Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists/Television

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed - no consensus

What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? Taric25 (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that means that you suggest, “Lists should meet criteria of encyclopedic content by citing reliable sources to verify there is no original research.” Is that right? Taric25 (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your question is pointlessly vague and this attempted creation of an essay to by-pass the obvious consensus at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not‎#NOTDIR include current channel listings against your desired channel lists is inappropriate. Proper televisions lists are already properly covered at WP:MOSTV and do not need to be included in this inappropriate fork that is mostly a copy-paste of the existing guidelines. This is also a inappropriate attempt to disregard that discussion. Just because you obviously don't agree does not mean you can just try another conversation somewhere else under teh false claim of trying to write an "essay" on it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than use the word “pointless”, be civil and specific in your comment. My question is in a disinterested and neutral tone, and it is intentionally vague to allow discussion. Questions that are too specific, such as questions best answered with one–word answers, do not allow much discussion. In addition Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television) is a derivative work of Wikipedia:Manual of Style that is a project-specific guideline. Therefore, I request comment to create a project-specific guideline for Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists in the same manner. Do not write, “this attempted creation of an essay to by-pass the obvious consensus”, because the only way for this to become a guideline is with consensus. If you feel this is inappropriate, recall what User:Johnuniq’s wrote summarizing the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Summary.
.
I am complying with that. Taric25 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A valid RfC would be at the existing discussion, not in a random split off that goes against the established consensus there. Nor is there a need for a "project specific" guideline (which this is not). There are already appropriate ones. I will write what I want, thank you, and do not presume to leave me random warnings about not assuming good faith. You are far from a neutral party in this and your writing an essay that goes against the consensus is not something that can be seen in any sort of good faith light. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not write things such as, “You are far from a neutral party in this and your writing an essay that goes against the consensus is not something that can be seen in any sort of good faith light.” I am sorry for leaving so many templates on your talk page, until User:Courcelles referred me to Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, I had never read it, so don’t worry, because I have read it now and now know about it, however, you did assume bad faith, left a non-neutral message at WikiProject Television and refactored the talk page comments of another editor, me, and that is why I used those warning templates on your talk page. Taric25 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where, exactly, did I refactor your comments? I have certainly never done so that I know of, and such an accusation demands some serious, hard evidence. Oh, wait, you claimed I refactored your incorrect template on my talk page? FYI, read WP:User. I can remove any post from any one on my talk page if I want to and that includes your false warnings, which you have already been warned for. So kindly refrain from making such incorrect and misleading accusations as I have not refactored anything, only exercised my right to remove undesirable communication from my talk page.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not continue to use assume bad faith claiming something I did was “false”. In response to your comments, you refactored my comment here, again here and at WikiProject Television here. You cite WP:USER, well, if you scroll own that page, then per Deleting your user page or user talk page and Help:Archiving a talk page, you should archive others’ comments on your talk page, not blank them, and you did canvass by leaving a non-neutral message on WikiProject Television’s talk page. Per Wikipedia:Canvassing, a template may help in notifying people in a quick, simple, and neutral manner. I did use such templates in an with a neutral question that you yourself even said was vague so enough please. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You notified not everyone who was participating in a previous discussion but only those who supported your position in the previous discussion (with the exception of 1 person). THAT is improper canvassing. Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking. Active Banana (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I felt if I notified everyone that may have been excessive, so that is why I notified that one person who was not on the supporting side, in hopes that that editor would tell the others. If you feel that this is not happening in a way to be helpful to the discussion, then please be bold and use a friendly, neutral, nonpartisan message by using Template:Please see for that limited number of users. Taric25 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is the lamest excuse for votestacking ever. Active Banana (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe Taric25 is not making excuses. Making claims of votestacking is uncalled for. Taric25 is here to help us out not to prove something out of Wikipedia. Remember Active Banana you actually concluded that a consensus has already been reached when the discussion is still ongoing, you also edited the WP:NOT policy page as shown here to include current channel listings without explicit consent and approval from the editors involved in the discussion. You, Active Banana and AnmaFinotera are giving out statements, most of the time, that presumably sounded unfair, biased, impartial and non-partisan. Active Banana you were the one who started this whole discussion so you and everyone else in this discussion should accept each and everyone's opinion and not overturn it or even give out words that are judgemental. G8crash3r | Talk 21:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember Active Banana you actually concluded that a consensus has already been reached when the discussion is still ongoing. That claim is quite false. Other editors agreed that a consensus had been reached: [2]] and my change to the page itself occurred almost a week after that and was supported as reflecting consensus by yet more editors [3] [4]. That others appeared shortly thereafter with differing views is not something that I or any other editor could predict. Please strike your false claim. Active Banana (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus you were saying is unclear since it has not been approved yet by all parties involved. If your basis is "I think the consensus is clear, based on the rather limited input this topic has received. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)," he said "I think" which can attribute to non-assurance of the consensus. The change of the policy was reverted more than twice since the discussion is still ongoing and validates my claim that a consensus has not been reached yet. Anothing thing is, given the fact that the others you were referring to includes me which strongly opposes your suggestion to the change in WP:NOTDIR is also a proof that a consensus was indeed not reached yet. Consensus should be in favor of both parties involved and not only for one person or one group. By the way, this statement "Sorry, that is the lamest excuse for votestacking ever. Active Banana" can be a false claim as well, since Taric25 is not really trying to votestack and your statement insinuates and accuses Taric25 of doing so. G8crash3r | Talk 22:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G8crash3r, please remember to keep a cool head. Although it is not right for her to claim something as “false”, it’s not right for you to claim something as “false” either. You are allowed to express that you are not comfortable with her accusations and ask her to remember to assume good faith. Furthermore, you are allowed to present evidence refuting her accusation, which it is. Taric25 (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When someome's claims are demonstrably and demonstrated to be false, it is not an attack or nor 'wrong' to point out that they are false. The discussion had reached a point that was considered by parties involved to have been settled with no input from any new edtiors for a significant period, hence consensus reached. Active Banana (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq wrote, “It is possible that a couple of supporters felt the proposal concerned TV schedules (so a clearer proposal may have had less support).” Taric25 (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I have informed all of the users involved in the previous one per your request. I apologize for the misunderstanding, as I was not attempting to votestack, simply to avoid concern with me leaving messages on talk pages. Please accept my apology. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that determination was AFTER numerous editors had looked at the discussion and came to the same conclusion that a consensus had been reached and I had made the change to the policy. Active Banana (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, isn’t that exactly what I just said? After numerous editors had looked at the discussion, Johnuniq wrote, “It is possible that a couple of supporters felt the proposal concerned TV schedules (so a clearer proposal may have had less support).” The “consensus” was not for a clear proposal, since a couple of supporters felt the proposal concerned TV schedules. Per Johnuniq’s statement, I proposed this policy in order for the consensus to be very clear. Taric25 (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. And please accept my apology as well. Comment retracted. Active Banana (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. Taric25 (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to mention I invited the non-retired authors of Wikipedia:Notability (media) to join us. Taric25 (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
In addition, I left a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to get us some more feedback. Taric25 (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also left a message on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests to get us some more feedback. Taric25 (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, I left a message at the help desk and asked for a 3rd opinion. Taric25 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After User:Courcelles informed me that peer review is for main space instead of project space, the editor informed me that Template:Centralized discussion is where I can post it instead, so I did. Taric25 (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This whole discussion will be "Pointless" if a consensus by the concerned writers and/or Admin has not been reached and if one is biased about the topic. G8crash3r | Talk 02:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have two guidelines which, combined, give more than enough guidance for this. Creating a new, singular guideline (or policy) for this can only led to problems, as (inevitably) this guideline will over time differ from the two broader guidelines it was combined from. I don't see the need for such a specific new guideline, and can see probklems that may come from it, so I oppose the promotion of this in any version to the status of guideline or policy. Fram (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a substantial copy/paste of the existing guidelines, I'd support just MfDing it as it really isn't a good redirect and it isn't any kind of guiding essay as it is just repeating what is already there. Either that or redirect (and perhaps now Taric25 will allow the "project" templates above to be removed as none of the projects have supported this proposal either). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say wait for now, since it’s only been 11 out of 30 days, and I would like to give more time for the discussion. If there is not support to make this a guideline, I would have no problem redirecting it into Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television), as long as we merge the information into it. Much of the information is the same, so a merge would not be very difficult. Taric25 (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing here to be merged, as none of this page has consensus except that which was specifically copied from the MoS and other pages already. That content is already in the appropriate places. Nothing here that was not already taken from other sources is relevant to the MoS nor should it be merged there purely because this proposal failed. After 11 days, and no support beyond your own, as its creator, there seems to be enough reason for a WP:SNOW close. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate topics for lists

