Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage/Archive 1

message: Got tired of scrolling up to the edit button.  I think I've answered this in one of the other sections below, but I think we tag everything.  At first assessment (ie after the 14-days or whatever) some will be speedy-redirects without any onus to merge... fail on unsourced, or  copy-vio.  That's lenient, really:  Copy-vio qualifies for speedy-deletion.  Unsourced material in any page on wikipedia can be removed at any time by any editor and Fact-tags are a courtesy, like our proposed 'fail WP:EPISODE' tags.  Onus is on the original contributor to source, not us, and we shouldn't be merging anything unsourced, because we don't know it's true.  Anything that seems complicated at first-review, due to response, questions, content worth of merging, any doubt in reviewer's mind, then we post it on a review talk page, for 2nd or 3rd opinions. That might result in us popping a message on the original contributor's talk page, or agreeing to merge together, or all agreeing to bin it.  The problem before was that people felt there was no due process.  Now there will be.  After any redirect/merge/deletion, we can put a template message on the talk page of the parent article, saying what's happened, and how they can retrive info if necessary, and what to do with it.  Refer them to our review talk page, also. Am I repeating myself? Sorry!Gwinva 20:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also a Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode lists, which would cover the concept of season pages.  There's quite a bit of overlap, since that is what we are hoping people will make out of the redundant episode pages.  Perhaps the projects need to be merged and renamed.  Particularly as the current title 'WProject Episodes' seems to imply we want people to make episode pages. A better title for a wider brief? Then the project page can outline templates/infoboxes examples for 1. season/list of pages before people jump on the existing templates/boxes for episodes. Also reflect that WP:EPISODE is directing people to make season/story arc pages first.  What do you think? Gwinva 08:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LOE is pretty much inactive now, and I think a merge would be fine (it would make things less confusing). I once suggested some cross-collaboration for growth guidelines, but didn't really see it through. Heck, WP:TV itself doesn't see all that much activity sometimes, maybe we should just consider this all a task of WP:TV rather than a whole task force. -- Ned Scott 08:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes...WP:TV should be about overseeing all pages and maintaining guidelines.  Looking at the page, it all needs a bit of a revamp.  Also, notability, sourcing, real-world info etc we're discussing here will apply to other areas, such as characters and fictional elements.  However, lots of people loosely affiliate themselves with WP:TV, and an identifiable group of people who are interested in maintaining guidelines and assessment is good.  Perhaps a 'Policy and procedure' taskforce?  Also, how does this fit in with Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment?  If they're going round assessing something as stub or start quality, then we go in and say 'no, it's for redirection' then isn't that a bit contradictory?  And a waste of effort...  Although, looking at that page, there are over 4000 articles still unassessed! Gwinva 08:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course they will - I certainly am, right now. Sorry, but that would be entirely inappropriate, and contradictory to what we are trying to accomplish here. *There is no need to rush things* - and besides, any notes that you have applied in the past are superceded by whatever comes out of this process. Please do not stir things up again - it will only cause major problems. --Ckatzchatspy 20:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not like this process can be forced or anything. It's just going to be a decent "how to" page backed with a project or taskforce. The regular merge/redirect process can still be applied. I just want to make sure that I'm not going to be reverted by anyone here. If anyone not involved in this complains, they would complain over this and anything else. TTN 20:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit concerned (based on several of your comments throughout the past few days) that you are hoping for a formalized "go" to resume the same large-scale, high-speed purge that led to where we are today. As you said, a guideline can't be forced - it involves a degree of latitude, it is subject to personal interpretation, and the people "overseeing" it will not have any more authority than any other Wikipedian. (For that matter, if enough people decide they want to do so, they could well come in and revamp the guideline so that there is *no* discouragement of single-episode articles.) You want to clean up what you perceive to be a problem - but if you push too hard, and too fast, people will push back. --Ckatzchatspy 21:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're talking about isn't even a possible guideline. We cannot force people to go with this review method due to the fact projects don't own their subject articles. For that reason, that will never become any sort of guideline. As long as I'm going to use the "discuss first, receive no opposition, then redirect" method, I should be fine doing what I'm doing. There is no way for me to receive any real criticism with that method as long as I don't "bully" people into providing sources. This whole task force approach seems nice in writing, but nothing is really going to be accomplished in the end. These are used to mange articles instead of controlling their flow, so this whole tagging plan will likely fall apart. TTN 21:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct in saying that we can't force people to follow the procedures we develop here. By the same token, we cannot force people to accept the redirects - they're certainly free to undo any and all of them. None of this is the "law", nor is it enforceable. However, if we develop a fair, open process, and proceed in a manner that can accommodate most concerns, we have a much better chance of achieving some measure of success. Yes, you might be able to carry on with what you have been doing, but it won't be "fine" - and it will only cause more problems. We'll just end up with a cycle of redirect-revert-redirect-revert that won't help anyone, unfortunately. --Ckatzchatspy 21:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone that will revert is going to revert whether we give them a box of candy or we if we walk right past them. This is a good method for cleaning these up and keeping them clean, but it will never actually get down and remove them. It'll eventually just become content with itself like the trivia project. TTN 21:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this cleans up (and keeps clean) a series of articles, why would they need to be removed? If (by some bizarre possibility) every one of the existing episode articles was able to be rewritten to GA or FA status, would you be able to accept that, or would you still want to redirect? (Please don't take offence - I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just trying to get a sense of your goals here.) --Ckatzchatspy 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that it is good for cleaning articles articles worth keeping, but it cannot fix the rest. It will only be able to either place a ton of worthless tags or just bring them up to mediocre standards. Any article that has encyclopedic merit is worth keeping (as is any GA or FA that was reviewed correctly). Only a a few hundred episodes in the history of television will ever need any real coverage here. Those are perfectly fine, but the rest that act as if this is tv.com need to go. TTN 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if that's how you feel, I think that you may have to resign yourself to being reverted on many of your edits. I just don't think there is support, either in the guideline or amongst Wikipedians, for such a massive reduction in content. I think people will accept a cleanup, if they see that the many truly marginal articles are being merged *without any valid content being discarded*. However, that won't extend to seeing the vast majority of the TV content reduced to a few sentences on list pages. I keep seeing TV.com and Wikia being used as substitutes, but they are very different entities. One advantage to Wikipedia - a big one, as far as I am concerned - is that there is a system in place to ward off theories and speculation, which those other sites tend to allow (or even encourage). I appreciate being able to read up on something I might have missed, and just get the facts, rather than having to plow through someone's half-baked theories as to why a character sneezed in a certain way. --Ckatzchatspy 00:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm reverted, I'll just have to be persistent, or just give up for a bit if necessary. I doubt it'll be that many anyways. The only real worry is Matthew with his strange idea that a full and absolute discussed consensus must be reached for anything to happen (basically just wikilawyering). Hopefully, I can just get people to tell him otherwise. People either accept that these need to be redirected or they don't. They'll either take it as it is and move on or they will argue for the episodes' existence forever; there is no middle ground. That attitude is basically WP:NOHARM. Why shouldn't we just provide everything just because it can help people, even though it goes against our notability and verifiability policies and guidelines? I think the second part answers the question. TTN 00:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: arbitrary sub-section 2

