Wikipedia talk:Television episodes/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

RfC on WP:EPISODE

Statement of the problem

I am aware that many editors have just completed a rather grueling arbitration case and nearly half of those editors are unhappy with the result. I also understand that I have been persistent in my opposition to this guideline, in its present form, and that some see my persistence as obstinacy. I am also cognizant of the extraordinary progress made on WP:FICT and I think there is a committed corps of editors that are devoted to "create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia, in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors, [working]by building consensus through the use of polite discussion (involving the wider community and dispute resolution, if necessary) rather than through disruptive editing." Therefore, I think now is the time to do something about this disputed guideline.

I think this guideline is an example of instruction creep. Additionally, I feel it is redundant, confusing (because it is neither soley a notability guideline nor a style guideline), unecessary (a good WP:FICT, as we have now, should give appropriate notability guidance, a good WP:WAF should give the necessary style guidance, and a project page could provide any other needs), and too narrowly focused (as there are issues with "character" articles, articles on "entire races", "places/settings" articles, and even "objects" articles). I am not alone in these concerns as the following history demonstrates.

History

Possible Solutions

  1. Masem proposed that the guideline could be split into a notability guideline called Wikipedia:Notability (serial works) and Wikipedia:Television episodes would become a manual of style guideline.
  2. Ursasapien has suggested that the new WP:FICT takes care of the notability guidance for these articles and the manual of style sections should be merged into WP:WAF and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article.
  3. The page could be be turned into a disambiguation page.

Poll on the various solutions

Solution 1: Split the guideline into a notability guideline called Wikipedia:Notability (serial works) and a MOS guideline called Wikipedia:Television episodes.

Support:
Oppose:
Comments:
  • Wikipedia:Notability (serial works) would be just as redundant as WP:EPISODE now. There haven't really been any major conflicts about non-episode serial works, meaning that the general WP:NOTABILITY currently takes good enough cares of this. If conflicts should ever arise, this may be worth pursuing in the future, but not now. – sgeureka t•c 12:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Solution 2: Allow WP:FICT to provide any needed notability guidance and WP:WAF and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article to provide style guidance.

Support:
  • I think this guideline is redundant, confusing, and too narrow. Ursasapien (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongest support of all given choices. I also feel that now is the time to finally adress this issue. I agree with Ursasapien's redundancy claims, and I think Notability and MOS should go separate ways, interlinking where appropriate like what WP:FICT currently does. – sgeureka t•c 12:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is instruction creep and should be deprecated. The television medium is changing as new technologies and forms of broad and narrowcasting are developed. A narrow guideline is therefore inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless if TV is changing or if there are new technologies, none of that changes the logic behind a guideline such as this, which is saying that not every episode should have an article. If TV itself needs such special attention then could actually be an argument for a specific guideline, rather than what you appear to be supporting. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your position, rather, I'm not sure what your position is. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  • Unless you plain to remove ALL specialized notability guidelines, I see no reason to get rid of this one just because some people don't like it and hope its removal will allow them to continue filling Wikipedia with cruft. This guideline may be "redundant" but so are some others. When dealing with other editors, especially newer ones, having something more specific to point to that brings together the salient points from various guidelines and policies is more efficient. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article is horrendously in need of an overhaul and would be nearly useless as a style guide. So far, efforts to prompt the TV project to address the issue have been met with silence. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • While I am not necessarily in opposition to a simplification, AnmaFinotera makes a good point. I think we need to be clear that we can address her concerns, esp. with respect to new editors (which is where a lot of the problem now lies) who often need to be provided with a clear and simple exposition of more complex/longer consensus policy. Eusebeus (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As has been stated many times, the majority of editors (and the vast majority of new editors) never see a policy or guideline page. However, I would be all for a very simple page entitled, "Before creating a new article on an episode of a television series, please observe the following:", followed by a very simple, direct, step-by-step guide. I am not sure that it needs to be a guideline, but I have no problem with helping inexperienced editors. I think this new article should avoid using disparaging (cruft, fanboy) or ambiguous (notable, real-world, in-universe) language. I think having it housed in the Television Wikiproject is ideal, especially if the project could develop an "Ask for help" board, of some kind. Ursasapien (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
  • My only concern here is that would we need to add anything to FICT to handle certain episode cases, such as award-winning ones? FICT is already a little wordy and a few more words won't hurt, but if we're thinking we need to add a bit more, this is why it might be better to avoid specific episode guidance in FICT and at least move it to a WP:TV subpage (avoiding the need to serial work notability). --MASEM 13:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think WP:FICT is fairly clear now. A seperate article must establish notability, unless it is a list article created due to summary style issues. It also talks quite clearly about what it takes to establish notability. The nutshell says it all to me:
  • Articles on a work of fiction should demonstrate real-world notability from reliable sources.
  • Such articles should focus on the demonstrated notability for the topic, with an appropriate balance of plot information; when appropriate, spinout articles may be used for listing non-notable characters or other elements of the work.
  • Articles on fiction that do not demonstrate notability should be improved to standards, merged into a larger article, or moved to a GFDL-compatible wiki.

