Wikipedia talk:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability

Discussion on how to frame the RFC
There are two possible statements that community consensus would go a long way towards resolving the present editing conflicts on TV episodes.


 * 1) WP:MUSIC states (and seems to have community consensus) that if an artist or group is notable, then released albums from that artist or group are automatically likely to be notable (but not necessarily the songs on that album).  Applying this concept to television shows, Are individual episodes automatically notable (and thus deserving of their own article without additional notability demonstrations) if the television show itself is notable?
 * 2) If this statement is not the case, then, Does an article about a television episode considered both notable and "more than just a plot summary" if it contains no more than a lead, a plot summary, and an infobox with relevent data on the show's airing and cast and crew? (add) More specifically, with such an article, is no further improvement necessary to ultimately meet present policy and guidelines?

Please provide your input to help in this matter. --M ASEM 05:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSIC does not say that. seresin wasn't he just...? 05:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, the arguments we've been having on this blurred the language. It suggests notability in MUSIC but people are stating here that episodes are automatically notable. Slight adjustment to the question --M ASEM 05:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I mentioned above, we might want to consider some form of structured discussion to avoid repeating ourselves, allowing things to be easier to follow for newcomers, etc, before diving right into this. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a poll on just these two questions is fine. At least, if we get this information, we can see what consensus says about episode articles. Ursasapien (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to see what consensus says about episodes articles, look at episode articles. Look at the articles that have existed for years and years. Take these for example. --Pixelface (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles who's existence/content/format has not been challenged directly do not indicate any consensus. If they challenge and survive or are dropped, that's consensus. --M ASEM 14:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you're saying AFDs like these can be used to indicate consensus? --Pixelface (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, those can be used in conjunction with all other AfDs to determine where consensus is, along with merge discussions and any other discussion on what to do with such content. You cannot just pick and choose which AfDs and merge discussions you want though, you have to consider the whole body of episode articles, and also must be aware that consensus can change. --M ASEM 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I like your example of Spoiler warning/RfC, I do not know that the for and against arguments have crystalized to the point where we can articulate them in this way. I am not sure we could even say with what we agree and disagree. However, if you would like to tak a stab at it, I would support a nicely laid out page similar to Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC. Ursasapien (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not suggest anything relating to television episodes be handled like spoiler warnings have been handled. --Pixelface (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pixel, check the dates on those things. That was an older spoiler warning RfC that happened a year or so ago, and is unrelated to the semi-recent events where the warning was removed. -- Ned Scott 20:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I added one clarification on the second question. This is to imply that if the article only contained that information, then there would be absolutely, ever, no need to add anything else to meet policy or guidelines. It's one thing to have a stub during the editing process, but consider the case if that episode article would never be edited again - is such an article appropriate then. --M ASEM `

Are we adding Statement not supported by under each statement now? --Pixelface (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To avoid spamming this page with a lot of agrees/disagrees, I encourage people to:


 * 1) Make a statement if you feel it adds something new to the discussion - don't just say "I agree with what X wrote".
 * 2) If you strongly agree or strongly disagree with a statement, indicate your support or lack of such appropriately; you can comment additionally on this. If you are somewhat agreeing or disagreeing or impartial to the view do not add anything - otherwise it will be hard to determine what has the strongest support and/or strongest contention.
 * 3) If you do wish to comment on a statement but you don't strongly agree or disagree, make sure to add it as a comment under that statement.
 * 4) If you strongly agree with a statement, sign your name below it with any additional comment.
 * 5) Do not use this page to create discussion threads on editors' views.
 * --M ASEM 22:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a "Not supported" vote is less meaningful than a "Supported" vote, and having these will promote simple gainsaying instead of contributions. Perhaps I expect the worst, but I'm worried if we start discussion threads this will be yet another repetitive, vitriolic thread that decides nothing. I've left a comment with the Not voter and asked if they can withdraw their vote. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point; instructions have been struck and fixed. --M ASEM 22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * All the dialogue above is confusing and should be moved to the talk page (this, too). --Jack Merridew 08:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Singular view through editing
Hm... this strikes me as not such a good format for getting consensus on some view. Perhaps it would be better if someone were to propose a singular view, and let other people reword that (a la WP:BRD) until we get something acceptable.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We had a singular view: WP:EPISODE, but if you will note WT:EPISODE there are way too many issues going on to even try to get the consensus on it. Plus I'm pretty confident this is going to be a major split. --M ASEM  00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is far more organized than what we had before. Far less repeating, and more inviting to other editors. We do run the risk of people treating this as some kind of vote, and many statements make it hard to support one part of it, but not others. I would have rather discussed the format a bit more before hand, but given that we already had a flood of people coming to WT:EPISODE, I can understand the urgency (WT:EPISODE itself is/was around half a meg of text, getting a few hundred edits a day in the last week). -- Ned Scott 05:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, If you try the single view method, that will effectively allow the minority, be it 15%, 25%, 33%, to be shouted down with the majority, no matter what the margin declaring "consensus". --Cube lurker (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just make this a general RfC about WP:EPISODE?
Should we just make this a general RfC about WP:EPISODE? Seems to be going pretty good so far, and it might be good to just start directing people directly to this page. We could clean up the top area (moving some of it to the talk page) with a brief summary of the discussion, noting the other areas of discussion to take into consideration. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 09:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just been through the statements to date, endorsing those I feel are making solid points. I believe the specific issue of episode notability is the core question that needs addressing. Nail that down, and lots will follow. The thing that is missing from this RfC process is a final adjudication; different users can look at it after a while and derive different conclusions. Given that it looks like the ArbCom is going to accept the current request, they may make some, ah, authoritative comment on this RfC. It certainly will be considered. --Jack Merridew 10:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The process after this RCF
To clarify for those that may have come here through other means and have not read through much of the discussion on WT:EPISODE, this RCF is to clear up the consensus on the key issue of episode notability.

