Wikipedia talk:Television article review process

Template Deleted
The template was deleted. It doesn't really matter to us, since all of the pages were still added to the category. No one has objected to the review on the talk page, so I would suggest going full speed ahead with the reviews. i (said)  (did) 05:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. And while it doesn't have a category function (yet), we do still have . -- Ned Scott 05:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't kid yourself - there were a lot of objections. Just because they weren't in a specific spot, we cannot claim that the process is being received with widespread approval. I think there is an obligation to stick to the time frame, process, and everything else that has been developed so far. The deletion of the template does not equate to a license to go "full speed ahead with the reviews". --Ckatz chat spy  06:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, people suggested we just do it on the talk page, which is what we have been doing, and are doing now. i  (said)  (did) 06:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict] I would not exactly say nobody oppose the process. I do not support it, (nor do I oppose it — there are a lot of episode articles that are mere plot summaries, see WP:NOT) but will see what happens during the trial period. I think the criteria need to be much more specific, see my talk above, or at WT:EPISODE.
 * As such I rather the articles be reviewed on grounds of WP:NOT, which clearly states what should not be in Wikipedia, rather than a guideline that says what should be in Wikipedia.
 * Regards, G.A.S 06:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, people opposed the process, and it has for all intents and purposes been removed. Currently we are just discussing them on the talk page of the article they would be merged to, which is process that was already established. i  (said)  (did) 06:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that a negative guideline is much easier to enforce, such as many successful AFD's and AFD nominations would show. G.A.S 06:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A negative guideline?? I think I get what you mean. A guideline that says what should not happen, as opposed to what should? Well, we're enforcing WP:EPISODE which is a proxy for other guidelines, that says what cannot be in WP. i  (said)  (did) 06:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's kind of where the idea of notability came up for this process. If an article lacked a potential to have anything more than plot, then it wasn't likely notable, thus all those articles with just plot could be dealt with. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I fear that the notability criteria may disqualify articles that may otherwise be good, i.e. which are not limited to plot content, but contains an analysis of the episode, significance in the show, etc. Please note that I have not looked at currents episode discussions, so I might be understanding this the wrong way.
 * WP:EPISODE may be a proxy, but it focuses on what should be in WP, with a short mentioning what should not be. ("Things to avoid"). In my opinion this section should be expanded first, as that would provide a strong basis for the process. However; WP:NOT already has this criteria. Why not just skip the middle man? G.A.S 06:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)If the notability criteria disqualify an article from existing, then it should not exist. Proxy isn't a good word necessarily, WP:EPISODE is a compilation of several guidelines and policies, and applies them specifically to episode articles. I don't understand why the focus should be on what to avoid (since that would probably violate some form of good faith or civility) instead of what the guidelines for inclusion are, and how to write a good article. The "How to write a good season or episode page" is what this guideline should be focused on, since there are no new rules on what should not be in an article. WP:PLOT is a reasoning for what shouldn't be included. i (said)  (did) 06:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For WP:EPISODE the positive aspect is crucial, but having the what the articles should not be part would help editors by showing that articles have a minimum standard that is expected (at least in the long term).
 * RE: WP:PLOT is a reasoning for what shouldn't be included.
 * As such, the review process should measure episodes against what Wikipedia is not. This is much clearer, and would get rid of the majority of problem articles.
 * Notability (or lack thereof) is fine, I guess, but could be difficult to establish, especially by someone unfamiliar with the series.
 * Regards G.A.S 07:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm. Well, maybe you should look at some of the reviews? They're pretty much all not-notable, and that is why they are being redirected. The reviews generally say that.
 * And I don't particularly thing that a "What the articles should not be" section is needed. A lot of the discussion on what is required to be an article can logically be an assertion that the opposite is not. I would think? If it's not clear, then you can fix it. i  (said)  (did) 07:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a look at one or two affected articles. It seems to me that, except for the infobox, they are mere plot (WP:PLOT) summaries, with or without trivia. (WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA).
 * The assertion is correct, if you look at it black and white, the problem is the huge gray area. What an article should be, sets the desired standard, what it should not be, sets the minimum.
 * Secondly, if this were an AFD, the articles would be measured against multiple criteria, notability being one, WP:NOT being another. In my opinion, WP:NOT carries a lot more weight.
 * Regards, G.A.S 07:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll just have to disagree with you on the what should not be section, because I don't see a need to focus on that. But I'm just one editor and this is a wiki. As to the AfD, if it violates any policy guideline, it would be deleted. If we choose to redirect it based on notability issues, then that's fine. If we choose to on plot issues, then that works too. i  (said)  (did) 07:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have migrated instances of the template to. This removed the 'deprecated' notice which I feel had an implication that the review process was also deprecated.

