Template:Fiction notice

Archives

Template loop detected: Template:Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Isn't ten words a minute a bit ... excessive? I could understand such a generous allowance for a blow-by-blow plot, but I don't believe we should provide such detailed summaries. WP:MOSFILM suggests between 400 and 700 words for an entire film's plot summary. Television episodes are 1/4 to 1/2 that length (generally speaking). I cannot imagine even a truly complicated episode plot needing more than 600 words if a blow-by-blow approach is eschewed. Could this be revised to state between 100 and 400 words, in general, with a caveat for complicated plots similar to MOSFILM? That would place it in-line with MOSFILM's recommendations. Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...10 words per minute times 30 minutes = 300 words :P I do like the idea of being more specific, though, and saying 150-400 words. Collectonian (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and do it. If someone disagrees strongly, they can revert it and discuss their objection. :) Vassyana (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you account for commercials, which take up just less than a third of the time slot, the existing guidelines are not as generous as you make out -- around 200-450 words for 30 and 60 minute time slots, respectively. 100 words seems awfully sparse for an episode article, and I don't see (m)any good episode articles with word counts that low. Are you including aggregate List of articles in that rule? Fritter (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I normally would not care about this disputed guidance enough to work on it, but I think Fritter has a point that 100 words (or even 150 words) is not enough to provide a coherent summary. I changed the guidance to 200-450 words, although I still contend that virtually no editors utilize this page for guidance. Ursasapien (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for keeping a limit around 10 words per minute - my lower limit for a 45-minute episode (without commercials/60 with) without losing coherency is around 310 words, and my average is around 380. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current move is away from episode articles if they can't support their plot section with sufficient real-world info (at least about 3 paragraphs of 400-500 words in total). The plot descriptions in episode lists and season pages are already quite short in practice (100-200 words). How to limit the plot summaries of character bios and games has always been a choice on article level, not in guidelines. So I don't see much added benefit in lowering the word limit any further. It's all about balance of real-world vs. plot info after all, which can't be measured in numbers of words. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? In most cases the plot summary, which by definition relies on the primary source, is a distinct section of the article. Real-world info is conveyed in the intro paragraph and Production and Reception sections, among others. Real-world and plot are usually not intermingled much, if at all. Thus, one can see how balanced the article is by comparing the word count in the plot section to the total word count of all real-world sections. One can copy and paste into a word processor, but it can also be done visually once you get a knack for it. From my observation, high quality articles typically have real-world to plot ratios at or exceeding 1:1, whereas low quality articles are well below 1:1, or don't have any real-world info at all. This ratio may be a better proxy for an article's quality than an absolute word count, which may vary depending on how long or complex the episode is.

For example, Pilot (House) is pretty close to 1:1. Through the Looking Glass (Lost) has a lengthier 900 word plot summary, but its real world info totals over 1,000 words, keeping it close to 1:1. A Streetcar Named Marge is well over 3:1 real-world to plot. Then look at The Brig which comes in at 0.08:1 real-world to plot, having a massive plot summary with almost no real-world info, except for its intro paragraph and a one-sentence Awards section. Looking at it this way, the guideline for word count is acceptable, but maybe we should advise editors that higher word counts, while permissible, should be commensurate with the episode's real-world impact. Fritter (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Pilot (Smallville)? That's about a 4:1/5:1 ratio. If we did a 1:1 ratio, then it would be far more IU information in the article than is necessary. I think we should be striving for at least 2:1 ratios, otherwise the article are either going to be so small they don't need to be split (Look at the House pilot, it's got about 7kb large-could maybe use a bit more information), or the plots are going to be so large they become out of control. I think high quality articles are the ones that go beyond the 1:1 ratio, where as the 1:1 ratio articles aren't necessarily low quality, they just aren't high quality either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points; perhaps 1:1 should be more of a baseline than an ultimate goal. However, our examples so far have focused on very notable or outstanding episodes, such as pilots, which inspire lots of commentary in third party sources. These episodes can produce high ratios. But we also need to consider what's appropriate for less notable episodes, which inspire less commentary. I realize some people don't think individual articles are appropriate at all in these cases; however, I tend to like individual articles -- if they can be decent quality -- because the List of ... episodes pages often have a very TV-Guide feel, serving more as an index for the show, and Wikipedia is not simply a directory. Now if an adequate plot summary is, say, 400 words, then for a 2:1 ratio you would need 800 words of real world material (Reception, Production and the like), which may be difficult for the less notable programs.

As another example, I worked on Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles), which is a fun series but has attracted lots of fancruft in the episode articles, as you'll see if you click to other episode articles. I rewrote the plot summary which helped save it from AfD, but even then, the Reception section is only about half as long as the plot summary. Yet the plot summary is less than 400 words -- not too long I don't think. So I'm thinking, 2:1 real-world to plot and above are excellent and should be expected of important articles, such as pilots and finales; 1:1 might be satisfactory, but not great; less than 1:1 is marginal; 0.5:1 and below and we're talking AfD or merger, or a rewrite. Fritter (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with everything you two said, but I'll just point out the months-long drama that occurred when the Scrubs episodes were suggested for a merge/redirect a while ago because their sourced real-world info vs. unsourced plot/IU-trivia ratio was way below 0.1:1. Changing the recommendation from a word threshold to a balance threshold (no matter how low) would be another nail in the coffin for episode articles with nothing but plot. Even though I would welcome such a change in the long term, I think this would require a little more advertising than just a thread. (I have so far managed a 2:1 balance with a <430 words plot section for my single-ep articles, but each time just barely.) – sgeureka ^t•c 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may just defend "Through the Looking Glass": While the plot summary should be cut down (I was a bit too easy when it was TFA), keep in mind that the episode is 88 minutes long. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biggest part of the problem is there is no general workflow or process by which articles are edited; instead, some random fan creates an article in an obscure corner of Wikipedia, and a few other fans work on it, creating a small culture around the article. Then another editor randomly notices it, realizes it's crap, and comes in promulgating various Wikipedia guidelines and rules threatening to delete everything they've worked on. Whatever the merit of Wikipedia's guidelines, they often are brought in against a local consensus, which is not how the process should work. Ideally there would be an influx of new editors to new articles, so the original authors get a better sense of the collaborative process, instead of creating their fancruft in a wasteland until someone decides to challenge it. Fletcher (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all LOE pages are the same. Look at the Lost LOE pages. Look at Smallville (season 1) (which proves you can have limited information on each episode organized into a manner that creates a comprehensive article. As for "Heavy Metal", it looks better than most of the Terminator episodes (though the TVSquad review is a little less reputable than the others, as I've noticed a lot of their reviews boil down to fannish responses instead of professional critiquing). Even 1:1 could be merger territory, as it would depend on the actual size. If we're talking about an article 30-40 kb large, with a 1:1 ratio (though the plot would probably be too large in that size), you probably have enough real world content to support separation. Now, if that same ratio is applied to an article say 7kb, then you're talking about 3kb of real world information (which is equivalent to a small paragraph). That's not much of an argument for not being placed in a larger, more comprehensive article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One minor note that may or may not be important...though Smallville is an LOE, it passed FA rather than FL, which may explain why is not the same as the other FL LOEs. :P Collectonian (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville is not an LOE. It contains an LOE, but the page itself is more article than list. Having a table that lists information does not make you an LOE. Regardless, I pointed to Lost for LOE examples, and Smallville for an example of how you can create an article around the production information you find that may be too limited to support a separate episode article. The Lost pages don't have production information. Almost everything in prose is basically just more listings, just without the table formating.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But note the LOE and season articles like Smallville (season 1) seem to max out at around 100 words of plot summary per episode, which is only about 25% of what the existing guideline calls for. So a shift to articles like Smallville Season 1 implies considerably cutting the amount of plot detail permitted, which may be controversial; i.e., as evidenced above, people seem more comfortable in the 300-450 word range for hour-long episodes. Furthermore, a season page or LOE may lose some of the sourcing and real world balance relating to particular episodes, even if the article as a whole is well-sourced with plenty of real-world balance.

Maybe this is for the better, since many individual episodes aren't that notable. But if I try to think of myself as a reader, rather than an editor, it's more often the individual episode articles I like to see -- to catch up on some plot detail I missed, to learn the name of a guest star I liked, or to find links to third party reviews from plausibly reliable reviewers. For more holistic information, I would click to the series page; it's less often I'd be interested in a season article or LOE, except as a jumping-off point to individual articles. Granted, a season article or LOE probably has an easier time complying with Wikipedia's existing guidelines, but I think we should also give weight to what benefits the reader, and at least to me the truncated plot summaries are less helpful. [P.S. - Today my username change took effect from Fritter to Fletcher, so I'm the same person signing under a different name -- no sock puppetry intended.] Fletcher (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the 400 word plot length is for individual episode articles, not LOE summaries. When a film is mentioned on a larger page, you don't detail the summary as much as you would on the film's own page. As a matter of fact, the season article (like Smallville, and notice how I say article and not LOE page), actually allows for larger summaries than an normal LOE page, because of the increased real world content. Broken down, if you were to separate all the Smallville episodes on their own and applied the real world content they bring to the season article, then you'd probably have a ration of about .5:1, because most don't have that much real world information on them. We have to remember, that we aren't here to provide a substitution for watching the show. If a reader is only coming here to read about what happened in their favorite show, then they are coming for the wrong purposes. We have TV Guide, and many other episode guides on the web, that can provide them with a summary (and there are usually fansites that have detailed plots). We also have Wikias for most of the shows on here, which have play-by-play plot descriptions. If you don't have encyclopedic information available on the episode, why does it deserved to have detailed summaries? Why can't it have a basic overview that gives some main points that happen?

