Talk:11 Years Later/Archive 1

Redirecting
Clearly, we're in disagreement here. I think the episode is individually notable, based on secondary coverage. I don't think redirecting is necessary when the article is appropriately tagged. If you want to go the AfD route, you can, but I think the article would be kept, and we should encourage its expansion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Done the AFD, as I don't believe you understand what the meaning and importance of tags on the article, or the standard of the Television WikiProject. --  Alex TW 05:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because "the standard of the Television WikiProject" can override a community-wide consensus? And what is your "understand[ing] [of] the meaning and importance of tags on the article", taking into account that all plot is classified as a style tag? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC) cc:
 * Are you quoting local consensus? Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. State to me 1) how the article meets the WP:GNG, and 2) why we're discussing this in three places. --  Alex TW 08:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Did I address broader notability requirements here? I was addressing your asserting that "the standard of the Television WikiProject" is relevant here – an assertion you have not substantiated – when your understanding of said standard contradicts community-wide consensus that start-class articles are perfectly acceptable. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The article was kept. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Tag
So we're not edit warring, can you please explain why you think a notability tag is required when we already had a notability discussion and this article was kept? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The deletion request was because it was entirely plot, and the discussion was closed because this no longer applied as it had a reception section. It wasn't closed because of any discussion about notability, and several editors brought up the issue of its notability, so there is no consensus that it is notable. --  Alex TW 08:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about, but I think the three existing tags should be sufficient for encouraging editors to expand and improve the article. The notability tag is excessive and inappropriate, given the AfD discussion, so please do not add the tag back. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean it's not appropriate based on your opinion. Given the AFD discussion, multiple editors have an issue with its notability. --  Alex TW 01:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, but there are dissenting editors in most AfD discussions. That doesn't mean we ignore consensus to keep the article and keep notability tags on the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus was to keep the article based on it no longer being all plot. There was no consensus about the notability, there was actually more worrying about it than those that thought it was notable. Hence, tag. --  Alex TW 01:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I give up. I'll let other editors worry about this from now on. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have no further arguments, then, I will re-add the tag. --  Alex TW 01:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, can we have a third person weigh in on the discussion? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Since you closed the AfD discussion, can you help determine whether or not it is appropriate for this article to have a notability tag? Thanks. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on this edit, I'll take that as a 'no'. Thank you. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The subject was determined to be notable at AfD; most of the deletion rationales never even questioned its notability, instead pointing to editorial concerns, and some even stated that an article was possible. Since those concerns were met through, well, editing, there was no need for a redirect or move to draft or whatever. Note that notability relies on the existence of sources in general; they don't have to be in the article. ansh 666 03:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleting all of the tags with no constructive edit summary can be viewed as disruptive and in bad faith, and will continue to be until they are restored. Explain your removal of all of them. The plot is too long per WP:TVPLOT; the lead is far too short with its two sentences; the article is clearly incomplete with the work still being done on it; the notability was definitely an editor concern, and should remain until we're definite that an article can be created on it, not just "possible". --  Alex TW 03:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll accept that the plot summary is too long, you can put that back. The lead is generally on par with other TV episode articles; notability concern has been met at AfD, and incomplete is only for articles that, say, cut off mid-paragraph or something like that. What's so indefinite that an article can be created on this? We're on its talk page right now. ansh 666 03:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHER is not a sufficient argument. Simply because other television articles have short leads, doesn't mean this one should too. In fact, the others with short leads should be tagged too. Nothing's indefinite about it, but the AFD was closed two days ago - if specific editors had really wanted this to be an article, they would have expanded upon it by now. Yes, there's no deadline, but there's also no reason to dawdle. --  Alex TW 03:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * *smh* For the record, I'm also fine with the plot tag being added back. My main concern was removing the notability tag. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then we gain a consensus for the notability tag and add the rest back in. --  Alex TW 03:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added back the plot tag. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with ansh666 -- the other tags are not necessary. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Explain? Is the lead sufficient? Is the article complete? --  Alex TW 03:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest we all move on and find other ways to improve Wikipedia. If you want to spend time getting consensus to add a couple tags to an article, by all means, but right now you're ignoring consensus and we're all wasting way too much time. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So, effectively, you are trying to dodge any argument or issue presented to you, and have your version of the article presented above all others. If you've nothing further to add, then yes, the tags will be re-added. --  Alex TW 03:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe you understand what discussion here on Wikipedia means. You do not WP:OWN this article: you don't get to say "right, we're finished up here", while adding no further discussion, compromise or conclusion, and then present it as if you "won" the conversation and remove the tags, again with no further contribution here as you do so. Now that you have basically wrapped up and ended the above discussion at your own free will, it's now up to you to gain consensus to not tag the article through a new discussion. --  Alex TW 08:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I give up dealing with Alex. If you want to take further action, please feel free. We're all wasting way too much time here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bother, but I am pinging all who participated in the AfD discussion. User:AlexTheWhovian and I disagree about which tags are necessary for this article, if any. I need to move on from this discussion, but I invite any of you to weigh in. Thanks, -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping. I believe that the tags are suitable for the article. The plot summary is too long and the article is not fully complete (as it is missing key section on the episode's production and broadcast history). The lead could use more work, but that should be expanded and revised if/when the rest of the article is worked on further. Hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So, we should keep the lead tag even though no further expansion is really necessary until after the article is further expanded? This does not seem like a reason to keep the tag, but thanks for contributing to this discussion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. I could see the lead tag being removed, but I understand the use of the other two tags. Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I also believe the tags are appropriate. The plot is still too long, the lead could be expanded even now and the article is definitely incomplete. As has been stated, a plot and a reception section does not an article make. The fact that such an allegedly notable episode does not have anything else only serves to question the notability further. Today, every episode gets a recap article by every man and his dog. If we use those to claim notability then every TV episode made could be claimed to be notable. The issue is really one of enduring notability. Beyond the recaps, what has the coverage been? Apparently, none. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that there has been more coverage beyond just recaps. There is information out there on the episode's reception and the production (especially considering that it is the first episode in the reboot). The real question should be about who will take on the responsibility to expand the article further? I understand the argument behind the following statement (Today, every episode gets a recap article by every man and his dog. If we use those to claim notability then every TV episode made could be claimed to be notable), but there appears to be enough evidence to support the notability of the episode (as argued in the AfD). The article just needs work, plain and simple. The tags are useful as they allow users/contributors to understand where they can start with the article expansion and improvements. Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I also find that all three tags are appropriate. The plot is double the accepted length, the article is far from complete and the lead could easily be expanded despite the article not being complete (ex. mentioning the writers and director of episode, starring cast, short 1-2 sentence of premise/plot of episode, critical response, etc.) - Brojam (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Forget the tags, fix the article.
The article nominated at AfD failed What_Wikipedia_is_not#1. Aka NOTPLOT. It was not an acceptable article. As a mere summary of the original work, and a lengthy one at that, it was a copyright infringement as a derivative work. To get around that problem, I believe that a summary section should be no larger than 20% of the article.

How_to_write_a_plot_summary, pointing to Manual_of_Style/Television gives clear guideance. "'Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words.'" The plot section currently has 809 words. It needs to be reduced to less than half.

I find the guidance to be offering good advice. The currently plot summary recounts fine details without a sense of the bigger picture. I am not familiar with the series, but I would suggest cutting the first paragraph (67 words, many very unimportant) to "Will Truman (Eric McCormack) daydreams of alternative possibilities of marriages and children."

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that working on the "Plot" section would probably be the best place to start. I would offer to help, but I am busy with off-Wikipedia projects and I am trying to limit my time on here. I am also completely unfamiliar with the show (both old episodes and the new episodes). Good luck to everyone working on this though! Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)