Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
archive tag |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{talkarchive}}
{{Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage/Archive}}
==General discussion==
We all need to slow down, we are doing nothing but overexhausting ourselves. What have we accomplished so far?.... not a damn thing. We've reiterating our opinions over and over and not truly decided on anything. Like I said before (which we weren't actually doing), we need to take this step by step, and that means topic by topic. We need to first list (list being the operative word, we don't need any discussions right now) everything we feel that we should address, and then we will, one topic at a time, take some votes and discuss '''only''' that topic, no others. We will "try" and come to a conclusion on how to handle that one topic, and once we have, we can "closediscussion" and move on to the next topic. Does that sound like a fair idea? If so, let's begin the list. <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 21:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 5 ⟶ 6:
:The redirecting of episode articles, IMHO, should NOT be done on the ground of the [[First Amendment]]. People have a divine right to say what they wanna say and write what they wanna write. The plot, an infobox, and maybe some trivia and facts on certain things in the episode fit the bill of existence. Thank you for your time. [[User:Angie Y.|Angie Y.]] 22:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:The First Amendment, IIRC, applies to the government, not a website. '''[[User:Sceptre|Will]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 23:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::That argument is compeltely invalid. An episode article with just a plot and infobox does not assert its importance for inclusion or notability, and on top of that per [[WP:TRIVIA]], trivia sections should always be avoided as they are unencyclopedic in nature.--<span style="background:white;
:::Again Angie, you are ignoring what I'm typing. I asked for a "list". I understand your concern, but if you don't agree with it, please let's wait until we are actually discussing it. I'm trying to figure out what everyone thinks needs to be addressed so that we don't miss anything. If you disagree with merging, then that's covered in the above list. <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 02:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 23 ⟶ 24:
::I think if we can make one tag that says it all, that would be best than 7 tags going down the page. To your first paragraph, yes. I agree with that. Though, if they can only prove it for one episode, then I don't think we should let all the episodes stay. I guess it would depend on the source, and if that source would be the same for all the episodes. People will always complain about change, but they'll get over it. Like I said, we all got over the non-free image campaign that sprang out earlier. But yeah, we need to all agree on a good "time frame" to give. Do people prefer a fixed or a sliding scale is the real question. <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 17:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::What were you thinking of, in terms of a "sliding scale"? --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::::One tag that basically says "This fails [[WP:EPISODE]]. See the relevant talk page for specifics could work." In general, all articles of a series will be around the same quality. That is why we probably want sources for examples instead of fixing the articles (unless they do a bunch of them). If they provide enough material to show that more than a couple can be covered, they all stay. If not, those few will just be left over. By complaining, I mean people like Matthew taking it to the extreme with stuff like "a fully discussed consensus is needed for every single change" to stall and stuff like that, not just regular "Damn it, you guys suck." complaining. It definitely should just be one simple week. We shouldn't try to go for specific times based upon the problem or anything. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 17:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 29 ⟶ 30:
I'm saying one tag for space purposes. That one tag could say a whole hell of a lot, but in a more condensed version that half a dozen of them. I think the only benefit to a sliding scale, based on the age of the article, is that we wouldn't smother ourselves with episodes that need reviewing all at once. Thounsands are articles, that's a lot for even a handful of editors to review. <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 17:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::More than a week, though. We have to be realistic - again, this isn't a "crisis" situation, and it doesn't need to be wrapped up quickly. (That doesn't mean it has to drag on for a year or two - just that it will take a fair bit of time to do it right.) Beyond that, we also have to consider the season - it is moving into summer (in the Northern Hemisphere, of course) and a lot of series are on hiatus. That means that the people who work on them on a regular basis may well be off-Wiki and unavailable to contribute. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
Well, if they are redirected it isn't like the information is lost, and if we leave explainations they'll know why they came back to 200 episodes redirected to a "List of" page. But I think "activity" can be easily assessed, just look at the history page. If no one has made any edits to the talk page, or the main page in several months then you probably won't have much of a response. <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 17:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 39 ⟶ 40:
::Maybe I'm viewing how this is going to be happening differently. Aren't we just using the tags as general "what's up?" things to direct people to the problem of them failing? Then we get them to provide sources, if the provided sources can cover everything generally, great. It should be pretty easy to tell (really detailed DVD commentary and single reviews for many, many episodes would be significant enough). If the aren't enough, we just redirect all of them, but if we see a small number that are good enough or if the sources proved that they were good enough, we salvage them. It's not like it's a complicated sit down, and read the whole article process. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 17:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::This is true, and it also suggests that we cannot just "bulk redirect" thousands of articles. The guideline does say ''"If the articles contain little content, consider merging or redirecting them into another article."'' - which is the basis of the "redirect" program. *However*, it also says ''"It may be inappropriate to merge or redirect an article about a television episode just because it is a stub."'' --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::::It only is inappropriate if we're just removing them for being stubs rather than looking at their possible future (which we're doing). [[User:TTN|TTN]] 17:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