How does a season article lose sourcing for a particular episode? The entire idea behind the season article is because there isn't enough real world balance to begin with for individual episodes. If you have a single statement about an episode, and nothing can go with it, then either the statement is quite trivial and doesn't need to be included, or you could simply attach it as a footnote for the readers to read at the bottom of the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would 300-450 be only for individual episode pages, which should be far and few in-between any. 250-400 is currently what is being considered a good length in more recently FL LoEs, as it is sufficient to cover the major episode plot points. The same length can, and should, apply in either usage. The only difference is an individual episode page would wrap the plot with real world significance. Collectonian (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which FL LOEs? I just pulled a random episode summary from the Lost season 3 page and it was 97 words; not even the season 1 page of Smallville gets much more than 100 words a summary, and that is jammed pack full of real world information. If you look at the plot section for Tempest (Smallville), that is 400 words. You're saying that an LOE page should have all the episode summaries be that length? You're talking about a page that would have, on average 46kb of readable prose in just the plot section. If you did the ratio of 1:1 there, you're talking about an article approaching 90kb of readable prose. The reason we give individual episodes more room for detail is because the detail itself is there to provide context for the real world information. If you have no real world information, you don't need that much context. It seems like you might not be understanding completely how much 400 words actually is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some more checking, and Lost is the only one that seems to break into the 200 word mark. Though even those might be able to be trimmed some, Lost is a special case because of the dozen storylines that take place in any given episode. Even if you gave one sentence to everything that happened you'd have a long summary section. Most shows don't have as much going on as Lost, and will not need 200 words to give a brief description on. Carnival appears to be trying to get large summaries in, but even still, 400 words is a lot. I wouldn't be using FL's as a voice of reason, because Admins aren't the closing factor in FLs. They are the equivalent to GACs, because any editor who deems it can close an FL nomination in favor of the list.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually quite a few, but I forgot most of the anime episode lists don't show up in the TV's FL list and usually get ignored in these discussions. List of Meerkat Manor episodes (125-300 words per ep) (TV) and List of Trinity Blood episodes (200-300 per ep I believe) (anime). However, I'm not saying every last episode should be 400 words. I'm saying the same potential range should be available, if needed. Just like with Films, it CAN be 150-400 words doesn't mean "free reign to write them all at 400." I means if 400 words is needed, that's okay, but keep it as tight as possible. Collectonian (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnivàle episodes had a length of 54 minutes on average (not 20 or not 42 like usual), there were 18 main characters, and each episode had two very distinct story lines that didn't intersect until the penultimate episode. Additionally, Carnivàle was so short-lived that it made more sense to give all real-world info in the main article (with only 187 words of plot summary total there), and summarize the plot in the LoE. The LoE also serves as a (partial) list of awards and list of locations (and how they relate to each other). The one seemingly overlong plot summary (the cliffhanger finale) is backed up with a 600 words real-world-info/explanation section in another article. Even then, the word number average is still "only" 148 words for plot per ep in the LoE. Not bad at all under these circumstances, and a good way to demonstrate that one size doesn't fit everyone. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same principle behind films having the 400-700 range. The higher the number the more complex the plot had better be. Sorry, Meerkat manor doesn't have complicated plots. Neither do the Carnival episodes I read on the LOE page. A lot of those FLs could be seriously tightened in the plot region. They should not be competing with individual articles in the size of their plot, when the only reason individual articles get that much of a size is because of the real world content attached to them. The entire idea behind an episode not having enough real world information is why they were not splitoff, so why are their plots not being trimmed? Why are they receiving this undue weight? No episode summary should be 400 words if the episode is on an LOE page. It's on an LOE page because it lacks real world content, and without real world content we don't need the additional context provided by the plot section. They should be brief and succinct. We don't need to know everything that happens in them, and the fact that FLs are passing with substantially larger plot summaries than need be concerns me about the reliability of those FL discussions. Just because an episode is restricted to being listed in an LOE page, doesn't mean it needs to have so much detail listed for its plot summary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that if its on an LOE page, 100-200 words is all it needs, with a fex exceptions to episodes that have really complicated plots. If it's an individual article, then 200-400 is about all it needs (again with those few exceptions). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we should not be trying to get around that idea when it comes to plot summaries. If they're in an LOE page, they're there because they lack real world content. If they lack real world content then we don't need to overly detail everything that happens. Just because we, as fans, think its important doesn't mean that it truly is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ~shrug~ I disagree, but oh well. The lists passed FL and in some cases plots were trimmed first. You may disagree on how much length is needed, but others did not. Being brief doesn't mean leaving out major plot points and for a 30 minute episode following 3-4 story lines at a time, I can see 400 being a reasonable, particularly introductory episodes where 3+ characters are introduced to viewers. Nothing wrong with the FL process at all, IMHO. Just because it is on an LOE page doesn't mean it should get shafted completely and not give the proper plot summary. Indeed, its NOT having a an episode page is all the more reason it should have a better plot summary. Episodes that manage to hold on to their individual episode pages are the ones needing only a brief summary in the list, since the full article can give the fuller plot summary. It has nothing to do with "being a fan" and everything to do with being sure the summaries provide all pertinent plot points and don't just end up being nothing but the completely worthless teasers seen in some of our older episode lists. At that point we just become nothing but TV guide. Collectonian (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, at this point, following your suggestion, we've become nothing more than a free substitute for watching television.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is considerable hyperbole; it should be understood that people have different preferences in terms of what they want out of Wikipedia's fiction coverage, and that different preferences from yours are not necessarily wrong. What's odd is that I agree with almost all of your logic, and agree with your preference for more concise summaries in aggregate articles (>100 words does not fit well in the table format, IMO), but I am more liberal than either of you with individual episode articles.

I think with individual articles there is some, perhaps not much but some, opportunity to describe the episode with real-world balance and greater depth, in contrast to the abbreviated summaries in aggregate articles which often have no sourcing or real world information about any particular episode. Individual articles lend themselves to fancruft, but aggregates can equally become directory-cruft (c.f. WP:NOTDIRECTORY). I'd like to find a middle ground that allows fictional topics to be covered in greater depth with real world balance, when possible, but blocks them from becoming bloated and unreadable, and condenses them to aggregates when it's realized not enough sourcing is available for them.

That's why I think it's useful to consider the relationship of real-world info to in-universe material; even if we have different ideas about where to draw the line, I think we all agree that high ratios of real-world info to plot = Good and low ratios = Bad. I think people should find points of abstract agreement, first, before trying to negotiate individual differences. I've read some of these talk pages, here and elsewhere, and they just seem to go nowhere because people do not want to compromise what they think Wikipedia should be. Fletcher (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, not. It takes way more than 200-400 words to give a blow-by-blow of a 30 minute episode. Believe me, I've seen them. They run more like 900-1000 words, or more if you add in most people's OR. 200-400 is a very good length for an episode list. Collectonian (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Lostpedia's blow-by-blow of the Lost episode titled "Confirmed Dead" (2500 words) with Wikipedia'a article (350 words; 5:1 ratio of real-world to in-universe information). –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly give a blow-by-blow with 400 words for a 42 minute (and especially a 22 min) episode. What you linked is far greater than a "blow-by-blow", because it's actually dialogue exchange (which is even worse). 200 words is all you need if the episode is restricted to a LOE. It's there because it obviously isn't notable on its own, and with 200 words you can point out all the major plot points. If I can do it with 100 words with Smallville, which often has had multiple story arcs taking place at one time as the seasons progressed, you (<--universal "you") can do it with just about every other show on TV (especially those of the 22 minute variety). One of the biggest problems is wordiness. Simplestic sentences are all that is needed. People are going into too much detail to describe something that could be stated in far fewer words.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a comparison, see The Trial of a Time Lord. The fourth segment is 55 minutes long (the rest were 100 minutes long). However, the fourth segment has a very tangled plot, and is about 240 words long, compared to a 160-word long summary of the other three (longer) sections. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The individual episode articles linked from Trial of a Time Lord, such as The Ultimate Foe, are really blow-by-blow -- the plot "summary" in this one is 2,500 words. Many smaller blow-by-blow accounts are 1,000+. A 400 word summary may contain some minor blow-by-blow detail, but it is also ommitting much to maintain that size. Fletcher (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at as someone not familiar with the series being discussed, the 100 word Smallworld episode articles are insufficient, as it is clear they give only the principal plotline without enough detail to understand why the series is interesting--they're appropriate to q program guide, not an encyclopedia. Program guides give sketches, encyclopedias give information. If for some reason I wanted to know what the series was about, I'd want to know more. short sketches basically just serve as a reminder for someone who already knows the series. It was coming across totally inadequate articles of that sort which led me to support individual episode articles for major series. Blow-by-blow (& quotation) differs also according to whether it concentrates on the detail for the highlights, as it should, or attempts to go minute by minute through the entire episode as the more naive article do.. appropriate quotations of a dialog exchange of a few lines makes the nature of the action and the characters clearer than talking about it, which is why they are always considered fair use. And as for out of universe, I find the amount of out of universe production detail in the "confirmed Dead" episode being given as a model seems wildly excessive, and suitable only for dedicated fans. anyone else coming here would want to know primarily about what happens in the story. 20% in-universe is usually terribly inappropriate, unless for some reason the production is more important & interesting than the fiction--as does sometimes happen. DGG (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, those Smallville plot summaries leave too much basic information unsaid, and are sometimes confusing for those who have not seen the episodes. Take the summary of "X-Ray": One day, Clark begins to develop X-ray vision. When he is thrown through a window by Lex Luthor, who has just robbed the local bank, Clark witnesses a green glow around Lex's skeleton. Lex is cleared of all charges, when it turns out someone was impersonating him. After gaining control over his X-ray vision, Clark discovers that Tina Greer (Lizzy Caplan) can morph into anyone she wants, and that she robbed the bank. After a brief battle, Clark knocks Tina unconscious so the authorities can arrest her. Lex hires Roger Nixon (Tom O'Brien), an Inquisitor reporter, to find out how he survived driving his Porsche off a bridge.

I have a few questions:

• How did Clark determine that Tina robbed the bank? Did this have anything to do with his x-ray vision?
• Was it Clark who told the authorities that Lex was impersonated, or did the authorities determine this independently?
• Who drove his Porsche off a bridge? Lex? When did that happen? Zagalejo^^^ 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The plot information should not be your reason for determining if a series is interesting. If you want to know that, then watch the series or go read a review. You're looking for way too many extraneous details. You don't need to know who told the authorities (they figured it out for themselves BTW) that it wasn't Lex, you only need to know that they knew it wasn't him. You're looking for someone to hand you a play-by-play explaination of what happens in an episode, and that should not be the case for these summaries. No, they aren't dialogue-for-dialogue exchanges, but you don't need to be told every minute detail just because you don't watch the show. I also don't think you need to reiterate the same material twice (i.e. "After Clark saves Lex Luthor from a car crash, the two become quick friends." -- in the "Pilot" description; why should we re-explain the "Porsche off the bridge" when it was just three episode descriptions above).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not requesting "extraneous" or "minute" details. I just need enough to piece the basic plot together. Or more to the point, I need enough information so that I don't leave with an inaccurate impression of how the plot proceeds. I originally interpreted the fourth sentence as an elaboration upon the third. I had no specific reason to think otherwise.

As for the "Porsche off a bridge" thing, you never explicitly mention a Porsche or a bridge in the description of "Pilot", so it's not immediately clear that it refers to the same incident. The pronoun is ambiguous anyway. To someone unfamiliar with the episode, "he" could conceivably refer to Roger Nixon, or maybe even Clark. Zagalejo^^^ 06:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough there to "piece the basic plot together". The basic plot of "X-Ray" is that Clark gets X-Ray vision and stops Tina Greer from killing Lana. That is the basic plot of the episode. Gee, I just stated that in a single sentence. I guess since I answered your question I should go back and make them all a single sentence? You don't need to know how the police figured out that Lex wasn't the one that robbed the bank, so long as it says "They know he didn't rob the bank". Specifically stating that Lex was away at a meeting and had 2000 people verify that he wasn't in Smallville is extraneous information because you don't need to know that to understand the aftermath. If you want to know such details, then go watch the episode. Certain things could be made clearer, like connecting the Porsche statement to the bridge statement earlier, but do you need extra detail to understand that Lex is curious about how he survived? No, you don't. It's a simple statement. Also, don't read plots like they are always written to chronicle the events of the episode as they occur. Plots can be written in a manner that makes them succinct, yet reveals information early one that might not have been revealed until later in the episode. The reason for this is because Wikipedia IS NOT a program guide, and is not here to entice you to watch something you obviously don't make time to watch now. It is much easier, and succinct, to state that "John Doe attacks Jane Doe" instead of saying "A mysterious stranger attacks Jane Doe", and after a bunch of useless descriptors going, "And then it is revealed that the mysterious stranger is John Doe." That's all extraneous when you can simply state that from the beginning. No one reading the description in the first place is going to stop at line 3 and say to themselvs, "Gee, I don't want to read the last line and ruin the episode for myself". You cannot say, "well, just don't say their name at all and keep the mystery for when they watch it," because you want to be able to understand the "basic plot of the episode", and to do that you'd have to know who was doing what. It's called succinctness. You don't need to be all wordy, detailing things that don't need to be detailed. If someone wants to know the details they know what they need to do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, relax. You seem tense. Just take a breath, and read what I'm asking. Most of your response has nothing to do with my comments.

