| Revision as of 13:34, 13 January 2008 editPixelface (talk | contribs)12,801 edits new section: Notability and "problem" articles← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:56, 9 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,248,232 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages talk:Television episodes/Archive}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Television|importance=NA|episode-coverage=yes}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{/archivelist}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 10 | |||
| |algo = old(60d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Television episodes/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television/Navigation}} | |||
| ==Policy inconsistent with reality== | |||
| It seems like the notability guideline: | |||
| See above question. ] (]) 22:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| "it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available." | |||
| :See above discussions and archives. ] ] 22:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) It is applied and accepted by quite a few users several times each week, so I guess there is consensus. Is there something with it that you don't agree with? – ] <sup>]•c</sup> 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's reached arbitration for being applied in a mechanistic, game-playing manner. What does the rest of the world think? - ] (]) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well, that's about what's been ''asserted'', however it does not appear that that will be a ''finding''. As to the rest of the world, there's the view that the main contributers to Misplaced Pages are . --] 09:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Sure, large scale merger of well-written episode articles such as those of Scrubs and elsewhere. And from talking to people I get the impression that there's not many people other than the WP:EPISODE regulars who actually favor this. ] (]) 22:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's an episode-centric version of things like ] and ]. Obviously, no one likes seeing their work removed, or even the work of others. However, when the articles are almost completely just a recap, and have little to no real-world information, it needs to be cleaned up, or at least shown that it has the potential for improvement. -- ] 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Put it this way, if you fail WP:EPISODE, you most likely fail the general notability guideline, because this guideline is based on that guideline. ] ] 22:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| is pretty commonly disregarded. For example, every episode of Modern Family Season 2 has its own article. This might be symptomatic of wikipedia policy being out of step with what readership is seeking, or it might be an example of writers and fans ignoring a policy and diluting wikipedia's quality. Given the widespread disregard for the policy, though, it seems worthwhile to debate. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::: Actually, no. Almost any television episode of a generally popular show will have a few secondary reliable sources about it, such a TV guide talking about it. Furthermore, there's nothing inherently wrong with a bit of eventualism in regards to this sort of thing or a small bit of inherited notability. Sources being hard to find doesn't mean they don't exist (that's for example why we have separate articles on every single olympic athlete- the presumption is that we will find sources if we look hard enough) If we have massive numbers of people who want to work on these and massive numbers who want to read them and we don't have serious ] or other concerns we should let them be. ] (]) 23:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Um, if you have legitimate "significant coverage" (see the general notability guideline) then there isn't a problem. TV Guide posting a plot summary is not coverage in the least, it's their job to post the plot summary of everything that comes on TV. Misplaced Pages ''is not'' a current events encyclopedia. Our articles are supposed to be based on historical sources. That means the information needs to be available, not "let's hope they talk about it ''eventually''". That isn't how articles are meant to be created, regardless of how much disregard editors give in response to that. ], the burden of proof lies with the editor adding it, and information can be removed on the spot if it is not cited. If you have a page that has nothing but a plot, then you don't have a need for a page (see ]). This is not "let me be and I'll find it eventually", this is "show it now, or find it later and then recreate the page". We aren't on the "hopeful system", we're on the "show me now system". ] ] 23:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Ah, ] versus ] -- the yin and yang of Misplaced Pages. -- ]/<small>(]) </small> 06:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::], you said, "Misplaced Pages is not a current events encyclopedia." but ] proves you wrong. TV Guide is not coverage? And we are most definitely not on the "show me now system" — see ] for proof of that. --] (]) 01:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| IMHO I appreciate being able to see a synopsis for each episode although I tend to think they are too long. In general, I would think a one to two sentence description, similar to what one might have seen in TV Guide, is sufficient. Exception could be made for those episodes which truly are notable in and of themselves such as the Sammy Davis Jr./Carroll O'Connor kiss on "All in the Family", the coming out episode of "Ellen", final episode of "M*A*S*H" etc. ] (]) 05:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| This guideline should be deleted. The proper process of writing wikipedia is to add information and improve that information. Misplaced Pages strives to be '''the sum of all knowledge'''. This guideline is being used to delete information based on the mistaken notion that wikipedia should not contain stuff that people want to look up on wikipedia. That's so completely backward. The sources for these articles are the shows themselves. As time goes on the articles get better. That's what wikipedia is all about. Deleting and redirecting a perfectly adequate article about an episode serves no good purpose, but makes wikipedia less useful and drives away good contributors. '''Don't delete in-universe information that you think is probably true and you think people will want to read.''' ] (]) 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC on Game of Thrones episode Oathkeeper == | |||
| :Dear lord. You know, if you editors put as much effort into actually improving articles that meet all the policies and guidelines on Misplaced Pages, instead of complaining about the said policies and guidelines then maybe there wouldn't be a problem. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is ''every'' topic worth writing about on Misplaced Pages. Sorry, they just are not. That is the reason we have a notability guideline. You cannot establish notability for a show by saying "it's a television episode, so that makes it notable". Sorry, that isn't how things work here. Please read ] (BTW, if you think deleting this guideline will mean that articles that fail it will not be kept, you're wrong, because articles that fail WP:EPISODE also fail WP:NOTE. That means, if you want this one deleted you might as well delete the general notability guideline as well...and I don't believe you'll every get that to happen). ] ] 23:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| There's an RS RfC on the ''Game of Thrones'' episode talk page. It's about the use of a blog source to provide a backing for listing the chapters of the book upon which the episode was based. Participation (and fresh voices) would be welcome. ] (]) 03:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, because, you know, it's ''so'' much easier to improve articles to impossible standards than it is to fix the screwed-up standards in the first place. Obviously one should treat the symptoms and not the disease! I have seen the light! Thank you, Bignole. | |||
| ::But as for your odd ending arguments, I really have nothing to say - why does being against a subcategory imply being against the main category? That's like saying that someone who is against having an article on a particular episode of ''Scrubs'' must necessarily be against having an article on ''Scrubs'' itself. It's bizarre. Opposing this particular misbegotten set of standards does not mean opposing the notion of standards. Your thinking is muddled. --] ] 23:24 ] ] (GMT) | |||
| == Any point in writing a ''Lucy Show'' episode article? == | |||
| ::If editors would take 5 seconds to do a before placing a {{tl|merge}} tag in an article or nominating an article for deletion, then maybe they're wouldn't be so much complaining. It's true, not ''every'' topic is worth writing about in Misplaced Pages. And we do have a notability guideline, that's true. So why do we need this guideline? I'm still unsure if this is a guideline meant to encourage editors how to write good articles or if it's the episode notability guideline. This is a content guideline, but it' clearly being used as the episode notability guideline, with editors saying articles "fail" this guideline. A television show is nothing but a series of episodes. When you say a show is notable, the episodes are notable. A show does not exist apart from all of its episodes. People applying this guideline and using it to merge articles or delete them have schizophrenic reasoning. It's like saying ] should have an article but ] should not. Do we have a notability '''policy'''? No, we don't. On Misplaced Pages, "notability" means "worthy of notice" and I don't think you could ever make any kind of policy out of the term "worthy of notice." I don't see how '']'' is notable enough to have an article, but ] could be considered not notable enough per this guideline. This guideline is completely superfluous to ] and needs to be deleted. If this guideline is supposed to help editors write good episode articles, it needs to be merged into ]. Shall I put a {{tl|merge}} tag on this page? --] (]) 02:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I have not tracked at all whether TV show episode articles are frequently AfD'd successfully, and on what grounds. Wondering if there is any point to creating an article on a '']'' episode, absent any clear showing of it being distinctly notable on its own? (It was from a season for which she won an Emmy). The episode "Lucy and the Pool Hustler" is noteworthy as one of the few on-screen depictions of women-only pool tournaments and women doing well at pool, but I haven't found any external source that treat the episode as anything special. I'm skeptical than notability is "inherited" from a season down to article (i.e., that it's expected that every season article will eventually spawn articles for all episodes in the season). I've already written a draft of the plot summary, but I don't mind abandoning it if making an article on ''Lucy Show'' S06E13 would just lead to a deletion. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 03:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I haven't previously commented because of the pointlessness of voicing my discontent alone (we all know there is considerable inertia to things in the Misplaced Pages: namespace), but if I don't comment now, people might think WP:EPISODE uncontroversial - and then you'd have a self-fulfilling prophecy there. If no-one objects, it's consensus, after all... | |||
| == Bot to update lists of television episodes? == | |||
| :But! I agree with Gerard, JoshuaZ, and WAS. This is a terrible "guideline", which I have never supported, and I would be surprised if many of the editors I've worked with/am familiar with support it either. This anecdotal belief of mine is further buttressed by my observations that the chief invocations of WP:EPISODE are by "outsiders" to a topic (by outsiders, read: people who are ignorant of the subject and didn't do any work on them) seem to be solely for deletion. Have you ever seen an episode article where it was started ''because'' the editor felt that WP:EPISODE prescribed an article on that episode? A good notability guideline encourages as many articles as it discourages. The sign of a guideline which exists solely as a partisan weapon is one which is severely imbalanced - as is WP:EPISODE. ''Of course'' an episode inherits notability from the series: what is the series ''but'' episodes? --] ] 23:24 ] ] (GMT) 23:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Has anyone thought about creating a bot to update lists of television episodes? Is there a place to ask for television series to have their articles updated? ] (]) 19:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::If an episode ''inherited'' notability, then when would it stop? That would mean that any house in a given show is notable enough for its own article. That would mean that the guy/gal hired to be the key grip is notable enough to have their own article. Hell, I'm from a notable state, doesn't that mean that I should have my own article since the state is made up of people? We should have an article on every individual song of every album from every artist, because what are albums but individual sounds put together. Right? How many times has this guideline been question, and how many times did it end up ''still'' a guideline? Focus your attention on fixing articles, since it's clear that FA episode articles follow this guideline. Since FA status is decided by the community, it appears that the community believes articles should follow this guideline. Non-episode articles are deleted every day for failing WP:NOTE and not providing sources to assert notability. Why should we let episode articles get away with not providing sources to assert notability? We shouldn't. If you cannot assert notability, then you should not have an article. If, as some editors have said, it takes time to find the sources, then I guess ] now is there? The episode isn't going anywhere in the history of entertainment but up. Either it will gain notability, or it won't, nothing every loses notability. ] ] 23:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :P.S. Is their anyone interested in updating the ] shows that air in the Chicago market? ] (]) 14:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::Dunno about you, but I know the difference between a television episode and a person.... seems to me that if we are going to have specific guidelines to help determine notability for specific areas of content, their arguments can be nuanced and centered around the topic at hand. -- ]/<small>(]) </small> 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::When would it stop? It would stop at the episode. I don't think props and crewmembers inherit notability. Those are used to produce a show, they are not the actual show. And states aren't made up of people. They're arbitrary geographical lines designating a specifc area. If some editors want to come up with a notability guideline for songs, they can do that. If we already have FA criteria, this guideline is completely unnecessary. ] is a guideline. And it's a guideline that hinges on one phrase, "worthy of notice." There is no notability policy. ] says a topic is '''presumed''' to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. And then goes on to offer its own definition of "presumed." Go look that up in a real dictionary. ] does not link to ] because this is not a notability guideline — even though several editors are pretending it is. "Why should we let episode articles get away with not providing sources to assert notability?" Because ], ], ], and ] and their sub-articles do it, and that appears to be the ''actual'' consensus of the community. It's clear from the articles linked on those pages that episodes ''do'' inherit notability. Articles have to follow 3 policies: ], ], and ]. ] is not one of those policies and ] is '''definitely''' not one of those policies. There should be no rush to redirect episode articles or delete them either. You said "nothing ever loses notability", but that's not how this guideline is being used. This guideline is being interpeted by editors so '']'' is notable, but the season finale of the first season is not notable — and that's ridiculous. --] (]) 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, it can stop at the season. Most episodes are not notable in their own right. Notability is not inherited, sorry. Everything must earn its own way. Episodes comprise seasons, and there is nothing wrong with having a season article that discusses all of the episodes for that season. If there is something special about a particular episode, and it stands out in notability and real world content then it can have its own article. But ] that you don't need individual articles for 22 episodes when you can say the same thing, much more coherently and with better quality on one page. ]. There are over 2 million articles on this Wiki alone, that's far too many to oversee sufficiently. ''The Simpsons'' get a break simply because that group of editors has shown progress in making all their articles comply with notability (check out the article on the eighth season of ''The Simpsons'' if you don't understand what I mean). Also, Pixel, your tone is becoming a bit combative, maybe you should take a ]. You mention that NOTE is about "worthy of notice", but it is also about ''showing'' that "worth", and you cannot do that without sources. Anyway, have a nice evening, I have some more important matters to attend to at the moment. ] ] 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So seasons inherit notability but episodes don't? If each episode article has to assert notability by providing independent coverage, hundreds of the sub-articles of ] clearly fail that. The Simpsons episode articles ''do not'' all comply with ]. See the sub-articles of ] for proof of that. You say "everything must earn its own way" and then you say the Simpsons episode articles that don't assert notability don't have to assert notability — so which is it? This guideline says nothing like "articles must assert notability unless one season of the show has many articles that do assert notability." Clearly The Simpsons episode articles are about notable episodes because those episodes are part of a notable show. Providing outside sources for ''each episode'' is merely '''one''' way of establishing notability. I don't see why ''each episode'' has to assert notability, and the sub-articles of ], ], ], and ] follow that. I don't see how an episode is non-notable until IGN reviews it or some guy writes a book about the show in general. There must be some way of determining whether an episode is worthy of notice besides reviews in magazines and newspapers or mentions in books. But again, ] is '''not''' a notability guideline. ] needs to be merged into ] or redirected. --] (]) 11:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Which sister projects to put merely a list of episode titles? == | |||
