→Current on-air staff list discussion: Delusionism |
|||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
:::No, the rule has always been that only staff members (on or off air) who are actually notable enough to qualify for their own separate articles should be listed in a television station's article. The problem is that if the people aren't notable enough to qualify for a separate article (and the further information about them that is thus provided), then just listing their names doesn't ''mean'' anything to anyone who lives outside the station's broadcast range — and if you live ''inside'' the station's broadcast range, then you ''already know who they are anyway''. Additionally, the station's own website is a [[WP:PRIMARYSOURCE|primary source]], and thus does ''not'' count toward demonstrating a person's [[WP:N|notability]] — and because stations' staff rosters are always changing (new people being hired, old people retiring or quitting, etc.), the lists rapidly approach unmaintainability. For those reasons, a comprehensive staff list serves no genuinely useful or properly encyclopedic purpose beyond a staff directory, which is a [[WP:NOT|"what Wikipedia is not"]] violation. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 20:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC) |
:::No, the rule has always been that only staff members (on or off air) who are actually notable enough to qualify for their own separate articles should be listed in a television station's article. The problem is that if the people aren't notable enough to qualify for a separate article (and the further information about them that is thus provided), then just listing their names doesn't ''mean'' anything to anyone who lives outside the station's broadcast range — and if you live ''inside'' the station's broadcast range, then you ''already know who they are anyway''. Additionally, the station's own website is a [[WP:PRIMARYSOURCE|primary source]], and thus does ''not'' count toward demonstrating a person's [[WP:N|notability]] — and because stations' staff rosters are always changing (new people being hired, old people retiring or quitting, etc.), the lists rapidly approach unmaintainability. For those reasons, a comprehensive staff list serves no genuinely useful or properly encyclopedic purpose beyond a staff directory, which is a [[WP:NOT|"what Wikipedia is not"]] violation. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 20:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
::Except that no, they ''weren't'' properly sourced; the station's own website is a [[WP:PRIMARYSOURCE|primary source]], which does ''not'' count toward establishing notability. [[WP:RS|Proper sources]] need to be ''independent'' of the subject. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 20:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC) |
::Except that no, they ''weren't'' properly sourced; the station's own website is a [[WP:PRIMARYSOURCE|primary source]], which does ''not'' count toward establishing notability. [[WP:RS|Proper sources]] need to be ''independent'' of the subject. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 20:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
True the news staff may not be "notable" outside of the local viewing area with limited exceptions to that rule. On the other hand, the TV station has managed to meet the notability criteria thus qualifying for a Wikipedia article. It is also true in certain articles we mention lesser notable facts within subject matters in which the subject matter itself is highly notable and nobody seems to have a problem with those articles. From a deletionist standpoint, one can argue for the deletion on the basis it is no more well known than the average Joe sitting at desk broadcasting to a just more than 100,000 population. On an inclusionist level, we will be listing every employee that has ever worked at an employer. This seems to be more complicated than that. So on a delusionist conclusion, I believe if the TV station is notable enough for inclusion as a Wikipedia article, the news staff can be presented as additional facts to the "News operation" section. It's not like we'd be listing every Joe that has ever worked there, just the current ones. In special circumstances however, we can make a mention of a legend that had worked there for many years (such as Jim King of [[WQAD-TV]] or Paul Rhodes of [[KCCI]]). —[[User:Mythdon|<font color="green">Mythdon</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mythdon|<font color="teal">(talk</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Mythdon|<font color="teal">contribs)</font>]]</sup> 21:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:07, 13 July 2013
Template:TelevisionStationsProject
Index
|
||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:45, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
AFD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Déclic-Images --Gwern (contribs) 16:41 7 March 2010 (GMT)
Announcement: category rename
On May 12, I nominated the category "Fox Television Stations Group" for a rename to simply "Fox Television Stations". The CFD entry can be viewed here. I'm letting you guys know about this since there has not been any response to the request at the time of writing. Thanks, Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 23:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Some British guy offered suggestions on the above list at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of former NTA Film Network affiliates in the United States/archive1. I have already complied to one of the suggestions on the "laundry list" (1st sentence changed). Let's discuss the following:
- Don't start lists with "This is a list...". (done)
- Avoid bold links.
