Wikipedia talk:Television episodes

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sgeureka (talk | contribs) at 16:52, 26 March 2009 (→‎A method of moving forward when merging of episode articles is disputed: merger != amount of merged content). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Fiction notice

Demotion from guideline

I don't think this page represents a generally accepted standard that all users should follow. So I am proposing it be demoted from a guideline. I am also unsure of how this page relates to WP:MOSTV. --Pixelface (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's left is either appropriate to WP:FICT (the currently worked version), or should be part of the Television Wikiproject. Supported. --MASEM 23:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as WP:FICT is still not a guideline and as long as certain people keep up the attacks on every damn policy and guideline there is, it never will be. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FICT is not going to be a guideline anytime soon, even if I never comment there ever again. And 4 pages is hardly "every damn policy and guideline". Policies and guidelines can't be MFD'd. Hence the {{demote}} template. --Pixelface (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If FICT passes, then I would support a demotion of this guideline (as we won't need two guidelines saying the same thing). Until then, I think, as always, we need to stop distracting editors with this type of stuff until we can finish things we've already started (i.e. Let's conclude the work on FICT before we start trying to re-evaluate every other policy and guideline, it's only good etiquette).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this should probably eventually be rolled into the more general FICT, but until everything's hashed out on that and it's decided to cover episodes there we should leave this alone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support demotion - support in the strongest possible terms. This guideline seems more about freeing up space than anything - a lot of episodic articles are quite high-quality, from a reader's perspective, and if I may admit to a slight personal bias I actually use them frequently to decide whether I'll bother going over to the idiot box to watch something. If this "policy" is enacted across the board, we lose all the Lost articles, all the Sopranos, the Simpsons, Doctor Who, Torchwood, NCIS, etc - shows that really do pack too much detail into one episode to be done justice by a summary. Please, someone think of the fandoms! :p Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, first, Wikipedia is not written for fandoms. Second, this guideline has been in existence for awhile, and FICT (before it was recently demoted for restructuring) was also in existence for quite a while, and neither kept The Simpsons from having episode article. The Simpsons is one of the few TV exceptions where just about every single episode is reviewed by multiple, third-party, reliable/professional sources. ALL articles must meet the GNG, so if they fail this guideline or FICT (the old or the new version), then they fail GNG, in which case they don't deserve an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know what Wikipedia is not. I was attempting to be humourous. You guys do have a sense of humour, right? ;) Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • We can, and we do - but often times editors have presented your particular humorous remark as a series comment/opinion. So, it's hard to really know which someone is using at times.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bignole, your claim that "ALL articles must meet the GNG" is false. --Pixelface (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it isn't. Just because you interpret WP:SUMMARY to mean that one can split a sub article off from a larger article, and have that sub article not meet GNG does not actually mean that it is true. Also, note that when I say "must meet the GNG", I'm including those articles that "readily could" meet the GNG (i.e. WP:GNG#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines). So please, save it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It *is* false. First off, WP:N (and the GNG) is not a policy — or a law, or a rule. I could go on if you like...but I'll save it for now. --Pixelface (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Umm... he's right, Bignole. Articles are required to meet policies, not guidelines. Guidelines are to be followed in 90% of the cases, but not always and not even necessarily to the letter. (Per WP:PG: "Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur.") -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again, you two are confusing "exception" with "you don't have to follow the guideline". Just because it isn't a policy does not mean that you don't have to follow it. Just because there are exceptions, does not mean that you don't have to follow it. I.E. My statement, "you have to meet the GNG", is entirely accurate and correct, because, YOU DO have to follow the GNG UNLESS you can prove that your article is the EXCEPTION (I'm sure you're both aware that the definition of exception is not "all the time"). So, have a good day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • You seem to be unclear on the word "advisory". I will leave it there. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 06:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You can leave it where you want. "Advisory" does not mean, "I'll think about it, but won't follow it because it's only a guideline." Advisory means that it isn't set in stone. Guidelines are guidelines because they generally have more leeway and exceptions than policies do, not because we can ignore them if we don't agree with them (that's called an essay, and EPISODE and GNG are not essays).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • And exceptions to notability do occur. Without the occasional exception to notability, we after all could not have an article on humanity, as there are no third-party sources! But a case like that is where occasional exceptions apply. We're talking about occasional ones, not blanket ones. We don't need episode articles that are little more than plot summary. If the episode is notable, there will be plenty of independent reliable sourcing on it. If not, we've nothing to support a full article with. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until FICT is up and running, at which point a merger would certainly make sense. Until then, oppose because there would be no actual guideline to point to. – sgeureka t•c 10:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like it more as a style guideline wrt organisation, to be honest. Sceptre (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MOSTV already covers episode style guidelines.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge into MOSTV, then? At the moment, I feel it's a dangling relic of FICT. At the very least, I think it needs refocusing, because, once FICT comes back, it'll be redundant for notabilty purposes. Sceptre (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Seen no comments since 20 Dec, and anyway, changing the tag doesn't make the page go away (seriously ;-) ), so I've gone and altered the tag. If anyone still disagrees, at least they'll show up now (as per WP:BRD ). --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me consensus to demote this page? There is none. There are opinions on where people would like to eventually take this page, but I only see two people that actually said "demote this page now".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of moving things along, I'll just take responsibility, and say I would like to make this page an essay right now.
I need to list reasons:
  • I really don't like the fact that it promotes deletion of content, content that I find to be both useful and valid.
  • I do not agree with the concept of merging large articles, especially where there is a loss of information.
  • I do not agree that something can only use one wikipage. If it is better to split a topic over multiple pages, let it be split out over multiple pages.
  • Wikipedia is not paper has still not been struck down, and this page therefore contradicts a page marked "policy". To resolve the issue, I can either tag WP:NOT as an essay (never going to happen), or I can tag this page as an essay. I choose to do the latter. I do not believe that you can argue that both pages can have consensus all at once. But I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion about this particular point right now, so I'll drop it.
Can you provide counter-arguments to my first 3 points? Can you convince me that this page gives sensible advice at all?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current consensus and practice based on numerous numerous AFDs on television articles? Remember that consensus drives policy and the like. And regardless if you demote this to essay or not, episode article notability then falls to WP:N, which still requires sources like this presently does. --MASEM 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One way to look at it (there are many ways to look at it) is that I am testing the consensus you speak of (today some people told me that consensus wasn't so clear cut, perhaps they were wrong?). If what you are saying is really true, then it should be fairly easy to find (and probably link to) several arguments as to why I'm wrong, in just a couple of minutes, which isn't too burdensome to ask of people once in a while, especially for something as important as a guideline. If it's not so easy to find those arguments, we might want to start thinking about how much consensus this page really has. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone can really declare a consensus for anything when it comes to fiction-related articles. It might seem that consensus is being formed at AFD, but we have to consider the fact that many of the people who want lots of articles on TV episodes and TV characters have simply given up arguing for them, since the opposition is so aggressive. Zagalejo^^^ 04:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, one person cannot deem that a guideline be demoted. Secondly, the fact that someone deletes a page based on a guideline (especially when that guideline has nothing to do with the getting that page deleted directly) is not the fault of the guideline. If that were the case, then WP:NOTE gets far more pages deleted than EPISODE. So, the fact that you don't like that EPISODE or NOTE can cause, no matter how direct or indirect, a page to get deleted is neither here nor there. The merging of articles is a natural process. Again, the fact that there is a loss of information is not the fault of this guideline. If viable information is lost, then be bold and put in the location where it was merged. A lot of times people do not realize that the "lost info" is really things that should have been cut regardless. As for the third point, this page does not say that things cannot be split. If splitting is necessary then it is done. If not, then it should not be. Personally, I would rather have one shitty page that consists of 40 characters, than 40 even shittier pages on each individual character. Lastly, "not paper" is not a permission slip to create whatever article you want, please read the policy more carefully.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a single person cannot alter a page where others disagree. I've actually made use of that fact here: I altered the page to find out if anyone were to disagree, and if so, who and why (WP:BRD). I thought perhaps I wouldn't get too much response, but instead I actually did get some response; so I'm going to be careful of editing further for now. Hopefully that covers the policy/guideline/essay aspect of what I did: It's a specifically documented method, and I applied it carefully.
  • I think that if a guideline recommends for people to merge things, and this causes loss of information, then the recommendation might not be so good.
  • I think I see where you might have a bit of a bias. What happens if there are 40 really good articles on a topic you love, and suddenly the number gets reduced to just 1? Would you be happy in the latter scenario? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) I think that's a fallacy in your understanding of "suggest a merge". If I suggest that you go study to make an A on an exam, and you do but you only get a C+, was my suggest "not so good"? Maybe it wasn't my suggestion that was poor, but merely the application of my suggestion. As is often the case, it isn't the suggestion of a merger that is the problem, it is the particular editor that happens to do it (which is often not one who is a regular editor to that series of pages, unfortunately. that is typically because when the decision to "merge" is met a lot of the editors have those pages end up putting on one last fight of "I'm not doing, if you want it done then you do it"). Let's see, I love Smallville. There aren't 40 really good articles. As a matter of fact, there were about 40 really shitty articles on each of the episodes a few years back. Do you know what I did? I got with the flow of the community, which was moving away from these individual episode/character articles, and I wrote Smallville (season 1) (and recently finished Smallville (season 2)). I convinced many editors that season articles were a much more viable option for the majority of TV shows because, frankly, not all TV shows are House, The Simpsons or any of those other 10 million+ viewers a night shows. As a result, all those other shows rarely have any independent sources to establish notability. I also created Characters of Smallville, which shows you can have an article of multiple characters. When I say "shitty article" I am referring specifically to the fact that the article has no sources, overly long plot summaries (Wikipedia is not a substitute for watching a TV show), no real world information, and does not show signs that there are sources out there could even satisfy the GNG in the near future. I do not deem pages to be "really good" just because I personally like them. That's a conflict of interest, and Wikipedians should be neutral in all aspects of their editing to the best of their ability. If they were "40 really good articles", based on what I define "really good" to be (which is the opposite of what I define "shitty" to be), then I wouldn't have to worry about anyone coming in and merging them, because I would know that they clearly meet the GNG and EPISODE for that matter.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No information is being lost if there is a merge; the original article still remains in the history of the redirect, and most of the time the information that isn't displayed at the present time violates policies and guidelines like WP:NOT and WP:WAF. If at a later time more information about such episodes allow them to pass this guideline for an article, then great, it can be recreated in a flash. --MASEM 02:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, I suppose. Merging is less problematic than deletion. My remaining worry there is when merging is done too enthusiastically. I have no issues with a notable topic being spread out over several wikipages, as long as the topic in its entirety is notable. This can make the topic easier to grasp, and allows us to provide more in-depth information on the topic more easily.
I think that the merging and splitting of pages belonging to the topic based on arbitrary criteria is unnecessary. Do you think that that is a fair approach? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it was arbitrary, yes, but what this guideline provides, as well as what is currently being developed at WP:FICT (which includes episodes, and why practically this may go away if FICT passes) isn't arbitary. Can't find sources that describe the development or the reception of the episode? Then it should be merged. Yes, there's borderline cases, but it's a pretty narrow border, and certainly not arbitrary. --MASEM 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) So basically: YOU don't like it so you are attempting to get rid of it and decided to presume that because all of two people have said it should be demoted, that somehow makes a consensus to demote this guideline. It will remain as is due to a lack of consensus to change its current status. Your three points are, frankly, irrelevant just becaues you don't like it while AfDs and the actions of the projects that actually work with those topics show that the greater majority of editors think all three are good actions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm saying I don't like it, because that way we can close the debate more quickly. It's a method based on WP:BRD. I do have to be careful and honest and actually provide arguments I genuinely feel are both true and valid, else I risk initiating an Abilene paradox, where in reality I'm trying to prevent one. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC x2) Certainly can provide such counter-arguments.
  • Useful is not a retention criterion, for good reason. How to manuals, video game walkthroughs, directories of various types, publications of original research and thought, free web hosting services, travel guides, and all such are useful. They are also outside the scope of our project. Plot summaries with little or no real-world information are also outside that scope, whether or not they are useful.
  • "Wikipedia is not paper" does not mean "we don't remove anything". That's been settled for quite some time. "Wikipedia is not paper" is not a retention criterion for any specific article.
  • Splitting out articles is fine, provided that each separate subject is notable on its own. If not, we're giving that subject undue weight by giving that subject an article of its own when independent reliable sources say little or nothing about it. In that case, trimming and merging is the exact type of editing called for. Cutting is editing, and all good editors cut. For World War II, we are obviously going to need a large number of subarticles on specific aspects of the topic since a single comprehensive article would be measured in GiB, and there will be no shortage of notable topics to make into subarticles. For works of fiction, sometimes yes, sometimes no. We shouldn't allow fan pieces, only reliably sourced articles with real-world information. That does mean cutting and merging any non-notable pieces.
  • The general notability guideline still applies no matter what this guideline is marked. This guideline simply details application of the GNG and what to do with articles which do not meet it. Demoting this guideline does not excuse notability requirements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your enlightening answers.
So the long and short of it is that I should actually be looking at notability requirements? I've actually always had trouble with the notability concept since Geogre introduced it, and I think it is somewhat redundant. But in this case, perhaps my problem is with the fact that this particular guideline is not "stable": if you use a single wikipage for something, all of the content might be kept: but if you split a wikipage, you are likely to lose some of the content (even if the page is merged again). You can continue doing this several times over. I once made a theoretical demonstration for Geogre that demonstrated this would happen. (and why it made transclusion less valuable than it could be). I didn't make a real world demonstration, (because then I would have knowingly damaged the wiki to demonstrate my point, which is forbidden; despite the fact that others accidentally do it regularly).
If you then have a guideline that explicitly recommends this instability causing behavior, you can see why I have some issues with it, I think? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People complain I have unusual methods from time to time, perhaps this will be one of those times. Can't complain about results though :-P

