Wikipedia talk:Notability (television)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconTelevision Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Future series/pilots

I've just created a section to start fleshing out "future series/pilots" info in the vein of

WP:TVSHOW on pilots was put there, as well as copying a lot of the wording from WP:NFF. I do feel something in regards to animated television should be included as well, but I don't think that we can look to NFF's animated section for guidance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Why does the text call out "the failed pilot episode for Heat Vision and Jack, holds a unique and well-sourced cult following", when that article has zero reliable sources? That doesn't make any sense to me. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:TVSHOW, I simply copied it over in my first pass. More than happy to not include it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:TVSHOW? That seems indefensible to me; I'm astonished that there's something on that page that is so clearly incompetent. The fact that you copied it over without looking at it or thinking about it is also a problem. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Toughpigs: I can't speak to why it's at TVSHOW. As for here, as this is just a work in progress, and the goal of this is to replace the TVSHOW section, I felt a good step was to have that text here to integrate into the new wording that is determined. Obviously per your comment, we've found something that shouldn't be here. And for what it's worth, the diff I linked above was simply my first attempt at something, by no means anything I'm considering "final". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed Heat Vision and Jack. I'm going to make a similar change to TVSHOW given this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section on actual notability

I believe that we should add a section surrounding the fact that an article with no actual production section (development, filming, etc.), but containing one or two reviews is not actually notable.

talk) 01:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Just a technical note, topics are notable or not notable, articles show sufficient evidence of the topic's notability to demonstrate that the topic is notable or they fail to show sufficient evidence of the topic's notability. A poorly-written article can fail to show sufficient evidence of a notable topic's notability. Even the best-written article cannot show sufficient evidence of a non-notable topic's notability since there is nothing to show. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
feel free to create a section you're looking for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Some Dude From North Carolina: You can write that down if you want to, but it would be better to build consensus to support that idea. You posted three mass AfD nominations; two of them were closed as speedy keep within two days, and the third is going in that direction as well. I think it would be a good idea for you to reflect on why your approach may not be meeting with success, rather than barreling ahead at top speed. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Episodes

I've also just created a section geared to television episodes specifically to hopefully discuss. Since a lot of what I've created I feel could apply to TV films and specials too, perhaps those three get grouped together in a section? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for requiring a Production section

The draft currently has a section which starts: An episode of television is not inherently notable simply because it has aired or because it receives critical reviews. Well, why not? Certainly it passes

WP:GNG
if (in theory) it has plenty of reviews but no production information. So it would be notable, and the only basis I can see for opposing a standalone article (without contradicting more general policies) is if it is better merged/incorporated into another article. But in "List of episodes" or season or main series pages, there isn't enough room to reasonably contain summaries of several reviews for each episode (or longer plots, which we might deem worthy of more detailed summary than at "List of episodes" tables due to its coverage in reviews).

I'd like to hear opinions of people who support this section of the draft to understand that perspective better. And I'd also like to hear opinions on: would a Production section of one or two paragraphs based on director's commentary be acceptable to pass this "required Production sources" bar? — Bilorv (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the stipulations are far too prescriptive and detailed as if it is a manual of style for a featured article. Obviously a production section is preferred but is it really essential? When the article is a fleshed out start class with multiple reliable sources secondary coverage such as national reviews is the absence of a production section really the breaker.The Film Project has defined reviews by national critics as reviews with a large national audience not the reputation of the individual reviewer. There is also the problem that production details often do not come from reliable sources as defined by independence - for example an autobiography of the writer, producer or director, or a source affiliated with the production company. There are GAs that use the dvd documentaries of the film or tv show extensively for the production sections. Overall the qualifications for a episode article as proposed are too onerous in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just quote what
    -- Calidum 19:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Sketches

Currently at AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crunchy Frog. This relates to a well known sketch of Monty Python. Currently there is no Notability rules on sketches and goes to gng. Is it possible that this could be looked at? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

