Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage/Archive 1

Archives Add archive
Old WP:TVE: 04/04 - 06/07 Old WP:LOE: August 2005 - April 2006 May 2005 - June 2006 June 2006 - January 2007 Feb 2007 - June 2007 /structure Current: 7-12 June 2007 Deletion-related

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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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. Angie Y. 22:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The First Amendment, IIRC, applies to the government, not a website. Will ^(talk) 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.--十八 23:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary sub-section)

A template with a date timer that will add the article to a cat after X amount of days would be easy to make. I'm not sure what all this list stuff is about. We've already discussed all of these things in the past, about what episode articles should exist, and what ones shouldn't, and how to avoid them. Heck, we're talking on the talk page of the guideline that resulted from all those discussions. Lets get on with setting up a review type thing, and expanding on ideas like season / story arch articles, etc. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I made this template: {{Primarysourcesepisode}}, however I haven't used it much. We could agree that efforts to redirect unsourced articles should only commence after tagging the article for a week, and then be restricted to 1RR. Addhoc 11:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a time stamp on that? Kind of like how the orphanbot works, where it says "you have 7 days.." and then states what day the 7th day is. Also I would think a note saying "do not remove this tag" would be important. Tell them "please do not remove this tag, when the article goes up for review you are welcome to voice your opinions there". Otherwise we'll lose track of articles where people remove the tag a second time after we may place it up there again. Simply ask them nicely not to remove it at all, but that leaving it up there isn't the end of the world. If they fulfill the requirements, great, it will be easy to review.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably, however I would prefer to get more opinions from other editors first. If the time frame was months for example, I think we would probably use a different mechanism based around {{Primarysourcesepisode|date=June 2007}}. Addhoc 13:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, of course. That was one of the things that was going to be discussed from the list. I think most editors agreed that we should give them a "warning" (so to speak) about how long they would have to expand their episode to conform to the standards agreed upon. We hadn't decide how long yet. We can either do a fix time, or a slide scale based on the age of the episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we set up whichever tag(s) we end up with on the episodes, post general messages on the episode lists or series articles, and we let them go for a week or whatever we decide. If nobody replies to it, they're just redirected. If somebody does reply, they can try to provide sources or whatever. People on this "task force" can try to confirm the validity of them, and if they're good enough we let the series go on its own. If not, they're redirected. The general message will direct them here for ways to fix them up, and from here they can find the task force page for more specific questions.

In the task force page, we can try to make safe list, and discuss any series/single episodes that we may think have good possibilities of becoming better. Is that what we're going for, and all we really need to do is work out the specifics? While I still don't think it'll solve much (people will still find a way to complain), I guess I can just mass tag articles and get on a good schedule when we're ready to go. TTN 17:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What were you thinking of, in terms of a "sliding scale"? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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. TTN 17:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think we need to be reviewing single articles. Just a general "These fail..." will work. If we happen to see a gem here and there, a more specific tag can be used, or we can just not tag it and discuss it on the episode list or task force page. Doing it by age really doesn't seem to work because if an article is really old, it needs to be redirected, but also very new ones need to be redirected due to the fact that they shouldn't exist. We can give leniency on older ones, but the newer ones really don't have a real excuse. It's also sort of pointless because this is based upon sources and the willingness of users rather than how long they've been around. TTN 17:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to. If you tag all the articles, there are a couple hundred television shows, easy. If we tag all the episode articles, we may have to review what they find for more than just one article. Who's to say that they find one source for everything, but dozens of sources for dozens of episodes. We'll have to check the sources to see if they fit the verifiability, reliability criteria. That can be rather overwhelming when it adds up. I'm sure a lot we'll never have to worry about that happening. But that isn't to say we should ignore the possibility and let it bite us in the ass later.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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. 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." --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It only is inappropriate if we're just removing them for being stubs rather than looking at their possible future (which we're doing). 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"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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. 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." --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting can only help and if enough good sources are available, they'll be staying. I'm not really getting the point of this. 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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. TTN 18:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but how many times have you seen an article that had a bunch of information but no source? A LOT. And the burden of sources falls on the contributor that put it there, not on everyone else, and is subject to removal on the spot. If we did that, there wouldn't be much left in the majority of them, so their "quality" so to speak would be just about nill. It's a case by case basis, but one where there are going to be far more cases that aren't even close to stuttering in quality when they are merged back to their parent articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that to me or Ckatz? This rapid discussion is getting confusing. TTN 18:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Ckatz, the edit summary to both of you. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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. 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.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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. TTN 17:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(To Ckatz)Plot information is copyrighted information and cannot stand alone. If the parent article contains little synopsis for the episodes that's all it should have with that information. The more plot you have the more real world information you had better have to justify the plot. Just like images we have to justify their use. And if a parent article has no synopsis for their bits, then a suggestion to that set of editors should be made about either developing some season pages, or include a brief description of the plot on the "List of" page they're at. Anyone can write a plot, and even if the show is old and doesn't come on any longer, the history will never be deleted in a redirect. So long as you inform the people of what the can do, I see no reason why it should be a concern.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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). 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.) --Ckatz^chat_spy