I'm not asking you to write a seven-paragraph synopsis. Three or four extra sentences would probably do the trick. I just want enough information so that I'm not led to make false connections between the sentences. When I think about it, my comments are really more about prose quality than anything else. (And being descriptive is not the same as being wordy. Wordy writing is writing that is filled with redundancies.)

Second, this whole attitude that people can look off-wiki to find the information is a bit strange. You can take that argument to limit any article to a stub. ("You need to know more about evolution? Go get a biology textbook.") Where, exactly, do you draw the line between what belongs here and what doesn't? Zagalejo^^^ 17:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relax? Did I raise my typing voice? Did I use CAPS or exclamation points? Given the misreading of my comments as hostile, I think you seem prone to misconnect dialogue, so maybe that's why the "X-Ray" plot confuses you. Show me where you are confused with something in those Smallville plots. I took that Porsche comment into consideration and clarified it on the page so that it's clear what is being said. Three or four extra sentences? I don't think any need that to understand the basic plot of the episode, which is what you said you wanted just a few comments above.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the line about the Porsche. Let me explain why the "X-Ray" summary is still confusing. The third sentence never explictly says that the authorities solved the case by themselves. It just says that "it turns out" Lex was innocent. I do learn in the next sentence that Clark deduced what really happened, so I assumed he had some role in proving Lex's innocence. Isn't that a plausible misinterpretation?

Also, it's still not clear to me if Clark used his x-ray vision to solve the mystery. Did he? Or was the business about x-ray vision just part of some unconnected subplot? Since the title of the episode is "X-Ray", I'm assuming that Clark uses it to some constructive purpose in the episode. Am I right to assume that? Zagalejo^^^ 03:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It never says that they solved the case, it simply says that Lex wasn't the person that robbed the bank. The authorities, for all intents and purposes don't "solve" anything. Clark anonymously tips them off to the money being in Tina's locker, but the important part of the episode has nothing to do with the bank robbery. That was the opening teaser which isn't mentioned again beyond Clark tipping the police off to the money, Tina is never officially arrested for the crime (though I'm sure that happens "off camera"). You're focusing on the bank robbery like it's an important piece of the puzzle, it isn't. The only time the bank robbery comes into play outside of the teaser is when Clark is figuring out that the culprit is actually Tina, when he sees the money in her locker. Simply stating that Clark gains control over his ability, and descovers that Tina is responsible for the bank robbery is all you need to know. The specific steps that he took to figure it out are extraneous, you just need to know that he does it. Given the line, "After gaining control over his X-ray vision, Clark discovers that Tina Greer (Lizzy Caplan) can morph into anyone she wants, and that she robbed the bank." -- I would assume that it's clear that it is his X-Ray vision that allows him to "solve the crime" (so to speak), otherwise the sentence would not have started with "After gaining control of his X-ray vision..." That would have been a separate sentence, as it would have been an independent clause, not connected to Tina's secret being discovered.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five out of six sentences in the plot summary discuss the bank robbery, so I assumed that was part of the episode's central plot. *shrugs* Would it be too much to mention that Clark saw the money in her locker? That would make a huge difference, I think. I really had no idea how Clark could have used his x-ray vision to solve a mystery that happened in the past, but now the story makes sense. I'm no Slylock Fox, I admit. :) Zagalejo^^^ 03:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, really like 3 and 1/2 sentences (that bit about Lex running away could easily be attached via a semicolon to the previous statement). Regardless, I've clarified the locker situation. This is getting more about clarifying the season 1 descriptions than plots in general (which, btw, the "X-Ray" plot is still 122 words, and after reworking for better clarity, still doesn't require 400 words of information. If you have more questions about that plot though, or any of the others, it would probably be best to bring it up on the talk page of that article, since we're going off on a tangent to correct something that has nothing to do with this page specifically.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for adding that. I agree that the article talk page might be the best place to bring my comments. One of these days, I'll sit down and do a thorough prose audit. We'll see if the 100-word range is sufficient for every episode. Zagalejo^^^ 23:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaning to state the obvious, but those lines are defined in WP:NOT, and "plot summaries" are on the "not included" side of the line.Kww (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, plot summaries aren't forbidden, as long as have some context (and I'm sure you know that). This is what it says: "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work. Current discussion regarding this section is occurring on both WT:NOT and Wikipedia:Plot summaries." Zagalejo^^^ 17:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, I find offense in the idea that the Smallville descriptions are like "program guides". Program guides are written to create excitement in the episode. They are written with clear motivation to leave you hanging and get you to tune into the show. Those descriptions are nothing like that. If you want to know details then go watch it. If you want to know that Clark developed X-Ray vision and he used it to stop a bone-morphing meteor freak from killing Lana then that's what you get. The details of how he did that are irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the show. This is an encyclopedia grounded in the real world, and not here to let some lazy fanboy learn what all his favorite characters did in last night's show, because he failed to find the time to watch it himself. We also have fansites and other locations that can provide that substitution if it's necessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, the Smallville descriptions cater precisely to the lazy fan -- the type of person who wants to find out what happened, but doesn't have the patience to read many words on the subject. That's what makes it a program guide, regardless of whether it's written to tantalize the viewer. At the other end of the spectrum are the hardcore fans who want every detail reiterated. So as not to give undue weight to only one perspective, we should strike a balance in providing detailed summaries for people who have a high level of interest, but not so detailed they become unreadable for people with less interest. And we can link to wikis and program guides where more or less detail is available.--Fletcher (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to DGG saying that "20% in-universe is usually terribly inappropriate": The in-universe to real-world information does not need to be a fixed ratio. The plot summary for "Confirmed Dead" is sufficient and covers all major aspects. Media coverage and story complexity varies episode-to-episode. When writing "Confirmed Dead", I was not trying to have five times as much production/reception as I was plot; I was trying to offer a comprehensive guide to the episode by gathering all information out there. Compare "Eggtown", which is just two episodes later. Resources were exhausted, yet the length of the production section in "Eggtown" is roughly 40% of that of "Confirmed Dead" and the plot of "Confirmed Dead" is only 70% of "Eggtown". –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the plot of an episode is less important than, say, information about the special effects budget (information which is also available outside of Wikipedia, as it were). The plot is what defines the episode; it's a real world cultural artifact in its own right. It seems perfectly encyclopedic to cover the plot with a reasonable amount of detail. We don't need a recap of every minute in the episode, but I'd prefer at least a little bit more than what we have now. Zagalejo^^^ 06:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I have a case with bringing this to deletion review, so I'm asking here first.

Today I logged in and discovered that one of the Prison Break photos I uploaded for Bad Blood (Prison Break episode) was deleted with the reason that a fair use rationale hadn't been supplied. I was confused, because I knew I had one, but I uploaded a different one, made sure to give it a FU Rationale and re-uploaded.

I took a look at the other episode articles and noticed that this same user User:Future Perfect at Sunrise had removed every single episode guide photo.

Anyway, confused, I went to the Prison Break episode talk and found this discussion, where FPaS told how they planned to delete all the images in 48 hours because they lacked "analytical discussion". They wrote "I'll spare myself the trouble of individually tagging and making notifications in every single case; I assume that people interested in the series are watching this page" which is a pretty lofty assumption. I don't speak for all Prison Break Wiki users, but I've never even touched that page, and considering that no one replied, I'm willing to bet a large chunk of the editors didn't see it either. If they were going to mass-delete all the images the least they could do is notify the users and let them know ahead of time.

Now, is this logic being used for all episode guides? Are we mass-deleting all images for these? Is this the new consensus? Because I checked the Lost episodes and those still have their pictures (and yes I'm aware that some are featured articles).--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How the user approached the notification for deletion is questionable (yes, he should have tagged the images or dropped a message on each episode talk page to point to one discussion area), but his reasoning, that being they lacked "analytical discussion", is appropriate. An image of the episode should not be in the infobox just to make the page look pretty, but if it is included, it should be of a key scene that defines the episode that is otherwise difficult to describe in words, likely with a caption to help the reader identify that scene. --MASEM 16:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As they're all gone now, I can't verify this, but I recall that a number of them were of significant/key scenes.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Bad Blood episode, it looked like before Future Perfect deleted the image the first time, there was no caption; arguably, the image is just then decoration as it requires the reader to know visually already who the characters are. However, when it was added back, it gained a caption, albeit a minimal one, however, without seeing the picture (nor being that much aware of the characters on the show), I don't know how much the caption connected the image to the article, or if there were still problems with the image (based on the second removal's edit summary) --MASEM 16:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review is the place to go, since the justification for keeping & the possible deletion for lack of it has to be for each individual articleDGG (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC) ~~ ~[reply]

The way they handled it wasn't good. Notification of the uploader is required for a 48 hour speedy deletion. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression of the situation: 48 hours notification is really short; it should have been (at least) in the one-two weeks range. The PB episode articles also don't seem to be in such a bad shape real-world-content-wise as most other episode articles on wikipedia, so at least some of the images would have had a right to stay. Obviously, I can't comment on if the fair use rationales were alright, but that's often a matter of fixing, and one non-free image per article is (still) considered alright on wikipedia (the trend may have changed though without my noticing). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that since March 23, 2008 per the Foundation, if an image is found to lack a fair-use rational on the image page, it must tagged and deleted 48hr afterwards (assuming it is not fixed). Again, can't comment on the first image described in this situation, but certainly, if CyberGhostface did add a FUR to a new image, it should not have been immediately deleted, and the 1-2 weeks would have been appropriate to discuss the benefits of the image use. --MASEM 13:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing what I said on the deletion review: There's no way any of these were legitimate fair use. To Masem and Scgeureka: What you said about captions and possibly links between the image and the article is far below any reasonable threshold justifiable under our NFC policies. Actual (but routinely ignored) policy has always been there must be critical/analytical commentary. Being from a key scene is not enough; having a caption saying from which scene it is is even further from being enough. Analytical commentary means, you might use an image to illustrate something critics have said about the filming technique (characteristic styles of lighting, camera angles etc.), or about development in the visual appearance of a character, or about the choice of locale, etcetera etcetera; these analytical issues need to be explicit in the text, explicitly connected to the presentation of the image, and sourced. None of the images in question here came within a mile of that. Encouraging people that they can routinely have one image per episode is dead wrong. The issue is also not one of just fixing the wording of a rationale. People need to first write articles that actually engage in analytical commentary, only then, if and when that commentary turns out to require image support, should they even begin thinking about images. (Logical side effect of this is that any article that fails PLOT will also automatically fail image fair use, as was the case here.) I also do not follow the argument that you couldn't judge without seeing the actual image. You see the text. Does the text contain commentary that requires image support? It doesn't. As long as that is the case, no image will ever qualify. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For NFC, the phrase "critical commentary" is very difficult because it comes from US Copyright law on what fair use is, but is not expanded. It is seen for purposes of WP to be more than just a critical discussion of the work; if it helps to explain something that cannot be easily summarized in words for purposes of educating the reader, that is a valid fair use, assuming all other parts of NFC content are met. For example, see Doomsday (Doctor Who) which uses an image to describe a critical scene as described by both caption and text (caption is not enough), but is otherwise not elucidated on. (I will point out this has recently passed FA early this year, so this is not an artifact of times past).