"A television episode does not have to have been massively influential on popular culture to be notable. If a television episode of a notable series or franchise, or the events and/or characters within, have been asserted by reliable secondary sources to have had a major impact on the later developments or installments of said series/franchise, then it potentially could have it's own article, although not on this basis alone; additional sources on it's production and reception are greatly preferred." ToQ100gou (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the language, because this guide has never required that a tv episode be "massively influential" on anything. Outside of that, you're saying that a TV episode has influenced the development of its own series? That's not how episodes work. I would need an example of any 1 episode being the linchpin to an entire TV shows existence/development.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I was reading the statement correctly, ToQ100gou was talking about there are times when a single episode of a series might warrant an article, if reliable sources rank it as one of the series best or one that, after it has finished airing, made a major character reveal, or revamp the nature of the show, etc. I agree with Bignole the wording as proposed was not the best or clear. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think my wording was pretty clear and I don't feel the need to explain it in layman's terms. If an episode of a notable is asserted by reliable sources to have been a major milestone of said notable series it should warrant an article. ToQ100gou (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a reliable sources says that an episode is the best of a series, I would assume that there are more reliable sources available for that episode to show notability to create an article. If Favre is correct in their explanation, then I don't know that I would agree on an episode simply being listed as "the best of" in a series as a determining factor for either notability or creating an article (and those are separate things). Otherwise, every TV Guide Top 100 list ends up creating episode articles that are not needed simply because. Additionally, we don't tend to simply go by bare minimum notability because there may not be enough information about a particular episode to justify an article on it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "best of" lists were a poor example of my trying to synthesis ToQ's point, because I fully agree about that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I never mentioned "best of" in my proposal at all. An episode of a television series can be considered one of the "best" and still not have enough sources to warrant an article. My proposal goes to episodes that have had enough coverage in reliable sources as being a major milestone in said notable series, not what is considered the "best". It's definitely ridiculous to claim an episode warrants an article just because it's considered the "best". My proposal is about episodes of notable series that have been asserted by reliable sources to be a major milestone in the said series. Not whether they are the best ever or not. ToQ100gou (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for an RFC?

WT:TV when this was being discussed to go forward, what should our next step be here? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The stuff I added came from a pre-RfC discussion at the TV project, we can probably go ahead now. Kingsif (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good so far, I think it is enough to start a RFC discussion. About the filming part, what if the pilot was already filmed before the series order and then, it was ordered to series few months later, but yet to film the rest of the series? Would that be enough to warrant an article? I am asking because I noticed that some pilots are filmed before an official series order. — YoungForever(talk) 04:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most pilots (traditionally) are filmed before a series order, that doesn't need to be noted; is the section on pilots unclear? Do you think there are situations that wouldn't be covered? I'm not sure what you're asking, because a principle is that whether a series has an article or not (or existed or not) doesn't bear relevance on the notability of a pilot in itself (and I think that's outlined in the draft?). Kingsif (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It did not explicitly say so. I know some editors would say it started filming because it just filmed the pilot before the series order. For example, the pilot was filmed on March 15, 2020 and the series was ordered to series on June 6, 2021. An editor may claimed it started filming because the pilot had been already filmed and it just got a series order so, it is enough to warrant an article. Some editors will think this is a loophole because the pilot episode is part of a TV series. — YoungForever(talk) 14:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about series articles? It might be out of scope, but I'm sure you could add a note in the section on pilots. Kingsif (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am talking to TV series articles. Would this do? "Filming of just the pilot is not eligible for a TV series article until the series itself has been confirmed to have started filming." If not, do you have any suggestions? — YoungForever(talk) 14:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd front-end it, e.g.: "A TV series does not automatically qualify for an article if a pilot exists; there is usually not enough significant production information to indicate notability until filming (for the series order) has begun. If a pilot was filmed, and a series ordered but not produced, it is generally expected that this information is contained on the pilot episode's article (if that meets notability requirements)." Kingsif (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with using this as this have a deeper explanation. — YoungForever(talk) 22:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think all that is needed would be to add the following to what we have: In most cases, a television series or season is not eligible for an article until it has been confirmed by reliable sources to have started filming (excluding a pilot's filming). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This work would work as well. — YoungForever(talk) 19:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or we include in the first paragraph of that section, something like "Should a pilot be picked up, an article should be created once filming on the series proper begins." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kingsif's version and your first suggestion are better than this one. — YoungForever(talk) 19:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline should touch a few more subjects, even if very briefly, before an RfC. As mentioned a few section above, "Sketches", while not as many as episodes, are not that rare (see Category:Comedy sketches) and Television programming blocks (Category:Television programming blocks). I also think that the first section of the guideline should talk about TV series instead of pilots and future seasons. Gonnym (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with adding in more or rearranging. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Favre1fan93, Any further updates? Given how the NMEDIA RfC has gone, I'd like this to get to a sitewide RfC as soon as possible so that the future of NMEDIA can be determined without affecting this project. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brielt: Given some of the discussion that has occurred in this discussion and the one below, there were still some areas other editors wanted to address, but we haven't really had much movement on such additions, so I'm not really sure what a time table would be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Favre1fan93, yeah, I know that feeling. I'm just wanting to make sure this gets done sooner rather than later. There could be bigger changes for NMEDIA in store (since it seems headed for a downgrade to essay status), but I don't want to touch it until NTV is up and running. The TV programming section continues to be recognized like an SNG by the community and doesn't have the notability issues questions that have dogged the rest of it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