I showed up for this a bit later than some others. I've tried to catch-up on the older discussions, but they are many and scattered. As I see it, the issue with the deleted template was that it was too-fast-a-track. The review process is tedious. The clean-up process is more than tedious. Editors of the recent shows have not participated in the reviews much despite the notices plastered on a lot of talk pages. I believe that most of the editors of the episode pages do not read talk pages; they've just watched the show and want to add some detail to the article.

I have done a number of the redirects after reviews. I've noticed that a number of the LOE pages had the links restored but that uninvolved editors have often take care of reverting. I infer from this that there is respect for the review process out there, and that once a review is done, the lid will stay in place on blocks of episode articles.

I continue to see more evidence of the extent of the episode article problem; shows I've never heard of, networks I've never heard of. I believe that if all shows from all over the world from the entire television era had an article for every episode that we would be looking at a number on the order of a million. We do need a faster process and people need to see the depth of the problem. --Jack Merridew 08:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we could have more than the ~5 reviews we have now going at once. I agree this will never get done at this rate. i  (said)  (did) 08:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * how about:
 * List of The Simple Life episodes
 * List of Charmed episodes
 * List of Star Trek episodes (something like 600 episodes)
 * To deal with more than a few reviews at once will require more editors!
 * Also: could someone put the discussion closed tags on Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes? I tried to close the discussion, but had trouble because the blocks were nested (I think). --Jack Merridew 09:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't dare go after the Star Trek articles until this is established. I would suggest we rewrite the entire series of pages about this process, and prepare something that we can take to the community to get approved. If, hopefully, that gets approved, then we can go from there. i  (said)  (did) 09:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be right that popular well-defended stuff should survive until the process is better developed. --Jack Merridew 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * List of Drake & Josh episodes
 * List of Kim Possible episodes


 * My opinion is if there are a lot of editors that "defends" an such series (eg Star Trek), it would be better if left alone. Permanently. Such articles would probably survive AFD anyway. (Even if the request is merge to list.) Unless it clearly violates copyright etc. There are enough terribly short articles to keep the taskforce busy for a long time. G.A.S 15:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I mentioned Star Trek because there seem to articles on every single episode of something like 6 different incarnations. The few I looked at had only startrek.com and memory-alpha sources. I assumed that they would be well-defended because, well, trekies have a reputation. I also think that if this process is going to get anything done, it has to face hard resistance (and overcome it). (And I agree the time is not now.) A vigorous defense alone should not give a block of episodes a pass; such a review might well help define the line between the sort of shows whose episodes should be on wikipedia and the shows that should not be here. p.s. I hate the term ‘taskforce’ in this context — wrong metaphor, entirely. --Jack Merridew 11:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While I can see the problem with some series; trying to get rid of well known series' episodes' articles will do more harm than good.
 * Second, see below; using the merge process should provide rather good results for most series. (IE tag all episode articles, link it the destination talk page, if there is no reply, or consensus to move it in say a week, move and redirect it, if not, the discussion should continue, or said articles should be nominated at proposed mergers, where an independent Wikipedian can decide on it. That is why that page exists.
 * Thirdly, AFD is in my opinion the only way to get rid of articles where the merge suggestion fails as it provides an 'independent process and a broad coverage by the community, and shows real consensus. (Even if the AFD request would be to redirect — if it fails, then it was determined so by consensus, if it succeeds, ditto.) Following process is important.
 * The process page should be rewritten as an essay to provide guidance on the above. See BIGNOLE's last reply in the next section.
 * Sincerely, G.A.S 12:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just want to point out, the whole idea of asserting notability is because casual readers (which is who all articles must be written for), don't know what episodes of any series are "well known". I don't know "well known" Star Trek articles. They may be well known to the fans, but not to the casual reader.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been looking at the star trek articles and found this:
 * Articles for deletion/Admiral (Star Trek) and about a dozen other star trek-specific ranks (???). Maybe AfD is a better process. --Jack Merridew 13:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes
Following prior discussions above, I recommend the following changes to the the process page. I am of the opinion that this will improve the credibility of the process, as well as the efficiency of individual discussions.
 * Write a proper lead section; the current one provides some background information and this should rather exist in the first section after the lead. The background information should be expanded with all relevant policies and guidelines in bullet format.
 * The process/background should also refer to WP:NOT as this provides a clear guideline as to what should not be in Wikipedia, this is usually strong grounds for deleting/redirecting such articles.
 * Articles should be reviewed in accordance with WP:NN and WP:NOT, with the focus being on articles that fails both criteria.
 * The current process tries to obtain authority on grounds of WP:EPISODE. This is not good enough, since WP:EPISODE is already a summary of other pages.
 * The process should obtain its authority from multiple roots and may refer how it applies to episodes by referring to WP:EPISODE.
 * The process should explain how it applies to episodes by referring to WP:EPISODE, and the specific guidelines in there; as this would help to show how articles should be (able to be) improve(d) to result in a keep decision. With that I mean that the process should explain how following the guidelines in WP:EPISODE protects the article against WP:NOT and WP:NN.

