Wikipedia talk:Television episodes/Review

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MfD Result Notice[edit]

This page was the subject of an MfD debate closed on 13 July 2007. The result was no consensus. Xoloz 16:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Pending dicussion here, please follow these guidelines when posting articles to this list.

The Name of the Show[edit]

  • [[Link to episode]] - comments by editor who added this episode to the list
Comments by other editors
Decision based on consensus, such as redirect, merge or delete

Please sign your posts. After the page gets crowded, an archive should be created; archive per date. Alcemáe T • C 21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Given that it is probable that reviews will stretch over a we days, with multiple episodes under review concurrently, perhaps we should start sub-pages for articles (or series). The main page could be used as a directory, similar to the Wikipedia procedural pages. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 00:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely following, could you explain or given an example. Thanks. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means something akin to the specifc RFA and such pages. Correct? Alcemáe T • C 00:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Given the difficulty in making it specifc where the article is being reviewed on the template, I would agree that that could be an option. However, I worry about the number of pages creatd. Alcemáe T • C 00:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got ya now. Um...I'd wait to see if it was needed, instead of doing it immediately. If one starts to get a bit long, then move it to its own page. Right now, we don't know how long they will typically get.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be a bad idea. Or have the reviews on the article's talk page. We also likely need some form of semi-batch review. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the review page is ok..can always make subpages if something is controversial or long, perhaps dated pages like TfD (which we've all seen recently!). Once resolved/decided, placed in archive. How about alphabetical for series title? eg. Arcive A-E; G-J etc. Then they're easy to find/reopen, or add soem from same series. Gwinva 14:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. Do we want to do A,B,C,D,... or A-D, E-H, etc. ?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would hurt to do it A, B, C etc as the archives can be as long as needed. The episodes can then be further arranged alphabetically under the archive, example:

Archive A

==Apple (Made up series name)==

===A===

===B===

===C===

Any good?
Seraphim Whipp 14:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That could work.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we do the alphabetical thing, are we going to lump "The West Wing" in with the "T"s, or the "W"s? I've seen categories in both ways before.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under 'W' -that's where I would look. Gwinva 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Of course we could always put a redirect in at either W or T to direct to the one where we do place it?
Seraphim Whipp 14:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larger series[edit]

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

Proposed Process[edit]

I would suggest that something similar to what I did with the Hannah episodes should be done. The person who adds them to this page should look at each article and make a judgement call as to if it might be notable; these should be listed slightly removed from others that really dont have a chance. Then, editors should comment specifically on pages that the assessor deemed possibly notable. Also, they should check the articles the assessor deemed unnotable, and if there are concerns, indent under it.

Also, I hope this wasn't too presumptuous of me, but I asked on the category for nothing to be added here until a decision is made as to how the massive amounts of articles (and it will be massive) should be handled. If you feel this is no longer applicable, please remove it. Alcemáe T • C 04:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ok. It will allow us to asses a whole series (we may want to do a little less at a time though, incase they beging to grow in discussion), instead episode by episode with random redirect/merges in each series. I hope we are alerting the parent articles about their episodes. I don't want to hear about how they didn't know the discussion was taking place. I know I get annoyed when something major happens and no one notified me so that I could at least give my $0.02 worth.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I alerted the HM page. I belive you said you notified the TSR page? Alcemáe T • C 16:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only page I have notified was the "Raven" episode page. I didn't notify the parent page. I'll go check to see it they were, if not I will.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we target larger series?[edit]

After we get all caught up and familiar with the process, should we target larger series before doing small, easy ones? It will help us get better at this because the chance of keeping articles is better, it'll make things easier down the road, it'll possibly draw more people into the process (but hopefully not to complain about it), and it will help in arguing our case against some of the more annoying complaints. It'll mean keeping a slower pace, but we'd have to slow down for them eventually. TTN 15:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to do the easier ones first, as practice with smaller articles can only help to improve our ability to assess. Where as, if we jump to the larger fish, we could get burned out on just a couple of episodes or seasons (i.e. 18 years of The Simpsons is a lot to cover, though that WikiProject doesn't a pretty good job for some of the seasons).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it will mostly be "Redirect, redirect, redirect, "Oh, that may make it", redirect..." It'll be like a light walk with thirty seconds of jogging instead of a run, which we should probably aim for. We won't be doing one a day or anything either. We can take each series as long as we would like before moving on. There is also the benefit of getting more people in this, so we don't seem like a "cabal" as people have been claiming. TTN 15:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pros and cons it seems, because doing the "small" series will help get all the true problem articles out of the way quickly so that we can concentrate on these larger shows. I haven't gone through any, maybe the larger shows are just like the smaller shows in their lack of established notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pros seem to outweigh the cons for me. Most series don't really have a chance. A few here and there have a decent percentage of possibly good articles (Futurama, which will be coming up), but most of them will not. Even a really contraversial shows like South Park don't have way too many improvable articles. Only the religion based episodes and the ones like the death of a longstanding character really have any potential (10-15 out of 160). TTN 15:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'll look over whatever gets put up...so I guess in the end I'm indifferent to how we pull the next series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small series first - the larger, long-established series tend to be handled better, and many already have their own projects to assist. If this process is really about "improvement", it should focus on the articles that are problematic, rather than presuming "everything" is. --Ckatzchatspy 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone, with AWB or a bot, tag the Phil of the Future episodes? We might as well hit all the Disney episodes while we're at it. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somewhat importunately, perhaps, I tagged the first season of Friends and I apologise for not soliciting opinion here beforehand. I think it is important to solicit wider engagement so it doesn't appear to be a backdoor effort at deletion, which it certainly is not, and also to generate consensus for the even-handed application of the episode guideline. I agree with TTN that tagging a larger series helps encourage a wider expression of views. However, if my actions were inadvisable, I would be happy to revert the edits. Eusebeus 16:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hardly. They'll, in the least, be there for 14 days...unless JPS removes them all like he did the one episode I saw. Nothing, wrong, plus you just did 1 season and not the entire series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long do we keep the review open?[edit]

