Wikipedia talk:Television article review process/Archive 1

The following has been moved here from.

Proposed review process
This proposed review process has arisen out of discussion at WikiProject Television epsiode coverage taskforce as a means of reviewing, assessing and coping with increasing number of pages being created for individual episodes which fail notability guidelines. It remains a proposal and is by no means set in stone, but it is anticipated that the process could also allow assessment of other television articles, such as characters. This talk page should be used to discuss the review process. Discussions about episode notability guidelines should take place on its talk page. General discussion about the project should take place at the taskforce talkpage. Gwinva 10:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions
Some questions:
 * What is redirected on sight? Anything?
 * When we come across an article we think is not notable enough, we tag it. It then gets added to that category. What does that serve?
 * After fourteen days, if nothing has happened, we redirect.
 * Do all articles tagged get reviewed?
 * Is there a template to put on the parent article's page yet?

Just some of my questions after reading this page. I'm ready to go :) A lcemáe   T  •  C  00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Some answers:
 * No, nothing happens on sight...warn first. Keeps people informed and gives editors a chance to improve. (Riots have happened when action like that is taken without discussion...this project came out of one that went as far as WP:ANI.
 * 1) Yes tag it.. that gives the 14 days warning, gives links to guidelines so editors know what is expected, and the category is a reminder for us/you/any reviewer to go back and assess what has happened, and complete the process.
 * 2) If nothing's happened, we redirect or merge, yes, but only if it is a cut-and-dried case (ie no salvagable material and no hope of improvement). Any doubts, post the link at WikiProject Television/Episode coverage/Articles for review for a 2nd or 3rd opinion.  We can discuss the merits there.
 * no, that review (as above) is for anything that is raises questions in the reviewers mind. (as above)
 * 1) No template yet, but I've written a message or two myself, then copied it for another page. (see Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series)). Keep one in your sandbox for pasting until we get something official.
 * 2) Great...get going! Best way to see if it works is to trial it.  Also, in ten days or so, start keeping an eye on the category for pages due 2nd review.
 * 3) Since you've had to get clarification here, do you think this needs clarification on the main page? Perhaps my wording was not clear... Gwinva 06:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So the process is as follows:
 * 1) See an article that we dont feel complies with notability guidelines. We tag it with the template. We put a hopefully soon to be created template on the parent talk page about what happened.
 * 2) After fourteen days, we go back, knowing which articles need addressing because they have appeared in the category,and if nothing at all has happened, we redirect.
 * 3) If anything constructive has happened, we submit it to WikiProject Television/Episode coverage/Articles for review to be reviewed, as well as putting another soon to be created template saying it is under review.
 * 4) After the discussion is finished, we either redirect, merge, delete, or tag with correct cleanup tags, or leave as is. If redirected, we leave a message to that effect on the parent talk page.

Correct? Another question is if this current project is dealing only with notability, or quality in general. And I think it does need a bit of clarifying, but I'll discuss that once I'm sure I know the correct process. A lcemáe  T  •  C  07:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it doesn't say "you aren't notable", it's saying more of "you do not appear to meet that criteria, you have 14 days to show that you do". If an episode does, it shouldn't be hard. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't be a long wait. Personally, I think if you cannot find any type of reception information then you'll never really meet the criteria, as you cannot be notable in your own little world.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes that I feel make it more clear what the procees is, if you have any problems with it, please remove them. I also added the below template to the page, although it currently does not have the discussed image yet. A lcemáe  T  •  C  18:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've expanded a few more bits... hope they are clearer. Gwinva 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates
I had a go at making a template for parent articles on the first review. IE. after placing notability tags on individual episodes, place this on the talk page of the parent article. Here it is: TVreview1. Would work best if substituted, ie. . Series name can be added by piping. What do you think? Does it contain the appropriate links? I've numbered it as we'll need another message for review 2 to tell people it's up for discussion on the review page. Feel free to play around with it. Gwinva 13:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that works. Is there an image we can add, to make it look kind of like how it would look if a BOT put a notice on the talk page of an article when it removes an image? You know, something to grab the attention.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a way to get it to include the taggers name automatically? When I add my signature to it manually, it forces a space before it and I get