G.A.S 08:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that this page should really only talk about the process, not why the process exists, or how to judge. That is the job of WP:EPISODE. I agree that it should be clear that WP:EPISODE is the source for this. Go ahead and fix it. I would disagree that articles need fail both WP:NN and WP:PLOT. Only one is sufficient. If you wish to make changes about what gives WP:EPISODE it's authority, then changes should be discussed there. This is really only about the process. Which is borderline redundant now. i  (said)  (did) 08:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, but the above was stated for the record.
 * The reason for the lead, was that it should explain the process for someone that does not want to read through the complete process. Even WP:DELPRO has a proper lead. Would anyone mind my adding it?
 * The reason for the background was that this would give editors affected by the review process, a complete background for the reasons thereof. But this is not that important.
 * As for the other stuff, it is fine if it goes into WP:EPISODE
 * The following should also be in the process. (From Deletion process)
 * People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. To do so presents a conflict of interest.
 * G.A.S 09:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and add. If someone dislikes, they can just change. Ooh. Thats an interesting point. There isn't a problem except that there isn't an abundance of editors who are interested enough in this to close it. But that doesn't change it, I suppose. Thats something that should be addressed. i  (said)  (did) 09:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for bolstering the justification for clearing-out these episodes. And I would welcome uninvolved parties who would take over the responsibility of closing these discussions. I've 'closed' several because the discussion had petered out and the articles had not been improved. --Jack Merridew 09:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that this process is an attempt to have an accelerated deletion process. (With the alternatives usually associated with it — the most common in this case being redirect.) This appears to be an attempt to circumvent established procedures and policies. As such, should the deletion process not be followed instead, it may prevent a lot of problems in the long run. Multiple articles may be nominated in one go. Regards G.A.S 09:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I happened along a guideline that I agree with. From my reading of the prior discussions it seems that deletion processes have been tried. This process is not about deletion, it is about redirecting articles that fail to establish notability. If the someone finds a source that establishes notability at some later date, they can resurrect the episode article and add their source to it.