True, but how long can you say it's a "stub" before you have to say "it's never going to be anything more than a stub"? <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 17:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:Why would we be using that excuse? With this, we're set in that sources and content must be possible, so its size really doesn't have to do with it. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 17:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::Don't forget the other conditions in the guideline: ''" Before executing a merge, ask yourself: Will the merge reduce the quality or coherence of the target article? Also do some basic looking for additional source material that could be used to improve the article. Are more sources available? If the answer to either of these questions is 'yes', it is probably better to forgo merging or redirecting. Instead, leave the article as it is or consider improving it."'' --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:::Redirecting can only help and if enough good sources are available, they'll be staying. I'm not really getting the point of this. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 17:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Redirecting, without making any effort to either a) discover sources (whether on your own or through the efforts of others), or b) upgrade the destination page (i.e. improving a one-line plot description) does *not* help. In fact, it does the exact opposite. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:::::The point of this is to find sources, so that means nothing, and the content really needs to be left to the contributers, not us. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 18:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 51 ⟶ 52:
::::Is that to me or Ckatz? This rapid discussion is getting confusing. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 18:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::Comment to Ckatz, the edit summary to both of you. lol. <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 18:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::(To Bignole) Plot information, while a primary source, qualifies in the case of episodes - so the plot summary is valid, and has to be considered for merging. We have to resolve this part of the process - I'm really not comfortable with just blanking and redirecting. It's not the right approach, it means the redirecting editor isn't assuming any responsibility for their actions, and it does (in most cases) weaken the destination article, as those are usually structured to depend on the larger body of information in the linked single-episode articles. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:::::If you would like to do that as a side thing, go ahead, but there is no reason to force people to wade through fancruft (like most summaries are) just to grab some specific points that they really are not familiar with. Just leave it to people that actually care for the articles. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 18:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Again (and I can't say this enough) it is about being responsible for what you are proposing to do. Simply "blanking and redirecting" is easy - too easy, in fact - and without some checks and balances, it will only create problems and hard feelings. If there is a series that hasn't been updated for a while, and we just allow it to be "B&E"'d - who will restore the valid portion of the information? Is it fair for one editor to say "this article doesn't deserve to be an stand-alone article" - and then effectively erase *all* of the content from Wikipedia? (Yes, I know it's in the edit history of the stand-alone article. That doesn't help the casual reader who is just looking for information, and who wouldn't have a clue that there used to be a full article.) --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
Should we just move this discussion over to the task force now? We should only discuss how to improve the guideline here, not our method of doing this. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 17:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 61 ⟶ 62:
How fast are people planning for this to happen after we get started? It seems like Ckatz is looking at a good while, but I'm looking towards a constant stream of ten series per day (on average) for a couple of weeks. Those would be mostly fifty episodes or less. Once we reach the mark of less than one hundred covered series, we could take it more slowly because they would mostly be the shows with 100+ episodes (unless they're all just small stubs). [[User:TTN|TTN]] 19:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:Sorry, but that sounds unrealistic. 500 episodes a day, for weeks on end? How are we supposed to properly assess, merge relevant data, and consider input from other editors? This should *not* be a sausage factory-type operation, *especially* given that we are talking about a guideline, not a policy. (From how you're describing what you want to do - here and elsewhere - I'm very concerned that you are primarily interested in just getting rid of the articles themselves, rather than improving them.) --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::We don't need to assess much. This requires nothing more than a cursory glance. If you see an article that looks like it can be more than just crap, we'll place it on the episode list talk page for further discussion. And I'm really not expecting more than twenty of them to receive actual replies anyways (more that anons going "You suck!"). If an episode can be improved, great, but we shouldn't pretend that very many can be improved. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 20:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 68 ⟶ 69:
::::It won't be just one person. Personally, I would be fine going over all of them myself, but if it's even just three people, there is like 160 per person. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::And this is still after the two weeks, so we can get familiar with them in-between. That is also just the auto-fail ones that don't get replies. We can place the twenty to thirty that do get some sort of response in a queue to sort through. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 20:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::(to Bignole)We're not spending two (or three) weeks, or 30 days (I prefer that number) assessing them - the time limit is about giving other editors time to reply. You tag it, and get on with other tasks. If someone has a question, give them tips, and let them go at it. At the end of the time period, you go back and assess. Simple. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:::::So if no one has a question and no one responds? <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 20:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Well, then it is just like any other proposed action - no response, no objection. It is then up to you (or whomever is dealing with that one) to process and merge. __'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
I say, if there's no response, it gets redirected and if there is something other than a plot there copy and paste it on the parent articles page. A lot of these "trivia" sections are taken directly from IMDb anyway. <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 20:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 79 ⟶ 80:
:::Yes...WP:TV should be about overseeing all pages and maintaining guidelines. Looking at the page, it all needs a bit of a revamp. Also, notability, sourcing, real-world info etc we're discussing here will apply to other areas, such as characters and fictional elements. However, lots of people loosely affiliate themselves with WP:TV, and an identifiable group of people who are interested in maintaining guidelines and assessment is good. Perhaps a 'Policy and procedure' taskforce? Also, how does this fit in with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment]]? If they're going round assessing something as stub or start quality, then we go in and say 'no, it's for redirection' then isn't that a bit contradictory? And a waste of effort... Although, looking at that page, there are over 4000 articles still unassessed! [[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] 08:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC) I've outlined my further thoughts below at [[#A radical new proposal]]. Doesn't deal with with W-Project Television/Assessment problem, though. [[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] 11:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Is anybody going to complain if I go clean out the twenty or so series that I placed messages on back on the 30th? [[User:TTN|TTN]] 19:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:Of course they will - I certainly am, right now. Sorry, but that would be entirely inappropriate, and contradictory to what we are trying to accomplish here. *There is no need to rush things* - and besides, any notes that you have applied in the past are superceded by whatever comes out of this process. Please do not stir things up again - it will only cause major problems. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::It's not like this process can be forced or anything. It's just going to be a decent "how to" page backed with a project or taskforce. The regular merge/redirect process can still be applied. I just want to make sure that I'm not going to be reverted by anyone here. If anyone not involved in this complains, they would complain over this and anything else. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 20:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm a bit concerned (based on several of your comments throughout the past few days) that you are hoping for a formalized "go" to resume the same large-scale, high-speed purge that led to where we are today. As you said, a guideline can't be forced - it involves a degree of latitude, it is subject to personal interpretation, and the people "overseeing" it will not have any more authority than any other Wikipedian. (For that matter, if enough people decide they want to do so, they could well come in and revamp the guideline so that there is *no* discouragement of single-episode articles.) You want to clean up what you perceive to be a problem - but if you push too hard, and too fast, people will push back. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::::What you're talking about isn't even a possible guideline. We cannot force people to go with this review method due to the fact projects don't [[WP:OWN|own]] their subject articles. For that reason, that will never become any sort of guideline. As long as I'm going to use the "discuss first, receive no opposition, then redirect" method, I should be fine doing what I'm doing. There is no way for me to receive any real criticism with that method as long as I don't "bully" people into providing sources. This whole task force approach seems nice in writing, but nothing is really going to be accomplished in the end. These are used to mange articles instead of controlling their flow, so this whole tagging plan will likely fall apart. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 21:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::You are correct in saying that we can't force people to follow the procedures we develop here. By the same token, we cannot force people to accept the redirects - they're certainly free to undo any and all of them. None of this is the "law", nor is it enforceable. However, if we develop a fair, open process, and proceed in a manner that can accommodate most concerns, we have a much better chance of achieving some measure of success. Yes, you might be able to carry on with what you have been doing, but it won't be "fine" - and it will only cause more problems. We'll just end up with a cycle of redirect-revert-redirect-revert that won't help anyone, unfortunately. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::::::Anyone that will revert is going to revert whether we give them a box of candy or we if we walk right past them. This is a good method for cleaning these up and keeping them clean, but it will never actually get down and remove them. It'll eventually just become content with itself like the trivia project. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 21:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::If this cleans up (and keeps clean) a series of articles, why would they need to be removed? If (by some bizarre possibility) every one of the existing episode articles was able to be rewritten to GA or FA status, would you be able to accept that, or would you still want to redirect? (Please don't take offence - I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just trying to get a sense of your goals here.) --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::::::::I meant that it is good for cleaning articles articles worth keeping, but it cannot fix the rest. It will only be able to either place a ton of worthless tags or just bring them up to mediocre standards. Any article that has encyclopedic merit is worth keeping (as is any GA or FA that was reviewed correctly). Only a a few hundred episodes in the history of television will ever need any real coverage here. Those are perfectly fine, but the rest that act as if this is tv.com need to go. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, if that's how you feel, I think that you may have to resign yourself to being reverted on many of your edits. I just don't think there is support, either in the guideline or amongst Wikipedians, for such a massive reduction in content. I think people will accept a cleanup, if they see that the many truly marginal articles are being merged *without any valid content being discarded*. However, that won't extend to seeing the vast majority of the TV content reduced to a few sentences on list pages. I keep seeing TV.com and Wikia being used as substitutes, but they are very different entities. One advantage to Wikipedia - a big one, as far as I am concerned - is that there is a system in place to ward off theories and speculation, which those other sites tend to allow (or even encourage). I appreciate being able to read up on something I might have missed, and just get the facts, rather than having to plow through someone's half-baked theories as to why a character sneezed in a certain way. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::::::::::If I'm reverted, I'll just have to be persistent, or just give up for a bit if necessary. I doubt it'll be that many anyways. The only real worry is Matthew with his strange idea that a full and absolute discussed consensus must be reached for anything to happen (basically just wikilawyering). Hopefully, I can just get people to tell him otherwise. People either accept that these need to be redirected or they don't. They'll either take it as it is and move on or they will argue for the episodes' existence forever; there is no middle ground. That attitude is basically [[WP:NOHARM]]. Why shouldn't we just provide everything just because it can help people, even though it goes against our notability and verifiability policies and guidelines? I think the second part answers the question. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 00:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mean "missed" as in an episode you missed, because you shouldn't come here to find out what happened on your favorite show. <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 00:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 120 ⟶ 121:
:::Would using a template similar to {{tl|Primarysourcesepisode}} help to communicate the concern? [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] 11:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Good template. Make a similar one for each likely problem, OR combine them all in one. Could adapt the existing {{tl|In-universe}} template also. Most of the time, the problem will be simple notability: {{tl|notability}}, which could be adapted or specified as per guideline on template page. If we made a 'failed WP:EPISODE' tag, with a space to pipe particular concerns, that will allow flexibility without clogging the page up...let's face it, most will have ALL the problems. [[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC) I've found more I never knew existed: {{tl|plot}}, {{tl|TV-in-universe}}, {{tl|review}}, {{tl|fansite}}. [[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] 15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::The "all-in-one" idea is probably best, with variables for displaying different concerns. Then it can just be configured on a page-by-page basis, displaying the relevant information while maintaining a consistent look. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
Need to include the suggestion that editors merge it themselves into a 'list of' or parent page. That after all is what we want them to do. [[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] 20:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 132 ⟶ 133:
*Are we supposed to answer here? I'm not sure, but Yes, both and yes/no. lol. Yes, we should do this. I think we've all explained why we should fairly well already.--Some articles will be a simple "redirect" because they may be literal copies of a section of a parent article. We'll have to make a judgement call on the merging. But I say, leave it to that particular television show's regular editors to decide what would be suitable, per guidelines, on the parent articles. Otherwise we may spend all our time trimming a plot so it fits in the parent article.--Bulk redirects will be necessary for some. Just like there may be simple redirects that are uncontroversial, there may be a whole group of them together that are that way. There may be 5 articles out of 22 that need more focus beyond a simple redirect. 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, each section is for discussion of the individual point. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:::I think simple cases get redirected by one editor, no hassle. (ie. those that have had no input during the tagged period, and contain no useful info). More complicated cases get referred to a review page where two or three editors can have a look at it and come up with a plan. EG. merge, redirect themselves, give the regular contributors a month to perform the merge themselves or whatever. In this category will fall those pages where people have made an effort to provide sources... the taskforce can see if these are reliable/going to work or just padding. [[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 146 ⟶ 147:
# (revised) '''Do not''' mindlessly redirect. The intention of this process is to preserve useful and relevant information, while ensuring that articles conform to the guideline. With that in mind, look over the episode article. Plot summaries, if not overly long (see [[FAKELINK|length guideline]]), can be pasted into the appropriate section of the parent article. Information beyond the plot, even if trivial, can be copied to the talk page of the parent article. That will allow editors to devise an appropriate way of expressing that information on the parent article. Provide them with an example of a similar page that accomplishes that task.