Anyway, I've discovered the people who are really interested in the page, asked some honest questions, I've gotten some good answers, and so far (and as far as I can tell), there's no consensus for changing the tag to read "essay" yet, though that might change when/if WP:FICT gets updated. I'll wait 24 hours (so that all time zones get a chance to answer), and if no one shows up to support the change I made, I'll close this discussion as "Keep as guideline". I estimate that that action is very unlikely to be opposed. (unless someone is really into bureaucratic procedure instead of consensus ;-) ) Is my estimate correct, and is this action fair? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I object, not to prove myself a procedure wonk, but to suggest something else--we need a way of saying that this is a "guideline, but a weak one," or "a loose guideline" , or "guideline, but do not always followed in practice," or something of the sort. DGG (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No such thing as far as I can tell. We cannot say "don't always follow this", otherwise why have any guideline if we going to tell people that. Might as well not have policies, because they'd be what, "followed more often than guidelines"? It's fine to stay the way it is until FICT is up and running, at which point this page will be obsolete as FICT basically covers all fiction-related articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i'm likely the old fart here, but as I remember it, this was created because people got fed up about all the episode articles with 0 content. They fought like hell for a year or so to get them all deleted as "not notable", which caused several editors to find a "procedure" that would help TV editors create more "useful" episode articles. This was part of WikiProject Television episodes. I don't know when it became a "guideline", but it was a concensus among the community, that this was the "best way" to make sure that other editors wouldn't go on a "delete" spree (Which they kinda did regardless, and when i stopped editing TV articles). --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression from reading it that it could actually enable a delete spree. OTOH, somehow I get the idea that practically anything (a period, a comma, a dotted i or t crossed the wrong way) can be sufficient excuse for a delete spree these days. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote This guideline is obviously disputed, does not have consensus and appears to have been promoted contrary to consensus. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laws are like sausages

Caveat: These numbers maybe slight wrong, please assume good faith when reviewing them and pointing out inevitable errors.

Collapsed table one, a history of the disagreement about content and tags shows
  1. The guideline tag was added based on Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes.
  2. The tags an content of this page have had several edit disputes
Collapsed table two, Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, shows
  1. 37 editors commented, for a total of 150 edits. Between the 20th of December and the 8th of January, 18 days.
  2. 23 editors opposed, 13 supported the proposition, 2 editors I am uncertain of their position
  3. By an almost 2 to 1 margin editors opposed this proposition. (1.769 ratio)
  4. Although only 13 editors opposed, they were responsible for 76 of the 150 edits. The two largest edits to the page was two supporters, Ned (36) and Bignole (13).
Collapsed table three, the Frasier and the Stargate episode merges
  1. Shows that at least one editor has not followed the guidelines set out in the Arbitration.
Conclusions and further study
  1. There has never been consensus for this page to be a guideline
  2. There is a clear historical pattern of no or false consensus perpetrated by editors here, to justify this policy page, and the deletion or merger of other editors contributions.
  3. Why did the closing editor close it accepted? I have no access to the actual edits of these editors, so I cannot determine how big each editor edit was.[38] But based on the number of edits, it shows that those who supported this proposal disproportionately commented on this Request for Comment. This strongly supports to posits/theories I have suspected for a long time (1) The current "Discussion is not a vote" rule, where administrators close the discussion based on no numerical figure, maybe flawed, because it not only encourages tedious editing, but (2) it supports those editors who are invested and support the policy the most.
  4. Therefore, the current "Discussion is not a vote" rule should be critically reevaluated.
Potential further study and investigation
  1. The history of this dispute, including, User:Starblind/DeletionWars#Inclusionism Wikipedia:Historic debates in which the inclusion of episodes won.
  2. Graphing of the Wikipedia:Television episodes talk page similar to Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes.
  3. Graphing of the Wikipedia:Television episodes main page similar to Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes.
  4. Graph how many edits each editor had in Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, to test my posit/theory that the current "Discussion is not a vote" rule favors veteran editors over newer editors
Result

Based on these findings, I am removing the {{guideline}} tag from Wikipedia:Television episodes.

In the spirit of respect for the authors work on Wikipedia:Television episodes, I will not add {{Rejected}} or {{historical}}, instead I will add a more neutral template found here: Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations).

Ikip (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Consensus can change, what occurs in the past matters little to present discussion. The above section (Pixel's suggestion to demote) is the most recent consensus and suggests this stays as a guideline pending the resolution of other issues. --MASEM 13:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"There has never been consensus for this page to be a guideline". Consensus has historically and still is against this guideline.Ikip (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there has - this has been marked a guideline for a long time (more than several months), and only last month was reaffirmed as being a guideline. Be aware that you're approaching this (stating it is invalid to to historical precedence) as if WP was a bureaucracy, which it is not. If you believe something should not be a guideline, seek consensus to demote it, as what happened in the long past does not matter to how the guideline is seen now. --MASEM 14:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Masem, and this "this discussion has become dormant" stuff doesn't actually work in your favor. If someone comes here and says "this shouldn't be a guideline" and the discussions fade with no clear consensus then Wiki rule states that the page reverts back to its original status (i.e. dormant talk doesn't mean the proposal automatically passes...not unless there was clear consensus in one direction. In other words, if the consensus was to dismantle the page and everyone stopped talking about it..then yes we would dismantle the page. There was no such consensus). As for your "study". You say you cannot access the edits, but you know the edit counts. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and the majority vote doesn't mean that the majority wins. It's based on the strength of the argument. Many of those opposers only had arguments of "I like episode articles, we should keep them the way they are". Frankly, that's a pretty weak argument to allow episode articles to exist all willy-nilly. You "empiracl data" also lacks context. You have "OPPOSE" votes that contradict each other. Many times I say oppose votes side-by-side where one person insinuated that they wanted to get rid of the guideline while another read like they wanted to keep it. Statistics are a funny thing, as without true context you can make them say whatever you want (trust me, I've had a vast many classes on statistics and the research used to support them).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, you can't say "what occurs in the past matters little to present discussion" and then turn right around and say "this has been marked a guideline for a long time." And I really don't think the Demotion from guideline thread above "reaffirmed" this as being a guideline. Frankly I had forgotten I started that thread and it was still going til January 5, then more after that. And you supported this page being demoted. --Pixelface (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have this too say. If anything in the past 3 years has become clear to me, then it is that television episodes are one of the hottest contested areas between deletionists and inclusionists, between the demanders of "quality now" and the professors of "quality arrives in time". I have always been of the opinion that making any "rules" in these areas are pointless. Drive by-contributors don't adhere to them, and dedicated contributors are wasting their time with discussion and formulation that could better be spent authoring. As such we can only hope that the organic wikipedia authoring process will solve the issues in the end.

BUT. where I have always been a support of NOT#PAPER, and not being on a timetable, coming from the 2006/2007 period where the was NO active WP:TV but only projects dedicated to several series themselves, resulting in complete chaos at that time, I do think there needs to be guidance. So I advice that people focus on the following whenever they talk about guidelines, MoS, policy etc. when it comes to TV related articles.

  1. there NEEDS to be guidance for creating articles on a television series TOPIC.
  2. there need to be rules about what is allowed to weed down articles of a TOPIC to create more condense and more readable articles on said topic.
  3. there needs to be respect for the evolving nature of contributions when a series is still running at this moment.

I think some people are forgetting that it is more important to guide contributors into making proper articles, than it is to fight and discuss specific rules that will without doubt always be limited by "ignore all rules".

ALSO, i would like to point out the significant part that the centralized discussion of television episodes has. The discussion was about a small set of dedicated project editors that needed to deal with the pressure put on to them by deletionists (from the entirety of Wikipedia) and the at that time large group of "drive by editors" that were hardly participating in wikipedia as a process. I still consider that the impossible was asked of the editors at that time and that no good could ever come of it. There is no 1 set of rules that can or should be used when writing an article for wikipedia. There can only be an advice on how to steer creation, and how to condone deletion. The fact that 2 years after this discussion, people still cannot see the spirit of the result of the discussion but only the words, shows to me that the discussion was a waste of time to begin with. I take no clear points in these discussions anymore. I neither accept or oppose in ANY of these discussions, since I find that it hurts me as an editor in other areas of Wikipedia to be marked as a deletionist/inclusionist and even as a TV contributor. My interest is only to provide a bit of context. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I find funny is that WP:FICT is just about complete, and it will take the place of this guideline anyway. Yet, there seems to be a rush to "delete" this guideline before FICT is official. I don't know if it's some vein attempt at a free pass on creating articles (which strikes me as odd and misguided), or what.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy the this "guideline doesn't matter" ruse at all. Why are you and Masem spending so much time here debating what I am saying? Why are both you and Masem in a revert war with me over what tag is on this page?
Your statement that this doesn't matter is similar to the AfD tag, "this is not a vote, we don't vote in this AfD" Which discourages other editors from commenting. Same empty tactic. Further, This page does matter, it has been used to attempt to delete numerous pages and merge hundreds of articles, by the same handful of editors that lost by a two to one margin in the Request for comment vote, and have stifled criticism of this essay ever since. Ikip (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I didn't say "it doesn't matter", if anything I said "it won't matter" (future tense) - there is a difference, and thus your follow-up statement is moot. I'm arguing it because right now this IS what we have to address episode article. Who said anything about discouraging editors from commenting? What exactly are you reading??? WP:NOTE has been used to deleted more pages than EPISODE ever has. I don't see you placing a dispute tag on that guideline. Hell, that guideline is far more strict than this one is with regard to episode articles. Again, you bring up the voting numbers like they actually mean something. Please take a look at WP:DEMOCRACY, it would be helpful for future discussions in this regard. As for FICT, yes there is bickering over petty wording, but trust me..the bickering will end and FICT will be officially made a guideline for fictional articles. P.S. Don't accuse me of tag-teaming. I only made one revert to your edit, and it was before I ever saw that Masem had reverted you earlier. A rever war requires more than a single revert on a given subject, in such a case it seems that YOU are the one trying to instigate an edit war (since you reverted Masem, who reverted you, and then after I reverted you, you then decided to place a different tag on the page). I wonder if there there are rules against placing a dispute tag on a page so close to the last time there was a dispute tag placed on it...hhmmm.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, if there is consensus for this page, why was there just recently a tag removed, who removed it? Bignole!
00:32, 5 January 2009 Bignole "Undid revision 261994700 by Kim Bruning (talk) there was no consensus to demote, which means it stays where it is)"
00:37, 5 January 2009 Bignole "(there was no consensus for change in any direction, so it reverts back to its original state. The only clear idea from that discussion was that we can dismantle if FICT becomes official)"
For one long year, a couple of editors have been arguing "consensus", it is almost a hypnotic chant. If you say it long enough will everyone believe it?
But guess what, an evening of simple research shows that this page was opposed 2 to 1 originally in the Request for comment, yet verbose editors such as yourself, out talked everyone else, and despite the 23 editors who opposed this article, this article became a guideline. The talk pages and revert wars over templates shows that you have warn down any opposition to this page. It is very similar to TNN's and sgeureka tactics (above), that was brought up in the Arbitration. I guess there was so much "consensus" for this essay's policies that Arbitration was required? I guess the last "demote" tag, quickly reverted by Bignole a few days ago was a mark of consensus? Anyone can have consensus in an echo chamber.
You are welcome to quote acronyms all you would like. It does not change the fact that there has never been consensus on this page. I bring up the rich history of revert wars, because it is a pattern of behavior. You and Masem argue there is consensus now, just like you argued their was consensus then. Less than two weeks ago there was yet another revert war over tags, and two weeks ago, you argued the same tired mantra: consensus.
I am aware of the acronym Consensus can change that you partner used:
"Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things."
Was deleting all of those tags facilitating new ideas and helping build new consensus?
It is ironic that Masem brings up "Consensus can change" when all you two have ever wanted since the absurd RfC is the status quo.
I can't wait to document the talk page. I have a strong feeling that your consensus will be just as empty as sgeureka's Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Stargate SG-1 episode review Ikip (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break

This is how consensus has been made over the past year, illustrated again today:

14:38, 19 January 2009 Bignole (Talk | contribs) (5,988 bytes) (the proposal was to dismantle this guideline, if the discussion becomes dormant than the proposal doesn't automatically win) (undo) Deletes compromise tag
13:54, 19 January 2009 Masem (Talk | contribs) (5,988 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Ikip; Inappropriate tag per recent discussion. (TW)) (undo) Deletes compromise tag
16:06, 19 January 2009 Collectonian (Talk | contribs) m (5,988 bytes) (Reverted 5 edits by Ikip; Rv; one editor disputing is not a dispute; do the talk thing, but consensus already said no to the tag. using TW) Deletes disputed tag

Like minded editors, resisting any change to the status quo, in clear violation of "Consensus can change". Wait: Don't you have to have consensus first before it can change?

I guess you all feel this is not a dispute? This is what the three of you consider consensus building? I LOVE Collectonian logic for removing the tag: "one editor disputing is not a dispute" Collectonian is that a dictionary definition or wikipedia policy, or neither?

Thanks, you three, although it was never my intention, thanks for inadvertently proving my central thesis. Ikip (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one editor could just dispute every policy by tagging it, every last policy and guideline on Wikipedia would be in a perpetual state of dispute because no one agrees with everything. There was already a very recent discussion on this and consensus affirmed the removal of the tag. Your now coming here and attempting to re-stir the pot does not change this, nor does your length tl;dr stuff above. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slippery Slope fallacy of logic: "the speaker argues that, once the first step is undertaken, a second or third step will inevitably follow, much like the way one step on a slippery incline will cause a person to fall and slide all the way to the bottom."
Yes, I was waiting for this statement, I am disrupting the revert wars of tags, and the merging of articles in complete disregard of the Arbitration. I am disrupting the status quo, and that's what it is all about isn't it?
So Collection, waiting for the policy which supports the removal of my dispute tag. Lets just cut to the chase: there is none. Ikip (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until the completion of FICT this should stand as a gudeline. L0b0t (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's why we have the WP:3RR. Someone can insist on a viewpoint. But other people can revert it freely. And we have the WP:3RR so that one person can't just ram a change through. We also have the WP:3RR so change can't be obstructed by one person. Randomran (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to make my point one more time, this time by quoting from the lead of this guideline. "The following guideline aims to promote the creation of high-quality articles about television shows and their episodes." CREATION. It can in no way be used as a blanket approval to any form of non-considerate deletion of articles/content, even though it is used by some people in this way. The fact that many people do not understand or appreciate the efforts of some "deletionists", next to the fact that some deletionists use this guideline as an improper reasoning for their "deletioninism" does not reflect on the correctness of this guideline directed at the creation of proper and understandable articles. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that much of this discussion is caused by the "Dealing with problem articles" section. I have some leaning towards supporting a removal of that section in this guideline for being disputed. I'm very mixed emotions about that section. The reason is that in my personal opinion, a list or season "article-format" will forever limit the possibility for editors to expand upon articles in an evolutionary way. BUT remember that we used to have many (esp. older series) that had virtually empty articles for every single episode that are now in a much better place by being part of a List of or a Season article for the next few years. However in that light, perhaps the section is not so much part of the content guideline than that it is part of a process adhered to by several editors and perhaps better in place in WP:TV project space or as an essay perhaps. Perhaps splitting the parts that are agreed upon by almost all editors and the part that is somewhat disputed is the best approach that can be taken for the time being. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But mergists uses to forget, that all the merging suppositions consists from two different ideas. The first is "merging", i.e. adding plot summaries into lists of episodes, and in such a case almost no one is against. That is why I'm almost agree with your comment. But the second supposition is to remove the original articles, considering by some editors as "non-notable" or as "stubs". And even if they are "stubs" or "non-notable", — what is the reason to remove them? Is it an attempt to economy the hard disc's memory? But, at first, disk space is cheap, and at second, this articles's information will not be removed in any case, - they will be just saved somewhere in Wikipedia's archives. And the only result of such work will be that these articles will be keeped out from display, making them invisible, especially for new editors. Krasss (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though I stated before that this is not my windmill to fight, I'd like to express support for the positions against the removal/deletion of "merged" articles, on the grounds that while the merger preserves (shortened) plot summaries, other details are lost. I am not absolutely against mergers: there is no need for episode stubs that remain empty forever, and there may be no need for individual episode articles for a story arc, for instance. But a guideline suitable for a serial may not be equally applicable for an anthology style series. Indeed it was the recent merger of such an anthology (The Outer Limits) that got me involved in this discussion, though I note that some (not necessarily all, but some) Stargate SG-1 episode articles that have been merged/deleted also contained information not available elsewhere. It seems to me that the well-intentioned zeal of "mergist" editors may have gone too far on occasion, deleting useful (and verifiable) content.
One argument I found especially dubious is the issue of notability and sources. The television episodes in question have been seen by millions. Do we really need a review in TV Guide before we consider the episode notable? As to sources, information such as cast of characters can be read off directly from the screen, i.e., a recording of the episode itself is a verifiable primary source... do we really not believe that an episode was directed by X until this information is confirmed in writing by a secondary source? I believe that these criteria have been misapplied when the merging and deletion of some television episodes was considered. vttoth (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of people who have seen an episode has been brought up before. Like here, in my statement over a year ago at Wikipedia:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability. Torc2 also said "If an episode rates in the top 50 for that week, or is aired nationally, why is that not an indication of notability? Why are ratings not a significant indication of notability for TV shows, when radio play and sales are for records?" Lquilter said "Extraordinary levels of popular reception, such as record-breaking ratings, purchases, downloads, etc., if verifiable, may be evidence of notability." Blathnaid said "Criteria such as repeats, DVD releases, ratings, and surveys could show which shows society has judged as notable."
Later, Masem gave a summary (in his view) of that RFC and said "Note that ratings and viewership, as well as having developer information, are argued to not be acceptable." I don't know where Masem got that from; me and Masem seem to be living in different universes. --Pixelface (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, that was an unbiased look at that discussion at hand, not my person interpretation. However, either as being my original beliefs on the system or just the fact that time has changed my opinion, I personally believe that, particularly per the new proposed FICT and the third prong there on real-world aspect, a statement on the viewership or the rating of an episode is sufficient to preliminary keep an episode article for notability purposes to allow further development of it. However, I still urge that common sense editorial judgment be used that if a number of a show's season's episode articles can only be expanded (given enough good faith effort to locate sources) to be the plot summary, infobox, and its Nielsen ratings at first airing, that merging to a season episode list is a better presentation of the same information. We still provide redirections and never outright delete existing episode articles unless they're patently bogus. --MASEM 15:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was unbiased. If some people felt that ratings should be considered, and some people felt that only "coverage" should be considered, the neutral thing would be to mention both of those views, not dismiss one in favor of the other. You prefer a season list, some people prefer individual articles for episodes. That's okay — different readers desire different levels of detail. A season list and articles for individual episodes are not mutually exclusive. Personally, I think season lists are fine for reality shows, game shows, talk shows, news programs, soap operas, and many children's shows — and currently I would be reluctant to support individual articles for episodes of any of those programs. I think Nielsen TV ratings are copyrighted by The Nielsen Company, so there might be an issue there. But wouldn't any coverage be copyrighted as well?
Apparently Wikipedia received a DMCA notice via OTRS in September 2008[39], but that was about TV region templates and lists of TV stations and the use of Nielsen's Designated Market Area (DMA) classification system, not TV ratings. --Pixelface (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The DMCA notice was as you said, about how WP used the same naming and organization scheme as the Neilsen data - which seems stupid but WP has to protect itself per DMCA. However, Neilsen ratings are reported all the time in third party sources - EW often reports nightlies and other sources report the best shows by the week. That doesn't seem a problem (such data exists throughout various TV shows here), and until Godwin says otherwise, these should be used and included and considered sufficient to help episode articles stand alone. All other coverage is just like any other secondary source - as long as either summarize without plagiarism or if we quote small sections and cite appropriately, we're doing what is necessary to build such sections anywhere on WP (not just fiction). --MASEM 06:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find this entire discussion rather enlightening as to what certain editors feel wiki is all about. Merging episodes and deleting content simply because they don't have the independent reliable sources as their parent articles is like dismantling a tower because you don't like some of the bricks. The notability of the parent article is built upon the episodes. Sure, one might opine that off-wiki sites "can handle the cruft", but we aren't talking about "cruft", and if readers cannot find what they need here they WILL go elsewhere and leave wiki a empty cavern. Wiki is the paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit... but more importantly, it is the paperless encyclopedia that anyone can read. It is not a matter of cutting down trees to please readers... it is about being the central nexus of information where indivudiuals can learn and hopefuly expand their understanding, no matter the subject. And it is not WP:NOTINHERITED, as individual episodes have the notability as established by their parents... and further individual sourcing of the individual bricks, while nice, is not neccessary (building made up of the indvidual bricks analogy), since the tower made of all those bricks is itself strong. I found this discusion entirely by accident... and was a bit surprised that it has not been brought to the attention of the hundreds or thousands of involved or concerned editors who might have important opinions on the matter. It is hubris to believe that any one or even 5 or 10 should make decisions that affect the hundreds or thousands of others. Wiki is not a beauracracy. It is not "ruled" by an exalted heirachy or by self-appointed guardians of the gate. We are all here together and a true consessus af ALL the involved or affected must be sought. So for myself, I support the positions against the removal/deletion of "merged" articles. Wiki has no deadline. We have all the time we might ever need to expand a stub or tweak an article or even {eventually) find a source. Deletion is only a last resort... as we have so many other options that improve the project and make it suitable for readers as well as editors. User:TheDJ paraphrased it best: Wiki is about CREATION and not deletion. Why else would I have joined the Rescue Squad if I thought creation and improvement were pointless? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your brick analogy. This is a dispute between lumpers and splitters. But some people *will* claim "cruft." Some people *will* bring up NOTINHERITED, but like I've said before: the episodes are the show. Over seven years ago, someone on meta said "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page" and Jimmy Wales said "I agree with this one completely" and so people started creating them, and it went from there. Wikipedia is not paper on meta still says that.
NOTPAPER and EPISODE were both mentioned by Arbcom in the second arbitration case about television episodes, E&C2. EPISODE has never been a notability guideline, but one prolific user was acting as if it was. We do have some self-appointed guardians of the gate here. Most of them involved parties and/or contributors to E&C1 or E&C2. --Pixelface (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2

I would urge that those that would like to see this guideline demoted to help participate in WT:FICT, where we are close to presenting a new version of the notability of fictional elements that will include tv episodes. The TL;DR version of it is that we have developed a proposed 3-prong test to estimate the notability of a fictional element:

  1. The importance of the work itself. For TV episodes, this pretty much means any nationally broadcasted series, though certain series that may last for all of 2 or 3 episodes may be less important than one that's gotten 20 seasons under its belt.
  2. The importance of the element to the work. This prong is in a bit of a quibble, but I would reasonably argue that for most shows that have one new show a week (as opposed to soaps), every episode is important to the work, otherwise they would have not dedicated their limited air time to create it. Soaps, its not that any specific episode is important, it is the overall plot as it develops over the season. There's likely other cases, but lets assume we're working with shows along the lines of "Lost", "Scrubs" or "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
  3. The inclusion of real-world aspects. For TV episodes, this can include reviews (from reliable sources), viewership, or development information from the creative team. An issue still being discussed is the weight of independent sources verses dependent sources here, but the key point is that we are not asking for compliance to the general notability guideline; if one can show some real-world impact or influence, there's likely more to be had with more searching. This does not include using TV Guide schedule blurbs.

From these three prongs, I would argue that most episode articles could likely stay if people did the legwork to meet the third prong - it is not a hard barrier to meet. There will still be some that "go away" - shows from early in the days of cable, for example, may not have viewership information readily available.
However, "go away" is not the same as deletion. There is absolutely no reason that an episode of any weekly TV show should not be discussed to some length, it just may be part of a season episode list. If you can't get a TV episode to make the third prong, I would hope editorial discretion would make sense to move the plot description into the season episode list while providing the redirect so that the episode is still searchable and the edit history is not lost. For example, I've recently been looking at the Star Trek TNG episodes for just simple plot condensation (per WP:WAF), and as a result, I would argue most of these, once the plot's down to 2 or 3 paragraphs, can easily be placed into season episode lists without lost of any other information. Were I to do that, I'd be merging and redirecting, not deleting, as if more information became available at a later date, those can be resurrected.
Which of course leads to the question of "why" do this merging in the first place if no information is lost? First, there are those on WP that are hard-nosed, "must have secondary sources" enforcers of WP:N that would love to see it as policy. (I disagree with that approach). There will always be a conflict with those, just as there are people that think that as long as one person thinks a topic is important, it should have an article. Acknowledging that articles should include information that is sourced beyond the primary work, and gathering those that can't be expanded beyond this into logical groups is one method of balance - we still cover those important points but recognize that full articles on each is never going to please the hard-nosed. It's a compromise, one that WP has been desperately looking for for nearly 2 years now. Furthermore, merged seasons episodes lists may have a better likelihood of meeting the expectations of those hard-nosed editors, as often TV seasons are released as DVD sets, and these get reviews all the time in reliable sources, and will have featurettes that may cover the entire season. Smallville (Season 1) is such an example that the whole seems to be greater than the sum of its parts without losing any critical information from any specific show. Second is the issue of maintenance. WP is not running out of hard disk space, but it does have a finite number of editors and a finite amount of their time. My experience has told me it is much easier to watchlist the main article of a series of merged articles and the respective redirect pages than to watchlist each individual article if they were not redirected, as when they aren't redirected, they attract more vandals and nonsense edits, and to deal with that takes time. Vandals will still hit the merged article, but that's one regular article I can check and then keep quick tabs on the other, allowing me to go on with other more productive editing. The final reason is that one simply may have a better end article if one merges, particularly for shows with seasonal plots ala Lost or the reimaged BSG; a season episode list, done right, provides a total summary of the season's overall plot
WP should cover every TV episode (for the most part) somewhere with a concise yet thorough plot. What we need to do is recognize that there will always be a split between those that want everything covered in detail and those that want tighter reins on preventing indiscriminate information. Wise editing choices about when a single TV episode should be covered in its own article instead of part of the larger work is what is needed to bridge that irreparable gap. Presently this version of this page tries to do that, but FICT will hopefully improve it to give more allowance to episode page retention and creation, but I still implore that editors think twice about how best to present a TV show before jumping and creating individual episode articles, given all other policies and guidelines we have per WP:WAF and WP:MOSTV. --MASEM 16:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic justice
For years editors like Masem have deleted or merged other editors contributions stating:
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
Lets turn this stick, which has been used for years by editors like you, and probably yourself, on you Masem. Where is the proof, the evidence that this article has ever gained consensus? It is up to you and those who support this page to show there has been consensus. So far noone here has shown that consensus has been gained. No one argues that the Request for Comment was overwheliming lopsidely against this page becoming a guideline 2 to 1 opposed it. No one argues that there have been revert wars over the tags for over a year. The burden of proof is on you Masem, through edit differences to prove that this article has consensus. If you cannot prove that this article has consensus, this article will be demoted. It is nice for once to have the editors who contribute nothing to articles they try to delete, to finally be on the hotseat, and be required to cough up evidence or face deletion.
WT:FICT is simply a retread of the years of fighting about television episodes. Except it has been overwhelmingly molded and created by editors who want to delete or merge other editors contributions. WT:FICT is an echo chamber, a back door way to gather the appearance of consensus by a handful of delete editors, when consensus has historically been overwhelming against these changes.
  1. I am troubled at how you and editors who support deletion dismiss the fradulent request for comment.
  2. I am troubled at how you and editors who support deletion claim consensus but offer no proof to support this empty claim. Consensus is not reached by a tedious editing in a Request for Comment nor deleting other editors tags, added with good faith.
  3. I am troubled at how you and editors who support deletion condone, ignore, dismiss, or support bullying editors behavior.
  4. I am troubled at how some editors who support deletion have ignored the Arbitration ruling. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters which states:
"An ideal response to such situations would be broader discussion of the guideline among editors with varying editing interest, with consensus achieved prior to widespread changes." I don't think talk page echo chambers counts as a "broader discussion". It does not include merging articles based on patently false consensus. Has anyone contacted the hundreds of episode list pages to get their opinion on this proposal and this page or WP:FICT? No, because as the history of this dispute has shown, the overwhelming majority of editors support the way things are ran right now. What editors who delete want is to get a seal of approval on WP:FICT. Only then let the editors who contribute to episodes find out about this new policy when they start deleting.
This discussion will not languish forever until I give up and go somewhere else, with editors who support deletion having a monopoly on the main page, reverting any good faith edits editors make. This is what has happened for the past year: an abuse of policy (repeated bad faith removal of tags), and editors opposing view points being ignored to retain the status quo.
Again: Ball is in your court Masem, the burden is on you. Prove that their is consensus for this essay, or this essay will be demoted. Ikip (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some personal beef with Masem or something because you seem to be more interested in attacking him than engaging in serious discussion. In either case, relevant projects have now been notified of this discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is how the editors here deal with differing opinions, and this is how "consensus" has always been actually made on this essay: template warnings,[40], reverting any tags which question this page, quickly followed by a request for page protection.[41][42] [43][44][45]
I think editors would be more tolerant of your views gentlemen, if you were more tolerant of theirs. Your behavior speak louder than your words.
I think the emporer has no clothes. Ikip (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring over tags is not acceptable (per WP:3RR) and even moreso not tolerated on policy or guideline pages (WP:POLICY). That is simply not how disputes are settled. If you tag once and its reverted, don't retag - discuss it on the talk page. --MASEM 19:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone contacted the hundreds of episode list pages to get their opinion on this proposal and this page or WP:FICT? Actually, yes, not necessarily this page, but my previous version of FICT (which failed, but that's lessons learned) was put up on the watchlist-notice and every other place such RFC for approval would go. It got over 100 editors involved. It failed, certainly, so FICT still remains a non-guideline, but it was lessons learned. We then proceeded to create an RFC at WP:N, again watchlisting that, to try to see how spinouts and sourcing work for sub-notability guidelines (primarily centered on FICT). That showed clear community consensus that spinouts would not be tolerated, though supporting lists are there.
The claim that the (now) current version of FICT is one-sided is unfounded. Phil Sandfier is the primary author of that, and he's clearly on the inclusionist side. Others that favor wider coverage of fiction further support it. There's also those that want tighter coverage that support it too like Gavin.Collins. It is not a one-sided effort as you claim. You'll also notice that it is still proposed. We're not letting it go live without getting wide-spread input via an RFC, and even then, it looks like we're going to make it a 3 month test period and readdress any issues that may come up. So there is and will be clear consensus on why FICT was promoted to a guideline.
However, this is because we are seeking consensus now. If you believe a guideline should not be a guideline, don't try to point to flaws in how it passed - we are not a bureaucracy or democracy, and thus there are no "technicalities" that can be used to invalidate one. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a large number of policy and guideline statements that have been introduced without significant discussion on their respective talk pages, and thus persist to this day. When they are found, they are challenged and then discussion occurs to assure that there is consensus for it. There is no requirement that a full Wiki-wide consensus be obtained before making something a policy or guideline - its good form to do so, and when the topic is so contentious, it's bad form not to. However, if one introduces a new change to guideline or policy and it is contested, the way to resolve it is to discussion on the policy/guideline page first to see if that can be fixed, and if not, use things like RFC to gain wider consensus.
To be direct to your question on if this has consensus, the proof that this has consensus to stay an guideline is the thread started by Pixelface last month that challenged this as a guideline. The consensus showed that there was no sufficient reason to change it from a guideline. Now, if you feel that that didn't achieve enough of a spread of consensus, you're welcome to create an RFC to get more people involved (remembering that we work on consensus, not majority). I do caution though that when/if FICT is promoted to a guideline, that will likely render this guideline unnecessary since the notability aspects will be covered by FICT, the rest covered by MOSTV. Thus, it is likely in the best interest of your goals (which I presume is to have more tv episode coverage) to assist in getting FICT to a guideline.
And as a final point, while you may see this current guideline as what drives editors to merge episode articles, I will point out that in the absence of this guideline and the working FICT, the notability aspects fall to WP:N which is much more strict than either of these, and will further drive towards merging of episode articles to episode lists. I don't want that, I doubt you do either. --MASEM 19:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Collect, you reverted the dispute tag and then had the page protected to a version without the tag! I guess this shows there is infact consensus! Is this the way you usually garner consensus, with a stick? So, again where does the policy state that one person cannot add a dispute tag? As you stated before, the first time you reverted my edit?
Thanks for your thoughtful comments Masem. Actually, you are 50% correct, Phil Sandfier overwhelming edited the most on the talk page (313? edits), and the most on the policy page (51 edits). But calling Phil Sandfier an inclusionist is absurd: "A cleaning up of the stupid cruft and procedural edifice over RFA is probably due" Strange how you wouldn't know this position... Ikip (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am hard-pressed to see the link between my views on RFA and inclusionism. Suffice it to say that in the realm of articles I am generally strongly inclusionist, and I am certainly strongly inclusionist of fictional subjects. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Phil and Masem, I was wrong about that quote. Ikip (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there were consensus on a guideline here ( or at WP:FICT), but I don;t see that there is. Masem's view that the default standard is WP:N is refuted by the fact that the actual results at AfD re much more liberal than that in this as in most subjects--and regardless of what may be said on policy pages, the actual policy is the policy as it is applied to articles. the problem, and the reason why we do need an acceptable guideline--is that deciding in that way article by article is wildly inconsistent. Better almost anything reasonable than that we continue to give the impression that we on't know what we're doing.
but I think the discussion here should be deferred until we see what does happen to WP:FICT. DGG (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mergists often uses WP:Notability and other such guidelines to prove their position. But these guidelines are not Global Policies of Wikipedia — and are not helpful in such a case to create an useful Encyclopedia. For example, User:Sgeureka is owner of Stargate.wikia.com, and at his site all the Stargate episodes are not merged — each episode has its own page. It proves, that being an active mergist-deletionist in Wikipedia, this user has quite different position about the same question at his own website. And it means that User:Sgeureka, at fact, does not recognize WP:Notability and other such guidelines as helpful rules. Of course, we all are able to create our own websites about subjects that are interesting for us, making them more interesting sources than wikipedia is. But removing (merging, deleting etc.) other user's contribution from wiki is not a right way. Krasss (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe sgeureka (talk · contribs) "owns" the Stargate wiki; especially since his first edit was "22:53, 28 November 2007" and the first article created was on "15:31, 26 June 2005". — pd_THOR | =/\= |

lol okay, so here's something I don't get.

The other day I was watching Malcolm in the Middle and I was all like "hey, wait a sec. Is that that one song by Journey? I'll consult Wikipedia!!". And so I did. As expected, some dick merged all the episode articles, which led me to go through the task of:

  1. Finding the episode title
  2. Searching for that episode title
  3. Getting redirected back to the List of Episodes
  4. Clicking the redirect page
  5. Going to the history
  6. Scrolling down and finding the last meaningful revisionyou
  7. Finding out that it in fact was not that one Journey song.

It's only hitting me just now at how obnoxious and stupid that entire process was to find out something so mundane. Is there really a point to those episode articles not being linked to? BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL THERE, quietly hidden away by some twat who for some god-forsaken reason thought the information wasn't good enough for my eyes to look upon. How does this make a lick of sense? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, the chances of you finding a song in an episode article (at least one that conforms to the guidelines) is going to be rare in and of itself. Per WP:MOSTV#Things to avoid, it's not something generally included just to be included. Secondly, we actually preserve the history (i.e. don't delete, just redirect) for that very reason. So that someone can go back and find some trivial information that wasn't entirely encyclopedic an thus not what was merged to the parent article. Finally, let's try and be a bit more civil and not attack other editors who were merely following the guidelines and policies set forth by the community (trust me, if they were redirected it was because they failed WP:NOTE).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, nothing was really merged, all the episode articles were simply redirected. So that means that in essence, all the articles were simply de-linked. This is what baffles me. What was the point of that? If all the information is still there and completely untouched and unmoved, why is it not readily accessible? People being able to look at this stuff isn't harmful to Wikipedia's overall quality or scholarly merit(lolo).
This logic doesn't really apply to many other mergers where content is actually rewritten and moved somewhere else so that it's better, only episode merges where links are cut and everything is shoved under the rug. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on what was on the page to begin with. Most of the time, episode articles don't just fail WP:NOTE, they fail the style guidelines and many other guidelines and policies. If the information should not have been on the page regardless of notability, then it won't get merged when the article is redirected. Listing featured songs isn't going to be found in articles that meet all of our other guidelines, so you won't see that merged. It's unlikely you'll see anything that lacks a reliable source get merged because of that very fact (lacks a source). Here's an example: Sleepover (Malcolm in the Middle). It contains a plot, some trivia, and a guest list. The trivia is original research, and the guest list is irrelevant. If the guest is important they will be mentioned in the plot (and should have the actor's name listed by the character) of the episode list. Now, not to be completely dismissive of your claims. I agree that a lot of times articles are redirected with valid content never officially merged into a parent article. But, this is a problem with the editors doing the merging and not the process itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bignole, nobody cares what WP:MOSTV says. It's a style "guideline" for a WikiProject. It has a total of 62 edits.[46] WP:MOSTV was not "set forth by the community." It's been edited by a total of 25 unique editors. You have made more edits to it than anyone. You are the one who proposed it and you are the one who moved the page to /Style guidelines. And you are the one that tagged it a guideline. Citing yourself is pretty pathetic. --Pixelface (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Park episodes

It seems that 90% of all the articles for South Park episodes simply consist of a plot summary and a link to the episode on SouthParkStudios.com. I really think that most of the articles should be merged and redirected to List of South Park episodes. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not already, I would start a discussion on that page. I would also suggest a possible compromise, because, with a show that has been running that long, having that many plot summaries added to a "List of episodes" page would waaay too much. I would make the suggestion of creating season articles/lists (it depends, if it's just a table of episodes then its a list...ala Lost (season 2), but if it has production info...ala Smallville (season 1)...then its an article), per WP:MOSTV as a way for them to have more fleshed out plot summaries on one page per season (as opposed to an overly long "List of" page, or 200 individual pages of just a plot). I would explain that ALL episode pages must conform to WP:NOTE, though there has been some leeway given to "List of" and season pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first and only place where I've started a discussion. I really think it would be ridiculous to tag every single article for notability, but a separate article for each season would make the most sense. Where should I start a discussion elsewhere? –Dream out loud (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to tag each episode article. Anyone watching those pages will be watching the "List of" pages, the primary "South Park" page and any other main page related to South Park (isn't there a task force or a WikiProject or something for them??).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is often no objection to merging if the summaries in list of episodes are adequate--there ought to be objection when it isn't. This is an encyclopedia, not a program guide, and the information about the episodes should be enough to tell someone who had not seen the episode what happened there. A single short sentence is not enough, just as 4 or 5 paragraphs is usually excessive--we are not a fan site any more than we are a program guide, but e need to do something in the middle. In this particular case, the list is only tenable if the episodes are described further in more detail==they are the very model of inadequate summaries that cannot stand as he sole description. If you want to improve episode content, either edit individual articles so they are encyclopedic, or expand the summary ones until they are. Either way would work. What would not work is redirecting to the present list and letting it go at that. DGG (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about we do a vote, and see how many people want the rules to be changed, so that those article pages are fine? I'm told that 2030 people have edited the South Park episodes. And I bet the current policy was only decided by a couple dozen people at the most.

Suggested Policy Change Any television series that has at least a million viewers, may have an article for every single episode of it. Support or Deny?

  • Support

Dream Focus 06:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • See this policy. Also, no matter what the "vote" is here, this page can NOT contradict WP:NOTE. NOTE is the parent guideline. If you want changes, you got to start there. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. I'll go there. Dream Focus 06:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bignole, once again, you are saying something completely and blatantly false. WP:NOTE is not the "parent" guideline to WP:EPISODE — because WP:EPISODE is not a notability guideline and never has been. What don't you understand? And even if WP:NOTE was the parent guideline of WP:EPISODE, NOTE does not say that coverage is the only evidence of notability. If Dream Focus thinks a million viewers is evidence of notability, they are entitled to their viewpoint and you can say nothing to detract from it. --Pixelface (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe having a million viewers makes it notable, while others believe only having one or two people who write something in a newspaper makes something notable. That anything these people like enough to write about in their papers or magazines, is notable, while the opinions of millions of others, doesn't matter at all. That is what it usually comes down to in notability debates I find myself in. Dream Focus 10:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's ridiculous to say that one person watching a show and writing an article about it means everything, while millions of people watching a show and writing nothing means nothing. --Pixelface (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And Wikipedia is not a democracy, that's true. That does not therefore mean that voting does not take place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not a government. That is obvious. Since Radiant! tagged this a guideline all by himself, and since you renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines and tagged it a guideline all by yourself, Wikipedia would appear to be a tin-pot dictatorship. --Pixelface (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

This page's designation as a guideline is disputed. As of now, Wikipedia:Television episodes has had a total of 214 edits[47]. It began as a centralized discussion, but was moved to Wikipedia:Television episodes on April 16, 2007 by Radiant! — the same editor who rewrote WP:N in September 2006 and tagged WP:N a guideline 16 days later and then edit-warred over the guideline tag[48]. WP:EPISODE has never been a notability guideline, even though some editors act like it is. Episode articles have over seven years of precedent on Wikipedia, according to the policy Wikipedia is not paper. I've seen no evidence that this page represents a generally accepted standard that all users should follow. --Pixelface (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until there is more than one editor to confirm a dispute, this guideline should not be tagged as such. For anything else, I don't see what the history of this guideline has to do with anything, considering that most of wikipedia's current fiction editors weren't even around back then. I see no comments how this guideline doesn't work, and how it should be changed to work better. – sgeureka t•c 10:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence that this page represents a generally accepted standard that all users should follow? Policies and guidlines must reflect consensus. The history of a guideline has to do with everything. This page's status as a "guideline" is disputed. --Pixelface (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you likely know, it's your turn to provide evidence that there is no consensus, and not mine to (re)confirm consensus. Until you provide that evidence (e.g. by starting a straw poll) or make suggestions how to change this guideline, I see no point in continuing this conversation. – sgeureka t•c 10:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no evidence of consensus in the first place. Radiant! tagged it a guideline all by himself, with no prior discussion. Consensus was never "confirmed" to begin with, so there is no consesus present to "reconfirm." --Pixelface (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sgeureka, where was this guideline-tagging discussed beforehand? It wasn't. So this page's status as a guideline appears to rest entirely on the opinion of one editor, Radiant!. That does not a Wikipedia guideline make. --Pixelface (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a RfC, as my research above shows #1 #2, this page was illegitametly made into a guideline, despite 2 to 1 against it becoming a guideline, and it has only remained a guideline because a handful of editors remove any tags which question its viability as a guideline. Ikip (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As was already said above, this guideline's history is not related in how much consensus it enjoys (or doesn't enjoy) currently. Go ahead with straw polls or RfCs to your heart's pleasure. – sgeureka t•c 10:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the standard line on this page has always been, "who cares if this page was illigetimately made into a guideline. The past is the past". These same editors continue to remove all dispute tags on the main page. Because comprimise is obviously impossible here, a RfC is the only real answer, to get wider community consensus. Talking around and around in circles here is not productive.Ikip (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A method of moving forward when merging of episode articles is disputed

I'd like to direct a few more eyes to Talk:List of South Park episodes#Alternate route to move forward for a solution that I've come up with that I think is a workable model for future mass episode merging disputes.

The TL;DR version is that in lieu of no consensus to merge a large number of episodes that don't have any sourcing beyond the primary work, we're asking that four episodes from the series, picked by a neutral third party (hasn't watched the show) as notability guinea pigs, to be shown to be notable. If all four are clearly notable after we give editors time to work with it, then it's presumed that the rest of the episodes can also be notable; but for this presumption, we expect a good faith and continued effort to improve the rest of the articles whether a coordinated effort by a WikiProject or just continued work of individuals within some time. This is not getting articles perfect, nor even getting all articles to show notability, just that we can assert a subset of articles are notable so that we don't engage in fait accompli demands of reaching notability, while at the same time we are helping to improve these articles.

Note that I propose this model of solution in cases where there is clear dispute between merging or not. When the consensus falls one way or the other, there's no need for this approach. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want to delete/merge something, they want to keep it, and since there are enough fans around to defend it, no consensus can be met. Thus the articles are kept. You aren't going to be able to delete/merge a single one. Dream Focus 17:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not based on a number of votes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little troubled by what some would argue is canvassing. I guess this opens the door to me posting notices on other project pages. Ikip (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "bad" canvassing if you notify relevant parties. If you're notifying relevant projects, then that's ok. If you notify them with the message of "come save these articles"...eh, not so much (not saying you would, just pointing it out). The "bad" canvassing is when you notify people not directly related to the discussion (like specific editors).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea in principle because in many cases it helps fan editors come to realize that articles are unfixable, without risking too much drama (I am not saying this out of bad faith - but sometimes popular articles remain unfixable even when you try hard to improve them). The only problem I see (and that's not to say I wouldn't recommend Masem's proposal) is that if 4 episodes could be improved to a reasonable standard, that fan editors will settle back and leave the other 96 poor articles rotting there into eternity and refuse to let anything happen to them in the future (e.g. merge into season articles) because WP:OTHERgoodSTUFFEXISTS. A total lack of future improvement (e.g. for two years) should always be interpreted as a lack of interest in improving the articles, and the articles may be up to new merge proposals again -- in the off-chance that there is renewed interest in improvement again, it's always easy to unmerge. – sgeureka t•c 12:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that Masem's proposal is that if you can do the 4 episodes in a reasonable amount of time, we would give you an extended amount to do the rest. But, if after that extended amount of time has passed and you have not shown good faith in trying to address the notability issue of the other pages (not that you haven't done them all, because no one would expect total completion), then you have to agree to merge them into a parent page until such time that you can assert their notability. That's the compromise. We'll continue to give you more time so long as you can show good faith and work on the pages (they don't have to be GA, or all be done right away, just the effort has to be there), but should you reneg on that deal then you agree to merge all of the ones that have yet to assert notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, a fan of WP:ATA. Let's all dismiss him as a "fan editor." --Pixelface (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Shown to be notable"? According to whom Masem? And how exactly? If there's no consensus for a merge, the articles do not get merged. And if it's the same editors again and again pushing for merges, they need to learn that they do not own Wikipedia's hard drives. --Pixelface (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no consensus for a merge, the next action that has been taken has usually been to take them to AFD, where lack of notability will be judged more harshly. The point is to prevent that from being the next step and instead try to keep as many by assuming good faith by editors after they've been establish that a random sampling of typical episodes are notable. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a decent step in WP:DR. A small group of editors isn't supposed to hijack broader agreements of the community. That's why we have people solicit feedback like this or like that when trying to apply a guideline to a set of articles. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The support for merging will be greater is efforts are made to retain content beyond bare directory listings. It's the way the proposed merge is implemented that makes the difference. DGG (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet merging is not a one-man job. Refusing to support a merger just because someone else is perceived to not merge enough content, is a very poor standpoint. If people are unsatisfied with the amount of merged content of a subject that can't support its own article, nothing is stopping them to add a few sentences. The implementation of a proposed merger is (or should be) secondary to the decision to merge in the first place, when notability is concerned. – sgeureka t•c 16:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Radiant had tagged this a guideline for the first time the day before
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes&oldid=279826640"