Wikipedia talk:Television episodes/Review

message: :*Link to episode - comments by editor who added this episode to the list
::Comments by other editors
:::Decision based on consensus, such as redirect, merge or delete 
Please sign your posts. After the page gets crowded, an archive should be created; archive per date. Alcemáe T • C 21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Name of the Show

message: To avoid wasting a lot of space or creating a ton of sub-pages, we should probably just take episodes that have a good chance for specific review while leaving the rest in a general quality review kind of thing. This will be especially good with Dad's Army due to the fact that they're all stubs as far as I can recall. TTN 01:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Larger series

message: I would suggest that something similar to  what I did  with the Hannah episodes should be done. The person who adds them to this page should look at each article and make a judgement call as to if it might be notable; these should be listed slightly removed from others that really dont have a chance. Then, editors should comment specifically on pages that the assessor deemed possibly notable. Also, they should check the articles the assessor deemed unnotable, and if there are concerns, indent under it.
Also, I hope this wasn't too presumptuous of me, but I asked on the category for nothing to be added here until a decision is made as to how the massive amounts of articles (and it will be massive) should be handled. If you feel this is no longer applicable, please remove it. Alcemáe T • C 04:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's ok. It will allow us to asses a whole series (we may want to do a little less at a time though, incase they beging to grow in discussion), instead episode by episode with random redirect/merges in each series. I hope we are alerting the parent articles about their episodes. I don't want to hear about how they didn't know the discussion was taking place. I know I get annoyed when something major happens and no one notified me so that I could at least give my $0.02 worth.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I alerted the HM page. I belive you said you notified the TSR page? Alcemáe T • C 16:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only page I have notified was the "Raven" episode page. I didn't notify the parent page. I'll go check to see it they were, if not I will.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Process

message: After we get all caught up and familiar with the process, should we target larger series before doing small, easy ones? It will help us get better at this because the chance of keeping articles is better, it'll make things easier down the road, it'll possibly draw more people into the process (but hopefully not to complain about it), and it will help in arguing our case against some of the more annoying complaints. It'll mean keeping a slower pace, but we'd have to slow down for them eventually. TTN 15:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd want to do the easier ones first, as practice with smaller articles can only help to improve our ability to assess. Where as, if we jump to the larger fish, we could get burned out on just a couple of episodes or seasons (i.e. 18 years of The Simpsons is a lot to cover, though that WikiProject doesn't a pretty good job for some of the seasons).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it will mostly be "Redirect, redirect, redirect, "Oh, that may make it", redirect..." It'll be like a light walk with thirty seconds of jogging instead of a run, which we should probably aim for. We won't be doing one a day or anything either. We can take each series as long as we would like before moving on. There is also the benefit of getting more people in this, so we don't seem like a "cabal" as people have been claiming. TTN 15:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pros and cons it seems, because doing the "small" series will help get all the true problem articles out of the way quickly so that we can concentrate on these larger shows. I haven't gone through any, maybe the larger shows are just like the smaller shows in their lack of established notability.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pros seem to outweigh the cons for me. Most series don't really have a chance. A few here and there have a decent percentage of possibly good articles (Futurama, which will be coming up), but most of them will not. Even a really contraversial shows like South Park don't have way too many improvable articles. Only the religion based episodes and the ones like the death of a longstanding character really have any potential (10-15 out of 160). TTN 15:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Small series first - the larger, long-established series tend to be handled better, and many already have their own projects to assist. If this process is really about "improvement", it should focus on the articles that are problematic, rather than presuming "everything" is. --Ckatzchatspy 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we target larger series?

message: I've now made  to go on the talk pages when we bring episodes here for review.  Have a look and make any appropriate changes/comments. Gwinva 10:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to King of the Hill. We have to remember to not only add an alert to the page we plan to merge to, but the main article page as well (might be a separate set of users).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks...you're right, I only did the 'List of' page. This template at least makes that job quicker. Gwinva 11:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: Are we remembering to check the talk page of each episode to see if anyone's responded to the tag?  Should we make a note that's it's the repsonsibility of the person posting to check the episode talk pages and parent pages?  Also, when redirecting, check talk pages for project tags... don't want a redirect page still sitting in a 'rated stub class WikiProject Television category' or whatever. Gwinva 12:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thoughtthe page already mentioned the removal of categories from the page.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  Anyway, I've edited the review instructions, so hopefully it's all clear now. Gwinva 13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A thought or two

message: So what happens, like in the case now, if we have already reviewed a few KOTH articles, but now there are new ones in the category that have not been reviewed? Do we add them to a new heading, something like Batch 2, under the show header? Alcemáe T • C 09:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Articles 