| ::(To Gwern) What is a book? a series of chapters. We don't make articles for every chapter of a book. Episodes can ''sometimes'' be seen as separate works presented in a series, but more often than not, they are seen just as we see chapters in a book. Even if you wanted to organize the information in a per-episode format for every show, you would be limited by now much information goes in each article due to ]. Then from a purely organizational standpoint it would be absurd to have 30 or 100 or 500 articles with only a few sentences each. When you have real-world information, you can justify writing more about the plot. When you don't, you have just summary that is excessive. -- ] 02:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::We used to. Remember when we started, how we had articles on individual chapters of stuff like the Bible or ''The Fountainhead''? | |||
| :::We may not make articles for every chapter, but we could. It may seem strange to have short articles, but bizarrely many encyclopedias include them. I would note that as this page stands, it makes no exceptions for "separate works presented in a series". Just another of its flaws... --] ] 04:28 ] ] (GMT) | |||
| * Agreed with Gwern. Yes, articles should have sources; but a guideline that's thrown around mainly to delete large swaths of things could very well be out of touch with wiki-reality, and needs to be thoughtfully considered. I also see very little helpful here in terms of determining just what sources are valid for a popular tv show (which aren't going to get written about in the academic literature, or really in most of the sources that are useful for other topics). Furthermore, I see nothing about what happens to make one episode more important than another. Season finales? As determined by the fandom? Without a clear sense of "yes, we can have articles about episodes in the following cases" or "no, we cannot" it turns into one big game of IDONTLIKEIT. -- ]/<small>(]) </small> 23:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It's called "real world content backed by reliable sources". That means information that isn't indiscriminate or mere trivia (most of the time it is pretty clear what that is, if it isn't clear, then a discussion should take place. Regardless there needs to be a source that meets ] and ]). WP:V and WP:RS are clear, if you don't understand those then that isn't a fault of this guideline. Fansites are not reliable sources--short of a personal interview that they might conduct. Reviews of episodes that actually give context about the show, and aren't mere "I like the episode 5 stars" reviews, which give no context. Reviews written by professional reviewers are considered reliable--as they would for WP:RS. DVD commentaries can sometimes have enough real world information to support a separate episode article, but not necessarily ''every'' episode. Another thing editors need to realize is that just because you can find a single review, or a few snippets of production information, does not mean that the article has enough information to support itself. Articles are routinely merged into larger topics because they don't have that much information, regardless of whether or not they meet WP:NOTE. That is the reason ] contains information on 20 episodes, but ] was separated out on its own. Misplaced Pages is about ''quality'' not ''quantity''. ] ] 00:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well, yes, I do think I understand ] and ], thanks -- understand them well enough to know that they are ''not'' always clear in every case (I've certainly seen my share of battles over what makes it into RS over the years). I'm a librarian in my day job, so one of the things I know about sources is that what a "good source" is can vary a lot depending on the discipline you're working in. The literature of, say, film and media studies is very different from my field of electrical engineering. Because I don't work on television articles much, I think it would be helpful to have some more formal explication and explanation of what kind of sources more experienced editors in the area know are are out there, and what consensus is among people working on the episodes (does TV guide cut it? DVD commentaries, as you say?) and this would probably be helpful for newbie editors as well. A guideline that defaults into "I know it when I see it" is not so helpful for everybody else. -- ]/<small>(]) </small> 00:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Bignole, fansites can absolutely be reliable sources. To take a favorite subject of mine: the ''Neon Genesis Evangelion'' articles. This anime franchise has made literally billions of dollars, has dozens of media properties (a TV series, ~6 feature length movies, a manga series that has been running for more than a decade, etc. etc.), influenced every mecha anime (and not a few non-mecha), made Gainax the major studio it is and so on; all of this has lead to quite a few academic mentions of it. And these "reliable sources" you vaunt so highly, that you consider the be-all and end-all of editing - they are ''crap''. They are pedigreed, peer-review, published, "reliable" & "verifiable" crap. They are factually inaccurate, navel-gazing; they are ignorant of even the most basic secondary literature and Eva paraphernalia, much less the later ancillary material - and that's when they are not quietly cribbing bizarre and fanciful interpretations from equally clueless sources like the American DVD commentaries. The most ignorant poster at a fansite like Evamonkey.com knows more about what Eva actually means, about what Anno (the director) has actually said and written about, about its development and role in anime history, than any reliable source I have yet found. Want some Anno interviews translated into English? I'm afraid you'll have to quote a fanzine like Protoculture Addicts, which got the article from, yes, a fan. Want a solid translation of the Red Cross Book? Supplied by an pseudonymous fan on a fansite. Interested in the early conceptions of the plot and characters? Ditto. Did you find some useful sources and information in the back of the English manga editions? Oh, too bad - that author, he's that ever so despised word, a ''fan'', an ''amateur''. To write good articles on Eva practically demands that one ignore the strict letter of the guidelines and policies which are oh so perfect. | |||
| ::You and your ilk fetishize notability, you fetishize . You raise up a god of process and bow down to it, burning useful good stuff as a holocaust with pleasing smell to it. You dare talk about quality? You guys don't have the slightest clue what quality is. All you can perceive are the trappings that sometimes go with it. --] ] 04:16 ] ] (GMT) | |||
| ''Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: ].'' | |||
| The first time I found out about this guideline was when huge swaths of well-written articles started vanishing in its name, and I suspect the same can be said for many other editors coming here now. So I don't think one can point to "previous discussion" on this talk page from before then and call that a consensus. Furthermore, this guideline is being applied with policy-like absolutism in the field, which goes beyond any mandate that it might be able to claim even if there were widespread consensus supporting it. ] (]) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If Misplaced Pages is not a directory, then which sister projects should be the right place to put merely a list of episode titles? | |||
| :What phoebe and Bryan said. Most of the guideline is fine with me, except for the first section, which presumes there can never be inherited notability. I think it is perfectly fine to have an episode article which consists of little more than a 200 to 450 word plot summary (this being in line with the guideline, by the way), even though this would not necessarily require a reference. It is certainly inappropriate to cite this guideline as a blanket excuse to delete huge swaths of episode (or any other type, for that matter) articles. ] | ] 00:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Is wikisource the right place? | |||
| --] (]) 10:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeed. It's a classic case of inward-looking "consensus", where "the Misplaced Pages community has achieved consensus on this topic" ''actually'' means "a few people on an out-of-the-way talk page came to a 7-3 vote on it." Not that we see this pattern repeatedly or anything - ] (]) 00:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::So I guess the question now is what to do about it. Focusing just on this policy page for the moment, I expect a {{tl|Disputedtag}} banner at the top would be appropriate right now as a temporary measure, and then we can look at how to insert clarification that will prevent this guideline from being misused in the way it recently has been. ] (]) 01:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok, let's clear something up here. First, only Admins can delete an article, not any ol editor. Secondly, AfDs are community discussed. The fact that articles are being deleted because of this guideline ''is not'' this guidelines fault, nor does it stand to reason that this guideline is wrong, it means that the community of Misplaced Pages must see some kind of application in it if they are using is to say "this article should not exist". Also, many articles are not being deleted, they are being merged. They can easily be re-opened at any point, all with their edit histories still intacked. Because there is no deadline to start a page, there is no rush to keep it open "in hopes" that one day we'll have something to write about it. We have plenty of other policies and guidelines that dictate appropriate information for articles, so filling them with unencyclopedic information just to say "this is full of useful stuff" doesn't help the article. The idea of writing any article on Misplaced Pages has always been about starting with a main topic and working your way outward when you have enough information. Unfortunately, somewhere down the line someone decided that they'd rather just start on the outward articles and work their way in. ] ] 01:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Just because admins are the only ones who can delete articles doesn't mean that a guideline with a false claim of consensus can't be used to hammer a discussion to an apparent consensus in a particular way. Especially if the same people always make a point at voting at the same AfDs. And in any event merging doesn't make people likely to split something off, once something is merged if anything people are less likely to start a new article than if it is deleted. Oh, which brings us to the whole GFDL issue since some of these are getting merged and then having the redirects deleted which is a big no-no. After I return from break I will try to get a project together to look systematically at that problem. And no, Misplaced Pages has generally been about people writing articles in a fairly haphazzard fashion. The claim that "Misplaced Pages has always been about starting with a main topic and working your way outward when you have enough information" is simply false. ] (]) 01:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: It just isn't done, doesn't make it false. You are seeing tons of articles about this and that nowadays, and not a lot of organization. People have lost sight at what this place is about, and how to go about attaining that goal. Just because we have a lot of shitty film articles doesn't mean that the intention was to start with a lot of shitty film articles. As for the deletion of redirects, not this guidelines fault. Again, AfDs are decided on consensus. That means, if consensus is against this guideline being used as a point for deletion, then the article is not deleted. It's easy to claim that "the same editors are voting on the same thing and getting articles deleted" when your favorite article gets canned, then turn around and claim "there's no consensus for this guidelines" when your favorite article survives an AfD nomination. I guarantee that any article failing this guideline fails the general notability guideline as well--in which case everyone will be whinning to delete that guideline too....oh wait, they already do that. Sorry, you cannot please everyone. When someone's favorite show has an article on every single episode, regardless of whether that episode deserves or even simply warrants a separate article...and one day that article is gone they go ballistic. If you have sufficient, verified real world content then your article is just fine. If you don't, then maybe your article does not need its own page. People need to stop thinking that if one episode has an article then every episode needs an article. ] ] 01:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Is there any consensus, cont. (arbitrary break)=== | |||
| ] above puts a lot of this into context. Articles with reasonable potential are given more slack. Anyone following the recent arbcom case related to this knows that we're not going to be allowing mass action without proper discussion (regardless of who is right or wrong, the changes were too.. swift, for a lack of better words). By all means, use your best judgement, and if you feel an episode article has reasonable potential for real-world information, restore it. -- ] 02:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And if it doesn't have reasonable potential for real-world information? Just like people are studying plays from the 17th century and esoteric groups of monks from the 18th, some may want to write a study about the portrayal of our time's political agenda in Boston Legal's season 1. In order to do that, they will need knowledge of most episodes and this is where WP articles on them can help. Also, there's no harm in keeping articles about episodes that make up the "sum of human knowledge" when many people find it useful, especially when we can always delete them later rather than gouge their potential (where there'd have to be a margin of error meaning we'd lose some good content). ] <sup>]</sup> 03:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::By the way, I'm glad Joshua started this discussion, which will probably end in the de-guidelining of this page due to its lack of support. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're argument is with policy, then. ]. Misplaced Pages is not here to just recap works of fiction, and that's something that was decided by the community at large. Misplaced Pages is not an episode guide, or an abridged version of Boston Legal. The source people turn to when they wish to write about such details is the work of fiction itself. Yes, believe it or not, they can actually watch Boston Legal. Although, they would likely come to us anyways since they'll be looking for real-world information, such as production notes, interviews, real-world impact, that tell us the how and why the show was made the way it was. -- ] 03:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You must be new here. Check the talk page archives, this is hardly the first time someone has come stomping around because someone went and redirected their favorite TV show's episodes. -- ] 03:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's a nice attempt at ] but I'm an admin, so I'm not really new, and nobody went and redirected my favorite TV show's episodes, rather I saw Joshua's post to wikien. Besides, an episode's article not having this information doesn't mean it ]. I'd also like to take the opportunity to direct you to that ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I already knew you were an admin when I made that comment. I meant to say, you must be new to this talk page. The problem with the idea that an episode article ''might'' get real world information is that when it lacks it, it still needs the plot summary cut in the meantime. Most of such summary would be cut even with the real-world information, with some of these articles. The resulting summary can easily be merged into a ''List of episodes'' or a season summary page (or a mix between the two, as some shows are starting to do now). -- ] 02:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Pssst, Yonatan, you need the consenus of a much larger group of people to "de-guideline" a page; not the few opinions of some disgruntled editors on a single talk page. To clarify, as you probably already know, only changes to the wording of this page and similar such things can be made by the simple majority of editors that appear on this page. To de-list this page as a guideline, there needs to be a much larger announcement made to bring in unbiased, neutral editors and their opinions. ] ] 03:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::So how large a group in the first place did it take to make this a "guideline"? I'll bet that number is a lot smaller than the number it would take to persuade you there is consensus against... It's strange how looking back through the archives, I see a small number of familiar names arguing to make this a guideline and impose it throughout the wiki, and a large and revolving cast of editors arguing against it. --] ] 04:37 ] ] (GMT) | |||