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. TTN 20:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(to Ckatz)I'm concerned that you want us to spend more than 2 weeks personally assessing articles that have absolutely no information at all. I don't need 2 weeks to know that an article with just a plot summary violates the copyright set forth by that network. If it has nothing but non-free material it should be redirected without assessment. There's nothing to assess. It isn't our job to fix all these articles. Let the people that know them best do that, if it can be done. I'd rather not spend 2 weeks on 2 articles, and in contrast, I'd rather not spend 1 day on 500 either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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. 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. 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So if no one has a question and no one responds?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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. __Ckatz^chat_spy 20:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary sub-section 2

Got tired of scrolling up to the edit button. I think I've answered this in one of the other sections below, but I think we tag everything. At first assessment (ie after the 14-days or whatever) some will be speedy-redirects without any onus to merge... fail on unsourced, or copy-vio. That's lenient, really: Copy-vio qualifies for speedy-deletion. Unsourced material in any page on wikipedia can be removed at any time by any editor and Fact-tags are a courtesy, like our proposed 'fail WP:EPISODE' tags. Onus is on the original contributor to source, not us, and we shouldn't be merging anything unsourced, because we don't know it's true. Anything that seems complicated at first-review, due to response, questions, content worth of merging, any doubt in reviewer's mind, then we post it on a review talk page, for 2nd or 3rd opinions. That might result in us popping a message on the original contributor's talk page, or agreeing to merge together, or all agreeing to bin it. The problem before was that people felt there was no due process. Now there will be. After any redirect/merge/deletion, we can put a template message on the talk page of the parent article, saying what's happened, and how they can retrive info if necessary, and what to do with it. Refer them to our review talk page, also. Am I repeating myself? Sorry!Gwinva 20:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There's also a Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode lists, which would cover the concept of season pages. There's quite a bit of overlap, since that is what we are hoping people will make out of the redundant episode pages. Perhaps the projects need to be merged and renamed. Particularly as the current title 'WProject Episodes' seems to imply we want people to make episode pages. A better title for a wider brief? Then the project page can outline templates/infoboxes examples for 1. season/list of pages before people jump on the existing templates/boxes for episodes. Also reflect that WP:EPISODE is directing people to make season/story arc pages first. What do you think? Gwinva 08:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:LOE is pretty much inactive now, and I think a merge would be fine (it would make things less confusing). I once suggested some cross-collaboration for growth guidelines, but didn't really see it through. Heck, WP:TV itself doesn't see all that much activity sometimes, maybe we should just consider this all a task of WP:TV rather than a whole task force. -- Ned Scott 08:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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! 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. 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? 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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. 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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 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. 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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. 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.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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. 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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. 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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The List

In no particular order; these are ideas to propose for discussion.
Out of courtesy, please do not delete ideas posted by other editors; instead, open a heading below the list to start discussion on it.

• The redirecting of episode articles: should it be done
  • If yes, how to do it
  • Merge, or redirect?
  • examination of the existing guideline (arguments for both keeping and merging)
    • "bulk" redirects - are they appropriate?
• What fits the bill of existence?
• How to avoid needing to create a separate article.
• What is a fair and reasonable waiting period?
  • should this differ depending on the age of the article/activity level of the series?
• What responsibilities does the editor who proposes such a change have?
  • posting a template
  • responding to questions from editors
  • merging suitable content from the episode article into the destination
  • expanding lists where appropriate (instead of just collapsing, say, six seasons of articles into an existing one-page list of single-sentence plot summaries)
    • perhaps we develop a template for series and season episode pages?
  • responsibility for ensuring some notification left re: reason for merge
  • responsibility for ensuring some easy-to-find/understand link(s) to old text are placed on list page (since old text does serve a purpose as a resource for editors wishing to upgrade "list" entries - especially for older/less popular series)

