Wikipedia talk:Television episodes/Archive 3

message: I was doing a little digging and came across the following, from the earliest incarnation of Wikipedia:Importance:
::"Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap.
:I agree with this one completely. --Jimbo Wales"
Now, I know that Wikipedia is more than Jimbo, and his view may have changed since then, but I thought the perspective might be relevant to our discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, I love that on this whole page, the most relevent piece of information received the least attention. God, wouldn't want any power taken away from the behind-the-scene Wiki-bureaucrats now, would we? Wouldn't want to consider the fact that... uh oh... maybe... Wikipedia isn't like other encyclopedias? Good work Josiah Rowe, sorry that the voice of reason is so hard to get heard. Conor 10:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A relevant quote from Jimbo 

message: Are you siding with this spammer? He has VANDALIZED so many editors! And all you can do is let him DO that? I'm sorry, but I do NOT agree with that! THIS IS WIKIPEDIA!! You can't delete so many articles without getting banned from it or getting scolded! (I'm sorry, Gwinva, but my patience has wore thin. ^_^) If this guy/girl/whatever keeps this up, Wikipedia will turn into a wasteland, and we don't want that. Angie Y. 13:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As they used to say, a long time ago, "slow your roll". You are getting way too bent out of shape and your anger, which is becoming clearer that is what this is, is not helping anything. I never once said anything of the sort. I said, most of these articles do not, and will not, fit the criteria for existence. Some do, and some others have the ability to, but most do not. Also, TTN did not "delete" a single article, so please stop saying that. They were redirected. Redirection is not deletion, because the information is still there in case someone needs it. Wikipedia is already a "wasteland", becase we allow so much crap to go on. How much true vandalism could we avoid if we forced people to register? A lot, but that would defeat the purpose of Wikipedia. There are already, way too may articles that are not notable in anyway, and will never meet criteria for existence. It just won't ever happen, because it's a 20 minute television show, and most people could give a rip about how it was made, or care enough to actually professionally review it. That is why most will never be "stable" articles.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Where did he say "all" are bad? I've talked to him, and I don't recall him telling me that. And we have 5 or 6 in FA status, so obviously not all are bad. Are you sure you didn't just misinterpret what he was saying? He could have meant something else (i don't know, because I didn't see the original statement). Could you point me to it so I could see. Was it in this section?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the statement was here. TTN has made quite a few comments that suggest a dislike for episode articles in general. That aside, TTN is participating in this discussion, and contributing some good ideas, so I think we should perhpas put this aside for now and continue the process. --Ckatzchatspy 17:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, he isn't deleting anything. He isn't required to talk about himself. Look at User:Matthew. I bet if/when you clicked the link you were taken directly to his talk page. He redirected his own user page so that he doesn't technically have one. Also, "deleting", "merging" "redirecting", even simple copyediting is still contributing to Wikipedia. If someone only comes in to make a sentence grammatically correct, but doesn't add anything, they are still contributing. If you remove a sentence that doesn't belong, that is still contributing. There is no requirement that says you have to add a certain amount of information on Wikipedia, or else you need to leave. Your anger toward him is really starting to concern me.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Seriously, your exclaimations are getting a bit unnerving, and if you recall, I was at that discussion. Still, he didn't delete any article. Nothing he did was (as per that link) "removed from Wikipedia". It is still there. If you look at the history, a simple "undo" puts it right back. As opposed to a deletion, which requires an Admin to go in and recreate the page as it once existed. Again, I never claimed I agree with his tactics, you can view his talk page for my discussion with him, but I do agree with his stand that not every episode is created equal, and thus not every episode warrants an article to itself.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Angie, you have made your point.  We know you have been annoyed by TTN's edits, but please stop this crusade to get rid of him; it helps no one.  The fact is, Wikipedia has guidelines, policies, manuals of style, accepted processes, all agreed through consensus by MANY wikipedians throughout the projects.  Wikipedia is the encyclopedia we can all edit, but only within the bounds of its own rules; anarchy would result in the collapse of the whole thing.  If material is not notable, or is unable to be sourced by third parties, it does not belong here.  See WP:NOT if you are unsure. Like it or not, that is Wikipedia. There are lots of other wikis out there that does not have these rules: check out WikiIndex, where you might find a good location for information that won't fit here.  Alternatively, turn your energies to locating good sources for just one of your episode pages, and improve it according to WP:EPISODE guidelines.  (You can retrieve your previous stub from the redirect page history).  Invite the Television contributors to look at it and offer criticism and advice.  