Wikipedia talk:Television article review process/Archive 1

message: This proposed review process has arisen out of discussion at WikiProject Television epsiode coverage taskforce as a means of reviewing, assessing and coping with increasing number of pages being created for individual episodes which fail notability guidelines.  It remains a proposal and is by no means set in stone, but it is anticipated that the process could also allow assessment of other television articles, such as characters.  This talk page should be used to discuss the review process.  Discussions about episode notability guidelines should take place on its talk page.  General discussion about the project should take place at the taskforce talkpage. Gwinva 10:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed review process

message: Some questions:
*What is redirected on sight? Anything?
*When we come across an article we think is not notable enough, we tag it. It then gets added to that category. What does that serve? 
*After fourteen days, if nothing has happened, we redirect. 
*Do all articles tagged get reviewed?
*Is there a template to put on the parent article's page yet? 
Just some of my questions after reading this page. I'm ready to go :) Alcemáe T • C 00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it doesn't say "you aren't notable", it's saying more of "you do not appear to meet that criteria, you have 14 days to show that you do". If an episode does, it shouldn't be hard. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't be a long wait. Personally, I think if you cannot find any type of reception information then you'll never really meet the criteria, as you cannot be notable in your own little world.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  I've expanded a few more bits... hope they are clearer. Gwinva 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: I had a go at making a template for parent articles on the first review.  IE. after placing notability tags on individual episodes, place this on the talk page of the parent article.  Here it is: .  Would work best if substituted, ie.  .  Series name can be added by piping.  What do you think?  Does it contain the appropriate links?  I've numbered it as we'll need another message for review 2 to tell people it's up for discussion on the review page. Feel free to play around with it. Gwinva 13:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that works. Is there an image we can add, to make it look kind of like how it would look if a BOT put a notice on the talk page of an article when it removes an image? You know, something to grab the attention.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a way to get it to include the taggers name automatically? When I add my signature to it manually, it forces a space before it and I get
 this look around my name.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If I don't put a sig, it puts your name in automatically (sometimes both, if I put mine in).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, I think that works now.. should automatically sign. Gwinva 14:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That works. It doesn't need to be all flashy, or violent like a stop-hand. Just something to catch the eye.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, that and because templates used on talk pages (in the messages themselves) are supposed to be subst'ed. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: I have been following the progression of this policy pretty closely though I have refrained from commenting. One issue I have seen with this plan from the beginning is the mass tagging of all the articles from a single series. Even a dedicated editor is going to have trouble bringing an entire season of episodes up to snuff in only fourteen days, much less series which have multiple seasons. Secondly I am concerned about how episodes will be treated if an editor feels the article already meets the criteria and thus doesn't significantly improve it. Will it be redirected because someone gets the idea that "obviously nobody bothered to work on this"? Stardust8212 01:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the consensus was, if it's clear that they are working (correctly) on at least a few of the episodes, then it's easier to say "give them more time". Also, even if the articles are redirected, nothing is wrong with that. The article hasn't gone anywhere, and if they expand it, then it's quite easy to un-redirect it and put the info in. It isn't like we are deleting anything to begin with.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then is User:TTN working against consensus or am I not working "correctly"? Because I would love to know how to work correctly. Also I am aware that redirecting will not delete the article however I have other concerns about the second review process which I don't really want to get into now (at risk of compounding the item I want to understand first) Stardust8212 01:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he's simply tagging. Like I said, the tag does really nothing more than alert you, or someone else, to what the problem is (and I believe it should provide a link to the guideline that details how the article should be written), and then after 14 days it puts a link to the article in a category for us to find. Then we'll look at it and decide if it needs reviewing. The review could turn out to be that we let the article stay, and extend the time for the clean up process. That is when a second review comes in. We would then review the progress after whatever the time was deemed. Also, if an article is redirected and you contest that, you could place it up for a second review. Unless TTN is redirecting all the articles ahead of time, then what he's doing is simply alerting everyone to the problem. He should be tagging parent articles to let them know as well.