message: In no particular order; these are ideas to propose for discussion.</br>
Out of courtesy, please do not delete ideas posted by other editors; instead, open a heading below the list to start discussion on it.
*The redirecting of episode articles: should it be done
**If yes, how to do it
**Merge, or redirect?
**examination of the existing guideline (arguments for both keeping and merging)
***"bulk" redirects - are they appropriate?
*What fits the bill of existence?
*How to avoid needing to create a separate article.
*What is a fair and reasonable waiting period?
**should this differ depending on the age of the article/activity level of the series?
*What responsibilities does the editor who proposes such a change have?
**posting a template
**responding to questions from editors
**merging suitable content from the episode article into the destination
**expanding lists where appropriate (instead of just collapsing, say, six seasons of articles into an existing one-page list of single-sentence plot summaries)
***perhaps we develop a template for series and season episode pages?
**responsibility for ensuring some notification left re: reason for merge
**responsibility for ensuring some easy-to-find/understand link(s) to old text are placed on list page (since old text does serve a purpose as a resource for editors wishing to upgrade "list" entries - especially for older/less popular series)
===Discussion: Templates===
One thing I have been thinking about on posting a template is that on the talk page there could be a list of the things it is missing to meet the criteria for allowing it stay on it's own page, ex. summary too short or too broad in detail, need more than just a plot summary with by adding crew details or cultural references etc. -Adv193 05:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crew details and cultural references are pretty much trivia, or don't in themselves make an episode notable. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I meant together with the plot, the idea I posted is intended to avoid confusion and unneccessary contact to the one who posted the template for asking for clarification. Besides I wasn't thinking of using regular Trivia anyway because of all the deletions throughout wikipedia caused by mostly unnotable or useless episode tibits. -Adv193 05:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, directing them to WP:EPISODE should be enough to explain why, if the guidelines are expanded and spelt out so everyone knows exactly what they mean. Gwinva 06:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would using a template similar to  help to communicate the concern? Addhoc 11:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good template.  Make a similar one for each likely problem, OR combine them all in one.  Could adapt the existing  template also.  Most of the time, the problem will be simple notability: , which could be adapted or specified as per guideline on template page.  If we made a 'failed WP:EPISODE' tag, with a space to pipe particular concerns, that will allow flexibility without clogging the page up...let's face it, most will have ALL the problems.  Gwinva 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "all-in-one" idea is probably best, with variables for displaying different concerns. Then it can just be configured on a page-by-page basis, displaying the relevant information while maintaining a consistent look. --Ckatzchatspy 17:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, each section is for discussion of the individual point. --Ckatzchatspy 18:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think simple cases get redirected by one editor, no hassle. (ie. those that have had no input during the tagged period, and contain no useful info).  More complicated cases get referred to a review page where two or three editors can have a look at it and come up with a plan.  EG. merge, redirect themselves, give the regular contributors a month to perform the merge themselves or whatever.  In this category will fall those pages where people have made an effort to provide sources... the taskforce can see if these are reliable/going to work or just padding. Gwinva 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As I mentioned above, many will be simple redirects.  More complicated or questionable cases can be referred to a review page for a few editors to have a look... saves the whole task and responsibility falling on one editor. Gwinva 19:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've tweaked Gwinva's instructions to emphasize the responsibilities of the merging editor. --Ckatzchatspy 21:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They weren't mine.. No one's signed the list (so we can deny or take credit for whatever takes our fancy!).  I just responded... But yes, anything salvagable could be pasted on the talk page, but people need to be reminded to work on it before putting it in the main article.Gwinva 21:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is salvageable? To be worth saving, it'll probably need to be sourced or it'll likely be able to be sourced. If that's the case, it'll just be better to leave the episode. TTN 22:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  In fact, I think I've said that myself in one of these sections, somewhere.... Gwinva 22:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to compromise a FL by pasting plots into the respective sections, and in case you hadn't noticed it takes a bit of effort properly trim a plot. They can trim it themselves. Point them to where the plot is.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's avoid the snarky comments, OK? I'm aware that it takes effort to trim a plot - and I'll again emphasize that if the sole intent of this procedure is to validate the "rush through it" approach that got us here in the first place, then we are doing the wrong thing. Before this can go "live", it has to be acceptable to the community as a whole - including people who are perfectly comfortable with having one-per-show. We *have* to demonstrate that this is a fair procedure that doesn't just give "carte blanche" to deletionists. --Ckatzchatspy 22:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We would be here even if I had been all "sweet and nice." Many people were just using me as a target for their anger (though some did have legitimate concerns). Anyways, people aren't going to easily accept it either way. Taking a lot of time to merge summaries that could be replaced by regulars in half of the time is not going to help. You can merge if you would like, but I doubt many will follow you. TTN 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what you are saying is that because people have ignore a guideline that was already in place, not only should be say "you have until this time to fix it", but when they don't, we are supposed to fix it for them? Not seeing this "fairness" you speak of. It seems that there are too many "feelings" to consider. If it's just a plot, they can write another. I just as easy to say "these articles were redirected because no one could provide third part, reliable sources to support their existence. If you would like to adapt the plots into this parent article, you can go here (provide a link to the material) and copy the plots."   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I really think that we should go for just a week if nobody even replies. If someone does reply, we can give them more time to find the sources or whatever. A special case could be if there was a really active main editor, but he has gone on a break or something, so we could just leave it for longer. TTN 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking that 14-20 days should be decent for most. It's more than a week, but it allows us to find series of articles that have no activity, and are so severely underdeveloped "nothing but a title and an infobox" (yes I've seen that) they would seriously benefit immediately from redirection.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, say 14 days from first tag.  First review at/soon after 14 days.  No change to a useless article=speedy redirect.  Any question or significant input from editors, tagged to a review page for discussion; consensus redirect or retagging with agreed time for improvement and re-review (time determined by circumstance).Gwinva 19:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 14 days sounds good to me. -- Ned Scott 19:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 14's a bit short - and we have to incorporate the "merge" idea. That is the *primary* direction of the guideline, not redirecting. --Ckatzchatspy 20:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if there's nothing worth merging? -- Ned Scott 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We never said it needed to be completed in 14 days.. just evidence the job has begun.  At the review, a task-force editor can retag it for an extension, or post it to the review page for a few of us to decide if improvements are likely.  A nice note from an editor explain what they intend to do would prevent a speedy-direct, and 14 days is enough for that.  As for the hope of merging, that is what we are trying to encourage the original contributors to do. Perhaps that suggestion should be included in the template? Oh... shouldn't say that here.  I'll so and add it in the template section! Gwinva 20:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm playing around with the guidelines in my sandbox to see if they can be expanded and made more explicit.  I'll post my suggestions at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes when I'm done (unless someone else does so first, in which case I'll moan that their suggestions aren't as good as mine!) Gwinva 19:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also see more thoughts below at #A radical new proposal. Gwinva 11:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know about Dr. Who, unless they are still doing it, but I've had people direct me to a "good" Dr. Who episode article that was horribly written. THe plot was excessively long. Now, the Simpsons..most are generally "GA" and I'd be fine with letting them handle their stuff, but alert them to this guideline. (when done)   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dr. Who ones do seem pretty bad, but many seem to have decent enough sourcing. Ones like that should be saved for when the real problem articles are gone. TTN 22:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These (and others like them) have wikiprojects of their own who can take responsibility for ensuring the guidelines are followed and tagging articles for clean-up.Gwinva 22:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with leaving it to the projects is that they may just want to keep articles based upon fan reasons. For example, while a good chunk of Simpsons episodes can have coverage, many probably don't have the information. The project would still probably try to keep them around. But, that should be saved for last anyways. TTN 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a *guideline* - we don't have to weed out every last episode article or micro-manage every series. If people are willing to put in the kind of commitment that the 'projects like Who and The Simpsons are doing, they deserve the right to carry on with what they are doing. Show them the guidelines, and get on with the problem material. Heck, if this process inspires new TV projects that mirror the work done by the more experienced ones, then so much the better. --Ckatzchatspy 22:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless given a reason, we should follow guidelines to the letter. We shouldn't just let these exist because "it's just a guideline." You also seem to forget that these also fall under WP:V, WP:N, WP:NONFREE and WP:NOT, which need to be readily enforced. TTN 22:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines are not policy. To quote the "guideline" guideline, "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (my emphasis) --Ckatzchatspy 22:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And common sense says that things that fail major tenets of this site should be removed. The common sense goes more with exceptions anyways, not being lenient for no reason. TTN 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It isn't favouritism - especially when we're pointing to those projects as examples of how to fulfil the guidelines. --Ckatzchatspy 22:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we're pointing to their episodes that have managed to reach FA status, and that we want to contact these projects to get everyone on the same page. It is favortism if you say "you can do what you want, because you're good", and then turn around and go "you're not, so you can't". No one is above the rules, no matter how well you do something. Maybe, maybe some leeway on the amount of time we might give them to develop, but I don't believe that we should simply say "let's ignore their episodes, because they have a lot of really good ones."   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone needs to say "look, we know you do good work on these episodes, but you need to take care of these (and give them a list) problem articles, because when other editors see them it sets a bad example of what episode articles should look like." Because we can point them to a million great articles, and it only takes 1 horrible article for someone to say "well, you allow that one".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we come across problem articles, we can tag them.  Good wikiprojects will rally round to try and improve them.  I keep an eye on Doctor Who, and everyone there seems aware there are articles which don't rate or which fail guidelines, and there's a good body of diligent contributors who are working towards improving these.  If a WikiProject is making a real effort at bringing their articles up to scratch or have created a to-do list, then we leave them to it most of the time.  If they seem uninterested, we need to be more interventionist.  Again, anything like this would be referred to a review page, so a suitable response/course of action could be decided.  Anyone complaining it's an us/them thing can access the discussion and see the rationales, and that it's not just one person making an instant call. Gwinva 08:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The List