 * I'm a bit put-off by your apparent change of tone from your comments prior to the one immediately above. Is this because you were replying to specifically to me? I am also curious about the edit summary you used; A spanner in the works diff. This could refer to this process, which you've made some reasonable proposals to adjust, but it might also refer to me or my actions. I'll gladly hold-off a while if you feel I've crossed a line. --Jack Merridew 10:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing is being deleted. And as it is now, there are no new processes, the merges are being discussed where they should be. Nothing new. i  (said)  (did) 10:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Redirect = delete; unless the complete content is merged into a new article. (Infobox aside)
 * 2) There is a fine line between the proposed process and it being a quick replacement for AFD; and it should not be crossed.
 * Regards, G.A.S 10:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect does not equal delete, the content can be retrieved. If you read the process as it is currently, all that is being done is discussing it on the talk page. No deadlines, no out of the way discussion. Everything people opposed has been stripped. Really, all that is being done is proposing a merge. Without the tags. I guess the tags could be placed. i  (said)  (did) 10:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if one chooses to view this as a semi-delete, it's a process where any user, even an anon, can undelete, at any time. No DRV, no big fuss, just a simple revert, and the entire article is back. It is no more a "deletion" than removing a section of an article, because anyone can restore it. If someone feels the review discussion was flawed, or missed a detail that someone found out later on, it all can be fixed without administrator action. -- Ned Scott 19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Placing the tags might be better, as the editors will actually read them (Which I guess is a problem at the moment). Maybe WP:TW can be used for that, or WP:AWB. I am quite happy if this is how the process is; but the process page does not reflect it like that yet. Regards, G.A.S 11:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * RE: Jack
 * Spanner in the works referred specifically to placing harsh criticism to using this process as an alternative to AFD. Even though redirecting is easier to undo (by non-sysops), the result is in both cases the same: The article is for all means gone.
 * Also: What is to keep someone from undoing it each time?
 * I am unsure why you though that this applied to you personally.
 * Secondly, I am all for getting rid of a lot of the separate articles; but I think that this can actually be done using the merge-to and merge-from templates, that has a link to the appropriate talk page, see above.
 * Thirdly, if the deletion process has been tried, and failed; using the merge procedure, as such, seems logical to me; a centralised page may be useful, but I do not think it requires a new process. There are already established processes.
 * Your thoughts?
 * Regards, G.A.S 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, as others have said, that this is ‘deletion’, and nothing prevents even an anon from resurrecting and episode article that has been redirected. If the merely revert, I would probably just restore the redirect; if they added something (like a source), I would certainly consider it. I comment, above somewhere - I think, that I've seen uninvolved editors reverting such resurrections and I infer implicit support for this process from their actions. I asked if you were specifically reacting to me in order to clear the air. I have closed reviews I commented on, and so far I've been in favor of redirecting most episode articles. You had just commented on this very issue. Anyway, someone has to close'em. As to the need for a new process, I do feel that one is needed. There are so many crappy little articles out there — not just episode articles. --Jack Merridew 12:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That is why this would work better as an essay than any sort of guideline or policy. An essay with consensus to include it as a link on other appropriate guidelines, but still as an essay. It's also good to have a place to keep a record of outcomes, and have a centralized location where you can always know where to look for any current discussions.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It being rewritten as an essay is probably the best idea thus far. Well done!
 * Jack - sorry for the late reply, I did not see your post earlier. G.A.S 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Process
BIGNOLE and I have suggested above that this rather be rewritten as an essay, as that will provide guidance on the normal processes to follow in case of non-notable episode articles and/or character articles.

This would be available from the WP:EPISODE guideline page and would serve the following purposes.
 * Prevent edit wars (I hope) between someone that decides an article is not notable and redirects it immediately, and the normal editors.
 * Establish whether the community thinks an article should continue to exist in its current form.
 * Clear up such articles that are really not worth keeping.
 * While using established procedures.
 * See also Conflict_of_interest.

Regards, G.A.S 16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why as an essay? I've always thought of this like a form of peer review, and Peer review has no tag like essay or guideline. It's just one possible tool, or a how-to. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Three reasons, actually:
 * Many editors are not aware of the exact processes to follow if they come across articles like that. An essay would summarise the available procedures that are available, and someone would not have to read through all of the separate processes. However; if the person wants to follow another official process, that too is fine.
 * The ultimate goal is to remove/merge a lot of the non-notable articles into lists. There are processes for that. I would like to focus your attention to Process is important.
 * This goal is in direct contrast to that of Peer review. Wikipedia's Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. The goal is to advise the readers as to how an article can be improved. Those suggestions may or may not be followed, but usually will be followed to improve an article to FA status.
 * Regards, G.A.S 07:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Essay
The following should exist in such an essay:
 * The location of the centralised page for the process. It may exist in WP namespace or the user namespace.

The following should be mentioned:
 * Etiquette — Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle should be followed. (This goes for new text — but I think it is equally applicable to articles)
 * The Golden Rule — treat others as you would like to be treated.

In case of short and not-noteworthy articles, such articles may qualify for merging to a single page.
 * WP:MERGE could be used to clear up such articles, and the process to use should be mentioned:
 * Tag the articles with LIST PAGE
 * This should appear as [[Image:Merge-arrows.gif|left]] It has been suggested that this or section be merged with LIST PAGE. (Discuss)
 * Tag the list page with EPISODE PAGE ONE, EPISODE PAGE TWO, EPISODE PAGE THREE, etc
 * This should appear as [[Image:Mergefrom.gif|left]] It has been suggested that EPISODE PAGE ONE, EPISODE PAGE TWO, EPISODE PAGE THREE, etc be merged into this article or section. (|Discuss)
 * After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page. You may be able to invoke a response by contacting some of the major or most-recent contributors via their respective talk-pages. If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus or silence, proceed with the merger.
 * If you are unable to merge the pages, or you believe that the merger may be controversial, you might want to add a listing to Proposed mergers.
 * Then the content of WP:MERGE and WP:MERGE or a link thereto.
 * [UPDATE] As it is unlikely that a person would search for the episode or article without knowing the context, citation tags should be used to redirect to the specific episode or character in the target list. Eg.  in the list and #REDIRECT LIST on the redirect page.
 * People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. To do so presents a conflict of interest.
 * The above should be able to clear out most of the 2-3 paragraph episode articles out there.