- Explain abbreviations before you use them, like NTA (perhaps that needs a page move), NBC, CBS, etc etc.
- Six-para lead is over the top. Perhaps consider a "history" section or something to enhance the article. (agreed)
- " the 1961–1962 television" see WP:YEAR.
- What does "channel number" really mean? In the UK we have channel numbers that differ between Freeview, Sky, Virgin etc. (change to TV/RF
- Programs Aired -< aired.
- "now on 19" etc, WP:ASOF. (change "now" to "current" or remove channel numbers entirely)
- Not one single of the programs aired has an article? Really? Is this list even notable? (We can call for an exception)
Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 15:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Third bullet (explain abbreviations before you use them) is covered by MOS:ACRO. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)- "Some British guy" here, please address these issues at the FLC itself, not here, it makes no sense to maintain two parallel lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Done Sorry, the original post implied to discuss here. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I posted it here in order to bring attention to the FLC nom comments there. I want all TVS members involved... Please direct all comments to the FLC discussion. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 23:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Some British guy" here, please address these issues at the FLC itself, not here, it makes no sense to maintain two parallel lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Current on-air staff list discussion
It looks like we have a disagreed at Talk:KCAL-TV about whether on air station staff listings are notable. Apart from the editor not assuming good faith and insulting me, we need to come to a consensus that is more than just three people posting... And that whatever decision is made, it is implemented project wide, much like how the list of newscast titles was eradicated project wide a while back. Even though it is just one person objecting I'm not going to revert again, but would like additional opinions here. Calwatch (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- IMHO, if they are sourced, as they seem to be for KCAL, keep them. They may or may not be notable enough for standalone articles, but as widely-recognizable figures (at least w/i their communities), the on-air staff are at least as notable within the article as any other fact (e.g. "facility id", "transmitter height") about the station. IMHO. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The understanding I'd always had was that on-air staff was considered notable, while non-air staff (photographers, editors, news directors, et.al.) in general, were not. Of course notable exceptions do exist on a station-by-station basis. --mhking (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, the rule has always been that only staff members (on or off air) who are actually notable enough to qualify for their own separate articles should be listed in a television station's article. The problem is that if the people aren't notable enough to qualify for a separate article (and the further information about them that is thus provided), then just listing their names doesn't mean anything to anyone who lives outside the station's broadcast range — and if you live inside the station's broadcast range, then you already know who they are anyway. Additionally, the station's own website is a primary source, and thus does not count toward demonstrating a person's notability — and because stations' staff rosters are always changing (new people being hired, old people retiring or quitting, etc.), the lists rapidly approach unmaintainability. For those reasons, a comprehensive staff list serves no genuinely useful or properly encyclopedic purpose beyond a staff directory, which is a "what Wikipedia is not" violation. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Except that no, they weren't properly sourced; the station's own website is a primary source, which does not count toward establishing notability. Proper sources need to be independent of the subject. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The understanding I'd always had was that on-air staff was considered notable, while non-air staff (photographers, editors, news directors, et.al.) in general, were not. Of course notable exceptions do exist on a station-by-station basis. --mhking (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
True the news staff may not be "notable" outside of the local viewing area with limited exceptions to that rule. On the other hand, the TV station has managed to meet the notability criteria thus qualifying for a Wikipedia article. It is also true in certain articles we mention lesser notable facts within subject matters in which the subject matter itself is highly notable and nobody seems to have a problem with those articles. From a deletionist standpoint, one can argue for the deletion on the basis it is no more well known than the average Joe sitting at desk broadcasting to a just more than 100,000 population. On an inclusionist level, we will be listing every employee that has ever worked at an employer. This seems to be more complicated than that. So on a delusionist conclusion, I believe if the TV station is notable enough for inclusion as a Wikipedia article, the news staff can be presented as additional facts to the "News operation" section. It's not like we'd be listing every Joe that has ever worked there, just the current ones. In special circumstances however, we can make a mention of a legend that had worked there for many years (such as Jim King of WQAD-TV or Paul Rhodes of KCCI). —Mythdon (talk contribs) 21:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)