Wikipedia talk:Notability (television)

From 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[edit]

I've just created a section to start fleshing out "future series/pilots" info in the vein of WP:NFF. Info from 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]
@Toughpigs: That is what's used at 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]
@Favre1fan93: ... So why is at 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[edit]

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. Some Dude From North Carolina (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]
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Since this is tagged as a draft, 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 WP:SNG says about subject notability guidelines. "These are considered shortcuts to meeting the general notability guideline. A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article." It seems pretty clear that an attempt to make an SNG stricter than the GNG should not pass muster. That being said, this page as it exists now [1] in light of Toughpigs (talk · contribs) edits looks good. -- Calidum 19:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that a Production section should really be optional. Not every notable television episode's production has been documented extensively. If a television episode article has cited paragraphs about any significant reviews or impact it had, I think that's good enough. ToQ100gou (talk) 07:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sketches[edit]

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[edit]

"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?[edit]

Kingsif Great job adding in the info you did! I think what you did looks really great. To you (and others), is it possible we are ready for an RfC on the guideline? Or is there a benefit to notifying the television project to get thoughts first from them on where we stand before doing a site wide RfC? Masem per your comments at the various threads at 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[edit]

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:TVSHOW. It looks like the equivalent is now in the first sentence in the 'Local TV series' section, as I edited it yesterday. I actually have some concerns with that section – it talks as much about national TV shows as it does "local" TV shows, so I think the headers should be changed to something like 'National and local TV programs' (we need to be careful about using the words "TV series" when what is mean is the more general "TV program") and I think 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:NFILM does not directly apply. The fact is, most TV movies broadcast in the last 20 years are going to fail 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 Hallmark Channel or Lifetime Channel, and I would guess that most TV movies broadcast since about 2000 (at least in the United States) do not merit standalone articles, as they will receive only "passing mention" coverage, at best. The idea here is to get away from the idea that "TV movie = Wikipedia article" because we've all seen plenty of examples of TV movie articles that do not clear 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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

NO CONSENSUS TO ADOPT — PROPOSAL FAILS
In this request for comment, editors considered whether Wikipedia:Notability (television) should be adopted as a new WP:SNG that would cover the scope of television programming. The proposal aimed to codify guidance for users that would serve to assist editors in determining whether topics in this area were likely to pass the general notability guideline. The discussion was well-attended; editors arguing for the adoption of the guideline provided clear rationales for doing so with a basis in existing 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 general notability guideline. They argue that this guideline is carefully though out, with community input taken into account in its drafting process, and that television needs different guidance than WP:NFILM. An essay, such as 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 WP:GNG, rather than proposing separate notability criteria, undercuts its goals by not being clear. Others say that if this is merely guidance for what generally meets GNG, that GNG should be enough to go off of; their view is that a new WP:SNG should only be adopted when GNG is insufficient in a given area. Some labeled the proposal as 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, Consensus is NOT determined by a vote, but is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia 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)

— Mikehawk10 (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:TV WikiProject. The only info the project has looked to was at Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Programming, with approximately 1-2 paragraphs on television pilots (this info is also not necessarily appropriate to be covered within the scope of WP:NMEDIA). As such, much like Wikipedia:Notability (film) for WP:FILM, a relevant sister project to WP:TV, it is requested that this draft notability guideline be adopted as a guideline and a 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[edit]