this look around my name.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If I don't put a sig, it puts your name in automatically (sometimes both, if I put mine in).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That was me fiddling with the template..I've reverted it back, so it won't put my name in anymore. !sorry! Gwinva 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I think that works now.. should automatically sign. Gwinva 14:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Image: what about something as simple as this...it's used on the notability tag. Gwinva 17:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That works. It doesn't need to be all flashy, or violent like a stop-hand. Just something to catch the eye.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, icon added. If anyone else fancies having a go at the templates, we still need:
 * 1) something to put on the parent page when all the episodes have been redirected
 * 2) a tag to inform people the episode has gone for second review (do we need one for parent page as well as episode page?)
 * 3) Any specific clean-up tags for articles that are probably notable but still need work. Before making anything, check out what's already available. Gwinva 19:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: don't forget to substitute the template, otherwise if you try to edit the section you end up editing the template page. I made a mess of things there before I figured that one out... Perhaps it would be better to remove the 'Episode notability' header (which creates the edit function). Or perhaps you're not as stupid as me... Gwinva 16:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that and because templates used on talk pages (in the messages themselves) are supposed to be subst'ed. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would seriously suggest the ceasing of taggin articles now. There are vast amounts of articles tagged, and we have no definitive, smooth way to assess them. Also, putting them from the cat to the review page is not fun. So, I would ask that no more articles are tagged until the ones already tagged are dealt with, in addition to a review system. A lcemáe  T  •  C  05:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Two issues
I have been following the progression of this policy pretty closely though I have refrained from commenting. One issue I have seen with this plan from the beginning is the mass tagging of all the articles from a single series. Even a dedicated editor is going to have trouble bringing an entire season of episodes up to snuff in only fourteen days, much less series which have multiple seasons. Secondly I am concerned about how episodes will be treated if an editor feels the article already meets the criteria and thus doesn't significantly improve it. Will it be redirected because someone gets the idea that "obviously nobody bothered to work on this"? Stardust8212 01:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the consensus was, if it's clear that they are working (correctly) on at least a few of the episodes, then it's easier to say "give them more time". Also, even if the articles are redirected, nothing is wrong with that. The article hasn't gone anywhere, and if they expand it, then it's quite easy to un-redirect it and put the info in. It isn't like we are deleting anything to begin with.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then is User:TTN working against consensus or am I not working "correctly"? Because I would love to know how to work correctly. Also I am aware that redirecting will not delete the article however I have other concerns about the second review process which I don't really want to get into now (at risk of compounding the item I want to understand first) Stardust8212 01:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he's simply tagging. Like I said, the tag does really nothing more than alert you, or someone else, to what the problem is (and I believe it should provide a link to the guideline that details how the article should be written), and then after 14 days it puts a link to the article in a category for us to find. Then we'll look at it and decide if it needs reviewing. The review could turn out to be that we let the article stay, and extend the time for the clean up process. That is when a second review comes in. We would then review the progress after whatever the time was deemed. Also, if an article is redirected and you contest that, you could place it up for a second review. Unless TTN is redirecting all the articles ahead of time, then what he's doing is simply alerting everyone to the problem. He should be tagging parent articles to let them know as well.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess my point is that he's tagging articles which, in my opinion, meet the guideline. They have all the items which the guideline says they should have. In these cases directing someone to the guideline isn't really enough. The articles are being tagged simply because they exist, not because of the actual content of the article, by which I mean 12 articles were tagged in one minute, clearly they aren't being read and held in their own merit at that rate. Also my question about the tagging earlier was while I was under the impression that the "give them more time" thought would be used by the tagger not the review board, thanks for clearing that up. It's just very frustrating because without any examples of what the review will be like I feel a bit lost, especially since my hard work to improve the articles to the guideline seems to have been breezed over in about 5 seconds. Stardust8212 02:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, having a bunch of information doesn't make it notable. In the three articles you linked, you have cultural references, but no cultural impact. There are not reviews for these episode, which would give it that notability. This is why I don't believe (as I've read others do), that just because a show is notable, doesn't make its episodes inheritedly notable. With the prose issue, lack of citations everywhere, and no reception information, that is probably why it was tagged. It's definitely a reviewer, and I think those issues will be brought up. I think if you can find some good reception information (which doesn't include user ratings, as those are not verifiable), then in the least the tag could probably be changed to a general clean-up tag, or something else like "List to prose" tags, based on what it needs. Right now, without any reception, I don't see the notability. I'm personally working on the Smallville pages, and I have a book that gives production information, but finding places that have actually reviewed the episodes is like trying to find a needle in a haystack, and sometimes people forget to put the needle in the haystack.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips (and for not just writing me off as "crazy fangirl who can't deal") I'll keep working and see how the review process goes, though I hate the gut feeling of being the guinea pig. I'm still against the wholesale tagging of all articles from a series without even reading them, which I do truly believe happened in this case, but I'll leave that issue to fester quietly for the time being. Stardust8212 02:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at it this way. With the three articles you have, the review process probably won't be so bad, especially if continue to do what you have been doing and that's attempt to take care of the episodes to the best of their ability. I've taken the pilot for Smallville and turned it from a plot with some random trivia to this. It's possible for some. But I have also tried to do it with others and found that no professional writers care about the majority of what's on tv. They care about an episode here, and an episode there, but there are far too many on television to write about. It's even worse when you aren't on some major network like NBC, CBS, or ABC, but when you are on a smaller network like the CW (for Smallville). People don't get it the time of day. Just keep looking and working. Don't worry about the review, because most of the editors here are pretty fair about having an neutral discussion. Right now, we don't even know exactly how we will review, and we'll come to that bridge when get there. There were dozens of articles tagged well before the ones you are working on, so I doubt you'll be the guinea pig in the review process. So, just keep an eye on the page, and go save the review page to your watchlist. This way, when that starts, you can not only watch what happens, but possible give your own insight into the article. The review isn't limited to this taskforce, or just the people that work on that article regularly.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Because of this initiative I have already tried (to the best of my ability and limited resources and time) to improve articles in the Futurama series. Despite these efforts every episode of the series has been tagged (that's 72 for those counting) including those which cover all of the recommended items from the guideline and from which I have tried to remove all of the items specifically restricted in the guideline (with the possible exception of trivia which is a process that I balk at because many users still dislike the mass removal of trivia). Examples in this case would be The Devil's Hands are Idle Playthings and Roswell That Ends Well. Crimes of the Hot, which I have not yet cleaned, was also tagged as not meeting notability guidelines despite the first section of the page describing the use by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth and it's award winning status. It could be argued that this page needs cleaned but it does express its notability. Stardust 8212 01:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tagging doesn't mean anything actually will happen to it. Based on the appearance of "The Devil's hand..." that will obviously go to review, and I'm sure that most of us here (and anyone else) would see that it's not in horrible shape, just needs to basic cleanup. I wouldn't fret over the tags right now. All they do is alert editors that it needs cleanup, and that after 14 days it just gets put in a category for us to find quickly. Once that happens it's a matter of review, so really your time span is longer than 14 days anyway. I think we are also going to have a tag for when the article is up for review, so that when that occurs you will be able to come to the page and take part in the discussion.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this seems like a rant, I'm really not angry, just concerned and some of these things I've been waiting a bit too long to bring up here. If this would have been better placed elsewhere I'd be happy to move it but since my issue is with the tagging and review process not the guideline which I think hits the appropriate points I thought this was the best place. I guess all I'm asking is for a little advice, because currently it seems my very best efforts are insufficient. Stardust8212 01:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Process
Have we decided how it's going to go? Just to make sure there will be no complaints, I'm just thinking of a header per day with all of the series for that day under it. We can just basically go with "yays and nays" for the general condition/potential of the episodes. If it's all "no" they'll be redirected, and if someone finds any decent ones out of those, the can be listed under the show for further review. Any real in depth stuff can go to the series or episode talk page. TTN 23:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's important a process is decided, because in about a week or so there is going to be a constant inundation at the category. We should have a process decided before then, so it's not chaotic. I think the above sounds good. A lcemáe  T  •  C  04:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you mean something like:
 * June 23, 2007
 * Futurama
 * Hogan's Heroes
 * (etc)


 * then I'd have to say it is way, way too simplistic. We cannot possibly claim that this is a fair and transparent system if we're not actually reviewing the individual episodes. That doesn't mean there has to be a separate discussion for each and every article, but it also means we are going to have to actually take the time to examine each series. TTN, I realize you want to move this through rapidly, but bulk-tagging hundreds of episodes is not the same as actually reviewing them. Expecting to process them at the same pace as the tagging won't cut it. --Ckatz chat spy   10:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In depth discussion takes place after it is decided that we keep it or when someone has objections. Most series will be automatic redirects. When we reach series like Futurama, I'm sure people will think it has potential, so it'll go on hold. We are not going to be keeping more than ten shows fully intact, so there is no reason to think that this will be a long process.


 * We're going to go over the general state at first. Most shows are just the usual plot, quotes, trivia. Most of those will go right into oblivion. Some may seem to have potential, so we can catch them for further inspection. That can go on the talk page of that show, so we can deal with the editors there (that is why we would likely flag them in the first place). Other shows will be pretty much automatically caught because it is 50/50 for their inclusion (very few will meet that). After that, we look specifically at the episodes of the definite redirects for gems. After sorting some out, we can go over them on the main talk page also. So, they ones that need true reviewing will get it, while the rest are redirected. TTN 11:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See, I took his comments to mean (and I may be completely off) that it would look like this:


 * June 23, 2007
 * Futurama
 * Futurama episode 1
 * Futurama episode 2
 * (etc)