In the case of really new articles, or really not noteworthy, such articles may qualify for deletion.
 * Proposed deletion — This process should only be used for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the encyclopedia but do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. It should also list the procedures of Proposed_deletion or link thereto.
 * If there are any objections such a case the normal deletion process should follow.

(I am afraid that if the above procedures are not followed, the process may turn out to be a Witch-hunt which will have extremely negative repercussions.)

Sincerely, G.A.S 16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm. I don't particularly feel a need for this to be an essay, but I dont really care one way or the other. There are only a few issues I see with the above. First, on the page they would be merged to, is it practical to list every single article that would be merged? Its often 20+, and I think that listing them all would take up vast amounts of space. Instead, maybe a link to the talk page where the articles are listed. Secondly, the archiving. Recently, we've been archving them in the archives of WP:TV-REVIEW page. That would be a more centralized place to archive, but I dont really know if its a huge deal. And finally, finding someone else to close the discussion. I don't know where we could find someone, and then have them be willing to do all of the actual merging. i  (said)  (did) 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What I did put the "merge" tag on a couple from each season of Smallville, and then explicitly state on the talk page that it was a discussion about all the episode. You can link all of them if you like, or just say "see the front page with all the links to view each episode". Some shows would get a little cumbersome to list and link that many episodes.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)


 * I thought of of that. If the merging is mentioned at Proposed mergers, maybe that admin will close the discussion. If there is no objections, no close is necessary, as all of the steps have been followed. As for archives, I believe WP:MERGE applies. I do not think the same person that closes the discussion needs to merge it personally (Whomever actually merges the content needs to read up on WP:MERGE again, though). A central page with list of archives may help, but I do not think it is necessary, as the targets' talk pages would have the discussion. As for adding the template, I believe WP:AWB could be used. I believe the mergefrom tag could be edited to read "the individual articles" on the list of page and the list be should be provided on the talk page. (If needed, copy the list from the article and put it in a collapsible box) If I missed a question, just remind me; I think I answered all of them. Sincerely, G.A.S 21:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess if there isnt a centralized place for discussion, then there is no need for a centralized archive. As for carrying out the merging, who does it? Previously it's been the person who has closed the discussion. i  (said)  (did) 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone may merge the articles, either the nominator, the closer, the normal editors or anyone that took part in the discussion. In order of preference: E, N, C, A. G.A.S 04:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to set something up like this, ok, but that's not really the direction this should go in. For the vast majority of these articles, there is nothing worth merging. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And in such a case there should be little reason to worry that Proposed deletion would be contested, or that such a merge would be opposed.
 * I have added a new step above, see [update] above
 * A new talk page category, such as Proposed episode articles for merger to episode list may be useful to keep track of this.
 * Regards, G.A.S 07:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested essay
The essay has been moved to User:G.A.S/Managing_related_non-notable_articles.