Once that is in a good state, then move onto the next.  If you find you can't do it with one episode page, then perhaps merge them onto a season or series page. Editors such as User:Bignole can show you how this is done, and give you examples of good pages.   If, over time, you find you have heaps of resources and further expansion is necessary, then they can be broken out.  TTN has vandalised nothing; the information can be retrieved and repackaged into appropriate formats.  But if you don't care enough about your TV series to do that, then I'm afraid you're wasting your time jumping up and down insisting the pages stay.  Gwinva 14:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm just saying that they are all crappy. Only a select few have shown any worth. If an article has the possibility of quality, I'm fine with it, but I don't feel like playing around, pretending that more than a few need to be saved. TTN 17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, your feelings are quite clear. I think the assessment idea proposed above would go a long way toward helping others understand that there is some sort of process involved. Redirecting en masse just creates problems - for example, you were proposing to do that for the Scrubs episodes. I've been looking through those, and yes, there are articles that could easily be merged into expanded season lists. However, there are also quite a few that I've seen so far that cover topics either unique to the series, or which expand on themes presented, production techniques, and so on. Blanking all of them, and then expecting editors to work backwards to recover the relevant data is counterproductive, whereas an assessment could say "these ones could be merged, these ones should stay, and these ones may have potential." --Ckatzchatspy 17:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very rarely would episodes need to be saved. Most of the ones that you are talking about are unsourced, and don't assert that they could be sourced. I believe that there was one specific article that Bignole pointed out on it. That one was pretty decent looking, and seemed to have some possibility of improving, so I would have left it. I'm not against leaving them, they just need to show that they can be improved. Just having globs of information doesn't do that; it has to have some quality. TTN 18:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: A problem no one here seems to have brought up is that most of the people creating new articles for TV series seem to have no idea about the strict guidelines that are being enforced. Take Lost for example, there was a big mediation thing to decide how episode articles would be made, and it doesn't mention at all that the articles must be backed by secondary sources and have production/reception information. Shouldn't the editors involved be informed now rather than later when the articles are being deleted? (Yes, I am aware that Lost most likely will have sources, but firstly, it appears the liklihood is not enough, and secondly, the vast majority of episode articles even from the first season are still confined to very long summaries.) Other examples are Stargate, Star Trek, and in fact, pretty much all of them. Wouldn't it make far more sense to work on preventing more 'bad' articles being created first, and to let these people know that if they create standard summary and trivia articles, they will be removed? It seems pretty clear at this stage that if everyone was made aware, clearly and firmly, of the official Wikipedia stance on individual episode articles, all this uproar could be avoided.Conor 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way to do that is to cut down on the articles beforehand. Otherwise, there is just no way to manage them or anything. If we only had twenty or so episode categories, it wouldn't be too hard to take a look every once and a while. If there is a new, random category, we just tell the user not to create anymore articles with a little explanation. TTN 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we did bring up the fact taht we need to talk to the respective WikiProjects for each TV series. But we can't even decide on whether or not to have a Taskforce or just simply tag and run. So... we need to take it one step at a time.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but my main point is that they seem completely oblivious to the way they should be doing this, and it's not like they're a bunch of random I.P. address, they're people who contribute to Wikipedia quite a lot. I mean if you look at the Lost episode article guidelines, it doesn't sounds anything like the guidelines on this page, and the same goes for the rest. Shouldn't it be made clear to them that they're going about it the wrong way... essentially wasting their time? Furthermore, shouldn't all these projects be consulted when these policies are being created? I mean it affects them the most.Conor 20:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the problem, we haven't set a "right way" yet. I mean, you can direct them to all the relevant pages if you like, you seem to know who is doing it wrong, and they can get a feel for the right way. What we are doing isn't so much that it's "changing" anything, but more or less being much more descriptive so that there isn't loopholes. At least, that was what I was getting out when I proposed my opinion earlier.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed - after all, I'd guess that this is how WP:EPISODE came about to begin with. This is a guideline, not a policy, and so if you want people to respect it - you have to make sure it reflects and *respects* the diverse interests. --Ckatzchatspy 20:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. It sounds like a good compromise Michae2109 20:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Episodes 