[edit]

Discuss appropriate topics for lists here. Taric25 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast media

[edit]

Discuss broadcast media here. Taric25 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already rejected by the community. Trying to revive it here and purporting to give it some importance by linking to it is deceptive. Consensus at WP:NOT is clearly against this sort of thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith, and do not use words like “deceptive”, since that claims bad faith. Instead, please be civil and specific in your comments. As far as the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not‎#NOTDIR include current channel listings, recall what User:Johnuniq wrote by reading the text above. Taric25 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be rejected when a consensus hasn't been reached yet. Again, I believe the purpose of this is to clear up the confusion when adding Stand-alone lists in Television, Broadcast Media and the likes and like what Taric25 said we should assume good faith since this will be for the benefit of the whole Wiki community and not only for one user, no matter if he/she is only a reader, writer or an Admin. G8crash3r | Talk 02:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names

[edit]

Discuss names here Taric25 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characters or episodes

[edit]

Discuss characters or episodes here. Taric25 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered at WP:MOSTV and is the proper, consensus based version. There is no need to include it in this pointless personal essay. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as I stated above, rather than use the word “pointless”, be civil and specific in your comment. While Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television) is specific to television, it is not specific to lists, and while Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists is specific to lists, is not specific to television. If you consider that we already have a project-specific guideline and don’t need any more, consider this. Wikipedia:Notability exists, yet a project specific Wikipedia:Notability (music) also exists. Wikipedia:Manual of Style exists, yet many Manuals of Style for music also exist. There is no assertion that a project-specific guideline should not exist, and that is why I request comment to approve this policy. Taric25 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resurrecting this?

[edit]

Obviously a lot of thought and energy went into this. I think it would be more useful to restart discussion and try to come to consensus on what this proposed guideline should say, rather than just slap it with a failed proposal tag. The most obvious way to move forward is to simply delete everything that was broadly contentious, and start with only the points that virtually everyone agrees on. If that makes this 1/10 its current size, that's okay. It'll still be something to build on. PS: I have expressed no opinion, and currently hold no strong opinion, on any side of any of the issues raised, though I might eventually feel strongly one way or another on some of them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 01:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. Two of the editors who were against the creation of this guideline are no longer an active part of the project, so I say it would be fine to seek consensus. That shouldn't be hard to do, since I based the entire proposed guideline on established ones when I wrote it. By the way, thank you for noticing the enormous time and effort I spend to write this guideline. Taric25 (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Making no substantive changes, only slapping {{Essay}} on it, is just as bad, though. This obviously did not gain consensus, and giving it an "essay" label while it's still written as if a guideline, not a personal opinion, is simply going to cause someone to RfC it and slap the failed proposal tag on it again when it again fails to gain consensus. My suggestion to actually remove everything that is contentious and pare it down to some basic uncontroversial points wasn't an idle one. This isn't going to go anywhere, per WP:PARENT, if you simply wait until you think you have a new audience and re-propose the exact same text. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 04:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, believe me, I never intended for it to give the illusion of consensus by changing the header template, allow me to assure you. Since I believe we do have a new audience by now as some of the people who commented are no longer active in the project, so if you please, I simply thought that would be a bold way to spearhead the discussion by listing the policies, guidelines and essay from which I got the information; that was my only reason for doing that. Yes, allow us to focus on what exactly is contentious, just like you said. Can you give examples so that we can work on it? Taric25 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks. Total bollocks. This is as good an example of a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia is for as I could imagine. Watch television. Make up some random criteria for a list about it. Nope. All summed up in the idiotic suggestion that "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination". Drivel... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about Images section? It looks redundant. I'm not sure about Releases section. To include DVD releases requires verification. The Tables section needs changing: more about redirecting a non-notable episode to a list, primarily. --George Ho (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Be BOLD and change it. We'll see what we can do about it! ☺ Taric25 (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, when I wrote to be BOLD and change it, I meant to give it a re-write, not blank it. I did update the sections with information from the current guideline.
From your edit summary, you actually did give some good information I didn't notice before. The source of images as well as releases should be sourced. In addition, I utilized the {{Main}} template with the links to the current guideline as my source. Therefore, I added that any of that information should verify with information from a reliable source, which it should.
As far as VHS and Laser disc releases not being, as you wrote, “relevant”, that's a much larger issue. If you would like to take that up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, hey, more power to you. I will tell you, that is a very large task, because we will have to edit hundreds of articles to remove the VHS and Laser disc releases, and many editors have added that information as notable, historical, yada yada yada. Taric25 (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists/Television&oldid=1242592644"