Solution 3: Turn WP:EPISODE into a disambiguation page like so.

Support:
  • I think this solution makes a lot of sense. Ursasapien (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  • Strongly oppose, just as I did when you tried to force it on people before. It serves no purpose at all other than to get rid of the guideline and doesn't address any of the real issues at all. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess this should not be listed as a seperate solution. I agree with you that it resolves nothing. The point is that this would be better than a redirect, if the guideline was deprecated. Ursasapien (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This makes no sense and almost seems like someone trying to make an absurd suggestion just to make a WP:POINT. --Lquilter (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not exactly my feelings on the matter. Rather, if we are able to reorganize and achieve the same goals with WP:EPISODE in other existing guidelines, making WP:EPISODE into a disambig page would be one possible solution if that happened. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments:

Solution 4: Leave WP:EPISODE as a guideline and make any necessary adjustments per the new WP:FICT.

Support:
  • As suggester, thought it was obvious I support, but as Ursasapien felt I didn't, I support this option. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Reasonable. WP:FICT can handle notability while WP:EPISODE refocuses as a style guideline. With the evolution of season pages happening now, this would be very useful. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A good solution. Eusebeus (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Given the controversy surrounding televison articles, it makes sense to have a guideline which interprets WP:FICT in a specific TV context. Moreover, WP:FICT is not sufficient, since some televison articles are not about fiction. It would be nice to see this expanded to cover all TV issues: actors, characters, TV stations etc. Gwinva (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  • I find it rather disconcerting that AnmaFinotera thought this option was important enough to include, but not important enough to support. In order to make EPISODE compliant with FICT, we would need to remove all the MOS stuff and then this would become a reiteration of FICT. Ursasapien (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • BTW, could you point me to the "strong support in earlier discussions"? Ursasapien (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
  • I find it rather disconcerting that this option was totally ignored and left off of the RfC, particularly when it also had strong support in earlier discussions so I have added it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This seems like a variation of Solution 2, only that here the guideline part stays independent of WP:TV and/or WP:WAF. – sgeureka t•c 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Not really. My suggestion is basically, leave WP:EPISODE alone, though if any edits are needed based on the new WP:FICT, do so. Suggestion 2 appears to remove WP:EPISODE all together. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Solution 2 doesn't mention what happens with the redirect "WP:EPISODE", although I expected it to me included in WP:FICT then where the notability part will be included (or the redirect stays attached to the MOS guideline, which is moved to a subpage of WP:TV.) Either way, where the redirect will be located in the end is of minor concern to be. It is also of minor concern to me whether the MOS guideline has its home at Wikipedia:Television episodes or Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article. – sgeureka t•c 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly...in my suggest, WP:EPISODE would not be redirected anywhere, but remain where it is and mostly as it is, with just updates. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Leaving this guideline as is would be resigning it to perpetual disputed status. In that case, we should simply mark it as historical and be done with it. I think something needs to be done to address the issue of instruction creep and bring it inline with consensus. Ursasapien (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Solution 5: Split WP:EPISODE to two separate project-specific guidelines (notability, and manual-of-style) under Wikipedia:WikiProject Television