message: Ok, what should be done here to make it more clear or helpful? TTN 18:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should find or help develop a "List of" and "Season" page that proves you can develop real world content in these articles, and not be forced to created individual episode articles that are undeveloped.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've almost always liked the idea of season / story arc pages. -- Ned Scott 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Once we establish procedures over at the other page, and get feedback on them from the wider community, we can develop a section here outlining the responsibilities of editors looking to merge. (A "how to proceed" guide, if you will.) --Ckatzchatspy 18:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once this is sorted, we mustn't forget to ensure all the stuff at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes is consistent, especially infoboxes and templates.  Need to add stuff on season pages too.  One problem with the info box is the 'preceeding/suceeding episode links' which might create red links everyone feels they should make blue. The whole page just asks for people to create episode pages.  Anyway, we can look at all that once this is settled.Gwinva 21:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the guideline 

message: HEADING: How to write a good season or episode page
All Televison pages must conform to Wikipedia content policies, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. In addition, writing about fiction has its own requirements, most particularly since:  Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective. In other words, the articles do not exist merely to retell the story (which is classed as a Derivative work or a copyright violation) but to provide encyclopaediac information about the creation, production and reception of television programmes.  Remember, the article should not attempt to be a replacement for watching the show itself, it should be about the show.
What a page should contain
*A brief summary of the episode's plot (but see below)
*The episode's relevance in ongoing story arcs, if any
*How the episode was received by critics
*Information on production and broadcasting of the episode
Plot summaries
The ONLY purpose of plot summaries is provide context for the rest of the information.  The  Manual of Style for fiction states: As the Wikipedia servers are located in the U.S. state of Florida, Wikipedia articles must conform to U.S. copyright laws. It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a Derivative work or a copyright violation...Information about copyright fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible."   As a rough guide, this amounts to no more than ten words per minute of screen time (ie. a 45-min episode would warrant no more than 450 words).
Reliable sources
Wikipedia is not the place to record original research or speculation.  All discussion and interpretaion of television episodes must be supported by reliable, published sources. The Guideline on Reliable Sources states that: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand...Using reliable sources assures the reader that what is being presented meets the Wikipedia standards for verifiability and originality.  Accurate citation allows the reader to go to those sources and gives appropriate credit to the author of the work.
 
An actual episode may be used as a source for information about the episode and constitutes a No original research: Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources|primary source. Such use does not constitute original research if it is used to verify a fact but not when used to justify an interpretation.
Fair-use of images
The primary purpose of images on Wikipedia is for information rather than decoration. Copyrighted images (such as screen shots, DVD covers or publicity posters) must meet the    fair-use guidelines which allows them to be used only   to aid critical commentary or discussion. Do not attempt to add images until you are familiar with Wikipedia's Image Use Policy
Using an Out-of-Universe approach 
The Manual of Style for fiction  states: Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective.  This means writing about television programmes from a real-world perspective (ie. discussing the piece as fiction, rather from the perspective of one of the characters, or as if the events had really happened).  
Things to avoid
* Trivia sections: 
: Trivia sections are unencyclopaediac.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 
* Quotations:
:Extensive use of these may breach copyright.  Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 
* Song lyrics:
:Original song lyrics for a television episode breach copyright.
* Goof sections:
:Unsourced goof sections should generally be avoided. If there is a major goof that is discussed by a reliable source it can become a part of the production section.
Examples of good pages
*programme pages - eg eg eg 
*List of pages - eg eg eg 
*Season pages - eg eg eg 
*episode pages eg eg eg 
*Ah, forgot to put in anything about what it means to writ efrom an out-of-universe perspective.  Grab a quote or two from WP:WAF perhaps, or summarise a few points.  It needs to be here, because how many people bother with 'see also' ? Gwinva 20:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the "featured music" list. Unless it's on a soundtrack, it isn't that notable. I was watching the DVD commentary for the Smallville pilot and the second episode after that, and you know what they said about the songs that came up? "Wow, that's a nice song. Lifehouse is hard to contract. I really like that song". Doesn't appear to be too notable.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 2 suggestion