Discussion: Templates

One thing I have been thinking about on posting a template is that on the talk page there could be a list of the things it is missing to meet the criteria for allowing it stay on it's own page, ex. summary too short or too broad in detail, need more than just a plot summary with by adding crew details or cultural references etc. -Adv193 05:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Crew details and cultural references are pretty much trivia, or don't in themselves make an episode notable. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant together with the plot, the idea I posted is intended to avoid confusion and unneccessary contact to the one who posted the template for asking for clarification. Besides I wasn't thinking of using regular Trivia anyway because of all the deletions throughout wikipedia caused by mostly unnotable or useless episode tibits. -Adv193 05:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, directing them to WP:EPISODE should be enough to explain why, if the guidelines are expanded and spelt out so everyone knows exactly what they mean. Gwinva 06:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Would using a template similar to {{Primarysourcesepisode}} help to communicate the concern? 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 {{In-universe}} template also. Most of the time, the problem will be simple notability: {{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. Gwinva 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC) I've found more I never knew existed: {{plot}}, {{TV-in-universe}}, {{review}}, {{fansite}}. 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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. Gwinva 20:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking simpler is better. The first thing we want to establish is if the episode even has the potential to have an article; its notability. With that in mind I've made {{Episode-notability}}. If an episode should have an article, then we can start adding clean-up tags. -- Ned Scott 21:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: Should we do this/how to approach it

1. Yes or no?
2. Merge, or redirect?
3. "bulk" redirects

• 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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. Gwinva 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: Responsibilities of the "task force"

1. Maintaining the guidelines set forth here. In other words, keep an eye out for mouse happy creators of episode articles, where parent articles are underdeveloped themselves.
2. Tagging then reviewing problem articles
3. Checking review page and contributing to discussions regarding specific articles and review activity on them

Discussion: Responsibilities of the editor who takes on merging/redirecting a specific series

1. Try not to mindlessly redirect. Look over the episode. If it contains more than a plot, even if trivial, contemplate opening a "wordpad" and pasting additional info there (keep track of which episode has what info), and past it on the talk page of the parent article. Allow them to device a good way of expressing that information on the parent article. Provide them with an example of another similar page that accomplishes that task.

As I mentioned above, many will be simple redirects. More complicated or questionable cases can be referred to a review page for a few editors to have a look... saves the whole task and responsibility falling on one editor. Gwinva 19:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1. (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 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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.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. TTN 22:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

True. In fact, I think I've said that myself in one of these sections, somewhere.... 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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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. 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."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

They need to remove any templates from the talk page, otherwise there'll be lists of 'Start-class rated articles' still on the W-Project TV/Assessment page and other similar things, even after the articles themselves have gone.Gwinva 11:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: Suitable waiting period

1. No longer than 30 days, unless necessary. Use common sense.

I really think that we should go for just a week if nobody even replies. If someone does reply, we can give them more time to find the sources or whatever. A special case could be if there was a really active main editor, but he has gone on a break or something, so we could just leave it for longer. TTN 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that 14-20 days should be decent for most. It's more than a week, but it allows us to find series of articles that have no activity, and are so severely underdeveloped "nothing but a title and an infobox" (yes I've seen that) they would seriously benefit immediately from redirection.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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).Gwinva 19:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

14 days sounds good to me. -- 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What if there's nothing worth merging? -- 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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We never said it needed to be completed in 14 days.. just evidence the job has begun. At the review, a task-force editor can retag it for an extension, or post it to the review page for a few of us to decide if improvements are likely. A nice note from an editor explain what they intend to do would prevent a speedy-direct, and 14 days is enough for that. As for the hope of merging, that is what we are trying to encourage the original contributors to do. Perhaps that suggestion should be included in the template? Oh... shouldn't say that here. I'll so and add it in the template section! Gwinva 20:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: Improving the information available to editors

1. Find, or help create "List of" and "Season" pages that prove you can develop them to include for relevant information.
2. Clearly establish what should/shouldn't be in an article.

I'm playing around with the guidelines in my sandbox to see if they can be expanded and made more explicit. I'll post my suggestions at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes when I'm done (unless someone else does so first, in which case I'll moan that their suggestions aren't as good as mine!) Gwinva 19:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's there now..go and comment! Gwinva 20:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Also see more thoughts below at #A radical new proposal. Gwinva 11:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: Workflow once we arrive at a plan here (in terms of the larger community)

1. contact relevant wikiprojects (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture#Television), mention changes to guideline and procedure for assessment, and invite comments.