 * I was seeing it as 1 series a day, and we go through each episode of that series. Remember, when we get to The Simpsons, that's 17,18,19 seasons of show and only 1 season doesn't need tagging or reviewing (Season 8), as every article is at least GA status. I think maybe 1 series a day, or if the series is long, 1 series for a couple days. It may be that we need to do 1 series a week if a show has a lot of episodes that have more than just a plot. Looking at an episode that has just a plot isn't going to take too long, but if it's like those Futurama episodes that were brought up recently, that may take some more in-depth reviewing, a pseudo-peer review if you will.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the process for the iffy ones. We don't need to do that for the auto-redirects. We shouldn't have to do that more than twenty times in total anyways. TTN 14:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this needs a little more clarity, I'm a tad confused.
 * Seraphim Whipp 14:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking:
 * Step 1. List them by day
 * Step 2. Look at their general quality
 * Step 2a. If the general quality isn't good enough, redirect. Then look for any possible good articles and list them. Each one of those is looked at for potential, and is kept or redirected accordingly.
 * Step 2b. If it looks like they may be improved as a whole, but nobody has worked on them, goto step three.
 * Step 3. If the general quality is in the middle or people are discussing it, go to the talk page of that series, project or episode list, and try to work it out. See if the sources work out and all that stuff.
 * Step 4. If it becomes good enough to stand on its own (either possible sources or content), leave it to be improved or go back to 2a. TTN 14:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * edit conflict* I think that for any series where it can reasonably be expected that users will raise objections the discussion will need to be open for more than one day in order to give affected editors an opportunity to state their case. I know they've had 2 weeks at least to gather their case but I think more than a day should be alloted to actual find the page and state the case. A time limit for when discussion will be closed should be established just like XfD discussions, because in many peoples eyes redirection will be nearly equivalent to deletion. I also agree with User:Seraphim Whipp that this probably should have been a bit more fine tuned before it was released on hundreds of articles. Stardust8212 14:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I simply meant that this process just needs a bit more clarity...I'm completely in agreement about this system being implemented already. The process has still got plenty of time to be developed...It's nearly there already :-).
 * Seraphim Whipp 14:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (Too Stardust) The "fine tuning" comes from implementation. You can find fallacy in an experiment until you apply it. It's best to apply it to a large group, otherwise you could just find yourself with sampling errors (as a small group may yeild a result exactly the way you planned, while a large group has a better chance at variability to help find any faults in the setup). 15:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The iffy ones will probably take a bit longer, but not that much longer. The two weeks should be plenty of time for people to get the sources and show how they will be improved. We'll probably just have to take a few days to make sure all doubt of improvement or of them not being improved is erased. TTN 14:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Using Futurama as an example, I see it going like this: The two weeks are up, the general state is on the line, and people have been working on them, so it deserves a more in depth review. We look at the general condition of them along with the proposal on how to improve them (this can be done slowly if necessary). If they have actually done a good job, we part ways. If not, people can run through the episodes and find possible good ones to keep (pilots, finales, popular ones). In this case, it would probably be the few listed somewhere here. After that, all of the others are redirected as we discuss those single episodes, and those are kept or redirected from there. TTN 14:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How are they going to be added to here? Manually? From looking at the category correct? So then I would think we should list specific episoded under a header, and then someone, preferably the editor who added them, should go to the specific episode page and see if anything has been done. If not, say so next to the specifc article's listing on the page, or say what has been done, and other people comment to reach consensus accordingly. Something akin to this: Series Name Here
 * Episode One- nothing has been done, propose redirection; other comments by editors (see my below comment)
 * (After consensus has been reached) Decision - Redirect
 * Episode Two- significant contribution, propose keeping; other comments
 * (After consensus has been reached) Decision - Keep
 * Episode Three- notability established, but still needs to be cleaned up' other comments
 * (After consensus has been reached) Decision - Keep with cleanup tags