message: I've gone ahead and made the changes discussed above.  We still need to change the 'problem articles' bit once all is settled across at WT:TVE.  I've kept in the 10-words a minute plot guide, as it's a nice rule of thumb, but I don't know if it will stand up to intense scrutiny.  As I said, I found it in another discussion.  Can we keep it? Also, does anyone know any good examples for each type? I think  these need to be rated GA if not FA. Gwinva 11:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say keep it. I mean, 420 words for a 42 minute plot? That's enough. Heck, the plot I wrote for Aquaman (TV program) and Pilot (Smallville) are barely that. I think you'll only get big "nahs" from people that work regularly with 22 minute shows.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't we be presenting these to the community for input before changing the actual guideline? --Ckatzchatspy 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we have to bring the guideline to people's attention anyway, because they obviously aren't following it, then it doesn't really matter. People make adjustments to other guidelines just within the talk page of that guideline all the time. That's how the "Cast and characters" section of "WikiProject Films sytle guidelines" came state that a "cast list is not mandatory", where it used to imply that. It isn't policy, so I don't see a problem, since most of us within the circle have agreed on the changes. Also, it would be best to have a clean talk page for when we shot it to the community. Otherwise we'd be doing this number: "follow this link to see this discussion, follow this link for that discussion, halfway down this page is this discussion". It's easier to say "this is the outcome so far, start the criticism".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure Ned Scott has tried to spread the word through things like the village pump. I doubt that many people really care anyways (which is why we're in this situation). TTN 17:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines changed 

message: I've been trying to follow this discussion, and I know I haven't contributed to it yet, but I was just wondering about the season pages. Is there any guideline right now about a season page for shows? It seems that the title of how to write a good episode was just changed to add a season in the title with nothing else expanding on it. It does show an example of a good season with the Simpsons there, but that seems to be an "overglorified" List of Episodes page. What are the guidelines for writing a season page? Should they be written like the Smallville pages (like this for example) or only like the Simpsons one as a list with no mention of continuity (the Simpsons don't really have continuity but they are the only example right now)? Is there anyway to have an example page on how to write a season (like this page for college football teams) so that people would be able to write a good season article? Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts. Phydend 14:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I see that discussion of this is going on at the other page mentioned at the top of this talk page. Sorry, I should read things first. Phydend 14:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season pages 

message: I just had an idea, perhaps someone has proposed this already, I haven't read the whole discussion.  What about a page, linked from the TV series' page, that gives the title and a maximum five paragraph summary for each episode of that season, with significant plot and characterization details?  Specific episodes which have an above-average amount of discussion on the Internet (fansites and fanforums included!), or which are noted in other sources (media, magazines), would be de facto notable, and thus retain their articles, with links from the season page.  The titles for consensually non-notable episodes would be redirected to the season page.  The season page would have a link to the Season-Page Initiative or the Non-Notable Episode Taskforce or whatever the wikiproject would be called, to explain why Wikipedia Is Not An Episode Guide. --205.201.141.146 19:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean 5 paragraphs altogether, or 5 paragraphs per episode? Fansites and forums are not reasons for notability, by nature they discuss every episode.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season pages w notable episodes only? 

message: This guideline has recently been expanded, following discussion and consensus reached here by editors from Episode coverage taskforce.  The guidelines have not changed in nature, but expanded to allow more explanation of each point. The 'Dealing with problem articles' section may require some expansion once consensus is reached at Wikipedia talk:Television article review process, which aims to create a suitable review process for problem articles. Further discussion about the guidelines can take place below. General comments about episode coverage on Wikipedia should be made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage.  Thanks! Gwinva 09:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to guidelines 