After all, these episodes have already had two weeks for people to comment or work on them. How do we decide consensus is reached? Don't foget, once archived, they can always be reopened if soemone turns up a bit later. Gwinva 19:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I would think the TSR and Hannah Montana ones are pretty much consensussed (word?). And are they automatically archived, or only after the page gets crowded? Alcemáe T • C 19:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say, when we are done, autoarchive. Just clear the page out. No need to clutter it up with ended discussions. When merging I'd provide a link to the "archived" discussion...don't want to do it to the actual review page. Once it's archived you'd lose the link.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Sounds good. So when do we close the TSR and HM review? Alcemáe T • C 19:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty clear on the decision at the moment, but I'm hesistant to say close it. Ckatz hasn't commented yet, and it may be good to wait for at least their decision. You could drop them a line to remind them of the reviews taking place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to come up with an exact timeframe. This way people can't just leave it open until they get their opinion. Clear-cut cases can obviously be speedy closed. I think we need to make subpages for the discussions though. Like at AfD and just list them here, would keep the page less crowded. Then we can just have a bot auto-archive them when they close. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a subpage might be good for contentious articles, but not for everything, as that would be a lot of subpages. (To bignole) Who is "them"? Alcemáe T • C 19:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz, I was just being gender ambiguous.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So you dont want to close any of them until he comments? Alcemáe T • C 20:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can close the Big O episodes. Those are all blatant vios. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Big O seems to have been clearly created without an established notability. Those are probably easier to close without much more dicussion necessary. I'm under the impression all the appropriate places were notified of the review, so if they didn't come to discuss it I have to assume they don't care. I believe the idea with merging is that silence equals consensus to merge.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So close Big O, and archive, but leave the other two up? Pending what? Alcemáe T • C 20:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello... thanks for being so considerate... generally, I'll chime in if I feel I have something to add. Please feel free to conclude those ones when you see fit. --Ckatzchatspy 20:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got me. As has been said before, nothing states we cannot reopen and evaluate again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, along with Gwinva, I archived the TSR discussion. Can we archive the HM and Big O? Alcemáe T • C 20:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say a clear consensus was reached with The Big O, in the least.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll archive the Big O. I added a CONSENSUS thing to the bottom of the discussion, like what Gwinva did at the TSR review. And to Malevious, I don't understand what your saying. Alcemáe T • C 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think leave HM for now. But I think we need to add a closed discussion template to the discussion, and just open another one if they come back. This way we don't get 6 page long discussions for TSR that don't always relate. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Sorry, assuming consensus, I was busy merging That's so Raven while the rest of the discussion was happening. I expanded the plot a little in List of That's So Raven episodes, and added a reception section to paste in the award. Redirected main page with a {{R from merge}} tag so the history is not lost. Messages left on talk pages also, with link to archive. It can be reopened or undone if you do think I was too hasty. Gwinva 20:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should use something like they use at AfD for closed discussions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vocational high schools for example). This way we can keep each discussion seperate and not mix 2 different discussions together. That better? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would work well. However, I don't know the tags. If someone could add them, that would be great. Alcemáe T • C
I Don't either or I would've just added them myself. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might I also suggest, a small template to place on the talk page of episodes that links to the archived discussion? That way anyone who goes to the page and wants to bring it back can check the discussion. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Afd tags wont work, because they specifically state that its Afd. So are there other tags out there that can be used, or do we have to devise some of our own? Alcemáe T • C 20:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the archiving style suggested at merging pages. Do we want the decision as a header at the top, or left at the bottom of the section? Gwinva 21:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the top, similar to Afd. Alcemáe T • C 21:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I closed and archived the HM discussion. However, I think it would, after trying to do it manually, if someone with AWB could do all of the redirects. If I need to, I will, but I'm not qualified for AWB yet. PS, I'm Alcemáe. I  (said) (did) 06:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we should archive until we have performed the action agreed. Seeing an empty review page suggests it has been done, and they'll just sit there. There's a lot to do, so perhaps we can share the task. Need some manual oversight, so we can check the talk pages, and if something needs salvaging or whatever. Gwinva 19:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've redirected them all, and archived the actual discussion. Gwinva 20:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a popular move: check out my user page history! Gwinva 13:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have AWB but I'm not entirely comfortable carrying out this task with it. One of the main rules for AWB is not to do anything controversial with it and while people here may say it isn't controversial, I think there are still some editors who would disagree. Stardust8212 14:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Right now, I think we should do it all manually, piece by piece. I think after awhile, if it's becoming clear that people are not fighting consensus, or are atleast establishing notability on the articles then we can hold another discussion about the AWB.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should mention this to TTN, since he's using AWB to bulk-post the notices. --Ckatzchatspy 18:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they're talking about redirecting the articles, which is easy to do without it. TTN 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, right now, since we are technically fighting a TfD, and still trying to get the hang of all the reviews (i'm sure we'll come to some that aren't as easy to look over as the ones we've had so far), I saw lets not use an AWB for anything at the moment. Let's not use a stick to stir up a nest of snakes, if you know what I mean.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The TfD is a definite no consensus at this point unless we get a biased closer. If somebody is going to complain about AWB, they're either going to also be complaining about any "mass additions" (even though "mass" has meant less than 25 to some people) or they're just trying to find any possible bit of the process to complain about (as seen in the TfD). The number of tags that I add doesn't change due to AWB, so I see no reason to sacrifice comfort and quality (It is much easier to look over the articles, thus satisfying even more people.) for complaints that will come anyways. TTN 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if someone does complain, it falls under "take it up with the editor instead of going after the template" that has been repeated over and over. TTN 18:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but they won't and they'll use it as another excuse to attack the process. A "see how it's being abused" argument that will lead to nothing but more negative attention to what we are trying to accomplish.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be the exact same thing if I do my thirteen tabs, just do a constant stream of them, or just do one every three minutes. It's just all about the numbers. AWB would just be an added topping. Plus, how many people really have taken most of the complaints seriously? It's really just the select inclusionists and a very small number of bystanders. 19:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)TTN
I agree with you, but I think that Bignole is correct; people will just use it as something else trivial to attack the process with. I  (said) (did) 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is correct in that people will use it, but they will use anything. That isn't really a reason to stop it. It isn't like somebody will say "TTN is adding tags with AWB! Get the pitchforks!" It's just another couple of sentences added to the repetitive responses. Due to the fact that I have used it for a good number at this point, if complaints come, they're going to come. Stopping won't change much. TTN 19:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, do what you will. If it comes to bite us in the ass...  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It won't. TTN 19:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

