Content deleted Content added
Changed to non-redirecting templates and applied the project class |
→Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television): User:Courcelles referred me to Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, so don’t worry, because I have read it now and now know about it. |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
::I am complying with that. [[User:Taric25|Taric25]] ([[User talk:Taric25|talk]]) 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC) |
::I am complying with that. [[User:Taric25|Taric25]] ([[User talk:Taric25|talk]]) 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::A valid RfC would be at the existing discussion, not in a random split off that goes against the established consensus there. Nor is there a need for a "project specific" guideline (which this is not). There are already appropriate ones. I will write what I want, thank you, and do not presume to leave me random warnings about not assuming good faith. You are far from a neutral party in this and your writing an essay that goes against the consensus is not something that can be seen in any sort of good faith light. -- [[User:AnmaFinotera|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342FF'>AnmaFinotera</span>]] ([[User talk:AnmaFinotera|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/AnmaFinotera|contribs]]) 23:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC) |
::::A valid RfC would be at the existing discussion, not in a random split off that goes against the established consensus there. Nor is there a need for a "project specific" guideline (which this is not). There are already appropriate ones. I will write what I want, thank you, and do not presume to leave me random warnings about not assuming good faith. You are far from a neutral party in this and your writing an essay that goes against the consensus is not something that can be seen in any sort of good faith light. -- [[User:AnmaFinotera|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342FF'>AnmaFinotera</span>]] ([[User talk:AnmaFinotera|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/AnmaFinotera|contribs]]) 23:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::Please do not write things such as, “You are far from a neutral party in this and your writing an essay that goes against the consensus is not something that can be seen in any sort of good faith light.” I am sorry for leaving so many templates on your talk page, until [[User:Courcelles]] referred me to [[Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars]], so don’t worry, because I have read it now and now know about it, however, you did assume bad faith, left a non-neutral message at WikiProject Television and refactored the talk page comments of another editor, me, and that is why I used those warning templates on your talk page. [[User:Taric25|Taric25]] ([[User talk:Taric25|talk]]) 00:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
===Appropriate topics for lists=== |
===Appropriate topics for lists=== |
Revision as of 00:59, 21 June 2010
Television Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
Lists Project‑class | |||||||
|
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? Taric25 (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Any list should meet the criteria of encyclopedic content sourced to reliable third party sources.Active Banana (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your question is pointlessly vague and this attempted creation of an essay to by-pass the obvious consensus at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#NOTDIR include current channel listings against your desired channel lists is inappropriate. Proper televisions lists are already properly covered at WP:MOSTV and do not need to be included in this inappropriate fork that is mostly a copy-paste of the existing guidelines. This is also a inappropriate attempt to disregard that discussion. Just because you obviously don't agree does not mean you can just try another conversation somewhere else under teh false claim of trying to write an "essay" on it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Rather than use the word “pointless”, be civil and specific in your comment. My question is in a disinterested and neutral tone, and it is intentionally vague to allow discussion. Questions that are too specific, such as questions best answered with one–word answers, do not allow much discussion. In addition Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television) is a derivative work of Wikipedia:Manual of Style that is a project-specific guideline. Therefore, I request comment to create a project-specific guideline for Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists in the same manner. Do not write, “this attempted creation of an essay to by-pass the obvious consensus”, because the only way for this to become a guideline is with consensus. If you feel this is inappropriate, recall what User:Johnuniq’s wrote summarizing the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Summary.
“ | This section is too long with many extraneous comments, so I have tried to make the above summary. Please correct any errors by editing the above. It is possible that a couple of supporters felt the proposal concerned TV schedules (so a clearer proposal may have had less support). While the above is a reasonable support consensus, I think a proper RFC should be used before updating WP:NOTDIR. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[1] | ” |
.
- I am complying with that. Taric25 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- A valid RfC would be at the existing discussion, not in a random split off that goes against the established consensus there. Nor is there a need for a "project specific" guideline (which this is not). There are already appropriate ones. I will write what I want, thank you, and do not presume to leave me random warnings about not assuming good faith. You are far from a neutral party in this and your writing an essay that goes against the consensus is not something that can be seen in any sort of good faith light. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not write things such as, “You are far from a neutral party in this and your writing an essay that goes against the consensus is not something that can be seen in any sort of good faith light.” I am sorry for leaving so many templates on your talk page, until User:Courcelles referred me to Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, so don’t worry, because I have read it now and now know about it, however, you did assume bad faith, left a non-neutral message at WikiProject Television and refactored the talk page comments of another editor, me, and that is why I used those warning templates on your talk page. Taric25 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- A valid RfC would be at the existing discussion, not in a random split off that goes against the established consensus there. Nor is there a need for a "project specific" guideline (which this is not). There are already appropriate ones. I will write what I want, thank you, and do not presume to leave me random warnings about not assuming good faith. You are far from a neutral party in this and your writing an essay that goes against the consensus is not something that can be seen in any sort of good faith light. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am complying with that. Taric25 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Appropriate topics for lists
Discuss appropriate topics for lists here. Taric25 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Broadcast media
Discuss broadcast media here. Taric25 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Already rejected by the community. Trying to revive it here and purporting to give it some importance by linking to it is deceptive. Consensus at WP:NOT is clearly against this sort of thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith, and do not use words like “deceptive”, since that claims bad faith. Instead, please be civil and specific in your comments. As far as the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#NOTDIR include current channel listings, recall what User:Johnuniq wrote by reading the text above. Taric25 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Names
Discuss names here Taric25 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Characters or episodes
Discuss characters or episodes here. Taric25 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Already covered at WP:MOSTV and is the proper, consensus based version. There is no need to include it in this pointless personal essay. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Again, as I stated above, rather than use the word “pointless”, be civil and specific in your comment. While Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television) is specific to television, it is not specific to lists, and while Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists is specific to lists, is not specific to television. If you consider that we already have a project-specific guideline and don’t need any more, consider this. Wikipedia:Notability exists, yet a project specific Wikipedia:Notability (music) also exists. exists, yet also exist. There is no assertion that a project-specific guideline should not exist, and that is why I request comment to approve this policy. Taric25 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)