84:
22:
74:
53:
644:", "all tv dramas use single-camera setups (it doesn't *literally* mean one camera)", "I think there is a fundemental lack of understanding of what a Multiple-camera setup and Single-camera setup looks like. I would advise the other editor to read up on the articles." and "The infobox, cast and characters section and episode table are covered by
535:
With respect, I disagree that it was wrong to start this RfC. Two editors were hopelessly deadlocked in disagreement. The RfC is generating discussion from other editors, and it may help to quickly resolve this without a major argument at ANI. I don't think the procedures of dispute resolution are so
724:
I can't believe I even have to write this, but no one asked that camera setup in all infoboxes should be "removed". I made a simple request that a source be provided. By the way I would appreciate some diffs to demonstrate that this plethora of "prolific editors" have agreed that information in the
667:
Chiming in to make to say that I will no longer challenge the edit. It appears, given the conversation above, that I was misled into believing that the edit was in the clear and that the series itself provided sourcing for that parameter of the infobox. As I means of explaining why I was let to
786:
Most of the infobox fields can be sourced to the series itself since they appear in the credits, but classifying it as "single camera" would be original research performed by an editor, even if it seems self-evident to those familiar with the topic. Unless the description appears in secondary
697:
should also have the camera setup parameter removed, right? A quick word search of the articles shows no mention of the camera setup in the body of the articles. This little incorrect assumption may be an issue that effects quite a number of good or featured articles and it might behoove an
550:
So what are you going to do if the result of the RfC goes against you? If it goes your way and thus determines that sources are required for material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, it simply duplicates WP:V and is redundant. If it goes against you and
799:
That's all I was attempting to express above. I was apologizing for my confusion and merely pointing out that this issue effects numerous other television series articles. I suggested that someone, who can explain all of this clearly and succinctly, might make a post over at
415:
I agree with Gonnym here. When it comes to credits, names are readily determinable, hence why we don't need an inline citation for every name in the infobox. However, for camera setup, I don't find that readily determinable. It also helps to put it in the article body.
536:
carved in stone as long as policies are respected. If someone wants to take this to ANI I don't object, but I think this discussion here may take care of the problem. But thanks for your comments. If your comments get an admin here it might lead to a quicker closure
672:
had espoused that belief to me over the last year. So, again, I apologize for my confusion and I hope that all involved know that my edits were made in good faith. One more question just so as to clarify was has been explained above: articles like
652:". My reading of the cited policies does not provide for the inclusion of unsourced content in the infobox. Could editors wishing to include this content please provide a source for "single-camera" or otherwise explain why it should be included? –
804:
to make other editors of television series articles aware of the situation and prevent further confusion if and when the camera setup parameter is blanked in those articles that don't mention camera setup in the body of the article. –
509:
RfCs are the wrong way to attempt to do this. The right way is to first try to convince them on the article talk page, and if that doesn't work to file a report at ANI documenting the refusal to follow our policies. Make
514:
sure that you are properly understanding our policies first -- ANI really doesn't like reports about imaginary policy violations. If you have even the slightest doubt, ask at the helpdesk first. --
323:- which seems the case here) and if the primary source (the episode) does that, I guess it's ok, but I doubt the camera setup information can be gained from the episode (without
466:
include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." (Emphasis added). You cannot overturn
230:- An editor has repeatedly claimed that unsourced material in the infobox (specifically camera setup) does not require a source anywhere in the article because of
770:
Given the closure of the RfC, would someone be kind enough to make the appropriate revert so that there will be no more tag-team edit warring against me. Thanks.
555:
required for material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, it will be instantly overturned as an improper attempt to overrule
256:: In terms of Camera type when episodes have been aired/released, you don't need it. You only need if the TV series have not aired/released episodes yet. —
886:
144:
134:
321:
any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation, that directly supports the material
891:
881:
835:
I agree that much of the infobox doesn't require sources if it's clear in the film or show itself. Camera setup is not one of those exceptions to
843:
that confirms camera setup for
Homecoming. It would have been nice if someone had spent those 30 seconds finding the source instead of hours
106:
848:
771:
726:
578:
573:
Thanks Guy. If it goes contrary to the way I would hope, I will take it to ANI. But I really don't think that will happen. There may be a
537:
496:
394:
373:
284:
239:
213:
110:
97:
58:
640:
the "single-camera" description in the infobox as "unsourced". This was reverted multiple times by editors citing "Covered by
283:. It seems you are saying that the fact that a series is released is justification for the exception? Please explain. Thanks.