Okay, after reading most of the suggestions, I think this is the consensus we have as to the reviewing procedure:

  • Articles from the category will be listed here in this format:
==Name of the Show==
Name of episode
Name of episode
Name of episode
  • Person who added the episodes to be reviewed comments
Comments by other editors. Suggestions of merges, redirects etc.
Consensus - list the consensus here
  • Per the consensus, the article will be redirected and merged, or whatever the result. A notice, for redirecting and merging, will be placed on the talk page of the redirected article, and the article it was redirected to.
  • Discussions will be archived immediately after consensus is reached under the first relevant letter of the shows name, i.e. discussions on Thats So Raven would be filed under T, while The Big O would be under B. Whoever closes the discussion will be the one to:
    • Fulfill decision
    • Inform the talk page of affected article and article it's being redirected to
    • Archive
The result of the discussion was: result of the discussion.

Is that the decided procedure? It's important we are all on the same page. The only thing I don't know is how we will decide consensus has been reached. Otherwise, comments, disagreements? Alcemáe T • C 21:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good to me. We can decide consensus the same way it's done at XfD's and such. Take each sides arguments into consideration. In the event of a controversial debate, ask a neutral admin to decide the outcome. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think 2 days is fine, unless discussion is still going strong. We are not deleting anything, so it isn't as critical a wait as an AfD should be, and they already had a 14 day notice about the procedure.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So other than how long reviews will last, and who will close, what I wrote above is the agreed upon process? Alcemáe T • C 23:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Process: Jigged about a bit[edit]

  • Articles from the category will be listed here in this format:

==Name of the Show==

  • Name of episode
  • Name of episode
  • Name of episode

===Discussion===

  • Person who added the episodes to be reviewed comments
  • Comments by other editors - Whether it can be expanded, what's needed, general discussion about content

===Action===

  • Consensus - Suggestions of merges, redirects etc.

===Result===
The result of the discussion was...


I just added a bit more structure to it. Is that ok? I thought it made everything a bit clearer. I think the people to close should be whoever is around at the time. Also there should be a time agreed, was it 2 days? I think a time limit is good but maybe it would be better to close discussions when no more posts have occurred after such and such a time. If nothing has happened in the conversation for 6 hours after the 2 day period, discussion closed? Just an idea.

Seraphim Whipp 00:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably easier to have those as subsections, instead of full sections
Time is always the iffy subject. If we go too slow, we'll get backed up like made. If we go too fast they'll only complain the process is hugely flawed and should be done away with immediately.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. You're right there. Perhaps close after 9 hours of no replies? Cases can always easily be re-opened as someone said before.
Seraphim Whipp 01:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. I mean, we have to remember that not everyone is in the same time zone, and say I make a comment, but go to bed right afterward, and when I wake up the thing has been closed and archived. It's going to be a gamble no matter how we do it, I'm sure. Let's find out what others think.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the jigged format. However, i agree with Bignole that all as sections could make it a big large, but not a big deal. I also wonder the difference between action and result, and why it couldn't just be a
Consensus- redirect
thing. Also, in relation to the time open, I would think that unless its an overwhelming decision, maybe a full two days from start, as evidenced by the person who added it's timestamp, or just a timestamp next to the show name. Alcemáe T • C 02:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think a time period should be defined though I still think two days is too short but I'm willing to try it until someone (besides me) complains. I'm not clear on how the sections work in the jugged version. We nominate and then discuss and then... the "action" section is a collection of the !votes? and the "result" section is the outcome of the !votes? To me the action would be what action is taken. Meanings of the headings should be immediately clear to everyone that comes to the page and I think those just...aren't. Stardust8212 03:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the action taken is a redirect, there is nothing that prevents an expansion of the article to satisfy the WP:EPISODES criteria. An individual episode article that has been redirected can always go stand-alone if the content is there to support it. This is not affected by any timeline for review. I personally think 2 days is sufficient. Eusebeus 11:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, two days from posting (date stamp of first comment) unless discussion in full flow, or no obvious consensus. As Eusebeus says, if anyone arrives late to the party, it can all be reopened or retreived. They've had 14 days notice already. Gwinva 12:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, following the 2 day from initial adding idea, HM can be closed, and KOTH can be closed about 3 hours from when I write this. So, unless there are further developments, both can be closed (KOTH 3 hrs from now) since 2 days have elapsed, and there is no more relevant discussion, other than the rather humorous idea that all KOTH episodes are inherently notable, correct? I'd do this, but I wont be on in three hours, but I will if nothing has changed when I get up. Alcemáe T • C 07:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, before I close the HM section, I think that maybe we should add the Consensus- redirect to it, and leave it on there for a time, so that there can be no complaining. How long should that be? BTW, I'm Alcemáe, I just changed my username. I  (said) (did) 18:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem. Suggestions are good, things can always be improved. The reason for all the headings is to maintain clarity and structure so things can be dealt with on a clear case by case basis. Also it makes it easier to retrieve a case from the archive if one needs to be re-opened. Is this one any better?


  • Articles from the category will be listed here in this format:

==Name of the Show==

  • Name of episode
  • Name of episode
  • Name of episode

===Discussion===

  • Person who added the episodes to be reviewed comments
  • Comments by other editors - Whether it can be expanded, what's needed, general discussion about content

===List of votes based on discussion===
List of votes- few examples:

  • Redirect per Orange (example user name)
  • Merge per Pear
  • Keep per Pineapple

Result:

  • Keep

Or:

===Result===
The result of the review was...

Seraphim Whipp 11:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second option better. It's not a vote, it's consensus . The 'redirects' 'merge' suggestions also fit better amongst the discussion (if bolded we can see them). Also, each episode might be different, so the 'votes' might need to get listed under each title sometimes. I think the result should actually go at the top when we archive it. Gwinva 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hehe, we can keep trying it till it's improved otherwise there won't be any standardisation...
  • Articles from the category will be listed here in this format:

==Name of the Show==

  • Name of episode
  • Name of episode
  • Name of episode

===Discussion===

  • Person who added the episodes to be reviewed comments
  • Comments by other editors with a suggestion of an action. (This doesn't need to be immediate- the person can suggest action after some discussion has taken place if needed)- Comments about possibility of expansion, if sources are available, general discussion about content
  • I think...
  • More discussion etc
  • Redirect (action bolded :-) ) because of this...