I would think maybe a day or so on the review list to determine consensus, since they've had fourteen to become aware of the impending review, and fix it. Above comment- Also, if I understand correctly, after fourteen days, if nothing has been done, they are redirected on sight; only things that have had clean-up efforts should go to be reviewed. Correct? A lcemáe  T  •  C  17:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I believe that it would something along the lines of what you just put up.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, because someone may not have had a chance to do anything to an article that is already in the "ok phase" and just needs some clean-up done to it, but they could have still be tagged. I believe the only ones that would be redirected on sight would be if they were nothing but plots and still had not had anything done to them. You can't make lots of helpful suggestions to a basically bare page. All you can do is point them to articles that have achieved something and say "follow that". If a page is in alright order, it wouldn't be that much of a problem to say "this is good, but it could be better if you do this..." or "everything is great, but you are missing a key component in this section...."    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats what I said. If nothing has been done to an article that does not meet the guidelines, then they are redirected on sight instead of proposing them for review. A lcemáe   T  •  C  17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, based on how the article was to begin with. Everyone tagged doesn't meet the guidelines, but the question is "to what degree". There are the three Futurama episodes above, if nothing was done to those I would still take it to review. But if nothing is done to episode that looks like this then there really isn't anything to review and can be merged into a parent article. All are technically "reviewed" in the sense that they will all need to be looked at by more than 1 editor, but I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) what you mean is that there doesn't need to be an extensive review of an episode if there is clearly nothing on the page to begin with and no one has attempted to work on it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm. Well, I was under the impression that if nothing had been done, it was redirected on sight. However, maybe not. So should it be left up to the person who looks at it after fourteen days to decide if it should be reviewed? A lcemáe   T  •  C  17:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer they were all listed for everyone to get a look at an agree. If there's clearly nothing going on, then I don't believe there is going to be a problem and it will be over quick enough for us to move on to more problematic articles. Otherwise, if we leave it up to one editor there is just going to be another huge AN/I issue with one person redirecting hundreds of articles. It's easier if you can say "we put a tag up, no one worked on the article, no one responded to the parent page, no one has worked on any of the tagged articles for this series, several editors have conversed and all agree it should be redirected/merged".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. Then we need to change the various proposals and such, because they say that anything that has had nothing done should be redirected automatically. So, in light of the new change, should there be two sections to the review page? One for easy decisions, such as nothing done to it, and the other section for pages that have? A lcemáe   T  •  C  17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything can be under one header. It can look like this:
 * June 24
 * Show 1 - Nothing has been done *sign*
 * Couple of people agreeing* (They're redirected)
 * Show 2 - People have been discussing, and there has been work done. *sign*
 * Couple of people moving for discussion* (It is discussed).
 * Show 3 - Nothing has been done *sign*
 * Person - I think these might have potential.
 * Person - Agree
 * Person - Disagree (At this point it can be discussed elsewhere)
 * It'll go on like that. Specific episode discussion can take place wherever the discussion is at. TTN 18:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that is not what people are leaning toward here. The general proposal seems to be more in line what Alcemáe and Bignole are describing. --Ckatz chat spy  19:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how others are thinking about this, but the drive to review every single episode of every single series will die down. Not to mention, it is totally redundant. First we need to get a general view of the series. If it is just trashy like most are at this point, there is no need to look at episodes one by one. We know that they're bad. After that point, single episodes can be put up, but there is no need to go through all of them. TTN 19:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be a good idea to run through the first few together. That'll give us an idea of what's likely to get redirected, what sort of articles need review, how long it's going to take etc. Once we know we're all singing from the same hymn sheet, we can start doing the obvious redirects without coming to review (as per proposal). Let's start with one or two using format as suggested above and see how it goes. It's really a trial run to see if the proposal format works. We might find it gets adjusted once we're dealing with the real thing rather than theory. As to swift tagging...it doesn't really matter how fast that happens, as it jsut means they sit in the review category longer than 14 days, until we get round to them..gives people more time. Gwinva 18:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I added my suggestion for format to the review page, please feel free to change in any way. One question, should past dicussions be archived? Because I personally think that there is going to be a massive amount of stuff to be reviewed, and that it will get cluttered very quickly. A lcemáe  T  •  C  03:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My vote is archive immediately. One episode could have a discussion large enough to take up an entire talk page (you know what I mean, because technically an entire talk page is forever long). It's easier to just have dated archives. Since we should be informing parent articles (and/or WikiProjects) when a review is about to take place (not the notability tag), then we should be able to easily say "see June 25" if someone needs to see the discussion.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Process/Archive Discussion 2
The edit button was too far up. I agree, dated would be good, whenever it gets too long. Would it be like a normal archive box, just on the main page? A lcemáe  T  •  C  03:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd keep it on the main page so that it isn't in the way. The titles could be "June 24 - 26" or things like that.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Sounds good. Someone who is good at wikicode (not me) should be up on that. A lcemáe   T  •  C  03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we'll get it right when it starts. Not even sure when the first review will be, I'm surprised Matthew hasn't systematically removed ever tag under the guise of "they're notable because they're episodes".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol. I used the template first on June 21, so July 5 will for sure have some. TTN probably tagged before that. And he's tagged lots too. A lcemáe   T  •  C  03:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, The Road To Audition is actually the first to show up, it was tagged by NedScott on June 11. But, that's one of the ones that has drawn some concern. So I don't know if we'll begin the review or wait for the outcome of the TfD.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. What will we do if the template is deleted? I doubt it will be, but we should have something prepared if it is. A lcemáe  T  •  C  03:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge tags and cleanup tags can probably replace it if necessary. We probably don't have to worry as it should be no consensus at this point (or keep by ignoring the people who are pushing their points). TTN 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the real-world effect?
What is the basic idea behind this proposal? Is it, to put it simply—that a few series could have every episode notable, while some others might have only one or two episodes notable, and the majority perhaps no independently notable episodes? Is that the gist of it?--Pharos 07:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's that very few of the articles on individual episodes meet notability and episode guidelines. Some, such as the entire Season 8 of the Simpsons, fit these criteria, while most others do not. Previously articles were being redirected en masse, with no chance to fix them. This is the change that has resulted. A lcemáe   T  •  C  07:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Another problem: CSD R3
Does anyone think there will be an issue with the redirected pages getting speedied under R3? Obviously if the articles are only being redirected to allow the history to stay and so they may be improved one day it would be bad if someone speedied the redirects because it is unlikely anyone would actually search for Insert show name here by typing some long episode title. I'm not concerned about longer deletion processes because you can get fair warning on those but speedy is, well, so fast that it could be deleted before anyone notices and tells them why it exists. Does anyone think this will be an issue or will admins not speedy something with such a long history? Stardust8212 15:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They are all fine redirects, so there is no need to worry. How would they fall under point three of redirects though? That has to do with pointless typos, right? TTN 15:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's speedied it's fixable. One only needs to ask an Admin to re-instate the page so that the information may be collected if needed. I don't think it would be a concern, though you make a good point, but nothing is ever lost on Wikipedia (or the internet for that matter).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * TTN-I wasn't sure if they would qualify, I don't work too much with CSD but it popped into my head and I wanted to ask if it was likely to happen. Sounds like it isn't a problem though so that is good. Stardust8212 18:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem
The category does not allow for the removal of entries; i.e. it currently has The Road to Audition on the page, and after it is decided what to do, currently, we cannot remove it. I would assume someone with wikicode knowledge can fix this; please get on it quickly; otherwise the page will get cluttered quickly. A lcemáe  T  •  C  21:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You just have to remove the tag. TTN 21:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm. Then people will probably just remove the tags just so spite us. Lol. Thanks. A lcemáe   T  •  C  21:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That was Matthew's comment. Someone may want to keep a record of any articles that people remove the tag from. I think we need a review tag or notification for the articles (if not already done) so that people know it's taking place at this very moment.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I have an idea. We should probably parameter in the tag so we can know if a review has started. Then it can remove itself from the first cat, allowing us to keep track of those who have not started a review. The parameter could also change the template's message to say a review has started and give a link. -- Ned Scott 23:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I have no idea how to do that, though. Someone with tech knowledge should. Until then, I have a temporary tag to be placed on pages being reviewed here. Please edit if needed. A lcemáe   T  •  C  23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Format for adding and such
I've made and added a format for putting articles up for reveiw, and then as I said before, one for actually reviewing it. We have an article already, and there needed to be a format in place, so I just added what seemed like was agreed here to the review page, and my own for the category, since we needed it now. Edit as is needed. A lcemáe  T  •  C  22:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Next steps
The trial reviews seem to be going ok so far. Are we expecting to always review together in this manner, or to allow redirects without the review page, as suggested in 'First review' section? Might be less controversial... Anyway, how do people think these guidelines read? Are they complete yet? We're still waiting to hear about our TfD, of course, but otherwise we seem to have the support of Wikipedia at large. (or, at least, no objection). These have been advertised at the Village Pump (twice), and all the related WikiProjects, so everyone who needs to know have been informed. Is consensus here enough to turn a proposal into a guideline, or does it need to go somewhere else? Gwinva 11:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree..doing it as a group is better. That way it doesn't appear as if we are canvassing later, if we have to go to each other's page and say "I keep getting reverted for what was is a clear violation". I'd rather say "You had 14 days to at least know we were going to review the article, we spent another 2 days discussing it, no one showed, the result was redirect, here is a link to the consensus." I don't know how that happens. I think they put up a huge banner for all of Wikipedia to see. You can guarantee that everyone that opposes the template (minus those few that said specifically, "i like your idea") will oppose the review, because in their eyes every episode should be created into its own article. Which means we would need to hear from a lot of unbiased editors on this situation, and when it comes to television articles...most people don't care.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, a bit of browsing: Policies and guidelines recommends listing at Category:Wikipedia proposals (done when the proposal tag was placed on the page), which in turn suggests a listing at Centralized discussion.  Help:Modifying and Creating policy suugests they are discussed at Village pump (policy) (posted most recently on 22 June), but no one really wants to discuss.  Also suggests posting on the Community bulletin board  at Community Portal.  So, once we've tightened it a bit, and there is some resolution of the TfD, then I guess we should do that. Gwinva 12:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering how to make the policy official and checked out Centralized discussion but I have no idea how any of it works. When full discussions begin to turn this into a guideline, post all the links here so that everyone knows where to go to comment and stuff. The problem is finding unbiased editors...but at least this whole thing is moving in the right direction!
 * Seraphim Whipp 12:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer that we continue reviewing all of them for now. I'll give you my perspective as someone who came here as a concerned editor: The review process is somewhat confusingly worded because it is unclear exactly what will happen to the article when. Coming here knowing that the article will be reviewed in fourteen days is ok but then it gets confusing as to whether I as the editor that thinks it should stay will list it or whether the editor who listed it as needing review will list it. I think some users may also be concerned about how long it will be before their article is auto redirected because it wasn't listed for review. I was initially concerned that I would wait patiently my 14 days and go to bed Friday night (the Futurama articles were tagged Friday evening in my time zone) and wake up to find they had all been redirected without review. While I am not too concerned about this now that I have witnessed the process I still think the wording here needs some refinement to help editors who have just arrived and want answers immediately. I'd take a stab at fixing my issues with the wording but I have about 8 days left and those articles won't clean themselves up. Stardust8212 12:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the comments...always worth hearing from someone looking at the process guidelines with fresh eyes. Those of us who developed them have had so much discussion about things, we know what everything means, or what we intended it to mean.  Since we began trialling this, I think we've moved towards the idea of reviewing everything, so it's not just one person making the call, and it gives a chance for contributors like yourself to come and say "I've done this and this, and I have this in mind".  We do want to show this is a fair review, assessing potential, rather than bogeymen who are going to destroy everyone's hard work when their back's turned.  The tag should mean an article's being reviewed, not that it's goig to be auto-redirected. If this guideline gives that impression, then we need to work on it. Gwinva 11:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've edited the page and (hopefully) improved it. I've assumed that consensus between us is that ALL articles should go for review, so I've changed the instructions to indicate that.  If that assumption's wrong, then pull out my old version from the edit history.  I've also added a FAQ section.  Have a look and see what you think.  Hope the page is clearer now, and helpful to both those reviewing and those being reviewed. Gwinva 12:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