| :(Wow, edit conflict much, my comment is way out of date... :P) To Yonatan, what's your idea of "good content"? If there's no real world context then it's not really good content, good content isn't plot summaries. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be a substitute for watching a show... if someone wants to study Boston Legal they should ''watch'' Boston Legal, they shouldn't read Misplaced Pages plot summaries. If they come to Misplaced Pages looking for info on how Boston Legal was produced/developed/critically recieved... then great, we should try our hardest to provide them with that information. But if that information can't be found for whatever reason, and the episode article "''doesn't have reasonable potential for real-world information''", then there's no need to have an article, is there? We can provide a brief summary of the story in a "List of episodes" page, we don't need a full article for plot. ] ] 04:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * This was discussed earlier this year as a result of a review of guidelines and proposals. There was no evidence of an evaluation of consensus prior to this being tagged as a guideline, and it was never widely advertised as "proposal". Proponents did not dispute that observation, but argued that consensus at the talk page and advertising a proposal is not required if the proposal reflects a de facto consensus demonstrated by the community (i.e., at AfD). This opened up quite a battle which culminated in the eventual elimination of the help page for creating policy. It is still not clear at WP how we create policies and guidelines, and there is a debate at the Policy and guideline policy page on that issue. Dedicated Wikipedians have strong feelings and valid logic in both directions. --] (]) 04:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I just want to chime in agreement with Gerard, JoshuaZ, WAS and others that this is a terrible guideline -- certainly not something to base mass merging of articles on. ] ≠ ] 04:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::IMHO, there should be a special ward reserved for people who insist on using the International Phonetic Alphabet and those who think that recapping TV episodes has no place on Misplaced Pages. They always remind me of the British colonel in ''The Bridge on the River Kwai.'' That's just my opinion, though. ] (]) 05:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Misplaced Pages is ''not'' a place to recap episodes, and regardless of this page, that is not in dispute. Even before the specific ] entry, we had an entry in WP:NOT that also said we were not an episode guide. It is very widely accepted that details of works of fiction should be justified by real-world information, and articles that were only plot are usually excessive. -- ] 05:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: This rests on a misinterpretation of ]. Most the episodes in question are not pure plot summaries, but often contained other data such as actors, guest stars, producers etc. ] (]) 00:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Data on who starred or worked on an episode is ''not'' sufficient information to help an article "''cover their real-world context and sourced analysis''" as required by ]. --] 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Excuse me? Who starred and such is real world information. It may not be an ideal level of information but it is certainly enough to cover WP:PLOT. It makes something not a pure plot summary. Furthermore, the basic point of PLOT is to avoid articles that contain every single joke and plot detail (obviously an article that mentioned every single joke in a Simpson's episode wouldn't be good even if the article was otherwise great). This isn't meant to remove articles that happen to be primarily plot. ] (]) 13:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::See my point below. Yes, it is real-world information, but that doesn't mean that it justifies a per-episode-article format, or the additional summary. How we organize this information comes into play here. On a Wikia wiki that I am an admin on, even though we get to go hog wild about every detail, I still strongly encourage people to think about how we organize everything. -- ] 05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Even if it did, that amount of information normally does not justify a one-episode-per-article format. Joshua, do you have any specific examples in mind? -- ] 03:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Many of the scrubs episodes would be good examples. ] (]) 13:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| In order for a guideline to be a guideline it has to have the acceptance of the community and at least a rough consensus behind it. If "this is hardly the first time someone has come stomping around because someone went and redirected their favorite TV show's episodes", then that just provides more support for the view that it ''doesn't'' have that acceptance behind it. In this particular case, I myself am not particularly interested in the shows that have been hit - this is a matter of Misplaced Pages's overall philosophy. This disregard for the interests of certain sections of our readership and editorship based on prejudices about what's "scholarly" is damaging to Misplaced Pages as a whole. ] (]) 05:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe you are taking my comment out of context. ''Any'' guideline on Misplaced Pages has the potential for someone to come along and complain about it. People have been complaining about ] far longer than ], but that does not de-bunk a page. People come here because these pages were useful, and now they're gone. I understand that, but there are a ''lot'' of useful things that Misplaced Pages ], because we're not simply the place to put ''everything''. The fact that someone has come blindly charging in because they didn't like the results of a particular situation should be seen in context. Look at ], and make an argument there if you believe we should still have articles for them. Attacking the guideline page because you don't like the results of a discussion is just lame. ] is great advice, mirrors our other related guidelines and policies, and results in higher quality articles. It's not the guideline's fault if no one wants to publish real-world information about individual episodes of a particular show. -- ] 05:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Guidelines are supposed to be descriptive not prescriptive. This "guideline" simply does not have consensus. That is a fact and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Add to that the issue of redundancy and the narrow focus of the guideline and I recommend that it be ProD'ed. This guideline is disputed and totally unnecessary. The good parts can be folded into ] and ]. Perhaps, more fitting than deletion, we should redirect it to ] citing ] and ]. ] <small>]</small> 06:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree it would be fitting if ] itself was redirected. --] (]) 11:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The core of the guideline, which has been unchanged, has had consensus from the very start (and ]). That consensus is that not every episode should have an article, and that people should go from a list and/or season page before even creating individual episode articles. This has been upheld in several AfDs and merge/redirect discussions, as well as several WikiProject discussions. Off the top of my head, I know that ] started to evaluate their episode articles even without a prod from TTN or any of us. | |||
| :::You are correct in that the "notability" portion could easily be merged into ], and I think that might even be a good idea. However, ] is also a very good section, and I'm not sure if anyone actually disputes that. then we have ] and ]. I'm trying to figure out what is in dispute here. -- ] 06:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think the other sections could be put into ]. I think the focus of this "guideline" is to narrow and provides a target for disputes about fiction-realted notability concerns. Additionally, this seems like the perfect example of instruction creep. ] <small>]</small> 07:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In any case, regardless of how we decide to organize it, what is being said on this page that you don't like, or dispute? -- ] 07:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::From the discussion above, many editors dispute this guideline for a variety of reasons. I dispute the usefulness and necessity of the guideline. Just like character and episode articles, I think this guideline goes into too much detail. We do not need this kind of depth. I strongly believe ] and ] should cover it (heck, ], ], and ] should cover it but I think we could use a '''''little''''' more guidance). ] <small>]</small> 07:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::But you don't actually disagree with what it says? -- ] 07:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Do I disagree with ]? No, not necessarily. They all seem like pretty good articles from my perspective. Do I disagree with the many quotes from other guidelines? Again, no, but a guideline should be more than a collection of quotes. This guideline fails ], 'nuff said. ] <small>]</small> 07:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::So you don't actually dispute what the guideline says, but rather how it says it in an isolated guideline, instead of being in other guidelines? That sounds like a reasonable position, and I can't say that I disagree with it. -- ] 07:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Policy and guideline pages are frequently held to account for their interpretation in practice. If the basic idea is so very good, it'll come back after the guideline page in question has been rightly taken out and shot - ] (]) 14:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Ah, another user who's simply pissed off at the removal of articles, and is unable to actually argue the merits of the guideline. -- ] 08:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Piling on, I also do not support this guideline. This didn't have the support in the first place, and has been used in such a way as to cause inordinate damage to the encyclopedia, getting rid of a load of good content, and worse, driving off loads of editors through sheer bloody-mindedness. I also think it's beyond illustrated here that there is no consensus for this to continue being a guideline, and indeed, probably consensus that it should cease to be so. ] (]) 07:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It was never the intention to have things be handled in mass. Don't let the actions of one user blacken this guideline. While I agree with a lot of what TTN did, it would have made things a lot less stressful, a lot less heated, if a little more time was taken. By the way, if you have any examples of articles you wish to be restored, please list them here. The editors here are not deletionists, and some of them have made FA episode articles. We will help you find the real-world information needed. -- ] 07:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The actions of one user ''have'' tarnished this guideline. There's the guideline and then there's the way it actually is applied. This guideline is clearly being used to turn tens of thousands of articles into redirects. This guideline is being applied like it's the notability policy for television episodes but it's not even a notability ''guideline''. The valuable parts of this guidelne need to be merged into ]. --] (]) 11:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I too want to register my opinion that this guideline should go. While some of the episode articles might seem excessive to some, no-one can ever possibly be interested in all the programs. If I am interested in some I can also respect that others are interested in programs that I personally find boring. As a user, what I most appreciate is the plot outlines in these articles. When an episode of a favorite program happens to conflict with a real world obligation I still maintain enough links with reality to give precedence to the real world obligation. I am content to go to the relevant article to read about what I missed. I don't write in this subject area, so that despite nearly six years of general Misplaced Pages experience, I can still almost express the view of a passive outsider. In that capacity I am seeking only the basics of the episode, enough to maintain continuity between the one that came before, and the one that follows. I view my favorite shows as entertainment, not as a stepping stone to great critical research. To the extent that I have viewed DVDs I mostly ignore all the supplementary material about the making of the movie, or whatever. But I suppose some people find that stuff interesting. | |||
| The obsessive deleters are oblivious to the swath of damage that they cause to the social structure, to the mistrust that they breed. They focus on a misguided vision of Misplaced Pages, but firmly believe that they are providing a benefit by getting rid of what they see as cruft. This kind of self-righteousness is not without consequence, and can literally love a project to death. | |||
| Sure people go ballistic when they see their work erased, and rightly so. Most people don't hover like an armed guard over their work, so it can easily be months before they realize that their work has been put up for deletion. They not only find their work deleted, but find that the deletion page has been closed, and has been marked with an admonition against any further comments. The POV pushers who worked so hard to have the article deleted want to make sure that it has a minimal chance of resurrection. Why shouldn't a person's right to remove the "closed" tag, and continue the discussion be respected? ] (]) 11:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This damaging guideline needs to go, and as soon as possible. I can see that it's the same people implementing their own agendas on all the fiction guidelines. See the mess that has been made of the ] guideline. As a result of their rash changes in the summer, character lists are being deleted at an alarming rate. And why? Because the same handful of like-minded editors dominate, claiming false consensus, when in fact, no one else knew about the proposed changes to voice their opinion until they were already implemented (and we can all see how difficult it is to change them once that happens). You can spot the editors here, it's those who refuse to admit that consensus for their guidelines never existed in the first place.] (]) 14:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Enough people. The guideline is fine and its basic tenets have been repeatedly confirmed at AFD. There is no widespread support for fancruft at Misplaced Pages: plot summaries, trivia, continuity and other in-universe naval gazing has been consistently found to run counter to our inclusion principles. I read a lot of bellyaching and grumbling, above, but until the core foundations of ] and ] change, this guideline absolutely should stay. ] (]) 16:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Oh yeah...that bedrock policy, . If we have already have ] and ], why do we need this guideline? --] (]) 11:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| My two cents: instead of complaining for the ''removal'' of two guidelines, instead: | |||
| *Work to change the guidelines to be fairer than they are now, and; | |||
| *Work on the articles in the mean time to conform to the guidelines. | |||
| The second step is actually rather easy, especially with prime-time shows. Nielsen/BARB ratings and reviews, for example, aren't going to be buried under hundreds of Google results. Hell, it took me two minutes, with a slow connection, to find what three people think about the season finale of Heroes that aired two weeks ago (). The first two were found with Google News. So instead of making drama, please, work on the articles. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 19:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :All three of those examples are non-notable blog entries. That doesn't mean I think sources can't be found, but those clearly do not justify an entire article for an episode (nor does basic ratings, which can easily be covered in a list). -- ] 08:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I said, that was a two minute search. I'm sure I can find more if I even bothered. And with reviews, the articles actually ''do'' pass ], if the review is carried by a reliable source, like a newspaper, as a review would count as "significant coverage". ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 10:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree. What you say also doesn't conflict with ]. -- ] 10:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Just to agree with JoshuaZ, WAS, Gwern and phoebe, this notability guideline (like all notability guidelines) is broken. The motivation behind it seems to be the idea that pruning areas of Misplaced Pages will make it better and the idea that limiting coverage of certain areas of knowledge (non-academic areas of knowledge) will improve Misplaced Pages. Inclusion shouldn't be based on notabilty (a vague and abstract POV notion), but on the availability of reliable sources. It is not true that there are limited reliable resources on television episodes. It is not true, in the most part, that deleting an article is better than fixing an article. Unless an article is unrescuable and has no reliable sources, we should work to fix it and aim to maximise breadth and depth in our coverage. --] ] 05:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No one has been deleting articles, only redirecting them until there is enough real-world content to justify the massive amounts of plot summary, and even then such summaries would require being cut back. Misplaced Pages is not an episode guide, Misplaced Pages is ]. This guideline, if you cared to actually read it, doesn't give any blanket ban on episode articles. -- ] 08:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::''"No one has been deleting articles"'' is factually incorrect. There was a recent arbitration case about people using this highly defective guideline for destructive gameplaying - ] (]) 13:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *::: Mr Gerard, a misleading statement. Yes, there was an arbitration case, but if you review the result it has not found that the actions based on application of policy should be subject to sanction. Whilst further discussion was urged, no individual sanctions were or will be enacted and no cpnculsion of "gameplaying" were reached. You may feel the the Rfar case was launched in defense of a position you hold. I view the Rfar case as a bolster to the efforts to clean up the encyclopedia of its non-encyclopedic content. ] (]) 16:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::(I know, I'm a party in that arbcom case) They were redirected, which, yes, is pretty much deletion in the sense that it's no longer there or accessible to most people. My point was that recovery of the information was easier than something like requesting undeletion. Some people don't seem to believe us when we say this, but making less red tape to restore an article, once real-world content is found, is one of the reasons the redirects were more desired than AfD. | |||