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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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. 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.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. 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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. 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) --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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. 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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If we come across problem articles, we can tag them. Good wikiprojects will rally round to try and improve them. I keep an eye on Doctor Who, and everyone there seems aware there are articles which don't rate or which fail guidelines, and there's a good body of diligent contributors who are working towards improving these. If a WikiProject is making a real effort at bringing their articles up to scratch or have created a to-do list, then we leave them to it most of the time. If they seem uninterested, we need to be more interventionist. Again, anything like this would be referred to a review page, so a suitable response/course of action could be decided. Anyone complaining it's an us/them thing can access the discussion and see the rationales, and that it's not just one person making an instant call. Gwinva 08:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Criteria

What are the criteria for keeping an episode going to be? Just providing secondary sources? I'm not sure that should be sufficient alone, nor do I think that not providing secondary sources should automatically prevent an article from being kept. For example, "Amok Time" doesn't include any secondary sources, but it's a significant episode and IMO worth keeping (perhaps if its significance is more explictly established in the article). Could we establish a list of criteria necessary for keeping an article? Acegikmo1

It has to prove that it can be more than a plot summary and trivia. It needs non-trivial, out of universe info back by good sources. Other than that, there is no way for us to keep them. TTN 23:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that plot needs to get block-checked into a trimming wall. For that episode, I think the cultural impact it had is a great start. It's a very well known episode (er...well, scene) in popular culture. But all that trivia needs a source (it appears taken from IMDb) and needs to be in prose. But it should really have more than just one section of real world information, but that episode is a definite "review list" episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"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. – ARC Gritt^TALK 00:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :) – ARC Gritt^TALK 00:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A radical new proposal

Following a brief discussion above at #arbitrary sub-section 2, I've suddenly thought of something quite radical. Here it is:

1. Merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode lists and rename it Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Policy and Review taskforce. This talk page goes with it. The taskforce takes responsibility for developing guidelines and assessing all articles. After all, characters, fictional elements etc will suffer the same problems of notability as episodes and seasons.
2. W-Project Episode project page is reviewed for content as per WP:EPISODE guideline, extraneous info removed, then page moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article
3. W-Project LOE project page reviewed and improved with stuff about season pages and story arcs and moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write a list or season page
4. Finish discussing our ideas for reviewing pages, make it a guideline titled Wikipedia:Television article review process or whatever. Needs to cover reviews of ANY type of article.
5. Reorganise W-Project TV project page, with:
   • a section for 'How to' pages to be listed; include above and work towards including: /how to write out of universe, /how to source articles, /how to provide images, /how to write a character page etc etc: ie, practical advice, templates, infoboxes etc
   • a section for 'guidelines' to be listed: WP:EPISODE, plus our new WP:TV-REVIEW; aim to develop WP:TV-CHARACTER etc etc
6. "W-Project TV/Policy and review taskforce": brief includes assessing notability on ALL TV pages (as mentioned above).
   • Project page: outline process for different types of article, list of available assessment templates, help for people whose pages have been redirected (eg. 'how to retrieve plot from page history')
   • Talk page: this one.
   • "Policy and review taskforce/Articles for review" page: list of reviews due, space to post and discuss problem or complicated articles, editors of warned pages can come and explain why theirs shouldn't be redirected, etc.

If it's idiotic, feel free to tell me so! Gwinva 11:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't idiotic. I think it will take a lot of hard work, but I think it's a great idea. Especially since character pages are probably one of the hardest things to actually write.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I'm not wild about the "Policy and Review taskforce" name. -- Ned Scott 19:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just the first one which came into my head...I was trying to think of something a bit broader than 'episode' and more descriptive than 'television'! Any suggestions? Gwinva 20:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not a dumb idea to merge the task forces, but why not just call it the Episode task force. I think it is a good idea to improve this task force's infrastructure before performing mass deletions of articles. We need to have all the relevant how-to guides. At the Simpsons WikiProject I started a style guide for episodes based on my experiences getting "Cape Feare" up FA standard. I could try a make a draft for all episodes based on that. --Maitch 11:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that name makes it specifically an "episode" taskforce, when we want to also get "List of" and "season" pages into shape. There is already a "how to guide" when it comes to the structure of the episode page, and we aren't deleting anything. People keep thinking we are massing deleting everything, which isn't true. Merging and redirecting involves no deletion. Your style guidelines pretty much mirror the ones already here, but I find some problems with them, specifically: Did it make the Entertainment Weekly top 25 list? What are its TV.com and IMDB ratings?. I see how it could be good to make EW's list, but not seeing how that should be brought up in a guideline. TV.com and IMDb ratings are not reliable. We don't use them on film pages, and we shouldn't use them on television pages. Because of vote stacking. We cannot verify that every vote on either of those websites is from a different user, or if someone didn't just go to another server and vote again. Also, with online voting, it is hardly "random" and not a very stable representative sample, because most of the people that vote are the hardcore fans that also visit that website. Their user ratings do not pass verifiability and reliability criteria, and if two or three Simpsons episodes were passed into FA status with them, then I'm growing more concerned that their FACs weren't simply overrun with WikiProject Simpsons editors. Not to take away from their pages, because other than that, their structure is good elseware. But I never really read them word for word.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since you accuse me of rigging FACs, I will stay completely out of this and not try and help. Goodbye. --Maitch 12:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of any such thing. But I'll be happy to read through them critically and put any up for review though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible new review guideline