First review section
I made an edit saying that editors may not make personal decisions that an article is acceptable, as Matthew made these assertions, on many KOTH articles. (This is what caused many to not be added to the cat). It was a bit harsh. However, something needs to be decided on what action may be taken after the fourteen day notice is up without review, such as redirecting or stubbing. A lcemáe  T  •  C  09:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As above, I think we've decided they'll all go for review (so one editor is not making a decision either way). Stubbed or not makes no difference to that... and I wouldn't get too concerned about people removing tags...we've got enough to be going on with, and we'll pick them up again later. Gwinva 11:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the only real problem will be Matthew reverting consensus and un-redirecting articles.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If such a thing happens, what steps would we take? Admin review? Gwinva 12:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I think we can show that we created a discussion based on TTN's AN/I, and that anyone that chose to not take part in the discussion is not fault of the process. Silence = no objection. We can show that we notify episodes ahead of time, notify them when the review actually takes place, notify the parent articles, and if no one shows up to object then that's not the fault of the review. We have proof of consensus among several editors, with links on all the appropriate places, so any reverting of consensus would need to be dealt with by a higher authority. I generally don't like AN/I because they take forever, but we'd probably have to do that.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Under the FAQ section it says that an editor may merge prior to the review taking place. I thought we had decided against any action before a review has taken place, correct? I didn't remove it, in case there's something I missed, but someone else should look at it. A lcemáe  T  •  C  19:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about someone who regularly edits the page coming across the tag and thinking, "yeah, I've been meaning to do that for ages," or "what a good idea".  It's what we're encouraging editors to do in the first place, saves us a job, and people who know the series are better at merging as they know what's important. ie. people taking responsibility for their own pages. If you can thank of a better way of wording the question/answer then go ahead. Gwinva 07:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if thats such a good idea, considering a lot of problems and claims that it was redirected but not reviewed. I think it might just need to be removed completely. A lcemáe   T  •  C  07:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed it: you're right, the statement is easily misinterpreted. What do you think of the rest? Gwinva 13:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE and WP:NOTABILITY are only guidelines, and it is not obligatory to follow them - We should probably state explicitly which ones, otherwise it's just open to "what policies, I don't see a policy that says I cannot create an episode article, or a policy that says they are not inherently notable...".  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've got to leave it to you guys now as I'm about to move house (and countries) and my editing will be pretty random until I get a new house (and internet connection).  Hope all goes well at TfD, and there's still a review programme working when I do make it back!  Gwinva 12:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review
Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4 -- Ned Scott 08:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose this process
I believe this process is overly bureaucratic and not needed. No other type of article has a centralised merger process, and noone has come up with any reason to single out television episodes for this treatment. Not having this process does not prevent merging or redirecting episodes by building consensus at more appropriate locations, such as talk pages of the merge target. Tim! 09:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to the initiators of this effort. Eusebeus 12:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tim raises several very good points.
 * 1) First, this process focuses on an area which has a large quantity of articles that make no effort to conform to the notability guidelines established at WP:EPISODE and are therefore ideal merge/redirect candidates. In fact the majority of TV episode articles I have encountered run counter to practically the entire guideline. That makes it a very good place to embark upon such an enterprise.
 * 2) Second, it promises to introduce a fair and bureaucratic process for article review that can be easily replicated to other areas, such as books, albums, sports figures, etc... which are also characterised by large numbers of articles that do not aspire to consensus as expressed in the relevant policy.
 * 3) Third, it would be capricious and unfair to cherry pick individual articles in this, or any, general subject area, when the purpose is to establish a larger mechanism for the consistent application of WP policy.


 * I feel that having it at the actual article does prevent the redirect/merging of the article. Why? Because having it there limits who actually sees the discussion. The discussion is limited to those that work on those pages, and I've had merge proposals like that before and they all ban together, ignore the issue that was brought up, and simply say "oppose merge". Frankly, I don't think anyone wants to have an addition 100+ articles on their watchlist, in an effort to keep up with all the discussions.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If the articles are, for example, to be merged to the list of episodes for a particular series, then they can be discussed at the list's talk page. There would be no need to watchlist 100s of articles, just where the discussion takes place. Tim! 13:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you aware of how many television shows have articles on Wikipedia? Plus, to get outside opinions, are you going to notify all relevant projects every time a new television show has a discussion? I think after awhile that would get annoying. Or are you advocating that we not tell anyone but those people that work on that set of episodes? Seems a little biased to me.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if you want to do mass merges or mass redirects you have to a lot of work. I don't see there being more work by discussing the merges/redirects in a local location over a centralised locations. I would imagine that you are less likely to need to notify multiple projects as they are more likely to be watching the list article that they maintain. No administrative action is required to perform the merge or redirect so there is not the requirement of attracting an administator's attention as there was with the various XFD processes. Tim! 13:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When I said, other projects I meant WP:TV, Notability (fiction), and all the projects connected to the show. I worked on Smallville for months before I ever knew there were episode articles, and even then I only knew because someone tried to merge the season articles in a "List of episodes" article, with the idea that the individual episode articles were better than a season article that contained the exact same information (I know it was the same because they not only took the images, but all the plot summaries as well). So, it isn't definite that someone working on the 4400 main page will know about the individual articles, or the List of Episode articles. Even less likely you'll have unbiased opinions come in, because it will be located in an area where all the editors love the show and want this to be TV.com with a bang.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you're making the assumption that people who "love the show" will necessarily oppose the mergers. I can only assume that you want to remove the process away from people who actually edit episode articles and the present them with a fait-accompli "they've been merged". That sounds pretty biased in the opposite direction. Tim! 14:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First hand experience has shown me that most people that work on those pages don't want anything to change, regardless of policy or guidelines, and will vote "oppose" on principle. If one person comes to that page to propose a merger, it's a little one-sided. This process was designed to try and bring in multiple "outside" opinions, so that it isn't always the editors of that article against the one editor who proposes a merger. It doesn't matter if he has all the policies in the world to back him up, unless someone seeks Administrative assistance in those cases, the merge will never happen. Because people believe that a "large group of like-minded votes" will trump any guideline or policy presented. I believe the concept usually associated with that is the "break the rules if it's for the betterment of the encyclopedia" argument. Look at the previous discussion on episodes that took place before this review process. Most arguments rely on the "it's a guideline so we don't have to follow it", or the "you have to have a specific consensus for every single episode article". Or the best one, "episode articles inherit notability, so you don't have to have any third party sources".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC?
I'm not totally familiar with what RfC's on policies and guidelines are appropriate, but I think that this might be one. I think that if we initiated a discussion, there might be a better chance, especially if the initial discussion not be so baised like the recent XfD's.

I think it would be very beneficial, since I would imagine RfC would be a place that many people visit often, and would get wide discussion. The major thing holding this back is the lack of widesread opinion on these articles. I think if we clearly detailed why many of these articles have no place on Wikipedia, in a formal setting, we might be able to get consensus.