===Result===
The result of the review was... (this will be moved to the top when archived like Gwinva said).


For individual episodes with lots to discuss, the discussion can be moved under the episode name.

Also I personally like all the sub-headings but this process is based on consensus so what does everyone else think?

Seraphim Whipp 11:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good. It'd work for discussion such as Hannah Montana, but seems overkill for King of the Hill. (Unless that suddenly gets controversial). As an aside, do we think we should review ALL tagged episodes here? the proposed WP:TV-REVIEW suggested just the iffy ones, but I wonder if it helps to validate the whole process. You know, several pairs of eyes better than one in making a decision, plus if someone objects, they can see there was some consensus, not just one trigger-happy editor. Discussion began at TV-review talk page, and should probably be continued there, so people looking at the proposal know the proposed changes to the proposal! Gwinva 12:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last format you listed I like. Only suggestion is that under the result, there be a RESULT or CONSENSUS thing, so that its obvious what the decision is. Alcemáe T • C 18:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

I've now made {{TVreview2}} to go on the talk pages when we bring episodes here for review. Have a look and make any appropriate changes/comments. Gwinva 10:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to King of the Hill. We have to remember to not only add an alert to the page we plan to merge to, but the main article page as well (might be a separate set of users).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks...you're right, I only did the 'List of' page. This template at least makes that job quicker. Gwinva 11:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A thought or two[edit]

Are we remembering to check the talk page of each episode to see if anyone's responded to the tag? Should we make a note that's it's the repsonsibility of the person posting to check the episode talk pages and parent pages? Also, when redirecting, check talk pages for project tags... don't want a redirect page still sitting in a 'rated stub class WikiProject Television category' or whatever. Gwinva 12:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thoughtthe page already mentioned the removal of categories from the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. Anyway, I've edited the review instructions, so hopefully it's all clear now. Gwinva 13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles[edit]

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

  • What about listing by date tagged? Eusebeus 11:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd wait till we are finished with the first "batch" and then bring in the next. No need to clutter it up yet. The same heading will do just fine, also. It would have all been under one heading originally.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either wait till this discussion is over, and bring in more KOTH episodes, or use sub-headers, likes ===Batch 1=== and ===Batch 2=== this way they keep seperate. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 14:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD[edit]

The result was delete. So, I say, we put the general notability tag on the article, place the category page on the article automatically and inform the talk page and all relevant parent pages that a review process will take place shortly, and when it beings a new notification will be added some people can join that discussion if they choose to only want to participate in that shows review (e.g. Only discussion KOTH, and not other shows like LOST, etc).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be best just to go with notability tags and merge tags (ones that link directly to a certain discussion). Then we can just list the tagged categories here or somewhere. Should we try deletion review at all? TTN 18:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This method isn't going to work too well with out the template, if it even works at all :-\ --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the merge tags point to one discussion, and that one discussion talks about this, it should work fine. It just won't be as smooth. TTN 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since they closed it, and it really was not consensus to delete, but oh well, I say we just start reviewing them now. If they dont want to be notified, well then, let them have their way. I  (said) (did) 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(conflict, initially directed to TTN) I wouldn't bother. It will be the same, mainly because I caught AngieY canvassing like minded users to come "save episode articles" by deleting the TfD. I don't really want to go through another long review. Let them bask in their high, but it doesn't change what we are trying to accomplish, and it doesn't stop the review process. It may slow it all down, but the only thing they've done is hurt themselves. I personally move that we push to review articles immediately. Not saying swamp ourselves (keep the 2 day rule for clear violations, like we were), but the second we have free space, grab more. We tried to be reasonable and give some time for them to regroup, find some sources, and come discuss. They wanted to try and remove our tools of operation. I'm probably just POed about this all, and that's my reasoning for wanting to push for more immediate reviews. They obviously don't like the 14 day prior notification of review, and they've had months (some over a year) to establish notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say try a deletion review, and while that's going on, just list any episodes with a notability concern. As long as all editors are notified about the review and there's a consensus to merge the articles they can't complain. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and put the category directly in the article? I mean, we have to keep track of them somehow.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could always use something like this (my failed attempt to keep track of them). TTN 19:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec- to Malevious) ::The closing admin said he would undelete, to give us time to cat the articles that are now lost. I don't think we should even bother with a deletion review, since it probably won't get undeleted, and even if it did, it wouldn't matter, people would still complain. This way, its actually easier to review, and no one can complain that there was no notice, since they had the notice deleted. Again, I say we immediately begin reviewing articles, series at a time, without any 14 day notice that is "too bureaucratic". I  (said) (did) 19:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Ec- to Bignole) Yea, since they don't want the template, they lose their 2weeks notice. Just make sure any article you put in there gets notified somehow. We don't wanna discuss articles without informing their editors. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got no problem using TTN's sandbox collection. We can simply go in alphabetical order down the list. I saw when they come up, we notify the parent articles and the individual television articles (every one which is in the review session at that time). Don't give them a reason to say we didn't notify them. If we pull in 10 articles, all 10 get notified of the review, plus the potential merger article and the main article. If there is no activity on any of those pages, then they probably have a bigger issue at hand.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TTN's list should do fine. So we will review all of them on that list in order. We'll notify the talk page of the reviewed article, the article of the show itself, and the article that they would be merged to, correct? I  (said) (did) 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to notify the single article, we could just use {{Mergeto|List|Talk:List#discussion|{{subst:DATE}}}} to direct them right to the discussion. I think it would be easier to add, and it probably would be more effective in the end. TTN 19:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Might I ask that when you get to the Charmed episodes you skip over them for now? I'm currently in the process of looking for information on them. There are a few I know off the top of my head I can find information on. Not asking to ignore them but to give me a little bit more time to work on them before they go up for review. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have no problem with that (TTN's suggestion for a template, and Male's request for Charmed). Smallville isn't even on TTN's list, but you can be rest assured that I put in the merge request on that page a long time ago, and I'm working on developing the season pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, before starting again, should we go through Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Dated episode notability, so we can have a fresh start? TTN 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ec- to BignoleI'm a little reluctant to use the merge template, since it isn't specific to the WP:EPISODE aspect of the review. I think that there should just be notices on those three pages once its up for review, and then we can follow the process we have. However, the guideline and such need to be updated with whatever is decided as soon as it is.