I'm only glancing at this right. But I have a couple of questions:

  1. So we have completely removed the "a series is presumed notable if it has aired nationally" line? – I might be tempted to go a step further and actually state "a series is not presumed notable just because has aired nationally" (and then adding something to that referencing that
    WP:GNG
    must always be met).
  2. There seems to be nothing in here about television films? That is a mistake. There should at least be a short section on this. In fact, most television films, especially those broadcast since about 2000 likely don't meet
    WP:GNG
    . This probably needs to be included, because I keep coming across TV movie article stubs that should never have been created in the first place. Something in the Notability guideline about this can help get these deleted.

I'll likely have more comments later. But, so far, this looks better than what we've got right now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: At least in the initial creation of this, it stemmed from what info was currently at the media notability guideline and creating sections on episodes and future projects. For your first question, where was that line originally? As for TV films, I fully agree we should make a section. Just as I said, it never previously came up in the past discusses much, so a section had not been created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the first line of the current
WP:NTVNATL shortcut should also be made to that section... As for TV movies, I'll try to think about this more this weekend, when I have more time, and see if I can come up with something. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, feel free to adjust any of the material further. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a related topic I think animation should be mentioned further than just in passing: "Having a significant number of reviews or other independently published commentary contributes to considering a television episode notable. It is preferred to have reliable sources discussing production aspects of the episode in question, such as its development and writing; the casting of specific actors; design elements; filming or animation; post-production work; or music, rather than simply recounting the plot." Maybe there should be a section just for animated series? What do you think? I mean, I think it would pretty helpful since pages for animated series are created and updated all the time. Historyday01 (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Does
WP:ANIMATION have anything on the matter? I also hardly work on articles related to animation, so personally can't really contribute much to any such section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
While the current draft seems to treat animated series as exactly the same as live-action ones, hence comparing animation and filming, given that there is ongoing concern about the SpongeBob episodes, perhaps it should have its own section. Is there a higher bar to meet, since animation, especially children's animation, may be syndicated a lot and episodes presumed notable because of popularity when really they're 10 minutes and never critically analyzed. Kingsif (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't have much knowledge to this, as stated, my thinking would be most likely a kids animated program does not get much coverage (outside of special episodes) versus "adult" animation episodes aka your Simpsons, Family Guys, Rick and Mortys etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That has been my experience as well. If the show is on an established streaming service or channel, it usually gets a fair amount of coverage, in terms of release dates and such, but not on specific episodes which could be seen as notable and critically analyzed as such, although there are exceptions to that. Historyday01 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't TV films be covered under Wikipedia:Notability (films)? The fact that it is a "made for tv movie" doesn't change the fact that it is a movie and not a TV series (which is what this guide covers).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (films) doesn't have anything currently on TV movies, but we could make a sentence here like "Television movies should follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (films)." just to point editors in that direction. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably all that's needed. They also don't talk about direct to DVD movies specifically, but I assume that any "film" is covered under that, regardless of what the medium is that it's presented.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I wasn't really thinking of TV films, but rather animated series, which I think should be mentioned at least a little more than the current draft. Historyday01 (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the party on this, but I still think we need something specific on TV movies here –
WP:GNG. So we need to be very clear that a TV movie must clear GNG before it merits a standalone article... This gets back to why I objected to the current "nationally broadcast = notable!!" implication of TVSHOW: it implies that TV movies, which almost always air nationally, are generally notable – in fact, in recent years, the opposite is true. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@IJBall: Do you think this info can be added to any of the existing sections, would need its own? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can fine-tune the "structure" of the document later. For now, I was thinking about doing a dedicated section on TV movies of a 2 or 3 sentences. We can figure out this page's exact "layout" later... I will try to do something by weekend's end, but my job is starting up soon, so we'll see if I can get to it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: I don't think I am going to edit the page itself. But in either a separate section, or somewhere else, I would propose adding something along the lines of:

Articles on television films should meet the relevant notability guidelines such as

WP:NFP
. It should be noted that many television films do not receive significant independent coverage, despite being broadcast or released nationally, especially since the proliferation of television broadcasters from the advent of cable television.

Basically, the point should be that many TV movies do not receive significant independent coverage, especially when broadcast on outlets like

WP:GNG, and in fact one editor recently went on a deletion spree against several TV movie articles, and I think a lot of those did end up getting deleted. But, however this ends up getting worded, that should be the gist. And I do think it should be included, somewhere, in this TV notability proposal. That's my $0.02... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

@IJBall: Great, I'm going to add this in, then start the RfC. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Local" TV series

Just to say that the local vs. national distinction is... I was going to say 'American', but I guess it applies to some other very large and fragmented markets also (India comes to mind, although I don't know for sure)... whereas in many (most?) countries national TV is the standard, AFAIK. And therefore, if the guideline makes national broadcasting an inclusion criterion, then every Norwegian quiz show and Taiwanese talent contest just moved that much closer to inherent notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does making national-scale a criterion make it easier for those shows than if there was no mention of regionality at all? It doesn't, it's exclusionary, not inclusionary. Kingsif (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Streaming services

Is this the place to talk about streaming services and notability? --Whiteguru (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As in something like Netflix? That's
WP:BROADCAST. If you are questioning programming of a streaming service, that would be here (though do note this is currently just a draft proposal). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

End-of-year lists as reviews?

Just something to consider: how should end-of-year "best of..." lists (i.e., this, this and this) and similar rankings count towards notability? To me, these would seem like (abridged) reviews of the episodes, but it could also be considered as an "award" that contributes less to notability. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several articles have a subsection for best of lists, under the response or accolades section. This is when there are several. If it’s just one, it might be worth a mention under response but consider it’s only on one list Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, they can be included in that type of section within the article, but that doesn't really answer if this would be considered as "significant coverage". RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prepping for RfC creation

I am hoping to start the RfC to try and get this guideline passed by the end of next week (around September 23-25), so if anyone has any outstanding content they would like to add in to the guideline that will be viewed and considered as part of the RfC, please do so by then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: I think the only outstanding item was to add something regarding TV films. What else do you think needs to be said beyond "Made-for-television films will likely not meet GNG."? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, been busy – give me until this weekend. If I don't get something in by then, you should proceed without this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment to establish this notability guideline as an SNG

NO CONSENSUS TO ADOPT — PROPOSAL FAILS
In this request for comment, editors considered whether
policies and guidelines
, as did those in opposition thereto. As a result, while there was no rough consensus to allow the text of the current proposal to become a guideline.

Editors in support of the proposed guideline lay out their argument in a number of ways. Supportive editors point to the dearth of existing guidance regarding television programming and the desire to create rules of thumb for when television programming topics are likely to pass the

WP:TVSHOW
, those in support argue, is not enough to give editors clear rules of thumb that laypeople can apply.

Editors in opposition to the proposed guideline also lay out a number of arguments in opposition. Some argue that the framing of the guideline as supplementing

instruction creep
, which these editors seek to avoid, while some argued that this standard would be taken to be too inclusive of specific sorts of television programs, such as pilot episodes.