If RfC is not the way to go, then other options should be pursued. Currently, the only discussion taking place is on the various XfD's (there are three currently, if I count correctly) That isn't really a good place to discuss it. Any thoughts? I  (said)  (did) 03:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of options with an RfC, and we can set it up in almost any way we want. Starting an RfC ourselves is an excellent idea. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think we should close the HM discussion before we do that. Reason being, we would have a discussion already done, and would be able to use it as an example, and no one could claim it was done out of the way. I   (said)  (did) 04:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A good idea, although I would like to keep the HM discussion open a little longer. -- Ned Scott 04:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, of course. I was just thinking that it needs to be closed before whenver we do it, so we haven an already done review to show how they will be done. I   (said)  (did) 04:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So does anyone else have an opinion? I   (said)  (did) 06:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC sounds good, but right now I'm busy with school, work and trying to clean out all my "projects" on Wiki. I got one season of Smallville finished, just waiting on more comments from people...then it will probably hit the mainspace. I think I'm going to try and finished my work on Jason Voorhees before I pick up another television show to work on. So, and RfC right now, for me, is going to be hard. I just need a break from all the huge debates and arguments for a bit. They are kind of draining.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed process
As far as I can tell, this was never actually tagged as a proposed process, and no centralized discussion/broad community input has taken place, other than briefly on VPP here. Rather, the process was the result of discussion among a relatively small group of editors and put into practice, leading to this MfD and a handful of TfDs (here - DRV - here - please list any others). Tagging it as proposed, adding it to WP:CENT and initiating an RfC were all discussed on this page, so for now I've gone ahead and tagged it as proposed to try and get some more input. I haven't seen any of my own work fall to this process and have no axe to grind here. But my own view is that this sort of specialized process/instruction creep should be avoided at all costs, and existing tools (cleanup templates) and processes (AfD) should be used in service of existing policies. (I know there are a zillion nn-episode articles, and that AfD is clogged. But this is not the way to go.) heqs ·:. 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For anyone unfamiliar with this, much related discussion can be found on Wikipedia talk:Television episodes/Review. I propose that we try to keep the discussion in one place (ie. here). heqs ·:. 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was tagged as "proposed" from June 21st (when the page was in development) up until around the 7th of July, when the tag went away during an attempt at restructuring the review page to address concerns there. I'm not sure why it didn't come back, but I'd presume it was just an oversight. --Ckatz chat spy  22:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason I untagged it was because it's not a guideline, it's a process, a tool, that people may or may not use. Note Peer review has no tag. -- Ned Scott 01:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note also that proposed includes the phrase "proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process." (Emphasis added.)  Presumably that's because some processes may be good or bad ideas, and should have some consensus from the community at large before they're widely used. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A few questions/comments
I've been inactive for a few months, and missed most of the recent drama about this process, which seems to have taken place across a dozen or so pages. I hope this is the right place for a few questions and comments.


 * 1) What, in the context of a television episode, constitutes a reliable source independent of the subject? Obviously the television episode itself is excluded, as a primary source.  What about the show's official website?  That's presumably reliable, but not necessarily independent.  A fan website, by contrast, would presumably be independent but usually not reliable.  How about a printed episode guide?  If an episode article cites a printed guide like The Complete Book of M*A*S*H or Slayer, would it meet the criterion?  (Does it matter whether a printed episode guide is authorized (as in my first example) or unauthorized (as in my second)?)  Or does the source need to be completely removed from the subject matter (such as a review of the episode in a newspaper)?  The process guideline should probably elaborate on this a bit, if there's a consensus on the subject.
 * 2) I hope that relevant television WikiProjects are being notified of this process. Surely the Wikipedians who create and maintain the episode articles are the best qualified to establish notability.
 * 3) Out of curiosity, have any episode articles been merged into lists by this process yet? I'd like to see an example of the work y'all are doing.

I agree with the principle that not every television episode is sufficiently notable to have its own episode page, but I worry that the process I see here could be abused, or enforced over-vigorously. I also share the concerns of others (such as Tim!) that this may be an unnecessary addition to Wikipedia's already burgeoning bureaucracy, but if users of the process show me that it's being used helpfully and not egregiously, those concerns may be assuaged. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In order:
 * 1) I would think the first example would be a useable source, but I don't think it would be enough as it's own source. But these possible discrepancies in opinion that would be sorted out in the review.
 * 2) For WikiProjects, I'm not entirely sure, since I don't think we've encountered a situation where there is a WP specifically for the show. We have been notifying the article on the show itself, and the page that the articles would be merged into. Notifying any relevant WP would be apropos, but again, I don't think we've come to that bridge so far.
 * 3) If you look on the archives on this page (They were removed in an overhaul by error) there are the discussions that took place here, before they were moved to the article talk page. Hannah Montana and King of the Hill have been done on the talk page. Links are here and here, respectively. The former is about to be closed, the latter closed as redirected.

And there you go. Hope it helped. I  (said)  (did) 05:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I. That is helpful, but I'd like to hear more about my first question especially.  What are the feelings of other editors about printed episode guides as sources?  If I'm understanding "I" correctly, a M*A*S*H episode article that gave a lot of real-world context sourced solely from The Complete Book of M*A*S*H would still face possible merging/deletion.  That seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of WP:EPISODE as I understand it.


 * I understand the concerns some folks here have expressed about "inherited notability" (the notion that because so-and-so series is notable, all its episodes are as well). But you could reasonably argue that if a thorough episode guide exists about any television series, an episode guide which goes beyond plot summaries and cast lists, this should be considered evidence that each episode has the potential to meet the notability standards.  To take an example at random, consider Greeks Bearing Gifts (Torchwood).  The article as it stands isn't great — it consists of an overly long synopsis and several trivia-like sections.  However, I have at hand a copy of Inside the Hub: The Unofficial and Unauthorised Guide to Torchwood Series One by Stephen James Walker.  This book has nine pages on this episode, including quotations from mainstream press reviews (the Radio Times and Metro), a sampling of fan reviews (mostly from various blogs and other websites), as well as ratings and production information.  I'd maintain that this meets the requirements of WP:RS.  Therefore, this episode article has the potential to meet Wikipedia sourcing requirements.


 * By this argument, then, any series about which a detailed program guide has been published should be able to have episode pages on Wikipedia. If this is the case, then the review process should be less about the question "should we merge these episode articles into a season article?" and more about prompting editors who are knowledgeable about the subject to add citations to relevant, reliable sources.  This could be similar to featured article review, except at a lower level — FAR prompts editors of featured articles to ensure that they meet FA standards, while television article review (TAR?) would ensure that television episode articles meet WP:EPISODE.  In cases where no detailed episode guide has been written, this would result in merging; in cases where a detailed episode guide exists, this would result in editors who own such a guide adding cited material from that guide.  Does that make sense? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An issue with the M*A*S*H book is the "independant of the subject" part of the notability criteria. The book would certainly not be independant of the show. The book could be used, but I would think that in order to maintain the independent aspect, it, at the very least could not be the only source. However, the reviews of that Torchwood episode is exactly what is needed. That is notability, and real world context (provided the people who reviewed them were credible).


 * As for the "prompt editors to fix the pages" idea, there's a fundamental problem in various XfD's about that. People !vote Keep because it can be improved. The problem is that it often is not. So the argument that it can be improved because sources really exist is part of a larger debate, that would probably be hashed out in the various reviews. As to the detailed episode guides, as far as I'm aware, these only exist for very important and relevant shows, for example the Simpsons perhaps. Episode analysis probably doesn't exist for shows like Drawn Together or Hannah Montana. I   (said)  (did) 06:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, you might be surprised at how many series do have detailed episode guides. There's an entire category of them at amazon.co.uk.  You're probably right about Drawn Together and Hannah Montana, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if detailed episode guides for those shows turned out to exist (or were published in the future).


 * As for whether the M*A*S*H book is sufficiently independent of the subject, I think that's a bit more complex than you're indicating. It's true that a licensed episode guide has a close relationship to its subject; but some licensed episode guide books include significant critical commentary, real-world context and production information.  I don't own that M*A*S*H book, but I do own (for example) the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, which provides several pages of production information and context for each episode of that series.  It's officially licensed, but the author was able to get very candid commentary from the series' writers, who don't hesitate to speak up when an episode was flawed.  Most Deep Space Nine episode articles aren't up to the standards of WP:EPISODE at the moment, but I'd claim that with the aid of cited material from the DS9 Companion they could be.