  • Support as nominator. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I haven't contributed much, if any, to the actual writing of this guideline but I've been following its development for a while and have kept my eye on the talk page discussions. As someone who frequently contributes to the television side of Wikipedia I think that this could definitely be useful going forward. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This seems to suppose that every series and every season is notable (even ones that never aired but where filming started at one time). In general, I see no reason to have a new SNG here, as these in general cause more issues than they solve: specific to this one, it is confusing (the section on series and seasons seems to consider them all notable, but further down this is contradicted in the "national and local" section). Finally, this will never be a policy, if accepted it will be a guideline. Fram (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Contrary to the above statement, I have seen during the development of the text here - across various different talkpages that rarely overlap - many new issues uncovered and given resolution. Editors who focuse on different areas of film, TV, and animation, have all been able to inform each other on many of their perennial notability issues, and that knowledge has been combined here to create a very useful resource for those looking to create an article (and of course, those who have found an article that seems dubiously notable). Saves people from asking questions all the time, especially when they may be asking a question without a (current) fixed answer, and/or at a talkpage where the people who are familiar with their issue don't edit. Kingsif (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have been following the conversations and generally agree that a guideline for TV is required, as it is a huge subject area that many editors want to write on, and people read. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I agree that a guideline specifically for television notability is needed as just WP:TVSHOW leaves a lot gray areas/loopholes. — YoungForever(talk) 17:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Most sections do not add anything to WP:GNG, and merely rephrase it using less clear and more confusing language. A substantial portion of the essay relies on generalizations and assumptions that are not going to be helpful when discussing specific articles. Some section depart from WP:GNG without providing a valid reason (specifically, §§ 2 and 3 of #Television pilots, future series or seasons, and unreleased series). The page does not comment on or even mention an extremely relevant guideline for TV-related articles, which is WP:PAGEDECIDE. Finally, it does not provide guidance one one of the main problems that arises in practice, i.e. whether individual seasons of a notable TV show deserve separate articles. The page is certainly useful, but it should not become a guideline. JBchrch talk 18:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I don't see this adding anything that the WP:GNG doesn't already cover. On a quick read: this guideline appears to apply the GNG to pilots, unreleased media, and episodes? The films section appears to pass the buck to films, and the local section doesn't appear to say anything at all. I see some marginal value in the section about episodes, where it discusses the kinds of sources and coverage that are insufficient to support an article. But there's already a guideline on Wikipedia:Television episodes. And I wouldn't want to see more policy creep, which risks slowly coming unglued from existing guidelines that are already working. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Just an additional comment that might be constructive. This could become an essay how to apply the GNG to Television episodes (which describes my current read of it). This could become an even shorter essay that all-but redirects to the GNG. Or this could be expanded if there are certain standards for how to organize information that just haven't been documented yet. You do see some people try to WP:CONTENTFORK television plot information into multiple articles about essentially the same thing, just with different formatting adn WP:WEIGHT, and that's one of the only ways I could see a WP:SNG adding something that the WP:GNG doesn't already cover. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – unlike the ill-fated WP:NMEDIA proposal, this proposal has been carefully thought out, with plenty of input elicited, and is carefully crafted to follow WP:GNG and other guidelines related like WP:NFILM. So-called "WP:CREEP" opposes on this are missing the forest for the trees: 1) WP:TVSHOW already exists – this just "formalizes" it with a better written more relevant guideline, and 2) WP:TV is one of the biggest topics/Wikiprojects in the whole encyclopedia, so it certainly merits guidelines, including notability ones, that provide guidance on proper article creation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This has been a long time coming for WP:TV, and it definitely is needed. One of our largest projects with some of our most-viewed pages will finally have an SNG that codifies and propagates established project guidance/norms, not just a section in a contested guideline/essay. Furthermore, finally having an SNG for television programming, which represents roughly 75,000 (or more) pages on the encyclopedia, removes one of the millstones around the neck of the NMEDIA chimera and allows for that essay to focus on what it should be about, media outlets. (If this SNG is adopted, changes will be made to NMEDIA to spin off the relevant content completely.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support What has been outlined in this guideline would help make sure that only notable TV series are added, and would help, optimistically, with indie animated series, although a lot of those likely aren't notable. So, having a guideline, speaking as a person who edits a LOT of pages of TV series (especially animated series) would be immensely helpful. The current guidelines for GNG are too broad and not specific enough to be used for TV shows. I see what Fram, JBchrch, and Shooterwalker (I think?) are saying, but I have to agree with Favre1fan93, TheDoctorWho, Kingsif, Davidstewartharvey, YoungForever, IJBall, and Sammi Brie on this one, completely. As such, I have to give this guideline my full support. Historyday01 (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: While I have not reviewed the previous discussions, I have read the proposal, the RfC text, and the arguments for this proposal, and as far as I can tell there has been no reasonable justification provided for why this SNG should be introduced. The RfC suggests the reason is to fill an existing hole in our SNG guidance, but that is not a sufficient cause to implement a policy; we are not a burocracy, and we don't have to have specific policy for every aspect of the project.
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]
  • Oppose Some parts of the proposal do not seem objectionable, but I'm concerned that the guideline weakens the GNG standard especially for television pilots. Just starting filming is not enough for notability if there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Not all television series are notable. (t · c) buidhe 20:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: I don't see where you are getting that the proposal relaxes standards for pilots. It seems to be doing the opposite by my reading in fact. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding TV movies the situation is a bit different in the United Kingdom. TV Movies, often called one-off dramas, that are produced by BBC, ITV, and Channel 4 for prime time slots tend to be high quality productions that are widely reviewed in the broadsheets and are therefore notable. Lifetime and Hallmark tv movies, however, are mainly not notable as with the US due to minimal coverage. The definition of TV movies has become blurred due to original films by Netflix, Amazon, Apple, HBO which are sometimes defined as cinema films and somestimes as TV films. Personally, regarding TV movies, I believe it's best to let the WP:GNG sort the wheat from the chaff, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. I may be a little bias here because I have worked on something similar at WP:Notability (politics), but... I do think we need more subject notability guidelines in certain areas of the project. This is an obviously very well thought out guideline that clearly complies with WP:N and serves the genuine purpose for what an SNG is supposed to do: make it easy for users to figure out what is notable and what is not for a given topic. I do agree with Asukite below that it would be helpful to have a bulleted list, but that can always be added later. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have a possibly minority or eccentric view that I dislike GNG, which results in many disputes over what is significant coverage and then results in closes going to DRV. It is better to have more SNGs. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For one thing, I have a problem with the second para of the "Television pilots..." section: 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). Various production issues can interfere with a project and affect its status. The assumption should also not be made that, because a television series or season is likely to be a high-profile release, it will be immune to setbacks[...] This reads to me as a total violation of WP:NOTTEMPORARY/WP:CRYSTAL. There is no world in which a brief notice of "X has begun filming" should suddenly make X go from being non-notable to notable. If it wasn't notable before, then why would the announcement that it's filming make it now notable? The only reason that makes sense would be that it creates a presumption of future RS coverage which will satisfy GNG. But that kind of reasoning goes against WP:CRYSTAL. Conversely, if X was notable at some point, and then production gets cancelled and it never makes it to air, then it's still notable, and always will be. That's the essence of WP:NOTTEMPORARY. (And yes, I know this is similar to WP:NFF for films. I think that's also a bad guideline for the same reason.) I also don't think Amkaru's question below has been satisfactorily answered: i.e. what problem is this solving? To take a specific example: It is generally expected that for an episode to be notable enough for its own article, the series it belongs to (and often, the season of that series) will already have an article Again, what problem is this solving? Do we have a recurring problem of people inappropriately creating articles about episodes of series that aren't themselves notable? That doesn't seem like something that would come up very often. I do think there's some good stuff in here. For example, I like the second paragraph of the "Television episodes" section, about how reviews should be assessed wrt GNG. But it also seems like there's a lot of bloat - I'd like to see it significantly pared down before I'd support enshrining it as an SNG. Colin M (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I've been following this proposal for a while – I've even added a few comments above. There are several parts of this proposal with which I strongly agree, such as the parts discussing new TV series and pilots, as well as TV films. My major issue with the initial proposal was that it suggested that articles with only reviews and not a production section might not be notable. In particular, some users thought that sites such as The A.V. Club and IGN that publish large numbers of reviews should not count for much. (FWIW, the number of reviews from those sites still pales in comparison to the number of new episodes released every day, but I digress.) That section seems to have been reworked to imply that production sections are preferred but not required (which I agree with – I think an episode article without a production section would never reach FA or even possibly GA, but we can still allow such articles to exist). I am willing to support this guideline, but it should be clear that episode reviews from reliable sources are perfectly adequate for establishing notability (similar to WP:BOOKCRIT #1). This seems to be implied by the line the episode itself, apart from its series, should have more than a passing mention in reliable source coverage, but more explicit clarification would make the guideline stronger. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: WP:NMEDIA and WP:NFILM are not really useful for notability decisions with regard to television articles with regard to NPP. We really need specific guidelines as films made for television and reality tv shows and live streaming are going to increase. While live streaming services are mentioned in NMEDIA, there is not a lot of help there as Amazon, Netflix, Disney and HBO (and all the others from India et alia) is simply going to increase. We will end up with a situation like NYOUTUBE, count the number of viewers. A clear, well laid out SNG is supported. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There's too much missing for this to be a useful supplement. In addition to various comments already made, the most common issues related to non-English television shows aren't addressed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @力: Just out of curiosity, what issues does the issue fail to address regarding non-English TV shows? More specific feedback would be useful if the guideline's main authors want to refine sections. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The general direction we are moving in is to simplify and consolidate our notability guidance, not expand them. Reading through the proposed SNG and the discussion here, I was looking for justification about why the GNG is insufficient. That justification existed for WP:NMEDIA, since we have a particular interest in ensuring we have wide coverage of journalism topics due to their use as sources. Here, the main argument just seems to be that this is a popular topic with a lot of pages. That's not enough, since we can always use supplements or essays to provide guidance about what's likely to merit or not merit an article. If there is to be an SNG, it needs to be concisely written, clearly articulating where it differs from GNG. This doesn't do that, so I have to oppose. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP. In general, we should be reducing the number of specific guidance policies we have. Those that we keep should be for topics that are "important" but where showing GNG can be tricky since it might require access to specialized sources - something like WP:PROF, say. There is an absolute abundance of Internet-accessible entertainment media, so I don't see the need for a separate guideline; let articles stand or fall on GNG grounds (with some allownance for "part of a series", i.e. if 80% of episodes of a TV series pass GNG, then sure, assume the remaining 20% eventually will too). That said something like this page that summarizes the current consensus on what types of TV-related topics tend to meet GNG would be fine, of course, just it doesn't need to be elevated to policy status. SnowFire (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This does nothing at all that the general notability guideline doesn't already cover. Is there any example of here that wouldn't pass the GNG that would still get an article? Dream Focus 18:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As I understand it, this proposal states that television-related topics must meet the GNG and then provides some vaguely worded indicia of when television-related topics are likely to meet the GNG. I don't see why that needs to be a guideline, as opposed to an essay in the style of WP:OUTCOMES. SNGs are only useful when they either modify the requirements of the GNG (e.g. WP:NPROF, WP:NCORP) or when they give specific, easy-to-apply criteria that assist non-experts in understanding what topics are notable (e.g. WP:NSPORT, WP:NASTRO, WP:NMUSIC). This does neither, and as such I agree with SnowFire and Sdkb that this would function better as an essay than as a guideline. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The very last thing Wikipedia needs is more SNGs.—S Marshall T/C 17:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • 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]
  • (edit conflict) @Amakuru: The problem, is that WP:TV has no notability guideline to look to for their articles, only the very small amount of text at WP:NMEDIA where WP:NTV currently links. That text has been moved over here, more or less "as is" to what it is there. Secondly, as that NMEDIA text really only covers TV pilots and upcoming series, the project has no guidance on the many other articles in its scope - namely existing series, seasons, episode articles, and other types of TV content like specials or TV films. As such, deletion discussions have come up in the past where editors have discussed if articles should be kept or not, without a proper guideline to look too. Many times, those discussions cite relevant sections in 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]
  • Comment per Fram's response above, I've adjusted the wording to remove the incorrect "policy" and replace with "guideline", as well as at the locations where this RfC was listed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't believe every television season is inherently notable. Consideration should be given to whether a single article to cover all the seasons would be too long to be practical.
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]
  • @Jc3s5h: In regards to seasons, 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]
  • @Favre1fan93: what is your brief and neutral statement? At approximately 3,200 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may provide a suggestion, how about