message: *Comment - Someone had contacted me on my talk page regarding these King of the Hill episodes. Having come and seen this even larger list of King of the Hill episodes up for redirection/effective deletion, I must admit that I feel somewhat uncomfortable seeing once again KoTH seems to be the only target of this AFR project. I do not see any other television series being reviewed here. I assume good faith for the most part, seeing as I believe that you are only trying to remove clutter from Wikipedia. However, it does seem slightly odd or even potentially partisan that only one television series is being singled out here. I took a look at the categories listed above, and just in a few minutes time I found the below list of equal or lesser quality articles that are not tagged for review, or mentioned here:
*Alter Ego (Star Trek: Voyager)
*King of Pain (D:TNG episode)
*Free Fallin', Part 2 (D:TNG episode)
*Jagged Little Pill (D:TNG episode)
*Under Pressure (D:TNG episode)
*Cabaret (D:TNG episode)
*Wannabe (D:TNG episode)
*Friday Night (D:TNG episode)
*Rumors and Reputations (D:TNG episode)
*Coming of Age (D:TNG episode)
*The House (Dead Zone)
*The Hunting Party (Dead Zone)
*The Inside Man (Dead Zone)
*The Siege (Dead Zone)
*Kevin In Videoland (Captain N episode)
*The One with the Screamer
*The One with the Ballroom Dancing
*The One with Joey's Dirty Day
*The One with All the Candy
*The One Where Rachel Tells...
*The One with Chandler's Work Laugh
*The One with the Ball
*The One Where Phoebe Runs
I did however see quite a few articles tagged for notability review, but I'm not certain if they were tagged by this AFR project, or by a bot/admin/randomly/etc. I do not want to inhibit any of your efforts, but you must agree that it seems slightly strange from an observational point of view.   — C M B J   [Msg] 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this here since it was more discussing the process in general, not reviewing the KOTH articles. To answer your comment, we've merely not gotten around to reviewing the other ones. As for the tagging, it was just luck (or lack therof) that KotH was tagged and the articles you mentioned were not. We're not singling out any specific series, it just happened that way. I  (said) (did) 00:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As "I" said, when the template was in circulation we picked them as they dropped into the category. If they dropped in first it was because they just happened to be tagged first. The "large" list is only because it's all one series and if every article looks identical, it's easier to go through them together. Generally, we will point out specific articles that might have potential (which we did when you read our comments). But I can tell you that I read through each one of these articles. Strike that, I need to read the titles, as you mentioned KOTH, and I thought that was the list that was brought over (which was the list I meant when I said I read through them all). I haven't seen this list...it's new.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not singling KOTH episodes out. If you look in the archives we have 3 other series that were reviewed before KOTH, it just happens that currently only the KOTH episodes are being reviewed. We'll get to the rest of the episodes eventually, we have an extremely long list of episodes to do next. --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment By CMBJ  

message: I've done some revisions to the review process that should address many concerns in the TfDs and MfD. For starters, the page has now been moved to Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review with Wikipedia:Television article review process moved to an instructions subpage and transcluded on the review page. Instructions could be cleaned up some more, but discussion themselves are now held on the talk page of a parent article, with a link to that discussion being listed on the review page. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 20:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One concern, though - by merging like this during a deletion process, have you now folded a page that was not under consideration for deletion in with the "at risk" MfD page? --Ckatzchatspy 09:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, it doesn't really matter, since Matthew wouldv'e nominated that as well. Joking. Anyways. What page are you referring to? I  (said) (did) 09:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article review process, which was a completely separate page before - but now appears as content in the page up for deletion. I think this is a major concern, as it would in theory put the process at risk. --Ckatzchatspy 10:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: While the process is a sub-page, it is transcluded onto the page up for deletion - which has been rewritten as if it were a guideline, rather than a workspace. Editors joining the discussion will think they are deciding whether or not to delete the process, as opposed to the workspace that was nominated. If I'm misreading this, apologies - but it looks like a real problem. --Ckatzchatspy 11:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm now confused, and as Ckatz above I am concerned people will now think the whole review process is up for deletion.  I see what you're doing Ned, but wonder if we should have waited for the MfD to conclude, because now we risk mixing the process up with the review page. (ie. is the review page for deletion or the review process?)  We preferred the discussion on neutral ground, and what if that was vindicated? I really shouldn't be here (addictive behaviour: I have this computer perched amongst packing boxes).  I  think we have received encouragement from a number of editors for what we have been trying to do.  If we continue to hit a brick wall here ("under the radar" of everyone but the mud-slingers, it seems) then take the DISCUSSION to the village pump, and present the problems and worked solutions there in detail (rather than just the notification of these discussions Ned and I gave).  Try and get some dialogue going in a central location.  All the best. Gwinva 13:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could probably just ask an admin to close it for that reason. Though, I'm sure Matthew will just put this up for deletion, so if it is deleted now, I'm sure it will be deleted after (though a deletion review afterwards might see otherwise like with the template). TTN 13:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have done this the other way around, and made the instructions the main page and the MFD'd list page simply transcluded within it. The thought had crossed my mind about possible confusion for what is actually up for MfD, but the more I think about it the more I'm starting to worry. Normally I wouldn't be worried, since it's obviously no consensus, but given the first TfD.. We likely should explain the situation to the village pump and to other places quickly. This whole time I've been expecting a flood of logical comments for the MfD, but as Gwinva has said, it's actually gone under the radar (ironic, given some of the rationales for deletion). Anyone of a rationale mind can see that these MfDs and TfDs are being filled with bad logic, ILIKEITs, and Wikilawyering, and we need to bring this all to light. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a few tweaks to clearly separate the page up for deletion and the other material. See what you think. --Ckatzchatspy 01:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's probably best for now. -- Ned Scott 01:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review update 