message: Should this be modified to directly reflect the review process? Other than just "can be tagged with  template (by pasting:  on the page), which automatically adds it to Category:Episode articles not asserting notability after fourteen days"? Or, at the very least, a link to the review process? Alcemáe T • C 05:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we wanted to create a tag for when the review was taking place. If someone was only concerned with their article, then they probably wouldn't want to constantly check the page to find out when it's turn is. Though, we coudl link to the review page, but put in a notice that says "a review tag will be placed on the parent article when the review is set to take place"..or something like that, so that don't have to worry about checking the page every day to see if the article is up yet.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 05:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to the section here on the project page. I should've used a better title. I was asking if, since the review process has been updated, if the section should be updated to reflect what the process currently is. Alcemáe T • C 05:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, why didn't ya say so....come on in. Yeah, there should at least be mentioning of articles going to the review page with a link. Probably another bullet, just after where it says they would go to the category after 14 days... well, a double bullet, because the review is based on the articles that are in the category.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 06:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with problem articles 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Matthew 23:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Dated episode notability}}]] 

message: ;I don't see a consensus for this guideline.
I came here from teh TfD discussion.  I read the last archive, and don't see consensus.  I see a bunch of arguing and a ton of incivility.  I can see obvious problems with reading this guideline within the first section. SchmuckyTheCat
::Well, I dont know your definition of consensus, but the WP definition applies. If you see obvious problems, then fix them, as this is a wiki, and that is the point. Alcemáe T • C 23:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guideline was in place a long time ago. But if you don't like this guideline, please feel free to check out Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) or just WP:NOTABLE. But the best one, is WP:V which states that the burden of evidence falls on the person adding it. You create an article, it is YOUR responsibility to provide the evidence that proves it is notable enough for an encyclopedia. If you can't, as it states on that policy page, it can be removed. We aren't even removing pages, we are merging them with larger topics.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concensus?? 

message: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Template:Dated episode notability -- Ned Scott 07:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion review 