Mind you, this is not a free pass for every episode to have an image; again I point to the fact that we look for images that help to explain things that cannot easily be done in text that will help education. Shows that involve a lot of "talking heads", commonly most sit-coms, dramas like Law and Order as well as Prison Break here, have few special effects or anything from life ordinary that makes any image redundant with what can be described in text though there's always exceptions. And of course, episode stubs (plot and infobox information only) should less likely have an image than a more developed article.

So basically, could the Prison Break episodes have images? Possibly, thus my doubt on if the image deletion was right without seeing the episode. Does the show likely need per-episode images? Doubtful because of the nature of the show. --MASEM 11:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday (Doctor Who) is a featured article? Good lord. The plot summary is completely incoherent gibberish (for somebody who isn't already familiar with the series); I can't make heads or tails of it at all. That means I also cannot even link the image to a moment in the plot; I have no idea when and where that scene is supposed to happen. And if the image's scene is described somewhere else in the article, I can't find it. Why isn't the image next to the text it supposedly supports? Why isn't the caption telling me what it is supposed to be illustrating? No, this is most definitely not a positive example how images should be used. I'm not saying it might not have a potential to do something useful, but like that, it plainly doesn't. I'm not really surprised, because the Dr Who crowd, in my experience, have been among the most stubborn whenever it comes to defending crappy non-free image use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell at WP:NFC I don't see anything remotely as stringent as what Fut. Perf. suggests. Furthermore, in many cases it should be possible to add commentary discussing the image, improving the article instead of deleting content (unless it is a very poor choice of image). --Fletcher (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So should I bring this to deletion review then? Because it would take a long time to systematically upload all the photos again, and Future Perfect threatened to delete them again if I did.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review is at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_24--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no objection for over a month, and all relevant pages were notified over the proposal to make WP:MOSTV the official MOS guideline for TV articles that page has been passed. I think we should go through this page and remove all MOS-type information since we now have an official MOS page. Then, we can discuss if this page should be kept for historic reasons, or remodified to be strictly a notability guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a section from this page that dealt more with the MOS side of articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There as different degrees of association between shows that are presented under a common banner. I addressed this by adding a new section:

Scope

Some television series take the form of a single long drama which is divided into segments for transmission in installments of 30 minutes or one hour. Others are multiple stories which again might be sub-divided for convenient transmission and viewing. Others again may be anthologies presented under a common banner such as Masterpiece Theater but which are separate and distinct entertainments. Similar considerations apply to documentaries which may be part of a continuous narrative or which may be upon distinct topics by different authors which are only loosely related.

So, in considering whether something is an episode for these purposes, the degree of commonality and continuity between the related works should be considered and our articles presented accordingly.

This seemed reasonable but User:Collectonian has reverted on the peculiar grounds that this is "self-serving". Other editors are invited to comment. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote it solely to bolster your own views on Masters of Horror and added it without any discussion. Of course it was removed. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this page represents a generally accepted standard that all users should follow. So I am proposing it be demoted from a guideline. I am also unsure of how this page relates to WP:MOSTV. --Pixelface (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's left is either appropriate to WP:FICT (the currently worked version), or should be part of the Television Wikiproject. Supported. --MASEM 23:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as WP:FICT is still not a guideline and as long as certain people keep up the attacks on every damn policy and guideline there is, it never will be. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FICT is not going to be a guideline anytime soon, even if I never comment there ever again. And 4 pages is hardly "every damn policy and guideline". Policies and guidelines can't be MFD'd. Hence the {{demote}} template. --Pixelface (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If FICT passes, then I would support a demotion of this guideline (as we won't need two guidelines saying the same thing). Until then, I think, as always, we need to stop distracting editors with this type of stuff until we can finish things we've already started (i.e. Let's conclude the work on FICT before we start trying to re-evaluate every other policy and guideline, it's only good etiquette).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this should probably eventually be rolled into the more general FICT, but until everything's hashed out on that and it's decided to cover episodes there we should leave this alone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support demotion - support in the strongest possible terms. This guideline seems more about freeing up space than anything - a lot of episodic articles are quite high-quality, from a reader's perspective, and if I may admit to a slight personal bias I actually use them frequently to decide whether I'll bother going over to the idiot box to watch something. If this "policy" is enacted across the board, we lose all the Lost articles, all the Sopranos, the Simpsons, Doctor Who, Torchwood, NCIS, etc - shows that really do pack too much detail into one episode to be done justice by a summary. Please, someone think of the fandoms! :p Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, first, Wikipedia is not written for fandoms. Second, this guideline has been in existence for awhile, and FICT (before it was recently demoted for restructuring) was also in existence for quite a while, and neither kept The Simpsons from having episode article. The Simpsons is one of the few TV exceptions where just about every single episode is reviewed by multiple, third-party, reliable/professional sources. ALL articles must meet the GNG, so if they fail this guideline or FICT (the old or the new version), then they fail GNG, in which case they don't deserve an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know what Wikipedia is not. I was attempting to be humourous. You guys do have a sense of humour, right? ;) Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can, and we do - but often times editors have presented your particular humorous remark as a series comment/opinion. So, it's hard to really know which someone is using at times.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bignole, your claim that "ALL articles must meet the GNG" is false. --Pixelface (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it isn't. Just because you interpret WP:SUMMARY to mean that one can split a sub article off from a larger article, and have that sub article not meet GNG does not actually mean that it is true. Also, note that when I say "must meet the GNG", I'm including those articles that "readily could" meet the GNG (i.e. WP:GNG#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines). So please, save it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It *is* false. First off, WP:N (and the GNG) is not a policy — or a law, or a rule. I could go on if you like...but I'll save it for now. --Pixelface (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Umm... he's right, Bignole. Articles are required to meet policies, not guidelines. Guidelines are to be followed in 90% of the cases, but not always and not even necessarily to the letter. (Per WP:PG: "Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur.") -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 05:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Again, you two are confusing "exception" with "you don't have to follow the guideline". Just because it isn't a policy does not mean that you don't have to follow it. Just because there are exceptions, does not mean that you don't have to follow it. I.E. My statement, "you have to meet the GNG", is entirely accurate and correct, because, YOU DO have to follow the GNG UNLESS you can prove that your article is the EXCEPTION (I'm sure you're both aware that the definition of exception is not "all the time"). So, have a good day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You seem to be unclear on the word "advisory". I will leave it there. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 06:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • You can leave it where you want. "Advisory" does not mean, "I'll think about it, but won't follow it because it's only a guideline." Advisory means that it isn't set in stone. Guidelines are guidelines because they generally have more leeway and exceptions than policies do, not because we can ignore them if we don't agree with them (that's called an essay, and EPISODE and GNG are not essays).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • And exceptions to notability do occur. Without the occasional exception to notability, we after all could not have an article on humanity, as there are no third-party sources! But a case like that is where occasional exceptions apply. We're talking about occasional ones, not blanket ones. We don't need episode articles that are little more than plot summary. If the episode is notable, there will be plenty of independent reliable sourcing on it. If not, we've nothing to support a full article with. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until FICT is up and running, at which point a merger would certainly make sense. Until then, oppose because there would be no actual guideline to point to. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like it more as a style guideline wrt organisation, to be honest. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MOSTV already covers episode style guidelines.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into MOSTV, then? At the moment, I feel it's a dangling relic of FICT. At the very least, I think it needs refocusing, because, once FICT comes back, it'll be redundant for notabilty purposes. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seen no comments since 20 Dec, and anyway, changing the tag doesn't make the page go away (seriously ;-) ), so I've gone and altered the tag. If anyone still disagrees, at least they'll show up now (as per WP:BRD ). --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me consensus to demote this page? There is none. There are opinions on where people would like to eventually take this page, but I only see two people that actually said "demote this page now".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of moving things along, I'll just take responsibility, and say I would like to make this page an essay right now.

I need to list reasons:

• I really don't like the fact that it promotes deletion of content, content that I find to be both useful and valid.
• I do not agree with the concept of merging large articles, especially where there is a loss of information.
• I do not agree that something can only use one wikipage. If it is better to split a topic over multiple pages, let it be split out over multiple pages.
• Wikipedia is not paper has still not been struck down, and this page therefore contradicts a page marked "policy". To resolve the issue, I can either tag WP:NOT as an essay (never going to happen), or I can tag this page as an essay. I choose to do the latter. I do not believe that you can argue that both pages can have consensus all at once. But I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion about this particular point right now, so I'll drop it.

Can you provide counter-arguments to my first 3 points? Can you convince me that this page gives sensible advice at all?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current consensus and practice based on numerous numerous AFDs on television articles? Remember that consensus drives policy and the like. And regardless if you demote this to essay or not, episode article notability then falls to WP:N, which still requires sources like this presently does. --MASEM 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One way to look at it (there are many ways to look at it) is that I am testing the consensus you speak of (today some people told me that consensus wasn't so clear cut, perhaps they were wrong?). If what you are saying is really true, then it should be fairly easy to find (and probably link to) several arguments as to why I'm wrong, in just a couple of minutes, which isn't too burdensome to ask of people once in a while, especially for something as important as a guideline. If it's not so easy to find those arguments, we might want to start thinking about how much consensus this page really has. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone can really declare a consensus for anything when it comes to fiction-related articles. It might seem that consensus is being formed at AFD, but we have to consider the fact that many of the people who want lots of articles on TV episodes and TV characters have simply given up arguing for them, since the opposition is so aggressive. Zagalejo^^^ 04:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, one person cannot deem that a guideline be demoted. Secondly, the fact that someone deletes a page based on a guideline (especially when that guideline has nothing to do with the getting that page deleted directly) is not the fault of the guideline. If that were the case, then WP:NOTE gets far more pages deleted than EPISODE. So, the fact that you don't like that EPISODE or NOTE can cause, no matter how direct or indirect, a page to get deleted is neither here nor there. The merging of articles is a natural process. Again, the fact that there is a loss of information is not the fault of this guideline. If viable information is lost, then be bold and put in the location where it was merged. A lot of times people do not realize that the "lost info" is really things that should have been cut regardless. As for the third point, this page does not say that things cannot be split. If splitting is necessary then it is done. If not, then it should not be. Personally, I would rather have one shitty page that consists of 40 characters, than 40 even shittier pages on each individual character. Lastly, "not paper" is not a permission slip to create whatever article you want, please read the policy more carefully.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a single person cannot alter a page where others disagree. I've actually made use of that fact here: I altered the page to find out if anyone were to disagree, and if so, who and why (WP:BRD). I thought perhaps I wouldn't get too much response, but instead I actually did get some response; so I'm going to be careful of editing further for now. Hopefully that covers the policy/guideline/essay aspect of what I did: It's a specifically documented method, and I applied it carefully.