Counting heads, this was fairly even. However,

policy
. And, through that lens, there is no rough consensus to adopt the proposed guideline. As a result, the proposal has failed at this time.

(non-admin closure)

—
talk) 23:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Wikipedia:Notability (television) be adopted as a new subject-specific notability guideline covering the field of television programming? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A television notability guideline, up until this point, has never previously existed to cover notability topics for articles part of the

WP:SNG
.

The desire to begin this draft came after discussions on

WT:TV throughout the years in regards to a lack of notability guideline for the project, and in particular, no guidance in terms of how articles for television episodes should be handled. Though as noted there have been various discussions throughout the years, the most relevant discussion to start an attempt to make a draft proposal began in November 2020, and can be found here, with a subsequent WT:TV discussion about content to include in such a draft here
.

This draft proposal follows a similar layout to Wikipedia:Notability (film), in an attempt to cover relatively similar points as that guideline does, but for television series. The current information at NMEDIA most relevant to this new guideline has been integrated into the "Television pilots, future series or seasons, and unreleased series" section as well as the "National and local TV series" section. The information in the "Television episodes" section has been curated from the two WT:TV discussions linked above and more discussion that occurred on this talk page. Should this proposal be adopted as guideline, the duplicate info at NMEDIA will be removed, as well as adjusting any relevant shortcuts.

A notice of this RfC has been left in the following locations:

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Commenters meanwhile have suggested one of two reasons; arguments such as this could definitely be useful, and arguments that this resolves issues with
WP:TVSHOW
.
In the first case, it is unclear how it would be useful and more importantly how it will advance the project. In the second, we need clarity on what issues this resolves, and why they cannot be resolved be altering (and preferably making more concise)
WP:TVSHOW
.
I have other objections based on the specific content of the proposal, but as I am yet to see a cause for the proposal I will not spend the time to detail them. BilledMammal (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To allow us to better understand the impact of this, perhaps those who drafted the proposal can present a few examples of current articles that would be deleted under the new guidelines, and a few examples of articles that are currently not eligible for creation that would be so under the new guidelines? BilledMammal (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A new SNG is not needed and will inevitably lead to further fancruft articles. It is not going to replace GNG but many AfD discussions will become bogged down in SNG versus GNG fights. Leave it as an essay. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you are saying, but I think that there will be fancruft articles no matter what guidelines we have. They are just inevitable on here. As I said above, I think it could be useful, and in fact it could be used in conjunction with broader guidelines. Current guidelines can be so broad at times that it puts editors in a lurch, whereas due to the continuing focus on TV shows, it only makes sense to have this notability guideline. Historyday01 (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Comment - just wondering what the purpose of this new guideline is, and which problem it is designed to solve? Have there been disputes over notability in the past that are difficult to solve by just evaluating sources and run-of-the-mill discussion? In general I'm wary of one-size-fits-all rules like "pilots are only acceptable if they get taken up as a series". Some pilots may be heavily covered, while in other cases entire series may not receive enough coverage for GNG, and handling this case-by-case seems desirable.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, the guideline text does have a based-on-coverage approach. One notability issue that got me involved here was the overabundance of episode articles based on routine coverage, but then more issues came from e.g. WPFilm, where they have been deferring TV films to WPTV, and so all television films have basically been allowed articles without any oversight or discussion, as well as emerging issues with streaming (no previous WP purview) and webseries (some project had a go with YouTube for a while I think, but also gave up). The more this guideline was developed, the more it became clear that having a single location for such guidelines (or even just questions, at this talkpage) is an inherently useful thing, compared to asking at one of a half dozen places. That is a purpose in itself. Kingsif (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (
    MOS:TV or simply past experiences as in "this is how X happened previously", which probably shouldn't be the case. In regards to your last comments about pilots, as I said, that wording is largely the same as what currently exists, but we do indicate that there are times when pilots not aired or picked up may warrant an article, such as Aquaman (TV pilot), which is linked in the draft. I hope this helped clarify some. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
In addition, the proposed guideline only covers television programming but does not explicitly limit itself to that area. "Television" includes technology, finances, television stations, and numerous corporations. There should be a statement limiting the guideline to programming. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    MOS:TVSPLIT should be taken into consideration (which we mention at the bottom of the section here) if an individual season article is justified (since as you said many times the "main" series article can cover all seasons), but this section is to aid in a time when a split is justified, to say the article should be started once filming/animation has started. I felt as structured this was clear, but can reexamine to see if it can be adjusted. I'm going to also add in "programming" to the lead to clarify its scope. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Television productions have an inherently hierarchical structure to their output. (A show is made up of seasons that are made up of episodes.) It feels like one of the ways a SNG for television would be most useful/necessary, is by providing guidance on how that hierarchy should be mapped to relevant article(s) covering those topics, and under what circumstances. The same thing doesn't generally apply to films, so
WP:NMUSIC
might actually be a better reference point in this case. (It does have information on the similar hierarchy for musical releases. The guideline for single notability, for instance, leads off by explicitly stating that notability for a single is not inherited from an artist's or album's notability. That's a concrete and clear statement that editors can readily apply, making it a useful guideline.)
Every season of Lost has a season article, and there's a separate article for every individual episode in each of those seasons. Shouldn't a SNG for television be doing less to encourage that, and more to discourage it? (Maybe just a big This is not FANDOM.com section at the beginning?) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of commentary on Lost, why on earth would we not have an article on every episode of every season? We do for Game of Thrones, Simpsons, and countless other popular, recent series. Many individual episode articles are GA, and dozens are FA. This does not suggest that individual episodes should be routinely denied articles. If the press covers it, it's notable, under both GNG and this proposal. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since this RfC seems to have run its course, I'll put in a closure request at
WP:ANRFC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Next steps

Given the consensus to not make this a guideline, what are the next steps for this, because regardless of the outcome, active members of

WP:TV still need a more thorough notability "guideline" to look to for wider project use. Based on what the consensus and RFC outcome were, can {{Supplement}} be used for this or is {{Essay}} the one? And can which ever of those templates is correct be implemented now? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I think {{Notability essay}} would be appropriate. There's also {{Failed proposal}}, though that would tend to indicate the page is being abandoned. I don't think {{Supplement}} is appropriate at this point - per the documentation of that template, it should be used "only when there is a well-established consensus at the relevant policy or guideline page to use this template on an essay that links from the relevant policy or guideline". Colin M (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Colin M. Given the RfC decision, is it ok for me at this time (or shortly) to implement this template, "activate" the shortcuts, and adjust any instances claiming this to be a guideline? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of "high priority episode articles"

WP:TV includes a page called Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes for creation where "high priority episode articles" are listed. These episodes seem to be considered notable and deserving of articles solely based on winning major awards (Emmys, DGA Awards, and WGA Awards). How should this fit into the idea from this essay that "being nominated for or winning awards, even Emmys and BAFTAs, does not automatically denote episode notability"? RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I think we have to look at the phrase Below are the some of the more notable episodes that remain uncreated. and consider in that instance what "notable" means. Are these being listed simply because they won prominent awards, or did X, Y, or Z happen within the episode or surrounding the production of it, in addition to the awards won, that made it a "notable" episode within the series? The TV Guide listings is probably a more worthwhile list to look at first, because I feel those episodes would satisfy the latter, rather than the former of what I asked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my point is that at some point, award-winning episodes were inherently considered notable. Has this consensus changed at some point? (That could definitely be the case, given how old that page seems to be.) Or maybe we should consider something like
WP:BOOKCRIT #2, which presumes notability if "the book has won a major literary award" – perhaps episodes with multiple wins between the Emmys, WGAs, and DGAs are sufficiently notable for inclusion. After all, if it has several major award wins, there is probably a decent amount of coverage about it stemming from its success. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I think based on the text that has been implemented here at
WP:NTVEP, yes, some consensus has shifted, but I think only slightly. The crux of the section is to have production-specific information as well to back up any sort of nominations. And as you said, if an episode is receiving multiple wins between the Emmys, WGAs, and DGAs [...] there is probably a decent amount of coverage about it stemming from its success. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Sounds good. Honestly, my comments were mostly intended to bring awareness to the fact that the "Episodes for creation" page exists; I don't think it should affect this essay too much, but I figured it was worth addressing. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of episode details

Is anyone else concerned that Jclemens has removed some key safeguards in this essay intended to discourage the creation of unnecessary episode articles? I feel like there have been enough discussions about this over various pages for it to be a pretty controversial change. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted one change that I felt significantly changed the thrust of the section for the worse (i.e. "watered it down" far too much). I am neutral on their other changes. I believe the editor then made a subsequent change to that same portion which wasn't as bad, so again I am neutral. All that said, I feel like there was nothing wrong with the previous wording, and certainly would not object to restoring the original wording while there is more discussion about this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamstom.97: There is currently a discussion regarding this happening at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of television episodes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You, or any editor, are welcome to revert changes you believe that pose immediate concerns. I appreciate that you've chosen not to do that, but rather initiate a discussion here; it really demonstrates you extending good faith to my edits.
To the specific question, my intent is to not remove safeguards, but to remove inappropriate barriers. That is, I approached the edits from the perspective that any SNG, or essay that wants to be an SNG when it grows up, should only create new barriers to article creation above and beyond the GNG with explicit community consensus. Obviously, I am not the unique adjudicator of consensus, but seeing as how all of my featured content work, and much of my GA work, has been with television articles, I think I have a pretty good handle on how our pillars and policies apply in such a context. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just concerned that these changes were made without discussion as I know this is a pretty contentious issue. I will take a look at the discussion that Favre linked above. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NEPISODE

What is the criteria for an episode meeting notability per NEPISODE? Is just multiple reviews sufficient? I had BLARed TV episodes from the series Person of Interest, but was reverted because "having multiple reviews satisfies WP:NEPISODE". Would like some clarity on what exactly NEPISODE entails. Natg 19 (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danbloch:, who reverted my changes. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Alyo who has been re-reverting based on "unreliable" sources. Natg 19 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perennial issue. Some editors think any reviews count towards notability. Others editors like myself feel like we should follow
WP:RS, it doesn't deserve a standalone article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, you start with the
WP:GNG before you go anywhere. The question isn't, are there reviews, the question is is there significant coverage to have a stand alone page. If all you have a some reviews and maybe some viewership numbers, then you likely don't have the coverage to justify an entire page. There should be some production information beyond just casting news. Far too many episodes get pages and they are basically just created so that people can put in larger plot summaries for the episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
This. Couldn't have said it better than that Bignole. One also has start comparing episode notability (generally speaking) more with
WP:NFILM. Not every song on an artist's album is notable (because it isn't released as a single or doesn't get the significant coverage outside of mentions in reviews) and that's the same for TV series, especially network ones that ran up to 22 episodes in a season pre the streaming era we're in now. Sometimes episodes 4, 6, 17, etc. of those seasons just are moving the story along and aren't those "truly notable" ones. As well, many sites if I recall outside of those like AV Club that may review all episodes would cover premiere's, mid-season finales, may mid-season premiere's, and then finales, so again, those middle episodes can be hard to find source coverage, and even more so if they aren't a genre show. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't work in this space nearly enough to have a fully informed opinion, but I would certainly be against blogs of the manner I described here counting towards any sort of notability guideline. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For a bit more context,
this is one of the articles that I blanked-and-redirected, but was reverted. Natg 19 (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
TV.com is certainly not acceptable for reviews. I'm not sure TV Fanatic is either. And there's the tired old standby – AV Club. Again, if AV Club is the "highest level" of review you have at an episode article, I will straight-up argue that it is not notable enough for a standalone article... BTW,
WP:NOPAGE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with all of this. The bit about GNG, is that every article has to start there. After you meet the GNG, then you go to sub notability guidelines for more detailed requirements.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Duet notability

I would like to know if anyone here can help me find better sources for

WP:NTV and every time I try to initiate a discussion, it fizzles out immediately. Please see Talk:Can You Duet for further analysis of sources. Thank you. Pinging @IJBall:, @Bignole: Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Short series 174.30.21.141 (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(television)&oldid=1163476820"