message: I'm interested in rewriting this guideline as I don't believe it to accurately reflect the community's opinion on the issue of episode articles, but rather a small portion of users. As it stands I would be willing to say that this guideline is disputed, as such should be marked as so (but I will not do this right yet). I'm interested in hearing opinions from ya'll? Matthew 11:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands right now I believe it's "broken". As a result of the TfD (delete) it's clearly shown to me the process isn't backed by consensus. This further enhances my opinion that we should rewrite this guideline. Matthew 11:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not disputed by anyone besides people that ignore WP:N, which are people that we kindly ignore. Anyways, you cannot state the community's opinion from the small number of people that voted in the TfD. The fact that WP:N still stands should be enough to show that this is fine (being a child of WP:N). TTN 11:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  TTN, I've grown acquainted with the fact that you do not acknowledge the opinions of people that differ from yours. The TfD result is insignificant, I look at many AfDs and it comes to my mind that the community supports these articles, and believes they establish notability. The problem at hand is that a select few editors (yourself included) disagree and changed the guideline (now this is an easy thing to do, how many people truly get involved in the politics side of Wikipedia?) The fact there was little notification to the community shows to me this guideline is only endorsed by the people who created it. Pursuant to this I don't believe this guideline carries much weight. Matthew 12:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take in the opinions of others, but I'm not going to accept them just because there are a lot of them. There are plenty of people that want everything on this site, but the number doesn't matter as long as WP:N and WP:V exist. That is why they're ignored. We notified various places of the guideline change. People just didn't bother to comment on it, so don't claim that we're a little group. Besides that, we have drawn in various people that were 100% opposed to it. TTN 13:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  TTN, it appears you've acquired "I'm right, you're wron"-itis, this illness is treatable, though. On a more serious note: you believing yourself to be right, doesn't actually make you right. Matthew 17:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same goes right back to you. You're acting as if you're the one that can just pass me off as nothing. The thing is that I can cite policies and guidelines while all you can do is use a personal view of consensus to back yourself. That shows a pretty big difference in argument strength to me. TTN 17:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Matthew, would you care to provide links for these Afds where articles that dont even have sources are kept? Also, the TfD turned out the way it did possibly because of your's and Angie Y.'s canvassing, not neccesarily consensus. I  (said) (did) 13:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bignole "I", would you provide the relevant diffs. for my apparent TfD canvassing? And to answer your request: sure, here's an example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take Me Out to the Ballgame (SATC episode). You should know though that an episode itself is a verifiable source (it's a primary source), so the article is not unsourced. Matthew 17:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem with the guideline. We can't have a guideline which defines its own Notability, which contradicts the long standing WP:NOTE guideline, or the long standing policy of verifiability. This guideline does nothing but say what those already say, and that is you must establish notability (NOTE guideline) and that you must use reliable sources, if you do not then it can be removed (verifiability policy). The rest is simply how to write the page, which again just brings other guidelines and policies into play in reflection to a television show. Also, the TfD was over using the template, as many that voted "delete" even said that they agreed with what was going on, just felt the template was redundant to what we already had.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The village pump? I wonder how many people actually regular the "pump". No, that is far from ample notification. "Silence is taken as consensus", what silence? I see no silence---not to mention the fact people were not "notified correctly". Matthew 17:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly how would you have liked to have been notified? Should we have gone to every Wikipedian's talk page and put up a notice? A notification on the television wikiprojects seems rather "correct". Regardless of how many people on Village Pump frequent the page, it was still put there for outsiders (people not necessary associated with television articles) to know about. I must say, where were you when we were discussing the clarification of this guideline, or coming up with the review process? Huh? Please, I know you are begging to say something along the lines of "you didn't know it was going on".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had also posted notices to some of the WikiProjects I've been involved with, such as WP:ANIME. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The "process" should probably go on a manual of style page, like the "how to write good episodes" article, as it has nothing to do with notability, and more to do with "don't jump the gun".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, the process was a core part of this page even before it had the WP:EPISODE shortcut. Notability is a second issue that we've added on to help people understand why we have those instructions. The instructions to editors for which order articles should be created is the heart of this page, and is anything but instructions creep. -- Ned Scott 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And a guideline should be focusing on making more articles GA quality. Articles don't need to be GA only in the sense that they won't be deleted for simply not being GA. GA should be a minimal goal for all our articles. -- Ned Scott 02:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we pull from what we got. Do you have an FA television article that's Japanese, Italian or Egyptian? Older than 40 years old? The examples on this list are featured articles, not some random article plucked from Wikipedia. Secondly, where did you get this "when they are gone from Wikipedia they are gone from the internet?" theory? Nothing is ever truly gone from the internet, and it is certainly never gone from Wikipedia. If someone actually deleted a page (which isn't what is happening to the television episode pages, they are simply being merged so their history is still in-tact for you to view) then an Admin has the power to recreate it with all the information that was there.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bignole, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you about the "gone" comment. The idea of text "disappearing" from the Internet is a valid concern, and one that doesn't really get proper consideration in the redirect debates. We have to keep in mind that we (the regular editors) are "privileged", if you will, in that we have a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Sifting through the history might be a realistic expectation if you are a committed editor who knows the ins and outs of the system. However, that isn't a practical option for most readers. We simply cannot expect the average reader who comes here through a Google search to know how to find material in an article history, especially if there is not indication that such an article ever existed. Once the text on a (for argument's sake) 40-year-old series has been redirected to a condensed version, the original article is effectively gone for most Internet users. Moreover, it is highly unlikely to have been created anywhere else. That does not mean we have to accept every article as "undeletable", of course - poorly written rubbish is rubbish, no matter how you look at it. We must, however, keep the bigger picture in mind before we hastily "soft-delete" large swathes of unique Wikipedia content. --Ckatzchatspy 20:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would assume that anyone coming here to read episode plots probably isn't too unfamiliar with Wikipedia. They may not know what happened to them, or where to look, but they probably know to come to a talk page and ask...usually in the "what the hell happened!!" kind of way. But I wasn't getting the opinion that Jason was referring to the loss of information to the readers, but more of the "loss of 'hard work'" from the editors.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