Comment to the above essay
Any suggestion to the above would be welcome. My opinion is that the above essay should replace the current review process. Regards, G.A.S 14:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I dont particularly see a need for it to exist as an essay. As a matter of fact, I don't think it really needs to exist at all. As of now, the original process has been totally scrapped, and the process proposed is nothing new. It's just another description on how to merge things. We could get, but I would rather there be a uniform proposal/essay/guideline decided on before doing so. The only thing that, as of now, in my opinion is worth keeping would be a noticeboard of some type. One that just lists everything under review, so people can know what's going on. Other than that, this proposal/essay/guideline in its current form is redundant. For the record, I still support the original process. i said 20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem: a noticeboard makes a lot of sense. The above is just a summary of the alternatives. It serves the mere purpose of putting all of the options on the table and letting the editor know what he/she can do about problematic article without having to read through all of the seperate processes' documentation. (And at the same time try to obtain quick results: There are no waiting period before the discussion starts, and the other editor knows from the start what the proposed solution is.) Regards, G.A.S 21:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the essay could be placed on the noticeboard, no need for it to be seperate. I'm not sure what enclosed comment means. i said 22:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With that I referred to the current process's 14 day period. A suggestion regarding the noticeboard - ideally problematic shows could be added there with a suggested action, like a reminder list. Ideally the essay and noticebord should be split, but the one could still be transcluded onto the other. See User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse for an example of what I think the noticeboard should look like. Regards, G.A.S 23:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, technically the template that gave it a fourteen day period is deprecated, there is nothing adding things to the category, so that is irrelevant. And the noticeboard, I would think, would just have the essay, and a list of current discussions. The discussion cannot take place on the noticeboard, otherwise people pitch a fit. Again, I dont see why it is neccesary for it to be seperate at all. It says nothing new, so there is no need for it to be seperate, even transcluded. i said 00:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is acceptable to me, although I think essays are normally seperate from things like noticeboards. Secondly; I think essays are normally a few editors' view on guidelines and procedures, and is not supposed to say anything new, see WP:IAR and the corresponding essay What "Ignore all rules" means, or any of the other essays. Regards, G.A.S 06:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

← Well it could be taken out of essay form, since, as best I can tell, there is nothing in it that is not already a policy or guideline. Unless I missed something? i said 06:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, it is more a type of implementation guide. Only the introduction is actually new, the rest is an explanation of how the other policies/processes/guidelines apply to/can be applied to problematic articles. Regards, G.A.S 09:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that this essay should be adopted as a replacement for the current process. It overstates the opposition and edit warring related to the current process which it summarily relegates to the past. You are, of course, free to put this out there as an essay, but I doubt that it will be under the auspices of this group — and would strongly suggest that you not refer to this as a deprecated process. Some of the points are valid, as User:I comments; a noticeboard could be useful, and merging is simply another already established process that is always available. And some of the description of the process does need updating. --Jack Merridew 09:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The edit warring is the main problem of the current process, as is the opposition thereto. While I think that a process of some sort is usefull, I think it could work good enough, for the time being, as an informal process. An essay/implimentation guide provides a guidance for such a process, as there is nothing new about it. If anybody has a problem with it, they have to modify the actual process (Eg Merge/AFD), which is unlikely too happen, as they have broad concensus.
 * Why would you say an official process is required? Should a new process not be suggested on the village pump (or something?) first to ascertain if it has the support of the community?
 * My point is I think a single editor can likely decide to recommend merging etc. It will be much faster than the process as documented, and it would not involve a lot of editors with similar views teaming up on the other editors, just to recommend merging anyway. As such I feel that it could cover a lot more problematic articles in a shorter time, as there is no discussion involved to decide on the action required.
 * A centralised noticeboard, like this one could help coordinating the process. Columns such as the series name, list of article, number of episodes and average length and recommended action could be used.
 * Regards, G.A.S 12:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been there a lot and while there is some edit warring, it is mostly minor; children, I expect, missing their chat room. Look at List of Zoey 101 episodes; no one's tried to bring those episode articles back since I redirected them about four days ago (or 20 to 1 done yesterday).
 * I didn't say an official process was needed; this is quite informal. What we are doing really just falls under talk page guidelines at this point. I believe this is why Ned started having these discussions on the LOE talk pages. As to merging, I mostly don't see the plot summaries as worth merging and that's mostly what these episode articles are; the trivia sections are even less merge-worthy.
 * I looked at the noticeboard you linked to and cringed. If a list of lame episode articles turns out to be anything like that long... we're going to need a bigger hammer. Which gets me to your point about shorter time; this does need to ramp-up because I expect that new episode articles are appearing faster than people are doing something about them. --Jack Merridew 12:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My point exactly. So what is your recommendation then? Mine is to put the essay in the open, or in userspace, and to create the noticeboard. Redirect is still an option, and the circumstances in which it is deemed appropriate should be added to the essay. But if it is reverted, it should be explained; preferably on the appropriate talk pages and in comment on the redirect page. G.A.S 13:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Two points, and I'm done for today. I wouldn't mind seeing an adjustment to your essay that outlines when you feel redirection is appropriate. And I would like to see more participation by editors 'in the middle' — who have no problem doing something about a non-notable episode article but who also are game for finding those elusive RS that solidly establish notability.


