Wikipedia talk:Television episodes/Proposed Objective Criteria

Per WP:BOLD I've moved things to the main page:

Wikipedia:Television episodes/Proposed Objective Criteria

I feel we need a talk page to, well, talk. --Jack Merridew 11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"any one of them"

I don't feel that meeting any one of whatever criteria emerge from this proposal is likely to be an appropriate metric for determining notability. There seems to be a fair amount of opinion in this direction in the discussion so far. In all likelihood, many of the criteria will serve to "help" and hitting more than a few will amount to solid evidence of notability. I'll be commenting on the discussion to date soon. --Jack Merridew 11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My goal was to be pretty inclusionist. I don't think there is a realistic chance of this issue going completely away, and the hard feelings probably never will, either. I wanted to make a proposal that most people could see as something achievable for some of their favorite episodes. If we set a list of criteria and then say "even if you meet them, it's still possible that the episode isn't really notable", we're back in the mud. I really want to get to the point where it is fairly mechanistic, and the majority believe the criteria are at least fair, even if imperfect.Kww (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that we think this like it is done on WP:MUSIC, in that, save for what is currently #7 (covered in reliable third-party sources), the rest demonstrate "probably notable" but still require appropriate sourcing to complete, as well as common sense judgement. --MASEM 14:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that a lot of these could be met and still not be enough for an article. I think Crit. 7 is the only one where need for an article can be established by itself, all others will depend on depth of coverage. I think the next big wall will be the bickering over how much is "significant" coverage. I think for now we can look at this as "If it doesn't meet at least one of these criteria it doesn't need an article" beyond that will, as always, require discussion of the individual article in question. Star dust 8212 16:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have argued similarly on the WT:EPISODE. My preferred formulation is to say something at the top about notability being a judgment call based on assessment of the aggregate of the various claims to notability. Then within each criteria, state that presence of evidence in this criterion provides evidence of notability. --Lquilter (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific examples

I have started a discussion about specific articles at Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes#Specific_examples. Comments are welcome. --Pixelface (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rank?

Just a quick question, but are these criteria ranked in any specific order or is this just the order in which they were written? Hewinsj (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no ordering in mind.Kww (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um

If you don't want anything further than WP:V and WP:N where do you register that? The page seems to indicate that dissent will be ignored. Hiding T 14:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N ("A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.") is proposed criteria #7. If you mean that "It was on TV therefore it's notable" then this isn't the place to discuss that since this discussion is based on an assumption that consensus is found that plot-only articles are not notable. If consensus is determined that all that is needed is for an episode to exist in order to have an article than this whole discussion will be null and void. Star dust 8212 14:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if my question irked you. That was not my intent. I was merely confused by the confrontational tome of the intro which seemed to me to run counter to WP:AGF and WP:CIV. I have no wish to state anything resembling your assertion, I merely wish to indicate that we have enough guidance and policies already, and that maybe we could just edit the encyclopedia instead and shape consensus that way per policy. Hiding T 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't irked though I suppose I did come off sounding that way, early Monday morning isn't the time I'm most pleasant. I just wanted to make it clear that the two ideas weren't the same thing (some people continue to assert they are). Just editing the encyclopedia without more specific guidance just isn't working right now as demonstrated by the number of AN/I reports, 2 arb cases, RFC and various other debates. Discussing how policy should be applied may help, it may not, it's worth a try. I think you'll also find that many of the opinions expressed on this page really do come down to the basic definition of notability, many are arguing that the key factor is how much the individual episode received coverage in secondary sources. I'd agree that the intro is perhaps not worded in a particularly polite way but it has served its purpose in preventing a rehashing of the arguments at the RFC, which, as stated, is not the point of this discussion. Star dust 8212 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding, it doesn't say that at all. It says that saying that discussion is useless because notability is automatically inherited will be ignored. WP:V and WP:N certainly can't be interpreted as giving TV episodes automatic notability. If you think that they do, I'm interested in seeing the section. Several editors have said that WP:N and WP:V are enough, and their comments have been kept and uncriticized.Kww (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if my reading of the sentence Comments indicating that the discussion is useless because the notability is obvious will be quickly and ruthlessly deleted. irked you. To me it read that stating this discussion was pointless because we have enough guidance already, thank you very much, was likely to be ignored if not ruthlessly deleted. Hiding T 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to nitpick...

I'm an inexperienced editor, so maybe this is a legacy convention that nobody has decided to fix, and I'm aware that this is an informal page, but the singular form of "criteria" is "criterion". Rainspeaker (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]