| :::You'll also note the lack of evidence for anything like "highly defective guideline" or even "destructive gameplaying" being presented, or being asserted by the Arbitration Committee or even the parties involved. Rather, arbcom has decided to focus on ''how'' the redirects were carried out, and the importance of discussion, regardless of who is right or wrong. -- ] 16:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::For what it's worth (not a lot, seemingly), I have read the guideline, but thanks for your assumption of bad faith on my part. The guideline has two aspects: what is written and how it is used. I know this guideline "doesn't give any blanket ban on episode articles", but this guideline has caused unnecessary article deletion. This guideline does seem to be a vehicle (like the rest of notability-related policy) for the deletion of fixable, verifiable articles and the destructive treatment of Misplaced Pages content. --] ] 02:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| To throw in my two cents, I haven't been around here in a while, but I supported this guideline when written and support it now. Let fansites and tv.com handle the cruft. We should stick to information from ''secondary'' sources, since an encyclopedia is intended to be a tertiary, not secondary, source. Using the "show as a source" makes us a secondary source. There is a place for such ], and indeed many fansites thrive on it. But unless they're ], they don't work here. And neither does "But Scrubs is notable, so every episode of it is too!" By that line of thought, the ] is notable, so everything in it is too. Notability is individual, never inherited. Sources have written about the ''individual'' topic enough for a comprehensive article, or they have not. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Multiple episodes/story arcs and how to deal with them. == | |||
| I don't really want to discuss the notability of episodes in this section, so please take this elsewhere on this page: | |||
| We need a process for articles on episodes with multiple parts. So far, we have four types of these articles, with examples: | |||
| {|class=wikitable align=center | |||
| !*** | |||
| !One article | |||
| !Multiple articles | |||
| |- | |||
| !Episodes with the same name | |||
| |] | |||
| | | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| |- | |||
| !Differently-named episodes in a distinct story arc. | |||
| |] | |||
| | | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| |} | |||
| As you can see, there is a level of inconsistency here, thus there are two questions to be asked: | |||
| #Do episodes with similar titles that air in succession warrant their own articles, or a summary article? | |||
| #Do episodes in a distinct story arc warrant their own articles or a summary article, if the arc has a ]? | |||
| :#If the arc does not have a common name, should there be a summary article or seperate articles? | |||
| (Sufficient notability is assumed for both questions) | |||
| I've created a straw poll for summary articles and discussion area below. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion=== | |||
| *I'm confused, does supporting option 1 mean you support one article or multiple articles? The phrasing is ambiguous. Also to be considered: Episodes with the same names that don't air consecutively i.e. The Simpsons's ] or Futurama's ], do they need to be treated differently then they are now or is this the best way (once again assuming whatever notability standards apply that day are met). ]]] 15:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *:Treated differently. I put in the question "that air in succession", which would mean that, if "Episode part 2" was the episode after "Episode part 1", they should be merged together. This would include season finales and premieres with the same name, like "Who Shot Mr. Burns?". Seeing as the "Treehouse of Horror" and "Anthology of Interest" episodes aired about twenty episodes apart, they shouldn't. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' The ''Doctor Who'' examples aren't the most relevant as "episode" for the original series means an individual part, ''not'' an overall story (which is what 100,000 BC aka An Unearthly Child is). A "story arc" would be something spanning several stories - e.g. '']''. ] (]) 15:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *:I know, and thus put the footnote. I've replaced the example with a better one. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I think it really depends on the series context. For series where there is a general plot throughout all episodes that develops (on average) week after week, such as Lost and Battlestar Galactica, each episode, even if part of a multiparter, should be treated separately, save in the rare case (rare enough that I can't think of one) where the plots of the parts are so intertwined that it is impossible to talk of one part without talking about the other. (eg imagine the case of if an episode of "24" was unraveled to follow one character for one episode, then another for another ep, etc.-- there would be so much crossover that it would make sense to simply talk about the chronological events of several episode -- again, its such a rare case that I don't think it comes up a lot). The only thing special about multiparters here is that generally its the same theme for each of the subparts, but other elements related to the entire story continue to grow. | |||
| :In the case of series where week-to-week continuity is the exception and not the norm, then multipart episodes should be grouped together, with appropriate redirects from the part names to the episode as a whole. Mind you, there is a matter of context here. Imaginationland or ] are strongly connected multipart episodes, but something like ]/], where not only is there an episode between the two, but the plot of the second takes a radical turn from the first, each should be treated separately. Basically, given that the show lacks large-scale continuity, it is likely easier to describe the events of the entire multipart work as a whole instead of having to re-establish context each time. | |||
| :Obviously in the case of older Doctor Who serials, the common story name instead of the individual chapter names should be used; this almost falls under the "non-continuous" series (as during the time they used individual chapter names for each serial, there wasn't much series continuity). But I agree this is likely not a case at issue. --] 16:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I know BSG has a continuity between episodes. I used "The Eye of Jupiter" and "Rapture" because the whole plot of both episodes takes place on the algae planet and the plots are intertwined - TEOJ actually ends with "to be continued" (so does Pegasus, but the plot isn't as intertwined). ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *If they have the same title they should all be in the same article with a summary of each part - otherwise we'd have 8 articles for ] and 10 for ]. | |||
| *I also think that differently titled episodes that for a serial (such as ]) should be merged '''provided''' there is a suitable name to cover the episodes. Otherwise ] would be in 12 episode articles. If there is not overall title, I think it should remain separate. (For example ] and ] do not have an overall title, so remain separate until there is one). ]] <sub>]</sub> 16:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] is a good way to handle notable long story arcs, but less notable subjects like ''Starbuck quits smoking'' won't merit their own articles. Other options for long arcs (more than 2 or 3 episodes): | |||
| **] does this in the main article, '']'' section. | |||
| **''List of episodes'' pages are a logical mid-point (between the main article on the show and the episode articles). Including information about multi-episode arcs would add meaningful prose to these articles which are currently ], thus improving those articles. | |||
| :Of these two options, I like the ''List of episodes'' option best, but I realise some editors will object to this change. Some arcs, especially when multi-season, will be better treated in the main article, perhaps as a subsection under ''Themes''. / ]<small> ] ]</small> 17:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a meaningful question but the timing of the question sucks since it comes at a time when the whole guideline page is under attack. Wikisource has had some experience with this sort of thing when dealing with books that must be broken down to chapters of manageable size. Thus we use the "Book title/Chapter" format. A "Series/Episode" format would have a similar effect here in contrast to the "Episode (Series)" disambiguation format. Only the most dedicated will know the episode titles. A distinctive title that needs no disambiguation will still not be found except by going through the episode list. Wikisource still has differences of opinion over the format to be used where material appears as a series of very loosely related articles, but there is agreement when it comes to chapters of a novel. ] (]) 19:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| When I first got involved in these guidelines one of the things I really liked was the idea of season or story arc pages being an alternative to individual pages. One of those reasons was that, regardless of how one feels about the merits of individual episode articles, sometimes it would be better from an organizational standpoint to lump some of them together when it makes sense. -- ] 16:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Consensus for this guideline == | |||
| {{RFCpolicy | section=Consensus for this guideline !! reason=] is disputed. !! time=01:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC) }} | |||
| I have not participated in the discussion above partly because I have gotten sick of this debate take place among the same TV editors on many different talk pages, including an ]. Bignole above suggested that if this guideline were to be delisted, it would need a bigger audience of unbiased, neutral editors, and thus I have listed this issue for RFC. | |||
| To briefly frame some of the points made: some editors feel that WP:EPISODE should be trashed entirely because it encourages editors to spend their time removing episode articles rather than constructively work on them. They feel that ] and ] are suitable enough to govern episode articles. Supporters of WP:EPISODE feel that feel that television episode articles are not inherently notable, and such a guideline is necessary to appropriately define notability for episode articles. -- ] (]) 01:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : The users who are "disputing" this guideline are not are judging the guideline by it's merits, but rather they are trying to attack the guideline because of how other situations were dealt with. ] has been a great guideline that ''never'' called immediate mass cleanup. All the people coming in from the mailing list notice seem to be completely missing that point, and parentally can't be bothered with actually reading what the guideline says. This has had consensus since 2006, long before it even has the ] shortcut, or was given a specific guideline tag. That consensus is that not every episode should have an article. ], citing existing ] and ] that reenforce that. Then it goes into ] about how to make make a good episode article. Then it goes and ] over taking things to AfD. Top it off with ], and you have what WP:EPISODE is. Does anyone actually disagree with what the guideline says? Most of the people on this very talk page don't, even by their own admission. -- ] 03:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: The only contentious part of the guideline is the section on what subjects deserve articles. There is no consensus that there should not ever be inherited notability when it comes to episode articles. I agree it is unfortunate that there have been kneejerk reactions to the mass deletions, but legitimate concerns about this aspect of the guideline have been raised. There are two, separate issues at hand: 1. The apparent misinterpretation (so it is claimed) of this guideline which was used to justify the mass deletions; 2. The nature of the guideline itself. We are here to discuss #2, and legitimate, germane concerns have been raised here. ] | ] 05:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Actually, you're very incorrect about that. ] points out the original consensus, and this has been upheld in several AfDs, WikiProject discussions, and other such discussions. -- ] 08:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: However the content has significantly changed from a "do not fork articles by creating thousands of stubs" to a "episode stubs with only plot information and an infobox should be merged into a more general article and more advice" type of guideline. As such I say perhaps it is time to restore an older version (of early 2007 for instance) of this page as the CD outcome, fork the current version into an essay and start with a blank WP:EPISODE. --] (] • ]) 10:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: What is the problem in ''"episode stubs with only plot information and an infobox should be merged into a more general article"'', obviously if all that an article can provide is OR than it should be merged... It seems like the people who are oppossing this guideline are using it as a scapegoat for releasing their childish frustration of the "published sources only" principle of ]. ] (]) 16:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What OR? A plot summary and an infobox can be filled in from watching the episode and the credits. That's published information, and is perfectly verifiable - more verifiable than many of the printed sources that are commonly relied on elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. BTW, please refrain from ad hominems. This displeasure over the recent bout of deletionism is hardly "childish". ] (]) 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: One also should consider the fact that merging non-notable episodes (as long as the original page is redirected) to episode lists retains that information such that if notability is established later, the article can be easily recreated without admin assistance. Merging shouldn't be a snap judgment reaction, but it should be done if after a reasonable good-faith effort to find notable information fails. Merging is not a point of no return. --] 16:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : That's all pretty ironic, considering critics of this guideline include the founder of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians and former arbitrators. It would seem, at the very least, that the people most likely to be in favour of the guideline (assuming it has consensus and is derived from existing core policy) actually oppose it and/or its effects. As an aside, this emphasis on original consensus is a red herring - the point is not whether there was consensus then, but is there consensus now. Judging from the discussion above, there is no such consensus. | |||
| : I would also add that plot information is not necessarily OR, and that infoboxes can easily contain valuable information not gleaned from the episode. The guideline specifically implies that inherited notability is never a sufficient reason to have an episode article, when existing practice runs counter to that (look at all the South Park episode articles). Having a plot summary and an infobox is by no means original research, considering both of these things are all citeable to the original episode. You can argue that this means we shouldn't have an article at all, but by ''reductio ad absurdum'', why should we have a list of episodes when all it does is give the episode titles and the order they were aired (this itself being "original research")? This cut-off point seems entirely arbitrary. ] | ] 17:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I don't think anyone is making the claim that the information in the infobox is OR, nor is many obvious things that can be said, or found out in credits, etc. As for the point of noting past consensus, I do so given that many of the same arguments apply, and have gone unchanged. It also shows that this wasn't just something that got slipped into the guideline pages, but at least had a reasonable starting point. Like you noted, people seem to have more of an objection on the effects of the guideline than what the guideline actually says, so I don't consider the comments on this talk page to debunk the consensus of the guideline. | |||