message: One thing I have been thinking about on posting a template is that on the talk page there could be a list of the things it is missing to meet the criteria for allowing it stay on it's own page, ex. summary too short or too broad in detail, need more than just a plot summary with by adding crew details or cultural references etc. -Adv193 05:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crew details and cultural references are pretty much trivia, or don't in themselves make an episode notable. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I meant together with the plot, the idea I posted is intended to avoid confusion and unneccessary contact to the one who posted the template for asking for clarification. Besides I wasn't thinking of using regular Trivia anyway because of all the deletions throughout wikipedia caused by mostly unnotable or useless episode tibits. -Adv193 05:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, directing them to WP:EPISODE should be enough to explain why, if the guidelines are expanded and spelt out so everyone knows exactly what they mean. Gwinva 06:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would using a template similar to  help to communicate the concern? Addhoc 11:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good template.  Make a similar one for each likely problem, OR combine them all in one.  Could adapt the existing  template also.  Most of the time, the problem will be simple notability: , which could be adapted or specified as per guideline on template page.  If we made a 'failed WP:EPISODE' tag, with a space to pipe particular concerns, that will allow flexibility without clogging the page up...let's face it, most will have ALL the problems.  Gwinva 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "all-in-one" idea is probably best, with variables for displaying different concerns. Then it can just be configured on a page-by-page basis, displaying the relevant information while maintaining a consistent look. --Ckatzchatspy 17:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion: Templates

