Template talk:Dated episode notability
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Wording
I think we should reword the bottom to say "The article will be placed in a category...14 days....where the notability will be assessed by a community of editors". The current way is worded so that if they establish it before 14 days then the tag can be removed, but I believe that the general consensus was that the community would assess it together, at or after the 14 days is up. To me that speaks that if you get it done early, great, but you generally (not always) won't get feedback until the 14 days are up. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, my original thinking was that this would allow us to find stuff not watched by a lot of editors, and that people could fix the article before the 14 days. But you do bring up a good point, and my faith that editors won't just remove the tag out of spite is wavering. -- Ned Scott 23:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, if we reformatted the review page so that the article name itself is an editable heading, you might be able to use a # to get a specific page on the review=yes template. Alcemáe T • C 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- True, but if we are doing it by dates, then someone could see when the "review=yes" was added and just look for that date on the page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Some trials, some errors, it's all we can do. If you want to attempt it, go ahead. Whatever works. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Re: [1]
- Indeed. Even though I added it in, it didn't sit well. Any ideas on how to make the review link more noticeable, but not an eye sore? -- Ned Scott 01:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- As I said, trial and error. I say try them both, but revert afterward. Then you can simply just put a link to the diff and we can all compare them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
-
I reworded the template to be less like a deadline for action, as the articles are going to the category no matter what and their notability will be reviewed after 14 days. So, the notability can be established on day 3, but unless they throw it on the review page to get it reviewed immediately, then it won't get touched until after 14 days. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good work. While approving it, I took the liberty of removing the note about deletion -in reality, we're never going to do that (at least without an AfD) and its the deletion idea everyone's getting shirty about at TfD. It also has the tidy effect of making the template smaller! Gwinva 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I forgot that was even there. I agree, we aren't about determining if something should be deleted, we are trying to determine if it is better suited to be covered by a larger topic. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think deletion should still be mentioned, as any article that can't establish it's notability is a target for an AFD. There is some confusion that this process might replace AFD, which it can't do, but it can still lead to an AFD. Maybe saying "might lead to an AFD nomination" to be more clear? But whatever, I would be fine with leaving it out all together just so people stop freaking out and getting defensive over the template. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also, it was originally carried over from {{notability}}, which this was based on, which said "If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.". I guess one of the problems here is that it started as a general tag unrelated to the review process, but now it's basically a tag specific to that process. So yeah, I can understand removing the note, but thought I would mention where it came from. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fair reasoning...we could say it might be nominated for deletion. It's just with the word 'deletion' there, everyone seems to focus on that: witness the TfD discussion. But if the deletion option is softened a bit it might work...after all, it's not this process which leads to deletion, but another. Gwinva 06:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- True. It doesn't really matter that much, and the template is only an intro for others about the situation at hand, not a full summary. Thinking more about it, we should definitely leave the word deletion out of this template for the time being. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fair reasoning...we could say it might be nominated for deletion. It's just with the word 'deletion' there, everyone seems to focus on that: witness the TfD discussion. But if the deletion option is softened a bit it might work...after all, it's not this process which leads to deletion, but another. Gwinva 06:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also, it was originally carried over from {{notability}}, which this was based on, which said "If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.". I guess one of the problems here is that it started as a general tag unrelated to the review process, but now it's basically a tag specific to that process. So yeah, I can understand removing the note, but thought I would mention where it came from. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think deletion should still be mentioned, as any article that can't establish it's notability is a target for an AFD. There is some confusion that this process might replace AFD, which it can't do, but it can still lead to an AFD. Maybe saying "might lead to an AFD nomination" to be more clear? But whatever, I would be fine with leaving it out all together just so people stop freaking out and getting defensive over the template. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I forgot that was even there. I agree, we aren't about determining if something should be deleted, we are trying to determine if it is better suited to be covered by a larger topic. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I say leave it out. If it leads to AfD, then it does, even though I don't see how it will. That little bit stirs up a lot of trouble, and it's something that has the same probability of happening as gravity failing to perform its duty. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- The only thing I can see from this process resulting in AfD is if a user refuses to accept the decision of the review and continuously reverts the page. Then it might be necessary to delete that article (assuming it was a truly hopeless case). Hopefully it doesn't come to that since it could open a whole can of worms. Stardust8212 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] And another comment
Add this to the enormous list of mine :) I'm not sure how this would be done, or if its even possible, but can it be made so that when the article is listed at the cat that it says what show the episode is from? Its very difficult to check every episode to see where it's from. If not, we'll just have to life with it. Alcemáe T • C 06:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I thought about that. Though, right now I know most are from Hanna Montanna (or w/e it's called). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't suppose there's a program that can cross check categories for overlap? -- Ned Scott 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I have an idea. If another parameter could be created on the template, the subst:template, where it would be {{subst:episode-notability|name of television show here}}, and then when it was added to the cat, that parameter would show up next to the article's name, so it would be
- Debt It Be (Hannah Montana)
I have minimal coding knowledge so I don't know if this could be done. However, I think it would greatly reduce the difficulty of placing articles up for review from the category. I don't think Ned Scott will be able to do this in the next few days, so can someone see if that will work? Alcemáe T • C 07:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- It would be possible for the template, but not possible for the category. Categories don't have a way of displaying this kind of extra information. What we might be able to do is use Special:Whatlinkshere in some way, making a mini category based on a target page. -- Ned Scott 03:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- More accurately, categories can only display the page name. Another idea is to use a bot generated list. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] New Proposal
Depending on what everyone thinks, and the outcome of the TfD. Nabla has provide a mockup of how we can make the general notability template become specific for television shows. I'm not sure if it's possible for the template to include all our links, when it made to address TV shows. Meaning, when you categorize the template as "episodes", you still get the same wording and page linking as the general notability template. It would be good if all the TV guideline pages and such showed up. (Not sure how to do that). It would also be good if, when you categorize it for tv shows, that it puts the articles in the category we created for reviewing. Anyway, you can give your thoughts and suggestions. Here are the two sandboxes that have Nabla's work. User:Nabla/Test (gen. notability) User:Nabla/Test1 (making it tv specific). You'll have to open the edit boxes to see the actual work done. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... very nice of Nabla to make the changes. Based on a quick scan, however, I think it would need significant changes to the wording to properly reflect the episode review process. --Ckatzchatspy 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, they are only tests, I don't think it's in the actual template. I have no idea if you can single a subject out in that template and make it not only go to the category we have (though, if you notice there is another category at the bottom that would dump all the episodes...so I think the category thing might not be as big an issue), but also have all the links and wording we need for people to understand what is going on. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how that changes anything, and from a template standpoint it needlessly complicates the the code itself. There are multiple notability tags in existence, this is no different. Plus, we need something that can do the time stamp. -- Ned Scott 21:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, even Nabla brought up that the more complicated to make one, the more complicated the entire template will be to a point that the average joe would have trouble just coming in to make an adjustment. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Even then, I've seen AfD's where people would just copy everything from the page with the intent on creating it again afterward. I've even seen Admins, who were fighting the AfD of their favorite show say that very thing. I'd only go to an AfD if there was a clear copyright violation, even so...we have a deletion process and that shouldn't be part of this process. If someone believes that an article should be deleted, then we have a link to the deletion process on the main page I believe. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Deletion review
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Template:Dated episode notability -- Ned Scott 07:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