| :: Regarding the arbitrary cut off point with ''Lists of episodes'', I think that has more to do with ]. It is somewhat arbitrary, but it's also a way to summarize episodes without being excessive (when all you have is plot). I also support season articles, which can dive into a little more information, and sometimes even "story-arch" articles, depending on the situation, and often these are considered acceptable for the over-all plot summary without being too much. It's a level that no one really has had any objections to. -- ] 18:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I have no particular interest in this issue and do not edit (or usually even read) TV articles, but as I was led here from the bulletin board I will give you my opinions anyway. I feel that there is far too much "froth" on Misplaced Pages of Popular Culture sections and not very important books, films, TV and music. If there are no limits on what can be in Misplaced Pages, then you will end up with an article on every obscure band, every mediocre TV episode and every repulped book. Anything that is tending to keep a lid on this process should be kept, if not reinforced. ] (]) 01:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Agreed. I have a hard time talking about this subject without using words like '']''. This guideline is consistent with ], and content deleted per ] is probably not (almost by definition not) a loss to Misplaced Pages. Considering how difficult it has become to remove the non-notable material enthusiasts like to see, and considering the preponderance of episode articles, I find it hard to believe this guideline has led to unreasonable deletions. I favor retention of ''WP:EPISODE'', and do not look forward to this guideline being merged into ''WP:NOTE'' (or into wherever it is proposed to be merged). / ]<small> ] ]</small> 08:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::] is an essay, and a horrible one at that. There would be no reason to merge this guideline into ] because this is '''not''' a notability guideline. And the notion that an episode is not notable unless IGN has a review of it is absurd. The valuable parts of this guidelne need to be merged into ]. --] (]) 11:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You are replying to ]. I am citing ] as a guideline. ] is linked as an explanation. / ]<small> ] ]</small> 12:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, I was offering my opinion of the essay you linked to. --] (]) 12:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't understand what your issue with the existence of episode articles is when you explicitly say that you don't actually read them. Misplaced Pages doesn't have space limits, so it's not like they're using resources for the articles you would rather read instead - they can all coexist perfectly well together. This is the main point I've never really understood behind the drive to delete "fancruft" - the ''why''. ] (]) 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Now's the time to trot out the term "encyclopedic". "]" is by definition low-quality information. One imagines an ] would have some kind of quality control, and would aspire to some scholarly standard. Nothing in Misplaced Pages is required to reach that standard immediately, but by such a standard, information about a non-notable TV show that includes a plot summary, titles of songs in the soundtrack, and ''Goofs'' does not merit inclusion, even if all that is desirable to fans of that series. Even if it's ''fun''. And managing such information presents a load on Misplaced Pages's human infrastructure (availability of admins, policy development, software development, dispute resolution, copyright policing, and so forth) that saps its ability to perform its intended function, no matter how unlimited the technological infrastructure may be. | |||
| :::There are plenty of things I would like Misplaced Pages to do that it does not, much in the way the ] in my bedroom never provided much in the way of the porn I needed when I was a kid. I'm someone who would like ] prevented; not strictly, not in a backflippingly complicated way, but as much as possible. Misplaced Pages will not let me rewrite articles in this fashion. I'm okay with that. | |||
| :::Encyclopedia are not ]s. Misplaced Pages is not free webspace for one's fansite. And ], so it's not like anyone is being deprived here. People who write television articles on Misplaced Pages should aspire to contribute in a way that will help Misplaced Pages be encyclopedic, not just dump everything they see on TV. And if they should ] dump, that's actually okay as long as they are prepared to be edited merciless, and see many of their articles deleted. This is quality control. Please do not rail against it. / ]<small> ] ]</small> 01:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I suggest you take your notion of "quality control" and apply it to every sub-article of ]. And I find the idea that this kind of material is only acceptable when accompanied by advertising laughable. --] (]) 12:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I, of course, support this guideline. I believe that the spate of talk here is largely driven by the current ArbCom case and the fact that the outcome of it is looking like a <del>cop-out</del> lack of consensus among the arbitrators. The remedy amounts to "make talk, not edit-war" and here we are. The process by which tv episode and character articles are reviewed, merged, redirected, deleted, or whatever, will undoubtedly change somewhat, but the non-conformant ones will still attract withering criticism. Those who object to this guideline because they object to articles being redirected or deleted would be well advised to go beef-up articles they care about instead of railing against encyclopaedic fundamentals. --] 09:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's hard to "beef up" an article once it's ''gone''. Also, many of the articles deleted were already pretty beefy; the reason they were deleted was "notability", which is a subjective concept that won't necessarily change simply by adding more material. Indeed, some of the objections I've seen here to the existence of these articles hinged on them being ''too'' "beefy". ] (]) 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's actually quite easy. Ask on DRV or ask an admin to restore and move into your userspace. From there, you can use your userspace as a sandbox. Once the reason the page has been deleted has been invalidated, move it back into meatspace. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::you've never tried to do that on any scale have you?] (]) 19:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The former? No, but I doubt that many admins would be opposed to provisionally undeleting for rewriting in userspace? The laztter? Yes, 1 FA, 1 GA, 1 DYK from pretty much the ground up, and I often use my userspace for sandbox articles. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 19:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And risk being accused of wheel waring? Please.] 00:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If you're getting accused of wheel warring in that situation, You're Doing It Wrong™. I hardly believe anyone's going to believe the complainant in any case. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with the points made above as well. And I think that AfD regularly supports the general consensus. The guideline and its prescribed remedies should stay. The arbcom case seems to support such a finding as well. ] (]) 11:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I assume that ]s comment, | |||
| :''"I don't understand what your issue with the existence of episode articles is when you explicitly say that you don't actually read them . . . "'' | |||
| :was aimed at me. I did not say I had a problem with episode articles. I said I had a problem with mediocre froth. Actually, I would not really have a problem with this either if I never saw it. The fact that a user (me) who, not only does not read this stuff but actively tries to avoid it, is continually coming across it, must tell you that something is wrong. Where do you get links to this stuff? Trivia and Popular Culture sections for one thing and sometimes embedded in the article itself. No thanks - I have no need for a link to every episode of Star Trek that has such-and-such mentioned in it. | |||
| :] (]) 21:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::its been said before: if you don't care to read it, and actively avoid it, why does its presence in one form or another concern you? the only way you can continually come across it is if you accidentally open an article about something which looks like the title of something you do care about, --the solution is to look at another article. So how do you keep running across it? ''']''' (]) 04:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I said, I don't really care much about this issue, I just followed a link from the noticeboard asking for opinions from people not heavily involved. My opinion is this material is unencyclopaedic. I am not going to actively campaign for mass deletion or otherwise get involved. But that is my opinion, as requested. If you don't like the answer you should ask a different question. ] (]) 12:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. This guideline seems to provide good sound advice based on policy and common sense. Deleted articles can always be undeleted and moved to a userspace sandbox (to preserve GFDL compliance). That is a well-established and fairly non-controversial practice. If someone truly feels compelled to detail every episode of a series they love, there's always or any other number of similar sites available for that purpose. ] (]) 07:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' - This guideline is in conflict with ] and ]. Episode pages are essentially just content that has been moved off an article page due to size or style problems. They shouldn't be assessed in isolation; they are part of a topic that happens to span multiple wiki pages. Until this conflict is resolved, this guideline should be ignored. ] (]) 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:I doubt that a 200-word plot summary, e.g. ''That's So Raven'', even with 70 episodes, pushes WP:SIZE at all. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::*] doesn't only refer to overall length, but also to organization and style: "This page contains an overview on issues related to limits on article size, which are set by ... reader issues, such as readability, organization, information saturation, attention spans, etc." ] (]) 01:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I actually find it easier to read conjunctive plot summaries instead of hopping from one page to another (and in some cases, to another). I also find my attention span decreases when I'm article hopping - I severely doubt someone will have the time to read through all 214 summaries of Stargate SG-1 in one sitting. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 17:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, but that's all anecdotal. Not everybody thinks like you, and not everybody is looking to read through the entire plot summary of every episode of a show. Your comment about Stargate contradicts the rest of your point - no, hardly anybody is going to do that, so why put all that information on a single page and force user to try to remember where they were, instead of on separate pages with nav boxes where it's much easier to recall what the last episode you viewed was? I'd venture most people are looking for information on a single episode anyway. ] (]) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::] says notability doesn't necessarily limit length of the topic, and that's very much true. There is, however, a limit on plot-''only'' text, as pointed out by policy at ]. That is the vital flaw in your logic. We could theoretically have ten articles about a single episode, as long as it wasn't just plot summary. -- ] 04:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::How is that a 'flaw in my logic'? I don't even see how that's applicable to what I said. For that matter, I haven't seen a single article yet (including any of the ] summaries) that remotely limits itself as severely as ] prescribes. It's simply unrealistic and not what users want. Every decision and every consensus on TV series have been somewhat arbitrary to what the group of regulars to that topic chooses to interpret ] to be relative to that series. (At least until some bull comes through unilaterally deleting everything and ignoring consensus to further their own agenda.) There is essentially no reason to have any plot summary for ], because none of it supports the real-world information accompanying those article, and the same applies to most series. And there's editors who would love to see that happen, and they adore this guideline because it is far too broad in its support and far too susceptable to abuse. Yes, of course, plot summaries cannot be infinite; I never said they were. I just said that what length is "acceptable" varies from series to series, and shouldn't be prescribed based on some editors' favorite shows. I also said it was possible that length might force articles to be split, which I eventually got Bignole to acknowledge, and that split doesn't mean the resulting parts are totally independent, wholly isolated articles, but are sub-articles that are ''parts'' of a whole, and which should be treated as a single, multi-part article when evaluating ], ] and all the other WP:alphabets. That length might not always be excessive plot; it might be real-world information, a series with a ''lot'' of episodes, or a series that includes a dense plot that is appropriately long. It might not even have to be split due to kilobyte size, but due to readibility or organizational issues. All I'm saying is that there ''may'' be times when editors agree that individual episode articles are more readable and more stylistically and/or organizationally appropriate than one-size-fits-all approach, and this guideline goes too far in preemptively forbidding that. The model used for Albums recognizes that listing albums on separate pages is necessary for organization, and the music guidelines allow that. I think that makes as much sense for TV episodes as the consolidated full-season approach. ] (]) 12:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' I agree with the points that ] just made. Moving content from a set of individual pages to an aggregate page like a list just seems to be churning to little purpose. The only practical issue that I notice is that article titles for episodes sometimes are unqualified and this tends to cause conflicts because the episode titles are often phrases or quotes used in a wider context, e.g. ] which was the title of a ] episode. But this is not hard to deal with using the common sense naming standard and a routine article move when this has not been followed. | |||
| : Furthermore, I hang out on AFD and it doesn't seem to me that this guideline has consensus support. There just seems to be a small number of editors like TTN and Collectonian who are riding this particular hobbyhorse. ] (]) 13:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You guys mention problems with moving episode articles to aggregate pages, um, ] does just that and there aren't any problems. You're more likely to find information (more specifically reviews) on seasons than every single individual article. Many times, which I have found true for ''Smallville'' and other shows, creators like to talk about how they developed the show for that season. Occassionally, they get into specific episodes, but even then you may not have enough to support an entire page. When it comes to reviews, I can find more reviews on a single season than a single episode (because DVD releases tend to bring wider attention from professional reviewers, than do 22 separate episodes of a show). That doesn't mean that there won't be episodes that are notable outside of the fanbase (i.e. professionals talk about the episode), just that out of 20+ episodes a season maybe 10% (unless you're like ''The Simpsons'' which is probably due to its age and popularity as a whole) will have enough secondary sources to assert separate notability from its respective season; sometimes not even that much. Some shows are just "freaks" and garner a lot of attention from secondary sources; not every show can be ''The Simpsons'' or "fill in the blank of another hugely popular show that's been on the air for more than 10 years". ] ] 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, but not every show can be a ''Smallville'' either. Why insist that a format that works for a series with a linear plotline like that will work for shows with an episodic nature, like ] or ]? A single-page-per-season approach shouldn't be used for a one-size-fits-all solution for every TV show. ] (]) 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The ] article is 52K which exceeds the ] guideline. ] (]) 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I just count 36.9K of readable prose, so the page doesn't exceed WP:SIZE (yet). Seeing how ] is probably the most comprehensive season article currently on wikipedia, I don't think season articles for other shows would exceed WP:SIZE either. – ] <sup>]•c</sup> 20:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Torc, I'm not saying that the ''Smallville'' article is the be all end all of season articles, I'm just saying that it's proof you can incorporate 22 episodes into one page coherently, and in good quality. Second, has anyone actually tried to bring episode television shows into one page, or have they just decided from the start that it would be "too hard"? The only problem I see would come in the production section, and it wouldn't be that hard to incorporate, in my eyes at least. For ''Smallville'', as you pointed