331:'s lead explains that information in the infobox should be a summarize of what is found in the article, not new information (
170:
627:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
33:
425:
495:
Just to make sure you understand, I wasn't trying to overturn WP:V with the RfC. I was trying to get it enforced.
820:
852:
775:
730:
582:
541:
500:
398:
377:
288:
243:
217:
21:
212:
Are sources required for material in the infobox if the information is not sourced elsewhere in the article?
840:
344:
39:
262:
801:
699:
669:
306:
341:
exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text
844:
827:
791:
656:
614:
564:
519:
475:
202:
274:
257:
190:
is a core content policy. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by
336:
372:
I agree. And I disputed it but was told that a citation isn't necessary because of WP:PRIMARY.
333:
the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article
810:
707:
645:
641:
231:
89:
352:
191:
470:
with an RfC on Talk:Homecoming (TV series), so this RfC is invalid and should be closed. --
238:; it only provides that a primary source can be used. That primary source should be cited.
761:
367:
302:
102:
824:
788:
765:
653:
611:
574:
560:
530:
515:
490:
471:
421:
195:
279:
Thanks for you comment, but I fail to see how your argument provides an exception for
875:
83:
806:
703:
687:
324:
856:
830:
814:
794:
779:
734:
711:
659:
617:
586:
568:
545:
523:
504:
479:
429:
402:
381:
356:
310:
292:
264:
247:
221:
206:
698:
experienced editor who can explain all of this clearly to drop a message over at
836:
757:
607:
556:
467:
462:
material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged,
447:
388:
348:
328:
316:
280:
235:
187:
105:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
675:
79:
753:
417:
577:
close. As you say, a policy can't be overturned by an RfC for an article.
343:, the camera setup can easily be added to any production section, such as
681:
101:, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Knowledge articles about
301:
I would provide citations wherever there is any possibility of dispute.
73:
52:
787:
sources, it probably should be removed from other articles as well. –
649:
668:
believe that, I'll mention that numerous prolific editors over at
693:
819:
Great, I'm glad we're on the same page. I posted a message at
15:
637:
458:
in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable...
169:
The following discussion is an archived record of a
179:
No further edits should be made to this discussion.
234:. WP:PRIMARY makes no exception for the policy of
109:. To improve this article, please refer to the
839:. By the way, in less than 30 seconds I found
606:Article-level local consensus cannot overturn
182:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
8:
393:Or it could easily be cited in the infobox.
454:material in Knowledge mainspace, including
19:
162:RfC: Are sources required in this article?
47:
49:
340:
332:
320:
319:all information should be verifiable (
725:infobox should not require a source.
7:
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
887:Low-importance television articles
14:
345:Homecoming (TV series)#Production
847:just to make a misguided point.
623:The discussion above is closed.
119:Knowledge:WikiProject Television
82:
72:
51:
20:
892:WikiProject Television articles
882:Start-Class television articles
604:Close immediately - Wrong venue
139:This article has been rated as
122:Template:WikiProject Television
1:
551:determines that sources are
857:00:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
831:02:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
815:02:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
795:02:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
780:01:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
735:01:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
712:01:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
660:00:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
618:23:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
587:23:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
569:23:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
546:23:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
524:22:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
505:22:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
480:22:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
430:22:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
403:22:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
382:22:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
357:22:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
311:22:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
293:22:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
265:22:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
248:22:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
222:22:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
207:00:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
908:
145:project's importance scale
138:
67:
46:
625:Please do not modify it.
438:Call for immediate close
176:Please do not modify it.
845:climbing the Reichstag
98:WikiProject Television
28:This article is rated
113:for the type of work.
