Template talk:Inside No. 9

This template is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Television: British / Episode coverage

	Television portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
	This template is supported by the British television task force.
	This template is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Comedy

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles

Horror

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles

Inclusion of redlinks

@Woodensuperman: I confess I am struggling to understand what you believe you are adding to the encyclopedia in your edits, here. Please familiarise yourself with the bold, revert, discuss cycle. The guidelines you are referring to very explicitly say that "Red links and redirects [in navigation boxes] should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result." Both of these criteria are the case, so the inclusion of these redlinks is overdetermined. You have quoted back to me that "Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first." That's fine. But that doesn't in any way condone or support the removal of redlinks that do meet the criteria. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:NAVBOX exists solely to provide navigation between related articles. A whole group consisting of redlinks does not provide any form of navigation in any way. TV episode articles are often deleted as not being independently notable, and if you look at nearly every other NAVBOX for any other TV series, you will note that only notable episodes are included. As far as BRD goes, you boldly added these without consensus in the first place, so the burden lies with you to demonstrate how the addition of these entries aids navigation. --wooden superman 06:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A WP:NAVBOX exists solely to provide navigation between related articles." If you say so, but, as established, the guidelines are clear that "Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result." This is very clearly the case here, so I don't think we need to argue about the purpose of navboxes. "TV episode articles are often deleted as not being independently notable..." Ok: Do you believe that these episodes are not notable? A quick Google should confirm that this is not the case. "...if you look at nearly every other NAVBOX for any other TV series, you will note that only notable episodes are included." Agreed. But these episodes are notable. "...you boldly added these without consensus in the first place..." Nonsense. That's a perversion of the BRD cycle, and you know it. "...so the burden lies with you to demonstrate how the addition of these entries aids navigation." I have repeatedly quoted the guideline-based reason for the inclusion of the links. You are doing the best you can to not hear what I am saying. You are the one who believes that the guidelines do not apply in this case. So the burden of proof is with you to justify that. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]