Once it is clear which way this goes (and as noted, we may need an external moderator to decide that), then we go one of two ways:

This current step is the tougher one, but once we have determined where the consensus sits, we can proceed from there. --M ASEM 14:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If it clear that episodes need not demonstrate notability, then we will rewrite WP:EPISODE strictly as a style guide with no requirement that episodes need notability. Those that are involved in trying to merge episodes will be expected to stop per consensus.
 * On the other hand, if consensus shows that an episode article does need to establish notability, then there are two simultaneous discussions we must have:
 * What information is sufficient to satisfy episode notability. Here I propose a similar concept to an RFC, where a editor suggests a type of work ("Major award", "Neilsen rating", etc.) as a section lead and other editors providing supporting or dissenting statements for that. This then is codified to WP:EPISODE
 * The best route to take if you believe an episode is non-notable. How and who do you notify, how long you wait, what type of efforts should be expected to occur, and steps to do it.  This, for example, takes that idea about creating a sub-page with the pre-redirected versions to allow editors to find the last version to work from; also, I've created ER to list entry redirection template so that such merges can be found easier.  These also get codified to WP:EPISODE.  Those that are involved in trying to merge episodes will be expected to follow this per consensus.
 * I don't see either as following from the RFC to be brutally honest. For me the debate is less about what constitutes notability and more what do we as editors do with articles.  I don't think we need more guidance on notability.  I think we need to simply work out what the consensus is in this debate, summarise it and take that into our edits on Wikipedia. Given the wiki-lawyering over the word "should" I do not think it is possible to create guidance to suit all.  If the consensus is that articles should be merged to lists, then let's just note that that consensus has been reaffirmed.  If the consensus is that they shouldn't, let's just note that consensus has changed.  All editors need to be aware that articles must meet WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.  Whatever the result of this debate, I would hope all editors continue to edit articles to comply with those policies, through using appropriate edits, tags, discussion and processes. Let's remember that plot summaries are limited in what they can cover per WP:NOR, they cannot interpret.  Something has to be self evident.  If an article declares something is a reference to something else, this needs a secondary source or needs to be asserted in the episode itself.  Otherwise it is interpretive and should be removed. Hiding T 14:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * About the wiki-lawyering among the terms "should", "must" etc, what about we "import" the way this terms as defined by RFC 2119? That would end any wiki-lawyering about this. Samuel Sol (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason I bring up sources is because if consensus says that episodes must demonstrate their own notability, then we're going to have editing wars over what consistutes notability for an episode, and unless we do it immediately after the RFC, we're back at square one. Pixelface has brought up the use of Neilsen ratings which I don't believe is sufficient, but there's a point for consensus (though not as wide as all of WP) to decide.  Others have noted the emergance of non-commercial but respected bloggers or the like.  A fair discussion of those will then help to prevent problems after resolving the RFC.
 * And while the procedure for merging is likely not going to change, there are several steps in the spirit of cooperation that can be done by editors that should be codified to help make such merges, even when shown to be by consensus, to be less disruptive.
 * Neither of these is as deep a split as the current episode notability, but they are issues relating to the whole discussion and the ArbCom case. If we can resolve most of these without ArbCom help and leave them to resolve the behavioral one of TTN and others, then that's a good step. --M ASEM  15:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In all honestly, people will argue about anything. It's either the reliability of sources, for example I note people are saying IMDB is not a reliable source when I would argue that it is depending on how you use it.  So I don't think you ever will get full agreement.  However, full agreement of all is not requited, indeed, WP:CONSENSUS tells us that "stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice". I would argue that the procedures on how to edit are in place.  Let arb-com deal with people who cannot edit in line with our policies and let the rest of us edit in line with them.  Hiding T 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We may have a choice between trying to find a limited consensus that 95% of us will accept, or a more exact one that only--say--80% will accept. I would advocate trying for the weak one, at least first.  