 * Furthermore, detailed episode guides, whether licensed or unlicensed, often collate material which has appeared in independent sources (such as interviews with actors and writers which appeared in newspapers and magazines). This material is difficult to gather from the original sources; I would maintain that there is no difference between citing a newspaper review via an episode guide which quotes it, and citing a source found in a history book via that book (instead of citing it directly).  I'm sure that we have articles on public figures about whom the only published biography is one authorized by the subject.  While truly independent sources are a goal, they're not a requirement — which is why WP:IS is an essay, not a policy or guideline.


 * You're right that a lot of Wikipedia articles which could be improved generally aren't, and that this is a general problem. I disagree that it's a problem with XfD, though.  XfD should be about whether Wikipedia should have an article on this subject, not about whether the current article is good enough.  Sometimes an article is placed on XfD and improves to the point that its worth is self-evident, but that's not the primary purpose of XfD.  I suppose what I'm suggesting is that this review process could be more like WP:ACID and less like XfD. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(changing the indent to avoid muddling the above conversation)The Complete Book of M*A*S*H doesn't seem to be quite as strong as the DS9 book described above, but it does haves some useful commentary. For example, there's a writeup of season one where creator Larry Gelbart describes being embarrassed by some of the episodes, the portrayal of women, and so on. Other notes describe tension on the set, emotional reactions to certain episodes, etc. --Ckatz chat spy  07:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ckatz. I think that example (and the DS9 Companion one) show that just because a book is officially licensed, that doesn't mean that it's not an independent source.  I agree that some licensed episode guides may be "self-serving piece of show merchandising" (as Jack Merridew wrote here), but others are written with a critical eye and an independent voice.  I just don't think that you can say just because an episode guide is officially licensed that it's not an independent source. A book about a television series is not the same as the series itself. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that all episode guides are suspect. True, some will not be and may well be sufficient to establish notability, but many will be light-weight, reading like many of the episode articles here do. The sort of thing I look for is a truly unaffiliated source that somehow speaks to something other than fan-interest — an episode whose plot involves some noteworthy issue and discusses the episode in that context. I don't believe that a view that an episode has the potential for establishing notability should save an article on it from redirection in the meantime.

I'm all for the episode review process serving to goad editors into actually adding sources to these episode articles — but I have not seen a whole lot of this occurring; I have seen editors ignore notability and sourcing tags on pages and continue prattling on about plot details.

So far, I've seen this review process applied to blocks of articles that really have little hope of establishing solid notability. Maybe a review of a block of episodes from a show with a following of more experienced editors would be useful. I noted a week or so ago that User:Tim! was adding references to a guide to Dad's Army episodes (Croft, David; Perry, Jimmy; Webber, Richard (2000). The Complete A-Z of Dad’s Army. Orion). nb: this guide is written by two of the scriptwriters. The show also has a WikiProject. --Jack Merridew 10:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Expansion
I asked this elsewhere but it seems it might be better placed asking it here. I'd like to broaden out the review process into a fictional article noticeboard, similar to the fringe theory and reliable source noticeboards. I think that would afford wider scope, wider participation and also a better foundation upon which to work. There are a vast number of articles on fictional topics which do not currently meet our standards, and it would probably be best if we organised efforts across the encyclopedia rather than sectionalised. One of the issues with this process is that it may be factional, and I think that can be avoided if we opened it up to more subject areas. The manual of style guidance on writing about fiction is established, and the guidance on notability in fiction articles is undergoing a rewrite, and it makes sense to create a board where similar issues can be discussed, and to help clean up the articles in line with guidance. Hiding Talk 15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Images
The issue of images is one I hadn't thought about before. If this goes through, there could be a lot of fair-use images that would no longer be used on any article. How should this be handled? I'm very limited in my knowledge of images, but I believe a fair-use image must be used on an article to exist, right? I  (said)  (did) 11:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bots go through periodically and tag them. TTN 11:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So when they've been orphaned after a redirect we wont have to worry? I   (said)  (did) 17:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment
While I see the reason for the proposed policy, I think it is not yet properly worded: Many episode articles might be only plot summaries; I can see why they are not necessarily required, but considerable work has gone into other articles (in which the content are not necessarily limited to plot, bloopers and trivia).

I suggest that the guideline be worded that a discussion about the process also be allowed (on said article page or list page, whichever is more applicable), in which consensus must be reached before further action may be taken.

Wikipedia's policies is one of the reasons I prefer Wikipedia for information about shows and episodes—WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOT.

Regarding notability: the mere fact that someone may be searching for an article, may prove that it is notable for that person. That is why persons might be searching for a television episode, but not necessarily for the shop on the corner.

In the case of episodes being limited to an infobox, I can see reason for it merely being redirected to the list page, but if it has content, such content might be worth reading, and otherwise nowhere else to go.

Furthermore: I do think there are better ways to improve Wikipedia than going through each series' episodes and determining if they are notable; as they do normally provide at least some good encyclopedic content.

As such, I think the policy should rather focus on Plot versus other content in the articles: a plot summary is not notable, but if there are non-trivia content to a great enough extent, such articles are worth keeping.

[Off topic] Regarding images: I do not think it is required for every episode to have images, as such usage may not be fair use: Example: A show might have 200 episodes: At one image per episode this equals 200 images for the topic, and as such is not – in my opinion – fair use.

[Update] —''Note: Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia and many articles are stubs. It may be inappropriate to merge or redirect an article about a television episode just because it is a stub. Before executing a merge, ask yourself:''
 * Will the merge reduce the quality or coherence of the target article? 

My main problem with this process is the fact that individual episode articles are easier to read than the same information in a list: in my opinion such content should be limited to 50-60 words in an episode list.

The optimal solution, I think, would be to have episode articles as a sub-page of the episode list, though, as this will allow minimal information when looking through a list, with a possibility of a drill down if more information is required.