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my point is that he's tagging articles which, in my opinion, meet the guideline. They have all the items which the guideline says they should have. In these cases directing someone to the guideline isn't really enough. The articles are being tagged simply because they exist, not because of the actual content of the article, by which I mean 12 articles were tagged in one minute, clearly they aren't being read and held in their own merit at that rate. Also my question about the tagging earlier was while I was under the impression that the "give them more time" thought would be used by the tagger not the review board, thanks for clearing that up. It's just very frustrating because without any examples of what the review will be like I feel a bit lost, especially since my hard work to improve the articles to the guideline seems to have been breezed over in about 5 seconds. Stardust8212 02:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, having a bunch of information doesn't make it notable. In the three articles you linked, you have cultural references, but no cultural impact. There are not reviews for these episode, which would give it that notability. This is why I don't believe (as I've read others do), that just because a show is notable, doesn't make its episodes inheritedly notable. With the prose issue, lack of citations everywhere, and no reception information, that is probably why it was tagged. It's definitely a reviewer, and I think those issues will be brought up. I think if you can find some good reception information (which doesn't include user ratings, as those are not verifiable), then in the least the tag could probably be changed to a general clean-up tag, or something else like "List to prose" tags, based on what it needs. Right now, without any reception, I don't see the notability. I'm personally working on the Smallville pages, and I have a book that gives production information, but finding places that have actually reviewed the episodes is like trying to find a needle in a haystack, and sometimes people forget to put the needle in the haystack.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tips (and for not just writing me off as "crazy fangirl who can't deal") I'll keep working and see how the review process goes, though I hate the gut feeling of being the guinea pig. I'm still against the wholesale tagging of all articles from a series without even reading them, which I do truly believe happened in this case, but I'll leave that issue to fester quietly for the time being. Stardust8212 02:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Look at it this way. With the three articles you have, the review process probably won't be so bad, especially if continue to do what you have been doing and that's attempt to take care of the episodes to the best of their ability. I've taken the pilot for Smallville and turned it from a plot with some random trivia to this. It's possible for some. But I have also tried to do it with others and found that no professional writers care about the majority of what's on tv. They care about an episode here, and an episode there, but there are far too many on television to write about. It's even worse when you aren't on some major network like NBC, CBS, or ABC, but when you are on a smaller network like the CW (for Smallville). People don't get it the time of day. Just keep looking and working. Don't worry about the review, because most of the editors here are pretty fair about having an neutral discussion. Right now, we don't even know exactly how we will review, and we'll come to that bridge when get there. There were dozens of articles tagged well before the ones you are working on, so I doubt you'll be the guinea pig in the review process. So, just keep an eye on the page, and go save the review page to your watchlist. This way, when that starts, you can not only watch what happens, but possible give your own insight into the article. The review isn't limited to this taskforce, or just the people that work on that article regularly.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Tagging doesn't mean anything actually will happen to it. Based on the appearance of "The Devil's hand..." that will obviously go to review, and I'm sure that most of us here (and anyone else) would see that it's not in horrible shape, just needs to basic cleanup. I wouldn't fret over the tags right now. All they do is alert editors that it needs cleanup, and that after 14 days it just gets put in a category for us to find quickly. Once that happens it's a matter of review, so really your time span is longer than 14 days anyway. I think we are also going to have a tag for when the article is up for review, so that when that occurs you will be able to come to the page and take part in the discussion.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two issues 