message: #Yes or no?
#Merge, or redirect?
#"bulk" redirects
*Are we supposed to answer here? I'm not sure, but Yes, both and yes/no. lol. Yes, we should do this. I think we've all explained why we should fairly well already.--Some articles will be a simple "redirect" because they may be literal copies of a section of a parent article. We'll have to make a judgement call on the merging. But I say, leave it to that particular television show's regular editors to decide what would be suitable, per guidelines, on the parent articles. Otherwise we may spend all our time trimming a plot so it fits in the parent article.--Bulk redirects will be necessary for some. Just like there may be simple redirects that are uncontroversial, there may be a whole group of them together that are that way. There may be 5 articles out of 22 that need more focus beyond a simple redirect. 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, each section is for discussion of the individual point. --Ckatzchatspy 18:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think simple cases get redirected by one editor, no hassle. (ie. those that have had no input during the tagged period, and contain no useful info).  More complicated cases get referred to a review page where two or three editors can have a look at it and come up with a plan.  EG. merge, redirect themselves, give the regular contributors a month to perform the merge themselves or whatever.  In this category will fall those pages where people have made an effort to provide sources... the taskforce can see if these are reliable/going to work or just padding. Gwinva 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion: Should we do this/how to approach it

message: #Try not to mindlessly redirect. Look over the episode. If it contains more than a plot, even if trivial, contemplate opening a "wordpad" and pasting additional info there (keep track of which episode has what info), and past it on the talk page of the parent article. Allow them to device a good way of expressing that information on the parent article. Provide them with an example of another similar page that accomplishes that task.
:As I mentioned above, many will be simple redirects.  More complicated or questionable cases can be referred to a review page for a few editors to have a look... saves the whole task and responsibility falling on one editor. Gwinva 19:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked Gwinva's instructions to emphasize the responsibilities of the merging editor. --Ckatzchatspy 21:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They weren't mine.. No one's signed the list (so we can deny or take credit for whatever takes our fancy!).  I just responded... But yes, anything salvagable could be pasted on the talk page, but people need to be reminded to work on it before putting it in the main article.Gwinva 21:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is salvageable? To be worth saving, it'll probably need to be sourced or it'll likely be able to be sourced. If that's the case, it'll just be better to leave the episode. TTN 22:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  In fact, I think I've said that myself in one of these sections, somewhere.... Gwinva 22:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to compromise a FL by pasting plots into the respective sections, and in case you hadn't noticed it takes a bit of effort properly trim a plot. They can trim it themselves. Point them to where the plot is.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's avoid the snarky comments, OK? I'm aware that it takes effort to trim a plot - and I'll again emphasize that if the sole intent of this procedure is to validate the "rush through it" approach that got us here in the first place, then we are doing the wrong thing. Before this can go "live", it has to be acceptable to the community as a whole - including people who are perfectly comfortable with having one-per-show. We *have* to demonstrate that this is a fair procedure that doesn't just give "carte blanche" to deletionists. --Ckatzchatspy 22:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We would be here even if I had been all "sweet and nice." Many people were just using me as a target for their anger (though some did have legitimate concerns). Anyways, people aren't going to easily accept it either way. Taking a lot of time to merge summaries that could be replaced by regulars in half of the time is not going to help. You can merge if you would like, but I doubt many will follow you. TTN 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what you are saying is that because people have ignore a guideline that was already in place, not only should be say "you have until this time to fix it", but when they don't, we are supposed to fix it for them? Not seeing this "fairness" you speak of. It seems that there are too many "feelings" to consider. If it's just a plot, they can write another. I just as easy to say "these articles were redirected because no one could provide third part, reliable sources to support their existence. If you would like to adapt the plots into this parent article, you can go here (provide a link to the material) and copy the plots."   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion: Responsibilities of the editor who takes on merging/redirecting a specific series