:I've tweaked Gwinva's instructions to emphasize the responsibilities of the merging editor. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:::They weren't mine.. No one's signed the list (so we can deny or take credit for whatever takes our fancy!). I just responded... But yes, anything salvagable could be pasted on the talk page, but people need to be reminded to work on it before putting it in the main article.[[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] 21:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::What exactly is salvageable? To be worth saving, it'll probably need to be sourced or it'll likely be able to be sourced. If that's the case, it'll just be better to leave the episode. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 22:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::True. In fact, I think I've said that myself in one of these sections, somewhere.... [[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] 22:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::I'm not going to compromise a FL by pasting plots into the respective sections, and in case you hadn't noticed it takes a bit of effort properly trim a plot. They can trim it themselves. Point them to where the plot is. <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 21:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Let's avoid the snarky comments, OK? I'm aware that it takes effort to trim a plot - and I'll again emphasize that if the sole intent of this procedure is to validate the "rush through it" approach that got us here in the first place, then we are doing the wrong thing. Before this can go "live", it has to be acceptable to the community as a whole - including people who are perfectly comfortable with having one-per-show. We *have* to demonstrate that this is a fair procedure that doesn't just give "carte blanche" to deletionists. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::::We would be here even if I had been all "sweet and nice." Many people were just using me as a target for their anger (though some did have legitimate concerns). Anyways, people aren't going to easily accept it either way. Taking a lot of time to merge summaries that could be replaced by regulars in half of the time is not going to help. You can merge if you would like, but I doubt many will follow you. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::But what you are saying is that because people have ignore a guideline that was already in place, not only should be say "you have until this time to fix it", but when they don't, we are supposed to fix it for them? Not seeing this "fairness" you speak of. It seems that there are too many "feelings" to consider. If it's just a plot, they can write another. I just as easy to say "these articles were redirected because no one could provide third part, reliable sources to support their existence. If you would like to adapt the plots into this parent article, you can go here (provide a link to the material) and copy the plots." <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 22:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 162 ⟶ 163:
:::Yes, say 14 days from first tag. First review at/soon after 14 days. No change to a useless article=speedy redirect. Any question or significant input from editors, tagged to a review page for discussion; consensus redirect or retagging with agreed time for improvement and re-review (time determined by circumstance).[[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] 19:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::14 days sounds good to me. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 19:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::14's a bit short - and we have to incorporate the "merge" idea. That is the *primary* direction of the guideline, not redirecting. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::::::What if there's nothing worth merging? -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
14 isn't that short if it's possible to be done. I did [[Pilot (Smallville)]] in no time. If you have an hour you can find the sources if they exist. You don't even need an our, because your best sources will be in the "NEWS" section of Google (just about anything in the "web" part is crap), and you're going to get your answer when you put in "Star Trek" or "Batman: The Animated Series", etc, about whether there are sources that will help you develop an individual article, or if they will help you develop an article about a series of episodes. <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 178 ⟶ 179:
===Discussion: Does every series need to be processed?===
One thing that is clear from points raised throughout this (and related) discussion is that there will be certain series that do not need to be "processed". Wherever this topic has come up, some shows consistently get mentioned as examples of "how to do it right". (Examples include ''Doctor Who'' and ''The Simpsons''.) I think that if we encounter a series like that, where a large percentage of the articles are already strong and there is a strong contingent of editors working on them, there is no need to tag/merge/etc. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:I don't know about Dr. Who, unless they are still doing it, but I've had people direct me to a "good" Dr. Who episode article that was horribly written. THe plot was excessively long. Now, the Simpsons..most are generally "GA" and I'd be fine with letting them handle their stuff, but alert them to this guideline. (when done) <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 22:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::The Dr. Who ones do seem pretty bad, but many seem to have decent enough sourcing. Ones like that should be saved for when the real problem articles are gone. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 22:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::These (and others like them) have wikiprojects of their own who can take responsibility for ensuring the guidelines are followed and tagging articles for clean-up.[[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] 22:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::The problem with leaving it to the projects is that they may just want to keep articles based upon fan reasons. For example, while a good chunk of Simpsons episodes can have coverage, many probably don't have the information. The project would still probably try to keep them around. But, that should be saved for last anyways. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::This is a *guideline* - we don't have to weed out every last episode article or micro-manage every series. If people are willing to put in the kind of commitment that the 'projects like ''Who'' and ''The Simpsons'' are doing, they deserve the right to carry on with what they are doing. Show them the guidelines, and get on with the problem material. Heck, if this process inspires new TV projects that mirror the work done by the more experienced ones, then so much the better. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::::::Unless given a reason, we should follow guidelines to the letter. We shouldn't just let these exist because "it's just a guideline." You also seem to forget that these also fall under [[WP:V]], [[WP:N]], [[WP:NONFREE]] and [[WP:NOT]], which need to be readily enforced. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 22:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Guidelines are not policy. To quote the "guideline" guideline, ''"It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, '''it is not set in stone''' and should be treated with '''common sense''' and the '''occasional exception'''."'' (my emphasis) --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::::::::And common sense says that things that fail major tenets of this site should be removed. The common sense goes more with exceptions anyways, not being lenient for no reason. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It isn't about the time and effort they put in, the problem comes that its time and effort that goes no where because the information doesn't always exist. You're talking about a series that has almost 20 season. Proportionally, they won't have too much more third party information than any other show. We can't say "WikiProject Simpsons" has a bunch of good, active editors, so we'll let a bunch of their episodes slide off the scope, and then expect other people to listen to us. It's favortism. <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 22:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:It isn't favouritism - especially when we're pointing to those projects as examples of how to fulfil the guidelines. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::I believe we're pointing to their episodes that have managed to reach FA status, and that we want to contact these projects to get everyone on the same page. It is favortism if you say "you can do what you want, because you're good", and then turn around and go "you're not, so you can't". No one is above the rules, no matter how well you do something. Maybe, maybe some leeway on the amount of time we might give them to develop, but I don't believe that we should simply say "let's ignore their episodes, because they have a lot of really good ones." <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 22:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::Someone needs to say "look, we know you do good work on these episodes, but you need to take care of these (and give them a list) problem articles, because when other editors see them it sets a bad example of what episode articles should look like." Because we can point them to a million great articles, and it only takes 1 horrible article for someone to say "well, you allow that one". <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 22:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 201 ⟶ 202:
== "Plot" vs "Plot summary" vs "Synopsis" ==
I have been looking at a lot of TV episode articles recently, and I have noticed the seemingly random use of the aforementioned terms for the storyline sections of the articles. Which one is preferable, and if one is, is it worth changing the articles to match it? Thanks. <
:Synopsis is a summary of a plot, and has no spoilers. A plot is a summary of a story, and has spoilers. A plot summary is just redundant and should be changed. The "List of ____ episode" pages that have information about what happens in an episode (unless they're long) would be considered a synopsis. What you see on an episode page is generally a "plot". Like, that little bit on the back of a DVD box is a synopsis because it doesn't really spoiler anything for you, just gives you a basic overview. Synopses you would find in the lead paragraphs of the article, as the lead summarizes the whole article and shouldn't have any spoilers. Does that help? <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Thanks! :) <
==A radical new proposal==
Line 323 ⟶ 324:
== Redirect process ==
For articles that are redirected, we should take steps to make it easier for editors to find the old information. One would be ensuring that links to the old versions are placed on the destination talk page. Another, easy step is to place the redirect code at the top of the episode page ''without'' blanking the page. The net effect is the same - the page redirects automatically, and if one follows the "redirected from" link it only displays the redirect text. However, clicking on "edit" will reveal the old text - rather than having to dig through the history, which may not be as intuitive to all editors. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:The easiest method would be to link to the last version of the episode list with the single links, and just show people where this little "redirected from" link is at. The rest should be easy enough. Given that most of these will never be touched again, leaving giant redirects really won't help anything, and if people find the page on their own, they can just click the history tab. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 18:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::This wouldn't create a "giant redirect" at all. Check out [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage taskforce/test]] to see what I mean. (It will redirect back here - click on the "redirected from" link to see the displayed page. Them, hit "edit" to see what's underneath.) If anything, it is easier as you don't have to blank the page. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:::I mean giant as in kilobytes taken up, not the actual redirect text. It'll just take up unnecessary space (not that it's really a space issue). It's just rather pointless because people can easily look into the history if they know how to get to a redirect (which would be the main problem for newer people that want to improve them). [[User:TTN|TTN]] 18:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::::How on earth would it take up extra space? The text is already there, otherwise you couldn't access it from the history. It also makes things easier for editors improving the content, and is simpler for the redirecting editor. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::::That's why I said it really isn't a real space issue. It's just sort of messy in my opinion as it's just unnecessary. There is also the problem of categories. They remain even if they are under the redirect "tag." The user would also have to clear them out, which would be even more work than "Ctrl+a and Ctrl+v." [[User:TTN|TTN]] 18:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
| |||