171:request for comment
125:television articles
107:join the discussion
103:television programs
337:MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE
34:content assessment
702:and elsewhere. –
159:
158:
155:
154:
151:
150:
90:Television portal
899:
769:
632:Infobox sourcing
534:
494:
392:
371:
278:
198:
192:inline citations
178:
127:
126:
123:
120:
117:
111:style guidelines
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
907:
906:
902:
901:
900:
898:
897:
896:
872:
871:
751:
634:
629:
628:
528:
488:
440:
386:
365:
339:does allow for
272:
209:
196:
174:
164:
124:
121:
118:
115:
114:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
905:
903:
895:
894:
889:
884:
874:
873:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
849:75.182.115.183
784:
783:
782:
772:75.182.115.183
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
727:75.182.115.183
717:
716:
715:
714:
636:An editor has
633:
630:
622:
621:
620:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
579:75.182.115.183
538:75.182.115.183
497:75.182.115.183
483:
482:
444:Close this RfC
439:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
395:75.182.115.183
374:75.182.115.183
360:
359:
313:
298:
297:
296:
295:
285:75.182.115.183
251:
250:
240:75.182.115.183
214:75.182.115.183
210:
186:
185:
184:
165:
163:
160:
157:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
141:Low-importance
137:
131:
130:
128:
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
904:
893:
890:
888:
885:
883:
880:
879:
877:
858:
854:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
833:
832:
829:
826:
822:
821:WT:Television
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
803:
802:WP:TELEVISION
798:
797:
796:
793:
790:
785:
781:
777:
773:
767:
763:
759:
755:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
736:
732:
728:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
713:
709:
705:
701:
700:WP:TELEVISION
696:
695:
690:
689:
684:
683:
678:
677:
671:
670:WP:TELEVISION
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
658:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
631:
626:
619:
616:
613:
609:
605:
602:
601:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
571:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
549:
548:
547:
543:
539:
532:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
513:
508:
507:
506:
502:
498:
492:
487:
486:
485:
484:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
442:
441:
437:
431:
427:
423:
419:
414:
413:
412:
411:
404:
400:
396:
390:
385:
384:
383:
379:
375:
369:
364:
363:
362:
361:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
312:
308:
304:
303:Jack N. Stock
300:
299:
294:
290:
286:
282:
276:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
263:
261:
260:
255:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
226:
225:
224:
223:
219:
215:
208:
204:
200:
193:
189:
183:
180:
177:
172:
167:
166:
161:
146:
142:
136:
133:
132:
129:
112:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
692:
688:The Sopranos
686:
680:
674:
635:
624:
603:
552:
511:
463:
459:
455:
451:
443:
258:
253:
252:
227:
211:
181:
175:
168:
140:
96:
40:WikiProjects
841:this source
329:MOS:INFOBOX
30:Start-class
876:Categories
762:Jacknstock
676:Doctor Who
646:WP:PRIMARY
642:WP:PRIMARY
638:challenged
456:everything
368:Jacknstock
232:WP:PRIMARY
116:Television
59:Television
825:dlthewave
789:dlthewave
766:Redrose64
654:dlthewave
612:dlthewave
561:Guy Macon
531:Guy Macon
516:Guy Macon
491:Guy Macon
472:Guy Macon
335:). While
327:). Also,
682:The Wire
347:here. --
807:BoogerD
764:, and
704:BoogerD
575:WP:SNOW
426:contrib
275:Lbtocth
259:Lbtocth
254:Comment
143:on the
758:Gonnym
691:, and
650:MOS:TV
512:really
389:Gonnym
349:Gonnym
199:rose64
36:scale.
446::Per
325:WP:OR
853:talk
837:WP:V
811:talk
776:talk
754:Erik
731:talk
708:talk
694:Lost
648:per
608:WP:V
583:talk
565:talk
559:. --
557:WP:V
542:talk
520:talk
501:talk
476:talk
468:WP:V
464:must
450:, "
448:WP:V
422:talk
418:Erik
399:talk
378:talk
353:talk
317:WP:V
315:Per
307:talk
289:talk
281:WP:V
244:talk
236:WP:V
218:talk
203:talk
201:🌹 (
194:. --
188:WP:V
823:. –
610:. –
553:not
460:any
452:All
428:)
228:Yes
197:Red
135:Low
878::
855:)
813:)
778:)
760:,
756:,
733:)
710:)
685:,
679:,
585:)
567:)
544:)
522:)
503:)
478:)
424:|
401:)
380:)
355:)
309:)
291:)
246:)
220:)
205:)
173:.
851:(
828:☎
809:(
792:☎
774:(
768::
752:@
729:(
706:(
657:☎
615:☎
581:(
563:(
540:(
533::
529:@
518:(
499:(
493::
489:@
474:(
420:(
397:(
391::
387:@
376:(
370::
366:@
351:(
305:(
287:(
277::
273:@
242:(
216:(
147:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