message: The edit button was too far up. I agree, dated would be good, whenever it gets too long. Would it be like a normal archive box, just on the main page? Alcemáe T • C 03:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd keep it on the main page so that it isn't in the way. The titles could be "June 24 - 26" or things like that.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay. Sounds good. Someone who is good at wikicode (not me) should be up on that. Alcemáe T • C 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure we'll get it right when it starts. Not even sure when the first review will be, I'm surprised Matthew hasn't systematically removed ever tag under the guise of "they're notable because they're episodes".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. I used the template first on June 21, so July 5 will for sure have some. TTN probably tagged before that. And he's tagged lots too. Alcemáe T • C 03:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, The Road To Audition is actually the first to show up, it was tagged by NedScott on June 11. But, that's one of the ones that has drawn some concern. So I don't know if we'll begin the review or wait for the outcome of the TfD.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge tags and cleanup tags can probably replace it if necessary. We probably don't have to worry as it should be no consensus at this point (or keep by ignoring the people who are pushing their points). TTN 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Process/Archive Discussion 2

message: What is the basic idea behind this proposal?  Is it, to put it simply—that a few series could have every episode notable, while some others might have only one or two episodes notable, and the majority perhaps no independently notable episodes?  Is that the gist of it?--Pharos 07:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's that very few of the articles on individual episodes meet notability and episode guidelines. Some, such as the entire Season 8 of the Simpsons, fit these criteria, while most others do not. Previously  articles were being redirected en masse,  with no chance to fix them. This is the change that has resulted. Alcemáe T • C 07:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the real-world effect? 

message: Does anyone think there will be an issue with the redirected pages getting speedied under R3? Obviously if the articles are only being redirected to allow the history to stay and so they may be improved one day it would be bad if someone speedied the redirects because it is unlikely anyone would actually search for Insert show name here by typing some long episode title. I'm not concerned about longer deletion processes because you can get fair warning on those but speedy is, well, so fast that it could be deleted before anyone notices and tells them why it exists. Does anyone think this will be an issue or will admins not speedy something with such a long history? Stardust8212 15:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are all fine redirects, so there is no need to worry. How would they fall under point three of redirects though? That has to do with pointless typos, right? TTN 15:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's speedied it's fixable. One only needs to ask an Admin to re-instate the page so that the information may be collected if needed. I don't think it would be a concern, though you make a good point, but nothing is ever lost on Wikipedia (or the internet for that matter).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: TTN-I wasn't sure if they would qualify, I don't work too much with CSD but it popped into my head and I wanted to ask if it was likely to happen. Sounds like it isn't a problem though so that is good. Stardust8212 18:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another problem: CSD R3 

message: The category does not allow for the removal of entries; i.e. it currently has The Road to Audition on the page, and after it is decided what to do, currently, we cannot remove it. I would assume someone with wikicode knowledge can fix this; please get on it quickly; otherwise the page will get cluttered quickly. Alcemáe T • C 21:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You just have to remove the tag. TTN 21:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. Then people will probably just remove the tags just so spite us. Lol. Thanks. Alcemáe T • C 21:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was Matthew's comment. Someone may want to keep a record of any articles that people remove the tag from. I think we need a review tag or notification for the articles (if not already done) so that people know it's taking place at this very moment.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I have an idea. We should probably parameter in the tag so we can know if a review has started. Then it can remove itself from the first cat, allowing us to keep track of those who have not started a review. The parameter could also change the template's message to say a review has started and give a link. -- Ned Scott 23:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea. I have no idea how to do that, though. Someone with tech knowledge should. Until then, I have a temporary tag to be placed on pages being reviewed here. Please edit if needed. Alcemáe T • C 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: I've made and added a format for putting articles up for reveiw, and then as I said before, one for actually reviewing it. We have an article already, and there needed to be a format in place, so I just added what seemed like was agreed here to the review page, and my own for the category, since we needed it now. Edit as is needed. Alcemáe T • C 22:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format for adding and such 

