447:. A useful almanac-style list. As Andrew Lenahan points out, it's not original research, but a collation of information available at dozens of other locations. Citations can be provided if verifiability is the concern. Whether it's too trivial to merit inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is, of course, an individual judgment, but I'd question whether it's any more trivial or listcrufty than the vast majority of the articles in
190:
You don't even have to go as far as IMDB. This information is available in the existing
Knowledge (XXG) articles about each series. This list exists so users can make a quick comparison of these specific facts about the series. It's just like how wikipedia has a list of past presidents so that the
536:
as per
Markeer. It's not an indiscriminate collection of information as it provides an actual context and criteria for the information. Maintainance is not really an issue because there are obviously people willing to maintain it (and it gives counts up to whichever episode it mentions, so again the
316:
as a usefully put together collection of data that is not itself all that important. It's not OR, although it leans toward an indiscriminate collection of information. Given a potential usefulness to someone wondering exactly what they are getting in for when starting a new sci-fi series (which is
774:
there might be reason for deletion as OR -- however, since the citations can be (and are being) provided, this meets WP:V criteria. Ideally, of course, all articles would be both verifiable and verified -- but the fact that a given article is not yet verified is grounds for cleanup, not deletion.
745:
be provided." Quoting from WP:V again: "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to
Knowledge (XXG) has already been published by a reliable source, because Knowledge (XXG) does not publish original thought or original research." It also says that
769:
Unsourced material is not the same as original research. In this case, any reader can in fact check the information against reliable published sources. The error lies in the fact that the citation isn't (or wasn't) provided -- which is not in itself a reason for deletion. If the material were
329:
or move somewhere else (make sure the individual SF series articles have the information), because I just know I will want to refer back to this one day! Incidentially, I suspect this started from the tendency of Star Trek and Star Wars fans to run "24-hour marathon viewings" of their oeuvres.
683:
Yes, that's the way it works. Per WP:RS: "The responsibility for finding and adding references lies with the person adding material to an article, and sources should be provided whenever possible." Per WP:V: "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." So a lack to cite sources is
602:
for the sheer fact that it's a useful collection of information, that clearly a number of people have use for it, and that clearly a number of people have put a lot of work over a long period toward maintaining it. I've often seen links to this article, in conversations about TV
574:. Not original research. Somewhat indiscriminate, but potentially useful, collection of information -- enough so that I'm inclined to give it benefit of the doubt. Might be NPOV/citation issues (who's deciding what's "canon"?), but that calls for cleanup, not deletion.
79:
152:
Intereesting and useful: provides a quick at-a-glance way to compare various sci-fi series by length. I think our definition of "original research" is starting to get overly-broad. It was supposed to protect us from crackpot theories and
111:
As I've asked another user at the bottom of the discussion, this list is not one of the examples of indiscriminate articles from the Not
Indiscriminate guide you linked to. In what way do you see this as being indiscriminate?
521:
It isn’t indiscriminate at all; the article describes very clearly what belongs in the list and how it is organised. Neither science fiction nor motion pictures are random categorisations made up by the article’s creators.
615:- Useful and original data set, even if not of interest to everyone. It is well presented, well linked and thus can serve as an extension of the information available on this site for many films/programmes. --
317:
happening more and more as DVD season sets continue to come out), I'd say err on the side of leaving it alone. It can be reviewed at a future date if it expands in foolish directions or is not maintained. -
871:
855:
666:
646:
639:. Definetely not liftcruft. It's verifiable, managable and very useful– a lot of people are interested in it. Just the other day I saw someone cite it to resolve a question they were having
631:
619:
607:
594:
578:
566:
554:
513:
474:
439:
371:
346:
334:
321:
308:
296:
284:
237:
225:
213:
182:
144:
130:
106:
92:
746:"The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." Read together, this means that, in case of disputes, the criterion of WP:V is whether sources
537:
context - and the limits of the information - is clear). As for cruft, it really depends on your definition, although I would say that it's a step above most cruft insofar as it is actually
737:
I was not arguing this article fails WP:V; I'm arguing that it fails WP:OR by default because it has (or had) no sources. But strictly speaking, it does fail WP:V, because I think
717:
be provided for the information in this article (and, indeed, Arctic Gnome has begun to do so). This article isn't original research, but a collation of widely available data. —
456:
845:
We were just having a discussion about doctor who, and how long the canon had been running. We, of course, turned to wikipedia as a handy and usually reliable reference.
627:. I have twice seen this article used as a reference on other websites, meaning people are finding it useful. It is an accurate, up-to-date, almanac-style list. --
880:
829:
820:
807:
787:
775:
Deletion of verifiable material is simply counterproductive when cleanup is a possibility. (This is also, I believe, why the policy states "unsourced material
764:
732:
692:
678:
526:
499:
423:
398:
249:
195:
116:
63:
23:
876:
This list is not one of the examples of indiscriminate articles from the guide you linked to. In what way do you see this as being indiscriminate? --
304:
It is not original research, but merely a collation of information from other sources. Potential value to anyone researching science fiction series.