I've been playing around in my sandbox again, basing my work on what seems to be agreed above (I don't mean my radical proposal, but the discussions following the list). Need to confirm titles, and template messages content, but how does this work as a guideline? The actual logistics of the taskforce (who does what, which series we do first) is a "WikiProject Television/Policy and Review taskforce" discussion. This is just something to start with, so we can keep moving forwards. I might have got it wrong, made too many assumptions, or left something out, so add your comments or thoughts below, then we can agree what changes should be made (or bin the lot!). Gwinva 14:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That reads well. For the "who can assess and review", I think adding "only registered users", mainly because it is really hard to determine if 7 IP addresses are 7 different people, or 1 person on different servers. It can be easily done with a user check, or if they are being obvious and saying the exact same thing over and over, but user checks tend to require just cause and we can't hope that they are obvious with their comments.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, easily added. The new episode-notability template looks good, especially if it sorts dates and throws it into the review category in the right place. Should also say something like 'redirected or merged according to the "television review process" (whatever) guideline, and link to this. Then everyone knows where they stand. Gwinva 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Template update

{{Episode-notability}} (which is technically now Template:Dated episode notability) has now been updated to automatically add a timer. To use it you subst the template, {{subst:episode-notability}}, and after 14 days the page in question will automatically be added to a category (for now I've named it Category:Episode articles not asserting notability). -- Ned Scott 06:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, good job.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Next steps

Discussion seems to have slowed, which I shall interpret as consensus (rather than a loss of interest). So I think we need to determine the next steps. I've listed them below in headings. Gwinva 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1. WP:EPISODE

I've expanded the bits I'd got bored with at WT:EPISODE#Suggested expansion of guidelines. Have a look and confirm these are right. Since these are an expansion rather than a change to the guidelines, I think once we've all agreed these on the talk page, (proving consensus) they can be added to the guideline page. We can fiddle with the 'dealing with problem pages' section when we're sorted here. Gwinva 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The changes have been transferred to the guideline page. Just awaiting the 'problem article' bit. Gwinva 19:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Merging taskforces episodes and episode lists

I think we've agreed this is a good idea. We need a name which covers the slightly wider brief. I tentatively called it 'policy and review' in my guidelines above, but this is perhaps a bit heavy-handed (and too specific). Also, what is the process for merging them? Do we need to post notices? Inform the individual members? Or consider this conversation enough and just merge? Gwinva 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could tag every episode, or we could simply inform the main article, or both. It will probably be best to do both, as we can't expect the people that work on Lost (Tv series) to have ever episode article on their watchlist.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear; my question was about merging the episode and episode lists wikiprojects. Gwinva 14:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL, oops. I would post a notice saying we are going to merge them into 1 page, and retitle it. I don't think people will have a problem with it, especially since there isn't much activity there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

For name, how about something like "episode coverage"? Just a thought. -- Ned Scott 22:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll run with that. I've posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode lists suggesting a merge and directing them to comment here. As you've probably seen, I've renamed this taskforce according to Ned's suggestion. It can always be changed later if evryone hates it, but I thought we should at least get going. Gwinva 11:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:LOE has now been merged. I'm tying up the loose ends, like the now extra userbox, etc. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Review guidelines

I posted a suggestion above. Is this ok? need more work? Do they need approving somewhere else like Village pump? Consensus from Wikiprojects? Can we just create the page, and then alter it later if people bring up problems on the talk page? Gwinva