out, it is a little easier because a lot of things tie together for the whole season, but it wouldn't be a problem for episodic shows either. The difference would be that a production section would deal more on a paragraph/episode style, as opposed to the seasonal arc styling of ''Smallville's'' page. I can also see where you can easily tie episodes together by the way certain directors or writers or artists take different approaches. You don't have to draw conclusions to say "Artist Y chose to draw the characters first and the background second, as opposed to Artist X who did it vice versa" (it's a weak statement, but the idea is clear on how you can tie information together so that it runs more smoothly throughout the page. To Colonel, as Sgeureka pointed out, 52kb isn't the "readable prose", which is what SIZE measures, but also 60kb is where it is stated that an article "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". In ''Smallville's'' case, a large portion of the article is just plot summaries for 22 episodes, so the page could be 60kb of readable prose and still be fine, because about 15kb of that is strictly plot information, not to mention the lead paragraphs that summarize the article. This is why SIZE isn't generally followed any longer, unless an article is extremely long and can be better served if it was broken up. ] ] 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, I am not saying that it cannot be done; I will totally conceed that it can in some, maybe most circumstances. I'm just saying that we shouldn't prescribe that as the only method for handling episodes or that we should preemptively disallow individual episode articles. I'm also saying that there will be shows that, in that format, violate ] either in raw kilobyte size or ''in readability''', which is a factor of ]. In any case, this is kind of beside the point for my concern. Even if all episodes were on one list, this guideline still creates a problem. If that single long list is included in the main series article, it's governed by ] and the primary sources are allowed; if it's chopped out due to SIZE, it's suddenly covered by ] and considered "cruft" because it's primarily in-universe material. That's a problem. In other words, notability and secondary sources are inherited if the list is within an main article; if the list exceeds ], it's forced out. My argument is that the list, for all intents and purposes, is still just content of the main article. It's still part of that article; it just exists on a different wiki page. Asserting that it's somehow now totally independent and must be read in complete isolation is counterproductive. If a series itself is notable, we should be able to include a limited amount of totally in-universe information, bound only by ], because we're essentially just describing plot elements for something that is already proved notable and has established its real world impact, and it shouldn't make any difference if that information is included in the main article, or on a different page just to keep things managable and readable. I'd just like to see content handled consistently. ] (]) 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I agree there's a problem here. Information in an article does not have to be notable, but when an article gets too large and is split into sub-articles per ] and ], suddenly ] is applied. I think that's the wrong way to go about this. If episode articles could be merged into a single page, but it would exceed ], perhaps ] should not apply to each sub-article. --] (]) 12:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages is not a substitution for watching/reading/listening to whatever fiction you want. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and fictional topics are intended to be built on real world information. Why would you need to separate plot information into its own article? If that's too large then it says to me you have too much detailed plot information. Plot information is necessary to understand the topic, but it is not the primary focus of the article. The level of plot detail should be reflected by the amount of real world information in the article. You use what is necessary to help readers understand what the article is talking about. If they want to know what precisely happened, they should watch the show. Why do we need 22 episode articles that do nothing but rehash the plot? Why cannot they be better summarized in a generic LOE page? It's about quality, not quantity. Now, if you have real world information about episodes, but not enough to support a separate article then maybe one should think about creating a way to incorporate it into a seasonal article, where all the cummulated real world content can be summarized (as ] is what we follow on Misplaced Pages) into a decent seasonal page. Again, there will be shows that work better and can support the idea of individual episode articles (to sound like a broken record ''The Simpsons'' is the best example of that, because those editors have managed to turn a sizable portion of their indy ep. articles into really good articles that clearly pass notability and every other guideline and policy), but most shows won't be able to compete with that type of structure because they simply aren't covered in secondary sources. Not every show needs episode articles, hell, not every show needs anything other than an episode list with maybe a basic premise given for the episode. If the only thing we know about an episode is the plot details, then why do we need a separate article for that? ] ] 23:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're right, ''The Simpsons'' is a good example. See the sub-articles of ] to see what continually gets ignored by people using this guideline like a knife. If you could merge every sub-article of ] into ], great. But if it exceeds ], I see no reason the list could not be split into individual episodes articles per ]. Either every episode article has to assert notability or it does not. The sub-articles of ] seem to indicate that each article does ''not'' have to assert individual notability. --] (]) 12:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Why would you need to separate plot information into its own article? If that's too large then it says to me you have too much detailed plot information.'' - by this logic, the more space that real world information an article includes, or the longer a series is aired, the less plot information it would be allowed to share. In any case, the argument that there's "too much" plot information is totally subjective. You're basically arguing that because you personally can't see a situation where a show's plot summary would be reasonable and still be too large for a single article that we should codify rules that say it can never happen. So let me ask you, why is ] its own article? Why aren't all the Smallville articles, ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] part of ]? Should we edit the season 4 plot summary down to a tenth of its current size so all the series articles will fit into 60kbs of the main article? Or should we delete it because aside from viewer numbers and awards, there's no real world information? Why are there articles like ] that include absolutely zero real-world information? What's independently notable about the ], and why can't that be part of the main article? ] (]) 23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' - per Colonel Warden and Torc2. Additional Comments: Too many generalizations are being used. It is being said that ''most people'' or ''the majority'' agree with the guideline and that it has garnished ''consensus'' when this is entirely farce. There was never a consensus call on this guideline and as the majority (thus consensus) of editors disagree with how things are being handled by the WP:Episode cabal. It is even disputed that it is an accepted guideline by the community. When backlash started happening with them citing a suggested guideline, WP:Episode, as the reason for article deletion, the cabal has now shifted to notability, and TV Episode and MOS as the reasoning for the rampant deletions. It is apparent that there is an agenda, and the reason for this agenda to be carried through, will change from guideline to guideline, so long as it can be carried through. Another correction needs to be made is that this has been accepted and around since 2006. This very thing was addressed in an AfD, or was it arbcom, that this has changed in the past year from what it used to be, formed by this tyrannical club to support their agenda. Although, contrary to what the cabal is saying, arbcom was not leaning one way or the other. Arcom did not want to create, shape, or change policy, so they had to deal with the problematic issue at hand...TTN, which really went no where. Anyway, this article/issue is creating more unrest than it is creating peace and needs to be blighted and killed from wikipedia. --] (]) 23:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The main article of a show is a summary of the show as a whole, why do you need to detail every last thing that happens in the show? A basic plot premise for each season is probably all you need, and if your article becomes even larger than you can trim the plot down. I already have plans of trimming ''Smallville's'' plot information in its main article when the series is finished (which will probably be in another season), so that it looks more like a series overview than seasonal overviews. It's called ]. If you look at ''Smallville (season 1)'', I think you can clearly see notability...it isn't questionable. Right now, I can see how season 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (I'm excluding 7, and will explain why in a second) are questionable. Personally, I have the books for production information on season 2 - 5 (season 6's book won't be out for a few months), I just haven't put it in because I have many projects I'm working on (just to show a little proof, ). I also had season reviews for all those seasons, plus season 6, but unfortunately my computer crashed and I had to buy another--thus loosing all the links to the reviews. Not an excuse, but with some effort I can easily find them again because it wasn't that difficult to start with. Plus, season 2 through 6 all have awards sections which amount to many secondary sources (which, season 4, ironically, has probably the second most award mentionings). We don't need that level of plot detail on the main article, why are you fixated on plot detail? Plot detail is for context, not for substitution of watching the show. The question of whether we need the season articles is secondary to the question of whether we need 22 episode articles to tell what can easily be said on one page. We don't need 22 pages for that, nor do we need 22 pages to say "it got 3.4 million viewers", as you can easily put that in the table with the episodes (see ]). It's all about summarizing. You don't need to spread everything out when it works fine, and probably better on one page. If the time comes that it needs to be spread out, then great, but why is everyone wanting to jump the gun? As for the ''Smallville'' characters, , so that they have more real world content in them and fall in line with a more encyclopedic tone. In regards to the DVD page, I don't see a reason to have it frankly. I wouldn't mind if it went, because the DVDs are covered on the main page, on the LOE page and individually on the season pages. We don't need to know the specs on each DVD, that's something for Amazon, or whatever vender, to do when they sell the product. Unless there is context behind listing the special features, there really isn't a reason to list them. It just becomes indiscriminate. ] ] 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The amount of plot you choose to include is completely arbitrary, so what makes the amount you've chosen more correct than the amount another editor chooses? Why include any plot summary? Even if Season 1's notability is not in question, the amount of plot summary is still 10x the amount of real world information, so why not slice it down to one or two sentences per episode? You agree that seasons 2-7 are questionable, so why not AfD them? How would you vote on an AfD for Season 4? ] (]) 00:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Doing a quick word count, there's actually about one-and-a-half times more real-world information than plot summary. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The plot is 10x that of the real world information? The real world information is something like 20kb, whereas the plot info is like 15kb (so, that's a little less than 1 kb of plot info per 1 kb of real world info). Hell, the only reason there is that much plot information is because a couple of editors gripped that it wasn't "enough". I originally limited it to about 3 lines of plot information, which looked close to what is in the other season articles (particularly 3 through 6). I didn't say that season 2 - 7 were questionable, I said that I could see how that could be said. I don't believe that they are. First, season 7 ''is not'' questionable, it has 15 secondary sources (out of 25 overall sources) which is pretty darn decent for any article to have regarding "coverage from secondary sources". As for the others, they all have secondary sources in them. The only thing missing is production information, as they have real world content in the awards section. They fit fine on one page, instead of 22 separate pages. Not really seeing a reason to AfD them, nor do I see any possible chance that an AfD would even result in deletion of those pages based on the fact that they do have secondary sources. ] ] 00:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ah, I missed the section at the bottom. Fair enough, my mistake. Still, that's true for most of the other season summaries. The point still stands that it's a rather arbitrary amount of plot summary, and there's no clear reason why there shouldn't be less detail, or why there shouldn't be more detail. Editors "griped" that it wasn't enough, so you added more? So, why stop listening when many editors want even more? Why assert that your opinion is more valid than theirs? As for sources, let's look at, say, season 4. Over half the sources are primary, the sources for most of the articles are trivial mentions or just descriptions of what happens in the show from entertainment rags, and lots and lots of ]-questionable blogs. Maybe two or three are legitimate sources. And you know, I'm in actually favor of keeping these, but let's just stop pretending that ''Smallville'' deserves this kind of treatment when other shows do not. Basically it's a lot of fluff to make the article look more important than it is, and clearly every one of the sources here could be applied to the episodes and shows being deleted. Sources like that - minor snippets in TV Guide or People - doesn't make Wiki any better, just more bureaucratic. | |||
| ::::::But this is all beside the point. The main question remains: why should content be treated differently when it's part of a larger article than when it's on a separate page due to size? How is a list of episodes substantially different when it's part of an article than when parsed off due to size? Why don't you concatenate all the Smallville seasons into one page? They'll fit if we slice them down to appropriate size, as you recommend. ] (]) 01:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Because it was agreed that a couple more lines would be sufficient to be able to summarize all the major points of the episode. What about you talking about "questionable blogs"? The most important thing that you are missing is that it has nothing to do with "can you use this to make an episode article exist," but with "is this enough for a separate article on one single episode of a show". Season 4 is 26kb, and a good portion of that is coding from the table and other things. Let's say we apply all the real world content to separate articles; you're talking about 5 articles (as only 5 episodes were nominated for any awards) that have any thing other than plot summaries in them. Given the size of the entire season page, you're talking about articles that would most likely contain your description of 10:1 plot to real world ratio. There's no reason why they cannot be placed with the rest of the episodes in their respective season. If an episode stood out, like ] (or, to get off ''Smallville'', ], ], or any ''Simpsons'' episode in season 8), then there's no reason why they couldn't/shouldn't have their own article. You asked why would couldn't put all the season articles on one page...well, because they wouldn't fit. Let's say, that when all is said and done and the rest of the seasons look like ''Season 1'', you put them all on one page. By taking just the real world info from ''season 1'', no plot information, and multiplying it 7 times (more if ''Smallville'' goes into an eighth season) you come up with approximately 136 kb of "readable prose", that is far too large for a single article. Granted, that is an educated guess based on season 1's size, and each season could be smaller or larger depending on what info is available to them, but the fact remains that there won't be that much of a difference between my calculation and the real thing. So, the question becomes "what should be split" when an article becomes too large. Since fiction articles are based on real world information, not their plot information, and ] (i.e. we shouldn't have articles that are only separated because they have too much plot information), the information that is separated should be real world content. What real world content should be separated? Well, the RW content that has more than enough information to support a separate article on itself. Why would you separate a plot when a page is large, if the only thing that will be on the separated page is that plot summary? ] ] 01:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ''What about you talking about "questionable blogs"?'' Check Season 7, ref #5, 8, 9, and 12. But just for kicks, let's go through Season 4's sources in detail. 1-3 are Amazon pages (ads), #4 is just TV Guide's summary, which they do for every TV show, #5 is a badly formatted ratings chart, #6-27 are primary sources, #28-31 are IMDB pages for individual actors (why, I have no idea), and the rest are single-line entries verifying that the show was nominated for some awards. (The last one isn't even about this season.) Most of the cites are just fluff, and there's relatively little real world information aside from some awards and nominations; clearly not enough to warrant separating this from the other seasons. None of the references have any in-depth coverage, and notability isn't established for most of the episodes; there's no reason we should anything besides a title. Why shouldn't we delete plot descriptions for episodes that we not nominated for any awards? It'll save on space, and in the end we'd have one nice article that included only notable information. | |||