To TTN - I dont even think we should bother with the old template at all. The "consensus" was that the template was not needed, we should just go forward with reviewing immediately. I  (said) (did) 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EC - What would you like to do, figure out what shows (from the "what links here" list) they go to and then add the show to your list?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just mean that we should just list all of those for review now before starting any new ones. They were already tagged, so most have gotten good notice. We can spend a bit on them before moving on. TTN 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't list all of them for review, we can only do a few at a time. I do agree that we should, like you said, review the ones that were notified at one point. I  (said) (did) 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, we should take care of them now. We can't do them all at once, there were several pages of 500 titles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't mean all at once. Just that we should do all of them before moving on like you said. TTN 19:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwinva left at a great time lol. Ok. So far:

  • Deletion review? Or not? I would say no, since it probably wont pass, and it being deleted by consensus actually unties our hands a bit.
  • We'll use the What Links Here on the old template to make a list of articles that were tagged at one point, and we will review these first. Just a question, will the WLH work on an old version, or does the template need to be undeleted for it to work?
  • Once those are through, how are we going to organize articles to be reviewed in the future? Manually add them to a cat?
  • We'll place a tag on the talk pages of: the article being reviewed, the article on the show, and the article that it would be redirected to saying that the articles are under review. What will it actually say?
  • We're just going to follow the process, minus the template, that we've used thus far.

Have I missed anything? I  (said) (did) 20:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, deletion review would just be another long, drawn out thing anyways. "What links here" is just for the instance of the template. Being redirected doesn't affect it. I think we're going with just a dated list or we're just taking the list and going down one by one unless someone wants to break off from it.
I'm pretty sure we're going with merge tags that link right to the discussion for the single articles instead. The rest of that seems fine. I would say we'll go with a modified version of the message template to notify them. TTN 20:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm taking the side of the concerned editors, just to try to keep things balanced. If we're going to review immediately we're going to have to be a lot more lenient when people come in and say "No wait, there is info just give me some time". With two weeks notice it was easy to say "well you didn't even try, come back later" but now I think if someone claims they can improve the articles we'll need to at least let them show us some links and have a go at it. Two days really isn't a lot of time to get an article up to snuff and I think with as many as there are to go through we can afford to say "well ok, we'll be back later". For example if something in the "A" section (or Charmed or Futurama to give some examples of those currently being worked) comes up and is stoutly defended and someone shows that they really are working at it (providing links and explaining their improvement plans) then would it really hurt to let it sit until we've gone through the rest of the alphabet and come back? The project would still be moving forward and if by the time we got back the article(s) was still crap there'd be no reason for someone to say there wasn't enough time. At least, that's how I would do it and I think it would save some of the big crazy edit wars until the project was better established and possiblly influence people to actually work on their articles if they saw it had an effect. I think we need to really work on the public image of this project because right now it's being cast in a pretty bad liight. That's my $0.02, take it as you will. Stardust8212 20:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(2xec)I pretty much agree with I's synopsis of the plan as well. Stardust8212 20:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
to Stardust-Well, the opposers shot down the notice, so they really cannot complain. But I think that part of the review process is deciding if the article can, or is becoming notable, not just if it is.
To TTN- So a merge tag, but where will it have a link to the discussion? Doesn't the template just link to the talk page, which is not where the discussion will take place? I  (said) (did) 20:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are extra parameters that can be filled in to link to a certain discussion ({{Mergeto|List|Talk:List#discussion|{{subst:DATE}}}}). TTN 20:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can it link to something not the talk page though? Or, rather, on the talk page where it links, would it have a "This page is currently being discussed for notability assertions. See [[Example]] to participate in the discussion." On the talk page? That might work, as it would kill two birds with one stone. I  (said) (did) 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can link anywhere. That is just an example. TTN 20:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. We should do that then. Any other comments on what I said? I  (said) (did) 20:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Star - I have no problem giving a bit more time than the 2 days, but in my opinion, they ruined their chances of getting 2 full weeks of prior notification of a review, plus the actual review time (not counting the amount of time it takes before we start the review). If someone comes to the discussion and says "hey, if you give me some time I'll find the sources for notability"...I say the response should be "ok, well give you ______ (set a time agreed on by everyone), but if you haven't by that time, then the responsible thing to do will be merge/redirect the article". If they don't show up to even ask for more time, then I take that as "silence=no objection" (per the merging criteria).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case people don't notice it, I have listed the series that were tagged and are now waiting to be reviewed. Add any I missed. TTN 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can close the KOTH epsiodes now. My suggestion is to tackle the That's So Raven and the rest of the KOTH episodes since we already started those series. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(jumping in to the discussion)The "screw them" (pardon my language, but that's how it reads) attitude peppered throughout the above discussion will only backfire badly. So would making any major decisions about this without a breather to calm down from the TfD decision. If the template was rejected, make a new one. Address the concerns from the TfD, modify the "notability" template to suit our prposes, and carry on. The guideline still outlines a two week period - the "death" of the template doesn't change that fact. --Ckatzchatspy 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't like the 2 week period, hence their dismantling of the template.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not just outright saying screw them either. If someone comes along and says they can fix the article up then we'll give them the time. If no one does, then they obviously don't care. I think we should extend the discussion time a little though. Since they don't have the 2weeks prior notice, we should extend the discussion to 4 or maybe 5days. Not every editor is on daily to check the articles. And not every editor was for deleting the template. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the concerns from the TFD were the two week period. They shot the template down, and therefore the 2 week period. Hence, reviews much earlier. I  (said) (did) 21:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion time should probably be based upon the status of the articles. I doubt anyone is going to mind if we redirect the Barney & Friends episodes right off the bat, but I'm sure the X-File editors would rather have a discussion. TTN 21:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)If anything, this should make us examine the mistakes we've made, rather than getting "revenge". The whole process was quite rushed, and we should have had a wide-scale community discussion about the proposal before putting it into use. (If I sound irked, apologies, but I'm really concerned about the omnipresent air of trying to ram this process through. Anyone who opposes the idea is dismissed, sometimes politely, sometimes not-so-politely.) --Ckatzchatspy 21:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also dislike this "us versus them" attitude. Wikipedia is supposed to be about consensus, etc. - all that stuff we like to tell others when describing the project. And yet, this whole process seems to be built on the idea that the existing guideline is it, final, end of story. "They" are wrong, wrong, wrong - there is no consideration that perhaps the community has changed, and might want a different approach. (I'm not saying it *has* changed - I don't know that, and neither does anyone else right now. All I'm saying is that we've never seriously considered the possibility.) --Ckatzchatspy 22:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you lend a hand out for discussion, to make sure people get a chance to voice their opinions, and it's slapped away, you tend not to lend your hand out any longer than is necessary. This entire time we've been bending to the will of those that want every episode of every television show to have its own article, yet want to do nothing about providing reliable sources that establish notability. I admit, the heat of the moment now is not helping the situation, but when you have someone like AngieY constantly embroiling editors in AN/I , trying to abolish the notability guideline altogether - see the talk page of WT:NN-, and canvassing wikipedia for "like-minded" editors to come vote "delete" on a TfD, it because a bit discouraging to want to continue to be "fair" (and by "fair" I mean give them more leniency then should be given when you consider how long these articles have been around for and never been touched as far as notability is concerned). Or others who demand consensus, but when you devise a plan so that that can take place they constantly undo any work done before and after, causing nothing but edit wars. The two week notice was to give people enough time to realize that a discussion was going to take place. Withouth the template, that two weeks is irrelevant now. Like I said, I don't have problem extending the review time itself, but not beyond a week (unless discussions are continuing to take place when the 7 days is up).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I go away to pack a few boxes and the world turns upside down! What a mess. But reading through the discussions, it seems that most support some action on TV episodes (including a significant number who thought they should be AfD'd.) Review can and should still take place, in similar fashion, we just need to choose or modify an existing template. A Man in Black provided one alternative at User:A Man In Black/epref as per discussion at deletion review, similar to {{unreferenced}}. Also, at the original TfD, Nabla modified the {{notability}} so: User:Nabla/Test. As these can be used to fulfil the same purpose (ie warning of a problem, categorising and dating [we can just go by date tagged, and not worry about staggered categorising]) and link to WP:EPISODE etc, then it seems a good compromise to work with one or the other. Daated tags still give warning: just do the oldest first. Remember, they recommend 7-10 days notice for merging, so this process is not too hasty. If anyone contests or reverts a reviewed article without legimate reason (ie, not recognising the legitimacy of debate and review), then seek an RfC or even test an AfD. But let's not rush things and spark more reactionary responses. Anyway, I shouldn't be here. (Ever paid for broadband in a house you're no longer living in, just so you can check wikipedia when you come to pack?) Gwinva 16:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know what we're doing with this yet? Are we going to be taking one of the proposed templates or are we just going to go with the merge templates or whatever we decide upon? TTN 21:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same question. I think a renewed template of some kind would be useful. Eusebeus 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just close the two discussions currently open, and then start on one of the series from the list TTN made. The only questions is how we're going to notify the three relevent pages. Are we just going to use a template or something? I  (said) (did) 00:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can go with the merge tags for now, I guess. TTN 00:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Btw, I tagged most of the episodes of Friends in Season 1. I don't recall seeing them on TTN's list. Eusebeus 10:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By CMBJ[edit]