I think they work good. We might learn more after all is said and done, and we ask for more opinions from the other WikiProjects.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, should we contact the wikiprojects now, or get the guidelines on a page, and this new wikiproject page updated first? Gwinva 11:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I say, get it all done first. Less to do once they see it. Easier to tweak what will be in place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved the proposed review guidelines above to Wikipedia:Television article review process so it can be worked on or discussed. It's only linked from here, so it's hardly in public space yet. Feel free to make changes or whatever. Gwinva 12:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Agreeing logistics of review and tagging

Ned Scott's done great work on a template. Check it out at #Template update and confirm you are happy with what it contains and how it works, and agree category name. Are there any other templates we need writing to post on talk pages or direct people to review page. What's teh name of the review page, and how will it be structured? Gwinva 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think simply "Episode article review". We probably won't be reviewing any season pages for merger, or a list of page. Structurally, maybe a daughter page for just the list of articles that will need reviewing. It could become too large if we have other information on that main page (like an explaination of what the review process is). We could use the talk page for the review. Once it is closed we simply archive it under the show's title. This way, if we have 200 Simpsons episode reviews, we can put them in a "Simpsons" archive, instead of having 200 individual archive pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

how about 'Television article review'? Then we can also consider the odd character page or whatever which also fails notability guidelines. I'd be tempted to have a separate review page from the talk page, as the talk page will also be used to discuss how the project is working. Something like [Wikiproject Television/Our new taskforce name/Articles for Review]. Archiving by Series is a good idea for the big ones, but there's hundreds of series that we'll review pages for once, then never see again. Gwinva 14:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That title works for me. I'm not sure about the archive then. Probably need some more suggestions. 14:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've identified the category to look for on this project page and quickly created [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage taskforce/Articles for review, so we can actually get going. The project page needs an outline of the review process, templates etc. Talking of which, I think we need a template message to post on the parent talkpage (ie. the talkpage of the article they're likely to be redirected/merged to) informing them what is going on...editors might not always watch individual articles. It should read something like this: The individual episode pages of this programme fail notability guidelines, and may be merged or redirected here when reviewed after 14 days, unless notability and real-world importance is established through the support of reliable sources (according to WP:Episode and our new review guideline). You are encouraged to assert its notability or merge the articles yourselves. Further help... etc.... A template then for 'These articles have been moved'. There can be another one for second reviews, inviting comment on teh review page. It would save the reviewing having to type it out each time. What do you think? Gwinva 11:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Developing resources

The current taskforce episode project page contains a good 'how to guide' for writing episode pages. Need someone to review it and bring it up to scratch (under a 'how to write an episode' title. Also need a season/list of page to help people...perhaps Bignole can base it on his Smallville work? Anyone keen on writing 'How to's about images or how to find reliable sources or whatever? Providing people with how to get the right sort of stuff will hopefully prevent them throwing in the wrong stuff. (see also my #A radical new proposal above.) Gwinva 13:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the current "how to guide" have its own page, or should we create a separate page for it? Should the "how to" on season/list pages be separate or part of that guide?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only 'how to' guides we have so far are the project pages of these two wikiprojects. I'd say revamp Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes and move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article. Then the project page of our renamed taskforce can deal with the reviewing process. I think we should have a separate Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write a season or episode list page, as it'll be quite big once you add in infoboxes, templates, HTML markup (for people like me who copy and paste what they see eleswhere, since I don't know the first thing about writing my own) etc. Gwinva 14:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I pull what I can from those other works and start the new ones.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

i've moved the stuff to the How to episode page, as linked above, but it still needs work. Also see what I've done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. I haven't touched the list stuff. Gwinva 11:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try and finish up that season that I'm working on. I don't want to try and formulate a "how to" for lists and season if I haven't finished smoothying the one I'm working on out. What did looks good so far.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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. 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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). 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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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." TTN 18:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The category thing's the clincher; a bit messy having a whole heap of seemingly blank but still categorised pages. Anyway, hopefully we're not redirecting pages with salvageable content. Linking to the episode list/parent page diff which has the original links present should allow most people to find them. Once on the redirect page, it's as easy to hit 'history' as 'edit' to check the content. Gwinva 18:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Gwinva's right. Hitting the "history" key is just as simple as the "edit". I think a problem that comes to mind with just a redirect over the text is that people would have more of an inclination to simply remove the "redirect" at the top. Granted, they may simply "undo" any redirects to begin with, but opening an edit screen, in my opinion (which is all it is), teases them more with that option. They could just simply go "well, it's already here...". Either way, I think it serves the same purpose as clicking a "history" tab, especially since we aren't deleting anything. Also, wouldn't they eventually become obsolete if the info is merged into a parent article? Then we'd have text sitting in there for no more reasons.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)