 * As I see it, most shows should end their wiki-coverage with a brief plot summary in a LOE article; the same goes for minor characters and animals. I really would like to see some solid numbers on how many shows, episodes, etc there are and what they all multiply up to. --Jack Merridew
 * Maybe a few such series' episodes should be nominated for AfD. It may make editors more aware of the problem, and make others more hesitant to create such articles. It will also help define criteria for redirect. See Articles for deletion/Zergling for a similar type of AfD. It may yet create a precedent. Maybe next time the redirects are reverted? Regards G.A.S 13:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

← The essay says the redirecting should only be used in the most dire circumstances, technically after merging an article is redirected. But I agree with Jack that a lot of these do not have much to merge. That is mere formality, we can still use the merge process. I still oppose the essay being seperate, since there is no need for it to be, but it is not a big deal, so long as it is transcluded onto the noticeboard. As for the AfD, several have been, and there hasnt really been a consensus about anything. i said 20:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break: Comment to the above essay

 * Agreed.
 * According to WP:REDIRECT redirects are used for:
 * Category:Redirects to list entries: Too short for own article
 * List entry or Section
 * Renamings and merges
 * Duplicate articles
 * See Template_messages/Redirect_pages for a more comprehensive list.
 * It is my opinion that most of the episode articles should fall in one of the above categories, especially the merge category, even if it is a formality.
 * I will have to look for previous AfDs it may also provide guidance.
 * See above, I have added redirect criteria to the essay. Please comment on them as well.
 * Regards, G.A.S 06:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that this raises the bar for redirection too high. I'd like to comment on three of your criteria for not redirecting:


 * The current article is not notable, nor part of a high profile series' episodes, as these could likely be expanded.
 * high profile is entirely too open to debate and seems a means for "inherited notability" to slip in through a back door.


 * The article would likely be deleted, should it be nominated for deletion.
 * deletion is a more severe action and, of course, has a higher threshold that redirection should not have to meet.


 * The article has not undergone major editing recently.
 * No way — many of the least notable episode articles are heavily edited. This amounts to a free-pass for popular shite.

--Jack Merridew 09:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should clarify a bit:
 * High profile: This is likely limited to series such as Star Trek/X Files/Stargate etc. Refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager) for the reason I suggest this. I do not think this could apply for just any series: These types of series are used a lot in popular culture, has well respected web sites with complete episode details etc.
 * About deletion: If this is not met — the merge route is the way to go. Even if it is just a formality, and little or no content is actually moved.
 * Major editing: I mean exactly that. There should be a huge, active attempt to improve the article beyond just a unreferenced plot summary.
 * See above for the usage of redirection. It is quite likely that they will apply in some way.
 * Regards, G.A.S 09:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not move my comments around.


 * I saw the Mortal Coil AfD and that article was deleted and a new one created in its place. No series gets a pass; some will, in fact, be able to establish notability — and their editors should get on it. You reiteration of the merge-view seems to imply that the onus is on whomever is redirecting something, which I disagree with; if an article has not established notability then let it sit under a redirect until such time as someone cares to dredge-up some bit of text from the history. re Major editing — I was equating your term with voluminous editing; active efforts to reference an article should not be smacked-down.


 * Thanks for the links you've offered here; I'll get to reading more of them. --Jack Merridew 10:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I moved my comments to the correct place, as it was in reply to i's comment.
 * As for the merge first view, this is to give the current editors notice of intent. Kind of like a proposed deletion, see above.
 * If you have further suggestions, feel free to add/reword them in the relevant section of the essay as you would prefer it to read (add a second column for that).
 * [EDIT] A kind of template for proposal to redirect, with reasons like WP:NOT, WP:NN, WP:LENGTH etc may very well accomplish the same thing. (Remember: If the article's plot section is just added to beyond a reasonable length, it is copyvio, and can be reverted, and the template can be re-added, or the article can be redirected.)
 * Regards, G.A.S 10:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: The essay has been expanded. Regards, G.A.S 13:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