    Should Wikipedia:Notability (television) be adopted as a new subject-specific notability guideline covering the field of television programming?

    Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: I'm fine with Sammi Brie's suggestion if you wish to use that. Where do I need to implement this to make it publish correctly? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Favre1fan93 You just need to put it and a timestamp above the remainder of the text for the RfC bot to adjust the listings, I believe. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done that. Please let me know if there are issues, or feel free to adjust accordingly with that statement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you This is correct, apart from the timestamp - which I've fixed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have an opinion on this right now, but I have notified the new page reviewer discussion board as this directly affects their work. signed, Rosguill talk 20:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take the time to fully read and process the proposal later tonight, but I wanted to note that the guideline is missing one of the key elements that many of our SNG's have – a bulleted list of elements / indicators which may help determine notability. See the similar section in NFILM for example – if possible, it might be more helpful to summarize the key indicators in the guideline into bullet points to make it more digestible, much like we do with other SNG's. ASUKITE 14:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do feel it's a shortcoming of the current proposed guideline, as others have mentioned, that it implicitly treats every individual TV series and TV season as being destined for its own article as soon as notability can be established. Even if the show is notable and production is already underway, do we need to jump straight to a Some Series (season N) article for every notable TV series? Or should the default be Some Series, with season articles being split out only under exceptional circumstances? (And individual episode articles only under extraordinary and rare circumstances.)
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:NFILM isn't the best template for this info. 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[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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:NFILM's lead – "...has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. (emphasis mine) As long as we have editors treating any "episode summary/review" from websites like AV Club as a "valid source" toward notability, we're going to have this problem. This is also why many of us pushed for a "reviews + Production section" formulation for episode article creation, because otherwise inclusionist editors are going to take a couple of (any!) internet reviews, and use that to justify creating an episode article. But, frankly, if an episode's production wasn't also covered in 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:NSONG than 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:GNG isn't the only metric – subjects can "pass" WP:GNG but still not be good standalone article topics as per 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[edit]

I would like to know if anyone here can help me find better sources for Can You Duet. It doesn't seem to be notable per 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"