message: I made an edit saying that editors may not make personal decisions that an article is acceptable, as Matthew made these assertions, on many KOTH articles. (This is what caused many to not be added to the cat). It was a bit harsh. However, something needs to be decided on what action may be taken after the fourteen day notice is up without review, such as redirecting or stubbing. Alcemáe T • C 09:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As above, I think we've decided they'll all go for review (so one editor is not making a decision either way).  Stubbed or not makes no difference to that... and I wouldn't get too concerned about people removing tags...we've got enough to be going on with, and we'll pick them up again later. Gwinva 11:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only real problem will be Matthew reverting consensus and un-redirecting articles.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If such a thing happens, what steps would we take? Admin review? Gwinva 12:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. I think we can show that we created a discussion based on TTN's AN/I, and that anyone that chose to not take part in the discussion is not fault of the process. Silence = no objection. We can show that we notify episodes ahead of time, notify them when the review actually takes place, notify the parent articles, and if no one shows up to object then that's not the fault of the review. We have proof of consensus among several editors, with links on all the appropriate places, so any reverting of consensus would need to be dealt with by a higher authority. I generally don't like AN/I because they take forever, but we'd probably have to do that.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking about someone who regularly edits the page coming across the tag and thinking, "yeah, I've been meaning to do that for ages," or "what a good idea".   It's what we're encouraging editors to do in the first place, saves us a job, and people who know the series are better at merging as they know what's important. ie. people taking responsibility for their own pages. If you can thank of a better way of wording the question/answer then go ahead. Gwinva 07:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if thats such a good idea, considering a lot of problems and claims that it was redirected but not reviewed. I think it might just need to be removed completely. Alcemáe T • C 07:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it: you're right, the statement is easily misinterpreted. What do you think of the rest? Gwinva 13:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point.  I've got to leave it to you guys now as I'm about to move house (and countries) and my editing will be pretty random until I get a new house (and internet connection).  Hope all goes well at TfD, and there's still a review programme working when I do make it back!  Gwinva 12:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First review section 

message: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Template:Dated episode notability -- Ned Scott 08:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion review 

message: I believe this process is overly bureaucratic and not needed. No other type of article has a centralised merger process, and noone has come up with any reason to single out television episodes for this treatment. Not having this process does not prevent merging or redirecting episodes by building consensus at more appropriate locations, such as talk pages of the merge target. Tim! 09:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that having it at the actual article does prevent the redirect/merging of the article. Why? Because having it there limits who actually sees the discussion. The discussion is limited to those that work on those pages, and I've had merge proposals like that before and they all ban together, ignore the issue that was brought up, and simply say "oppose merge". Frankly, I don't think anyone wants to have an addition 100+ articles on their watchlist, in an effort to keep up with all the discussions.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the articles are, for example, to be merged to the list of episodes for a particular series, then they can be discussed at the list's talk page. There would be no need to watchlist 100s of articles, just where the discussion takes place. Tim! 13:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you aware of how many television shows have articles on Wikipedia? Plus, to get outside opinions, are you going to notify all relevant projects every time a new television show has a discussion? I think after awhile that would get annoying. Or are you advocating that we not tell anyone but those people that work on that set of episodes? Seems a little biased to me.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you want to do mass merges or mass redirects you have to a lot of work. I don't see there being more work by discussing the merges/redirects in a local location over a centralised locations. I would imagine that you are less likely to need to notify multiple projects as they are more likely to be watching the list article that they maintain. No administrative action is required to perform the merge or redirect so there is not the requirement of attracting an administator's attention as there was with the various  XFD processes. Tim! 13:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I said, other projects I meant WP:TV, Notability (fiction), and all the projects connected to the show. I worked on Smallville for months before I ever knew there were episode articles, and even then I only knew because someone tried to merge the season articles in a "List of episodes" article, with the idea that the individual episode articles were better than a season article that contained the exact same information (I know it was the same because they not only took the images, but all the plot summaries as well). So, it isn't definite that someone working on the 4400 main page will know about the individual articles, or the List of Episode articles. Even less likely you'll have unbiased opinions come in, because it will be located in an area where all the editors love the show and want this to be TV.com with a bang.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure why you're making the assumption that people who "love the show" will necessarily oppose the mergers. I can only assume that you want to remove the process away from people who actually edit episode articles and the present them with a fait-accompli "they've been merged". That sounds pretty biased in the opposite direction. Tim! 14:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First hand experience has shown me that most people that work on those pages don't want anything to change, regardless of policy or guidelines, and will vote "oppose" on principle. If one person comes to that page to propose a merger, it's a little one-sided. This process was designed to try and bring in multiple "outside" opinions, so that it isn't always the editors of that article against the one editor who proposes a merger. It doesn't matter if he has all the policies in the world to back him up, unless someone seeks Administrative assistance in those cases, the merge will never happen. Because people believe that a "large group of like-minded votes" will trump any guideline or policy presented. I believe the concept usually associated with that is the "break the rules if it's for the betterment of the encyclopedia" argument. Look at the previous discussion on episodes that took place before this review process. Most arguments rely on the "it's a guideline so we don't have to follow it", or the "you have to have a specific consensus for every single episode article". Or the best one, "episode articles inherit notability, so you don't have to have any third party sources".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose this process 