| :::''You asked why would couldn't put all the season articles on one page...well, because they wouldn't fit.'' Wow, so what you're saying is that SIZE is a factor in whether or not an article might have to be split up? That begs the question: if SIZE forces an article to be split, why should we treat the two halves as totally isolated, independent topics instead of as two parts of a whole? There's no logical reason to pretend they're distinct, unrelated objects. Before you were arguing that every TV show should be sliced until it fit into some arbitrary space because if it didn't fit, there was obviously too much information; now you're acknowledging that in some cases that's not possible. Shouldn't the guideline reflect that possiblity? Shouldn't the rules recognize that some articles are related and are just pieces to a larger topic? ] (]) 02:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Where to start, Ausiello is a TV Guide journalist; the fact that it's a blog is irrelevant to the fact that it is TV Guide's editor's blog and not some random schmo who wants to talk to himself on the web. The next is Allison Mack's personal website, again, not a question of reliability. The same is for the other "blogs" on there. Separating "this season from others"? They don't congregate anywhere. If you feel there is an issue with them, feel free to act as you see fit. If they're gone, then they're gone and I already know I have the books that will put the real world information in their respective articles (sorry that I work and go to school full time and can't do that for you now). As for SIZE, again, you're missing the point. What I said was that splitting information should be done for "real world information", not plot descriptions (because ], we aren't here to get readers up to date with the latest TV show they missed). You're original argument was that episode pages were split because of SIZE reasons, but they weren't because they were never part of the main page of the shows to begin with when they were split, they were part of an LOE page. When it comes to these episode articles, they ''ARE NOT'' being split because of SIZE, they are being split because some editors think they are notable in their own right without needing to provide any sourcing to prove it. What they want are trivia sections, original thoughts on the episode and images. Unfortunately, most of what they want in an article on episodes are things that are either not allowed, discouraged, or require real world content to be used. You cannot claim SIZE and not actually back it up with article size problems. What are these episode articles diverting from? LOE pages? The logical separation of an LOE page is into season pages, not into individual episode pages. They only way going from LOE to indy ep. articles would be realistic would be if the LOE page contained real world information on the entire series and a couple of individual episodes stood out from the rest in their amount of real world content and notability. Otherwise, you're talking separation into half a dozen pages, as opposed to over 100 pages. Why would you even separate 1 article into 100 tiny articles under the guise that the article is too large? You talk about separating plot info from an overly large article, well that's generally what LOE pages are, the separated plot information (just ]). Some LOE pages don't have plot information (which is my preferred idea), while some do have plot summaries (other people's preferred idea). The fact is, there's no reason to have so many tiny articles when they can be organized into one page. If you want to play the ] card with ''Smallville's'' season pages, fine. They can be "merged" into an LOE page until enough real world content comes along to separate them individually. Whatever you think is fair and balanced with everything else. | |||
| ::::Oh, I tested the "merging" idea out, and the page would be 145 kb (includes all the coding), with the Awards section alone being between 16kb and 20kb of readable prose alone (the range is dependent on how season 7 does with awards). The page only included the same lead that was there, the episode list with plot summaries and awards section...something every page had. It didn't include the development information for season 7, or the Writers' Strike information. I left the plots the same, so they could have been shortened to a couple of lines, but you're still talking about 40kb of readable prose, give or take a bit depending on how much you cut from the plot. You can't play this and that and only include plot summaries for episodes that won awards, it would just look awful on the page; it would lack consistency. ] ] 03:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==What the people think== | |||
| Every tv show that has had its episodes redirected has had its talk page filled with people speaking out against it. For example, the Scrubs page has around 30-40 and maybe even more people who've voiced their opinions against the merge, while a group of 10 or so people have been patrolling the page to make sure no one tries to revert anything back. The people who use wikipedia for information do not like this move, while the people who are supposedly trying to help it are ignoring their cries of disapproval. If wikipedia is acting in the interest of those who edit it, then yeah take out the articles, but if it's working in the interest of the people who use and read it, reinstate them. Look page your thoughts about "episode stubs" and think about what the people who read it want. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Being useful or liked does ] dictate what Misplaced Pages does, as odd as that sounds. This is the same reason we are not used as a travel guide, even though that would be ''very'' useful, given our editing resources and being able to directly tie into high-traffic articles. This is also why we don't do things by vote or by popular demand. We are, however, trying to find homes for these articles, such as the ]. Misplaced Pages is great, but it's not an episode guide, and it's not the end-all dumping ground for anything useful. -- ] 18:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is great, but I find it ''convenient'' that this material suddenly becomes acceptable when accompanied by advertising. --] (]) 12:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I just read ], and I don't see anything there that provides a rational basis for excluding summaries of past TV episodes. It would be helpful if someone could provide a brief but reasonably detailed rationale of the case for excluding them on the basis of ]. ] (]) 20:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::] does - "Misplaced Pages is not a plot summary". ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 21:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] says articles should not ''only'' be a plot summary. --] (]) 05:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not sure how saying this helps your argument, but it's likely Will meant the same thing. -- ] 06:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::As Will points out, the topic has its own bullet point in WP:NOT, at ]. -- ] 00:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks for pointing it out. But it's VERY hard to see ''why'' plot summaries are not to be here. We've got every municipality in Pennsylvania, every railroad station in England, every this, and every that. But we don't have plot summaries. Why? ] (]) 03:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think the reasoning for NOT#PLOT is copyrights (though I'm not entirely sure) - a page full of "he did this, then she said that" is in danger of being a ], with a lower chance of being fair use than on a TV-only wiki or on TV.com ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 17:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's unrelated to copyrights, although it has been preposed to mention copyright issues in that bullet point. The reason, as I understand it, is that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia grounded in the real world, and when we summarize fiction, we do so only because we have other information that relates to the real-world. -- ] 04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just to continue on Scrubs, I just watched the episode ], then looked up the episode for the song that was featured in it. The page has production details, the songs, guest stars, and of course a plot summary. In fairness, I then changed the Scrubs Wikia page, which had all of those, but with holes in the information. It didn't have all the songs in the episode, or the guest stars, and gaps in its summary. Along with that, on the Scrubs Wikia, it says the last aired episode is ], and that episode's page has no information on the episode, as opposed to the page on wikipedia. Not only that, but the actual last new episode to air, ] has no page. Clearly, the Wikia page is not sufficient, and if the people who took away the articles on wikipedia were willing to help recreate/transfer these pages to the Wikia it would be very helpful instead of just getting rid of them and doing nothing. I believe that's pretty ignorant and single-minded. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::::<small>(I have moved to wikia most of JD's article and will do so for the rest of the characters. Your point is well-taken & it is worth porting the content to the Scrubs wikia. ] (]) 15:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC))</small> | |||
| :::::Some of us ]. Having just learned much of this stuff myself (and am still learning), I'm very eager to help not only build up a guideline for the transwiki process, but also start a pool of editors that are willing to assist people in moving articles and supporting smaller wikis. While I don't think that Misplaced Pages is the place to have many of these articles, I too want to preserve them, and all the hard work done on them. It's something that a lot of us are learning, because Misplaced Pages's relationship with third-party wikis is mostly new ground. -- ] 07:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's part of the problem, Ned Scott. '''some''' are doing that. But then there are such editors like TTN who display the sensitivity of an rampaging elephant in a porcelain shop, - intentionally or nor - "talk down" to people (what else am I suppose to interpret ignoring all opposition and uttering things along the lines of "what you think does not matter" and "if this does not get merged I'll AfD the bunch" as?) and effectively delete information - which might not be entirely notable enough for Misplaced Pages, but would greatly enrich the more specialized Wiki - on a big scale, which causes only further inflammation. So the actions of a single editor cast a deep shadow on a mainly very sensible guideline. ]]/] 02:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::], If Misplaced Pages is not an episode guide, what is ], ], ], and ] and their associated articles doing here? --] (]) 05:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, excuse me while I fix every problematic article-at-once so you can't use the othercrapexists argument. I haven't looked in-depth to every episode article of each of those shows, but obviously The Simpsons GA and FA episode articles are pages with real world information presented in an encyclopedic tone. (and the others likely have potential to do so as well). An "episode guide" is typically just a series of summaries. -- ] 06:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I really don't care what ] says. Those articles indicate that Misplaced Pages ''does'' contain episode guides. And every article linked to from those lists do not each assert notability. The sub-articles of those lists appear to be the norm. --] (]) 12:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This has largely turned into the same small handful of people pushing their arbitrary interpretation of what they insist ] means. It seems to be getting clearer that the consensus is that articles on individual episodes of television program should be the rule. ] (]) 04:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The sheer number of episode articles constantly nominated and deleted in AfD would seem to indicate otherwise. As a very dedicated member of the TV project, it is rather aggravating having to deal with so many fans who just want articles for every last episode and every last minor little character on a show to have their own article, even though it goes against Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines, and even our rather meager TV project MOS. I suspect if you checked, you'd find that quite a few episode article nominations are coming from the TV project itself to try and clean up our area of focus and get it back on track. I have a lot of shows I love that I work on, particularly anime, but I also firmly believe in Misplaced Pages's core policies so I am always very careful to try to remain neutral in my editing of those show articles and to only include verifiable information from reliable sources. I also don't believe Misplaced Pages was ever intended to be the world's largest TV guide, and that's all individual episode articles really do most of the time, give the entire plot of the show. There are plenty of wikias for that sort of insane fan level detail about shows, and that's where most of tat kind of stuff goes. ] (]) 04:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Go nominate for deletion the sub-articles of ], ] and ] that do not assert notability and then tell me what you see. --] (]) 12:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Of course most of the people ''here'' want individual articles. I'm rather sure that most of the people editing TV-show articles are people who would like to see the entire contents of their favorite shows' websites merged into Misplaced Pages. But however interesting such a work might be, it isn't what Misplaced Pages is for. | |||
| : Misplaced Pages's basic purpose is to collect information about the world previously published by reliable, independent sources, and summarize it, just like any other encyclopedia. The two unique features are that it is not limited by physical media binding or publication cycles, and anyone can edit it. That doesn't mean that anyone can put anything they want to into it. Misplaced Pages has very clear requirements for ] through ] ] and ]s. The vast majority of TV-show episodes simply don't have enough independently published information to create meaningful Misplaced Pages articles. | |||
| : I happen to be a huge fan of many shows, for some of which I've written considerable information that wasn't necessarily well-sourced. (I originally wrote most of the material in the '']'' articles, for example.) I readily concede that, although I'd like to see this material preserved, Misplaced Pages is currently not the place for it, based on its general principles. I have a hope someday that we will be able to create a useful "encylopedia of everything", but I fully stand by the demands that Misplaced Pages makes on sourcing, neutrality, and verifiability. We can copy the information (with credits) to other projects before it's deleted. ~ ] ] 04:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The "Misplaced Pages has a greater purpose" excuse is simply one's way to arbitrarily decide that what doesn't appeal to you doesn't belong here; basically ]. Individual episodes of most popular programs are regularly the subject of reviews, all of which provide ample sources for inclusion in articles. It's the same narrow group of deletionists pushing the same narrow interpretation on these articles. ] (]) 05:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::IDONTLIKEIT is a strange thing to accuse someone of saying when they just told you that they ''do'' like it. And while many shows do have a lot of real-world information about them, it's not always in a "per-episode" format. Like when an actor talks about their character, that information is better presented on the character article, rather than splitting it up on each episode where development of that character occurred. -- ] 07:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::"The vast majority of TV-show episodes simply don't have enough independently published information to create meaningful Misplaced Pages articles" evidences?] 19:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Past experience would be the evidence. A lot of us do go looking for this information before recommending merges or redirects, as well as during those discussions. -- ] 04:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree, the consensus that we see at AfD seems to be the very opposite - that individiual articles are to be avoided (unless the episode is significantly notable on its own, see ] and ]. ] (]) 07:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC). | |||