G.A.S., I've just read your essay, and it looks good to me; in fact, it seems more constructive than this process. The reactions of an editor like, who's been contributing to Wikipedia since 2003, should not be dismissed out of hand. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actions required
(Delete / Redirect, discuss if reverted / Discuss Merge & redirect / Maintenance tags / Leave / Improve):
 * Straw poll: Obviously different articles will be handled differently. I would like to know the general opinion regarding how episode articles should be handled if they are stubs, start class, low B or high B class, refer to the assessment scale.
 * stubs (new article)
 * AFD G.A.S 21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * stubs (old article)
 * Redirect, discuss if reverted G.A.S 21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * start class (new article)
 * Discuss Merge & redirect G.A.S 21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * start class (old article)
 * Discuss Merge & redirect G.A.S 21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * low b class (new article)
 * Add maintenance tags, see if it improves in a reasonable time G.A.S 21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * low b class (old article)
 * Suggest merge, or try to improve G.A.S 21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * high b class (new article)
 * Add maintenance tags, try to improve G.A.S 21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * high b class (old article)
 * Add maintenance tags, try to improve G.A.S 21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should improve articles as we review them. - Peregrine Fisher 06:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This poll cannot really be answered. We shouldn't consider the articles in classes, or by their rating, they should be reviewed by whether or not the article meets policy and guidelines. Saying that we should automatically redirect stubs, but not even review high b class articles is not good. i said 06:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have point, but WP:ASSESS say this is how high b/almost GA class articles should be handled. As for the rest, some kind of informal review might be good, but it takes unnecessary time in some cases. In all automatic cases judgement should still be applied.
 * We should add though, while articles are being reviewed, gradings can be added for WP:ASSESS and Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria, template is at.
 * I mean, it is being reviewed, especialy for importance, the tags could just as well be added.
 * Regards, G.A.S 13:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm against any "redirect on site" type of action. That's what started this whole mess in the first place. If the article is doomed to never be more than a plot summary that will come out pretty quickly in a discussion and will involve a lot less stomping on toes which only leads to heightened stress levels and reduces wikilove. Stardust8212 14:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why I set the bar so high in User:G.A.S/Managing related non-notable articles. Do comment on the essay please. Regards G.A.S 15:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If a single user creates 20 or 50 articles that are nothing more than a sentence or two, or are just a copy of a list of article, then I would redirect on sight. -- Ned Scott 22:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In such a case, please tag the redirect page with, , or whichever is more applicable, and if possible, redirect to the specific section in the target page. G.A.S 05:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I see where you are going with this, but maybe we need less options for the poll. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me you're trying to mechanically link arbitrary classification to arbitrary actions in an arbitrary way. That's not really a constructive use of time. Rather than veering into hypothesis again, I'd suggest picking some random articles to review, find a reasonable outcome for those, and base potential guidelines on that precedent rather than writing them a priori.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The question was more for interest's sake; the episodes on review may set the precedent, as you suggest. Regards, G.A.S 17:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Radiant! that basing outcome on assessment probably isn't the right way to look at this. As you say, a precedent may emerge that correlates to assessment, but we're not there yet. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). 69.143.236.33 07:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Smallville
I'd like to get some more opinions on some character articles that I have proposed a merger for. You can find the discussion at Talk: Smallville (TV series).  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Pilot
I personally like leaving a pilot of a series as its own article, because it has the greatest potential to be sourced, and just because I think it's a good idea. Does anyone else have opinions, so that we might be able to add it ito the process? I (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The general notability guideline is clear, it must assert its notability through secondary sources upon creation. We cannot say "it has potential because it is a pilot", when not all pilots will actually meet the guideline. That's why WP:EPISODE says to start from the top and work your way outward, instead of starting outward and being forced to push back in.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * While I agree with Bignole, I'd add that it depends on what kind of series you're dealing. If it is an old (5–10 years+) popular series whose episode articles need to be reviewed as "legacy articles", I prefer some temporary grace period to give the pilot ep article a proper chance for sourcing. But if it's a new show where most certainly no secondary information exists at the moment, WP:EPISODE should apply in full. – sgeureka t•c 10:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - too much remedial, not enough preventative
This essay as it stands to me focuses far too much on how to fix rather than how to prevent. Without the later, we will simply find ourselves in a circle of remedial action, reviewing new episode articles for new TV shows. As things stand now, the length of the good (yet not strong enough for their own articles) episode articles seems to be generally small enough to allow their content to be merged fully into an episode list, with only minor editing (remove infobox, add list entry headers) needed. As such, rather than focusing on that process of merging, a clear consensus should be reached on the desired approach to covering a TV show's episodes and characters (including a common style guide for the lists), and then from there deal with the remedial action on existing articles. The desired list style does need to be discussed, since current episode and character lists often assume a full article will exist, and as such often only feature the date of airing, director/writer and only a single line of plot summary (which is so small as to be worthless). LinaMishima (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --User: (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This process
I don't think it ever had consensus, and people seem none the less to be referring to it. DGG (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)