Support:
Oppose:
Comments:
  • Part of the problem is EPISODE is doing double-duty as a notability guideline and a MOS. Additionally, it sits outside it's proper wikiproject (WP:TV). This approach does not eliminate any specific aspects covered in EPISODE, but serves to make the notability of episodes a project specific subset of WP:FICT (allowance for things too detailed for FICT to cover and future modifications that are for episode specific; additionally, addressing the notability of TV shows, stations, networks, and other aspects covered under WP:TV can be added). WP:EPISODE would likely end up a redirect to the notability guideline, with MOS:EPISODE to the manual-of-style information. --MASEM 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • My concern here would be that, at the moment, the TV project does not have a real MOS, only an unofficial one. While I can see the logic of this change, I think it would need to precipitated by first getting the TV project a real MOS that the episode MOS could then be a part of, with appropriate pointers regarding the WP:EPISODE notability guideline. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
A notable concern but I think one that really needs to be addressed, and would be part of setting up for the episode cleanup project that I suggest - I would not want to go forward on that without baseline MOS and notability above what we have now. --MASEM 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this is an excellent idea, as the MOS could specifically address "depth of coverage" issues. I think that whatever the television style guideline, it needs to be inclusive of other things besides episode coverage. As I pointed out in the introduction section, we need guidance on character articles, place/setting articles, and sundry other minutia articles. I am not sure notability is as much an issue as the encyclopedic nature of the articles and the depth at which we want to cover these subjects. Ursasapien (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • To Pixelface - we can't weaken WP:N, so there still going needs to be appropriate coverage of an episode in secondary sources, though we do have flexibility in what we consider appropriate coverage. However, more importantly to make this a solution to work for all, we restate that episode descriptions for episodes laking notability can be expanded (if desired) beyond the current suggested 3 to 4 line limit that is presently cited, breaking out episodes into season pages to avoid size problems. This way, while an episode may not be notable to have it's own article, it can still be covered in greater depth than the current statement of what episode lists serve. I've suggested this before and no one seems to have any disagreements towards this approach as it serves to met both sides. --MASEM 04:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Editors can make WP:EPISODE into whatever they want. WP:N says "A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right." WP:EPISODE would be placed in the Active proposals portion of Template:Notabilityguide. I suggest WP:EPISODE be turned into a notability guideline specific to television episodes (or television in general) and be re-started from scratch. --Pixelface (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no problem starting from scratch with a tv-specific notability guideline, though I still think we should consider it a subguideline under the WP:TV wikiproject. However, I know what you've argued before, which is that episodes based on only primary works should be notable. I'm not trying to argue that point (been there, done that, not going to change anyone's mind), but I will argue that if we put that type of langauge that contradicts what WP:N's underlying requirement, of significant coverage in secondary sources, then what's going to happen is that editors are going bypass reading the TV-specific subguideline and nominate primary-sourced episode articles for AfD under WP:N, and we're back at the ArbCom case again. I've started a discussion there to see how negotiable (or non-negotiable) that "significant coverage in secondary sources" is for subguidelines. This is not to say that we can't introduce cases of likely notability, where secondary sources likely exist so we give those episodes the benefit of the doubt when considering notability; just as WP:MUSIC states that albums by notable artists are likely notable, we can state that award-winning episodes or episodes with reviews from major reliable sources, or have been subjects of acadamic works are likely to be notable. But we should also include the same boilerplate that WP:MUSIC and every other subguideline provide, in that while these are likely notable, we still need to eventually provide secondary sources to show notability. However, if the discussion at WP:N says that the coverage in secondary sources requirement can be loosened for subguidelines, well, then, there we are, but I fear that this will begin to fill up the AfD queue. --MASEM 14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Statements

Please provide your input to help in this matter.

To avoid spamming this page with a lot of agrees/disagrees, please:
  1. Make a statement if you feel it adds something new to the discussion - don't just say "I agree with what X wrote".
  2. If you strongly agree with a statement, sign your name below it with any additional comment.
  3. Do not use this page to create discussion threads on editors' views.

Above all else, please remain civil.

General discussion

Maybe we should clean up this RfC (s2 and s4 are basically the same idea, for example) and give it a more balanced intro, then start some more "advertising" of the discussion? -- Ned Scott 07:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. This RfC is waning and there seems to be little energy to actually correct the issues any longer. Even the revision of WP:WAF appears to to be losing steam. Masem, Ned, somebody, please help. Ursasapien (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I was about to say the same thing. My attempt to summarize the discussion:
  1. The solution (#1) to create a new notability guideline (WP:Notability (serial works)) and make this page a MOS garnered neither support nor dislike.
  2. The solution (#2) to separate this page into a MOS (WP:WAF/WP:TV) and merge/fold the notability guideline into WP:FICT. There were concerns that merging guidelines just for redundance is not always helpful.It was also noted that WP:FICT would then also have to deal with episodes that are notable for e.g. winning major awards (but this also happens to guest characters from time to time).
  3. The solution (#3) to turn WP:EPISODE into a dab page garnered more opposition than support. It may be argued that what happens with the EPISODE redirect is something that can be discussed later, independent of the outcome of this discussion.
  4. The solution (#4) was a little unclear. Some interpreted it as a variation of S#2. Others took it to mean that WP:EPISODE should remain a notability and MOS guidelines at the same time (and WP:FICT handles additional notability), but it was noted that this would always have a "perpetual disputed status" (Ursasapien).
  5. The solution /#5) to split this guideline into notability and MOS and make both parts part of WP:TV. This was noted as a good move since episodes are (always) related to TV; on the other hand, the current WP:TV guidelines are in a bad shape, and much time would need to be spent to either merge the guidelines or start from scratch again. At the same time, the new notability guideline would be a subguideline of WP:FICT (which in turn is a subguideline of WP:N).
So while there was not a unanimous agreement, it was highlighted again that the dual nature of the current guideline is a major source of dispute, and the only way to solve it is to separate these two parts. If my summary is correct, we should focus now on where the notability guideline and MOS guideline should be merged/moved. – sgeureka t•c 10:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We're losing momentum quickly. It seems since TTN is no longer pushing the issue, people (of all wikiphilosophies) are falling back in their old ways. Let's not put all the effort of the last weeks and months in the graves. The episode-related RfCs have already been removed from {{cent}}, and the level of participation is dropping quickly. Even with positive thinking, it has become apparent that almost none of the "old" episode articles are getting "improved" beyond plot summaries (even if "deletion"-minded editors are nicely asking); new nn episode articles are still getting created. Can we at least agree to split the notability off to WP:FICT and leave this from the MOS and work from there? We're still at point 1 of Masem's "Where we go from here", and it will take a few weeks until the task forces are set up (and it will take several months for them to finish this job). I'd really like to avoid the next TTN-like escalation where editors take matters into their own hands because all we're accomplishing is talking. For all the controversy he has caused, TTN actually got something done. – sgeureka t•c 19:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a possible way to proceed by putting the cart before the horse by allowing a little more leeway to not-so-obviously notable episode articles. We proceed with the task force described above, using this rather straight-forward determination of an episode's notability demonstration:
  • Clear notability: episode has clearly defined reception section and optional development section, references appear by good faith to be reliable secondary sources among others. That is, it clearly matches episodes that are listed as FA or GA.
  • Clear non-notability: episode is plot and infobox only.
  • Unsure: episode falls between these two.
Now, this is not the final judgment of any article: we give the series people that minimum of a month to see what they can do, and a second reassessment is done at the end. More importantly, we make sure that "unsure" articles are tagged somehow for future review (category, most likely); optionally, the one editor that is reviewing the series can identify common elements of these unsure articles on some page. At that point, only clearly non-notable episodes articles should be merged to episode lists, but those in the unsure should be left with a notability tag on them. :We run this for a large number of tv series (at least 25% of those with individual episodes), and we can then evaluate the list of unsure episodes or commonalities and determine if we really do need to create episode specific notability to account for those that are of unsure notability that can be approached encyclopedicly -- in other words, this step is to help us really learn the landscape of what episode articles are like, and if FICT's guidance is sufficient or not. If it is sufficient, and all what falls under "unsure" is agreed to be non-notable or insufficient, then we can merge those; if on the other hand identify specific qualities that can be spelled out objectively, then we make some notability guideline. However, regardless of which way, we will have (started to) dealt with episode articles that completely lack notability, but don't jump so fast at those that may be borderline. Effectively we are determine notability as we go without over-reacting in merge efforts.
But we definitely should start getting this task force going, regardless if we determine notability first or later. We need someway to create tables for tv series to work from and then work other aspects of this. --MASEM 23:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with new episodes of both existing and new shows

A point we should consider here in regards to episode notability (stemming from an AFD for Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles) and mentioned in the Doctor Who project):

There are actually two cases here:

  • For new (like, broadcast in the last month or so) of episodes for an established show, I would think that if the trend of past episodes is if the older episodes have been readily able to show notability, newer episodes should be assumed they can be as well. (For example, I would expect based on the work of the Simpsons project that every new Simpsons episode will be notable but may not immediately demonstrate it for some time). If episodes are hit or miss depending on the series, then new episode articles should not be created until that is shown. This is likely the easier thing to decide.
  • For new episodes of brand new franchises such as the T:TSSC episode, it's a bit muddier since there's no past history to go off of. I would argue here that while we'd like people to keep new episodes in an episode list until such a time that notability can be demonstrated, we're likely not going to be able to stop the trend that people rush out to create a new episode article for a new show. Mind you, as the show becomes established over a handful of shows, it should become obvious if there is information to help satisfy it, and thus the show falls into the above case. However, some may have to wait for a DVD release to get a better treatment of notability. Do we give such articles the benefit of the doubt through the first season, after which if notability cannot be readily demonstrated per episode we fall back to an episode list, or do we push for demonstration of such much sooner for it? I'm inclined for the latter as the general agreement is that DVD commentary is not truly sufficient for notability purposes, and thus people should be looking for critical reviews after an episode has aired to establish notability. --MASEM 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't recall a time when notability was directly discussed on WT:WHO, unless you're talking about my proposal to change the project's sub-MOS, but the point's the same - here in the UK we get a lot of publicity over the Christmas Specials and series finales of Doctor Who - see Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) for proof - the publicity for it started nearly eight months beforehand. Thus the publicity might be able to give it pre-notability. By the way, we don't need DVD releases for notability - some shows, like BSG and DW, release their production commentaries about six hours after airing. In extreme cases The Beginning of the End (Lost) was promoted to FA before episode 5 of its season was aired (and all but one of the other five episodes aired in this Lost season are either GAs or GANs), and Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) is definitely notable and is a current GAN, and its DVD isn't out until next month. Will (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I went to look at the featured article for Lost that you mentioned. It is indeed piled high with sources and real-world reaction. But it is not interesting to read - the one-line critical reactions are especially tedious. I have read several articles which were deleted at AFD which I found much more readable and interesting. For example, an article about the Buddhist Monkey in Happy Tree Friends was better. Note that I have watched neither show and so have no particular fan bias about this. So, my conclusion is that the current FA criteria are misguided: they don't result in articles which I actually want to read. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion for how to make the reception section more interesting to read? –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
WT:WAF#proposal by Dorftrottel might have some suggestions. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ned, the link you point to talks about writing a "Plot" section, but discusses nothing about how to make a "Reception" section more interesting. Ursasapien (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"Interesting" is subjective, but I did find the The Beginning of the End (Lost) episode a bit over the top in its reception section. If several reviewers give similar acclaim or criticism, I would suggest condensing them into one sentence with several footnotes at the end. But whether Reception sections generally are interesting seems like a matter of opinion. They do seem necessary to establish some out-of-universe perspective on the show. Fritter (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
(to Ursasapien) The idea was to take things, such as reception, and work them into a section about discussing the plot, rather than having it always sit as it's own section. In other words, I find that an interesting idea on how to handle that same information. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you hope to accomplish?

After watching this page, FICT, abd TTN's arbcom ruling for a while, I'm wondering where this can go. FICT is older than NOTE, so that's why it's around. FICT and NOTE weren't doing the job to some people's satisfaction, so I think that's why there's this page. AfD doesn't work to well because that's where the much larger group of creators/readers interact with the smaller group who work on these pages. And AfD may give greater weight to better arguments, but it also weighs the number of votes (regardless of whether or not this is how it should be). I guess one of the hopes might be that citing a more specific notability guideline will make the AfDs tilt more towards deletion maybe?

The other thing is that fait accompli ruling. It only works against single individuals or small groups. You can redirect a bunch, but they can only be kept that way with massive edit warring: revert twice a day until the other side tires basically. There isn't anyone to block or create an injuntion against on the creating of articles side, it's just a bunch of editors who don't frequent guideline pages. Wikipedia's policies/guidelines are heavily weighed towards article creation except in the case of Speedy deletion, which isn't currently appropriate for episode articles. I guess you might consider trying to change SPEEDY.

I haven't followed the fiction noticeboard, but maybe the plan with it is to kind of spread what TTN was doing around to a group of editors. It would still be a bunch of edit warring, but maybe any resulting arbcom ruling would allow it. Basically do what TTN was doing, but be more civil.

Anyways, assuming you got the perfect wording for these quidelines concensised, what would be the next step. How will it lead to only notable episode being allowed to live once applied. Just curious. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'd like to see is (and I am only speaking for myself) is that anyone can challenge the notability/encyclopedic treatment of an episode article, and if it isn't fixed within a couple of weeks to have maybe two or three medium paragraphs of non-trivial real-world information (e.g. production, reception) to support three or four paragraphs of plot, the article get redirected without much fuzz (if we adopt season articles more widely, which I generally support, then some real-world content sentences can be merged there quite nicely). No wikilayering from either side, simply an enforcement of WP:FICT's "Articles on a work of fiction (a book, movie, television series, video game, or other medium) should demonstrate notability by citing critical reception, viewings or sales figures, development and other information from reliable sources." If someone at a later date wants to resurrect an episode article with demonstrated notability per above, he is free to do so. That would effectively make an episode a spinout article from either the LoE or the season article. – sgeureka t•c 21:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That sounds ideal, maybe, but how will it actually work. The people who don't follow these quidelines aren't likely to start reading them and complying. Is it through a group who watches and reverts? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I know about half a dozen of editors who are more than eager to volunteer to do the reviews. In the list I generated somewhere above, it seems like there are about 150 shows with episode articles (some quickies, a few mind-boggling ones), which means thirty shows per reviewer. If these editors tackle five shows per month (which isn't really that much, especially if fans of said shows collaborate instead of fighting), this whole review would be done in about 7 months. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, the creation of new episode articles by newbies will slow down as well as they don't see many "bad" examples anymore. Furthermore, I expect that the general attitude of fans who "lost" their episodes will also generate something like "if we cannot have episode articles, they shouldn't have episodes either". And the whole episode issue becomes a non-issue. But I think it should always be stressed that this guideline (in whatever form) isn't against episode articles per se, only against bad episode articles (which interested editors can save through improvement).
I admit that there may be some controversy for long-running shows that have proven to be able to regularly dole out GAs and FAs (Simpsons, Lost). It's clearly counterproductive to enforce guidelines *just because*, but on the other hand, not doing so will seem biased. I guess there could be a special legacy-article deal, but their newly created episodes must demonstrate guideline compliance within a certain amount of time (to be determined) like the new ep articles of any other show.
Take of all this with a grain of salt. Sometimes I am too idealistic. – sgeureka t•c 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Should be interesting. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not... (Episode notability)

I haven't followed the discussion here, but how about making the episodes notability automatically if:

  • If it is renewed for a second season for once-a-week dramas.
  • If it is renewed for a third season for once-a-week situational comedies.
  • None at all for daily programs, news programs, talk shows, etc. except if they meet the standards of WP:N?

