Knowledge talk:Television article review process

3239:. Without the later, we will simply find ourselves in a circle of remedial action, reviewing new episode articles for new TV shows. As things stand now, the length of the good (yet not strong enough for their own articles) episode articles seems to be generally small enough to allow their content to be merged fully into an episode list, with only minor editing (remove infobox, add list entry headers) needed. As such, rather than focusing on that process of merging, a clear consensus should be reached on the desired approach to covering a TV show's episodes and characters (including a common style guide for the lists), and then from there deal with the remedial action on existing articles. The desired list style does need to be discussed, since current episode and character lists often assume a full article will exist, and as such often only feature the date of airing, director/writer and 2317:← The essay says the redirecting should only be used in the most dire circumstances, technically after merging an article is redirected. But I agree with Jack that a lot of these do not have much to merge. That is mere formality, we can still use the merge process. I still oppose the essay being seperate, since there is no need for it to be, but it is not a big deal, so long as it is transcluded onto the noticeboard. As for the AfD, several have been, and there hasnt really been a consensus about anything. 182: 22: 81: 53: 145: 67: 1998:, but I would rather there be a uniform proposal/essay/guideline decided on before doing so. The only thing that, as of now, in my opinion is worth keeping would be a noticeboard of some type. One that just lists everything under review, so people can know what's going on. Other than that, this proposal/essay/guideline in its current form is redundant. 856:

process is going to get anything done, it has to face hard resistance (and overcome it). (And I agree the time is not now.) A vigorous defense alone should not give a block of episodes a pass; such a review might well help define the line between the sort of shows whose episodes should be on wikipedia and the shows that should not be here. p.s. I

2911:

I'm against any "redirect on site" type of action. That's what started this whole mess in the first place. If the article is doomed to never be more than a plot summary that will come out pretty quickly in a discussion and will involve a lot less stomping on toes which only leads to heightened stress

2547:

deleted and a new one created in its place. No series gets a pass; some will, in fact, be able to establish notability — and their editors should get on it. You reiteration of the merge-view seems to imply that the onus is on whomever is redirecting something, which I disagree with; if an article has

2018:

No problem: a noticeboard makes a lot of sense. The above is just a summary of the alternatives. It serves the mere purpose of putting all of the options on the table and letting the editor know what he/she can do about problematic article without having to read through all of the seperate processes'

651:

I have done a number of the redirects after reviews. I've noticed that a number of the LOE pages had the links restored but that uninvolved editors have often take care of reverting. I infer from this that there is respect for the review process out there, and that once a review is done, the lid will

3211:

While I agree with Bignole, I'd add that it depends on what kind of series you're dealing. If it is an old (5–10 years+) popular series whose episode articles need to be reviewed as "legacy articles", I prefer some temporary grace period to give the pilot ep article a proper chance for sourcing. But

2043:

With that I referred to the current process's 14 day period. A suggestion regarding the noticeboard - ideally problematic shows could be added there with a suggested action, like a reminder list. Ideally the essay and noticebord should be split, but the one could still be transcluded onto the other.

1989:

Well, I dont particularly see a need for it to exist as an essay. As a matter of fact, I don't think it really needs to exist at all. As of now, the original process has been totally scrapped, and the process proposed is nothing new. It's just another description on how to merge things. We could get

1174:

I happened along a guideline that I agree with. From my reading of the prior discussions it seems that deletion processes have been tried. This process is not about deletion, it is about redirecting articles that fail to establish notability. If the someone finds a source that establishes notability

3262:

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here

2263:

Two points, and I'm done for today. I wouldn't mind seeing an adjustment to your essay that outlines when you feel redirection is appropriate. And I would like to see more participation by editors 'in the middle' — who have no problem doing something about a non-notable episode article but who also

2165:

My point is I think a single editor can likely decide to recommend merging etc. It will be much faster than the process as documented, and it would not involve a lot of editors with similar views teaming up on the other editors, just to recommend merging anyway. As such I feel that it could cover a

2131:

I do not believe that this essay should be adopted as a replacement for the current process. It overstates the opposition and edit warring related to the current process which it summarily relegates to the past. You are, of course, free to put this out there as an essay, but I doubt that it will be

1767:

Hm. I don't particularly feel a need for this to be an essay, but I dont really care one way or the other. There are only a few issues I see with the above. First, on the page they would be merged to, is it practical to list every single article that would be merged? Its often 20+, and I think that

1511:

Many editors are not aware of the exact processes to follow if they come across articles like that. An essay would summarise the available procedures that are available, and someone would not have to read through all of the separate processes. However; if the person wants to follow another official

872:

Second, see below; using the merge process should provide rather good results for most series. (IE tag all episode articles, link it the destination talk page, if there is no reply, or consensus to move it in say a week, move and redirect it, if not, the discussion should continue, or said articles

855:

I mentioned Star Trek because there seem to articles on every single episode of something like 6 different incarnations. The few I looked at had only startrek.com and memory-alpha sources. I assumed that they would be well-defended because, well, trekies have a reputation. I also think that if this

1370:

I don't agree, as others have said, that this is ‘deletion’, and nothing prevents even an anon from resurrecting and episode article that has been redirected. If the merely revert, I would probably just restore the redirect; if they added something (like a source), I would certainly consider it. I

1247:

Redirect does not equal delete, the content can be retrieved. If you read the process as it is currently, all that is being done is discussing it on the talk page. No deadlines, no out of the way discussion. Everything people opposed has been stripped. Really, all that is being done is proposing a

914:

Just want to point out, the whole idea of asserting notability is because casual readers (which is who all articles must be written for), don't know what episodes of any series are "well known". I don't know "well known" Star Trek articles. They may be well known to the fans, but not to the casual

1277:

Even if one chooses to view this as a semi-delete, it's a process where any user, even an anon, can undelete, at any time. No DRV, no big fuss, just a simple revert, and the entire article is back. It is no more a "deletion" than removing a section of an article, because anyone can restore it. If

1407:

That is why this would work better as an essay than any sort of guideline or policy. An essay with consensus to include it as a link on other appropriate guidelines, but still as an essay. It's also good to have a place to keep a record of outcomes, and have a centralized location where you can

2210:

was needed; this is quite informal. What we are doing really just falls under talk page guidelines at this point. I believe this is why Ned started having these discussions on the LOE talk pages. As to merging, I mostly don't see the plot summaries as worth merging and that's mostly what these

2852:

This poll cannot really be answered. We shouldn't consider the articles in classes, or by their rating, they should be reviewed by whether or not the article meets policy and guidelines. Saying that we should automatically redirect stubs, but not even review high b class articles is not good.

2150:

The edit warring is the main problem of the current process, as is the opposition thereto. While I think that a process of some sort is usefull, I think it could work good enough, for the time being, as an informal process. An essay/implimentation guide provides a guidance for such a process,

2235:

My point exactly. So what is your recommendation then? Mine is to put the essay in the open, or in userspace, and to create the noticeboard. Redirect is still an option, and the circumstances in which it is deemed appropriate should be added to the essay. But if it is reverted, it should be

1119:

Go ahead and add. If someone dislikes, they can just change. Ooh. Thats an interesting point. There isn't a problem except that there isn't an abundance of editors who are interested enough in this to close it. But that doesn't change it, I suppose. Thats something that should be addressed.

647:

than tedious. Editors of the recent shows have not participated in the reviews much despite the notices plastered on a lot of talk pages. I believe that most of the editors of the episode pages do not read talk pages; they've just watched the show and want to add some detail to the article.

267:

of objections. Just because they weren't in a specific spot, we cannot claim that the process is being received with widespread approval. I think there is an obligation to stick to the time frame, process, and everything else that has been developed so far. The deletion of the template does

2059:

Well, technically the template that gave it a fourteen day period is deprecated, there is nothing adding things to the category, so that is irrelevant. And the noticeboard, I would think, would just have the essay, and a list of current discussions. The discussion cannot take place on the

3020:

It seems to me you're trying to mechanically link arbitrary classification to arbitrary actions in an arbitrary way. That's not really a constructive use of time. Rather than veering into hypothesis again, I'd suggest picking some random articles to review, find a reasonable outcome for

1666:

After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page. You may be able to invoke a response by contacting some of the major or most-recent contributors via their respective talk-pages. If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus or silence, proceed with the

1140:

I'm all for bolstering the justification for clearing-out these episodes. And I would welcome uninvolved parties who would take over the responsibility of closing these discussions. I've 'closed' several because the discussion had petered out and the articles had not been improved.

642:

I showed up for this a bit later than some others. I've tried to catch-up on the older discussions, but they are many and scattered. As I see it, the issue with the deleted template was that it was too-fast-a-track. The review process is tedious. The clean-up process is

2281:

As I see it, most shows should end their wiki-coverage with a brief plot summary in a LOE article; the same goes for minor characters and animals. I really would like to see some solid numbers on how many shows, episodes, etc there are and what they all multiply up to.

747:

go after the Star Trek articles until this is established. I would suggest we rewrite the entire series of pages about this process, and prepare something that we can take to the community to get approved. If, hopefully, that gets approved, then we can go from there.

1772:

page. That would be a more centralized place to archive, but I dont really know if its a huge deal. And finally, finding someone else to close the discussion. I don't know where we could find someone, and then have them be willing to do all of the actual merging.

552:

And I don't particularly thing that a "What the articles should not be" section is needed. A lot of the discussion on what is required to be an article can logically be an assertion that the opposite is not. I would think? If it's not clear, then you can fix it.

3168:

I personally like leaving a pilot of a series as its own article, because it has the greatest potential to be sourced, and just because I think it's a good idea. Does anyone else have opinions, so that we might be able to add it ito the process?

491:

instead of what the guidelines for inclusion are, and how to write a good article. The "How to write a good season or episode page" is what this guideline should be focused on, since there are no new rules on what should not be in an article.

439:

may be a proxy, but it focuses on what should be in WP, with a short mentioning what should not be. ("Things to avoid"). In my opinion this section should be expanded first, as that would provide a strong basis for the process. However;

2073:

That is acceptable to me, although I think essays are normally seperate from things like noticeboards. Secondly; I think essays are normally a few editors' view on guidelines and procedures, and is not supposed to say anything new, see

3184:

The general notability guideline is clear, it must assert its notability through secondary sources upon creation. We cannot say "it has potential because it is a pilot", when not all pilots will actually meet the guideline. That's why

419:

That's kind of where the idea of notability came up for this process. If an article lacked a potential to have anything more than plot, then it wasn't likely notable, thus all those articles with just plot could be dealt with. --

370:

Yes, people opposed the process, and it has for all intents and purposes been removed. Currently we are just discussing them on the talk page of the article they would be merged to, which is process that was already established.

2705:

Obviously different articles will be handled differently. I would like to know the general opinion regarding how episode articles should be handled if they are stubs, start class, low B or high B class, refer to the assessment

970:

section; the current one provides some background information and this should rather exist in the first section after the lead. The background information should be expanded with all relevant policies and guidelines in bullet

638:

I have migrated instances of the {{Template:Unreferenced episode}} template to {{Template:Notability|episode}}. This removed the 'deprecated' notice which I feel had an implication that the review process was also deprecated.

2609:

etc may very well accomplish the same thing. (Remember: If the article's plot section is just added to beyond a reasonable length, it is copyvio, and can be reverted, and the template can be re-added, or the article can be

2118:

Correct, it is more a type of implementation guide. Only the introduction is actually new, the rest is an explanation of how the other policies/processes/guidelines apply to/can be applied to problematic articles. Regards,

2288:

Maybe a few such series' episodes should be nominated for AfD. It may make editors more aware of the problem, and make others more hesitant to create such articles. It will also help define criteria for redirect. See

1842:

page and the list be should be provided on the talk page. (If needed, copy the list from the article and put it in a collapsible box) If I missed a question, just remind me; I think I answered all of them. Sincerely,

1854:

I guess if there isnt a centralized place for discussion, then there is no need for a centralized archive. As for carrying out the merging, who does it? Previously it's been the person who has closed the discussion.

880:

process and a broad coverage by the community, and shows real consensus. (Even if the AFD request would be to redirect — if it fails, then it was determined so by consensus, if it succeeds, ditto.) Following process

1696:

As it is unlikely that a person would search for the episode or article without knowing the context, citation tags should be used to redirect to the specific episode or character in the target list. Eg. <cite/:

1184:

I'm a bit put-off by your apparent change of tone from your comments prior to the one immediately above. Is this because you were replying to specifically to me? I am also curious about the edit summary you used;

1371:

comment, above somewhere - I think, that I've seen uninvolved editors reverting such resurrections and I infer implicit support for this process from their actions. I asked if you were specifically reacting to

1449:

BIGNOLE and I have suggested above that this rather be rewritten as an essay, as that will provide guidance on the normal processes to follow in case of non-notable episode articles and/or character articles.

1002:

The process should explain how it applies to episodes by referring to WP:EPISODE, and the specific guidelines in there; as this would help to show how articles should be (able to be) improve(d) to result in a

1337:

Secondly, I am all for getting rid of a lot of the separate articles; but I think that this can actually be done using the merge-to and merge-from templates, that has a link to the appropriate talk page, see

2019:

documentation. (And at the same time try to obtain quick results: There are no waiting period before the discussion starts, and the other editor knows from the start what the proposed solution is.) Regards,

2486: 429:

I fear that the notability criteria may disqualify articles that may otherwise be good, i.e. which are not limited to plot content, but contains an analysis of the episode, significance in the show, etc.

1796:

the episode. You can link all of them if you like, or just say "see the front page with all the links to view each episode". Some shows would get a little cumbersome to list and link that many episodes.

1768:

listing them all would take up vast amounts of space. Instead, maybe a link to the talk page where the articles are listed. Secondly, the archiving. Recently, we've been archving them in the archives of

234:. It doesn't really matter to us, since all of the pages were still added to the category. No one has objected to the review on the talk page, so I would suggest going full speed ahead with the reviews. 1527:

exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article

1192:. This could refer to this process, which you've made some reasonable proposals to adjust, but it might also refer to me or my actions. I'll gladly hold-off a while if you feel I've crossed a line. -- 2883: 3071:

I agree with Radiant! that basing outcome on assessment probably isn't the right way to look at this. As you say, a precedent may emerge that correlates to assessment, but we're not there yet. —

2060:

noticeboard, otherwise people pitch a fit. Again, I dont see why it is neccesary for it to be seperate at all. It says nothing new, so there is no need for it to be seperate, even transcluded.

663:

I've never heard of. I believe that if all shows from all over the world from the entire television era had an article for every episode that we would be looking at a number on the order of a

2140:

comments; a noticeboard could be useful, and merging is simply another already established process that is always available. And some of the description of the process does need updating. --

1834:

again, though). A central page with list of archives may help, but I do not think it is necessary, as the targets' talk pages would have the discussion. As for adding the template, I believe

583:

The assertion is correct, if you look at it black and white, the problem is the huge gray area. What an article should be, sets the desired standard, what it should not be, sets the minimum.

200: 820:. Such articles would probably survive AFD anyway. (Even if the request is merge to list.) Unless it clearly violates copyright etc. There are enough terribly short articles to keep the 2218:. Which gets me to your point about shorter time; this does need to ramp-up because I expect that new episode articles are appearing faster than people are doing something about them. -- 158: 1530:

The goal is to advise the readers as to how an article can be improved. Those suggestions may or may not be followed, but usually will be followed to improve an article to FA status.

3314: 586:

Secondly, if this were an AFD, the articles would be measured against multiple criteria, notability being one, WP:NOT being another. In my opinion, WP:NOT carries a lot more weight.

125: 2871:

say this is how high b/almost GA class articles should be handled. As for the rest, some kind of informal review might be good, but it takes unnecessary time in some cases. In all

1922:

If you want to set something up like this, ok, but that's not really the direction this should go in. For the vast majority of these articles, there is nothing worth merging. --

1151:

It seems to me that this process is an attempt to have an accelerated deletion process. (With the alternatives usually associated with it — the most common in this case being

940: 1093:

The reason for the background was that this would give editors affected by the review process, a complete background for the reasons thereof. But this is not that important.

549:

Hm. Well, maybe you should look at some of the reviews? They're pretty much all not-notable, and that is why they are being redirected. The reviews generally say that.

231: 1159:

As such, should the deletion process not be followed instead, it may prevent a lot of problems in the long run. Multiple articles may be nominated in one go. Regards

2104:← Well it could be taken out of essay form, since, as best I can tell, there is nothing in it that is not already a policy or guideline. Unless I missed something? 479:

is a compilation of several guidelines and policies, and applies them specifically to episode articles. I don't understand why the focus should be on what to avoid

1826:, maybe that admin will close the discussion. If there is no objections, no close is necessary, as all of the steps have been followed. As for archives, I believe 2214:

I looked at the noticeboard you linked to and cringed. If a list of lame episode articles turns out to be anything like that long... we're going to need a bigger

2592:

If you have further suggestions, feel free to add/reword them in the relevant section of the essay as you would prefer it to read (add a second column for that).

2079: 532:

As such, the review process should measure episodes against what Knowledge is not. This is much clearer, and would get rid of the majority of problem articles.

3324: 2659: 959: 1830:

applies. I do not think the same person that closes the discussion needs to merge it personally (Whomever actually merges the content needs to read up on

2378: 2162:

process is required? Should a new process not be suggested on the village pump (or something?) first to ascertain if it has the support of the community?

1515:

The ultimate goal is to remove/merge a lot of the non-notable articles into lists. There are processes for that. I would like to focus your attention to

1278:

someone feels the review discussion was flawed, or missed a detail that someone found out later on, it all can be fixed without administrator action. --

3103:. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out 2386:

It is my opinion that most of the episode articles should fall in one of the above categories, especially the merge category, even if it is a formality.

992:

The current process tries to obtain authority on grounds of WP:EPISODE. This is not good enough, since WP:EPISODE is already a summary of other pages.

1379:

closed reviews I commented on, and so far I've been in favor of redirecting most episode articles. You had just commented on this very issue. Anyway,

2290: 2155:

If anybody has a problem with it, they have to modify the actual process (Eg Merge/AFD), which is unlikely too happen, as they have broad concensus.

135: 2548:

not established notability then let it sit under a redirect until such time as someone cares to dredge-up some bit of text from the history. re

88: 3056: 1659: 1328:

to AFD. Even though redirecting is easier to undo (by non-sysops), the result is in both cases the same: The article is for all means gone.

727: 1207:

Nothing is being deleted. And as it is now, there are no new processes, the merges are being discussed where they should be. Nothing new.

1086:

The reason for the lead, was that it should explain the process for someone that does not want to read through the complete process. Even

1731:

that obviously do not belong in the encyclopedia but do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. It should also list the procedures of

600:

I guess I'll just have to disagree with you on the what should not be section, because I don't see a need to focus on that. But I'm just

3100: 475:(outdent)If the notability criteria disqualify an article from existing, then it should not exist. Proxy isn't a good word necessarily, 1457:

Prevent edit wars (I hope) between someone that decides an article is not notable and redirects it immediately, and the normal editors.

3319: 2982: 2932: 2923: 2371: 2346: 1966: 1655: 1610: 2195:

I've been there a lot and while there is some edit warring, it is mostly minor; children, I expect, missing their chat room. Look at

1977:

Any suggestion to the above would be welcome. My opinion is that the above essay should replace the current review process. Regards,

869:

While I can see the problem with some series; trying to get rid of well known series' episodes' articles will do more harm than good.

535:

Notability (or lack thereof) is fine, I guess, but could be difficult to establish, especially by someone unfamiliar with the series.

321:

oppose the process. I do not support it, (nor do I oppose it — there are a lot of episode articles that are mere plot summaries, see

3122: 3081: 2686: 97: 3091:

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Knowledge is a

1604: 1036:

I think that this page should really only talk about the process, not why the process exists, or how to judge. That is the job of

325:) but will see what happens during the trial period. I think the criteria need to be much more specific, see my talk above, or at 2030:

Well, the essay could be placed on the noticeboard, no need for it to be seperate. I'm not sure what ( ) enclosed comment means.

788: 701: 3139:

I'd like to get some more opinions on some character articles that I have proposed a merger for. You can find the discussion at

2493:

series: These types of series are used a lot in popular culture, has well respected web sites with complete episode details etc.

1634: 962:

I am of the opinion that this will improve the credibility of the process, as well as the efficiency of individual discussions.

888:

The process page should be rewritten as an essay to provide guidance on the above. See BIGNOLE's last reply in the next section.

2589:

As for the merge first view, this is to give the current editors notice of intent. Kind of like a proposed deletion, see above.

386:

My point is that a negative guideline is much easier to enforce, such as many successful AFD's and AFD nominations would show.

1670:

If you are unable to merge the pages, or you believe that the merger may be controversial, you might want to add a listing to

2673: 1516: 1472: 1233:

2) There is a fine line between the proposed process and it being a quick replacement for AFD; and it should not be crossed.

816:

My opinion is if there are a lot of editors that "defends" an such series (eg Star Trek), it would be better if left alone.

400:

I think I get what you mean. A guideline that says what should not happen, as opposed to what should? Well, we're enforcing

1945:

A new talk page category, such as Proposed episode articles for merger to episode list may be useful to keep track of this.

793: 66: 3114: 3104: 873:

should be nominated at proposed mergers, where an independent Wikipedian can decide on it. That is why that page exists.

58: 33: 679:

Well, we could have more than the ~5 reviews we have now going at once. I agree this will never get done at this rate.

3140: 1933: 1732: 1724: 876:

Thirdly, AFD is in my opinion the only way to get rid of articles where the merge suggestion fails as it provides an '

520:

part would help editors by showing that articles have a minimum standard that is expected (at least in the long term).

282: 2166:

lot more problematic articles in a shorter time, as there is no discussion involved to decide on the action required.

3189:

says to start from the top and work your way outward, instead of starting outward and being forced to push back in.

250:

Sounds good to me. And while it doesn't have a category function (yet), we do still have {{Notability|episode}}. --

2887: 1823: 1671: 1306:. I am quite happy if this is how the process is; but the process page does not reflect it like that yet. Regards, 711: 432:

Please note that I have not looked at currents episode discussions, so I might be understanding this the wrong way.

2956:

If a single user creates 20 or 50 articles that are nothing more than a sentence or two, or are just a copy of a

2196: 2170: 2045: 101: 608:. As to the AfD, if it violates any policy guideline, it would be deleted. If we choose to redirect it based on 210: 2990: 2463:— many of the least notable episode articles are heavily edited. This amounts to a free-pass for popular shite. 2350: 1993: 1103:

People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. To do so presents a conflict of interest.

706: 568:

I had a look at one or two affected articles. It seems to me that, except for the infobox, they are mere plot (

3300: 3279: 3252: 3220: 3204: 3178: 3158: 3129: 3086: 3065: 3049: 3015: 2999: 2964: 2941: 2926: 2902: 2861: 2847: 2835: 2819: 2803: 2787: 2771: 2755: 2739: 2723: 2710:(Delete / Redirect, discuss if reverted / Discuss Merge & redirect / Maintenance tags / Leave / Improve): 2691: 2646: 2619: 2569: 2525: 2473: 2401: 2325: 2303: 2246: 2222: 2186: 2144: 2125: 2112: 2088: 2068: 2054: 2038: 2025: 2009: 1983: 1954: 1926: 1908: 1865: 1849: 1783: 1761: 1615: 1541: 1499: 1485: 1438: 1423: 1399: 1361: 1312: 1282: 1258: 1242: 1217: 1196: 1165: 1145: 1130: 1114: 1074: 1030: 947: 930: 897: 864: 830: 783: 758: 738: 689: 673: 626: 595: 563: 544: 506: 453: 424: 414: 392: 381: 349: 312: 289: 254: 244: 985:

Articles should be reviewed in accordance with WP:NN and WP:NOT, with the focus being on articles that fails

2407:

I feel that this raises the bar for redirection too high. I'd like to comment on three of your criteria for

302:

Well, people suggested we just do it on the talk page, which is what we have been doing, and are doing now.

154: 2429:

is entirely too open to debate and seems a means for "inherited notability" to slip in through a back door.

2920: 1061: 326: 1558:

The location of the centralised page for the process. It may exist in WP namespace or the user namespace.

3248: 3126: 3077: 2986: 2844: 2682: 2446:

is a more severe action and, of course, has a higher threshold that redirection should not have to meet.

2364: 2357: 1649: 1524: 1492: 39: 2993:}} whichever is more applicable, and if possible, redirect to the specific section in the target page. 214: 2199:; no one's tried to bring those episode articles back since I redirected them about four days ago (or 1720:

In the case of really new articles, or really not noteworthy, such articles may qualify for deletion.

1645: 1641: 1587:

In case of short and not-noteworthy articles, such articles may qualify for merging to a single page.

1007:

decision. With that I mean that the process should explain how following the guidelines in WP:EPISODE

2658:

G.A.S., I've just read your essay, and it looks good to me; in fact, it seems more constructive than

1709: 1576: 1838:

could be used. I believe the mergefrom tag could be edited to read "the individual articles" on the

1620: 1769: 1566: 1453:

This would be available from the WP:EPISODE guideline page and would serve the following purposes.

601: 3026: 2667: 2566: 2470: 2340: 2283: 2219: 2141: 1396: 1193: 1142: 944: 861: 780: 735: 670: 216: 1573:

should be followed. (This goes for new text — but I think it is equally applicable to articles)

1460:

Establish whether the community thinks an article should continue to exist in its current form.

1230:

1) Redirect = delete; unless the complete content is merged into a new article. (Infobox aside)

3275: 3213: 3199: 3186: 3153: 3118: 3110: 2917: 1807: 1418: 1057: 1041: 1037: 925: 513: 476: 436: 401: 2893:

I mean, it is being reviewed, especialy for importance, the tags could just as well be added.

1747:(I am afraid that if the above procedures are not followed, the process may turn out to be a 3244: 3072: 2879: 2868: 2677: 2606: 1739: 1087: 577: 212: 181: 93: 3264: 1716:

The above should be able to clear out most of the 2-3 paragraph episode articles out there.

3289:

I don't think it ever had consensus, and people seem none the less to be referring to it.

2676:), who's been contributing to Knowledge since 2003, should not be dismissed out of hand. — 1831: 1827: 1708:

People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. To do so presents a

1699: 1686: 1680: 1591: 1345:, seems logical to me; a centralised page may be useful, but I do not think it requires a 486: 280: 96:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the 2132:

under the auspices of this group — and would strongly suggest that you not refer to this

943:

and about a dozen other star trek-specific ranks (???). Maybe AfD is a better process. --

1341:

Thirdly, if the deletion process has been tried, and failed; using the merge procedure,

3212:

if it's a new show where most certainly no secondary information exists at the moment,

3012: 2961: 2913: 2392:

See above, I have added redirect criteria to the essay. Please comment on them as well.

2215: 1923: 1496: 1279: 1053: 1045: 982:

be in Knowledge, this is usually strong grounds for deleting/redirecting such articles.

967: 613: 605: 569: 525: 493: 421: 251: 1175:

at some later date, they can resurrect the episode article and add their source to it.

3308: 3296: 3217: 3025:, and base potential guidelines on that precedent rather than writing them a priori. 3011:

I see where you are going with this, but maybe we need less options for the poll. --

2663: 2598: 2075: 1835: 1594:

could be used to clear up such articles, and the process to use should be mentioned:

1303: 1012: 975: 734:

to close the discussion, but had trouble because the blocks were nested (I think). --

573: 482: 441: 333: 322: 2485:: This is likely limited to series such as Star Trek/X Files/Stargate etc. Refer to 2177:

article, number of episodes and average length and recommended action could be used.

3271: 3190: 3144: 2878:

We should add though, while articles are being reviewed, gradings can be added for

2602: 1798: 1409: 1299: 1049: 1016: 916: 609: 3266:. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting 2514:

for the usage of redirection. It is quite likely that they will apply in some way.

1495:

has no tag like essay or guideline. It's just one possible tool, or a how-to. --

669:. We do need a faster process and people need to see the depth of the problem. -- 3174: 1157:

This appears to be an attempt to circumvent established procedures and policies.

340:

be in Knowledge, rather than a guideline that says what should be in Knowledge.

3061: 2995: 2937: 2898: 2831: 2815: 2799: 2783: 2767: 2751: 2735: 2719: 2642: 2615: 2565:

Thanks for the links you've offered here; I'll get to reading more of them. --

2521: 2397: 2299: 2294: 2242: 2182: 2121: 2084: 2050: 2021: 1979: 1950: 1904: 1845: 1757: 1748: 1537: 1481: 1434: 1357: 1308: 1238: 1161: 1110: 1026: 893: 826: 655:

I continue to see more evidence of the extent of the episode article problem;

591: 540: 449: 388: 345: 274: 144: 80: 52: 1491:

Why as an essay? I've always thought of this like a form of peer review, and

1429:

It being rewritten as an essay is probably the best idea thus far. Well done!

1902:

nyone that took part in the discussion. In order of preference: E, N, C, A.

1792:, and then explicitly state on the talk page that it was a discussion about 1064:. This is really only about the process. Which is borderline redundant now. 958:

Following prior discussions above, I recommend the following changes to the

779:

well-defended stuff should survive until the process is better developed. --

2048:

for an example of what I think the noticeboard should look like. Regards,

2582:

Actually, I moved my comments to the correct place, as it was in reply to

1603: 3291: 2436:

The article would likely be deleted, should it be nominated for deletion.

2511: 2264:

are game for finding those elusive RS that solidly establish notability.

1324:

referred specifically to placing harsh criticism to using this process

2507:

attempt to improve the article beyond just a unreferenced plot summary.

2496:

About deletion: If this is not met — the merge route is the way to go.

2200: 1056:. Only one is sufficient. If you wish to make changes about what gives 723:

To deal with more than a few reviews at once will require more editors!

404:

which is a proxy for other guidelines, that says what cannot be in WP.

2173:

could help coordinating the process. Columns such as the series name,

1633: 3171: 2855: 2583: 2319: 2211:

episode articles are; the trivia sections are even less merge-worthy.

2137: 2106: 2062: 2032: 2003: 1856: 1774: 1249: 1208: 1121: 1099:

The following should also be in the process. (From Deletion process)

1065: 749: 680: 617: 554: 497: 405: 372: 303: 235: 2556:; active efforts to reference an article should not be smacked-down. 999:

and may refer how it applies to episodes by referring to WP:EPISODE.

860:

the term ‘taskforce’ in this context — wrong metaphor, entirely. --

2500:

it is just a formality, and little or no content is actually moved.

2489:

for the reason I suggest this. I do not think this could apply for

2389:

I will have to look for previous AfDs it may also provide guidance.

1432:

Jack - sorry for the late reply, I did not see your post earlier.

272:

equate to a license to go "full speed ahead with the reviews". --

3095:, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the 3092: 2487:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager)

2597:

A kind of template for proposal to redirect, with reasons like

1932:

And in such a case there should be little reason to worry that

1788:

What I did put the "merge" tag on a couple from each season of

1627:

Tag the list page with {{subst:multiplemergefrom|], ], ], etc}}

1334:

I am unsure why you though that this applied to you personally.

1294:

Placing the tags might be better, as the editors will actually

728:

Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes#2nd episode article review

92:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of 2781:

Add maintenance tags, see if it improves in a reasonable time

1597:

Tag the articles with {{subst:merge|LIST PAGE|TALK:LIST PAGE}}

217: 175: 15: 2884:

Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria

1096:

As for the other stuff, it is fine if it goes into WP:EPISODE

1632: 1602: 1473:

Knowledge:Conflict_of_interest#Deleting non-notable articles

143: 3099:

link at the top. The Knowledge community encourages you to

1248:

merge. Without the tags. I guess the tags could be placed.

937:

I've been looking at the star trek articles and found this:

1936:

would be contested, or that such a merge would be opposed.

1733:

Knowledge:Proposed_deletion#Contesting a proposed deletion

1727:— This process should only be used for articles that are 1463:

Clear up such articles that are really not worth keeping.

3243:

of plot summary (which is so small as to be worthless).

2843:

I think we should improve articles as we review them. -

1522:

This goal is in direct contrast to that of Peer review.

1331:

Also: What is to keep someone from undoing it each time?

1298:

them (Which I guess is a problem at the moment). Maybe

332:

As such I rather the articles be reviewed on grounds of

2637: 2136:

a deprecated process. Some of the points are valid, as

1408:

always know where to look for any current discussions.

1392: 1189: 731: 3231:

This essay as it stands to me focuses far too much on

2503:

Major editing: I mean exactly that. There should be a

2297:. Maybe next time the redirects are reverted? Regards 726:

Also: could someone put the discussion closed tags on

2453:

The article has not undergone major editing recently.

2000:

For the record, I still support the original process.

1822:

I thought of of that. If the merging is mentioned at

1571:

Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle

978:

as this provides a clear guideline as to what should

3227:

Comment - too much remedial, not enough preventative

2981:

In such a case, please tag the redirect page with {{

2419:

series' episodes, as these could likely be expanded.

2236:

explained; preferably on the appropriate talk pages

1083:

No problem, but the above was stated for the record.

2331:

Arbitrary section break: Comment to the above essay

1609:It has been suggested that this page or section be 941:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Admiral (Star Trek)

2415:The current article is not notable, nor part of a 1751:which will have extremely negative repercussions.) 1090:has a proper lead. Would anyone mind my adding it? 1387:process, I do feel that one is needed. There are 1349:process. There are already established processes. 1060:it's authority, then changes should be discussed 3059:may set the precedent, as you suggest. Regards, 2933:User:G.A.S/Managing related non-notable articles 1967:User:G.A.S/Managing_related_non-notable_articles 481:(since that would probably violate some form of 3055:The question was more for interest's sake; the 2293:for a similar type of AfD. It may yet create a 516:the positive aspect is crucial, but having the 496:is a reasoning for what shouldn't be included. 2931:Which is exactly why I set the bar so high in 1048:I would disagree that articles need fail both 528:is a reasoning for what shouldn't be included. 3315:Low-impact WikiProject Knowledge essays pages 3141:Talk: Smallville (TV series)#Merge characters 1554:The following should exist in such an essay: 995:The process should obtain its authority from 652:stay in place on blocks of episode articles. 612:issues, then that's fine. If we choose to on 8: 2960:article, then I would redirect on sight. -- 1738:If there are any objections such a case the 1581:treat others as you would like to be treated 974:The process/background should also refer to 2543:I saw the Mortal Coil AfD and that article 161:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links. 2935:. Do comment on the essay please. Regards 2379:Knowledge:Template_messages/Redirect_pages 1886:Anyone may merge the articles, either the 1828:WP:MERGE#Closing/archive a proposed merger 1681:WP:MERGE#Closing/archive a proposed merger 47: 32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 2875:cases judgement should still be applied. 2291:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Zergling 2082:, or any of the other essays. Regards, 2080:Knowledge:What "Ignore all rules" means 1040:. I agree that it should be clear that 49: 2534:Please do not move my comments around. 1383:has to close'em. As to the need for a 572:) summaries, with or without trivia. ( 2829:Add maintenance tags, try to improve 2813:Add maintenance tags, try to improve 7: 21: 19: 3115:New contributors are always welcome 2662:. The reactions of an editor like 1939:I have added a new step above, see 1729:uncontroversial deletion candidates 1562:The following should be mentioned: 1467:While using established procedures. 1391:crappy little articles out there — 336:, which clearly states what should 38:It is of interest to the following 3325:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages 3123:many reasons why you might want to 2347:Category:Redirects to list entries 263:Don't kid yourself - there were a 116:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages 100:. For a listing of essays see the 14: 3258:Centralized TV Episode Discussion 3113:to try out your editing skills. 2797:Suggest merge, or try to improve 2240:in comment on the redirect page. 2169:A centralised noticeboard, like 2153:as there is nothing new about it. 789:List of Drake & Josh episodes 446:Why not just skip the middle man? 86:This page is within the scope of 2552:— I was equating your term with 702:List of The Simple Life episodes 180: 79: 65: 51: 20: 2349:: Too short for own article ({{ 1658:into this article or section. ( 1525:Knowledge's Peer review process 518:what the articles should not be 2733:Redirect, discuss if reverted 2479:Maybe I should clarify a bit: 2381:for a more comprehensive list. 1687:WP:MERGE#Performing the merger 1517:Knowledge:Process is important 1: 3221:10:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 3205:05:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 3179:05:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 2765:Discuss Merge & redirect 2749:Discuss Merge & redirect 1375:in order to clear the air. I 794:List of Kim Possible episodes 616:issues, then that works too. 3280:20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 3270:TV episodes in Knowledge. -- 3253:20:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 2078:and the corresponding essay 1965:The essay has been moved to 130:This page has been rated as 110:Knowledge:WikiProject Essays 89:WikiProject Knowledge essays 3301:02:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC) 3159:23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC) 3130:07:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 3087:20:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 3066:17:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3050:15:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2983:r from duplicated article|x 2826:high b class (old article) 2810:high b class (new article) 2692:20:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 2046:User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse 1934:Knowledge:Proposed deletion 1725:Knowledge:Proposed deletion 1639:It has been suggested that 444:already has this criteria. 113:Template:WikiProject Essays 3341: 3016:05:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 3000:05:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 2965:22:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2942:15:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2927:14:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2903:13:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2862:06:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2848:06:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2836:21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 2820:21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 2804:21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 2794:low b class (old article) 2788:21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 2778:low b class (new article) 2772:21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 2762:start class (old article) 2756:21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 2746:start class (new article) 2740:21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 2724:21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 2647:13:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 2620:10:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 2570:10:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 2526:09:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 2474:09:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 2402:06:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 2326:20:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2304:13:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2247:13:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2223:12:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2187:12:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2145:09:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2126:09:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2113:06:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2089:06:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2069:00:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2055:23:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2039:22:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2026:21:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2010:20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 1984:14:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 1973:Comment to the above essay 1824:Knowledge:Proposed mergers 1698:in the list and #REDIRECT 1672:Knowledge:Proposed mergers 1512:process, that too is fine. 712:List of Star Trek episodes 3320:NA-Class Knowledge essays 3117:. You don't even need to 3101:be bold in updating pages 2636:Note: The essay has been 2372:r from duplicated article 2356:List entry or Section ({{ 2197:List of Zoey 101 episodes 1955:07:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1927:05:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1909:04:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1866:23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1850:21:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1784:20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1762:16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1542:07:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1508:Three reasons, actually: 1500:05:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1486:16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1439:20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1424:20:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1400:12:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1393:not just episode articles 1362:20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1313:11:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1302:can be used for that, or 1283:19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1259:10:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1243:10:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1218:10:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1197:10:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1166:09:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1146:09:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1131:09:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1115:09:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1075:08:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1031:08:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 948:13:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 931:12:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 898:12:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 865:11:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 831:15:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 784:13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 759:09:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 739:09:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 690:08:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 674:08:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 627:07:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 596:07:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 564:07:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 545:07:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 507:06:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 454:06:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 425:06:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 415:06:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 393:06:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 382:06:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 350:06:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 313:06:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 290:06:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 255:05:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 245:05:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 151: 129: 74: 46: 3216:should apply in full. – 2363:Renamings and merges ({{ 2343:redirects are used for: 1616:Knowledge talk:LIST PAGE 1044:is the source for this. 707:List of Charmed episodes 317:I would not exactly say 1740:normal deletion process 2370:Duplicate articles ({{ 1637: 1630:This should appear as 1607: 1600:This should appear as 1187:A spanner in the works 824:busy for a long time. 775:You may be right that 398:A negative guideline?? 155:automatically assessed 148: 136:project's impact scale 2158:Why would you say an 1702:on the redirect page. 1636: 1606: 1493:Knowledge:Peer review 659:I've never heard of, 153:The above rating was 147: 3121:(although there are 2867:You have point, but 2730:stubs (old article) 2714:stubs (new article) 1710:conflict of interest 1678:Then the content of 1322:Spanner in the works 1046:Go ahead and fix it. 1011:the article against 2912:levels and reduces 2886:, template is at {{ 2208:an official process 1567:Knowledge:Etiquette 3241:only a single line 3106:how to edit a page 3057:episodes on review 2554:voluminous editing 1894:loser, the normal 1690:or a link thereto. 1650:EPISODE PAGE THREE 1638: 1608: 149: 34:content assessment 3202: 3197: 3156: 3151: 3085: 2888:Importance scheme 2690: 2001: 1810: 1805: 1421: 1416: 1326:as an alternative 960:the process page. 928: 923: 743:Well, I wouldn't 287: 230:The template was 223: 222: 174: 173: 170: 169: 166: 165: 162: 3332: 3200: 3195: 3191: 3154: 3149: 3145: 3075: 3064: 3046: 3044: 3042: 3040: 3038: 2998: 2940: 2901: 2860: 2845:Peregrine Fisher 2834: 2818: 2802: 2786: 2770: 2754: 2738: 2722: 2697:Actions required 2680: 2645: 2618: 2524: 2400: 2324: 2302: 2245: 2203:done yesterday). 2185: 2124: 2111: 2087: 2067: 2053: 2037: 2024: 2008: 1999: 1997: 1982: 1953: 1907: 1863: 1848: 1808: 1803: 1799: 1781: 1760: 1735:or link thereto. 1646:EPISODE PAGE TWO 1642:EPISODE PAGE ONE 1540: 1484: 1437: 1419: 1414: 1410: 1360: 1311: 1256: 1241: 1215: 1164: 1128: 1113: 1072: 1029: 954:Proposed changes 926: 921: 917: 896: 829: 756: 714:(something like 687: 624: 594: 561: 543: 504: 452: 412: 391: 379: 348: 310: 279: 242: 226:Template Deleted 218: 184: 176: 152: 118: 117: 114: 111: 108: 94:Knowledge essays 83: 76: 75: 70: 69: 68: 63: 55: 48: 25: 24: 23: 16: 3340: 3339: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3305: 3304: 3287: 3260: 3229: 3193: 3166: 3147: 3137: 3060: 3036: 3034: 3032: 3030: 3028: 2994: 2991:R to list entry 2936: 2897: 2854: 2830: 2814: 2798: 2782: 2766: 2750: 2734: 2718: 2699: 2641: 2614: 2520: 2396: 2351:R to list entry 2333: 2318: 2298: 2241: 2181: 2120: 2105: 2083: 2061: 2049: 2031: 2020: 2002: 1994:wider attention 1991: 1978: 1975: 1963: 1961:Suggested essay 1949: 1903: 1862: 1857: 1844: 1801: 1780: 1775: 1756: 1663: 1624: 1577:The Golden Rule 1552: 1536: 1480: 1447: 1433: 1412: 1356: 1307: 1255: 1250: 1237: 1214: 1209: 1160: 1127: 1122: 1109: 1071: 1066: 1025: 966:Write a proper 956: 919: 892: 825: 755: 750: 686: 681: 623: 618: 590: 560: 555: 539: 503: 498: 490: 448: 433: 411: 406: 387: 378: 373: 344: 309: 304: 285: 241: 236: 228: 219: 213: 189: 115: 112: 109: 106: 105: 102:essay directory 64: 61: 12: 11: 5: 3338: 3336: 3328: 3327: 3322: 3317: 3307: 3306: 3286: 3283: 3259: 3256: 3237:how to prevent 3228: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3208: 3207: 3165: 3162: 3136: 3133: 3097:Edit this page 3069: 3068: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2906: 2905: 2894: 2891: 2876: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2708: 2707: 2703: 2698: 2695: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2611: 2593: 2590: 2587: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2529: 2528: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2508: 2501: 2494: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2455: 2454: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2438: 2437: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2421: 2420: 2405: 2404: 2393: 2390: 2387: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2375: 2368: 2361: 2354: 2337: 2332: 2329: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2212: 2204: 2190: 2189: 2178: 2167: 2163: 2156: 2129: 2128: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2013: 2012: 1974: 1971: 1962: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1946: 1943: 1937: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1890:ominator, the 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1858: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1776: 1744: 1743: 1742:should follow. 1736: 1718: 1717: 1714: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1692: 1675: 1668: 1664: 1631: 1628: 1625: 1601: 1598: 1585: 1584: 1574: 1560: 1559: 1551: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1520: 1513: 1503: 1502: 1477: 1476: 1469: 1464: 1461: 1458: 1446: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1430: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1365: 1364: 1353: 1352:Your thoughts? 1350: 1339: 1335: 1332: 1329: 1319: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1251: 1234: 1231: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1210: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1169: 1168: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1123: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1097: 1094: 1091: 1084: 1078: 1077: 1067: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1000: 997:multiple roots 990: 983: 972: 955: 952: 951: 950: 938: 934: 933: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 889: 886: 874: 870: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 791: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 751: 724: 721: 720: 719: 709: 704: 693: 692: 682: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 619: 606:this is a wiki 587: 584: 581: 556: 550: 536: 533: 530: 521: 499: 480: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 434: 431: 407: 374: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 341: 330: 305: 295: 294: 293: 292: 283: 258: 257: 237: 227: 224: 221: 220: 215: 211: 209: 206: 205: 204: 203: 195: 194: 191: 190: 185: 179: 172: 171: 168: 167: 164: 163: 150: 140: 139: 128: 122: 121: 119: 84: 72: 71: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3337: 3326: 3323: 3321: 3318: 3316: 3313: 3312: 3310: 3303: 3302: 3298: 3294: 3293: 3284: 3282: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3257: 3255: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3226: 3222: 3219: 3215: 3210: 3209: 3206: 3203: 3198: 3196: 3188: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3177: 3176: 3173: 3163: 3161: 3160: 3157: 3152: 3150: 3142: 3134: 3132: 3131: 3128: 3127:69.143.236.33 3124: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3109:, or use the 3108: 3107: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3089: 3088: 3083: 3079: 3074: 3067: 3063: 3058: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3048: 3047: 3024: 3018: 3017: 3014: 3001: 2997: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2966: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2943: 2939: 2934: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2925: 2922: 2919: 2915: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2904: 2900: 2895: 2892: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2859: 2858: 2850: 2849: 2846: 2837: 2833: 2828: 2827: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2812: 2811: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2796: 2795: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2780: 2779: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2764: 2763: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2748: 2747: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2732: 2731: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2716: 2715: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2704: 2701: 2700: 2696: 2694: 2693: 2688: 2684: 2679: 2675: 2672: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2648: 2644: 2639: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2621: 2617: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2594: 2591: 2588: 2585: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2571: 2568: 2567:Jack Merridew 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2555: 2551: 2550:Major editing 2546: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2527: 2523: 2518: 2513: 2509: 2506: 2502: 2499: 2495: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2481: 2480: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2472: 2471:Jack Merridew 2462: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2452: 2451: 2445: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2435: 2434: 2428: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411:redirecting: 2410: 2403: 2399: 2394: 2391: 2388: 2385: 2380: 2376: 2373: 2369: 2366: 2362: 2359: 2355: 2352: 2348: 2345: 2344: 2342: 2339:According to 2338: 2335: 2334: 2330: 2328: 2327: 2323: 2322: 2305: 2301: 2296: 2292: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284:Jack Merridew 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2248: 2244: 2239: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2224: 2221: 2220:Jack Merridew 2217: 2213: 2209: 2206:I didn't say 2205: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2188: 2184: 2179: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2161: 2157: 2154: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2143: 2142:Jack Merridew 2139: 2135: 2127: 2123: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2110: 2109: 2090: 2086: 2081: 2077: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2066: 2065: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2052: 2047: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2036: 2035: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2023: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2011: 2007: 2006: 1995: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1981: 1972: 1970: 1968: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1947: 1944: 1941: 1938: 1935: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1925: 1910: 1906: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1867: 1864: 1861: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1847: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1811: 1806: 1804: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1782: 1779: 1771: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1759: 1753: 1752: 1750: 1741: 1737: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1715: 1713: 1711: 1706: 1701: 1695: 1693: 1691: 1688: 1685: 1682: 1679: 1676: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1635: 1629: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1617: 1612: 1605: 1599: 1596: 1595: 1593: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1582: 1578: 1575: 1572: 1568: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1549: 1543: 1539: 1534: 1529: 1526: 1521: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1509: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1501: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1483: 1474: 1470: 1468: 1465: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1451: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1431: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1422: 1417: 1415: 1401: 1398: 1397:Jack Merridew 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1363: 1359: 1354: 1351: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1333: 1330: 1327: 1323: 1320: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1310: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1284: 1281: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1260: 1257: 1254: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1240: 1235: 1232: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1198: 1195: 1194:Jack Merridew 1191: 1188: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1167: 1163: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1144: 1143:Jack Merridew 1132: 1129: 1126: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1101: 1100: 1098: 1095: 1092: 1089: 1085: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1076: 1073: 1070: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1001: 998: 994: 993: 991: 988: 984: 981: 977: 973: 969: 965: 964: 963: 961: 953: 949: 946: 945:Jack Merridew 942: 939: 936: 935: 932: 929: 924: 922: 913: 899: 895: 890: 887: 884: 879: 875: 871: 868: 867: 866: 863: 862:Jack Merridew 859: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 832: 828: 823: 819: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 795: 792: 790: 787: 786: 785: 782: 781:Jack Merridew 778: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 760: 757: 754: 746: 742: 741: 740: 737: 736:Jack Merridew 733: 729: 725: 722: 717: 713: 710: 708: 705: 703: 700: 699: 697: 696: 695: 694: 691: 688: 685: 678: 677: 676: 675: 672: 671:Jack Merridew 668: 667: 662: 658: 653: 649: 646: 640: 628: 625: 622: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 598: 597: 593: 588: 585: 582: 579: 575: 571: 567: 566: 565: 562: 559: 551: 548: 547: 546: 542: 537: 534: 531: 529: 527: 522: 519: 515: 511: 510: 509: 508: 505: 502: 495: 488: 484: 478: 455: 451: 447: 443: 438: 435: 428: 427: 426: 423: 418: 417: 416: 413: 410: 403: 399: 396: 395: 394: 390: 385: 384: 383: 380: 377: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 351: 347: 342: 339: 335: 331: 328: 324: 320: 316: 315: 314: 311: 308: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 291: 288: 286: 281: 277: 276: 271: 266: 262: 261: 260: 259: 256: 253: 249: 248: 247: 246: 243: 240: 233: 225: 208: 207: 202: 199: 198: 197: 196: 193: 192: 188: 183: 178: 177: 160: 156: 146: 142: 141: 137: 133: 127: 124: 123: 120: 103: 99: 95: 91: 90: 85: 82: 78: 77: 73: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 31: 27: 18: 17: 3290: 3288: 3285:This process 3267: 3261: 3240: 3236: 3235:rather than 3232: 3230: 3201:(Contact me) 3192: 3170: 3167: 3155:(Contact me) 3146: 3138: 3105: 3096: 3090: 3070: 3027: 3022: 3019: 3010: 2987:R to section 2957: 2872: 2856: 2851: 2842: 2709: 2670: 2660:this process 2657: 2610:redirected.) 2595: 2553: 2549: 2544: 2505:huge, active 2504: 2497: 2490: 2483:High profile 2482: 2468: 2460: 2443: 2427:high profile 2426: 2417:high profile 2416: 2408: 2406: 2365:r from merge 2358:R to section 2320: 2316: 2237: 2207: 2174: 2159: 2152: 2133: 2130: 2107: 2103: 2063: 2033: 2004: 1976: 1964: 1940: 1921: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1859: 1839: 1809:(Contact me) 1800: 1793: 1789: 1777: 1770:WP:TV-REVIEW 1754: 1746: 1745: 1728: 1719: 1707: 1694: 1689: 1683: 1677: 1640: 1614: 1586: 1580: 1570: 1561: 1553: 1523: 1478: 1466: 1452: 1448: 1420:(Contact me) 1411: 1406: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1346: 1342: 1325: 1321: 1295: 1293: 1252: 1211: 1186: 1156: 1152: 1139: 1124: 1102: 1068: 1024: 1008: 1004: 996: 986: 979: 957: 927:(Contact me) 918: 882: 877: 857: 821: 817: 776: 752: 744: 716:600 episodes 715: 683: 665: 664: 660: 656: 654: 650: 644: 641: 637: 620: 557: 524: 517: 500: 474: 445: 408: 397: 375: 337: 318: 306: 278: 273: 269: 264: 238: 229: 186: 131: 87: 40:WikiProjects 30:project page 29: 3245:LinaMishima 3073:Josiah Rowe 2678:Josiah Rowe 2640:. Regards, 2599:WP:NOT#PLOT 2586:'s comment. 2341:WP:REDIRECT 1755:Sincerely, 1700:LIST#EP1x01 976:WP:NOT#PLOT 891:Sincerely, 878:independent 818:Permanently 698:how about: 574:WP:NOT#INFO 442:WP:NOT#PLOT 334:WP:NOT#PLOT 323:WP:NOT#PLOT 3309:Categories 3233:how to fix 3214:WP:EPISODE 3187:WP:EPISODE 3135:Smallville 2702:Straw poll 1898:ditors or 1790:Smallville 1749:Witch-hunt 1528:candidate. 1058:WP:EPISODE 1042:WP:EPISODE 1038:WP:EPISODE 885:important. 610:notability 602:one editor 514:WP:EPISODE 483:good faith 477:WP:EPISODE 437:WP:EPISODE 402:WP:EPISODE 327:WT:EPISODE 201:Archive 01 132:Low-impact 98:discussion 62:Low‑impact 3013:Ned Scott 2989:}}, or {{ 2962:Ned Scott 2896:Regards, 2880:WP:ASSESS 2873:automatic 2869:WP:ASSESS 2613:Regards, 2607:WP:LENGTH 2519:Regards, 2395:Regards, 2295:precedent 2180:Regards, 1948:Regards, 1924:Ned Scott 1535:Regards, 1497:Ned Scott 1479:Regards, 1471:See also 1355:Regards, 1280:Ned Scott 1236:Regards, 1088:WP:DELPRO 989:criteria. 822:taskforce 589:Regards, 578:WP:TRIVIA 422:Ned Scott 343:Regards, 252:Ned Scott 3218:sgeureka 3194:BIGNOLE 3148:BIGNOLE 3082:contribs 2914:wikilove 2687:contribs 2674:contribs 2664:Nricardo 2638:expanded 2491:just any 2444:deletion 2171:this one 2160:official 1832:WP:MERGE 1802:BIGNOLE 1592:WP:MERGE 1413:BIGNOLE 1318:RE: Jack 1153:redirect 1009:protects 920:BIGNOLE 915:reader. 661:networks 538:Regards 487:civility 187:Archives 3272:Maniwar 3111:sandbox 2958:list of 2498:Even if 2336:Agreed. 2201:20 to 1 2175:list of 1840:list of 1667:merger. 1660:Discuss 1621:Discuss 1445:Process 1389:so many 1381:someone 1343:as such 1054:WP:PLOT 971:format. 777:popular 666:million 570:WP:PLOT 526:WP:PLOT 494:WP:PLOT 232:deleted 134:on the 3175:(talk) 3119:log in 2985:}}, {{ 2706:scale. 2461:No way 2216:hammer 2138:User:I 2076:WP:IAR 1836:WP:AWB 1656:merged 1611:merged 1338:above. 1304:WP:AWB 1013:WP:NOT 319:nobody 157:using 107:Essays 59:Essays 36:scale. 3164:Pilot 3125:). 3062:G.A.S 3029:: --> 3023:those 2996:G.A.S 2938:G.A.S 2899:G.A.S 2832:G.A.S 2816:G.A.S 2800:G.A.S 2784:G.A.S 2768:G.A.S 2752:G.A.S 2736:G.A.S 2720:G.A.S 2643:G.A.S 2616:G.A.S 2603:WP:NN 2522:G.A.S 2512:above 2398:G.A.S 2374:|x}}) 2300:G.A.S 2243:G.A.S 2183:G.A.S 2122:G.A.S 2085:G.A.S 2051:G.A.S 2022:G.A.S 1980:G.A.S 1951:G.A.S 1942:above 1905:G.A.S 1846:G.A.S 1758:G.A.S 1652:, etc 1613:with 1550:Essay 1538:G.A.S 1482:G.A.S 1435:G.A.S 1358:G.A.S 1309:G.A.S 1300:WP:TW 1239:G.A.S 1162:G.A.S 1111:G.A.S 1062:there 1050:WP:NN 1027:G.A.S 1017:WP:NN 894:G.A.S 827:G.A.S 732:tried 657:shows 592:G.A.S 541:G.A.S 450:G.A.S 389:G.A.S 346:G.A.S 275:Ckatz 28:This 3297:talk 3276:talk 3249:talk 3093:wiki 3078:talk 3045:< 2924:8212 2921:dust 2918:Star 2882:and 2717:AFD 2683:talk 2668:talk 2510:See 2377:See 2044:See 1684:and 1395:. -- 1377:have 1296:read 1190:diff 1052:and 1015:and 1005:keep 987:both 968:lead 858:hate 745:dare 730:? I 645:more 614:plot 604:and 576:and 523:RE: 512:For 159:data 3292:DGG 3268:all 2890:}}. 2545:was 2409:not 2367:}}) 2360:}}) 2353:}}) 2238:and 1794:all 1697:--> 1654:be 1619:. ( 1385:new 1347:new 1155:.) 980:not 485:or 338:not 284:spy 270:not 265:lot 126:Low 3311:: 3299:) 3278:) 3251:) 3143:. 3080:• 2916:. 2685:• 2605:, 2601:, 2469:-- 2282:-- 2134:as 1996:}} 1992:{{ 1969:. 1648:, 1644:, 1579:— 1569:— 1373:me 1141:-- 883:is 580:). 3295:( 3274:( 3247:( 3172:I 3084:) 3076:( 3043:t 3041:n 3039:a 3037:i 3035:d 3033:a 3031:R 2857:i 2689:) 2681:( 2671:· 2666:( 2584:i 2321:i 2108:i 2064:i 2034:i 2005:i 1900:a 1896:e 1892:c 1888:n 1860:i 1778:i 1712:. 1674:. 1662:) 1623:) 1583:. 1519:. 1475:. 1253:i 1212:i 1125:i 1069:i 1019:. 753:i 718:) 684:i 621:i 558:i 501:i 489:) 409:i 376:i 329:. 307:i 239:i 138:. 104:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Television article review process - Knowledge

Index