• I think that if a guideline recommends for people to merge things, and this causes loss of information, then the recommendation might not be so good.
• I think I see where you might have a bit of a bias. What happens if there are 40 really good articles on a topic you love, and suddenly the number gets reduced to just 1? Would you be happy in the latter scenario? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I think that's a fallacy in your understanding of "suggest a merge". If I suggest that you go study to make an A on an exam, and you do but you only get a C+, was my suggest "not so good"? Maybe it wasn't my suggestion that was poor, but merely the application of my suggestion. As is often the case, it isn't the suggestion of a merger that is the problem, it is the particular editor that happens to do it (which is often not one who is a regular editor to that series of pages, unfortunately. that is typically because when the decision to "merge" is met a lot of the editors have those pages end up putting on one last fight of "I'm not doing, if you want it done then you do it"). Let's see, I love Smallville. There aren't 40 really good articles. As a matter of fact, there were about 40 really shitty articles on each of the episodes a few years back. Do you know what I did? I got with the flow of the community, which was moving away from these individual episode/character articles, and I wrote Smallville (season 1) (and recently finished Smallville (season 2)). I convinced many editors that season articles were a much more viable option for the majority of TV shows because, frankly, not all TV shows are House, The Simpsons or any of those other 10 million+ viewers a night shows. As a result, all those other shows rarely have any independent sources to establish notability. I also created Characters of Smallville, which shows you can have an article of multiple characters. When I say "shitty article" I am referring specifically to the fact that the article has no sources, overly long plot summaries (Wikipedia is not a substitute for watching a TV show), no real world information, and does not show signs that there are sources out there could even satisfy the GNG in the near future. I do not deem pages to be "really good" just because I personally like them. That's a conflict of interest, and Wikipedians should be neutral in all aspects of their editing to the best of their ability. If they were "40 really good articles", based on what I define "really good" to be (which is the opposite of what I define "shitty" to be), then I wouldn't have to worry about anyone coming in and merging them, because I would know that they clearly meet the GNG and EPISODE for that matter.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No information is being lost if there is a merge; the original article still remains in the history of the redirect, and most of the time the information that isn't displayed at the present time violates policies and guidelines like WP:NOT and WP:WAF. If at a later time more information about such episodes allow them to pass this guideline for an article, then great, it can be recreated in a flash. --MASEM 02:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, I suppose. Merging is less problematic than deletion. My remaining worry there is when merging is done too enthusiastically. I have no issues with a notable topic being spread out over several wikipages, as long as the topic in its entirety is notable. This can make the topic easier to grasp, and allows us to provide more in-depth information on the topic more easily.

I think that the merging and splitting of pages belonging to the topic based on arbitrary criteria is unnecessary. Do you think that that is a fair approach? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was arbitrary, yes, but what this guideline provides, as well as what is currently being developed at WP:FICT (which includes episodes, and why practically this may go away if FICT passes) isn't arbitary. Can't find sources that describe the development or the reception of the episode? Then it should be merged. Yes, there's borderline cases, but it's a pretty narrow border, and certainly not arbitrary. --MASEM 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) So basically: YOU don't like it so you are attempting to get rid of it and decided to presume that because all of two people have said it should be demoted, that somehow makes a consensus to demote this guideline. It will remain as is due to a lack of consensus to change its current status. Your three points are, frankly, irrelevant just becaues you don't like it while AfDs and the actions of the projects that actually work with those topics show that the greater majority of editors think all three are good actions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm saying I don't like it, because that way we can close the debate more quickly. It's a method based on WP:BRD. I do have to be careful and honest and actually provide arguments I genuinely feel are both true and valid, else I risk initiating an Abilene paradox, where in reality I'm trying to prevent one. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC x2) Certainly can provide such counter-arguments.

• Useful is not a retention criterion, for good reason. How to manuals, video game walkthroughs, directories of various types, publications of original research and thought, free web hosting services, travel guides, and all such are useful. They are also outside the scope of our project. Plot summaries with little or no real-world information are also outside that scope, whether or not they are useful.
• "Wikipedia is not paper" does not mean "we don't remove anything". That's been settled for quite some time. "Wikipedia is not paper" is not a retention criterion for any specific article.
• Splitting out articles is fine, provided that each separate subject is notable on its own. If not, we're giving that subject undue weight by giving that subject an article of its own when independent reliable sources say little or nothing about it. In that case, trimming and merging is the exact type of editing called for. Cutting is editing, and all good editors cut. For World War II, we are obviously going to need a large number of subarticles on specific aspects of the topic since a single comprehensive article would be measured in GiB, and there will be no shortage of notable topics to make into subarticles. For works of fiction, sometimes yes, sometimes no. We shouldn't allow fan pieces, only reliably sourced articles with real-world information. That does mean cutting and merging any non-notable pieces.
• The general notability guideline still applies no matter what this guideline is marked. This guideline simply details application of the GNG and what to do with articles which do not meet it. Demoting this guideline does not excuse notability requirements. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your enlightening answers.

So the long and short of it is that I should actually be looking at notability requirements? I've actually always had trouble with the notability concept since Geogre introduced it, and I think it is somewhat redundant. But in this case, perhaps my problem is with the fact that this particular guideline is not "stable": if you use a single wikipage for something, all of the content might be kept: but if you split a wikipage, you are likely to lose some of the content (even if the page is merged again). You can continue doing this several times over. I once made a theoretical demonstration for Geogre that demonstrated this would happen. (and why it made transclusion less valuable than it could be). I didn't make a real world demonstration, (because then I would have knowingly damaged the wiki to demonstrate my point, which is forbidden; despite the fact that others accidentally do it regularly).

If you then have a guideline that explicitly recommends this instability causing behavior, you can see why I have some issues with it, I think? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People complain I have unusual methods from time to time, perhaps this will be one of those times. Can't complain about results though :-P

Anyway, I've discovered the people who are really interested in the page, asked some honest questions, I've gotten some good answers, and so far (and as far as I can tell), there's no consensus for changing the tag to read "essay" yet, though that might change when/if WP:FICT gets updated. I'll wait 24 hours (so that all time zones get a chance to answer), and if no one shows up to support the change I made, I'll close this discussion as "Keep as guideline". I estimate that that action is very unlikely to be opposed. (unless someone is really into bureaucratic procedure instead of consensus ;-) ) Is my estimate correct, and is this action fair? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I object, not to prove myself a procedure wonk, but to suggest something else--we need a way of saying that this is a "guideline, but a weak one," or "a loose guideline" , or "guideline, but do not always followed in practice," or something of the sort. DGG (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as far as I can tell. We cannot say "don't always follow this", otherwise why have any guideline if we going to tell people that. Might as well not have policies, because they'd be what, "followed more often than guidelines"? It's fine to stay the way it is until FICT is up and running, at which point this page will be obsolete as FICT basically covers all fiction-related articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i'm likely the old fart here, but as I remember it, this was created because people got fed up about all the episode articles with 0 content. They fought like hell for a year or so to get them all deleted as "not notable", which caused several editors to find a "procedure" that would help TV editors create more "useful" episode articles. This was part of WikiProject Television episodes. I don't know when it became a "guideline", but it was a concensus among the community, that this was the "best way" to make sure that other editors wouldn't go on a "delete" spree (Which they kinda did regardless, and when i stopped editing TV articles). --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression from reading it that it could actually enable a delete spree. OTOH, somehow I get the idea that practically anything (a period, a comma, a dotted i or t crossed the wrong way) can be sufficient excuse for a delete spree these days. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