All other plot info can be added at "List of episodes of Foo" and "List of Foo characters". --Howard the Duck 11:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Because we cannot change the definition of WP:NOTE, and WP:NOTE says significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Most individual episodes don't get individual coverage independent of the subject (i.e. they don't get media coverage from places other than what the studio that owns the show creates for them). Even DVD commentaries are limited in the content that is encyclopedic and the episodes they provide it for (but again, DVD commentaries are not independent of the subject).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, but isn't a renewal for a second season (at least for dramas) enough reason to say that it has received significant coverage from other sources like television reviews? Only a few sitcoms give premium to the flow of story so the story can be better served at the episodes list article.
I know of several subjects that altogether skip WP:N, saying "if it exists, it's notable" (most especially for geographical areas). --Howard the Duck 12:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Prove that most episodes of a TV show you'd like to see covered in detail, have received significant coverage usable for an encyclopedia, and the ep articles won't have many problems with WP:NOTE and/or WP:COMMONSENSE. But it seems most TV shows, including very popular ones, haven't received much if any such coverage.
As for your last point: New geographical locations aren't doled out in masses each week and thus have a natural limit. They (usually) also have a few decades' history worth reporting instead of a few weeks. – sgeureka t•c 12:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, with diligent searching and using correct Google News syntaxes I can come up with several citations for TV episodes, especially for reviews that can be cited as part of a "Reception" section. It'll be also useful if you'd know where to find sources so they it can be a lot easier. --Howard the Duck 12:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
You can find sources for some episodes, not all. Also, a show being renewed for a second season has nothing to do with it being reviewed. Shows are not renewed based on critical acclaim, but on viewership. If every critic and their mother hate a show, but it pulls in 10 million viewers a week, that show will stay on the air. Shows are renewed based on their ability to pull in more advertisements for the network (thus more money for the network). This is why Jericho, a show that was popular with critics, was canceled (twice), because there weren't enough fans of the show that were watching. Regardless, you cannot take a "show's" notability and apply it to individual episodes. Not every episode contains the calibur of the show itself, I can cite numerous episodes in numerous shows that sucked, but the shows themselves were good. You must have significant coverage for those individual episodes, or a crap load of real world content that would otherwise overrun a season or list page. See my work on Smallville (season 1) and Pilot (Smallville)/Tempest (Smallville) for an idea of how episodes can be brought together on one page, or broken out on their own.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I found some stuff for all the episodes I've looked for (don't worry, they're not in main space so don't hunt a la TTN). Most of the time, a lot of valid refs show up for the pilot or the season premiere but few for the next episodes, however, that doesn't remove the fact that there are still refs if you look diligently enough, and with the correct searching parameters and syntax. I really don't care about critical acclaim (or disdain), as long as valid refs come up it'll work for me. Now I dunno if blogs on legit websites (not stand-alone blogs) will be valid refs, since they're technically blogs but they're in actuality weekly columns. --Howard the Duck 15:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, with enough searching, you can usually find something about any episode of a fan-favorite series. Name any Simpsons episode, for example, and I can usually track down a few brief newspaper reviews, and often some development info. There's not always enough to build a GA or FA, but there's usually enough non-plot information to make a mere list entry unnecessarily restrictive. Zagalejo^^^ 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
And I'm not really "gunning" for GA or FA, just an ordinary article, although it'll be a bonus if it reaches that far. --Howard the Duck 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: It seems season summaries are allowed? I wonder if all seasons will be inherently notable. --Howard the Duck 15:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
First, I don't "hunt" for any page, even ones that I know fail the policies and guidelines. I only look out for what I like, and as far as television shows go it's only Smallville on Wikipedia. It depends on the website if the blog is accepted. I would assume that if John Doe of USA Today used a "blog" to issue his weekly column that we would accept it. Stuff from like TV Squad and BuddyTV are pretty thin as far as sourcing goes. If you find significant coverage for an episode, great, but nothing is "inherently notable"...not even season articles. The reason for season articles is that if you put a brief plot summary on an LOE page where there are 7 seasons, your page is probably going to be extremely large. Brief plot summaries are acceptable if there is other information, but not full blown summaries that you'd find on individual articles (which would require more real world content). Unless a group of editors is forgoing an LOE page in respect for a season page, then I wouldn't think a season page would need to exist until a show has been around for maybe 5 seasons (when including a brief plot summary would become overly long for a single page contain 100+ episodes). But, every case is different.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually it's more on the different magazines where the columnists write their own blogs/columns on the website, I think that'll be legit references already. And it seems you won't really find references for plot summaries unless the show has been on-air for the longest time (like the Simpsons) in which there are published books, etc. For example, the entire plot section of Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back is uncited and uncited sections in FAs are normally a no-no, but for cases such as that, it'll be fine. --Howard the Duck 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Plots are not "cited" as the episode itself acts as the source material. Secondary sources are not mandatory for general information (only for notability).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(Far too) generous plot summary size

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)

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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


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)
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)
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 AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
(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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise just wiped out all the Prison Break episode photos

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)

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)
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)
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)
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) ~~ ~
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes/Archive_8&oldid=1137457430"