Regards G.A.S 12:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have an episode list you can look at. There is nothing wrong with this list. Wikipedia is not a substitute for watching a show, and episode articles shouldn't be created just because people want to write up a longer plot summary.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, I agree, it works and is rather easy to read. However: This does not always work (Example). (Of which this would work a lot better, but is in no way complete yet, or close to being complete.) In no way did I mean that Wikipedia is an alternative to watching the show, but the guideline allows 10 words per minute, which can be quite cumbersome to read through when it is in a list, even if each season has a list. In the example, content in the episodes' articles could include information about how it differs from the original media (Anime vs. Manga), arch important items, introductions of characters, etc.
 * Also worth mentioning; Individual episodes should – in my opinion – only be justifiable when the list and main articles are of outstanding quality.
 * Regards, G.A.S 13:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 10 words a minute is a suggestion, and that is for episode articles, not for LOE pages...the guideline doesn't say how to address them there. Plus, in some cases 10 words a minute might be a bit much. Think if 120 minute films followed that rule.(3) If the list is just a list of plots, then they should really be written as synopses (which the 50 word rule is probably a good one). The idea behind a more descriptive plot is to add context to real world information. If there is none, then there isn't a reason to have a longer plot. If the LOE page needs to be cleaned up, that is one thing. But if a page is there merely to say what happens in a show, that's another.(2) Unsourced trivia, whether relevant or not, can always exist on the LOE page.(1)   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit: Added references.
 * (1) My point exactly — but trivia does not help to get lists featured.
 * (2) But where does one draw the line?
 * (3) The guideline is given at WP:EPISODE — As such it is clearly not applicable for films.
 * I think more input is required in this regard, as the few editors here could hardly reach consensus for Wikipedia's editors as a whole; especially since episode articles have existed for a long time — and it being allowed to do for so long proves consensus to the contrary.
 * Regards, G.A.S 13:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to me it proved that no one bothered to enforce the guideline that was discussed, had consensus, and created surrounding it. Trivia can always be listed on a talk page with a notice to supply sources. It's a judgement call on where to draw the line. It should be clear if a page is being use to do nothing more than discuss an episode in detail.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends — which was first, the articles or the guideline? (Rhetorical question)
 * I am unsure what you mean by "It should be clear if a page is being use to do nothing more than discuss an episode in detail.". Do you mean articles with content limited to the plot of that article, i.e. the content and "a commentary" thereon (as would be the case with DVDs' special features?); or do you mean articles merely having the plot. Please elaborate.
 * Regards G.A.S 14:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When I said, "if a page is there merely to say what happens in a show", I meant if the page is nothing but a plot summary. The same goes for LOE pages where the plots are as long as feature length films. As for justifying the extended page with real world content, that does not mean that having a couple of bullets mentioning something on the episode justifies a completely separate page. Look at all the episodes at The Simpsons (season 8) (I mean click the links to the separate articles). That justifies a separate page. There are plenty of examples that show how a page should look, and how it is justified. If the potential of an LOE page achieving FL status is jeopardized because of the additional commentary, then two things should be asked: "Is the information relevant, or just trivial?" and "Does the format of the LOE page need to be changed so that this information can be included in a proper manner?".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks; there are a few other concerns regarding list articles — WP:LENGTH (Personally, I include summaries in lists into the count, while excluding true "list" content such as the names, dates, numbers, etc.); and consistency of layout.
 * I still think the focus of this project (or the wording thereof) is wrong though — it should focus on educating the editors and getting the content improved by those editors, not on the removal of most of the episodes on Wikipedia (as I understand the project). In the case of such articles not having regular editors, well, that is a different case altogether.
 * WP:EPISODE should also be much more clear, or include, on the "if a page is there merely to say what happens in a show" part. (What is + example, and what is not + example)
 * Regards, G.A.S 14:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Article size is based on "readable prose", that means just because you see 100kb on the edit screen, that may not be the actual size. Coding, categories, headers, they all take up space that isn't supposed to be considered when discussing article size, which you already know from your statement.(1) Because of that, it's unlikely a LOE page will actually get to the point (at least for television shows) that it is considered "too long". This guideline does educate editors. Well, not this one, but WP:EPISODE does, this guideline is about the process of review, not about how you should have handled the article initially. This idea of "getting the content improved" only works if it's available, and it isn't for many shows.(2) Did you want an example for each of those from me personally, or one the WP:EPISODE page?(3) What is and What should not be.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) Usually I copy the content into Winword, exclude the headers and such, and do a word count. (Although one can see if the article is too long or not as well; if it looks too long, it probably is.)
 * (2) I mean the review should be about getting the content improved, unless where absolutely impossible, in which case transwiki may be more applicable. This should be decided after discussing it with the applicable editors, though.
 * (3) WP:EPISODE requires an example, as it may prevent such articles from being created, or help getting them improved.
 * (4) In the example, the content under plot is exactly that which is given in List of Zoey 101 episodes, so it is rather obvious that nothing will be lost by the deletion of the content. However: what should be done with borderline cases? (See Invasion of the Capital and List of RahXephon media)
 * I do agree that [this] is not what we want in Wikipedia. I do not think articles should merely be a plot summary. But once additional content is added, articles may be quite good, albeit short. To expect articles such as Pilot (Smallville) for every article, might be a bit overkill, though, at least in the short term.
 * I think the notability guideline needs to be reconsidered regarding episodes, and should be seen in context with the episode list, series' article, etc.
 * The project page should be much more clear about the projects intent; as follow
 * If consensus is reached that the article clearly fails the guidelines, and displays no improvement, or potential for improvement, then the article should be redirected to the appropriate parent article. Some of the content may be suitable for merging to the parent page(s).
 * [Update] The project page should also make the intent more clear: i.e. is the intent to delete/redirect all pages except where proven otherwise (guilty until proven not guilty, or not guilty until proven guilty). On who is the onus to prove the contrary? I think it should be the onus of this project to prove that an article has no possibility to improve; although it is much harder work, I think the quality of the process will be insured.
 * Regards, G.A.S 15:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) Unless it's painly obvious, you can't just look at an article and say "that's too long". There are plenty of articles that look long but readable prose isn't much smaller. I've seen article size number become half of what they are listed as when you only look at readable prose.
 * (2) This is a review for discussing if the episode has asserted notability, not a peer review were we tell you everything that is wrong with your article and provide tons of insight as to how to make it better. That is the purpose of PR, and this review isn't here to supercede that.
 * (3) The first one isn't borderline. It has a ton of images that amount to nothing because it doesn't explain their importance. Were these real places shown in the animated show just as they are, or were they animated in the show as well? Showing me a picture of a real life government buidling, and saying it appeared in the show doesn't help anything. Ok, it appeared there, was it animated or did it appear life like. It seems like we have 9 real life images, for an animated show. It isn't like they brought a camera to these places and show them as they were. Someone drew them. What is their importance. Not really seeing an assertion of notability for this episode. The second one is a list of episode page, so I dont' know what you were wanting me to do there.(1) Also, article size works both ways. If an article is always going to be in "start" class, or even a low "B" class, because there isn't anything written about it, then it should be merged with a larger topic. Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. Just because a LOE page is formatted not to be able to handle the additional information does not mean a new page should be created just to store it. If the information is relevant, then the page should be formatted to handle it.(2) Also, if you challenge whether an article should be redirected or not, then go to the discussions taking place.(3) This place only discusses what is happening when a review takes place, not what will happen to an article in the end. Consensus is reached on the article's talk page. These articles are not newborns in the world of Wikipedia, they've had plenty of time to be corrected, and the style guidelines and policies have been in place for quite awhile. There is only so much ignorance one can plead. Also, the burden is not on any project to prove that notability is not asserted. The burden is on the person adding the information, the same goes with the verifiability policy.(4) The burden of providing a citation for something is with the adding editor. What you are confusing is that this page in no way says what is what with an article, only what happens when someone believes an article does not establish notability.(5)   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Cannot really help you on that episode; I used it as an example due to the fact that it does not only show plot information, as for the list, it is featured; but there is no good way of merging the information. I am unsure whether the article itself can easily be upgraded.
 * (2) It is not always that easy; maybe in a case like that transwiki may be more appropriate. This might be added to the project page.
 * (3) The questions have merely to do with the process, as the project page is not clear enough.
 * (4) I believe that goes for information that would be otherwise challenged. But point taken.
 * (5) True, but my point is WP:EPISODE needs to be appropriately expanded and explained first.
 * Regards, G.A.S 16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) Being featured doesn't mean it cannot be expanded. Featured status doesn't mean the article is frozen in time foreven and ever. You have to look at the content that could be added, and adjust the list accordingly. Maybe the information itself isn't relevant to Wikipedia at all. I don't really know because I don't follow that show, and the page itself doesn't really explain it to me.
 * (2)Out come is decided at the review itself, not here. If the outcome says "let's put this on a Wikia", that's that's the outcome. This page only discusses what could happen in a general term, the specifics of those terms are left to the discussing party to decide.
 * (5) This isn't WP:EPISODE. If you have concerns about it's descriptiveness then the discussion should take place there, with detailed questions and maybe some examples of what you do not understand or think should be explained better. This page merely discusses what happens if one decides on starting a review. It doesn't get into the specifics of what happens in the conclusion, or how to avoid a review.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help.
 * The project page may require some updating (With your point (3)); as do WP:EPISODE — that is a discussion of another time.
 * I think notability should be defined as an article saying "If you read me, it will be time well spent!" — but that is just me. (Maybe update the project page with it?)
 * Sincerely, G.A.S 17:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)