message: Please take care when placing the  tag on articles. I've found several articles so far that have been tagged, but did in fact have secondary sources cited. Examples: Pilot (Lost) and Blink (Doctor Who). If there are concerns about a particular article my opinion is that the best approach is to discuss them specifically on the talk page (rather than indiscriminate "drive by" taggings). -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After doing some digging, I realize that I may be off base here. It seems these may have been indiscriminately added in order to make a point by an editor opposed to the template. -- -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unferenced episodes tag 

message: There seems to be a lot of split discussion going on between here and Wikipedia talk:Television article review process. Let's discuss process there. heqs ·:. 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep the discussion in one place

message: It appears that an anon is "demanding" that the SpongeBob episode articles be restored before the redirects were made. He/she claims that they were "fine" when those episode articles only had trivia, a plot summary, and some other info in them. The anon also wants users to forget the Wikiproject. Pants(T) 19:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon complaining 

message: I suggest we archive this page. Also, it might be useful if we create a space (here on the talk page presumably) where discussion can focus on which future episode articles to bring forth for review. Thoughts? Eusebeus 20:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would refrain from archiing until it's decided what's going to happen. Currently, we're just reviewing them on the talk page of the LOE, but I'd still refrain. But if you' like to, there isn't a huge concern. i said 20:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: We seem to have quite a backlog, so help would be good. Please review stale discussions, summarise, and close as appropriate. --Jack Merridew 10:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  backlog 

message: Hi, I haven't been around for a while (trying not to spend too much time here, and resisting this project as it will suck me back in again) but thought I'd mention that it's come up for discussion again at AN/I again.  (suggesting a centralised review, funnily enough!  So if everyone wants one, why does it get knocked?).  Gwinva 01:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ANI again

message: Hi,
while working on the notability backlog, I occasionally run across episode articles that have been tagged with  quite a while ago (>6 months). After sorting these - usually redirecting them to the show article or list of episodes, if no progress was made in half a year -, I sometimes tag the other episode articles of the same show or season, which typically have the same problems, with  for consistency. As of now, they are then included into the usual worklist of the Notability wikiproject. 
Now some pages (like this one) suggest that a separate TV review process exists, based on :Category:Episode articles not asserting notability. As of now, articles are not automatically moved there. Rather, the articles go to :Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability, from where they are moved to the month-specific categories within a few hours, by a bot.
Do you really scan the month-specific categories right now? (They usually include 1000-2000 articles.) Or do you intend to do so? Should I add the episode articles manually to :Category:Episode articles not asserting notability? Or should one edit the "notability" template so that it automatically puts the articles there, in addition to the usual categories? Technically that shold be easy to do, I think. --B. Wolterding 15:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that this category is periodicly cleaned. Most current episode sweeps are performed per series now, as a TV show that has some ep articles usually has articles for all episodes, and the notability for those episodes is either there or not there as a whole. So, if you come across a tagged ep article after such long time spans, you should check whether most other episodes of the series also have the nn tag. If yes, you can probably redirect all episodes to the List of XXX episodes article per WP:BOLD. If not, I'd just remove the tag and wait till the whole series is reviewed by this project. – sgeureka t•c 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, initally the category was populated by a template, since deleted. As far as I'm aware, the category is not used at all. It might be best to just delete it. i said 05:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, fine. (I'll leave it to you to remove the category once the 5 articles have been removed.) Is there a place where I can suggest TV shows for episode review? --B. Wolterding 08:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page (Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review) is already the right place to suggest other shows. But the current process is to not discuss what shows might have nn episode article, but just immediately merge-tag all episodes by yourself, make a note in the talk page of that list and leave the discussion open for several weeks to give fans a chance to prove the notability. But this is very controversial among fans of the particular shows; there is currently a thread at AN/I where this is discussed. If you are just a drive-by wikipedian and do not want to get under fire, just leave the episodes to the people who have been enforcing WP:EPISODE for a while. There are many shows to be reviewed, and probably all should be (except The Simpsons maybe). – sgeureka t•c 10:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status on categories?