I did however see quite a few articles tagged for notability review, but I'm not certain if they were tagged by this AFR project, or by a bot/admin/randomly/etc. I do not want to inhibit any of your efforts, but you must agree that it seems slightly strange from an observational point of view.   — C M B J   [Msg] 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this here since it was more discussing the process in general, not reviewing the KOTH articles. To answer your comment, we've merely not gotten around to reviewing the other ones. As for the tagging, it was just luck (or lack therof) that KotH was tagged and the articles you mentioned were not. We're not singling out any specific series, it just happened that way. I  (said) (did) 00:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As "I" said, when the template was in circulation we picked them as they dropped into the category. If they dropped in first it was because they just happened to be tagged first. The "large" list is only because it's all one series and if every article looks identical, it's easier to go through them together. Generally, we will point out specific articles that might have potential (which we did when you read our comments). But I can tell you that I read through each one of these articles. Strike that, I need to read the titles, as you mentioned KOTH, and I thought that was the list that was brought over (which was the list I meant when I said I read through them all). I haven't seen this list...it's new.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not singling KOTH episodes out. If you look in the archives we have 3 other series that were reviewed before KOTH, it just happens that currently only the KOTH episodes are being reviewed. We'll get to the rest of the episodes eventually, we have an extremely long list of episodes to do next. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note of CMBJ's page since I happened to be the one to tag the KOTH episodes. The gist of it (if anyone cares) is that I happened to come upon one episode of the series, and followed it to others for completeness. Hopefully, as everyone says here, no one thinks that one series is happening to be targeted, it's just how it was come upon. Phydend 01:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so what now?[edit]

Since the TfD discussion, not much has happened in the way of action or definitive discussion. I closed and redirected the first KotH batch, and am about to do to the second. However, I'm not really sure what the agreed upon template, guideline, etc. is now. What are people thinking? I  (said) (did) 03:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the process is finished. First they delete our template, now they have the entire page up for deletion. Might as well just stop then, people obviously don't want the reviews going on. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 13:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's enough people who only care about their precious episodes, and not about the integrity of this encyclopedia to simply put a "delete" on all the pages and get them deleted. You'll be forced to hold all discussions at those specific television shows, in which many of the editors will canvass with the usual "come save the episode articles" and you'll be outnumbered and the pages will stay. At least, that's the future I predict.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or we head back to the original method, which is to do all the redirecting with no consensus, as separate editors...How ridiculous.
It doesn't seem that there is a way to satisfy these editors as they are so confused as to what they actually want. They want to be notified that an episode will be deleted (which we don't even propose to do)/merged/redirected and then they delete the template which does the notifying. They complain about mass-redirections, so we devise a great process...and they delete the process...which takes us right back to the beginning.
I am sick of having to battle against disruptive editors like Matthew, who tries to find fault in everything. There's no good faith!
*Sigh*
Seraphim Whipp 14:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after reading the various deletion proposals, I think that these are the main problems people see.

  • Too bureaucratic
  • If we want to delete something, we should prod or AfD
  • Too complicated
  • Under the radar:
    • The actual page for reviewing
    • The discussion where this was decided
    • The guideline on Episodes and Reviewing

Have I missed anything? So, how can we work on this? I don't see how it's bureaucratic or complicated, since it's a two step process (or was, not so sure now). So, can that be pared down? The prod or AfD argument is seriously flawed, since the prod would be removed, and the AfD would probably be no consensus, or keep, and we would probably be called pointy for doing so many and clogging AfD up. Ironically, it's more under the radar now without the original template that linked to all relevant pages. The only thing that I don't know about, because I wasn't part of the discussion, was how the original discussion and resulting process(es) were advertised. Someone would have to fill me in on that. Those are my comments and opinions. It looks like we might end up having to just put a merge tag, and discuss on the talk page of the articles itself, although we would probably be out-consensussed, since the only people who would notice are people who violated policy and made the article to begin with. Oh well, we'll just cross that bridge when we come to it.

Its not fair! All of our hard work is being destroyed! It can't be deleted! We worked too hard! </sarcasm> I  (said) (did) 03:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also finding this whole thing very frustrating. Before we're even able to really reflect and improve on the review process, someone we would have done regardless of TfDs or MfDs, we're having to fight off those who feel threatened by the process. It's like building a sand castle and having some kid smash it, saying he's smashing it because it isn't a complete sand castle yet. Well, how the heck are we supposed to build a full one if every step we take someone is saying "this isn't perfect, so we should delete it completely".
And not to say I told you so, but this is why the DRV on the first template was so important. There was never a consensus to delete anything, which would allow us to keep going, but now editors like Matthew feel they have been validated in their views. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a very good point about people feeling validated in their opinions because of the not-decision to delete. I guess I never thought of it that way. And it's so hard to please people. If we do decide to redirect articles without discussion, like so many people have been saying, Matthew again will get everything worked up. I really don't know why people have a hard time with this, since technically we can redirect them, or even delete them, because of policy. Why don't people see this as a compromise?? I  (said) (did) 06:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review update[edit]

I've done some revisions to the review process that should address many concerns in the TfDs and MfD. For starters, the page has now been moved to Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review with Wikipedia:Television article review process moved to an instructions subpage and transcluded on the review page. Instructions could be cleaned up some more, but discussion themselves are now held on the talk page of a parent article, with a link to that discussion being listed on the review page. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 20:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One concern, though - by merging like this during a deletion process, have you now folded a page that was not under consideration for deletion in with the "at risk" MfD page? --Ckatzchatspy 09:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it doesn't really matter, since Matthew wouldv'e nominated that as well. Joking. Anyways. What page are you referring to? I  (said) (did) 09:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article review process, which was a completely separate page before - but now appears as content in the page up for deletion. I think this is a major concern, as it would in theory put the process at risk. --Ckatzchatspy 10:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the process is a sub-page, it is transcluded onto the page up for deletion - which has been rewritten as if it were a guideline, rather than a workspace. Editors joining the discussion will think they are deciding whether or not to delete the process, as opposed to the workspace that was nominated. If I'm misreading this, apologies - but it looks like a real problem. --Ckatzchatspy 11:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now confused, and as Ckatz above I am concerned people will now think the whole review process is up for deletion. I see what you're doing Ned, but wonder if we should have waited for the MfD to conclude, because now we risk mixing the process up with the review page. (ie. is the review page for deletion or the review process?) We preferred the discussion on neutral ground, and what if that was vindicated? I really shouldn't be here (addictive behaviour: I have this computer perched amongst packing boxes). I think we have received encouragement from a number of editors for what we have been trying to do. If we continue to hit a brick wall here ("under the radar" of everyone but the mud-slingers, it seems) then take the DISCUSSION to the village pump, and present the problems and worked solutions there in detail (rather than just the notification of these discussions Ned and I gave). Try and get some dialogue going in a central location. All the best. Gwinva 13:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably just ask an admin to close it for that reason. Though, I'm sure Matthew will just put this up for deletion, so if it is deleted now, I'm sure it will be deleted after (though a deletion review afterwards might see otherwise like with the template). TTN 13:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should have done this the other way around, and made the instructions the main page and the MFD'd list page simply transcluded within it. The thought had crossed my mind about possible confusion for what is actually up for MfD, but the more I think about it the more I'm starting to worry. Normally I wouldn't be worried, since it's obviously no consensus, but given the first TfD.. We likely should explain the situation to the village pump and to other places quickly. This whole time I've been expecting a flood of logical comments for the MfD, but as Gwinva has said, it's actually gone under the radar (ironic, given some of the rationales for deletion). Anyone of a rationale mind can see that these MfDs and TfDs are being filled with bad logic, ILIKEITs, and Wikilawyering, and we need to bring this all to light. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few tweaks to clearly separate the page up for deletion and the other material. See what you think. --Ckatzchatspy 01:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's probably best for now. -- Ned Scott 01:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unferenced episodes tag[edit]

Please take care when placing the {{unreferenced episode}} tag on articles. I've found several articles so far that have been tagged, but did in fact have secondary sources cited. Examples: Pilot (Lost) and Blink (Doctor Who). If there are concerns about a particular article my opinion is that the best approach is to discuss them specifically on the talk page (rather than indiscriminate "drive by" taggings). -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some digging, I realize that I may be off base here. It seems these may have been indiscriminately added in order to make a point by an editor opposed to the template. -- -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC?[edit]

Since in my opinion the deletion debates are becoming a set of the same arguments over and over again, maybe we should try an RfC. (I'm pretty sure that that would be an appropriate thing, but I'm not super familiar with it, so if it's not, just let me know) I think that if we initiated a discussion, it might be a more fair discussion. Especially if we can outline why the articles are a problem. That seems to be one of the biggest hurdles, and unless that is addressed, no matter how this is done, it will ultimately fail unless it can be shown why these articles do not follow policy. Any thoughts? I  (said) (did) 09:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am becoming tired of trying to keep up with all the scattered bits of this debate, so a high-profile discussion sounds like a good idea. Whoever makes the request gets to phrase the question, right? It seems to me that the core question is whether individual episodes of tv shows are notable merely by being an episode of a show. I've seen this asserted both ways and definitively sorting it would clarify the road ahead. One of the power writers should file it; I'll comment. --Jack Merridew 12:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too am getting irritated with making sure all of the various deletion debates are up to date (there are three, I believe) And I think that yes, this would be a good way to actually decide with consensus that the articles are not notable. And who would be a "power writer"? I  (said) (did) 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I meant "Not Me" — I seem to have wandered into this debate-in-progress and don't know the whole history. Some of the users I've noticed that seem to be on top of this issue are User:Ned Scott, User:TTN, User:Bignole, User:Gwinva, and User:A Man In Black - and yourself. I have not had any direct dialogue with half of these folks and have never done an RFC - looks like a ton of work which must keep the frivolous requests to a minimum.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 7#Template:Unreferenced episode
What's the third?
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 7#Category:Episode articles not asserting notability
(had lost track of that one) --Jack Merridew 08:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC might still be a good idea, even though the page didn't get deleted in the MfD. Most of the community still doesn't know about this process, and maybe we can get some constructive criticism and good ideas to improve things with. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • True, but it would be worthwhile publicising the any RfC in order to garner a wide range of opinions and thus legitimate to a degree any consensus discussion it generates. Eusebeus 09:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main benefit of an RfC, like you said, would be legitimizing anything that comes of it. We need the consensus to be to merge these episodes, or we can get nothing done. I  (said) (did) 15:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broaden the scope[edit]

I mentioned the idea at the MFD, and I figure I'll re-raise it here. The reshaping of AFD didn't go down too well, probably to great a leap for some, but what about a noticeboard for in universe articles? Would that help and prove a useful solution. We've got a lot of comics articles that are in universe too that we could probably pool our resources on. There's a noticeboard on Fringe Theories and Reliable Sources, and in my opinion the problems fiction articles face aren't too far from those two issues, and so I think they should be tackled in a similar manner. Maybe we should revamp and merge our notability guidance on fictional articles and the manual of style guidance into one page, Wikipedia:Articles on fiction, and then set up a notice board? All the guidance seems to be pulling in the same direction, it seems like the wider community is pulling that way. Thoughts? Hiding Talk 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat on the same idea, I was also thinking about your idea to broaden the scope, but in a slightly different way. Article series review. Episode articles, character articles, element articles, are all basically a part of an article series, and sometimes a list or split into individual pages. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not so good. And sometimes it's not about deletion or redirection, but just getting help on setting up an article series on fiction.
Both WP:WAF and WP:FICT have rewrites on the table. I think WP:WAF has already applied one to see how people like it. Not sure if we should merge the two, but the idea of having some kind of "glue" page(s) was brought up when talking about the rewrites. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see what you are saying, all I worry about is the lawyering you may get if you refer to it as Article series review, how many people would try the line that there article isn't within that remit as it's a standalone treatment. We certainly need somewhere where the wider community can get involved, just to settle these issues one way or the other. I think we need to broaden out this discussion, bring in other voices at the least, and work out how to implement the general idea, because it feels like there is a consensus for some sort of "glue". Hiding Talk 10:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the discussion in one place[edit]

There seems to be a lot of split discussion going on between here and Wikipedia talk:Television article review process. Let's discuss process there. heqs ·:. 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon complaining[edit]

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

Archive?[edit]

I suggest we archive this page. Also, it might be useful if we create a space (here on the talk page presumably) where discussion can focus on which future episode articles to bring forth for review. Thoughts? Eusebeus 20:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would refrain from archiing until it's decided what's going to happen. Currently, we're just reviewing them on the talk page of the LOE, but I'd still refrain. But if you' like to, there isn't a huge concern. i said 20:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

backlog[edit]

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

ANI again[edit]

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

Current status on categories?[edit]

Hi,

while working on the notability backlog, I occasionally run across episode articles that have been tagged with {{notability}} quite a while ago (>6 months). After sorting these - usually redirecting them to the show article or list of episodes, if no progress was made in half a year -, I sometimes tag the other episode articles of the same show or season, which typically have the same problems, with {{notability|episode}} for consistency. As of now, they are then included into the usual worklist of the Notability wikiproject.

Now some pages (like this one) suggest that a separate TV review process exists, based on Category:Episode articles not asserting notability. As of now, articles are not automatically moved there. Rather, the articles go to Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability, from where they are moved to the month-specific categories within a few hours, by a bot.

Do you really scan the month-specific categories right now? (They usually include 1000-2000 articles.) Or do you intend to do so? Should I add the episode articles manually to Category:Episode articles not asserting notability? Or should one edit the "notability" template so that it automatically puts the articles there, in addition to the usual categories? Technically that shold be easy to do, I think. --B. Wolterding 15:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that this category is periodicly cleaned. Most current episode sweeps are performed per series now, as a TV show that has some ep articles usually has articles for all episodes, and the notability for those episodes is either there or not there as a whole. So, if you come across a tagged ep article after such long time spans, you should check whether most other episodes of the series also have the nn tag. If yes, you can probably redirect all episodes to the List of XXX episodes article per WP:BOLD. If not, I'd just remove the tag and wait till the whole series is reviewed by this project. – sgeureka t•c 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, initally the category was populated by a template, since deleted. As far as I'm aware, the category is not used at all. It might be best to just delete it. i said 05:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine. (I'll leave it to you to remove the category once the 5 articles have been removed.) Is there a place where I can suggest TV shows for episode review? --B. Wolterding 08:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page (Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review) is already the right place to suggest other shows. But the current process is to not discuss what shows might have nn episode article, but just immediately merge-tag all episodes by yourself, make a note in the talk page of that list and leave the discussion open for several weeks to give fans a chance to prove the notability. But this is very controversial among fans of the particular shows; there is currently a thread at AN/I where this is discussed. If you are just a drive-by wikipedian and do not want to get under fire, just leave the episodes to the people who have been enforcing WP:EPISODE for a while. There are many shows to be reviewed, and probably all should be (except The Simpsons maybe). – sgeureka t•c 10:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes/Review&oldid=1136056343"