message: I'm not totally familiar with what RfC's on policies and guidelines are appropriate, but I think that this might be one. I think that if we initiated a discussion, there might be a better chance, especially if the initial discussion not be so baised like the recent XfD's. 
I think it would be very beneficial, since I would imagine RfC would be a place that many people visit often, and would get wide discussion. The major thing holding this back is the lack of widesread opinion on these articles. I think if we clearly detailed why many of these articles have no place on Wikipedia, in a formal setting, we might be able to get consensus. 
If RfC is not the way to go, then other options should be pursued. Currently, the only discussion taking place is on the various XfD's (there are three currently, if I count correctly) That isn't really a good place to discuss it. Any thoughts? I  (said) (did) 03:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of options with an RfC, and we can set it up in almost any way we want. Starting an RfC ourselves is an excellent idea. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think we should close the HM discussion before we do that. Reason being, we would have a discussion already done, and would be able to use it as an example, and no one could claim it was done out of the way. I  (said) (did) 04:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good idea, although I would like to keep the HM discussion open a little longer. -- Ned Scott 04:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, of course. I was just thinking that it needs to be closed before whenver we do it, so we haven an already done review to show how they will be done. I  (said) (did) 04:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So does anyone else have an opinion? I  (said) (did) 06:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC? 

message: As far as I can tell, this was never actually tagged as a proposed process, and no centralized discussion/broad community input has taken place, other than briefly on VPP here. Rather, the process was the result of discussion among a relatively small group of editors and put into practice, leading to this MfD and a handful of TfDs (here - DRV - here - please list any others). Tagging it as proposed, adding it to WP:CENT and initiating an RfC were all discussed on this page, so for now I've gone ahead and tagged it as proposed to try and get some more input. I haven't seen any of my own work fall to this process and have no axe to grind here. But my own view is that this sort of specialized process/instruction creep should be avoided at all costs, and existing tools (cleanup templates) and processes (AfD) should be used in service of existing policies. (I know there are a zillion nn-episode articles, and that AfD is clogged. But this is not the way to go.) heqs ·:. 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was tagged as "proposed" from June 21st (when the page was in development) up until around the 7th of July, when the tag went away during an attempt at restructuring the review page to address concerns there. I'm not sure why it didn't come back, but I'd presume it was just an oversight. --Ckatzchatspy 22:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I untagged it was because it's not a guideline, it's a process, a tool, that people may or may not use. Note Wikipedia:Peer review has no tag. -- Ned Scott 01:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also that  includes the phrase "proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process."  (Emphasis added.)  Presumably that's because some processes may be good or bad ideas, and should have some consensus from the community at large before they're widely used. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed process 

message: I asked this elsewhere but it seems it might be better placed asking it here.  I'd like to broaden out the review process into a fictional article noticeboard, similar to the fringe theory and reliable source noticeboards.  I think that would afford wider scope, wider participation and also a better foundation upon which to work.  There are a vast number of articles on fictional topics which do not currently meet our standards, and it would probably be best if we organised efforts across the encyclopedia rather than sectionalised.  One of the issues with this process is that it may be factional, and I think that can be avoided if we opened it up to more subject areas.  The manual of style guidance on writing about fiction is established, and the guidance on notability in fiction articles is undergoing a rewrite, and it makes sense to create a board where similar issues can be discussed, and to help clean up the articles in line with guidance. Hiding Talk  15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: The issue of images is one I hadn't thought about before. If this goes through, there could be a lot of fair-use images that would no longer be used on any article. How should this be handled? I'm very limited in my knowledge of images, but I believe a fair-use image must be used on an article to exist, right? I  (said) (did) 11:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bots go through periodically and tag them. TTN 11:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So when they've been orphaned after a redirect we wont have to worry? I  (said) (did) 17:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images