| : We need a paragraph at ] that expands on the notion that ''Misplaced Pages was ever intended to be the world's largest TV guide''. --] 08:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not the world's largest TV guide, yet we still have ], ], ], and ] and their associated articles. Does that make Misplaced Pages a TV guide? --] (]) 05:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: But it became the world's biggest tv guide, and people liked it. ] (]) 08:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: See ] and ]. We are free to pass that 'honor' to wikia - along with a huge ] boost. --] 08:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've left a message on the village pump discussion a day or so ago asking if anyone knew who to contact about the nofollow settings on the interwiki links. I'll try to do some more follow up on the issue. Also, I think WP:NOT did used to say something about not being a TV guide, but that was before ], so I suppose they thought it was repetitive. -- ] 04:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], are you a ] employee? --] (]) 05:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''To make a more general point''' and incidentally respond to what ] has correctly identified as an outpouring of concern at the ] LOE page after we undertook the redirect, it is clear that episode retention is not really the issue. Scrubs fans - I'll speak for them since I know that case best - want | |||
| #the songs featured in the episode + performer info | |||
| #in-universe and continuity details, such as character family info, peripheral character info, guest stars etc... | |||
| #detailed plot outlines | |||
| #trivia</p> | |||
| Per our existing standard at ], ], ] & ] episode retention would focus on | |||
| #production | |||
| #external reviews | |||
| #wider, real-world cultural significance | |||
| #episode specific awards | |||
| and would have a modest amount of in-universe details to provide context. Well, frankly that is not what "the people" named above likely want - and neither would I if I am looking for a detailed episode guide. WTF do I care if some camera guy named Frank won a $#^%# award for special angle work in '''My Random Episode'''. What I probably care about is like OMG why is JD bald?? or in which episode did Carla get pregnant or other such info. To caricature those of us undertaking these sitewide revisions as rabid deletionists may make people feel better, but such slander (intended or otherwise) does little to resolve the basic tension that is at work here. Even if we keep individual TV episodes, ''the onus to focus on real-world significance is not going to deliver the content fans want.'' Consistently, via AfD and policy discussion and now arbcom, there has been strong consensus that Misplaced Pages not be a fanguide, that this not be a place for extensive in-universe fan-driven content. Consensus can change, of course, but if people want to change our policies, going after a specific guideline is not the right place. We need to rewrite our standards - not to be undertaken lightly - at ] and ], since this guideline - and consequently the actions of us evil deletionists - are a sincere reflexion of those principles. ] (]) 13:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Unlike other examples given just before and after ], the one about plot summaries offers no justification. It's just a fiat says don't include 'em. That sucks. IMHO, if folks thought about justification, they'd have a hard time finding any. | |||
| ::::Those who drink the "no plot summaries" KoolAid are reminiscent of Alec Guinness (as Col. Nicholson) in his climactic scene in ]. I, and hordes of others, gaze on them from our lurkplaces and say "Madness!... Madness!" Just like in the movies. ] (]) 15:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Any discussion of dismantling ] should take place at the ] policy talk page. When you bring it up I'd go lightly on the koolaid/obsession/madness motif. Some people, crazy fools that they are, don't view such information as compatible with encyclopedic content. ] (]) 15:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I took a look over there. No, thanks. We'll just wait for someone to fall on the detonator. ] (]) 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you going to cite any actual policies? You say "Misplaced Pages is not a fanguide" but fans are pretty much the only people who would work for free on most articles. Do you think today's featured article, ], was written mainly by fans of football or non fans? The only thing this guideline provides is an excuse to redirect articles for television episodes that individual editors don't care for. They can conveniently ignore the television shows they like and make other fans angry in the process. This guideline needs to be rewritten or marked historical. --] (]) 05:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Just tossing my comment in here, since I'm on vacation and don't want my relative lack of participation to look like acquiescence. I remain quite thoroughly against the notion of deleting episode articles for arbitrary reasons like what's been going on, and as soon as I'm back on my regular net connection I intend to spend some time pushing back on the matter. When there's controversy (as there most definitely is in this case) deletion cannot be the default without some pressing reason for it (such as in cases of potential libel or copyvio). If that NOT#PLOT guideline needs to be dispute too then by all means I'll dispute it. This pointless removal of good content has gone far enough. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree totally with ]. ] (]) 20:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ditto. I too will be going on vacation and be largely offline, but I second it heartily and all the other comments opposed to the brutal application of EPISODE. --] ] 03:48 ] ] (GMT) | |||
| ::That really sums it up. If you have a problem with how some people apply a guideline, take it up with them instead of blaming the guideline. -- ] 04:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Guns don't kill people, people kill people, eh? --] ] 04:09 ] ] (GMT) | |||
| :::The problem with your suggestion, Ned, is that talking with people like TTN hasn't had and won't have any effect. That's why we have the arbcom case. As with what has been going on recently, if one takes up questionable application of EPISODE with an editor, the editor will just say that he/she is following policy and consensus and has every right to. It's the stubbornness of the application of our policies and guidelines which leads us back to our policies and guidelines. You've seen that in the arbcom case- no behavior has been admonished. -- ] (]) 04:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The arbcom has been pretty clear that mass redirects shouldn't be happening at this rate when there are objections, and that more discussion is needed. Maybe I'll ask them to make a statement (or reword an existing one) to make this clearer. All of us involved don't want to be at each other's throats. If you don't believe TTN is capable of being more understanding, then you are mistaken. The stubbornness you speak of will be improved, and we're all going to try harder to make these things go more smoothly. -- ] 04:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I deeply hope so. The way TTN acted might have been in short term "improvement" (in the sense that some articles about really unnotable episodes have been redirected) but he caused so much inflammation and drama this way that the feelings of many editors towards WP:EPISODE have deteriorated significantly. ]]/] 02:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::guidelines have to be written with an eye to how they can be misused. We are here primarily because the already existing guidelines have been being quoted widely and inappropriately in every possible direction. There was a post right today on an Admin. noticeboard threaten a mass redirection of just the sort you deprecate. We really do have to include such things in the guideline. We need more thinking about this, and right now is not the time for general participation. previous guidelines have been ignored for just that reason--inadequate participation of wp people in general. We dont want this to fail for the same reason. | |||
| ::At this point, the guideline does definitely not have enough considered consensus. I want to think about the wording and the integration with other pages. Ned, didnt you say somewhere earlier today that the misinterpretation or misunderstanding of WP:NOTY was a part of the problem? ''']''' (]) 04:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wanting to improve the wording to prevent abuse is one thing, and I'd like to help to continue to improve that, but that's not the same as disputing a guideline. I would say that, while how they were handled was far from ideal, most of the redirects made by people such as TTN have been justified upon review. Not a single person here has been able to show otherwise. I can think of a few examples of where I did disagree with TTN, and said so (reverting a few times as well), but even then his conclusions were not unreasonable. Debunking a guideline based on misuse needs to actually have evidence of such misuse, and showing more than just a few isolated examples. -- ] 06:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed, I myself can only think of ]. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 11:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The policies stated on this page are in contradition to ]: "''The main goal of this project is to ensure that Misplaced Pages has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available''...". The existence of <B>tv.com</B> and <B>epguides.com<B>, along with the thousands of sites specializing in episode guides for a single TV show support the idea that Misplaced Pages should allow contributors to generate articles on every episode of every show, for all the world to benefit. ] says that "''notable''" is defined as "worthy of notice" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". ] (]) 22:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Um, last I checked TV.com and EpGuides.com were not encyclopedias. More specifically, the '''project''' (not a policy or guideline) you cited has a list of encyclopedias that are their main focus. TV.com and EPGuides.com are not on that list. As a matter of fact, IMDb.com is not even on that list. As a matter of fact, the only mention of television is for missing articles on television shows (not television show episodes). If you follow that project's link to ], you'll find your TV.com, EPGuides.com and other websites there. ''But'', the big issue on the page is '''not''' "episodes" but the television show itself. ] ] 22:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Um, books like the Brittanica aren't the only ]. I pulled this definition straight out of Misplaced Pages: "An encyclopedia... is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge ''or a particular branch of knowledge''" (italics are mine). This one comes from dictionary.com: "a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." ] (]) 23:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: (Continuing) Moreover, Misplaced Pages Founder ] publicly expressed the desire to encompass "the full body of human knowledge" made available to the entire world. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::TV.com and EPguides.com are not "branches of knowledge", or "sets of ooks containing articles", they are merely guides that list the plot summaries of television episodes. There is nothing on them that would be considered a "comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge". They don't fit either of your definitions. As far as Wales is concerned, "the entire body of human knowledge" does not constitute "every single topic in the world", as not everything is really "knowledge". My personal life story would not be worthy of an article on Misplaced Pages. More importantly, let's just say we include the idea that ever television episode should be included on Misplaced Pages as part of Wales's idea that Wiki should contain all the world's knowledge. What that '''does not''' say is ''how'' that information is displayed. What this guideline, and many other policies and guidelines state, is that not everything deserves their "own page", '''not''' that they shouldn't be mentioned. We have List of Episode articles and season articles that can encompass all there is on an individual episode that would not otherwise be sufficient to support itself on its own page. See ] for how that is possible. Just because it should be included on Misplaced Pages does not mean that it should, or deserves, its own page. This is why we have a ]. ] ] 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Of course your personal life story would not be worthy, as indicated in the ]. And of course TV.com and EPguides.com are not "branches of knowledge" - they are MEDIA, containing a branch of knowledge (television episodes aired to date). Whether you personally consider them unimportant or not, ''television episodes aired to date'' constitutes a branch of human knowledge, and meets ]. ] (]) 23:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That doesn't meet NOTE. NOTE says "significant coverage". TV.com and EPGuides are in the business of cataloging ''all'' television shows and episodes, that is their business. They do not provide coverage on the episodes beyond plot summaries. That does not constitute "significant coverage" by NOTE's standards. Having 50 sources that do nothing but recite the plot of a show's episode is not "signicant coverage" either. There is a difference between many sources providing significant encyclopedic information about a show, and many sources providing the exact same, limited information (limited as in just plot summaries) about a show. One is the criteria for article creation, the other is not. We don't put every movie on Misplaced Pages just because IMDb has a page for it. IMDb has pages for films that are not even being made. TV.com is an episode guide (i.e. lists episode titles/airdates/plot summaries etc etc, all the same stuff you typically find on the show's official website), nothing more. ] ] 00:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==] and "problem" articles== | |||
| There does not appear to be consensus that individual episode articles have to assert notability, as evidenced by the hundreds of sub-articles of ]. I also object to this guideline suggesting a {{tl|notability}} template be placed on articles, because this is not a notability guideline. The suggestion that episode articles be merged or redirected also does not have community consensus. That is why I removed what I did from this guideline. --] (]) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:56, 9 December 2024
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| Edit this box |
Policy inconsistent with reality
It seems like the notability guideline:
"it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available."
is pretty commonly disregarded. For example, every episode of Modern Family Season 2 has its own article. This might be symptomatic of wikipedia policy being out of step with what readership is seeking, or it might be an example of writers and fans ignoring a policy and diluting wikipedia's quality. Given the widespread disregard for the policy, though, it seems worthwhile to debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C08C:A6F0:21C:B3FF:FEC3:2572 (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
IMHO I appreciate being able to see a synopsis for each episode although I tend to think they are too long. In general, I would think a one to two sentence description, similar to what one might have seen in TV Guide, is sufficient. Exception could be made for those episodes which truly are notable in and of themselves such as the Sammy Davis Jr./Carroll O'Connor kiss on "All in the Family", the coming out episode of "Ellen", final episode of "M*A*S*H" etc. GBrady (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
RfC on Game of Thrones episode Oathkeeper
There's an RS RfC on the Game of Thrones episode Oathkeeper talk page. It's about the use of a blog source to provide a backing for listing the chapters of the book upon which the episode was based. Participation (and fresh voices) would be welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Any point in writing a Lucy Show episode article?
I have not tracked at all whether TV show episode articles are frequently AfD'd successfully, and on what grounds. Wondering if there is any point to creating an article on a Lucy Show episode, absent any clear showing of it being distinctly notable on its own? (It was from a season for which she won an Emmy). The episode "Lucy and the Pool Hustler" is noteworthy as one of the few on-screen depictions of women-only pool tournaments and women doing well at pool, but I haven't found any external source that treat the episode as anything special. I'm skeptical than notability is "inherited" from a season down to article (i.e., that it's expected that every season article will eventually spawn articles for all episodes in the season). I've already written a draft of the plot summary, but I don't mind abandoning it if making an article on Lucy Show S06E13 would just lead to a deletion. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 03:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Bot to update lists of television episodes?
Has anyone thought about creating a bot to update lists of television episodes? Is there a place to ask for television series to have their articles updated? TeriEmbrey (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. Is their anyone interested in updating the Public Broadcasting System shows that air in the Chicago market? TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Which sister projects to put merely a list of episode titles?
Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Misplaced Pages is not a directory.
If Misplaced Pages is not a directory, then which sister projects should be the right place to put merely a list of episode titles? Is wikisource the right place? --Ans (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Categories: