279:
just isn't working right now as demonstrated by the number of AN/I reports, 2 arb cases, RFC and various other debates. Discussing how policy should be applied may help, it may not, it's worth a try. I think you'll also find that many of the opinions expressed on this page really do come down to the basic definition of notability, many are arguing that the key factor is how much the individual episode received coverage in secondary sources. I'd agree that the intro is perhaps not worded in a particularly polite way but it has served its purpose in preventing a rehashing of the arguments at the RFC, which, as stated, is not the point of this discussion.
239:("A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.") is proposed criteria #7. If you mean that "It was on TV therefore it's notable" then this isn't the place to discuss that since this discussion is based on an assumption that consensus is found that plot-only articles are not notable. If consensus is determined that all that is needed is for an episode to exist in order to have an article than this whole discussion will be null and void.
69:
My goal was to be pretty inclusionist. I don't think there is a realistic chance of this issue going completely away, and the hard feelings probably never will, either. I wanted to make a proposal that most people could see as something achievable for some of their favorite episodes. If we set a list
58:
whatever criteria emerge from this proposal is likely to be an appropriate metric for determining notability. There seems to be a fair amount of opinion in this direction in the discussion so far. In all likelihood, many of the criteria will serve to "help" and hitting more than a few will amount to
278:
I wasn't irked though I suppose I did come off sounding that way, early Monday morning isn't the time I'm most pleasant. I just wanted to make it clear that the two ideas weren't the same thing (some people continue to assert they are). Just editing the encyclopedia without more specific guidance
130:
I have argued similarly on the WT:EPISODE. My preferred formulation is to say something at the top about notability being a judgment call based on assessment of the aggregate of the various claims to notability. Then within each criteria, state that presence of evidence in this criterion provides
104:
I'd agree that a lot of these could be met and still not be enough for an article. I think Crit. 7 is the only one where need for an article can be established by itself, all others will depend on depth of coverage. I think the next big wall will be the bickering over how much is "significant"
70:
of criteria and then say "even if you meet them, it's still possible that the episode isn't really notable", we're back in the mud. I really want to get to the point where it is fairly mechanistic, and the majority believe the criteria are at least fair, even if imperfect.
263:. I have no wish to state anything resembling your assertion, I merely wish to indicate that we have enough guidance and policies already, and that maybe we could just edit the encyclopedia instead and shape consensus that way per policy.
92:, in that, save for what is currently #7 (covered in reliable third-party sources), the rest demonstrate "probably notable" but still require appropriate sourcing to complete, as well as common sense judgement. --
350:
I'm an inexperienced editor, so maybe this is a legacy convention that nobody has decided to fix, and I'm aware that this is an informal page, but the singular form of "criteria" is "criterion".
34:
328:
irked you. To me it read that stating this discussion was pointless because we have enough guidance already, thank you very much, was likely to be ignored if not ruthlessly deleted.
302:
certainly can't be interpreted as giving TV episodes automatic notability. If you think that they do, I'm interested in seeing the section. Several editors have said that
255:
I apologise if my question irked you. That was not my intent. I was merely confused by the confrontational tome of the intro which seemed to me to run counter to
294:
Hiding, it doesn't say that at all. It says that saying that discussion is useless because notability is automatically inherited will be ignored.
286:
246:
156:
116:
17:
109:
of these criteria it doesn't need an article" beyond that will, as always, require discussion of the individual article in question.
178:
Just a quick question, but are these criteria ranked in any specific order or is this just the order in which they were written?
359:
337:
319:
289:
272:
249:
230:
202:
187:
168:
144:
119:
99:
79:
63:
44:
326:
Comments indicating that the discussion is useless because the notability is obvious will be quickly and ruthlessly deleted.
283:
243:
113:
355:
164:
140:
60:
41:
280:
240:
183:
110:
351:
333:
268:
226:
89:
160:
27:
221:
where do you register that? The page seems to indicate that dissent will be ignored.
315:
260:
256:
198:
136:
75:
179:
59:
solid evidence of notability. I'll be commenting on the discussion to date soon. --
329:
307:
303:
299:
295:
264:
236:
222:
218:
214:
93:
311:
194:
71:
105:
coverage. I think for now we can look at this as "If it doesn't meet
310:
are enough, and their comments have been kept and uncriticized.
35:
Knowledge:Television episodes/Proposed
Objective Criteria
155:
I have started a discussion about specific articles at
88:
I would suggest that we think this like it is done on
157:
Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes#Specific_examples
40:I feel we need a talk page to, well, talk. --
8:
324:I apologise if my reading of the sentence
213:If you don't want anything further than
7:
30:I've moved things to the main page:
24:
18:Knowledge talk:Television episodes
1:
338:22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
320:14:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
290:00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
273:22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
250:14:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
231:14:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
203:15:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
188:14:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
169:20:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
145:20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
120:16:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
100:14:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
80:11:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
64:11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
45:11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
375:
193:I had no ordering in mind.
159:. Comments are welcome. --
54:I don't feel that meeting
360:23:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
133:evidence of notability
346:Sorry to nitpick...
336:
271:
229:
151:Specific examples
50:"any one of them"
366:
332:
267:
225:
97:
374:
373:
369:
368:
367:
365:
364:
363:
348:
211:
176:
153:
95:
52:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
372:
370:
347:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
292:
253:
252:
210:
207:
206:
205:
175:
172:
152:
149:
148:
147:
127:
126:
125:
124:
123:
122:
83:
82:
51:
48:
38:
37:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
371:
362:
361:
357:
353:
345:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
322:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
291:
288:
285:
282:
277:
276:
275:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
251:
248:
245:
242:
238:
235:
234:
233:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
191:
190:
189:
185:
181:
173:
171:
170:
166:
162:
158:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
129:
128:
121:
118:
115:
112:
108:
103:
102:
101:
98:
91:
87:
86:
85:
84:
81:
77:
73:
68:
67:
66:
65:
62:
61:Jack Merridew
57:
49:
47:
46:
43:
42:Jack Merridew
36:
33:
32:
31:
29:
19:
349:
325:
254:
212:
177:
154:
132:
107:at least one
106:
55:
53:
39:
25:
352:Rainspeaker
56:any one of
161:Pixelface
137:Lquilter
90:WP:MUSIC
180:Hewinsj
28:WP:BOLD
330:Hiding
265:Hiding
261:WP:CIV
257:WP:AGF
223:Hiding
174:Rank?
16:<
356:talk
316:talk
308:WP:V
306:and
304:WP:N
300:WP:N
298:and
296:WP:V
287:8212
284:dust
281:Star
259:and
247:8212
244:dust
241:Star
237:WP:N
219:WP:N
217:and
215:WP:V
199:talk
184:talk
165:talk
141:talk
135:. --
117:8212
114:dust
111:Star
96:ASEM
76:talk
26:Per
312:Kww
195:Kww
72:Kww
358:)
318:)
209:Um
201:)
186:)
167:)
143:)
78:)
354:(
334:T
314:(
269:T
227:T
197:(
182:(
163:(
139:(
94:M
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.