# 18:41, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Roz and the Schnoz (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 5)#ep117 - 521)  (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:41, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Beware of Greeks (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 5)#ep112 - 516) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:41, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Room Service (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 5)#ep111 - 515) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:40, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Ski Lodge (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 5)#ep110 - 514) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:40, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Maris Counselor (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 5)#ep109 - 513) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:40, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Zoo Story (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 5)#ep108 - 512) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:40, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Voyage of the Damned (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 5)#ep102 - 506) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:40, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The 1000th Show (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 5)#ep101 - 505) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:40, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Kid (2) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 5)#ep100 - 504) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:40, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Halloween (1) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 5)#ep99 - 503) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:39, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Gift Horse (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 5)#ep98 - 502) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:39, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Frasier's Imaginary Friend (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 5)#ep97 - 501) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:38, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:List of Frasier episodes ‎ (→Merger of episodes: season 4+5 merged) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:37, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:The Life of the Party (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 5)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:37, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Frasier Gotta Have It ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 5)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:37, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:The Ski Lodge ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 5)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:37, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:The Maris Counselor ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 5)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:36, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Frasier (season 5) ‎ (note merged articles per GFDL) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:34, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Maris Counselor ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep109 - 513 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:34, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Zoo Story (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep108 - 512 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:34, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Ski Lodge ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep110 - 514 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:34, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Room Service (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep111 - 515 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:34, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Beware of Greeks (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep112 - 516 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:34, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Perfect Guy (Frasier) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep113 - 517 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:34, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Bad Dog (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep114 - 518 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:34, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Frasier Gotta Have It ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep115 - 519 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:34, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) First Date (Frasier) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep116 - 520 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:34, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Roz and the Schnoz ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep117 - 521 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:34, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Life of the Party (Frasier) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep118 - 522 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:34, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Party, Party (Frasier) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep119 - 523 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:34, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Sweet Dreams (Frasier) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep120 - 524 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:30, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Frasier (season 5) ‎ (merge many eps (see talk for contributions), script-assisted date/terms audit; see mosnum, wp:overlink)
# 18:23, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ain't Nobody's Business If I Do (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 5)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:23, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Where Every Bloke Knows Your Name ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 5)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:23, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:The Gift Horse ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 5)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:23, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Frasier's Imaginary Friend ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 5)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:20, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Ain't Nobody's Business If I Do (Frasier) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep107 - 511 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:20, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Where Every Bloke Knows Your Name ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep106 - 510 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:20, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Perspectives on Christmas ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep105 - 509 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:20, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Desperately Seeking Closure ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep104 - 508 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:20, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) My Fair Frasier ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep103 - 507 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:20, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Voyage of the Damned (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep102 - 506 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:20, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The 1000th Show ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep101 - 505 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:20, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Kid (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep100 - 504 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:20, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Halloween (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep99 - 503 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:20, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Gift Horse ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep98 - 502 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 18:20, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Frasier's Imaginary Friend ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 5)#ep97 - 501 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:53, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Odd Man Out (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep96 - 424)  (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:53, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Ask Me No Questions (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep95 - 423) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:53, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Are You Being Served? (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep94 - 422) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:53, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Daphne Hates Sherry (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep93 - 421) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:53, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Roz's Krantz & Gouldenstein are Dead ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep87 - 415) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:52, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) To Kill a Talking Bird (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep86 - 414) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:52, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Mixed Doubles (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep78 - 406) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:52, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Impossible Dream (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep75 - 403) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:51, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) N Liar, Liar! (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep82 - 410) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:50, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Four for the Seesaw ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 4)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:50, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Frasier (season 4) ‎ (→Merged articles: new section) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:48, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Odd Man Out (Frasier episode) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep96 - 424) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:48, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Ask Me No Questions ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep95 - 423) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:48, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Are You Being Served? (Frasier episode) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep94 - 422) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:48, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Daphne Hates Sherry ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep93 - 421) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:48, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Three Dates and a Breakup ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep91 - 419) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:48, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Ham Radio (Frasier episode) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep90 - 418) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:48, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Roz's Turn ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep89 - 417) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:47, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m The Unnatural (Frasier episode) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep88 - 416) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:47, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Roz's Krantz & Gouldenstein Are Dead ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep87 - 415) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:47, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m To Kill a Talking Bird (Frasier episode) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep86 - 414) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:47, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Four for the Seesaw ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep85 - 413) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:47, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Death and the Dog ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 4)#ep84 - 412) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:46, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Odd Man Out (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Fraiser (season 4)#ep96 - 424 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes)
# 09:46, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Ask Me No Questions ‎ (#redirect Fraiser (season 4)#ep95 - 423 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes)
# 09:46, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Are You Being Served? (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Fraiser (season 4)#ep94 - 422 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes)
# 09:46, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Daphne Hates Sherry ‎ (#redirect Fraiser (season 4)#ep93 - 421 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes)
# 09:46, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Three Dates and a Breakup ‎ (#redirect Fraiser (season 4)#ep91 - 419 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes)
# 09:46, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Ham Radio (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Fraiser (season 4)#ep90 - 418 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes)
# 09:46, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Roz's Turn ‎ (#redirect Fraiser (season 4)#ep89 - 417 - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes)
# 09:46, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Unnatural (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Fraiser (season 4)#ep88 - 416 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes)
# 09:46, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Roz's Krantz & Gouldenstein Are Dead ‎ (#redirect Fraiser (season 4)#ep87 - 415 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes)
# 09:46, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) To Kill a Talking Bird (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Fraiser (season 4)#ep86 - 414 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes)
# 09:46, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Four for the Seesaw ‎ (#redirect Fraiser (season 4)#ep85 - 413 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes)
# 09:46, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Death and the Dog ‎ (#redirect Fraiser (season 4)#ep84 - 412 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) 
# 09:35, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Our Father Whose Art Ain't Heaven ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 4))  (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:35, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mixed Doubles (Frasier episode) ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 4)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:34, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:A Lilith Thanksgiving ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 4)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:32, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Three Days of the Condo ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 4)#ep83 - 411 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:32, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Dad Loves Sherry, the Boys Just Whine ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 4)#ep81 - 409 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:32, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Our Father Whose Art Ain't Heaven ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 4)#ep80 - 408 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:32, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) A Lilith Thanksgiving ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 4)#ep79 - 407 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:32, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Mixed Doubles (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 4)#ep78 - 406 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:32, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Head Game ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 4)#ep77 - 405 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:32, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) A Crane's Critique ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 4)#ep76 - 404 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:32, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Impossible Dream (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 4)#ep75 - 403 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:32, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Love Bites Dog ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 4)#ep74 - 402 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 09:32, 11 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Two Mrs. Cranes ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 4)#ep73 - 401 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:50, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Focus Group (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 3)#ep71 - 323)  (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:50, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Look Before You Leap (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 3)#ep64 - 316) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:50, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Friend (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 3)#ep59 - 311) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:50, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) It's Hard To Say Goodbye If You Won't Leave ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 3)#ep58 - 310) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:49, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Sleeping with the Enemy (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 3)#ep54 - 306) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:49, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Kisses Sweeter Than Wine (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 3)#ep53 - 305) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:49, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Leapin' Lizards (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 3)#ep52 - 304) (top) [rollback]
# 19:41, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Where There's Smoke There's Fired ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 3))  (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:41, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kisses Sweeter Than Wine (Frasier episode) ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 3)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:41, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Shrink Rap (Frasier episode) ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 3)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:39, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) You Can Go Home Again ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#ep72 - 324 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:39, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Focus Group (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#ep71 - 323 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:38, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Frasier Loves Roz ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#ep70 - 322 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:38, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Where There's Smoke There's Fired ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#ep69 - 321 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:36, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Frasier (season 3) ‎ (merge many eps (see talk for contributions),merge prop, script-assisted date/terms audit; see mosnum, wp:overlink)
# 19:32, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Police Story (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#ep68 - 320 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:32, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Crane vs. Crane ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#ep67 - 319 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:31, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Chess Pains ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#ep66 - 318 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:31, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) High Crane Drifter ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#ep65 - 317 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:31, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Look Before You Leap (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#ep64 - 316 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:31, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) A Word to the Wiseguy ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#ep63 - 315 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:31, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Come Lie with Me ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#ep60 - 312 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:26, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Show Where Diane Comes Back ‎ (rm quotes and trivia)
# 19:25, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Moon Dance ‎ (rm quotes and trivia, rm one image per WP:NFCC#3a)
# 19:23, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Moon Dance ‎ ({{mergeto|Frasier (season 3)|date=January 2009}})
# 19:18, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Friend (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#59 - 311 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:18, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) It's Hard to Say Goodbye If You Won't Leave ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#58 - 310 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:18, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Frasier Grinch ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#57 - 309 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:18, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Last Time I Saw Maris ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#56 - 308 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:18, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Adventures of Bad Boy and Dirty Girl ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#55 - 307 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:18, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Sleeping with the Enemy (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#54 - 306 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:18, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Kisses Sweeter Than Wine (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#53 - 305 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:18, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Leapin' Lizards (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#52 - 304 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:18, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Martin Does It His Way ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#51 - 303 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:18, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Shrink Rap (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#50 - 302 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 19:18, 9 January 2009 (hist) (diff) She's the Boss (Frasier) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 3)#49 - 301 {{R from merge}} - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 15:00, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Roz in the Doghouse ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 2)#36 - 212 - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes)  (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 14:59, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Candidate (Frasier episode) ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 2)#31 - 207 - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 14:57, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Duke's We Hardly Knew Ye' ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 2)#29 - 205 - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 14:57, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Flour Child ‎ (#redirect Frasier (season 2)#28 - 204 - see Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 14:51, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Seat of Power ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 2))  (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 14:50, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Adventures in Paradise (Part I) ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 2)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 14:50, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:The Botched Language of the Cranes ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 2)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 14:50, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:The Unkindest Cut of All ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 2)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 14:50, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Slow Tango in South Seattle ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 2)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 15:28, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Matchmaker (Frasier episode) ‎ (rm Episode Title Cards and Memorable Quotations as cruft)
# 15:28, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Dark Victory (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 2)#48 - 224) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 15:27, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Breaking the Ice (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 2)#44 - 220) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 15:27, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Club (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 2)#42 - 218) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 15:27, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) The Candidate (Frasier) ‎ (←Redirected page to Frasier (season 2)#31 - 207) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 15:26, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Frasier (season 2) ‎ (note merged articles per GFDL, merge proposal for An Affair to Forget) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 15:19, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Frasier (season 2) ‎ (plot merger (see talkpage), cut circular redirects, + {{mergefrom|An Affair to Forget|date=January 2008}}, script-assisted date/terms audit)
# 15:17, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Dark Victory (Frasier episode) ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 2)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 15:17, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Burying a Grudge ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 2)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 15:17, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:The Innkeepers ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 2)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 15:17, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Breaking the Ice (Frasier episode) ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 2)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 15:15, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Flour Child ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 2)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 15:15, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Daphne's Room ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 2)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 15:15, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:The Club (Frasier episode) ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 2)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 15:15, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Someone to Watch Over Me (Frasier episode) ‎ (rm wikiproject banners after merger/redirect) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
# 15:14, 3 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Agents in America, Part III ‎ (←Redirected page to Talk:Frasier (season 2)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]

Caveat: These numbers maybe slight wrong, please assume good faith when reviewing them and pointing out inevitable errors.

Collapsed table one, a history of the disagreement about content and tags shows

1. The guideline tag was added based on Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes.
2. The tags an content of this page have had several edit disputes

Collapsed table two, Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, shows

1. 37 editors commented, for a total of 150 edits. Between the 20th of December and the 8th of January, 18 days.
2. 23 editors opposed, 13 supported the proposition, 2 editors I am uncertain of their position
3. By an almost 2 to 1 margin editors opposed this proposition. (1.769 ratio)
4. Although only 13 editors opposed, they were responsible for 76 of the 150 edits. The two largest edits to the page was two supporters, Ned (36) and Bignole (13).

Collapsed table three, the Frasier and the Stargate episode merges

1. Shows that at least one editor has not followed the guidelines set out in the Arbitration.

Conclusions and further study

1. There has never been consensus for this page to be a guideline
2. There is a clear historical pattern of no or false consensus perpetrated by editors here, to justify this policy page, and the deletion or merger of other editors contributions.
3. Why did the closing editor close it accepted? I have no access to the actual edits of these editors, so I cannot determine how big each editor edit was.[14] But based on the number of edits, it shows that those who supported this proposal disproportionately commented on this Request for Comment. This strongly supports to posits/theories I have suspected for a long time (1) The current "Discussion is not a vote" rule, where administrators close the discussion based on no numerical figure, maybe flawed, because it not only encourages tedious editing, but (2) it supports those editors who are invested and support the policy the most.
4. Therefore, the current "Discussion is not a vote" rule should be critically reevaluated.

Potential further study and investigation

1. The history of this dispute, including, User:Starblind/DeletionWars#Inclusionism Wikipedia:Historic debates in which the inclusion of episodes won.
2. Graphing of the Wikipedia:Television episodes talk page similar to Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes.
3. Graphing of the Wikipedia:Television episodes main page similar to Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes.
4. Graph how many edits each editor had in Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, to test my posit/theory that the current "Discussion is not a vote" rule favors veteran editors over newer editors

Result

Based on these findings, I am removing the {{guideline}} tag from Wikipedia:Television episodes.

In the spirit of respect for the authors work on Wikipedia:Television episodes, I will not add {{Rejected}} or {{historical}}, instead I will add a more neutral template found here: Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations).

Ikip (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Consensus can change, what occurs in the past matters little to present discussion. The above section (Pixel's suggestion to demote) is the most recent consensus and suggests this stays as a guideline pending the resolution of other issues. --MASEM 13:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There has never been consensus for this page to be a guideline". Consensus has historically and still is against this guideline.Ikip (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there has - this has been marked a guideline for a long time (more than several months), and only last month was reaffirmed as being a guideline. Be aware that you're approaching this (stating it is invalid to to historical precedence) as if WP was a bureaucracy, which it is not. If you believe something should not be a guideline, seek consensus to demote it, as what happened in the long past does not matter to how the guideline is seen now. --MASEM 14:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Masem, and this "this discussion has become dormant" stuff doesn't actually work in your favor. If someone comes here and says "this shouldn't be a guideline" and the discussions fade with no clear consensus then Wiki rule states that the page reverts back to its original status (i.e. dormant talk doesn't mean the proposal automatically passes...not unless there was clear consensus in one direction. In other words, if the consensus was to dismantle the page and everyone stopped talking about it..then yes we would dismantle the page. There was no such consensus). As for your "study". You say you cannot access the edits, but you know the edit counts. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and the majority vote doesn't mean that the majority wins. It's based on the strength of the argument. Many of those opposers only had arguments of "I like episode articles, we should keep them the way they are". Frankly, that's a pretty weak argument to allow episode articles to exist all willy-nilly. You "empiracl data" also lacks context. You have "OPPOSE" votes that contradict each other. Many times I say oppose votes side-by-side where one person insinuated that they wanted to get rid of the guideline while another read like they wanted to keep it. Statistics are a funny thing, as without true context you can make them say whatever you want (trust me, I've had a vast many classes on statistics and the research used to support them).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, you can't say "what occurs in the past matters little to present discussion" and then turn right around and say "this has been marked a guideline for a long time." And I really don't think the Demotion from guideline thread above "reaffirmed" this as being a guideline. Frankly I had forgotten I started that thread and it was still going til January 5, then more after that. And you supported this page being demoted. --Pixelface (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have this too say. If anything in the past 3 years has become clear to me, then it is that television episodes are one of the hottest contested areas between deletionists and inclusionists, between the demanders of "quality now" and the professors of "quality arrives in time". I have always been of the opinion that making any "rules" in these areas are pointless. Drive by-contributors don't adhere to them, and dedicated contributors are wasting their time with discussion and formulation that could better be spent authoring. As such we can only hope that the organic wikipedia authoring process will solve the issues in the end.