674:
That's not the way it works. Reliable sources for this information exist, so it's merely a matter of citation, which is not a reason for deletion.
452:
705:. Yes, it is important that we cite our sources on Knowledge (XXG); but that's not a deletion criterion. The criterion is whether such sources
69:
17:
851:
It's not original research and provides information which might be useful and which would otherwise be rather arduous to compile. --
727:
469:
393:
541:
to see how long certain series have lasted and the breadth of fictional universes. I, too, would err on the side of keeping it. --
550:
492:
416:
364:
448:
897:
43:
896:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
42:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
482:
Thank you for pointing out that there are also other lists are also listcruft and hence worthy of deletion. --
276:
305:
142:
222:
206:
89:
723:
465:
389:
76:
803:
Everything on this page comes from imdb or tv.com. I'll give the article links to those websites. --
139:
546:
484:
408:
356:
293:
61:
157:" silliness. None of this article is original research. If one wants to find out how long, say,
263:
245:. Several people around the net have found a point for it; see the bottom of the discussion. --
163:
is, there's a thousand different places to find it: the IMDB, the DVD, countless video guides.
877:
826:
804:
770:
questioned, and such sources were not (or, more to the point, could not be) cited by editors,
688:
valid grounds for deletion. Just asserting that sources exist somewhere isn't a valid remedy.
640:
628:
591:
523:
246:
210:
192:
113:
36:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
816:
websites, you know. How about providing specific inline references for the individual shows?
868:
852:
752:
718:
460:
384:
234:
864:
100:
24:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lengths of science fiction film and television series
542:
436:
331:
757:
659:
655:
817:
761:
689:
663:
451:; I'm sure that as many people would find this useful and worthy of inclusion as, say,
164:
56:
709:
be provided. An article on my cat Maggie is unverifiable, because no reliable source
563:
103:
784:
675:
643:
616:
604:
575:
510:
318:
159:
587:
343:
812:
Thank you. But I'm sorry to say these sources are rather unspecific. These are
233:
for being pointless trivia collected under the pretense of academic research.
127:
697:
I think you're misreading WP:V. The criterion isn't whether information is
741:
are misreading WP:V by stating that "The criterion is whether such sources
191:
reader does not have to look at each president's page to compare them. --
101:
WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information
155:
Dude, what if the whole universe is just a hair on an ant's butt?
890:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
75:
This is original research and really seems to be quite random.
783:
be... removed." Babies, bathwater, you know the drill.)
509:
as indiscriminate collection of information (listcruft).
380:
70:
Lengths of science fiction movie and television series
354:
Listcruft and will be extremely hard to maintain. --
457:
46:). No further edits should be made to this page.
900:). No further edits should be made to this page.
55:- has had citations added since AFD started. -
8:
750:(not: can be) provided. The same is true,
259:. Nicely formatted, but still listcruft.
779:be challenged and removed," rather than "
453:List of Hail Marys in American football
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
31:
590:before deleting it from here. --
586:or maybe move it something like
138:- Has curiosity value, though.--
658:by default due to lack of any
1:
449:Category:Sports-related lists
406:But listcruft nonetheless. --
881:05:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
872:03:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
856:20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
830:20:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
821:18:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
808:14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
788:20:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
765:18:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
733:17:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
693:17:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
679:08:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
667:07:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
647:05:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
632:05:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
527:14:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
250:15:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
196:05:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
117:05:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
64:11:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
867:, but interestingly so ;-)
620:22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
608:17:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
595:11:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
579:09:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
567:06:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
555:01:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
514:23:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
500:00:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
475:22:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
440:22:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
424:00:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
399:22:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
372:22:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
347:20:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
335:18:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
322:16:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
309:15:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
297:15:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
285:15:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
238:13:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
226:13:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
214:11:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
183:10:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
145:07:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
131:06:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
107:06:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
93:05:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
80:05:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
917:
435:Incredible listcruft. --
379:: I've had no difficulty
893:Please do not modify it.
39:Please do not modify it.
713:be provided. Sources
221:, per Andrew Lenahan.
88:a great big "So what"
383:over the past year. —
701:, it's whether it's
731:
473:
397:
223:The Wookieepedian
207:Danny Lilithborne
90:Danny Lilithborne
22:(Redirected from
908:
895:
753:mutatis mutandis
721:
495:
487:
463:
419:
411:
387:
367:
359:
306:FrozenPurpleCube
292:per Resolute. --
280:
273:
268:
262:
180:
177:
174:
171:
59:
41:
27:
916:
915:
911:
910:
909:
907:
906:
905:
904:
898:deletion review
891:
493:
485:
417:
409:
365:
357:
283:
278:
269:
264:
260:
178:
175:
172:
169:
73:
57:
51:The result was
44:deletion review
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
914:
912:
903:
902:
886:
885:
884:
883:
865:Indiscriminate
858:
846:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
825:I'm on it. --
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
649:
634:
622:
610:
597:
581:
569:
557:
531:
530:
529:
504:
503:
502:
442:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
381:maintaining it
349:
337:
324:
311:
299:
294:Metropolitan90
287:
275:
254:
253:
252:
228:
216:
200:
199:
198:
165:Andrew Lenahan
147:
133:
121:
120:
119:
95:
72:
67:
49:
48:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
913:
901:
899:
894:
888:
887:
882:
879:
875:
874:
873:
870:
866:
862:
859:
857:
854:
850:
847:
844:
841:
840:
831:
828:
824:
823:
822:
819:
815:
811:
810:
809:
806:
802:
799:
789:
786:
782:
778:
773:
768:
767:
766:
763:
759:
755:
754:
749:
744:
740:
736:
735:
734:
729:
725:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
695:
694:
691:
687:
682:
681:
680:
677:
673:
670:
669:
668:
665:
661:
657:
653:
650:
648:
645:
641:
638:
635:
633:
630:
626:
623:
621:
618:
614:
611:
609:
606:
601:
598:
596:
593:
589:
585:
582:
580:
577:
573:
570:
568:
565:
561:
558:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
535:
532:
528:
525:
520:
517:
516:
515:
512:
508:
505:
501:
497:
496:
489:
488:
481:
478:
477:
476:
471:
467:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:
441:
438:
434:
431:
425:
421:
420:
413:
412:
405:
402:
401:
400:
395:
391:
386:
382:
378:
375:
374:
373:
369:
368:
361:
360:
353:
350:
348:
345:
342:as listcruft
341:
338:
336:
333:
328:
325:
323:
320:
315:
312:
310:
307:
303:
300:
298:
295:
291:
288:
286:
282:
281:
274:
272:
267:
258:
255:
251:
248:
244:
241:
240:
239:
236:
232:
229:
227:
224:
220:
217:
215:
212:
208:
204:
201:
197:
194:
189:
186:
185:
184:
181:
166:
162:
161:
156:
151:
148:
146:
143:
141:
137:
134:
132:
129:
125:
122:
118:
115:
110:
109:
108:
105:
102:
99:
96:
94:
91:
87:
84:
83:
82:
81:
78:
77:Ponch's Disco
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
60:
54:
47:
45:
40:
34:
33:
25:
19:
892:
889:
878:Arctic Gnome
860:
848:
842:
827:Arctic Gnome
813:
805:Arctic Gnome
800:
780:
776:
771:
760:compliance.
751:
747:
742:
738:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
685:
671:
651:
636:
629:Arctic Gnome
624:
612:
599:
592:GracieLizzie
583:
571:
559:
538:
533:
524:Arctic Gnome
518:
506:
491:
483:
479:
444:
432:
415:
407:
403:
376:
363:
355:
351:
339:
326:
313:
301:
289:
277:
270:
265:
256:
247:Arctic Gnome
242:
230:
218:
211:Brianyoumans
202:
193:Arctic Gnome
187:
168:
160:Blade Runner
158:
154:
149:
140:thunderboltz
135:
123:
114:Arctic Gnome
97:
85:
74:
52:
50:
38:
35:
869:Ohconfucius
853:Bolognaking
748:are in fact
719:Josiah Rowe
539:interesting
461:Josiah Rowe
385:Josiah Rowe
235:Interrobamf
126:per above.
703:verifiable
588:SCIFIpedia
543:khaosworks
437:Kicking222
332:Carcharoth
863:per nom.
818:Sandstein
762:Sandstein
690:Sandstein
664:Sandstein
603:sci-fi.--
562:per nom.
534:Weak Keep
314:Weak Keep
58:Yomangani
728:contribs
699:verified
551:contribs
470:contribs
394:contribs
271:spinster
104:Resolute
801:Comment
785:Shimeru
676:Shimeru
672:Comment
644:Makgraf
617:Orbling
605:Aderack
576:Shimeru
564:Arbusto
519:Comment
511:Valrith
486:physicq
480:Comment
410:physicq
404:Comment
377:Comment
358:physicq
319:Markeer
243:Comment
188:Comment
861:Delete
756:, for
652:Delete
560:Delete
507:Delete
433:Delete
352:Delete
344:Bwithh
340:Delete
290:Delete
257:Delete
231:Delete
203:Delete
136:Delete
124:Delete
98:Delete
86:Delete
758:WP:OR
711:could
660:WP:RS
656:WP:OR
266:disco
128:MER-C
16:<
849:Keep
843:Keep
781:will
772:then
724:talk
686:very
637:Keep
625:Keep
613:Keep
600:Keep
584:Keep
572:Keep
547:talk
466:talk
445:Keep
390:talk
327:Keep
302:Keep
279:talk
219:Keep
209:. --
205:Per
150:Keep
53:Keep
814:big
777:may
743:can
739:you
715:can
707:can
654:as
459:. —
455:or
261:...
176:bli
726:•
662:.
642:.
553:)
549:•
522:--
498:)
468:•
422:)
392:•
370:)
179:nd
173:ar
170:St
167:-
112:--
730:)
722:(
545:(
494:c
490:(
472:)
464:(
418:c
414:(
396:)
388:(
366:c
362:(
153:"
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.