I say this without the least idea whether the stronger consensus would or would not support my position; let's suppose for argument that it would. I would rather have the people on the other side satisfied, than leave a substantial minority really dissatisfied. If any significant number of responsible editors at WP will remain strongly opposed, getting agreements on individual cases will be much harder, and much more will be forced into AfD or dispute resolution, and in a month or two  there will again to be the argument that consensus can change. This sort of thing is what I most want to avoid-- I want to keep these articles in the hands of those editing them, and not need to bother the rest of the community. This can be seen as an extension of MASEM's  argument--let this guideline be something that can be widely accepted, and then the details can be worked on. DGG (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that, first, the heart of "what is an appropriate episode article" is a very black and white issue, and unlike other policy or guideline discussions, I cannot see a midpoint on this issue, and since WP:CONSENSUS is not the same as a vote, saying that we need a certain fraction to proceed forward is problematic. On this core issue, there is going to be a significant fraction of editors involved that are not going to agree with the outcome, but hopefully, they will understand that this sets the consensus to work from.  Once we have that, most everything else will likely have negotiatible and talking points as to have a middle ground there.  We are going to have to work through that processing knowning that there will be some that will be very negative towards the process because their opinion on the core points of this RFC were against the determined consensus, whatever that will be - you just hope those editors let it drop and move on in a civil manner. --M ASEM  18:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know your good intentions, but it sounds like you are considering trying to force consensus. In the past even a 2;1 majority has not been held enough to justify consensus--it has to be something everyone of good will can live with. Its not like an individual afd, where we move on to another article. . I have yet to see a WP policy disagreement where there is not a midpoint. since we is not a democracy, the majority does not necessarily get to rule unless they can convince the others.  Do you really think you have such a proposal that is generally acceptable?  Personally, I do see a midpoint: moderately detailed sections, expanded to articles if there is sufficient   importance or individual sourcing. DGG (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we announce this in even more places?
The last time discussions took place about this topic, it was declared that there had not been enough community input. Where has this discussion been announced? Can we annouce it in more places also? I would hate for all this discussion to mean nothing because people shoot it down later on by saying "there was not enough community input and therefore no proper consensus". Seraphim Whipp 13:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel the same too, we do not have sufficient input from the community here. In the end people would dismiss whatever is the result of this RFC on grounds that it does not reflect the views of many editors. There are certainly a few places that we may announce this RFC, but anyone thinks a notice should be placed on the watchlist, best place for any announcement so it seems? - PeaceNT (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am seeing what can be done for wider announcement as well as to whom would be the best evaluator of the results. --M ASEM 14:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If anyone's interested, please give your opinion at Template_talk:Watchlist-notice - a discussion concerning a notice of this RFC on the watchlist.- PeaceNT (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It might not be as wide as a watchlist notice, but we can turn WikiProject banners into notices. For example, I've used Template:WikiProject DIGI for such notices, and am currently using one now. -- Ned Scott 04:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It has already been announced in seemingly every TV-related discussion page. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Maniwar's link is to part of the WT:EPISODE portion of the discussion. Even with the RfC transcluded on that page, it's easy to miss for someone who takes a glance and says tl;dr. Maybe we should just place a notice on the top of WT:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Temporary injunction against nomination of episode articles for WP:AfD?
Is there a way to get a temporary injunction against the nominating in mass of television episodes for WP:AfD pending the outcome of this RfC? There seems to be some WP:POINTy stuff here and I feel it would be best for both sides of the issue if we stopped nominating episodes until this is resolved. Redfarmer (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't favor a blanket stop. I have been de-junking my own fandom in the past few weeks and found some unmergable pages that really shouldn't exist. Also, the majority of AfDs of the last few days have not been pointy, and if the AfD you mentioned above was not made in good faith (as I said, I don't know the show and can just judge the articles in their current state), enough people will jump to prevent the deletion anyway. – sgeureka t•c 02:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure if we can force anyone to stop, but those who notice such AfDs should leave a note about the discussions here, so that closing admins will know what's going on. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)