BUT. where I have always been a support of NOT#PAPER, and not being on a timetable, coming from the 2006/2007 period where the was NO active WP:TV but only projects dedicated to several series themselves, resulting in complete chaos at that time, I do think there needs to be guidance. So I advice that people focus on the following whenever they talk about guidelines, MoS, policy etc. when it comes to TV related articles.

1. there NEEDS to be guidance for creating articles on a television series TOPIC.
2. there need to be rules about what is allowed to weed down articles of a TOPIC to create more condense and more readable articles on said topic.
3. there needs to be respect for the evolving nature of contributions when a series is still running at this moment.

I think some people are forgetting that it is more important to guide contributors into making proper articles, than it is to fight and discuss specific rules that will without doubt always be limited by "ignore all rules".

ALSO, i would like to point out the significant part that the centralized discussion of television episodes has. The discussion was about a small set of dedicated project editors that needed to deal with the pressure put on to them by deletionists (from the entirety of Wikipedia) and the at that time large group of "drive by editors" that were hardly participating in wikipedia as a process. I still consider that the impossible was asked of the editors at that time and that no good could ever come of it. There is no 1 set of rules that can or should be used when writing an article for wikipedia. There can only be an advice on how to steer creation, and how to condone deletion. The fact that 2 years after this discussion, people still cannot see the spirit of the result of the discussion but only the words, shows to me that the discussion was a waste of time to begin with. I take no clear points in these discussions anymore. I neither accept or oppose in ANY of these discussions, since I find that it hurts me as an editor in other areas of Wikipedia to be marked as a deletionist/inclusionist and even as a TV contributor. My interest is only to provide a bit of context. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I find funny is that WP:FICT is just about complete, and it will take the place of this guideline anyway. Yet, there seems to be a rush to "delete" this guideline before FICT is official. I don't know if it's some vein attempt at a free pass on creating articles (which strikes me as odd and misguided), or what.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy the this "guideline doesn't matter" ruse at all. Why are you and Masem spending so much time here debating what I am saying? Why are both you and Masem in a revert war with me over what tag is on this page?

Your statement that this doesn't matter is similar to the AfD tag, "this is not a vote, we don't vote in this AfD" Which discourages other editors from commenting. Same empty tactic. Further, This page does matter, it has been used to attempt to delete numerous pages and merge hundreds of articles, by the same handful of editors that lost by a two to one margin in the Request for comment vote, and have stifled criticism of this essay ever since. Ikip (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I didn't say "it doesn't matter", if anything I said "it won't matter" (future tense) - there is a difference, and thus your follow-up statement is moot. I'm arguing it because right now this IS what we have to address episode article. Who said anything about discouraging editors from commenting? What exactly are you reading??? WP:NOTE has been used to deleted more pages than EPISODE ever has. I don't see you placing a dispute tag on that guideline. Hell, that guideline is far more strict than this one is with regard to episode articles. Again, you bring up the voting numbers like they actually mean something. Please take a look at WP:DEMOCRACY, it would be helpful for future discussions in this regard. As for FICT, yes there is bickering over petty wording, but trust me..the bickering will end and FICT will be officially made a guideline for fictional articles. P.S. Don't accuse me of tag-teaming. I only made one revert to your edit, and it was before I ever saw that Masem had reverted you earlier. A rever war requires more than a single revert on a given subject, in such a case it seems that YOU are the one trying to instigate an edit war (since you reverted Masem, who reverted you, and then after I reverted you, you then decided to place a different tag on the page). I wonder if there there are rules against placing a dispute tag on a page so close to the last time there was a dispute tag placed on it...hhmmm.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, if there is consensus for this page, why was there just recently a tag removed, who removed it? Bignole!

00:32, 5 January 2009 Bignole "Undid revision 261994700 by Kim Bruning (talk) there was no consensus to demote, which means it stays where it is)"

00:37, 5 January 2009 Bignole "(there was no consensus for change in any direction, so it reverts back to its original state. The only clear idea from that discussion was that we can dismantle if FICT becomes official)"

For one long year, a couple of editors have been arguing "consensus", it is almost a hypnotic chant. If you say it long enough will everyone believe it?

But guess what, an evening of simple research shows that this page was opposed 2 to 1 originally in the Request for comment, yet verbose editors such as yourself, out talked everyone else, and despite the 23 editors who opposed this article, this article became a guideline. The talk pages and revert wars over templates shows that you have warn down any opposition to this page. It is very similar to TNN's and sgeureka tactics (above), that was brought up in the Arbitration. I guess there was so much "consensus" for this essay's policies that Arbitration was required? I guess the last "demote" tag, quickly reverted by Bignole a few days ago was a mark of consensus? Anyone can have consensus in an echo chamber.

You are welcome to quote acronyms all you would like. It does not change the fact that there has never been consensus on this page. I bring up the rich history of revert wars, because it is a pattern of behavior. You and Masem argue there is consensus now, just like you argued their was consensus then. Less than two weeks ago there was yet another revert war over tags, and two weeks ago, you argued the same tired mantra: consensus.

I am aware of the acronym Consensus can change that you partner used:

"Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things."

Was deleting all of those tags facilitating new ideas and helping build new consensus?

It is ironic that Masem brings up "Consensus can change" when all you two have ever wanted since the absurd RfC is the status quo.

I can't wait to document the talk page. I have a strong feeling that your consensus will be just as empty as sgeureka's Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Stargate SG-1 episode review Ikip (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break

This is how consensus has been made over the past year, illustrated again today:

14:38, 19 January 2009 Bignole (Talk | contribs) (5,988 bytes) (the proposal was to dismantle this guideline, if the discussion becomes dormant than the proposal doesn't automatically win) (undo) Deletes compromise tag

13:54, 19 January 2009 Masem (Talk | contribs) (5,988 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Ikip; Inappropriate tag per recent discussion. (TW)) (undo) Deletes compromise tag

16:06, 19 January 2009 Collectonian (Talk | contribs) m (5,988 bytes) (Reverted 5 edits by Ikip; Rv; one editor disputing is not a dispute; do the talk thing, but consensus already said no to the tag. using TW) Deletes disputed tag

Like minded editors, resisting any change to the status quo, in clear violation of "Consensus can change". Wait: Don't you have to have consensus first before it can change?

I guess you all feel this is not a dispute? This is what the three of you consider consensus building? I LOVE Collectonian logic for removing the tag: "one editor disputing is not a dispute" Collectonian is that a dictionary definition or wikipedia policy, or neither?

Thanks, you three, although it was never my intention, thanks for inadvertently proving my central thesis. Ikip (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one editor could just dispute every policy by tagging it, every last policy and guideline on Wikipedia would be in a perpetual state of dispute because no one agrees with everything. There was already a very recent discussion on this and consensus affirmed the removal of the tag. Your now coming here and attempting to re-stir the pot does not change this, nor does your length tl;dr stuff above. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slippery Slope fallacy of logic: "the speaker argues that, once the first step is undertaken, a second or third step will inevitably follow, much like the way one step on a slippery incline will cause a person to fall and slide all the way to the bottom."

Yes, I was waiting for this statement, I am disrupting the revert wars of tags, and the merging of articles in complete disregard of the Arbitration. I am disrupting the status quo, and that's what it is all about isn't it?

So Collection, waiting for the policy which supports the removal of my dispute tag. Lets just cut to the chase: there is none. Ikip (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until the completion of FICT this should stand as a gudeline. L0b0t (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's why we have the WP:3RR. Someone can insist on a viewpoint. But other people can revert it freely. And we have the WP:3RR so that one person can't just ram a change through. We also have the WP:3RR so change can't be obstructed by one person. Randomran (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to make my point one more time, this time by quoting from the lead of this guideline. "The following guideline aims to promote the creation of high-quality articles about television shows and their episodes." CREATION. It can in no way be used as a blanket approval to any form of non-considerate deletion of articles/content, even though it is used by some people in this way. The fact that many people do not understand or appreciate the efforts of some "deletionists", next to the fact that some deletionists use this guideline as an improper reasoning for their "deletioninism" does not reflect on the correctness of this guideline directed at the creation of proper and understandable articles. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that much of this discussion is caused by the "Dealing with problem articles" section. I have some leaning towards supporting a removal of that section in this guideline for being disputed. I'm very mixed emotions about that section. The reason is that in my personal opinion, a list or season "article-format" will forever limit the possibility for editors to expand upon articles in an evolutionary way. BUT remember that we used to have many (esp. older series) that had virtually empty articles for every single episode that are now in a much better place by being part of a List of or a Season article for the next few years. However in that light, perhaps the section is not so much part of the content guideline than that it is part of a process adhered to by several editors and perhaps better in place in WP:TV project space or as an essay perhaps. Perhaps splitting the parts that are agreed upon by almost all editors and the part that is somewhat disputed is the best approach that can be taken for the time being. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But mergists uses to forget, that all the merging suppositions consists from two different ideas. The first is "merging", i.e. adding plot summaries into lists of episodes, and in such a case almost no one is against. That is why I'm almost agree with your comment. But the second supposition is to remove the original articles, considering by some editors as "non-notable" or as "stubs". And even if they are "stubs" or "non-notable", — what is the reason to remove them? Is it an attempt to economy the hard disc's memory? But, at first, disk space is cheap, and at second, this articles's information will not be removed in any case, - they will be just saved somewhere in Wikipedia's archives. And the only result of such work will be that these articles will be keeped out from display, making them invisible, especially for new editors. Krasss (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I stated before that this is not my windmill to fight, I'd like to express support for the positions against the removal/deletion of "merged" articles, on the grounds that while the merger preserves (shortened) plot summaries, other details are lost. I am not absolutely against mergers: there is no need for episode stubs that remain empty forever, and there may be no need for individual episode articles for a story arc, for instance. But a guideline suitable for a serial may not be equally applicable for an anthology style series. Indeed it was the recent merger of such an anthology (The Outer Limits) that got me involved in this discussion, though I note that some (not necessarily all, but some) Stargate SG-1 episode articles that have been merged/deleted also contained information not available elsewhere. It seems to me that the well-intentioned zeal of "mergist" editors may have gone too far on occasion, deleting useful (and verifiable) content.

One argument I found especially dubious is the issue of notability and sources. The television episodes in question have been seen by millions. Do we really need a review in TV Guide before we consider the episode notable? As to sources, information such as cast of characters can be read off directly from the screen, i.e., a recording of the episode itself is a verifiable primary source... do we really not believe that an episode was directed by X until this information is confirmed in writing by a secondary source? I believe that these criteria have been misapplied when the merging and deletion of some television episodes was considered. vttoth (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of people who have seen an episode has been brought up before. Like here, in my statement over a year ago at Wikipedia:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability. Torc2 also said "If an episode rates in the top 50 for that week, or is aired nationally, why is that not an indication of notability? Why are ratings not a significant indication of notability for TV shows, when radio play and sales are for records?" Lquilter said "Extraordinary levels of popular reception, such as record-breaking ratings, purchases, downloads, etc., if verifiable, may be evidence of notability." Blathnaid said "Criteria such as repeats, DVD releases, ratings, and surveys could show which shows society has judged as notable."

Later, Masem gave a summary (in his view) of that RFC and said "Note that ratings and viewership, as well as having developer information, are argued to not be acceptable." I don't know where Masem got that from; me and Masem seem to be living in different universes. --Pixelface (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, that was an unbiased look at that discussion at hand, not my person interpretation. However, either as being my original beliefs on the system or just the fact that time has changed my opinion, I personally believe that, particularly per the new proposed FICT and the third prong there on real-world aspect, a statement on the viewership or the rating of an episode is sufficient to preliminary keep an episode article for notability purposes to allow further development of it. However, I still urge that common sense editorial judgment be used that if a number of a show's season's episode articles can only be expanded (given enough good faith effort to locate sources) to be the plot summary, infobox, and its Nielsen ratings at first airing, that merging to a season episode list is a better presentation of the same information. We still provide redirections and never outright delete existing episode articles unless they're patently bogus. --MASEM 15:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find this entire discussion rather enlightening as to what certain editors feel wiki is all about. Merging episodes and deleting content simply because they don't have the independent reliable sources as their parent articles is like dismantling a tower because you don't like some of the bricks. The notability of the parent article is built upon the episodes. Sure, one might opine that off-wiki sites "can handle the cruft", but we aren't talking about "cruft", and if readers cannot find what they need here they WILL go elsewhere and leave wiki a empty cavern. Wiki is the paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit... but more importantly, it is the paperless encyclopedia that anyone can read. It is not a matter of cutting down trees to please readers... it is about being the central nexus of information where indivudiuals can learn and hopefuly expand their understanding, no matter the subject. And it is not WP:NOTINHERITED, as individual episodes have the notability as established by their parents... and further individual sourcing of the individual bricks, while nice, is not neccessary (building made up of the indvidual bricks analogy), since the tower made of all those bricks is itself strong. I found this discusion entirely by accident... and was a bit surprised that it has not been brought to the attention of the hundreds or thousands of involved or concerned editors who might have important opinions on the matter. It is hubris to believe that any one or even 5 or 10 should make decisions that affect the hundreds or thousands of others. Wiki is not a beauracracy. It is not "ruled" by an exalted heirachy or by self-appointed guardians of the gate. We are all here together and a true consessus af ALL the involved or affected must be sought. So for myself, I support the positions against the removal/deletion of "merged" articles. Wiki has no deadline. We have all the time we might ever need to expand a stub or tweak an article or even {eventually) find a source. Deletion is only a last resort... as we have so many other options that improve the project and make it suitable for readers as well as editors. User:TheDJ paraphrased it best: Wiki is about CREATION and not deletion. Why else would I have joined the Rescue Squad if I thought creation and improvement were pointless? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your brick analogy. This is a dispute between lumpers and splitters. But some people *will* claim "cruft." Some people *will* bring up NOTINHERITED, but like I've said before: the episodes are the show. Over seven years ago, someone on meta said "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page" and Jimmy Wales said "I agree with this one completely" and so people started creating them, and it went from there. Wikipedia is not paper on meta still says that.

NOTPAPER and EPISODE were both mentioned by Arbcom in the second arbitration case about television episodes, E&C2. EPISODE has never been a notability guideline, but one prolific user was acting as if it was. We do have some self-appointed guardians of the gate here. Most of them involved parties and/or contributors to E&C1 or E&C2. --Pixelface (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2

I would urge that those that would like to see this guideline demoted to help participate in WT:FICT, where we are close to presenting a new version of the notability of fictional elements that will include tv episodes. The TL;DR version of it is that we have developed a proposed 3-prong test to estimate the notability of a fictional element:

1. The importance of the work itself. For TV episodes, this pretty much means any nationally broadcasted series, though certain series that may last for all of 2 or 3 episodes may be less important than one that's gotten 20 seasons under its belt.
2. The importance of the element to the work. This prong is in a bit of a quibble, but I would reasonably argue that for most shows that have one new show a week (as opposed to soaps), every episode is important to the work, otherwise they would have not dedicated their limited air time to create it. Soaps, its not that any specific episode is important, it is the overall plot as it develops over the season. There's likely other cases, but lets assume we're working with shows along the lines of "Lost", "Scrubs" or "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
3. The inclusion of real-world aspects. For TV episodes, this can include reviews (from reliable sources), viewership, or development information from the creative team. An issue still being discussed is the weight of independent sources verses dependent sources here, but the key point is that we are not asking for compliance to the general notability guideline; if one can show some real-world impact or influence, there's likely more to be had with more searching. This does not include using TV Guide schedule blurbs.

From these three prongs, I would argue that most episode articles could likely stay if people did the legwork to meet the third prong - it is not a hard barrier to meet. There will still be some that "go away" - shows from early in the days of cable, for example, may not have viewership information readily available.
However, "go away" is not the same as deletion. There is absolutely no reason that an episode of any weekly TV show should not be discussed to some length, it just may be part of a season episode list. If you can't get a TV episode to make the third prong, I would hope editorial discretion would make sense to move the plot description into the season episode list while providing the redirect so that the episode is still searchable and the edit history is not lost. For example, I've recently been looking at the Star Trek TNG episodes for just simple plot condensation (per WP:WAF), and as a result, I would argue most of these, once the plot's down to 2 or 3 paragraphs, can easily be placed into season episode lists without lost of any other information. Were I to do that, I'd be merging and redirecting, not deleting, as if more information became available at a later date, those can be resurrected.
Which of course leads to the question of "why" do this merging in the first place if no information is lost? First, there are those on WP that are hard-nosed, "must have secondary sources" enforcers of WP:N that would love to see it as policy. (I disagree with that approach). There will always be a conflict with those, just as there are people that think that as long as one person thinks a topic is important, it should have an article. Acknowledging that articles should include information that is sourced beyond the primary work, and gathering those that can't be expanded beyond this into logical groups is one method of balance - we still cover those important points but recognize that full articles on each is never going to please the hard-nosed. It's a compromise, one that WP has been desperately looking for for nearly 2 years now. Furthermore, merged seasons episodes lists may have a better likelihood of meeting the expectations of those hard-nosed editors, as often TV seasons are released as DVD sets, and these get reviews all the time in reliable sources, and will have featurettes that may cover the entire season. Smallville (Season 1) is such an example that the whole seems to be greater than the sum of its parts without losing any critical information from any specific show. Second is the issue of maintenance. WP is not running out of hard disk space, but it does have a finite number of editors and a finite amount of their time. My experience has told me it is much easier to watchlist the main article of a series of merged articles and the respective redirect pages than to watchlist each individual article if they were not redirected, as when they aren't redirected, they attract more vandals and nonsense edits, and to deal with that takes time. Vandals will still hit the merged article, but that's one regular article I can check and then keep quick tabs on the other, allowing me to go on with other more productive editing. The final reason is that one simply may have a better end article if one merges, particularly for shows with seasonal plots ala Lost or the reimaged BSG; a season episode list, done right, provides a total summary of the season's overall plot
WP should cover every TV episode (for the most part) somewhere with a concise yet thorough plot. What we need to do is recognize that there will always be a split between those that want everything covered in detail and those that want tighter reins on preventing indiscriminate information. Wise editing choices about when a single TV episode should be covered in its own article instead of part of the larger work is what is needed to bridge that irreparable gap. Presently this version of this page tries to do that, but FICT will hopefully improve it to give more allowance to episode page retention and creation, but I still implore that editors think twice about how best to present a TV show before jumping and creating individual episode articles, given all other policies and guidelines we have per WP:WAF and WP:MOSTV. --MASEM 16:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic justice

For years editors like Masem have deleted or merged other editors contributions stating:

• Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

Lets turn this stick, which has been used for years by editors like you, and probably yourself, on you Masem. Where is the proof, the evidence that this article has ever gained consensus? It is up to you and those who support this page to show there has been consensus. So far noone here has shown that consensus has been gained. No one argues that the Request for Comment was overwheliming lopsidely against this page becoming a guideline 2 to 1 opposed it. No one argues that there have been revert wars over the tags for over a year. The burden of proof is on you Masem, through edit differences to prove that this article has consensus. If you cannot prove that this article has consensus, this article will be demoted. It is nice for once to have the editors who contribute nothing to articles they try to delete, to finally be on the hotseat, and be required to cough up evidence or face deletion.

WT:FICT is simply a retread of the years of fighting about television episodes. Except it has been overwhelmingly molded and created by editors who want to delete or merge other editors contributions. WT:FICT is an echo chamber, a back door way to gather the appearance of consensus by a handful of delete editors, when consensus has historically been overwhelming against these changes.

1. I am troubled at how you and editors who support deletion dismiss the fradulent request for comment.
2. I am troubled at how you and editors who support deletion claim consensus but offer no proof to support this empty claim. Consensus is not reached by a tedious editing in a Request for Comment nor deleting other editors tags, added with good faith.
3. I am troubled at how you and editors who support deletion condone, ignore, dismiss, or support bullying editors behavior.
4. I am troubled at how some editors who support deletion have ignored the Arbitration ruling. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters which states:

"An ideal response to such situations would be broader discussion of the guideline among editors with varying editing interest, with consensus achieved prior to widespread changes." I don't think talk page echo chambers counts as a "broader discussion". It does not include merging articles based on patently false consensus. Has anyone contacted the hundreds of episode list pages to get their opinion on this proposal and this page or WP:FICT? No, because as the history of this dispute has shown, the overwhelming majority of editors support the way things are ran right now. What editors who delete want is to get a seal of approval on WP:FICT. Only then let the editors who contribute to episodes find out about this new policy when they start deleting.

This discussion will not languish forever until I give up and go somewhere else, with editors who support deletion having a monopoly on the main page, reverting any good faith edits editors make. This is what has happened for the past year: an abuse of policy (repeated bad faith removal of tags), and editors opposing view points being ignored to retain the status quo.

Again: Ball is in your court Masem, the burden is on you. Prove that their is consensus for this essay, or this essay will be demoted. Ikip (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some personal beef with Masem or something because you seem to be more interested in attacking him than engaging in serious discussion. In either case, relevant projects have now been notified of this discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is how the editors here deal with differing opinions, and this is how "consensus" has always been made on this essay: template warnings,[15], reverting any tags which question this page, quickly followed by a request for page protection.[16]

I think editors would be more tolerant of your views, if you were more tolerant of theres, your actions speak louder than your words.

I think the emporer has no clothes. Ikip (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]