Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage task force/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 39:
:Seems like people are taking it personal, as if they [[WP:OWN|own the article or something]]? I can find many problems with the first episode you listed above. There are links to how to write a good article on an episode (if it can be done at all, as not every episode can accomplish that), and there are other places which any good WikiProject should link to: [[WP:WAF]] and [[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]] for example. There there is the [[WP:EPISODE]]. Plus there are are about half a dozen featured episode articles, and I don't know how many GA Season 8 Simpsons articles (however many in that season, as everyone is at least GA). The tag provides a link and explains what is going on. Wikipedia is not TV.com, and episodes do not inherit notability from their parents. Like everything else, you have to establish notability, the prime example would be professionals writing about the episodes (i.e. Reception section). If an article doesn't have that section then it doesn't meet the criteria. That doesn't mean it cannot, it just means it currently does not. Also, let me correct that the guideline is not proposed, it is sure enough a guideline. The only proposal we have is for the review process of each episode. The guideline has merely been expanded to give examples and clarified on several points that were a little vague in their definitions. There is also a tag for the parent articles to alert them to what is going on, and it should be used when tagging episode articles. This way it alerts the larger community to the problem. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 19:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::I have seen many crap articles saved at AFD on the basis that they could improve. I can't help thinking that time would be much better spent improving the articles and adding real world context than arbitrarily adding these tags to billions of articles (which can easily be removed, by the way). [[User:The JPS|<
:::The existence of crap shouldn't mean that we keep more crap. The point of the tags is to get people to search for the information. It's not like we can just go "Oh, Google, yep, there are the sources!" People need to find them first. If the tags are removed, they'll be readded like any other relevant cleanup tag. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Yup, I agree that we shouldn't keep crap. I guess editors need to remember that the articles are not being deleted: they will still be accessible through the history. I'd be more comfortable if I saw evidence that certain people were helping to improve these articles rather than simplistically going through them like a bulldozer. Surely that is a more fitting task for the human brain. If tags are readded, then they can be removed again, so long as 3RR is not broken. This is a guideline, not policy. [[User:The JPS|<
:::::Once these go up for "review", we will help sort out any possible sources people have come up with. At this point, no work has actually been done, so there isn't much to help with, and if we could just go find sources, they wouldn't be tagged in the first place. "It's just a guideline" is a very bad excuse to ignore it. I would expect an admin to know that. Even then, a cleanup tag is a cleanup tag. You can't just remove them because you disagree with them. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 22:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
| |||