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)
thread_title:  Review update 

message: This is a summary of changes required to the summary to help with its understanding and to help editors improve articles:
;"It should be clear if a page is being use to do nothing more than discuss an episode in detail.": Examples should be given of the above (As well as of borderline cases that is acceptable, and which is not, to provide some sort of cut-off).
;"This idea of 'getting the content improved' only works if it's available, and it isn't for many shows": The guideline should be more clear as to when episodes can be appropriately improved, and alternatives, in the case if it cannot be improved.
;The words "Wikipedia should not merely be a plot summary.": I think the policy should rather focus on/expand on Plot versus other content in the articles: a plot summary is not notable, but if there are non-trivia content to a great enough extent, such articles are worth keeping.
;I think the notability guideline needs to be reconsidered regarding episodes, and should be seen in context with the episode list, series' article, etc.: I think notability should be defined as an article saying "If you read me, it will be time well spent!" — but that is just me. (Esp. when someone got there using the "random article" function)
;"If an article is always going to be in "start" class, or even a low "B" class, because there isn't anything written about it, then it should be merged with a larger topic. Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity": This should somehow be worked into the article.
Regards, G.A.S  18:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion required 

message: I'd like to get some more opinions on some character articles that I have proposed a merger for. You can find the discussion at Talk: Smallville (TV series)#Merge characters.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallville 

message: A recent merge proposal added to List of Dirty Jobs episodes has pointed me to a fork of the article at Dirty Jobs Episode List that was created after a content dispute over "Season Number" and "Episode Number/Production Number" and the use of the  template.  See Talk:List of Dirty Jobs episodes for the discussion I had with the editor.  The editor also converted List of Modern Marvels episodes using this Season/Episode/Production Number which I believe is original research.  Before I make the merge and undo the numbering on List of Modern Marvels episodes, can somebody verify my statements that none of these numbers are official and should not be used?  Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo 18:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Episode numbers are not original research, it's simple arithmetic. By season number I assume you mean things like "4.01", "401", "4-01" for something like season four episode 1? Season numbers are kind of irrelevant. There isn't counting involved, and people should know what season they are looking at anyway. It isn't like you are saying "this is episode 17," because in that case it's better than making them count to find out what the number is. As for production numbers, those are actually kind of hard to find. I don't know too many shows that actually gives those out, and a lot of times I've seen people using the season numbers in place of them. Unless there is a reliable source that identifies the production number (and TV.com and IMDb would not work) then it shouldn't be mentiond at all.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Production codes are not actually hard to find with a little bit of effort. Some shows may not even have production codes. So anyway, if you see any unsourced Prod. Codes, just remove them (the onus is on those seeking inclusion to provide a source). Matthew 18:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback.  I removed the "Production #" from List of Modern Marvels episodes and converted it to .  Thanks for redirecting the forked article. -- Gogo Dodo 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production numbers 

message: Posted the below to the village pump, but thought those who watch this page should have it brought to their attention. Please respond there. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Podcasting
:I've seen spammy, poorly formatted lists of podcast episodes, but recently one that was . As I responded there, the list was writen like an advertisement, prone to attacks based on the myriad external links, and contained no independent analysis. However, the contesting editor does raise an interesting point: What is the bar for note for episodes on other media? Is there a rational reason to cover every episode of a radio program or issue of a magazine? If not, why not, and are there preexisting policies that cover the point? MrZaiustalk 19:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podcasting 

message: I frequently monitor new pages and tag them as needed. Very often, I see television episode articles which are linked from an episode list. 9 times out of 10, the episode article contains nothing but a plot summary, infobox, and occasionally the characters / actors involved, but nothing more. These episode articles pretty much never get improved or changed. After reading this talk page, I'm unsure what the appropriate course of action / template would be. Guidance would be much appreciated. cheers! - superβεεcat  20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting. If they are articles for episodes that have not aired, as I've seen people create them for episodes that won't air for months, then I would redirect on the spot. If the episode has aired, I would bring the appropriate guidelines to the attention of that article, and let them know that they really shouldn't be splitting off these episodes unless there is just reason for doing so (i.e. episode has already established some form of notability, the page it split from is too large already).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a small note about future episodes, in the case of The Simpsons, we create redirects to the season page as soon as an episode title is confirmed (people are less eager to create an article when it doesn't involve a creation credit) and we only create an episode article when there is a confirmed plot. And in response to your commernt that about episode articles never getting improved, at this time last year, there were 0 episode GAs. Now, there are almost 60 from a dozen different shows, as well as 10 FAs. These articles CAN be improved, it's just that people want it done NOW, when in reality it takes time. -- Scorpion0422 20:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my question is whether it is appropriate to have articles (such as your Simpsons example) which are mere plot summaries / character lists (as most tv episode articles seem to be), and if not, what the appropriate template to tag the article with is. It seems to me that if episodes are not per se notable by virtue of being an episode of a notable program, then creating an article for a future episode assumes it will become notable, violating wp:crystal. For episodes that have already aired, if there is no evidence that they are notable, why do we have countless articles that are mere plot summaries / character lists? Should they all be tagged with notability templates? Is there a better template? Am I totally mistaken? (it happens!) Cheers! - superβεεcat  20:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be willing to bet that the majority of that 60 GAs are from The Simpsons. I already know they have an entire season taken care of. Also, the burden of establishing notability is NOW, not later. Plot summaries are not reasons to create an article. Having a plot is not notable. For those articles that do fail the notability guideline, there is a tag, and a taskforce that is going around and reviewing all these articles. There are just so darn many of them that it takes forever. If you go to the front page, you'll see a link to the review process.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the thousands of film articles that are basically just plot summaries with a small bit of cast information and some unsourced trivia? Or the thousands and thousands of articles for little known actors that just list a couple of roles and a small amount of unsourced trivia? How come people never seem concerned about those? I agree that these pages need cleaning, but people need to stop with this "GA or merge" mentality. -- Scorpion0422 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said they get special treatment, or that people are not concerned with them? Please don't make excuses for the problems by saying "well this exists". If you find something that fails the notability guidelines, tag it; prod it; AfD it; propose a merger. Don't sit there and say "well, if they exist then this can exist." Yes, there are tons of articles that have problems and fail guidelines and policies left and right, but we are not here to perpetuate a cycle that has already gone on for long enough. You say that this time last year there were no GA episode articles, but now there are 60. So, in a year, 60 episode articles became GA status, yet probably hundreds of articles were created (which doesn't include the ones that were already there). The turn over rate isn't that high, and most will not be able to meet the basic criteria for notability.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I say that? I just said that people need to stop going after episodes and acting like they are Wikipedia's biggest problem. -- Scorpion0422 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Who's going after the episode, but the people that edit in this WikiProject of Television shows. Episode articles are not the biggest problem, but we shouldn't ignore the fact that they are a problem.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is confounding multiple issues. My questions are not regarding whether this is a big or small problem, or whether it exists elsewhere, but simply, whether these articles are appropriate, and the proper action to take when I see an editor uploading articles which are mere plot summaries / char lists. I was unsure whether there was consensus on whether these articles should be templated, or if they somehow inherit notability. If I understand correctly, the answers are: yes, these articles fail notability, and should be templated or deleted when I see them, and yes, there is a specific template for this purpose. In a related matter, individual albums by notable artists, and songs of notable albums probably suffer from the same deficiency and should be handled similarly. - superβεεcat  21:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not deleted - as Bignole outlined, there is a process to follow. Furthermore, they have to be assessed, they don't automatically fail, and there certainly isn't consensus. Discussion is very important, too, to avoid what happened several months ago. --Ckatzchatspy 00:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ckatz, I'm sorry, but that "process" is not for the creation of articles about episodes that have not even aired. If the episode has not aired, there isn't anything to even talk about. It fails notability, crystal ball, almost anything you can think of right off the bat. Unless there is some unique circumstance where the episode has received significant coverage before it ever aired (kind of like Aquaman, or maybe the new Bionic Woman pilot) then it shouldn't have been created in the first place. Otherwise, we get into this "I'll ignore everything right now, because nothing can happen to the article." Sorry, but that isn't true. I didn't say we delete articles automatically for episodes that have aired; I was referring specifically to articles on subjects that have not been released (which puts it kind of into crystal balling, because you have no proof the episode will even air. An act of the television gods could yank it from airing ahead of time).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the discussion is getting confusing, because it appears to be a blend of future and existing articles. (I was responding to the "existing article" question.) The "delete" I responded to was from Superbeecat's reply, by the way - sorry if it appeared to refer to you. --Ckatzchatspy 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. Tag the articles of episodes which have aired with episode notability template if merely a plot summary / charlist. - superβεεcat  08:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought it was, my apologies for misunderstanding. It looked like you were saying that I was promoting the deletion of all those articles.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidance