were totally irrational, the consensus is not for the inclusion of all schedules. You can't successfully argue that people are wrong about their own feelings, and that therefore the minority position must be the consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 22:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strength of argument sometimes counts, though. Here's an encyc that contains this info vs. I don't think WP should contain it, for instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One could make similar arguments to include historical weather reports, since they are probably compiled somewhere by a reliable source. Abductive (reasoning) 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't include historical daily weather reports but we do include historical average temperatures and other details (rainfall, etc.) for many major cities. Again, it's understanding at what level of detail information is sufficiently broad to avoid indiscriminate information but still of use to the reader. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and there is no reason the article on the show can't mention the airtime. Abductive (reasoning) 15:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most shows do have this, true. So all these tables are doing is providing the same information in a different format and thus not adding anything new to the encyclopedia that would already be there. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which airtime(s) do they typically report? Abductive (reasoning) 21:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the US schedules and shows include the appropriate time zone infomation. I'm not sure if other schedules would have the same problem elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't the full schedules be in Wikisource? Abductive (reasoning) 21:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikisource does not host "vanity press" books or documents produced by its contributors.". These are non-original research but newly prepared information and thus not appropriate there. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Peregrine Fisher's view that strength of argument can be used as a basis for a topic's inclusion as a standalone article, instead of verifiable evidence of notability. Any editor can come up with a strong argument for including virtually any topic under the sun in Wikipedia, including topics which are already covered in one or more existing articles (in which case a content fork would be created). Some of these arguments may be entirely sensible, but they depend on subjective inclusion criteria which are impossible to verify. To avoid a perpetual clash of editorial opinion over what measure of subjective importance should be used for each topic, Wikipeida uses a set of inclusion criteria which is based on verifable evidence in the form of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is therefore an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers, but those topics have to be notable if they are to be included as standalone articles. If a topic fails the General notability guideline, then it is likely to fail Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and vice-versa.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The strength of the argument is that TV encycs include the info. They are a RS, so they meet V, GNG, whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is a common misunderstanding that just because a schedule contains information (even if that information is "vital", "useful", "historic", etc), that does not mean it is notable; in fact, the argument that they include info is just another way of saying it has subjective importance. Barebone schedules don't actually meet the requirements of WP:V, as they are reproductions of the primary source, and are not the subject of coverage from reliable, third-party sources. A mirror of the primary source cannot be classed as third party. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What defines 1st...3rd in this case. Do we have a normal page or a guideline, or is this your opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're defined at WP:PSTS, the important part for secondary sources being that they "make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims", which mere reprints don't. And since tertiary sources summarize secondary sources, they must mention (secondary) critiques. I thus agree with Gavin that barebones schedules are inappropriate.--Cybercobra (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove current TV schedules, keep historical schedules, with no change to WP:NOT. The first one, to me, falls under WP:WEBHOST and WP:DIRECTORY. The other, which is mentioned in an oft-quoted bit of dictum from WP:NOT, is a common feature in reference books about television. Some people suggest that a television schedule from, say, 1959, is silly and not encyclopedic; I suspect that many of these people think that it's silly to have a "television encyclopedia" in the first place, although different authors have compiled these. Mandsford (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presence of the qualifiers "historically significant" must by definition mean there are instances of the US network schedules which are not historically significant. Arguably, the US is a special case, since the structure of the year is rigid, with each headline programme running for a "season" (20-26) or "half-season" (12-13), with the episodes spread around a bit to allow for the occasional interruption. A schedule for the UK would not be quite so significant, since there isn't the annual nature to it - during the 39-week "season", there may have been half a dozen different programmes in a given time slot. Add it all up, and you might occasionally struggle to find two weeks where the five terrestrial services maintained the same line-up from week to week, with one series ending and another beginning. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's definitely a line on what is "historically significant". I think most people that want to keep parts of these lists will agree that the American prime time schedules are much more historically significant than the American daytime schedules. I noticed two Aussie daytime schedules up for deletion (one here) and I would think it reasonable to delete both - daytime schedules are just not as significant as prime time. Now, as to when a country's prime time schedule becomes historically significant or not, that's a different issue and not as easy to determine.--MASEM (t) 15:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't read every single post on this matter, but I support the keeping of articles such as 2009–2010 United States network television schedule. Why? Because I know that, I, for one, use these articles frequently. If I do, I know other's do. But that's the inclusionist in me speaking.↔NMajdan•talk 19:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
generally, not always. useful in understanding the article is something we do condider for content; useful in understanding related articles is relevant also. We edit so as to be useful to the readers--that's the whole purpose of the project--it's not an academic exercise to see if such an encyclopedia is possible. useful applies to in navigation also. I think of these articles essentially as navigational summaries, as a form of infoboxes, remembering that each network program will normally be notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate Noroton's argument, because I have at times been frustrated at deletion nominations, even speedy deletion nominations, on subjects deemed so notable by the encyclopedia publisher that they devoted a separate article to it. (The AFD on Ellen Hambro stands out as my classical example of very poorly thought out nomination.) However, I would generally limit the "obviously encyclopedic because it's in an encyclopedia" argument to general purpose encyclopedias in the genre of Britannica and the like. Wikipedia should cover everything which are in general encyclopedias, but it only covers elements of the specialist enclopedias. I generally support a lenient standard, for instance I deem all aircraft in the specialist Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation as notable. However, many "specialist encyclopedias" are encyclopedias in name only. Their content may differ substantially from what is appropriate for Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles should be about the subject, not be the subject. Lists and listings should serve to supplement a prose article, and not be created just for their own sake. Regarding the TV schedules, I voted "delete" on two of the recent Australian TV AFDs, and I support the removal of raw TV schedules. The problem is that they are not encyclopedia articles about the TV schedules, the raw programming list is the TV schedule. If the programming has been the subject of debate, and the article had prose coverage about the scheduling, then I would probably support keeping that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely said. Ditto. --Tone 14:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is deleting them before that info can be added. They aren't a hot topic for editing, and for most the sources are old and difficult to find. But, I'm pretty sure that the coverage of the US TV industry for an entire year can provide enough sources for these articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue!

Template:Jimboquote

I agree with Mr. Wales, therefore I am in favour of Keep - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what? --Tone 15:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Network block schedules. See Edison above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a bit of an extrapolation. And I thought lawyers and accountants were bad when it comes to stretching the truth, but it seems they are not the only ones to capable of a little imaginative interpretation :p --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The national network schedules provide clear evidence of notability since many are clearly sourced to reliable third-party publications. Gavin, please go to your local library and check out some of the books listed as references on these pages. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC) PS Please - No personal attacks on lawyers and accountants![reply]
Attacks on broad categories like professions are by definition not personal. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawyer jokes was deleted, but we have a good section at Lawyer#Cultural perception of lawyers. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read Gavin's comment you will see it was not really L&A he was attacking . . . but Hey, I have been called worse by better people. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did read gavin's comment. Which made your statement "PS Please - No personal attacks on lawyers and accountants!" all the more curious. Protonk (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK " Please - No personal attacks on lawyers and accountants!(or me)" - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would be more appropriate to move this section up, there are 3 different topics discussed here at the moment and you don't want to make it disorganized ;-) --Tone 17:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why television schedules are a "directory", they seem useful to people, and they can definitely be sourced, so AFAICT they're encyclopedic Shii (tock) 16:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy is also over whether notability requirements should/do apply to them and if so, are they (in general) indeed notable (although there obviously will always be exceptions). --Cybercobra (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not exact. It shouldn't be looked at as: what does WP:N require us to do? The controversy is whether notability requirements should apply to them. We can decide whether they do or they don't. We made the Notability policy, we can modify it, and we do almost continually reinterpret it. We are free to decide whatwvwe we want to do--if we can agree. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that WP:N "commands" us to do anything or is written in stone. I've inserted a "should" for clarity. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think DGG is mistaken in his view that we can simply disregard the notability guideline, because it sits within the existing framework of Wikipedia content policies. Article topics that fail WP:N usuall fail WP:NOT, which defines the outer boundry of what is encyclopedic by defining which topics are not allowable as standalone articles, but it cannot be used to presecribe what can be included nor to provide exemptions from the general notability guideline. WP:NOT cannot be used as a platform for the creation of exemptions, otherwise it will become a set article inclusion criteria based on subjective importance by the back door. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should be heartened that DGG said WP:N is a policy, even if it was accidental. Abductive (reasoning) 09:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove special treatment for US schedules

The current wording of WP:NOT#DIR reads like special pleading for the US schedules:

Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable.

I am not sure what is meant by "acceptable" other than a veiled suggestion that they can be included on the basis of WP:IKNOWIT. Either a particular article topic about television schedules is or is not notable, but inclusion on the basis of acceptability is questionable. In any case, I don't understand why the US schedules should be given special treatment. Surely it is time to eliminate this exemption on the grounds that subjective importance is not a valid criteria for including a topic as a standalone article? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nope. The US network television schedules, among others, can be included on the basis of historical significance. We know that they are historically significant because we can show that multiple specialized encyclopedias have been written about them. There's nothing subjective here, and no special pleading here, just an example of what "historically significant programme ... schedules" might be. — PyTom (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does seem to smack of geographical bias, but I don't readily have access to the encyclopedias in question to see whether they are mere reproductions or include commentary. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that calling out the United States is a wholly inappropriate provincialism for a key policy. Also, historical significance really relates more to the Notability guideline for subject matter rather than to this policy on the nature of encyclopedic information. I think that the final clause, beginning at "although", is out of place here because historical articles and lists do not run afoul of the spirit of this subsection.
      (To the extent that there is a problem with these examples of relatively undigested information, being more almanacian than encyclopedic, it seems to me that it lies in the unresolved subjective area of reconciling comprehensive lists with writing in an encyclopedic summary style.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but I totally disagree, and I don't even have a TV set, have never been in the US and I am sure there are quite a few people who think I am a deletionist. In a previous post that is probably being lost in the large amount of discussion here, Firsfron gave a list of books about US television schedules. Publishers include Penguin, Scarecrow, Ballantine. Once McGraw-Hill has published a book with the subtitle Four Decades of Network Programming from Sign-On to Sign-Off I think we can simply stop worrying whether these schedules are notable or not. The only problem with mentioning this example, that I can see, is that people don't understand it because they are not aware of these books.
      A deeper problem seems to be that most editors think they are experts on the subject of television because they spend so much time consuming it. It's natural to think: "If I, as an expert, would never be interested in such detail, then nobody will be." But most editors are not experts. The real experts include programme planners and professional buyers of advertising slots. If their professional literature discusses the various big channels' overall schedule structure in detail – and this seems to be the case – then of course Wikipedia should treat this. If this means special treatment for US schedules, then that's because US schedules are special in this respect. But perhaps they are not. Perhaps British or French or German TV schedules have similar books written about them. Then they should be treated similarly. Hans Adler 16:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that despite the previous post, no evidence of notability in the form of significant coverage has been added to the barebone schedules, despite the fact that they have been reproduced in many books. Simply reproducing the schedules in a secondary source does support the presumption that they should have their own standalone article. In this instance, the barebone schedules are not unlike the table of contents you would find in any book; simply reproducing the table does not impart any notability. A topic that fails WP:N is likely to fail WP:NOT and vice versa, and in this case these barebone schedules fail WP:NOT#DIR; just because a topic has been reproduced, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalizing towards consensus

Let's work out the various disagreements here.

  • Clearly, per-station current schedules are out. That's already in the language, so we can drop that.
  • The question is on "historically significant" schedules. The main point against these is that, as bare schedules, they seem no different from a directory. This is a fair assessment. (In contract to the sporting statistics that I bring up, which are nearly always contained in some larger context).
  • It is, however, contended that these schedules, beyond their significance, violate no other policy: they meet V, NOR, NPOV. They discriminately pick only network stations and only certain blocks of time where the networks broadcast concurrent programming. So it is not that we're trying to find another reason to remove them, just that they don't appear to be significant to some.
  • Considering the case of American television for the moment:
    • It seems clear there are sources that describe these schedules in more than just a repetition form and provide secondary information about the schedules - at least rivalries between shows or strengths of various line-ups or the like. If anything, the existence of the Neilsen system and its impact on advertizing dollar on US television should be considered a sign that these schedules are fundamentally important as part of the discussion of that year/season's of television programming. (Yes, these sources need to be shown to have this, but judging by the limited information I've seen from google books and the like, we can take it on good faith).
    • Thus, it is possible that these schedules, while presently existing as barebone schedules, can be molded into individual articles that talk about each year of programming in the United States - it may be easier with the seasons since the internet and more difficult before Neilson came along, but it seems reasonably possible. As to whether there is so much info on these seasons that the schedule itself should be broken out as a separate article per WP:SS is yet to be seen, but working on good faith, lets assume that these schedules can be associated with the larger topic that describes the various analyses of that year of television.
    • Thus, for at least the American television lineups, these should state, but based on the premise that improvements can be made to include more secondary information about the season, which follow logically from the sources given. This information establishes the "historical significance" through WP:N that is being requested.
  • Now turn back to any other country. I would assume that the same logic that follows for American television is true for any nation that has several national broadcasters *and* a means of tracking viewership, at bare minimum. Canada, the UK, Australia, and many Far East countries likely have this; I doubt the same can be said for many S. American or African countries. Thus, when a country's television system is sufficiently sophisticated enough to have similar qualities as the US, then likely we can have the same yearly season coverage with these schedules included as part of that coverage - again, demonstrating historical significance. This is simply the same type of systematic bias that comes up for developed vs developing countries for a number of things: politicans, cities, schools, etc.

So, how can we change NOT to come to consensus? Instead of:

For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.

We can say:

For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or programme lists and schedules as part of the coverage of a historical significant period may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.

That is, if these schedules were embedded in appropriate articles, I get from reading the comments there would be no issues. But as bare schedules and with no Summary Style approach in existence, they are just bare and demonstrate little.

Presuming that is consensus on that, the way forward is to encourage the development of the historically significant articles on the various TV seasons and to work these into those. These needs to be a good faith effort as while nearly everything post 2000 can probably done in a short time, trying to justify TV schedules from the 1960s may take more work. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that a network television schedule needs prose to be encyclopedic, any more than a map, image, or table need prose, and also disagree that there's a consensus that they need prose to be encyclopedic. I also disagree with the premise that it would be more difficult to come up with prose for seasons before the 1960s, or before Nielsen was doing ratings for television. Nielsen has been doing television ratings since at least 1950, and commercial network television only began in 1946; Hooper did the ratings for the first years of television.[7]. McNeil's book ends with the 1996 network television schedule, Brooks and Marsh's with the 2007, Bergmann's with the 1954 DuMont schedule, Castleman and Podrazik's after the 1982 schedule (though there is an updated version which I don't own). Boddy's book ends after about 1964, and Hilmes skips most of the years after 1965. Heldenfels devotes basically an entire book to 1954.
It would be fairly easy, then, to come up with critical commentary for most early network TV schedules: certainly 1946-1947 (the first year of commercial network operations), 1948-1949 (first year of four network operations), 1953-1954 (revamping of ABC's network schedule, criticism of DuMont's low-budget schedule), 1954-1955 ("Television's Greatest Year"), 1955-1956 (end of DuMont, beginning of Big Three oligarchy, the rush to program game shows on all three remaining networks), 1959-1960 (28 Westerns aired in Prime Time), 1960-1961 ("vast wasteland" speech, directed at bad TV schedules), 1961-1962 (the three networks' schedule response to the "vast wasteland" speech), 1966-1967 (Overmyer's abbreviated network schedule), etc. The 1940s, '50s, and '60s schedules are well-covered by historians and critics. It might be easier for Wikipedia editors doing Google searches to come up with commentary for later-day schedules, but there's no reason Wikipedia editors can't open books. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sort of "compromise" that Masem is proposing is merely a repetition if the argument for the inclusion of article topics using subjective importance, rather than verifiable evidence of notability. The idea that some TV schedules inherit notability from advertising statistics is not sound. The schedules have to stand on their own feet in terms of notability, and that means they have to be the subject of significant commentary from reliable secondary sources. If Masem and Firsfron come up with these sources, then this whole thread becomes unnecessary, but arguments based on subjective importance are just so much hot air, no matter how passionately those views are held. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firsfron has already provided several sources that as best as I can tell do establish the existence of secondary sources for these schedules. That's why I said that there's a reasonable amount of good faith that these can be expanded to build better articles about the television season of interest which these schedules would be a part of - short term deletion would not be wise but improvement in the future would be needed. --MASEM (t) 11:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to change NOT (and there's clearly not a consensus to change NOTDIR radically) in order to agree to interpret NOT in a certain fashion. I don't think "as part of a historically significant period" is what we mean to say. The siege and airlift to west berlin was a historically significant period, but we don't need radio schedules from Germany during 1948. I could be convinced that NOT could be interpreted (or rewritten, if absolutely necessary) to indicate that schedules themselves which are subject to coverage that WP:N demands may be included. That has only the problem of mixing N and NOT, but seems to solve the major complaints about content and focus. In response to Firsfron above...I'm not convinced that third party coverage of television or television programming is the same as coverage of televisions schedules. I agree that sourcing exists for television schedules, but what gavin is saying has some merit. Broad coverage of TV schedules doesn't somehow grant us license to build a directory of articles which show where Leave it to Beaver preceded the evening news. Protonk (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might I put forward: "although mention of major events, promotions or programme lists and schedules along with coverage of critical commentary about them are usually acceptable." --Cybercobra (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may run us back around into the problem with the current per-channel schedules because at least nowadays, a station's schedule is often put through the ringer in terms of how strong it is before the season starts. Not that this info is bad - but this shouldn't be in the per-station article but in the per-season ones I'm suggesting can be written. --MASEM (t) 11:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But why? You have stated that secondary sources exist for these schedules, but these barebone schedules are completely lacking the significant coverage that is required to write an encyclopedic article or demonstrate notability. We can't provide exemptions for these barebone schedules on the basis that it is "not bad". I agree with Protonk that notability is not inherited from either the networks nor the programmes to which they are related; there has to be some significant coverage about the schedules themselves in the form of commentary, criticism, analysis or details of their development that will provide the reader with some form of context and a means of understanding their significance other than the personal opinion of Masem and Firsfrom. I think they may be in denial about this requirement. I think Cybercobra's proposal to change the wording rather than getting rid of it altogether as I have proposed is the best compromise, because any hint that subjective importance is acceptable for the inclusion of these schedules is nothing more than an attempt to construct an exemption from WP:N for them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely misreading what I am saying. I agree these can be expanded to include significant coverage. It's a matter of that being done, but Firsfrom has shown there exist sources that can be done. Thus, there's no reason to delete these sources at the present time on the presumption they can be improved. This supports Cybercobra's wording change but my caution is that this change also can lead to "current schedules" being sourced with significance information even though there's agreement that such schedules shouldn't exist. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another excellent dead-tree resource is the corpus of Erik Barnouw. There is indeed more "significant coverage" available for the history of network programming than almanacs and horse-race coverage. Are annual lineups good stubs for future prose articles, or are separate articles by year not the best way to cover history? Are complete schedule listings, with or without annotations, valuable supplements for prose articles, or are they indiscriminate detail? These are subjective questions best addressed as a matter of style.
What seems clear to me is that it is NOT appropriate to carve out such a very, very specific case in the fundamental WP:NOT policy statement. I think the "although" clause should be removed from item 4, which relates to current directories, and historical schedules should be evaluated in light of item 7, which relates to level of detail and appropriate weight.~ Ningauble (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I would be fine with current schedules if they meet the guideline; perhaps just be less lax about giving current schedule articles time to improve than their older counterparts which require more research. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the 1953-1954 schedule here. Although I strongly disagree that there was any "consensus" that prose must be added to these articles to add "notability", I don't believe anyone can state that adding prose would be harmful. I'll continue adding references and sources for the '53 schedule (I am not done yet, so please do not tear this schedule apart as "still not notable"). Please note that I do understand the difference between a network being notable and its schedule being notable. There are several books (listed above) which have a season-by-season breakdown of each network schedule, with critical commentary, meaning someone has noted them. Finally, I'd ask Gavin (yet again) to stop linking to the WP:IKNOWIT essay, as links have been provided to reliable sources since this conversation began. Should the repetitive linking to WP:IKNOWIT continue, I will open a request for comment. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I not uninvolved, but it's looking like we may take out the US TV schedule example, and also acknowledge that plenty of coverage exists, so NOT does not apply. As far as current schedules, I'm not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's kinda the trouble we get for mixing N and NOT. Plenty of words are notable, but we don't include them here because they are outside of our scope. Ideally NOT represents a delineation of scope for the encyclopedia and shouldn't be automatically amended when sourcing allows a topic to meet other inclusion guidelines. Reality is a lot more messy. NOT#NEWS is effectively a dead letter, insofar as sufficient news coverage will almost always allow us to write an article which is essentially an aggregation of news reports. But I don't think it helps to push discussions here toward an erosion of NOT's function (if that makes sense). Obviously some of this problem comes from the mutability and means-determined nature of N. We want articles subjects to be covered by reliable sources so they have the possibility to meet V, NOT, OR, and NPOV. So we get ourselves running in circles when we have a discussion on NOT about applying N. Protonk (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then it just comes down to our opinions on a directory, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N should not be invoked at all in WP:NOT - pointing to it for advise is fine, but what NOT should be doing is describing what content that, by all other means is ok to have (meaning it's passed V, NPOV, and NOR, and quite possibly WP:N), we don't include typically on the basis of being indiscriminate info. Certain aspects of the sub-notability guidelines help to identify cases of material that would otherwise be notable but fail NOT in some means, but this is neither required or necessary.
So the case in point for tv schedules is that current schedules are generally not appropriate per advice like NOT#NEWS or NTEMP, while bare historical schedules are lacking notability info presently (though I think it's clear that they've been verbally demonstrated to be notable), and that's a factor here. There's probably a way to remove the text of the "exception" by altering the approach of this point, with something that has to do with raw, updating information that will likely to be overwritten in the future (transient data) as well as the commercial directory aspect, but that still makes sense to keep historical schedules and whatnot. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should not be invoking WP:N to explain why barebone schedules should not be included as standalone articles. But if that is the case, I think you have to agree that agruments in favour of their inclusion based subjective importance have no place in this policy either. Furthermore,I think Masem has also to accept that notability requires verifiable evidence, and that we can't accept one editors opinion that they are notable, whether or that editor is an expert in the subject. In short there is no good reason to exempt barebone schedules from Wikipedia's content policies. This is why I have now removed this clause[8]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a TV Guide

Following on from the discussions about barebone TV schedules, I can see why this policy is disputed by many editors, which may be down to a misunderstanding about what constitutes encyclopedic coverage from the perspective of Wikipedia.

It is true that there are many publications, books and websites which provide extensive coverage of the television schedules and programmes, and some of these publications refer to themselves as encyclopedic, and in the general sense, they are. However, the editorial policies of these publications differ markedly from those of Wikipedia: the content of these guides is usually written in house, and the inclusion criteria they employ is based on editorial opinion, or on the opinion of their publishers or proprietors.

By contrast, Wikipedia's content policies are stricter in the sense that in house contributions (i.e. original research) is prohibited, and notability is the basis for article inclusion, rather than editorial opinion. Although Wikipedia's editorial policies are stricter in this sense, the benefit to us is that we can create a new article provided these guideline is adhered to without obstruction from arbitrary opinions about an article topic's subjective importance. This means that Wikipedia is primarily built upon significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, which is what makes it so valuable as a source of information.

It is therefore the consensus in Wikipedia and that primary and tertiary sources (or a barebones summary of those sources) cannot provide encyclopedic coverage on their own. Wikipedia is not a directory is a prohibition against articles based solely on primary and tertiary sources, and should not have their own article because they don't provide significant coverage about their subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have something wrong, in that you have the tail wagging the dog when you say that "notability is the basis for article inclusion, rather than editorial opinion." It is consensus which decides our policies and guidelines, therefore it is editorial opinion which forms the basis for article inclusion. Where policies and guidance conflict with consensus, we follow the consensus. Oddly enough, our policy on policies makes this very point: Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus. Your other ideas also have some merit, but look to be based on an overly strict reading of our policies. After all, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines tells us that Editors are expected to use common sense in interpreting and applying these rules. I think a common sense approach would tell us it is counter-productive to do anything other than judge each article individually on its merits in this arena. It's worth noting that in the United States a television schedule is something that will receive critical commentary in the United States press, with such coverage being considered secondary sourcing for Wikipedia's purposes, as they make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims of the primary source material, the schedule itself. Hiding T 11:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have confused the creation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines with the creation of articles, which must be the subject of signicant coverage from reliable, third-party sources, not the opinions of Wikipedia's editors. It is indeed consensus which gave rise to the General notability guideline, but that guideline does not say that editorial opinion is the basis for article inclusion. What it does say is that...
...If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
The General notability guideline is the consensus, and you should note that verfiable evidence is required, not promises that a topic will receive critical commentary at some point in the future. Simply claiming that they are notable without evidence is just another way of speculating that there might be lots of sources without really knowing. If only secondary sources had been added to each of these schedules in the first place, then this debate would never have taken place. Article topics that fail the notability guideline tend to fail WP:NOT and vice versa, which is why these barebone schedules should be merged into an article topic that does provide context for the reader, or deleted if none can be found. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have it backwards. Notability is a guideline but that means it is not universally applies. We don't require articles when created to show notability, but instead use good faith that the article will eventually meet policy; this is only specifically ignored in the cases of the CSD for vanity-type articles about persons, organizations, bands, webpages, etc. that make no attempt to show wh they are part of WP. If notability was required off the bat from article creation, we'd have a review of every page created that's much more depth than New Page Patrol to assert the failure of notability, but that doesn't happen - instead we trust authors will work towards improvement. An article lacking notability demonstration does not mean it is not notable nor that is shouldn't be part of WP, just that work needs to be done to show that and that work should be taken on good faith. If someone (as in this case) has says there are sources and is presently working on one example to show that it can be done, that's enough good faith for me to assume it can be done for the rest. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to think we could include every article topic on good faith alone, but we can't rely on a crystall ball to determine whether these articles have a future or not. If an article to meets the General notability guideline, that is verifable evidence that it can meet Wikipedia's content policies and avoid failing WP:NOT, so just because WP:N is a guideline, it does not mean that it does not reflect policy.
The bottom line is that you can't demonstrate a topic can avoid failing WP:NOT without providing evidence of notability, so barebone schedules will continue to be deletion candidates until evidence of their notability is provided. Since all arguments for inclusion made based on subjective importance carry no wieight on their own, its not down to us to simply assume good faith; instead, the burden falls on the creators of these articles to demonstrate they are not talking "cock and bull". Until such time that signficant coverage in the form of commentary from reliable secondary sources can be added to these articles, they are always going to be at risk of deletion, and in some instances, but not all, that is already happening. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a recent change of heart on the subject and find the national, seasonal ones appropriate. Think of them as just a variant type of list article. If Wikipedia was in print, they would be located in an Appendix. They can be reasonably seen to fall under Wikipedia's mandate to include Almanac-like material. For instance, we include Human Development Index and other similar statistical tables even though they just reproduce primary sources and most lack critical commentary on the tables themselves. We generally allow lists to skirt notability, that should be the case here; the only limit being the reasonableness of the list topic, which I believe several have said should lie at the national network seasonal level -- anything station-specific or broken down to a finer degree than seasonal is likely trivia. With that in mind, and seeing the apparent "success" (air quotes) of my previous attempt (only in that nobody has bothered to revert it yet), may I put forward:
"For example, an article on a television station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions, or past seasonal programme lists and schedules (for a national network) are acceptable." --Cybercobra (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't revert since I dislike edit warring. I think your new suggested wording is good. BTW, what changed your mind concerning the annual national schedules? Firsfron of Ronchester 04:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought, Cybercobra, like you, that some stuff that appears in appendixes and the like is a viable ancilliary article sort of thing. The trouble is, when one takes a strict reading of policies and guidelines, as Gavin does, you kind of get trapped in a logic loop, that the material must be merged back but it must be split out. You can see Gavin following this loop above when he says that "these barebone schedules should be merged into an article topic that does provide context for the reader". Luckily, our policies allow, in fact they outright state that we should ignore a strict interpretation of policies and instead work out what the best approach to benefit the reader and the encyclopedia. Gavin's right that these articles need better context. That doesn't have to mean merging them though. It can also mean putting in a decent lead to the schedule which contextualises it. But what you have to do is drop a slavish, unbending adoption of rules, to avoid the mindset which can only follow all rules, and remember that it is possible, in fact it is imperative that we keep an open mind and ignore all the rules in order to improve and maintain Wikipedia. I like the new wording as much as I like any wording. It'll just get argued over, of course, but then some people just like arguing. Hiding T 09:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a schedule could be useful if it was actually provided as an appendicies to an article about a notable topic, but beyond that I don't agree that inclusion is justified at this level of detail. The barebones schedules don't provide any encyclopedic coverage per se (where is the significant coverage in the form of commentary?), and furthermore the level of detail runs contrary to the spirit of WP:SUMMARY. It is true that we could try and ignore all the rules, but in this instance that would not be the common sense thing to do, because there is very little to seperate a barebones schedule without commentary from a barebones summary of, say, a railway timetable. On the plus side, I recognise that at a summary level that the United States network television schedules might be notable if specialist commentary can be found - US television industry is huge, but that is not a reason for inclusion on its own. Better to admit that this whole subject area should be covered by just one over-arching article, rather than by dozens of stubs containing only the schedule specific to one year or season. I don't think it is fair to say that I am caught in a "logic loop" on this matter; rather, it is the general consensus that article topics should not be split and split again in many seperate stubs that don't provide any significant coverage about their subject matter. We have to apply some sort of common sense, and although the arguments for inclusion are many, they are not supported by verifable evidence that would provide a knockout argument in their favour for each and every one. In short, the appropriate level of detail needs to be found for this whole subject area. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your assertion that verifable evidence is a knock-out blow is challenged by the people above who feel they have found verifiable evidence. Besides which, that very section allows for a separate article to be created for formatting and display purposes. So once again we find ourselves trapped in a debate regarding subjective opinions as to what this guidance actually means. Now people can continue to do that, or they can work towards good faith consensus. The general thrust seems to be that schedules are a bad idea unless there is good reason to include them, and that where this information supports an article there is a good reason to include it. That's always been the thrust of our inclusion criteria: we need a good reason to include it. The criteria at WP:N is the best iteration of one way of measuring that, but we've always allowed ourselves room to wriggle around on gray areas. That's the whole premise of consensus and ignore all rules. The one editor alone who stands by their interpretation of policy against the fifty editors who say it needn't apply is not representing consensus. Hiding T 11:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed the earlier point that just because their source is verifiable, does not mean they are suitable for inclusion, as primary sources alone (i.e. barebones schedules) can't impart notability. No, I think you are saying that these schedules might be spared from deletion for as long as a majority of editors are happy to give them a temporary pass - and perhaps you are right on this point. But that is another way of saying WP:IKNOWIT and won't apply in the longterm. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed my point. This isn't WP:IKNOWIT, this is based on the fact that we are here to build an encyclopedia, and as part of that remit, where we have articles which discuss a television schedule, it helps illustrate that article and inform the reader if we also reproduce that schedule. Arguing about whether that reproduction should be in the article which discusses the schedule itself or as a separate article is actually a redundant argument that misses the underlying points and ignores Wikipedia's raison d'être. And let's not ignore the fact that you are currently playing the WP:ALLORNOTHING card for all it is worth. For what anything is worth, all arguments approach "I like it" or "I don't like it", and it is redundant to pretend otherwise. I agree with your last point, that eventually the mess will resolve itself somehow. Hiding T 13:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is just the point, Hiding. If we are here to build an encyclopedia, then we need some sort of encyclopedic coverage, which these schedules don't have. At present, they don't support any over arching article topic either. The argument is still the same: if there is no evidence of notability, then they fail WP:NOT or vice versa. Just a reminder of all the arguments why they are not suitable for inclusion are as follows:
  1. They are devoid of significant coverage in the form of commentary, and don't provide any context, which is key to understanding any topic;
  2. Their level of detail that is not appropriate, so merging them into an article that does provide context about their salient features makes sense;
  3. They don't support a specific over-arching article topic;
  4. They don't provide evidence of notability as standalone articles;
In short they fail Wikipedia is not a directory because even though they may be verifiable, merely reproducing the primary or tertiary source without commentary does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. You can argue this is redundant point, but since there is insufficient coverage from reliable secondary sources, they don't meet Wikipedia content polices, so they are not encyclopedic from a Wikipedia perspective. In short, they need to be rolled up into an article topic that is notable, or into a list that supports a notable article topic. Whether they serve some raison d'être or other is a matter of subjective importance, and need not concern us here. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we're more than just an encyclopedia. One Pillar instructs that we are also elements of specialized encyclopedias and almanacs. We do need to be careful about pure raw data as we are not indiscriminate, but that doesn't mean that an appropriate level of discriminated data by itself is against WP's inclusion principles. Notability is only one measure of inclusion, but not the only one. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have hit the nail on the head, Masem. These barebones schedules are a form of data. An expert can look at, say, 1977–78 United States network television schedule and infer certain things: which shows were for a general audience, which were for an adult audiance, which shows complimented each other and which were substitutes, whether the networks planners were successful or not in attracting the audience that they were seeking. The problem is that a layman like me can't, he can only guess at what they mean. An encyclopedic article imparts information to the reader: a few sentences of commentary from a reliable secondary source can impart more information that say 20 or 30 of these schedules ever could. I am not discriminating against raw data per se, I am just arguing that the level of data contained in these schedules is not appropriate because it does not provide any context to the reader, nor do they provide any support to any article topic is the subject of some sort of commentary. My point is that the barebones data has to be merged into one or more article topics than impart some sort of information; from an encycledic persepective, they are orphan articles or facts in a desert of data. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we going around in circles here? Or did you just like arguing so much you missed the part above where I stated:

Gavin's right that these articles need better context. That doesn't have to mean merging them though. It can also mean putting in a decent lead to the schedule which contextualises it. But what you have to do is drop a slavish, unbending adoption of rules, to avoid the mindset which can only follow all rules, and remember that it is possible, in fact it is imperative that we keep an open mind and ignore all the rules in order to improve and maintain Wikipedia. I like the new wording as much as I like any wording. It'll just get argued over, of course, but then some people just like arguing.

I'm so glad I got one thing right. Hiding T 10:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For diversity of opinion's sake, would anyone from the "Con" side besides Gavin care to interject? --Cybercobra (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key issue here is what constitutes encyclopedic coverage of the network TV schedules, and although we don't yet have a model article that we can point to, I think that a barebones schedule is not the way to go because they don't provide any context to the reader in the same way that commentary does. That is not to say that is not an important topic, and I noticed a recent Reuters article which suggests that a very interesting article could be written about them ("Will Jay Leno rescue or ruin network TV?"). Looking at articles such as 1977–78 United States network television schedule, its obvious that more research needs to be done so that commentary of some sort can to be obtained to put flesh on the bones of the TV schedules themselves. Otherwise, I think the creation of barebones schedules is a waste of time, because without evidence of notability, these schedules fall too short of Wikipedia's content policies to be considered for standalone articles. An individual schedule provides data, but not information: the schedules have evolved over time and really what we need to know is why they have evolved, rather than the detail of them at any point in time. Sure you can verify the primary source, but that is not enough to pass WP:NOT#DIR, and I don't think presenting data in a raw form fits in with the requirement to provide context to the reader. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Is there consensus here for the mass removal of TV schedules now? I would like an uninvolved editor to answer this. Thanks. –Howard the Duck 13:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I count as "uninvolved", but I think the current consensus is that there needs to be some sort of evidence that a station's schedule is "notable enough" to be worth including. Such evidence will also help us decide the granularity at which to include the schedule. For the US Network Television schedules, there are multiple specialized encyclopedias that include historical schedules at a yearly granularity, so we do the same.
I suspect the consensus is that we shouldn't create schedules based on information in TV Guide-type publications, or taken from the station's website itself, as both sources give, at most, daily granularity. I don't think a lack of time-based schedules would necessarily prevent including a list of notable programs, provided the list can be created from reliable sources.
I'm not sure there's consensus for "mass removal". I personally would rather the editors at the articles be given a chance to find such evidence, and only once some time has passed should the schedules be removed. But that's just my personal opinion on how to accomplish this change with a minimum of drama. — PyTom (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This level of detail (which stations deserve to have their schedules included, and which not) does not belong in a policy. It should be added to a guideline. Pcap ping 15:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring now happening

At GMA Network, a host of editors are routinely updating the current schedule ([9][10][11] and ensuring that at least on a monthly basis it is up to date [12][13]. This is not an historical schedule. It's a current schedule, and being maintained as such.

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and per numerous comments here on this extensive thread, I removed the schedule twice [14][15]. User:Howard the Duck has restored it twice [16][17]. As a side note, he abused his rollback privileges in the first of these restorations.

At User_talk:Howard_the_Duck#WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I noted the policy and that it is quite clear on the point. Further debate showed that he didn't feel the policy was disputed, but the application. Now it appears he finds the policy is disputed, and can not be applied. Therefore, any policies under debate are suspended until further notice.

In abstract, I find this exceptionally troubling. Any policy can be vacated just by starting a debate on it and finding enough people to debate it (which isn't hard around here). In particular to this article, this is a current schedule, not an historical one, and is being routinely maintained as a current schedule. The granularity of the schedule and the fact the schedule changes are not being reported in secondary media is troubling an in violation of our policies. That Howard seems willing to abuse his rollback privileges and force the issue via edit warring is also troubling. Input welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's like this, you are a murderer, at the same time you are the judge. You're saying you are innocent, for the sole reason that you told yourself so. All I'm asking is for this to be resolved here, or perhaps some other people (but not from the "other" side) to review the edits and decide for his/herself if it does violate the policy. –Howard the Duck 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S. I only used my rollback once, on my last edit I undid since I want to have a personal edit summary. If that is abuse then block indefinetely, which pretty much says what I said above (the murderer/judge analogy). –Howard the Duck 13:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • If we have to debate every time that a policy is applied, we might as well forget having policy. WP:NOTDIR is explicit and it is policy; "an article on a ... station should not list ... current schedules". What part of this is unclear? The policy stands, and barring consensus to change it (which does not exist), it IS policy. I'm sorry you don't like it, but revert warring and abusing your rollback privileges in an attempt to ignore the policy is way out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I don't really have a strong position on either side, I just wanted someone else to do it. What part of my statement is unclear?
As I've said above, I rollbacked only once, and I reverted twice. If that is edit-warring and abuse of rollback privleges than ban me. –Howard the Duck 13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, is this RFA? LOL. On the first instance, I would hardly call it abuse, considering "UAAP Season 72" has tens more (I've lost count) with "72nd season of the UAAP". On the second one,that was vandalism, and on the third instance, if you'll check out the page history, the vandalism was conducted by 2 users, so when I rollbacked it, it reverted to another vandalized version, which I reverted permanently later that day.
  • Again, if that is abuse, AN/I me or something. –Howard the Duck 14:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, if there really is consensus, perhaps this should be applied elsewhere. Hammersoft has been doing edits, and I dunno if that is enough. He should touch the NBC, ABC, et. al. articles though so we can test this policy. –Howard the Duck 13:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but those 200 NBC stations "probably" air the same primetime lineup so... –Howard the Duck 13:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the debate above, and in the most recent AfDs, I have seen very little support for current schedules or schedules for a single network. Abductive (reasoning) 15:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

A straw poll to see if we're getting anywhere. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should allow (in order of least to most inclusive):

  • No TV schedules at all
  • Something more exclusive than the next option
  • Past seasonal schedules of national networks
  • Something more inclusive than the previous option
  • All past/non-current TV schedules
  • All TV schedules
  • All TV schedules Of course Wikipedia allows TV schedules - there is nothing inherently wrong or special about them. If a schedule is the subject of significant coverage (in the form of commentary, criticism or analysis) from reliable secondary sources that are independent, then it deserves its own standalone article, just like any other topic. Perhaps the question needs to be rephrased? Perhaps the question should be whether TV schedules are exempt from Wikipedia:Notability? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 02:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Past seasonal schedules of national networks, just as many specialized encyclopedias do. Although there was no consensus that commentary, criticism, or analysis is needed to give context to these articles (just as a map requires no commentary), no one would state that including such would harm these articles, so I've provided prose, with references, for the 53-54, 54-55, 55-56, 56-57, and 57-58 U.S. major network TV prime time schedules, and intend to finish off the '50s before moving on to the '40s and '60s (in that order). The commentary I added was specifically created to address concerns various editors had. I included requested details, such as who developed the schedules, what overall trends in scheduling occurred, what scheduling strategies were used, noted commentary on head-to-head competitions, what effect stronger schedules had against weaker ones, etc. Although I've primarily stuck to four or five books, I have a big stack I can go though later as well; I'm also planning to add some newspaper articles from that era. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this issue needs a straw poll. Protonk (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your suggested course of action? --Cybercobra (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That we respect NOTDIR and allow TV schedules only where it can be shown that secondary sources have made substantive claims about them. Meaning, if we can't, in the end come up with an article about a schedule with some reasonable amount of prose, then we should merge that into a parent article. Obviously this requires some faith on the part of editors interested in deletion and some honestly on the part of editors interested in expansion. I don't see consensus here to change the policy, not at all. But I also don't see anyone arguing as strenuously as Gavin that these articles be curtailed. Despite my concerns about about effectively mixing NOT and N in order to reach some outcome, I don't see a better solution. And honestly we are past the straw poll point. The discussion has fallen off cent, most of the participants have moved away save a few, and enough words have been said. We are at a point where the proliferation of solutions from a straw poll would be counterproductive. We need to put forward a core solution (e.g. mine suggested above) and get the remaining interested parties to agree to it in some form. Protonk (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "reasonable" amount of prose? How does one measure "substantive"? You have linked above to WP:DEADLINE; what deadline would you suggest for the reasonable amount of prose to be added, confirming the substantive claims about television schedules, should your proposal be enacted? Firsfron of Ronchester 06:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't pretend to know the answer to those questions. I don't own any of the reference material nor do I have a strong understanding of the history involved. Determining the specifics needs to come through a process whereby someone like you (a subject matter expert) offers an opinion that someone like me (somewhat of a skeptic) can agree with. As for the deadline, linking WP:DEADLINE was deliberate. Honestly so long as we are assured that expansion to meet our scope is possible my opinion is that we allow the article to exist. Obviously we cannot demand that expansion occur prior to retention, but we do not do justice to our scope by allowing a broad swath of articles. Protonk (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, but I really must insist on a number from you, Protonk. I've already offered an opinion; that real reference works from major publishers have included exactly this information for at least the last 30 years, without any accompanying prose. If the content is deleted, it will be a tragedy (not because the information will be lost; it's still preserved in real reference works) because Wikipedia will be dumping genuine reference material in favor of "featured content". This is a major problem with Wikipedia: what's popular is retained, but what actually appears in academic works somehow gets labeled "fancruft", and can be deleted, unless very vague conditions ("reasonable", substantive") can somehow be met. (I'll not even get into the warped logistics of editors "respect[ing] WP:NOTDIR" while arguing for its rewording). Above you've stated that a reasonable amount of prose must be added, and that proof of substantive claims have been made about the schedules from secondary sources. But you hesitate to give me any sort of guideline on what you'd consider a reasonable amount of prose, or how many secondary sources are needed to be a substantive claim. The effect, then becomes an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery; I can't possibly know how much prose or referencing to secondary sources will satisfy you. I'm not picking on you; I genuinely need a number.
At any rate, I'm not sure I'd call myself a subject matter expert. I work in educational, not commercial, broadcasting (neither of the two major educational broadcasters in the U.S. ever required their affiliates to broadcast "in pattern"); I'm simply a guy who enjoys early television history, who has amassed a collection of books relating to the subject, and who works for an educational institution which has ready access to additional reference works. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Protonk (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something more inclusive than the previous option. I think the important thing here is that schedules be found in reliable sources that have written articles about them, making them both verifiable and notable. I don't believe that we should limit ourselves to past schedules, but should also include verifiable and notable current information as well. If an article like [[[1999–2000 United States network television schedule]] is fine, so is 2009–2010 United States network television schedule. While we shouldn't include content just for the sake of being a directory, neither should we eliminate otherwise valid content simply because it is useful as a directory. — PyTom (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All TV schedules
    then they can be collapsed, if necessary. Ikip (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy is blatantly clear and unequivocal. An "article on a ... station should not list ... current schedules" Historical schedules, with secondary sources supporting notability, fine. Current schedules, no. No decision here can override policy. If you want to change policy, fine. But that's not the question at hand. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we should just chalk this up as "there is not currently consensus" on the topic? --Cybercobra (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rock Band Tracks

There has been a group of deletion nominations for articles related to 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series, and it seems to be that the consensus of opinion is against deletion on the grounds that they are sourced and useful. However, a closer examination of the articles suggest that the sources for these articles are questionable, such that the commentary is derived from fan sites and press releases, whilst the coverage itself is fairly thin and lacking substance beyond product descriptions of the tracks and release dates.
This sort of product guide is very common on fan sites; users of the Rock Band video games would clearly find them useful and the game publishers and distributers find it very useful to promote their product via a stream of press releases and announcements which the fans can used to stitch together in guides and FAQs. However, what seems to be lacking is independent and reliable commentary about these tracks: who chose them, why were they chosen and what impact they have had other than achieving sales targets of MTV Music and EA Entertainment.
In the face of heavy bombardment, how is possible to distinguish between a notable topic on this cultural phenomenon from an article topic that fails WP:NOT#GUIDE? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense. No serious editor would want such notable and verifiable information deleted. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 13:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those familiar with these games know that (and as best sourced in Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series) that with modern music games, the inclusion of songs within these games in general leads to a brief (or long) burst of popularity, and more recently, there are promotions tying traditional music releases to the inclusion of songs within the games (e.g. the next Pearl Jam album will have its tracks near-immediately available for the game). Thus, tracking when and how the songs were released for the game is part of the encyclopedic coverage - maybe not on its own, but when tied with other data by other researchers. It is not synthesis of the type we avoid - we are allowed to put together multiple official (in this case, the posts from rockband.com are from official company representatives) and reliable sources to make the larger lists as long as we aren't modifying the data in any fashion nor trying to advance a point (what point?) - we're not even doing "2+2=4" type additions. Further, I will point out that the corresponding Guitar Hero song lists are nearly all featured (I'm working on 5) and they see those as acceptable supporting articles from the individual game articles - this would be the same here. I do agree that there's a point where GUIDE could be crossed - for example, if we included pricing information or the like. But no commercial position is being advanced here. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that WT:NOT is a good venue for this discussion. The Tv schedule discussion occurred over my strenuous objections by dint of the sheer number of participants. I don't see this as analogous. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to Masem, they do look like "2+2=4" type additions in terms of subject matter to me. Many of the soungs in say 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series are notable in their own right, like Roy Orbison's Oh, Pretty Woman, or a notable as part of an album, such as Lenny Kravitz's Are You Gonna Go My Way. However, there is no evidence (as yet) that any particualr song or bundle of songs has become notable by reason of being released through the Rock Band video games. These articles seem to rely on inherited notability for their inclusion, as the topics don't provide evidence of notabilty for their topic per se.
Although you rightly say this may change in the future, Rock Band is essentially one of many non-notable distribution channels (like music sold for broadcast in lifts and hotel lobbies) that is yet to the the subject of significant coverage. Details of relesase date, genre and artist reads like a topic that fails WP:NOT#GUIDE to me, and if price information was added, these articles would definetly fail WP:SPAM. Given the cultural impact of the game, I think your argument that the release of a particular song may well have a brief (or long) burst of popularity is right, but I think this is has to be evidenced by commentary from reliable and independent sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If price information were added to a lot of notable articles about commercial products, it would be spam. Just because something could be turned into spam doesn't make it a poor article. (No comment yet on the other arguments.) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin is overlooking the fact that the articles in question are in fact subarticles related to the main articles on the Rock Band games. They are reference lists analagous to a discography for an artist or a track listing for a recording, and as such are entirely appropriate, even desirable, for inclusion in a set of article on to the overall topic. The only reason they are not merged into the main articles, in fact, is the size of the lists would make readability of the merged articles an issue.
Also, even if you assume an individual entry in a list isn't notable enough for its own article, it doesn't follow that the list itself as a whole isn't notable or useful as a reference tool. This is certainly a case where the list is useful as a reference in part because it is a complete list and not abridged to only include a handful of selected entries based on the amount of independent coverage of those particular items.
Finally I'll point out that this entire discussion is most likely best left to the specific AFDs in question, since its relevance to shaping policy on WP:NOT would seem to be lacking. Unless Gavin is claiming that the results of those AFDs is somehow going to shape or alter future WP:NOT policy, why even discuss these AFDs on this particular talk page? Leave it to the talk pages of the articles and AFDs Gavin is disputing. Dugwiki (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the discographies are necessarily sub-articles of the main one, right? And that SIZE prevents a literal merger. Then you say that individual entries on the list need not be notable for the list to be. Then you say that the best path is to discuss these at Afd. Is that a good reading? (I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, just making sure I got this right). Protonk (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'd say you're reading what I said right.  :) Of course I'm just expressing my opinion, so feel free to agree or disagree with any of those points. Dugwiki (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One clarification on discographies and track listings. Usually a track listing is part of the main article for the album or movie or video game in question. In this case, though, the track listing is very, very large, which means it's more convenient to the reader to split the listing off into a subarticle. Dugwiki (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these are track listings are based on anything other than press releases from the distributor. As far as I can see, these discographies don't support the main article at all - the fact that the game Rock Band plays music is more or less a feature of such a game, and this level of detail does not add any more context to the main article in the same way a track list for Lenny Kravitz's Are You Gonna Go My Way does. I think what Dugwiki is trying to imply is that these discographies should have their own standalone articles because they inherit notability from the game, rather than from the artists who wrote or performed them, or the original albums in which they feature. I don't agree that these dispgraphies inherit notability from the game at all as notability came to these tracks through other distribution channels (like single or album sales which gave rise to reviews and other commentary). I don't think they can inherit notability upwards, downwards or by way of other position that you fancy. The only reason I can think why they have been created as some sort of product guide, because that was the purpose behind the press releases that are their source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that the reason the tracklists have standalone articles is because they're too large to fit comfortably in the main article. If the lists were smaller they'd be included there with essentially no debate. And if your argument is that the lists aren't important to the main articles on Rock Band then you are incorrect. In fact, differences in the song lists between, for example, the various Rock Band and Guitar Hero games is a critical factor in comparing the games. Discussing a music game without including the information about what music is included or available in the game would be a disservice to the article. It would be very much like having an article on a record set without listing the song tracks included in the set. Dugwiki (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I still don't see what this has to do with the WP:NOT page. If the complaint is something specific to Rock Band, why are we discussing it here and not the Rock band related pages? Dugwiki (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=315789177"