message: #No longer than 30 days, unless necessary. Use common sense.
:I really think that we should go for just a week if nobody even replies. If someone does reply, we can give them more time to find the sources or whatever. A special case could be if there was a really active main editor, but he has gone on a break or something, so we could just leave it for longer. TTN 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking that 14-20 days should be decent for most. It's more than a week, but it allows us to find series of articles that have no activity, and are so severely underdeveloped "nothing but a title and an infobox" (yes I've seen that) they would seriously benefit immediately from redirection.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, say 14 days from first tag.  First review at/soon after 14 days.  No change to a useless article=speedy redirect.  Any question or significant input from editors, tagged to a review page for discussion; consensus redirect or retagging with agreed time for improvement and re-review (time determined by circumstance).Gwinva 19:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 14 days sounds good to me. -- Ned Scott 19:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 14's a bit short - and we have to incorporate the "merge" idea. That is the *primary* direction of the guideline, not redirecting. --Ckatzchatspy 20:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if there's nothing worth merging? -- Ned Scott 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We never said it needed to be completed in 14 days.. just evidence the job has begun.  At the review, a task-force editor can retag it for an extension, or post it to the review page for a few of us to decide if improvements are likely.  A nice note from an editor explain what they intend to do would prevent a speedy-direct, and 14 days is enough for that.  As for the hope of merging, that is what we are trying to encourage the original contributors to do. Perhaps that suggestion should be included in the template? Oh... shouldn't say that here.  I'll so and add it in the template section! Gwinva 20:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion: Suitable waiting period

message: #Find, or help create "List of" and "Season" pages that prove you can develop them to include for relevant information. 
#Clearly establish what should/shouldn't be in an article.
:I'm playing around with the guidelines in my sandbox to see if they can be expanded and made more explicit.  I'll post my suggestions at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes when I'm done (unless someone else does so first, in which case I'll moan that their suggestions aren't as good as mine!) Gwinva 19:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see more thoughts below at #A radical new proposal. Gwinva 11:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion: Improving the information available to editors

message: One thing that is clear from points raised throughout this (and related) discussion is that there will be certain series that do not need to be "processed". Wherever this topic has come up, some shows consistently get mentioned as examples of "how to do it right". (Examples include Doctor Who and The Simpsons.) I think that if we encounter a series like that, where a large percentage of the articles are already strong and there is a strong contingent of editors working on them, there is no need to tag/merge/etc. --Ckatzchatspy 22:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about Dr. Who, unless they are still doing it, but I've had people direct me to a "good" Dr. Who episode article that was horribly written. THe plot was excessively long. Now, the Simpsons..most are generally "GA" and I'd be fine with letting them handle their stuff, but alert them to this guideline. (when done)   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dr. Who ones do seem pretty bad, but many seem to have decent enough sourcing. Ones like that should be saved for when the real problem articles are gone. TTN 22:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These (and others like them) have wikiprojects of their own who can take responsibility for ensuring the guidelines are followed and tagging articles for clean-up.Gwinva 22:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with leaving it to the projects is that they may just want to keep articles based upon fan reasons. For example, while a good chunk of Simpsons episodes can have coverage, many probably don't have the information. The project would still probably try to keep them around. But, that should be saved for last anyways. TTN 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a *guideline* - we don't have to weed out every last episode article or micro-manage every series. If people are willing to put in the kind of commitment that the 'projects like Who and The Simpsons are doing, they deserve the right to carry on with what they are doing. Show them the guidelines, and get on with the problem material. Heck, if this process inspires new TV projects that mirror the work done by the more experienced ones, then so much the better. --Ckatzchatspy 22:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless given a reason, we should follow guidelines to the letter. We shouldn't just let these exist because "it's just a guideline." You also seem to forget that these also fall under WP:V, WP:N, WP:NONFREE and WP:NOT, which need to be readily enforced. TTN 22:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines are not policy. To quote the "guideline" guideline, "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (my emphasis) --Ckatzchatspy 22:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And common sense says that things that fail major tenets of this site should be removed. The common sense goes more with exceptions anyways, not being lenient for no reason. TTN 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It isn't favouritism - especially when we're pointing to those projects as examples of how to fulfil the guidelines. --Ckatzchatspy 22:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we're pointing to their episodes that have managed to reach FA status, and that we want to contact these projects to get everyone on the same page. It is favortism if you say "you can do what you want, because you're good", and then turn around and go "you're not, so you can't". No one is above the rules, no matter how well you do something. Maybe, maybe some leeway on the amount of time we might give them to develop, but I don't believe that we should simply say "let's ignore their episodes, because they have a lot of really good ones."   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone needs to say "look, we know you do good work on these episodes, but you need to take care of these (and give them a list) problem articles, because when other editors see them it sets a bad example of what episode articles should look like." Because we can point them to a million great articles, and it only takes 1 horrible article for someone to say "well, you allow that one".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we come across problem articles, we can tag them.  Good wikiprojects will rally round to try and improve them.  I keep an eye on Doctor Who, and everyone there seems aware there are articles which don't rate or which fail guidelines, and there's a good body of diligent contributors who are working towards improving these.  If a WikiProject is making a real effort at bringing their articles up to scratch or have created a to-do list, then we leave them to it most of the time.  If they seem uninterested, we need to be more interventionist.  Again, anything like this would be referred to a review page, so a suitable response/course of action could be decided.  Anyone complaining it's an us/them thing can access the discussion and see the rationales, and that it's not just one person making an instant call. Gwinva 08:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion: Does every series need to be processed?

message: What are the criteria for keeping an episode going to be?  Just providing secondary sources?  I'm not sure that should be sufficient alone, nor do I think that not providing secondary sources should automatically prevent an article from being kept.  For example, "Amok Time" doesn't include any secondary sources, but it's a significant episode and IMO worth keeping (perhaps if its significance is more explictly established in the article).  Could we establish a list of criteria necessary for keeping an article?  Acegikmo1
:It has to prove that it can be more than a plot summary and trivia. It needs non-trivial, out of universe info back by good sources. Other than that, there is no way for us to keep them. TTN 23:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that plot needs to get block-checked into a trimming wall. For that episode, I think the cultural impact it had is a great start. It's a very well known episode (er...well, scene) in popular culture. But all that trivia needs a source (it appears taken from IMDb) and needs to be in prose. But it should really have more than just one section of real world information, but that episode is a definite "review list" episode.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria

message: I have been looking at a lot of TV episode articles recently, and I have noticed the seemingly random use of the aforementioned terms for the storyline sections of the articles. Which one is preferable, and if one is, is it worth changing the articles to match it? Thanks. – ARC GrittTALK 00:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Synopsis is a summary of a plot, and has no spoilers. A plot is a summary of a story, and has spoilers. A plot summary is just redundant and should be changed. The "List of ____ episode" pages that have information about what happens in an episode (unless they're long) would be considered a synopsis. What you see on an episode page is generally a "plot". Like, that little bit on the back of a DVD box is a synopsis because it doesn't really spoiler anything for you, just gives you a basic overview. Synopses you would find in the lead paragraphs of the article, as the lead summarizes the whole article and shouldn't have any spoilers. Does that help?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! :) – ARC GrittTALK 00:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Plot" vs "Plot summary" vs "Synopsis" 

message: Following a brief discussion above at #arbitrary sub-section 2, I've suddenly thought of something quite radical.  Here it is:
#Merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode lists and rename it Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Policy and Review taskforce. This talk page goes with it.  The taskforce takes responsibility for developing guidelines and assessing all articles. After all, characters, fictional elements etc will suffer the same problems of notability as episodes and seasons.
#W-Project Episode project page is reviewed for content as per WP:EPISODE guideline, extraneous info removed, then page moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article
#W-Project LOE project page reviewed and improved with stuff about season pages and story arcs and moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write a list or season page
#Finish discussing our ideas for reviewing pages, make it a guideline titled Wikipedia:Television article review process or whatever.  Needs to cover reviews of ANY type of article.
#Reorganise W-Project TV project page, with:
#* a section for 'How to' pages to be listed; include above and work towards including: /how to write out of universe, /how to source articles, /how to provide images, /how to write a character page etc etc: ie, practical advice, templates, infoboxes etc
#* a section for 'guidelines' to be listed: WP:EPISODE, plus our new WP:TV-REVIEW; aim to develop WP:TV-CHARACTER etc etc
#"W-Project TV/Policy and review taskforce": brief includes assessing notability on ALL TV pages (as mentioned above).  
#*Project page: outline process for different types of article, list of available assessment templates, help for people whose pages have been redirected (eg. 'how to retrieve plot from page history')
#*Talk page: this one.
#*"Policy and review taskforce/Articles for review" page: list of reviews due, space to post and discuss problem or complicated articles, editors of warned pages can come and explain why theirs shouldn't be redirected, etc.
If it's idiotic, feel free to tell me so! Gwinva 11:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't idiotic. I think it will take a lot of hard work, but I think it's a great idea. Especially since character pages are probably one of the hardest things to actually write.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good, but I'm not wild about the "Policy and Review taskforce" name. -- Ned Scott 19:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just the first one which came into my head...I was trying to think of something a bit broader than 'episode' and more descriptive than 'television'! Any suggestions? Gwinva 20:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a dumb idea to merge the task forces, but why not just call it the Episode task force. I think it is a good idea to improve this task force's infrastructure before performing mass deletions of articles. We need to have all the relevant how-to guides. At the Simpsons WikiProject I started a style guide for episodes based on my experiences getting "Cape Feare" up FA standard. I could try a make a draft for all episodes based on that. --Maitch 11:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, since you accuse me of rigging FACs, I will stay completely out of this and not try and help. Goodbye. --Maitch 12:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A radical new proposal

message: I've been playing around in my sandbox again, basing my work on what seems to be agreed above (I don't mean my radical proposal, but the discussions following the list).  Need to confirm titles, and template messages content, but how does this work as a guideline?  The actual logistics of the taskforce (who does what, which series we do first) is a "WikiProject Television/Policy and Review taskforce" discussion.  This is just something to start with, so we can keep moving forwards. I might have got it wrong, made too many assumptions, or left something out, so add your comments or thoughts below, then we can agree what changes should be made (or bin the lot!). Gwinva 14:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That reads well. For the "who can assess and review", I think adding "only registered users", mainly because it is really hard to determine if 7 IP addresses are 7 different people, or 1 person on different servers. It can be easily done with a user check, or if they are being obvious and saying the exact same thing over and over, but user checks tend to require just cause and we can't hope that they are obvious with their comments.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, easily added.  The new episode-notability template looks good, especially if it sorts dates and throws it into the review category in the right place. Should also say something like 'redirected or merged according to the "television review process" (whatever) guideline, and link to this.  Then everyone knows where they stand. Gwinva 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible new review guideline

message: (which is technically now Template:Dated episode notability) has now been updated to automatically add a timer. To use it you subst the template, , and after 14 days the page in question will automatically be added to a category (for now I've named it :Category:Episode articles not asserting notability). -- Ned Scott 06:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet, good job.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template update 

message: Discussion seems to have slowed, which I shall interpret as consensus (rather than a loss of interest).  So I think we need to determine the next steps. I've listed them below in headings. Gwinva 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes have been transferred to the guideline page.  Just awaiting the 'problem article' bit. Gwinva 19:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we could tag every episode, or we could simply inform the main article, or both. It will probably be best to do both, as we can't expect the people that work on Lost (Tv series) to have ever episode article on their watchlist.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I was unclear; my question was about merging the episode and episode lists wikiprojects. Gwinva 14:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, oops. I would post a notice saying we are going to merge them into 1 page, and retitle it. I don't think people will have a problem with it, especially since there isn't much activity there.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For name, how about something like "episode coverage"? Just a thought. -- Ned Scott 22:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll run with that.  I've posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode lists suggesting a merge and directing them to comment here.  As you've probably seen, I've renamed this taskforce according to Ned's suggestion.  It can always be changed later if evryone hates it, but I thought we should at least get going. Gwinva 11:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LOE has now been merged. I'm tying up the loose ends, like the now extra userbox, etc. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think they work good. We might learn more after all is said and done, and we ask for more opinions from the other WikiProjects.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, should we contact the wikiprojects now, or get the guidelines on a page, and this new wikiproject page updated first? Gwinva 11:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say, get it all done first. Less to do once they see it. Easier to tweak what will be in place.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think simply "Episode article review".  We probably won't be reviewing any season pages for merger, or a list of page. Structurally, maybe a daughter page for just the list of articles that will need reviewing. It could become too large if we have other information on that main page (like an explaination of what the review process is). We could use the talk page for the review. Once it is closed we simply archive it under the show's title. This way, if we have 200 Simpsons episode reviews, we can put them in a "Simpsons" archive, instead of having 200 individual archive pages.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: how about 'Television article review'? Then we can also consider the odd character page or whatever which also fails notability guidelines. I'd be tempted to have a separate review page from the talk page, as the talk page will also be used to discuss how the project is working.  Something like [Wikiproject Television/Our new taskforce name/Articles for Review]. Archiving by Series is a good idea for the big ones, but there's hundreds of series that we'll review pages for once, then never see again. Gwinva 14:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That title works for me. I'm not sure about the archive then. Probably need some more suggestions. 14:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've identified the category to look for on this project page and quickly created [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage taskforce/Articles for review, so we can actually get going.  The project page needs an outline of the review process, templates etc.  Talking of which, I think we need a template message to post on the parent talkpage (ie. the talkpage of the article they're likely to be redirected/merged to) informing them what is going on...editors might not always watch individual articles. It should read something like this: The individual episode pages of this programme fail notability guidelines, and may be merged or redirected here when reviewed after 14 days, unless notability and real-world importance is established through the support of reliable sources (according to WP:Episode and our new review guideline).  You are encouraged to assert its notability or merge the articles yourselves.  Further help... etc.... A template then for 'These articles have been moved'. There can be another one for second reviews, inviting comment on teh review page.  It would save the reviewing having to type it out each time.  What do you think? Gwinva 11:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Does the current "how to guide" have its own page, or should we create a separate page for it? Should the "how to" on season/list pages be separate or part of that guide?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the only 'how to' guides we have so far are the project pages of these two wikiprojects.  I'd say revamp Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes and move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article.  Then the project page of our renamed taskforce can deal with the reviewing process.  I think we should have a separate Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write a season or episode list page, as it'll be quite big once you add in infoboxes, templates,  HTML markup (for people like me who copy and paste what they see eleswhere, since I don't know the first thing about writing my own) etc. Gwinva 14:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I pull what I can from those other works and start the new ones.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i've moved the stuff to the How to episode page, as linked above, but it still needs work.  Also see what I've done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. I haven't touched the list stuff. Gwinva 11:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Next steps

message: I've expanded the bits I'd got bored with at WT:EPISODE#Suggested expansion of guidelines.  Have a look and confirm these are right.  Since these are an expansion rather than a change to the guidelines, I think once we've all agreed these on the talk page, (proving consensus) they can be added to the guideline page.  We can fiddle with the 'dealing with problem pages' section when we're sorted here.  Gwinva 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes have been transferred to the guideline page.  Just awaiting the 'problem article' bit. Gwinva 19:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1. WP:EPISODE

message: I think we've agreed this is a good idea.  We need a name which covers the slightly wider brief.  I tentatively called it 'policy and review' in my guidelines above, but this is perhaps a bit heavy-handed (and too specific).  Also, what is the process for merging them?  Do we need to post notices? Inform the individual members? Or consider this conversation enough and just merge? Gwinva 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could tag every episode, or we could simply inform the main article, or both. It will probably be best to do both, as we can't expect the people that work on Lost (Tv series) to have ever episode article on their watchlist.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I was unclear; my question was about merging the episode and episode lists wikiprojects. Gwinva 14:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, oops. I would post a notice saying we are going to merge them into 1 page, and retitle it. I don't think people will have a problem with it, especially since there isn't much activity there.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For name, how about something like "episode coverage"? Just a thought. -- Ned Scott 22:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll run with that.  I've posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode lists suggesting a merge and directing them to comment here.  As you've probably seen, I've renamed this taskforce according to Ned's suggestion.  It can always be changed later if evryone hates it, but I thought we should at least get going. Gwinva 11:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LOE has now been merged. I'm tying up the loose ends, like the now extra userbox, etc. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2. Merging taskforces episodes and episode lists

message: I posted a suggestion above.  Is this ok? need more work?  Do they need approving somewhere else like Village pump?  Consensus from Wikiprojects? Can we just create the page, and then alter it later if people bring up problems on the talk page? Gwinva
:I think they work good. We might learn more after all is said and done, and we ask for more opinions from the other WikiProjects.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, should we contact the wikiprojects now, or get the guidelines on a page, and this new wikiproject page updated first? Gwinva 11:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say, get it all done first. Less to do once they see it. Easier to tweak what will be in place.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3. Review guidelines

message: Ned Scott's done great work on a template.  Check it out at #Template update and confirm you are happy with what it contains and how it works, and agree category name.  Are there any other templates we need writing to post on talk pages or direct people to review page. What's teh name of the review page, and how will it be structured? Gwinva 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think simply "Episode article review".  We probably won't be reviewing any season pages for merger, or a list of page. Structurally, maybe a daughter page for just the list of articles that will need reviewing. It could become too large if we have other information on that main page (like an explaination of what the review process is). We could use the talk page for the review. Once it is closed we simply archive it under the show's title. This way, if we have 200 Simpsons episode reviews, we can put them in a "Simpsons" archive, instead of having 200 individual archive pages.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: how about 'Television article review'? Then we can also consider the odd character page or whatever which also fails notability guidelines. I'd be tempted to have a separate review page from the talk page, as the talk page will also be used to discuss how the project is working.  Something like [Wikiproject Television/Our new taskforce name/Articles for Review]. Archiving by Series is a good idea for the big ones, but there's hundreds of series that we'll review pages for once, then never see again. Gwinva 14:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That title works for me. I'm not sure about the archive then. Probably need some more suggestions. 14:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've identified the category to look for on this project page and quickly created [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage taskforce/Articles for review, so we can actually get going.  The project page needs an outline of the review process, templates etc.  Talking of which, I think we need a template message to post on the parent talkpage (ie. the talkpage of the article they're likely to be redirected/merged to) informing them what is going on...editors might not always watch individual articles. It should read something like this: The individual episode pages of this programme fail notability guidelines, and may be merged or redirected here when reviewed after 14 days, unless notability and real-world importance is established through the support of reliable sources (according to WP:Episode and our new review guideline).  You are encouraged to assert its notability or merge the articles yourselves.  Further help... etc.... A template then for 'These articles have been moved'. There can be another one for second reviews, inviting comment on teh review page.  It would save the reviewing having to type it out each time.  What do you think? Gwinva 11:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4. Agreeing logistics of review and tagging

message: The current taskforce episode project page contains a good 'how to guide' for writing episode pages. Need someone to review it and bring it up to scratch (under a 'how to write an episode' title.  Also need a season/list of page to help people...perhaps Bignole can base it on his Smallville work?  Anyone keen on writing 'How to's about images or how to find reliable sources or whatever? Providing people with how to get the right sort of stuff will hopefully prevent them throwing in the wrong stuff. (see also my #A radical new proposal above.) Gwinva 13:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the current "how to guide" have its own page, or should we create a separate page for it? Should the "how to" on season/list pages be separate or part of that guide?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the only 'how to' guides we have so far are the project pages of these two wikiprojects.  I'd say revamp Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes and move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article.  Then the project page of our renamed taskforce can deal with the reviewing process.  I think we should have a separate Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write a season or episode list page, as it'll be quite big once you add in infoboxes, templates,  HTML markup (for people like me who copy and paste what they see eleswhere, since I don't know the first thing about writing my own) etc. Gwinva 14:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I pull what I can from those other works and start the new ones.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i've moved the stuff to the How to episode page, as linked above, but it still needs work.  Also see what I've done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. I haven't touched the list stuff. Gwinva 11:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 5. Developing resources

message: For articles that are redirected, we should take steps to make it easier for editors to find the old information. One would be ensuring that links to the old versions are placed on the destination talk page. Another, easy step is to place the redirect code at the top of the episode page without blanking the page. The net effect is the same - the page redirects automatically, and if one follows the "redirected from" link it only displays the redirect text. However, clicking on "edit" will reveal the old text - rather than having to dig through the history, which may not be as intuitive to all editors. --Ckatzchatspy 18:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The easiest method would be to link to the last version of the episode list with the single links, and just show people where this little "redirected from" link is at. The rest should be easy enough. Given that most of these will never be touched again, leaving giant redirects really won't help anything, and if people find the page on their own, they can just click the history tab. TTN 18:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This wouldn't create a "giant redirect" at all. Check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage taskforce/test to see what I mean. (It will redirect back here - click on the "redirected from" link to see the displayed page. Them, hit "edit" to see what's underneath.) If anything, it is easier as you don't have to blank the page. --Ckatzchatspy 18:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean giant as in kilobytes taken up, not the actual redirect text. It'll just take up unnecessary space (not that it's really a space issue). It's just rather pointless because people can easily look into the history if they know how to get to a redirect (which would be the main problem for newer people that want to improve them). TTN 18:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How on earth would it take up extra space? The text is already there, otherwise you couldn't access it from the history. It also makes things easier for editors improving the content, and is simpler for the redirecting editor. --Ckatzchatspy 18:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's why I said it really isn't a real space issue. It's just sort of messy in my opinion as it's just unnecessary. There is also the problem of categories. They remain even if they are under the redirect "tag." The user would also have to clear them out, which would be even more work than "Ctrl+a and Ctrl+v." TTN 18:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Gwinva's right. Hitting the "history" key is just as simple as the "edit". I think a problem that comes to mind with just a redirect over the text is that people would have more of an inclination to simply remove the "redirect" at the top. Granted, they may simply "undo" any redirects to begin with, but opening an edit screen, in my opinion (which is all it is), teases them more with that option. They could just simply go "well, it's already here...". Either way, I think it serves the same purpose as clicking a "history" tab, especially since we aren't deleting anything. Also, wouldn't they eventually become obsolete if the info is merged into a parent article? Then we'd have text sitting in there for no more reasons.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect process