Knowledge talk:What Knowledge is not: Difference between revisions

3662:. It seems few contributors here recognise the (large) distinctions between the different types of article being discussed - hence comments like "the networks report this anyway" or "they're transient and will quickly get out of date", which are pretty good reasons not to list current schedules but are bizarre if applied to the historic block schedules. On the other hand "it's all fancruft" or "why reproduce what's in reliable sources updated by professional editors anyway, let's just link to them" are poor arguments all round - in the latter case, why would we bother writing Knowledge at all? My take on this: nobody would claim this week's TV guide is a form of encyclopedia, and I don't think it belongs in this particular encyclopedia either. Nor does last week's TV guide (or one from three months, or twelve years ago) become encyclopedic by virtue of age. However, Firsfron has given a very clear explanation of why the historic block schedules pass the general notability requirements - multiple reliable sources have been published which document and discuss them. The only remaining issue for me is whether the 3672:

especially since they contain information systematically-arranged, context-rich and clearly valuable to readers researching old TV series. I was initially going to suggest transwiki to Wikisource for these articles on the grounds that few of them seem to contain editorial content (just a referenced, fixed table that has no need to be updated) but Firsfron has indicated that there is non-tabular information that could be added too (viz the schedule analysis contained in his specialized encyclopedias). That would clearly not be suitable for Wikisource, and moreover would make the articles more closely resemble other Knowledge articles with substantial textual content. So we should view the articles that contain only tables of information of historic schedules as stubs and when considering whether they should be deleted, it's best to imagine what the articles should look like post-expansion - unlike the modern TV guide schedules that change week-by-week, I think it is clear that the historic block schedules would be kept.

3271:. I feel that Gavin is so caught up in Knowledge policies and guidelines ("There can be no exceptions to these rules") that he's missing the forest for the trees. While I know he's a good-faith editor, he doesn't seem to understand the premise that if something has already been included in other encyclopedias, calling it "unencyclopedic" and "not suitable for inclusion in Knowledge" is silly, and only makes Knowledge look less encyclopedic. Sadly, once Gavin has made up his mind about something being unsuitable for inclusion, it won't be changed: I know this is true based on the Theba, Arizona incident: even after the article went from one in-line citation to eight, he was still arguing for deletion. Above, Gavin is requesting that more "notability" be provided for the schedules (presumably citing more stuff). But I won't waste my time, knowing already from the Theba incident that my work won't make any difference. 2531:, for example. Local stations and minor (under ~100 affiliates) television networks probably don't warrant schedules: because of how the TV markets are set up in the U.S., networks with fewer than 100 affiliates in the U.S. can't or don't pull in Nielsen numbers higher than 1% of the viewing audience, and generally aren't the subject of extensive coverage in reliable sources. Sources exist, though, for ABC, NBC, CBS, DuMont, NTA, Fox, UPN, the WB, the CW, MNTV, PAX/i/ION, and a few others. Local station/cable channels don't average very many viewers. The gap is closing between broadcast and cable, but not that much that cable channels can attract giant audiences that would greatly affect the TV industry: NBC doesn't counter-program based on what Syfy is airing. 3748:(Boddy, pages 225-228), and the subsequent scramble by the networks to avoid similar criticism the following year. Syndicated programmers' struggles against the Big Three's schedules is documented in many sources, but especially in Boddy's book (page 180, for example, where the three networks' use of scheduled "option time" helped kill any chance of a syndicated network seriously challenging the Big Three, and led to the decline of non-network programming to the point where the number of syndicated programs in 1956 (29) had declined to just 1 in 1964. I could go on, but I don't deal with much TV history past 1962. Now, I'm sure the 2935:. All primetime network series between 1946 and 1980 were sourced to Castleman and Podrazik (1982), Brooks and Marsh (1985), and McNeil (1996). Brooks and Marsh have a 62-page section covering network schedules. McNeil's is only 50 pages. In Castleman and Podrazik's book each chapter begins with a network schedule, followed by pages of text discussing said schedule (and in the early years, ABC's and DuMont's problems with their schedules), what hits resulted from each schedule, and what programs were doomed because of being scheduled against tougher competition (the obvious examples are the programs scheduled against 273:*Late to the party, but I think I agree with Firsfron's view that articles which meet ] and ] are always acceptable, unless we have renounced such policies? So yes, keep the historic and national guides. The finer gradations are probably something better resolved case by case for the time being. Articles without sourcing are better served by adding sources to, that sort of thing. I agree with Noroton that there is no reason to change WP:NOT to ban these kinds of articles. And I don;t see any sort of consensus to do so on this page, either. ] <small>] </small> 19:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 3791:(and can thus be pretty careless about scheduling; we've all seen the all-day marathons of reruns that many cable channels air, even in Prime Time; broadcast networks never do this) and cable channels don't rely entirely on the ratings/advertising cycles to support their operations. Cable channels generally attract very small audiences, and the major broadcast networks historically didn't counter-program based on what cable was airing, (and in the 1980s-'90s many cable channels were mostly airing old network programs anyway) making (eg.) "what did CBS air against Lifetime?" a senseless question. 3086:(and based on RFC earlier this year, will likely remain one for a long time) meaning there are common sense exceptions to it. Now, presuming Firsfron is accurate in his description of the books, then there is notability here, but that's not the point. Not every single page on WP needs to pass WP:N - WP:NOT, yes, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV yes, but WP:N is a guideline for a very good reason, as everything that we are by the five pillars, including works like almanacs, may mean that we include significant data that is completely appropriate per all other content policies but may fail WP:N. -- 3997:. For me the test would be, "if the Knowledge version of the schedule were not updated for 6 months, would it be of any worth?" A schedule for a small station, or one that changed rapidly, would fail that test. But a schedule that was described in a slightly more generic way (eg, 4am: "Varies. Teletubbies, British sitcom repeats."), for a massive station might still be useful. I agree that providing another place to look up what's on TV tonight fails to be encyclopaedic. Being able to compare what two networks were running at 7pm on tuesday nights in 2007 is useful and encyclopaedic. 262:*'''Keep historic, nationwide (or almost nationwide) TV schedules''' They can be sourced, they are clearly "encyclopedic" as I show in the subsection below, and they can be assumed to meet WP:N based on the sourcing we've seen on this page and on some of the "References" sections of these articles. In-depth coverage for what is essentially a WP:LIST exists in ''TV Guide'' and other publications that have articles on network TV schedules (such as ''The New York Times''). There is no reason to change WP:NOT to ban these kinds of articles. -- ] (]) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 255:*'''Keep historic, nationwide (or almost nationwide) TV schedules''' They can be sourced, they are clearly "encyclopedic" as I show in the subsection below, and they can be assumed to meet WP:N based on the sourcing we've seen on this page and on some of the "References" sections of these articles. In-depth coverage for what is essentially a WP:LIST exists in ''TV Guide'' and other publications that have articles on network TV schedules (such as ''The New York Times''). There is no reason to change WP:NOT to ban these kinds of articles. -- ] (]) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 2852:. The people arguing for the deletion of these schedules clearly aren't checking out the references; such lack of basic scholarship continues to be a problem on Knowledge, where someone who doesn't know anything about the subject can make the decision that something is "not notable" or "not encyclopedic" even if the subject is noted in multiple references already listed in the article, and the content already appears in encyclopedias. Editors who fail to note references should re-evaluate their reasons for doing so. 2099:

in terms of how we should approach them, with NOT presently advicing that the former are not appropriate while we're still ok with the latter -- though as some see it, even those should not belong despite NOT's current long-standing wording supporting it. That is, if there is to be discussions on the merits of the historical, non-station specific schedules, that needs more detailed discussion - but we've long-standing advice that current schedules on a station's page should not be included. --

1470:(which you used as an example earlier) and extracting the 2008 season to create a separate article? Personally, I don't believe such an article would be acceptable and would not survive AFD, even though it could be reliably sourced to respectable publications such as the New Zealand Listener and any number of daily newspapers. Adding a series of sections to the C4 article as "2007 schedule", "2008 schedule" and "2009 schedule" would be equally unacceptable, but not testable via AFD. What makes 2765:

classed as primary sources, in the same way a railway timetable is a primary source. This does not change even if the schedules/lineups are reproduced in secondary sources; the schedules on their own cannot take the place of commentary, analysis or criticism that provide context for the reader and evidence of notability to justify their own standalone articles. No matter how many times these schedules are reproduced, without encyclopedic content of this nature these articles fail

1124: 1136: 4103:

value in that information as a business resource, but it is an information resource to those that study past history of televsion (as evidenced by the books referenced above). I also think it's important that there is a layer of discrimination going on here as only the major network broadcasters are included, and the resolution is, at worst, at the fall/spring/summer schedules, which is a very broad stroke and appropriate for encyclopedic summation. --

3128:). So when I say that these barebone schedules are not encyclopedic, I mean that they do not provide any context for the reader, which is a symptom of their lack of notabilty. You can continue to argue that they are encyclopedic in the same way a railway timetable could be argued to be useful and verifable, but without evidence of notability, there is nothing to support your assertion. In their current form, they are clearly prohibited by 2489:. The block schedule of an entire network for an entire season is encyclopedic. Ratings of various shows are discussed in RS'es, people can check what was on years ago, and so forth. This kind of schedule includes empty spaces set aside for local programming, and open-ended time on weekends for sports and movies. However, it is not encyclopedic to update a detailed schedule every week when things are moved around for specials, etc. 71: 1049: 693: 4277:

kind of thing gets covered in reliable sources like my source or like TV Guide (and it does), then reliable sourcing and the question of whether or not the articles are "encyclopedic" should be resolved. If this independent coverage exists for many of the historic, nationwide schedules, then it's reasonable to assume it exists for all, and there should be no justification from this project page for deleting them. --

317: 3178:, is not accepted as a basis for article inclusion in Knowledge. It is a matter of personal opinion to argue that these schedules are significant and important if you don't provide a shred of evidence to support your view point. Simply arguing that these schedules are "significant", "important", "informative", "worthy" or "valuable" does not carry any weight in Knowledge. You have to provide 1227:

as these networks clearly fall into the realm of "historically significant". Now, the problem here is that I can't tell if the networks in the examples given would qualify the same way as "historically significant" that that we'd consider CBS/ABC in the States, or something like BBC in the UK. It would definitely need to be a national station (eg. something like the US's

4099:

timeslot changes, but this is not OR towards a specific POV, and falls well within acceptable synthesis (particularly as the specifics of changes are outlined below the schedules, at least for US television). They are as "inappropriate" as the listing of the results of every game a professional sports team has played, which are also perfectly fine for an almanac.

3595:. Although it is difficult to follow the thread of this talk section, I would like to suggest that, among those editors who, like me, came here in response to the RfC (as opposed to some of those who are continuing an ongoing argument in this section), there is really a pretty strong trend towards consensus that the TV schedules should largely be removed. -- 4902:

generally not acceptable, limited exemption applies to the user space of established Wikipedians who have died. At a minimum it is expected that they were regular contributors, and that more than one tenured Wikipedian will have used the deceased user's page (or an appropriate sub-page) to add comments in the event, and after verification of, their death.

1804:, third bullet point: a "WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right". A discussion based at a Wikiproject will be inherently biased. This talk page of the policy in question is a considerably more global forum. A pointer was placed at 2699:

the 1955 schedule on NBC, could be considered encyclopedic (I have a manual in my library discussing such lineups) but current schedules are not encyclopedic at all. We are not a directory and we shouldn't be the place to turn if a user wants expansive tables of information without any discussion about them or significance in published media.

1642:

warnings. If we all want to have an open, transparent discussion about deleting hundreds of editors thousands of edits, why didn't Hammersoft bother to invite these editors to discuss this on this page? True consensus will never be reached if we exclude those editors who are the most negatively effected by the dictated forced changes.

1992:

a link to reliable sources for the schedules, since one would need to be provided anyway as a reference, and let users click on it, but not migrate the schedule to Knowledge. Seriously, if I wanted to find out when something was airing, I would not trust Knowledge, but I would expect it to link to the channel's program guide.

2729:, "Knowledge is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." This is the sort of information that would be in a specialized encyclopedia, so we should keep it. It also serves a quite plausible navigational purpose, and so should be kept for that reason alone. — 246:*Wow, if Firsfron has books on material which can be sourced, then I am all for keeping that material. Whole books on subjects should be enough for verifiability and sourcing. So keep the historic and national guides at least. i need to think about finer details. :) ] (] '''·''' ]) 08:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 239:*Wow, if Firsfron has books on material which can be sourced, then I am all for keeping that material. Whole books on subjects should be enough for verifiability and sourcing. So keep the historic and national guides at least. i need to think about finer details. :) ] (] '''·''' ]) 08:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 2992:) against listings of barebone information? As state earlier, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia: the schedules need to have been noted (i.e. commented upon, not just reproduced) to be suitable for inclusion in Knowledge. -- 2022:. In this thread, I see 9 people supporting the removals, with only 2 opposing. There's three others with possibly equivocal opinions not included. This isn't a vote, but after 5 days (inclusive) it's pretty clear where we stand. He's done this 11 times. I am reverting, but would appreciate some support. -- 4809:

Of course. We have thousands of articles on future ventures, albums, movies and TV shows. We have articles on future elections, future car concepts, future aircraft. No policy on wikipedia prevents these. I am, however, hesitant to engage in discussion someone who has assumed that everyone on the

4719:

Is this really a specialized encyclopedia? It says it is (from the Introduction, page x): "This is an encyclopedia " It is called an "encyclopedia" or "encyclopedic" by others (from the blurb at the top of the front cover): "'This is the Guinness Book of World Records ... The Encyclopedia Britannica

4715:

is a one-volume, specialized encyclopedia with more than 3,000 articles in alphabetical order on individual evening, national-network TV programs, and, in the back, a section titled "Prime Time Schedules: 1946-1980" (my copy, the second revised edition, is from 1981). If this specialized encyclopedia

4094:

It appears the consensus is clear about per-station current schedules from the above - they change too much and too often to be effective in an article about the station. So I suggest focusing on the other issue (which many have ID'd above, but there's too much to separate one aspect from the other)

4058:

and endorse our current policy as expressed. I have just closed a couple of AfDs as No consensus in order to channel the discussion here, as it is more appropriate to have everything centralized. The only way I believe the information about when something was on TV is relevant is if it is included in

3119:

is required to demonstrate these articles' suitability as standalone articles. Evidence of notability comes in the form of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the schedules themselves, and these articles contain none. Clearly reproducing the schedules on their

2975:

There is a misunderstanding here. If the schedules are reproduced without any commentary, criticism, or analysis to provide context, then they are simply a regurgitation of the primary source (from the network itself). Without any commentary, these articles provide no evidence of notability. If these

2947:

lasted long, according to David Weinstein). A fourth work, Bergmann and Skutch's (2002), was also referenced for the years 1946-1955. A great number of other references could also have been used, but I chose these four because I own them. In addition to these four, I can think of the various books by

2698:

of historical lineups with sourced notability. There's a reason why TV Guide is published every week, and we do not handle rapidly changing news, nor are we a crystal ball for future events. We only handle information after it has received significant discussion. Perhaps historical schedules, such as

2524:

I've said it before. The historic block schedules, consisting of prime time 1946 to present major U.S. network television schedules, must be kept: these block schedules are in use in television encyclopedias, and appear frequently in reliable sources (these are available upon request). These national

1840:

There is nothing wrong with contacting people who have participated in these articles previously, to tell them what is going on. That isn't canvasing, nor is it wrong in any way. Secretly deleting what others have spent a lot of time working on, without seeking their input, is however quite wrong.

1641:

Calton, why should a small group of veteran editors decide the policy for all wikipedians? Hammersoft was disrupting pages by deleting dozens of existing sections. When editors reverted these sections, he would write warnings on their pages. I was simply responding to these disruptions and Hammersoft

4901:

Knowledge is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Knowledge's notability requirements. Note that this policy does not apply outside of the main article space. Whilst using user space to create a memorial is

4468:

Abductive, what were the criteria you used to assign positions to people? I'm in support of removing per-station program guides, while keeping network-level guides. I _think_ that's the same position as, for example, DGG... but you listed us with two different positions. I'll also point out that the

4296:

Several editors have argued for the overturning of a key tenet of WP:NOT. In order to achieve that goal, they must gain a clear consensus. In fact, the opposite has happened; the majority has argued for the retention of this policy. I've toted up the comments so far. If I made a mistake, please move

3790:

Ah; thanks for the EV definition. I'm not aware of any cable channel receiving a printed "network" block schedule in any television encyclopedia or reliable printed source. I could be wrong, but I've never seen it. Cable channels don't need to please 200 local affiliate stations like the networks do

3772:

I'm thinking EV is short for "encyclopedic value". Which I believe you address sufficiently above, but more to the point, the historic block schedules are verifiable, not original research, are neutral, and are not indiscriminate (if we did it for every cable channel, that would be pushing it), and

2910:

I don't understand then why you did not you cite some coverage from these publications that supports the notability of one or more schedule/lineup articles from the begining of this discussion. Can you add some citations now, so we can examine what you have in in your library? Evidence in support of

2865:

We have no way of telling if the schedules are discussed in any meaningful way at all in these publications, so your assertions are pure speculation. My guess is that the topics of these publications are either the netweorks themselves or the television programmes they produced, and that the network

2223:

Please start an RfC. Per Protonk this shouldn't be determined here. If for some reason we are going to determine this here, I think we should have major network schedules here, where "major" is unclear in many markets (to me at least). The schedule of a show has a lot to do with the success of the

1991:

This is the reason why WP:NOT says not to include schedules; the sources for the schedules will always be better than Knowledge because they are either the stations themselves, or corporations that make money providing the information, and can afford paid staff. So it would be appropriate to include

1595:

I will contact many of the editors involved in making these scheudules, there are 6 editors here, many veteran editors whose accounts overwhelming focus on attempting to delete other editors contributions, attempting to make policy for everyone else. Typical but not exactly overwhelming conseus. The

4976:

There are problems other than partisanship here. The base is that from an objective perspective the names and most other attributes of the victims are generally not too relevant to the event - however news padding and "human interest" mean that a lot is reported, and the names even become bywords.

4522:

You can move me closer to 'uphold'. I think that editors should be free to include programs guides insofar as they are contextualized by a reliable source (in the sense that Gavin argues). The core of NOTDIR is valid and shouldn't be changed. Which means that as it applies, we should follow it.

4146:

Suppose some lunatic started transcribing the ingredients list from different food packages. Would that be tolerated? Would people argue that some readers might want to know this information? Would people argue that food is notable, so that the ingredient lists must therefore be encyclopedic? I can

3720:

as an example of "The ONLY time would ever include schedule information is where the info is notable". NBC's more recent line-ups are a very good example of noted schedules which were highly successful. However, NBC had earlier schedules which were much more successful and which are just as noted,

3671:

in format - an area for which suitability for Knowledge has always been contentious, and guidelines comparatively fuzzy. For what its worth, the old block schedules do not appear to me to contain "indiscriminate" information (an issue often debated when considering whether lists should be deleted),

3009:

If there is a misunderstanding here, it is your own. I believe I already stated that the schedules in Castleman and Podrazik's 1982 book are reproduced with commentary, criticism, and analysis of the network schedule themselves; each chapter is a discussion of the network line-ups and what happened

2283:

article and are not capable of writing policy nor breaching it on articles within their areas of interest. AfD discussions are not held at the project level. Neither are policy discussions decided upon at the project level. We've had this discussion now for the better part of a week. It's blatantly

2098:

There are two different types of tv schedules being talked about here. The present case is about a specific station's TV schedule embedded in the station's article. The Archive23 talk section is about the historical TV schedules that are generally not station specific. They are apples and oranges

1465:

I am very happy to see such listings removed, although I think you (Hammersoft) should have sought this clarification first, rather than afterwards. If I understand you correctly, you believe that articles on historical schedules are acceptable, but articles on current schedules are only acceptable

1320:

We do need some level that designates a national station, otherwise, we'll have every tiny UHF station have their schedule posted. The US is easy, but probably more difficult for smaller countries, but also at smaller countries, you're less likely to have a large number of stations or stations that

1226:

I think the cavaet on WP:NOTDIR#4 is important, that when the subject is a major national broadcaster, a historical summary of the schedule is reasonable, and so, for example, the upcoming fall season schedule (at the general weekly resolution, not a per-episode frame) for CBS or ABC would be fine,

4781:

Knowledge should be a crystal ball etc. Too many people are caught up in rules which don't really create any positive benefit to what the site offers. As far as I can grasp. everyone on the site seems to be under the 'WP Spell' whereby they care more about Knowledge itself than the actual subjects

4746:

I usually try to avoid saying the word in debates, but there are times when something clearly is unencyclopedic, such as writing articles in the first person with original research. Most everybody here would agree on that and I believe that calling it unencyclopedic would be backed by consensus.

4674:

are always acceptable, unless we have renounced such policies? So yes, keep the historic and national guides. The finer gradations are probably something better resolved case by case for the time being. Articles without sourcing are better served by adding sources to, that sort of thing. I agree

3961:

My argue for keeping all the old ones was this: Showing a historic list of every show ever shown on a notable network, is perfectly fine by almanac standards for the Knowledge. Television plays a massive role in shaping people's opinions, and affecting the world. If someone wanted to see where and

3868:

If you scroll up a bit, you'll see that Firsfron has posted information about 5 books devoted to the subject. So the significant coverage requirement is more than met, for the major-network schedules. Frankly, I'm not sure there's anything left to debate: Major-network schedules are notable due to

3735:

against Uncle Miltie with decent ratings, as discussed in Weinstein, pages 156-157, or scheduling a raucous game show against a public service program on other networks. ABC's early scheduling woes, too, merit attention from historians, such as Goldenson on ABC's 1953 schedule, pages 116-124, many

2612:

Third part sources don't provide any evidence of notability unless they contain some sort of commentary on their subject matter, othewise they are classed as tertiary sources. However, most of these schedules are not even sourced, so I think Hobit is speculating, which not getting us any closer to

2598:

The national network schedules provide clear evidence of notability since many are clearly sourced to reliable third-party publications. Gavin, please go to your local library and check out some of the books listed as references on these pages. Also, there are not "hundreds of different television

2189:

FWIW, I agree with Hammersoft and Uncle G that the schedules for individual stations are not generally appropriate. The stations can do it better themselves. The work it would take us to do it correctly should be better spent on writing articles on topics we need to cover--or perhaps improving the

4276:

shows coverage from a reliable, independent source for historic national-network evening schedules in the United States. The source I cite actually has one-year-per-page schedules that look remarkably like our own. My source was published in 1981, but there have been more recent editions. If this

4102:

I think the key point here is that the specific NOT phrase this falls under includes as the catchall: "resource for conducting business". Current television schedules can be seen as that, since they inform the reader as what's on or what is coming. Once the event has happened, however, there's no

4019:

would look like if only the game log were present in the articles and not the context. It's simple directory info. in the most literal sense of the term and is unencyclopedic. Only the relatively few historical significant schedules should have entries, and those should provide context explaining

2764:

elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. What is being missed by some editors is that these schedules come from the TV networks themselves and should be

2404:

I'm late to the party, but have to agree that some form of culling is in order. Some of the station articles have gotten completely out of hand, and the individual network schedule pages are certainly out of line and fall under the notion of TV Guide-ism (to coin a phrase). I would agree that the

1785:

I don't actually think it is appropriate to determine the fate of these articles via a discussion at WP:NOT. Obviously, we lack a centralized discussion system whereby changes across many articles can be agreed upon (in principle) but NOT isn't a good substitute. My suggestion is that you start

1324:

But I do think it's smart idea to discourage the schedule coverage on the station article and push it to national historical schedule pages - yes they are current, but in 3 months, they will be historical, so there's no problem with that information staying around after the fact. However, it will

1301:

I don't think what medium it is broadcast in or how extensive the coverage of the station/network is should be a factor. If it's important enough for a network, it's important enough for a station. Plus, in smaller countries the definition of "network" and "station" is very much blurred. I concur

1279:

The key factor between being a TV guide and an encyclopedic coverage of what shows a network airs is the fact we do not break this down week-by-week, episode by episode or include one-time events. Now granted, the data on the network pages should technically be put with the data on the historical

4253:

Again, I point out the question: if these historical tv schedules are inappropriate, then what makes the full record of every pro team's every season appropriate? That's just as much a "directory" as these schedules, and are just as discriminate/indiscriminate and have the same types of backing

4249:

Lists of ingredients from food packages would be indiscriminate, since there's 1) an infinite possibility of ingrediants and 2) an infinite possibly of foodstuffs. Nor is this info verifiable without turning to the primary source (most of the time), being the wrapper or container itself. On the

3336:

I think you have missed a point, that even though the schedules are sourced from secondary sources, you are in actual fact repoducing the the primary source because no commentary, criticism or analysis accompanies accompanies the schedules. Without such commentary from reliable secondary sources

2930:

Gavin, these are already cited in the articles themselves. I presumed if you were seriously discussing deleting the articles that you would have taken a look at the articles themselves before vehemently calling for their deletion. That would only make sense. However, you missed the fact that the

1957:

has made the article more accurate instead of less? How can we confirm that the article is correct? If the answer is "Check it against this week's published listings for the channel.", how is such information, that isn't generalized beyond the specific week of the edit where it was introduced,

4098:

I for one think they are fine, per WP being aspects of an almanac - they are not indiscriminate, they are sourced, and they are associated with notable topics (television in country X). There may be a hint of OR in that they have to gloss over the details with the case of rapid cancellation and

3887:

If you a scroll up a bit, you will see that the sources merely reporoduce the schedules direct from the primary source, but they don't add any evidence of notability. Don't forget that just because a TV schedule appears in more than source, it is still the primary source, and in itself does not

4844:

sounds good to me as well. We who work here do not have the responsibility to provide all the possible public benefits needed in the world. We are here to provide one specific thing: a comprehensive 💕. That it be an encyclopedia worth using requires some degree of limit on total imaginable

3666:

of article is suitable for Knowledge. For comparison, there are multiple reliable sources on how to assemble bookshelves, but we disallow articles of the how-to guide format. I can't see anything as clear-cut to disallow block schedules, particularly given PyTom's excellent point that we allow

1709:

Well said! I agree. If you don't like it, then you don't have to go there. The large number of people who do go there for information, and have contributed to it over the years, are important. Is there any way to see just how many hits a particulate page gets? Bringing more people to the

1392:

Bravo! I have yet to see how such scheduling information continues to be "upheld" as an okay exception beyond a general fondness for it. Most are not historically significant, and current schedules certainly should be frowned upon. Knowledge is not a TV guide nor is it a mirror for TV.com. --

1370:

I disagree that the historical comparisons are a problem. It's well established that one can look at the changing reception of a show, and in fact, how new programs are introduced and removed, based on what the competition was airing at the same time, at a level of high granularity, so these

4643:

They can be sourced, they are clearly "encyclopedic" as I show in the subsection below, and they can be assumed to meet WP:N based on the sourcing we've seen on this page and on some of the "References" sections of these articles. In-depth coverage for what is essentially a WP:LIST exists in

3120:

own means these articles are verifable (this is not in question), but merely reproducing the schedules (the primary source) does not constitute evidence of notability. However, what is more obvious is the complete lack of commentary, criticism or analysis that is needed to provide context (

4727:

The book has aspirations, at least, to scholarly reliability (from the "Introduction", page x): "This volume has been carefully researched for the scholar who wants to know what happened and when. But it is also — like TV itself — for your enjoyment." The book went into multiple editions.

3578:. If the basic structure of programming (ie of historical significance) is changed from one year to the next, there need to be an agreed way of presenting it, possibly juxtaposed with historical schedule or competitors' schedules. but these should be the exception rather than the rule. 1196:

notes "The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right." and that never happened. I also found a discussion that occurred in the global forum of Village Pump (policy)

2581:

TV schedules are printed in all sorts of 3rd party publications. They easily meet WP:N. The question is if they violate NOT#DIRECTORY. I think the historical versions certainly don't, but I can also see how one could reasonably conclude they do. But notability isn't at issue here.

4725: 4723:

Is this book reliable? Well, it won the American Book Award and the San Francisco State University Broadcast Preceptor Award, for what it's worth (page vii, "Preface to the Second Edition"). According to this Google Books search, the book seems to be cited by hundreds of other books:

4751:

people believe it to be encyclopedic or not. As for the question of whether this is a specialised encyclopedia or not, I note that the word "elements" that you quoted above is vague, probably intentionally so. In the end it is us who determine what elements are fit for discussion.

1663:

The Knowledge community decided the policy, not a small group of 'elite editors' (I'm not an elite editor, and neither is anyone else here). The policy is quite clear. an "article on a ... station should not list ... current schedules". The stance against schedules has been in the

3612:. Past program schedules are of historic interest to lots of people, including those doing serious research, but I can think of no reason why WP should include current program schedules. We're not a one-stop reference for any and all info, we're an encyclopedia, and such info is 165: 1527:, but as topics for inclusion as standalone articles or lists, their notability is unproven until such time they are the subject of commentary from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the schedules. However, belief in measures subjective importance, such as 3043:

If the schedules are not notable, then they are no different from a railway timetable, and nothing you or any "expert" editor can say can change that unless it can be backed up with citations to demonstrate their notability as standalone article topics in accordance with

4797:

Well put. So long as the "rumors" or inpending upcoming releases are backed up by reliable sources, there is no real negative in not covering them. We cover content that appeals to a broad audience, not only that which seems relevant to some of our community. Best,

4619:

Wow, if Firsfron has books on material which can be sourced, then I am all for keeping that material. Whole books on subjects should be enough for verifiability and sourcing. So keep the historic and national guides at least. i need to think about finer details. :)

4503:

I don't think the current policy is particularly US-centric, just because it uses a US-related article as an example. A sourced article giving network schedules for national networks (or stations with national distribution) in other countries would be fine, too. —

4469:

policy currently explicitly calls out network-level program guides, saying that "Historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules)", so a departure from this position would be overturning NOT. —

3022:. That clause was added specifically because the people who work with these articles, the people who study early TV history, the people who research early television in reliable sources, realized there was a problem with good-faith but misinformed editors quoting 4747:

Any debate that is contentious shouldn't revolve around this term, as obviously some editors would feel that the element in question is encyclopedic. Just calling something unencyclopedic in this manner would probably lead to a shouting war with no analysis of

1760:

Obviously a good number of editors strongly disagree about a rule which, if history is any guide, was formed by a handful of veteran editors with no larger community impute. It take very little talent or diplomacy to delete other editors contributions.

3050:

If some of the publications contain commentary, then you should add it to the articles to provide some form of context for the reader, otherwise they are just not encylopedic. There can be no exceptions to these rules: just because your views on their

2143: 63: 4690: 1952:

It's more than just this policy that is relevant here. Our policies on verifiability and prohibiting original research are relevant, also. Here are some specific questions to answer, to see the underlying general point here: How do we know that

3286:

We all know that the argument that places are inherently notable without evidence is questionable to say the least. I think the same principle applies here - the existence of these articles on television schedules is questionable too, and their

3667:

content usually found in "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (and of course, the old block schedules can be found in the specialized encyclopedias that Firsfron pointed out). If anything, these articles most closely resemble

3010:

because of them. Each of Knowledge's prime time network schedules from 1946 to 1980 are referenced to Castleman and Podrazic's 1982 book, but there are other books which also provide the level of detail that you require. However, do not quote

2976:

publications voice some sort of comment on the schedules themselves (not just a regurgitation) then you have knockout evidence of their notability. But if there is no commentary, then why on earth would you think they were encyclopedic when

2559:

that they should be kept - so far we have only various editors expressing strong view. The must be hundreds of different television networks in the US alone, but which one is more important than another is a matter of personal opinion.

2525:

schedules affected (and still effect) millions of viewers each year, and have a major impact on the television industry each fall, especially around Upfront time. Entire books have been written about these schedules: see Castleman's

1417:

For major networks, I don't think its bad. What currently airs on a network can be an encyclopedic subject, though if we can do it better (with maybe a navbox style list divided by genre and stuff), that could be a good compromise.

4929:

Some editors believe that WP:NPOV is being breached in the former position as the position is a means of excluding the names of those killed by Irish republican groupings, while including the names of those killed by British armed

1841:

Let them have their say as well. And honestly, no one has ever article they have worked on or cared about on their watchlist, monitoring every little change constantly, that just not possible. Someone should contact all of them.

2354:

are hugely more wonky than the average editor. I am very far on that extreme myself. I just think those that actually edit the articles in question are as important to hear from as those that live and breath policy (e.g. me).

2284:

clear what the policy is, and it is blatantly clear that per-station television schedules are not permitted under this policy. I am not and never will be opposed to the community as a whole having input, which is why I informed

3729:, which fizzled into nothing at all, a point of commentary by TV historians even today. (Brooks and Marsh, pages xiii and 174; Weinstein, numerous pages). DuMont, though, had a few scheduling successes, for example, scheduling 1280:

schedule comparison pages, because after the current season is over, that's where that information will live. But that information itself should be somewhere on WP. But this is again for the national, over-the-air networks. --

3846:

To be honest, all these arguments are a load of intellectual garbage. Just find some significant coverage from reliable secondary sources (not just the barebone schedules) to provide evidence of notability - this is the only

2405:

page that shows the broadcast network schedule for all the broadcast networks by year is encyclopedic, and gives a historic context, but the individual information (and specific times) does not. I've had this discussion on

3773:

based on your analysis, they pass notability guidelines - even if indirectly. Current schedule per stations, yes are sketchy (that falls into both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TEMP), but historical ones are a much different beast --

1958:

actually useful information for a reader in (say) three months' time? And how, in that case, is our presenting a single week's specific schedule as if it were the regular general schedule not a mis-representation of fact?

3552:

I agree that the information should probably be removed, but having something that points out when a notable TV show or program comes on, in the article about that show, would be acceptable to my understanding of policy.

4708:

Clearly, if Knowledge incorporates an element of a specialized encyclopedia, that incorporation can't be called "unencyclopedic". Well, these historic schedules can't be called "unencyclopedic" for just that reason.

1688:

Since editors are not familar with the study which called influential veteran editors elite, and it is being read in the wrong way, I removed the term "elite" and replaced it with "veteran". Sorry for any confusion.

4250:

other hand, these lists are selectively looking at certain blocks of programming (prime time schedules) for specific networks of a certain quality (national affliates) that have been covered by non-primary sources.

3962:

when shows were at, and then do a study to determine how each one affected someone, this might be of use. It also shows how the taste of the people changed over time, what sort of thing they watched year by year.

3760:

when discussing policy. You say "Must See TV" can stay, because you know of it; however, plenty of other network schedules have received similar (or even greater) attention from the people who study such trends.

4915:, where the victims all died at the same time, should not be included in the relevant articles, but that it is appropriate to include the names of victims of atrocities where they died at different times, e.g. 2242:

Not at all the wrong venue. If an RfC started, the discussion would be right here. Further, it was announced at Village Pump (policy). The very large majority agree the schedules per station are inappropriate.

1248:

I think we immediately get into a granularity issue there. I suggest the line in the sand isn't if a station is a national network or not. I think the line in the sand is per-station/network. Articles such as

2292:) which has been read by about 50 editors since it was posted there, in addition to the ~30 editors who saw it here. Nevertheless, since you insist, I've added the rfc tag to this section per your request. -- 1535:

and are magnets for original research, and should be deleted. Some editors may have strong views about creating these type of article, but unless there is evidence to show that they are notable, they are not

1371:

historical articles provide a key resource. The networks selected are discriminate: these are the major over-the-air broadcasters (even if a station like the CW doesn't get close to some cable networks). --

3291:

is a matter of opinion, not fact. If Firsfron can't add commentary to these articles which he passionately cares about, then I don't know who can. He may as well have supported deltion from the begining.

3942:. *Current* television schedules for television networks/stations are not appropriate content. Schedules are only appropriate if there is a historical context, and not if they are specific to now. -- 4826:"whereby they care more about Knowledge itself than the actual subjects" sounds good to me - people who can't separate out their passion for a subject from their role here as an editor are a menace. -- 2279:

I have never been and will never be a fan of informing projects of discussions they may have an interest in. Such notifications inherently bias a discussion. Further, projects do not have ownership of

2426:

It's not exactly clear where the discussion stops and the RfC starts, but I came here via the RfC. I think it is very clear that the primetime schedules violate NOTDIRECTORY, and should be deleted. --

220: 148: 2409:

in the past, and have told folks that listing full blown times and dates certainly fails this test, and should be deleted. (bottom line: yes, do the culling; it's okay as far as I'm concerned) --

1352:

I think your removals of those sections were entirely appropriate and will make the stronger statement that sections like that would be equally inappropriate on the CBS or ABC pages. The whole

2750:

does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion. The schedules/lineups have no encyclopedic value unless they support commentary from reliable secondary sources in accordance with

15: 1302:

with your statement below that response to Rossami and historical articles. I do not see how keeping track of current schedules on every station/network article is in any way encyclopedic. --

4926:

Others believe that it is appropriate to include names in relation to both types of atrocity, but that if it is not deemed appropriate in one, then it should not be appropriate in the other.

1537: 1188:

Prior to beginning the removals (knowing there'd be resistance) I checked for background discussions. I found one that had been cited previously that occurred at the Wikiproject Television

2626: 4740: 2050: 1189: 3725:

successful, with a weak line-up of programs (I'm thinking specifically of Castleman and Podrazik's detailed commentary of the schedule starting on page 87), and DuMont's craptacular

1162: 2625:, and vice versa. If these schedules were notable, there would be no doubt that they would be entitled to their own own standalone articles. But as they stand, articles such as 1198: 160: 93: 1531:, no matter how strongly held, do not provide evidence that the schedules are compliant with Knowledge's content policies. I beleive most of these schedules are comprised of 31: 28: 2817: 1805: 2054: 1040: 684: 2964:

etc., for a list of works you can use to verify the content in the schedules. As I said, these are already present in the articles, and have been for a very long time.

2961: 2957: 2953: 2949: 1930:) then they need to convince the wikipedia community as a whole. I'm still in favour of removing and I haven't heard any, what I'd call "valid" reasons to keep them -- 4892: 4950: 2827: 1972:

be said of the general Monday schedule? How do you know? It's interesting to see how many edits are being devoted to defending, and amassing support for defending,

1822:

I'm well aware of that provision, thanks. Start an RfC or start a discussion at the village pump if you like. I just don't think discussing it here is productive.

3111:

and vice versa. I can see where you are coming from: you are arguing that these articles are encyclopedic because they are sourced, but are ignoring the point that

5014: 2399: 1910: 1400: 3041:

Unless there some clear evidence of notability, such as commentary from reliable secondary sources that are independent of schedules, then they should be removed.

2498: 1471: 1250: 741: 385: 4835: 2836: 2781: 2717: 1552: 3813:

can be provided to show that they merit their own standalone articles. While we are at it, lets also put aside lots of other spurious arguements for inclusion:

2895:

who is engaging in pure speculation. Check out these books yourself if you refuse to believe that I have these books. Also, can't you tell from the title what

2671: 1913: 156: 89: 3986: 3721:

but you must dust off a book or a microfiche to find these notes. DuMont's 1953 schedule has received a great deal of attention from critics for being highly

3681: 3654: 3587: 3304: 2519: 2481: 1865: 4612: 4554: 4238: 4218: 4200: 4180: 4083: 3753: 3745: 3726: 3625: 3604: 3562: 3547: 2435: 2215: 2031: 4995: 4254:

sources. As noted below, we are more than just an encyclopedia, we include specialized encyclopedias and almanacs, both which these can be derived from. --

3951: 3752:

scheduling might have helped kill it, but criticism and commentary of network television schedules goes back all the way to 1946, when two tiny TV networks

2799: 4802: 4675:

with Noroton that there is no reason to change WP:NOT to ban these kinds of articles. And I don;t see any sort of consensus to do so on this page, either.

4048: 3524: 3390: 2684: 2537: 2152: 1431: 4819: 4001: 3924: 3703: 3496: 2932: 2866:

schedules are used merely the framework to discuss them. To back up your statements, you will have to come up with citations, not rumours of citations. --

2807: 2526: 2206:

I cannot see any way in which tv or radio schedules for forthcoming programs belong in an encyclopedia - if we allow this, then we do become a directory.

1985: 1795: 1517: 1410: 72: 3905:

The clear majority says these things don't belong because they are "unencyclopedic." This is worse than them being notable or not; that doesn't matter. '

3900: 3510: 3327: 3277: 3077: 3032: 3004: 2970: 2923: 2905: 2878: 2858: 2645: 2572: 2418: 1590: 1394: 1094: 4770: 3660:

Keep historic block schedules for major networks, remove current schedules and suggest week-by-week schedules for historic periods should not be created

3065:

is written to give an exemption to articles on schedules is, quite frankly, special pleading and is not in accordance with the spirit of this policy. --

2738: 2458: 2233: 1943: 1886: 1755: 4882: 4577: 4069: 3767: 1564: 1459: 1353: 800: 444: 4141: 4029: 3878: 3863: 3466: 3455: 3353: 3194: 3169: 3148: 3098: 2591: 2201: 4635: 3554: 1831: 1817: 1365: 1220: 4969: 4856: 4716:

can include dozens of pages of block schedules (pages 852-886) just like our own, then we can't really be "unencyclopedic" by following their lead.

4661: 4536: 3533:). There are certainly some exceptions, such as those critiqued in the references given above, but generally speaking, these aren't encyclopedic. -- 3436: 3425: 3409: 2605: 2180: 2169: 2007: 4684: 3483:

Well, since it is clear that my request to move this to a better forum didn't find widespread agreement, I'll vote. I feel that we should include

2364: 2341: 2319: 2301: 2270: 2252: 1770: 1734: 1337: 1311: 1292: 1270: 1243: 331: 4594: 4513: 4498: 4478: 4162: 2093: 1681: 1480: 1185:. I did this based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY #4, "an article on a ... station should not list ... current schedules". This seems clear and unequivocal. 4791: 3797: 3785: 1087: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 984: 980: 976: 972: 968: 964: 960: 956: 952: 948: 944: 940: 936: 932: 928: 924: 920: 916: 912: 908: 904: 900: 896: 892: 888: 884: 880: 876: 872: 868: 864: 860: 856: 852: 848: 844: 840: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 648: 644: 640: 636: 632: 628: 624: 620: 616: 612: 608: 604: 600: 596: 592: 588: 584: 580: 576: 572: 568: 564: 560: 556: 552: 548: 544: 540: 536: 532: 528: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 504: 500: 496: 492: 488: 484: 1605: 1383: 1080: 836: 832: 828: 824: 820: 816: 812: 808: 804: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 460: 456: 452: 448: 2599:

networks in the U.S. alone"; the number of broadcast networks is closer to fifty, and only a dozen or so are true nationally-viewed networks.

2116:

I am crying "uncle", i give up. This is something I am not to interested about anyway. At least the information is still in the edit history.

1658: 1636: 2633:

that provide no commentary, context, criticism or analysis that are the hallmarks of encyclopedic coverage, which is why they fail WP:NOT. --

2125: 2111: 4291: 4121:

None of Knowledge's content polices support this view. Special pleading only makes you bid for an exemption more obvious: in the absence of

4089: 1698: 1574: 1101: 327: 4462: 4582:

This is complete not my feelings. I support what NOT currently reads for this: current per-station guides bad, historic guides good. --

2725:

Firsfron makes the very good point that entire books have been written about these network schedules, and that makes them notable. Per

2551:

Since the schedules provide no evidence of notability, there is no rationale to keep them other than various editors views about their

776: 420: 4286: 1258: 1207:

So, I ask the question of everyone else: Is the display of current scheduling information in station specific articles a violation of

3441:

Not to put words in Garion's mouth, but you seem to be overlooking the presence of the qualifier "historically significant" in #4. --

2948:

William Boddy, Michele Hilmes, James Roman, Leonard Goldenson, and David Weinstein which discuss early network schedules. Please see

2190:

plot sections of TV shows. (Networks and some national stations are another matter entirely and I would not support deleting them).

4483:

It looks like the US-centric part (bias) of the policy, which said "may be acceptable" has been deemed unacceptable by 20+ editors.

4115: 4731:

This information should refute a number of statements above, especially that these kinds of pages are somehow "unencyclopedic." --

2769:

because there is no rationale for inclusion, and the editors who are creating them should reevaluate their reasons for doing so. --

2084:

quoting Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not not a good justification, but you citing Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not not is?

1112: 5031: 326:

on Knowledge. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review

3061:

in the form substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the schedules themselves. The way that

2261:

An RfC would get a wider bit of input, as would announcing it to the appropriate projects (if that hasn't already been done).

5010: 4878: 4608: 4550: 4214: 4176: 3959: 2395: 2289: 1646: 2449:

Instead of having the schedules as part of the page, why not link to the stations' schedules in the External Links section? --

1503:

communication with the guy seems to be futile because he reverted the edits despite the notes left behind on his talk page. -

3113:

merely being significant, true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Knowledge

2310:

I tend to be equally dubious of "policy wonks" hiding discussions from those they actually impact. Thanks for the RfC tag!

1513: 782: 426: 4957: 1254: 1169: 1048: 692: 118: 4167:

Do you guyes doubt that TV Guide similar sources have produced articles or listings for every years schedule? I don't. -

4764: 4138: 3897: 3860: 3350: 3301: 3191: 3145: 3074: 3001: 2920: 2875: 2778: 2711: 2642: 2569: 1549: 122: 111: 3460:

Ah. Do you think Garion was talking about the historically significant national schedules or current station schedules?

3337:

there is no evidence of notability, and your arguments that they should have their standalone articles runs contrary to

3321:

point of view. I've conceded that the local station schedules should go, and I just wish you could have met me halfway.

3252: 3157:, it is only a guideline and thus applied with common sense exceptions. This clearly seems to be one of those cases. -- 2066:"Please see our discussion on my talk page. There is consensus, and local Wikiproject consensus can not override policy" 1496: 1466:

if phrased as historical ie "2009 season schedules". To clarify, would you accept someone going through the history of

1406: 1142: 1172:, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below. 4810:

other 'side' is "under a spell" or is vandalizing articles. Please assume good faith and treat people with respect.

323: 2019: 2332:

of this discussion counts as being a "policy wonk" bent on hiding discussion, then THANK YOU for the compliment. --

1596:

overwhelming consensus is the hundreds of editors over several years, who have made and maintained these schedules.

1253:

are fine, as they offer an historical perspective to compare programming slots. Station/network articles that have

2660:

Remove 'em all. No matter which way you look at it, they're nearly inherently inappropriate for an encyclopedia. –

2224:

show and even what the show does (follow on to another show etc.) It is clearly an important part of many shows.

2057: 1625: 1621: 4982: 4776: 2351: 2329: 2285: 1669: 1231:

would not count towards that even if WGN does get some national coverage), but that would be a starting point. --

726: 370: 100: 1954: 4631: 4147:

only assume that a few of the people here would so argue, blind as they are to what an encyclopedia really is.

1181: 1179: 1153: 722: 366: 4015:

schedule/marketing campaign which includes schedule info., and we do; but the current articles are like what

1617: 771: 415: 4185:

Do you doubt that ingredients lists are printed on the sides of the bags of chips? An the serving size too!

3638: 3259:

after the discussion closed as keep, and after several inline citations had been added, including one from

183: 3309:

Would you please stop repeatedly linking to that essay? I've already linked above to multiple books which

762: 406: 3515:

Support removal. Schedules are ephemeral and have no encyclopedic value, Knowledge is not a directory.

3414:

Fine, so Knowledge is not an annual national programming guide. The information doesn't belong here per

1178:

Today, I began removing a bunch of scheduling information from a large number of TV stations. Examples:

5006: 4874: 4604: 4546: 4210: 4172: 4011:

of directory information. It is reasonable to have an entry on, say, NBC's long-running and successful

3136:

of their subject matter, by which I mean they don't contain a mix of primary and secondary coverage. --

2391: 795: 439: 1964:

schedule for the channel. Is it true for next week? Is it true for this week? Was it even true for

4990: 4787: 4134: 4095:

and consider the historical TV schedules, which presently is called out as an acceptable allowance.)

4016: 3893: 3856: 3346: 3297: 3187: 3141: 3070: 2997: 2916: 2871: 2774: 2638: 2565: 1740:

The policy was already made, just unevenly enforced. It takes very little talent to imitate TVGuide.

1545: 1509: 1183: 1801: 1193: 2494: 1569:" I fail to see how, what amounts to a nicely formatted TV schedule is encyclopaedic? Knowledge is 1261:

isn't an acceptable use either. A current schedule isn't encyclopedic. It turns us into a guide. --

194: 172: 4274:

Knowledge talk:What Knowledge is not#The reason why the "unencyclopedic" argument just doesn't fly

3633:

The ONLY time I would ever include schedule information is where the info is notable, such as for

2142:

FWIW, there have been AfDs on some dedicated TV schedule articles in the past, one I remember was

1922:

I think ikip was within his rights to inform others of the situation, however, wikipedia is not a

4831: 4759: 4205:

No, but I doubt you can find articles on those labels. Big difference, red herring, all that. -

2706: 1871:

Why not just delete all of the policy-violating TVGuide stuff, and then see if they even notice?

1425: 190: 138: 107: 4720:

of Television!' -- TV Guide"; (from the back cover): "'Hilarious and Encyclopedic!' -- Newsday"

4559:

Thoughts on striking out the parenthetical special exception (which is rather nationalistic)?: "

3645:

got moved around in timeslots and that's thought to be one of the things that killed the show).

3415: 2669: 1903: 1490: 335: 3805:

The argument that a schedule is "historically significant" is just basically a restatement of

5002: 4870: 4600: 4542: 4206: 4168: 3699: 3677: 3650: 3583: 3103:

It is not possible to set aside the issue of the schedules' notability, because if they fail

2513: 2477: 2387: 1938: 1585: 66: 4907:

This is understood by some editors to mean that the names of victims of atrocities, such as

4273: 3055:

are stronger than mine, that is not a verifiable reason for keeping them; what is needed is

353: 4987: 4978: 4920: 4916: 4783: 4599:

I'm not sure who should be where, but seeing Masem in with us usual suspects is amusing. -

4574: 4060: 3731: 3621: 3600: 3558: 3544: 3452: 2943: 2454: 2431: 2337: 2297: 2248: 2211: 2027: 1813: 1677: 1504: 1307: 1266: 1216: 1063: 707: 4079:. However, I believe that most of historical schedules may be transwikied to Wikisource — 8: 4985:

we would be just as sorry if his name was Walbeck - nonetheless he is defiantly notable.

4946: 4941:

but failed to reach consensus. Can we get clarification on the meaning of Not-Memorial?

4493: 4457: 4233: 4195: 4157: 3947: 3919: 3268: 2937: 2490: 2144:

WP:Articles for deletion/1991–1992 United States network television schedule (late night)

2002: 1881: 1750: 1454: 752: 396: 3869:

being written about in multiple books, while per-station schedules should be removed. —

1806:

Knowledge:Village_pump_(policy)#Discussion_regarding_per_station_TV_schedules_and_WP:NOT

4938: 4908: 4827: 4754: 4625: 4130: 4044: 3889: 3852: 3571: 3520: 3422: 3399:

TV guide doesn't list annual national programming grids, Garion: it's a place to check

3387: 3342: 3293: 3183: 3137: 3066: 2993: 2912: 2867: 2770: 2701: 2634: 2561: 2175: 2166: 2147: 1541: 1421: 1325:

deemphasize the station-centric view that can occur on the individual station pages. --

767: 411: 345: 3430:

Have you even read the policy you've just quoted? Please read #4 all the way through.

3251:

Forget it, Masem. Gavin is never going to understand. This is the same editor who was

2790:

Not a single thing you've said in the above post is accurate, Gavin. These schedules '

2051:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 5#Current primetime television schedules

1926:. If the members of a particular wikiproject want to make a change to policy (such us 4965: 4815: 4736: 4666:

Late to the party, but I think I agree with Firsfron's view that articles which meet

4657: 4532: 4282: 3998: 3825:

these schedules only include "important" television programs, not insignificant ones;

3806: 3492: 3288: 3175: 3052: 2747: 2662: 2552: 1981: 1895: 1827: 1791: 1524: 1486: 1476: 1361: 748: 392: 3487:, not more of per-station schedules. We aren't a directory and we aren't TV guide. 1192:, that happened in 2007. My take on that was it was irrelevant, since our policy at 4695: 4680: 3963: 3757: 3756:

to a handful of TV sets (literally in Washington DC, according to Bergmann). Let's

3741: 3695: 3673: 3646: 3579: 3530: 3506: 2989: 2985: 2766: 2617:

for inclusion. Notability is an issue here, in the sense that all of the topics in

2507: 2473: 2414: 1842: 1786:

another discussion at Wikiproject TV and close this discussion w/ a pointer there.

1711: 1633: 179: 16: 3712:

Thanks for the thorough analysis, Grappler. Stax, what does "EV" mean (surely not

2809:

The TV Schedule Book: Four Decades of Network Programming from Sign-On to Sign-Off

2528:

The TV Schedule Book: Four Decades of Network Programming from Sign-On to Sign-Off

4590: 4564: 4509: 4474: 4262: 4111: 4080: 3874: 3781: 3617: 3596: 3575: 3534: 3442: 3165: 3094: 3062: 2981: 2734: 2587: 2450: 2427: 2360: 2333: 2315: 2293: 2266: 2244: 2229: 2207: 2107: 2081: 2023: 1809: 1673: 1532: 1467: 1379: 1333: 1303: 1288: 1262: 1239: 1212: 2931:

prime time U.S. network schedules have been sourced since I sourced them myself

1960:

For extra credit, attempt to check for accuracy what the article says about the

4942: 4671: 4485: 4449: 4225: 4187: 4149: 4122: 3943: 3911: 3837:

these schedules go all the way back to "Noah and the flood" and are not recent.

3810: 3318: 3256: 3179: 3116: 3057: 2848:

The schedules themselves are the subject of independent, extensive coverage in

2614: 2556: 2121: 2089: 1994: 1923: 1873: 1766: 1742: 1694: 1654: 1601: 1528: 1446: 3958:

Recently some old television schedules from decades ago came up for deletion.

1059: 703: 139:→‎The reason why the "unencyclopedic" argument just doesn't fly 5025: 4852: 4799: 4621: 4126: 4040: 4025: 3793: 3763: 3516: 3462: 3432: 3419: 3405: 3384: 3338: 3323: 3314: 3273: 3129: 3125: 3108: 3045: 3028: 3023: 3015: 3011: 2977: 2966: 2901: 2854: 2751: 2680: 2618: 2601: 2533: 2406: 2197: 1933: 1927: 1665: 1580: 1570: 1208: 4702:

elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.

3574:. These schedules change almost on a weekly basis, and I would concur it is 47: 4961: 4811: 4732: 4653: 4648:

and other publications that have articles on network TV schedules (such as

4528: 4278: 3737: 3713: 3637:, or in discussing how the timeslot pertains to a particular show (perhaps 3488: 2849: 2726: 2043: 1977: 1823: 1787: 1668:

policy for more than three years. For the record, I did invite people. See

1558: 1357: 4782:

which they choose to edit/take control of/vandalise as I've seen them do.

4652:). There is no reason to change WP:NOT to ban these kinds of articles. -- 4676: 4667: 4012: 3717: 3691: 3634: 3502: 3310: 3264: 3104: 2760: 2622: 2410: 1629: 5001:

We should do whatever the sources do. It works for other NPOV stuff. -

1064: 708: 4912: 4583: 4505: 4470: 4255: 4104: 3870: 3774: 3158: 3087: 2755: 2730: 2583: 2356: 2311: 2262: 2225: 2100: 2055:

Knowledge talk:What Knowledge is not/Archive 23#NOTDIR and TV schedules

1577:

was right to go ahead and remove that listing and any other similar --

1372: 1326: 1281: 1232: 330:

before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to

4869:

Opinions vary. NOT is what we are, but may not want to be, mostly. -

2140:

I'd agree that this information is encyclopedic and should be removed.

1201:

which showed a pretty strong consensus that the schedules had to go.

4065: 3529:

I believe most are historically insignificant and should be removed (

2117: 2085: 2076:

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules

2015: 1762: 1690: 1650: 1613: 1597: 3263:. Gavin was still claiming the article was "unencyclopedic", citing 2794:

come from the networks themselves. They come from reliable sources:

1499:) has reinstated some of the schedules Hammersoft removed. It seems 4847: 4713:

The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network TV Shows; 1946–Present

4021: 2472:

Go to TV Guide, not an encyclopedia, if you want this information.

2192: 1061: 705: 301:===The reason why the "unencyclopedic" argument just doesn't fly=== 294:===The reason why the "unencyclopedic" argument just doesn't fly=== 4527:

and largely just tables of times and shows don't need to be here.

3809:. These schedules are no different from any other schedule unless 2018:

who is citing this thread as support for including the schedules.

3834:

these schedules are for "top rated" programs, not low rated ones;

2746:

as Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information;

3822:

these schedules are for the "biggest" networks, not little ones;

2627:

1954–1955 United States network television schedule (late night)

1158:

Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list:

4561:(such as the annual United States network television schedules) 322:

The project page associated with this talk page is an official

4704:

Content should be verified with citations to reliable sources.

2822:. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8108-4270-X. 1523:

I can see why some editors would want these listings based on

1065: 709: 4691:

The reason why the "unencyclopedic" argument just doesn't fly

4641:

Keep historic, nationwide (or almost nationwide) TV schedules

4059:

the article about tv series or another programme, such as in

3831:

these schedules are for "broadcast" networks, not cable ones;

2678:

Except, as I noted above, television encyclopedias use them.

3828:

these schedules are for "national" networks, not local ones;

2962:

1976–77_United_States_network_television_schedule#References

2958:

1966–67_United_States_network_television_schedule#References

2954:

1956–57_United_States_network_television_schedule#References

2950:

1946–47_United_States_network_television_schedule#References

316: 2758:

knows that that Knowledge is an encyclopedia incorporating

2074:

stating: rv re-inclusion of schedules against consensus at

2885:

I have each and every one of these books in my collection.

4981:

may be an early case in point: although we are sorry for

1228: 2161:-encyclopedic? I'm sure everyone would be up in arms if 2046:

reverted your deletions of other editors contributions:

4541:

Shouldn't there be two lists, for the two questions? -

3020:

allows for the annual U.S. television network schedules

2803:(4th ed.). New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-024916-8 54: 3616:

available elsewhere on the Web, on TV, and in print.

2828:

The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network TV Shows

2075: 2831:(9th ed.). New York: Ballantine. ISBN 0-345-31864-1. 1573:

a record of everything under the sun. In my opinion

717: 361: 3694:, what EV is provided through listed TV schedules? 1710:Knowledge, for any reason, is always a good thing. 1472:

2009–2010 United States network television schedule

1251:

2009–2010 United States network television schedule

4893:Requested clarification of meaning of Not:Memorial 1259:List_of_programs_broadcast_by_CBS#Current_schedule 3746:1960–61 United States network television schedule 3501:Agree with removal; Knowledge is not a TV guide. 3039:I don't think there can be any misunderstanding. 5023: 4933:Other editors disagree that WP:NPOV is relevant. 4698:, first pillar, first sentence (boldface mine): 3610:Support removal and suggest strengthening policy 3174:Once again, the only alternative to notability, 3115:. You are trying to sidestep the issue that the 2837:Watching TV: Four Decades of American Television 2386:Sources discuss this stuff, and so should we. - 4223:Only because some lunatic hasn't done it yet. 2487:Keep network block schedules, remove specifics 2071:You again deleted other editors contributions, 1475: 1204:Despite this, I am starting to get reverted. 4039:and endorse our current policy as expressed. 2723:Support retention of Major-network Schedules. 2174:Yep, thanks. Spellchecker gone wild I think. 3531:Knowledge is not an electronic program guide 2818:The DuMont Television Network: What Happened 2504:Keep network and programming block schedules 4700:Knowledge is an encyclopedia incorporating 4302:Overturn WP:NOT an electronic program guide 2040:Can you please explain this inconsistency: 1616:has started canvassing on this issue (see 3026:randomly. It's still happening, however. 2911:your assertions would be most welcome. -- 1565:United States network television schedule 1354:United States network television schedule 1104:(July 2007 - ongoing; partially archived) 210: 2834:Castleman, H. & Podrazik, W. (1982) 1670:User_talk:Jon2guevarra#Program_Schedules 1538:Knowledge is not Movie, Book or TV Guide 2825:Brooks, Tim & Marsh, Earle (2007). 1156:from other editors for this discussion. 5024: 3907:TV schedules should be and all will be 3851:defence against deletion or merger. -- 3744:which was directed at the Big Three's 3690:But outside of the rare instance like 2887:It's not "pure speculation", and when 4958:the edit that introduced it to policy 3639:Firefly (TV series)#Broadcast history 1436:Enforcement of no schedules must be 1130: 1118: 311: 308:Revision as of 19:16, 22 August 2009 157:Revision as of 19:16, 22 August 2009 90:Revision as of 19:15, 22 August 2009 80: 46: 2815:Bergmann, Ted; Skutch, Ira (2002). 725:for discussing improvements to the 369:for discussing improvements to the 219: 206: 171: 154: 147: 134: 99: 87: 13: 3888:provide evidence of notability. -- 3317:, and which are presented from a 310: 35: 5043: 3811:verifiable evidence of notability 3058:verifiable evidence of notability 1896: 1163:Knowledge policies and guidelines 3117:verifable evidence of notability 1485:Just giving you a heads-up, but 1356:series should be reconsidered. 1134: 1122: 1113:Per station television schedules 1047: 742:Click here to start a new topic. 691: 386:Click here to start a new topic. 315: 4297:yourself into the proper spot. 4125:, all barebones schedules fail 4123:veriable evidence of notability 3792: 3762: 3461: 3431: 3404: 3322: 3272: 3027: 3018:to me when WP:DIR specifically 2965: 2900: 2853: 2812:, McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0070102775. 2679: 2600: 2532: 2352:Knowledge:Village pump (policy) 2330:Knowledge:Village pump (policy) 2286:Knowledge:Village pump (policy) 1904: 5032:Knowledge requests for comment 4960:, and the background to that. 4570: 4566: 4484: 4448: 4272:A subsection I started below, 4224: 4186: 4148: 3910: 3540: 3536: 3448: 3444: 3132:, because they do not contain 2555:. What seems to be missing is 2350:No, but the people who _read_ 1993: 1931: 1872: 1802:Knowledge:CONSENSUS#Exceptions 1741: 1647:WP:Don't template the regulars 1578: 1567:series should be reconsidered. 1445: 1321:aren't national to begin with. 1194:Knowledge:CONSENSUS#Exceptions 328:policy editing recommendations 1: 4765: 3383:Knowledge is not a tv guide. 2712: 1937: 1584: 739:Put new text under old text. 383:Put new text under old text. 306: 269: 4755: 4486: 4450: 4226: 4188: 4150: 3912: 3182:for a standalone article. -- 2752:Knowledge's content policies 2702: 1995: 1932: 1874: 1743: 1579: 1447: 1141:Please consider joining the 18:Browse history interactively 7: 5015:15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4996:13:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4970:04:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 4951:20:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 4883:02:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 4857:02:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 4836:22:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 4820:22:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 4803:21:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 4792:13:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 4771:19:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4760: 4741:15:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4685:19:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4662:16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4636:08:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4613:04:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4595:04:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4578:01:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4555:22:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4537:22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4514:17:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4499:22:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4479:22:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4463:21:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4287:15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4239:20:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4219:20:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4201:20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4181:20:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4163:20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4142:20:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4116:15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4084:17:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4070:13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4049:12:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4030:23:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4002:15:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3987:11:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3952:11:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3925:08:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3901:08:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3879:08:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3864:08:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3798:07:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3786:06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3768:05:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3754:began sending their signals 3704:19:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 3682:17:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 3655:15:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 3626:07:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 3605:21:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 3588:15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 3563:20:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 3548:01:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 3525:23:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3511:20:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3497:19:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 3467:06:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 3456:05:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 3437:16:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 3426:16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 3410:15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 3391:09:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 3354:07:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3328:03:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 3305:15:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3278:14:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3195:13:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3170:13:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3149:13:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3099:12:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3078:07:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3033:21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 3005:20:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2971:19:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2924:17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2906:16:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2891:say "my guess is..." it is 2879:16:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2859:15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2782:09:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2739:22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2718:16:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2707: 2685:13:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2672:04:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2646:14:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2606:14:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2592:14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2573:14:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2538:04:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2520:21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 2499:18:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 2482:17:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 2459:21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 2436:22:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2419:21:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2400:20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2365:12:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 2342:21:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2320:20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2302:19:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2271:19:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2253:18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2234:18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2216:11:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2202:22:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2181:21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2170:20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2153:20:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2126:16:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2112:15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2094:15:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2032:13:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2014:I am now being reverted by 2008:09:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1986:08:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1974:content that is a falsehood 1944:07:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1914:05:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1887:03:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1866:03:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1832:19:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1818:13:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1796:01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1771:01:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1756:00:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1735:00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1699:16:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1682:14:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1659:01:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1637:00:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 747:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 391:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 10: 5048: 3155:Notability is not a policy 2980:has various prohibitions ( 1606:19:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 1591:19:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 1553:11:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 1518:10:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 1481:23:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1460:23:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1432:22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1411:22:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1384:22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1366:22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1338:23:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1312:22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1293:22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1271:22:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1244:22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1221:22:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 343: 208: 136: 4585: 4523:Program guides which are 4257: 4106: 4017:2008_New_York_Mets_season 3776: 3736:others) Let's not forget 3160: 3089: 2102: 1893:Remove. Not encyclopedic 1374: 1328: 1283: 1257:are not fine. Similarly, 1234: 777:Be welcoming to newcomers 421:Be welcoming to newcomers 267: 230: 227: 153: 123:Pending changes reviewers 86: 4956:I suggest starting with 4061:Lost (TV series)#Ratings 2840:. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2165:material was removed ;) 1143:feedback request service 119:Extended confirmed users 4897:WP:NotMemorial states: 4777:The reality as I see it 3742:"vast wasteland" speech 3261:World Book Encyclopedia 2621:are not likely to fail 1557:I am in agreement with 85: 3794:Firsfron of Ronchester 3764:Firsfron of Ronchester 3463:Firsfron of Ronchester 3433:Firsfron of Ronchester 3416:Knowledge:NOTDIRECTORY 3406:Firsfron of Ronchester 3324:Firsfron of Ronchester 3274:Firsfron of Ronchester 3029:Firsfron of Ronchester 2967:Firsfron of Ronchester 2902:Firsfron of Ronchester 2855:Firsfron of Ronchester 2845:There are many others. 2806:Castleman, H. (1984). 2681:Firsfron of Ronchester 2602:Firsfron of Ronchester 2534:Firsfron of Ronchester 772:avoid personal attacks 416:avoid personal attacks 332:keep cool when editing 211:→‎The consensus so far 4845:comprehensiveness. 3716:)? Above you mention 3289:subjective importance 3176:subjective importance 3053:subjective importance 2797:McNeil, Alex (1996). 2748:subjective importance 2553:subjective importance 1525:subjective importance 1083:(Nov 2005 – Jan 2006) 1041:Auto-archiving period 727:What Knowledge is not 685:Auto-archiving period 371:What Knowledge is not 4979:War of Jenkins' Ear 4921:Bloody Sunday (1972) 4917:Ballymurphy massacre 4292:The consensus so far 4090:Historical schedules 4020:their significance. 3909:deleted. Let it go. 3732:Life is Worth Living 3631:100% support removal 3255:for the deletion of 3122:significant coverage 2944:Life is Worth Living 2933:nearly two years ago 2897:The TV Schedule Book 2694:of current lineups. 2506:per Squidfryerchef. 2063:You responded that: 1529:inherited notability 1168:When discussion has 4937:A discussion began 3313:the content, which 2938:Texaco Star Theater 2615:verifiable evidence 1905:cricket photo poll! 1444:. Remove them all. 1255:schedules like this 4909:Warrenpoint ambush 4650:The New York Times 3727:1955-1956 schedule 3641:for example, IIRC 3265:lack of notability 3180:verfiable evidence 2557:verfiable evidence 1505:上村七美 (Nanami-chan) 1154:requested comments 1088:Newspaper Articles 783:dispute resolution 744: 427:dispute resolution 388: 169: 97: 4683: 4329:Allow some guides 3134:balanced coverage 3107:, then they fail 2696:Support retention 2518: 1624:, and especially 1516: 1364: 1176: 1175: 1149: 1148: 1110: 1109: 1090:(May - July 2007) 1072: 1071: 763:Assume good faith 740: 716: 715: 407:Assume good faith 384: 342: 341: 305: 155: 88: 68: 5039: 5003:Peregrine Fisher 4871:Peregrine Fisher 4767: 4762: 4757: 4679: 4601:Peregrine Fisher 4587: 4572: 4568: 4543:Peregrine Fisher 4497: 4490: 4461: 4454: 4315:Peregrine Fisher 4259: 4237: 4230: 4207:Peregrine Fisher 4199: 4192: 4169:Peregrine Fisher 4161: 4154: 4108: 3982: 3979: 3976: 3973: 3970: 3967: 3923: 3916: 3796: 3778: 3766: 3542: 3538: 3465: 3450: 3446: 3435: 3408: 3326: 3276: 3162: 3091: 3082:Notability is a 3031: 2969: 2904: 2899:might be about? 2857: 2850:reliable sources 2800:Total Television 2714: 2709: 2704: 2683: 2665: 2629:are just random 2604: 2536: 2516: 2512: 2510: 2388:Peregrine Fisher 2178: 2150: 2104: 2020:See for yourself 2006: 1999: 1942: 1941: 1936: 1911:paid editing=POV 1906: 1898: 1885: 1878: 1861: 1858: 1855: 1852: 1849: 1846: 1754: 1747: 1730: 1727: 1724: 1721: 1718: 1715: 1589: 1588: 1583: 1508: 1479: 1458: 1451: 1430: 1428: 1424: 1397: 1376: 1360: 1330: 1285: 1236: 1138: 1137: 1131: 1126: 1125: 1119: 1095:"Unencyclopedic" 1074: 1073: 1066: 1052: 1051: 1042: 718: 710: 696: 695: 686: 362: 356: 319: 312: 217: 216: 214: 201: 187: 168: 163: 145: 144: 142: 129: 115: 96: 69: 60: 59: 57: 52: 50: 42: 39: 21: 19: 5047: 5046: 5042: 5041: 5040: 5038: 5037: 5036: 5022: 5021: 4895: 4784:Officially Mr X 4779: 4693: 4294: 4092: 4077:Support removal 4056:Support removal 4037:Support removal 4009:Support removal 3980: 3977: 3974: 3971: 3968: 3965: 3940:Support removal 3758:avoid recentism 3702: 3653: 3576:unencyclopaedic 3568:Endorse removal 3381:Support removal 2744:Support removal 2692:Support removal 2663: 2514: 2508: 2470:Support removal 2176: 2157:Don't you mean 2148: 2082:User:Dillmister 1859: 1856: 1853: 1850: 1847: 1844: 1728: 1725: 1722: 1719: 1716: 1713: 1468:C4 (TV channel) 1426: 1420: 1419: 1395: 1150: 1135: 1123: 1115: 1068: 1067: 1062: 1039: 789: 788: 758: 712: 711: 706: 683: 433: 432: 402: 360: 359: 352: 348: 302: 295: 286: 281: 274: 263: 256: 247: 240: 223: 218: 209: 207: 205: 204: 203: 199: 197: 177: 175: 170: 164: 159: 151: 149:← Previous edit 146: 137: 135: 133: 132: 131: 127: 125: 105: 103: 98: 92: 84: 83: 82: 81: 79: 78: 77: 76: 75: 74: 65: 61: 55: 53: 48: 45: 43: 40: 38:Content deleted 37: 34: 29:← Previous edit 26: 25: 24: 17: 12: 11: 5: 5045: 5035: 5034: 5020: 5019: 5018: 5017: 4973: 4972: 4935: 4934: 4931: 4927: 4924: 4904: 4903: 4894: 4891: 4890: 4889: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4862: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4839: 4838: 4823: 4822: 4806: 4805: 4778: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4692: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4664: 4638: 4616: 4615: 4597: 4580: 4557: 4539: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4436: 4433: 4430: 4427: 4424: 4421: 4418: 4415: 4412: 4409: 4406: 4403: 4400: 4397: 4394: 4391: 4388: 4385: 4382: 4379: 4376: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4361: 4358: 4355: 4352: 4349: 4346: 4343: 4340: 4337: 4336:Squidfryerchef 4334: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4319: 4316: 4313: 4310: 4307: 4293: 4290: 4271: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4251: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4144: 4091: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4073: 4072: 4052: 4051: 4033: 4032: 4005: 4004: 3991: 3990: 3955: 3954: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3835: 3832: 3829: 3826: 3823: 3815: 3814: 3707: 3706: 3698: 3685: 3684: 3657: 3649: 3628: 3607: 3590: 3565: 3550: 3527: 3513: 3499: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3403:for the week. 3401:local listings 3394: 3393: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3257:Theba, Arizona 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3049: 3037: 3036: 3035: 2846: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2832: 2823: 2813: 2804: 2785: 2784: 2741: 2720: 2688: 2687: 2675: 2674: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2576: 2575: 2541: 2540: 2522: 2501: 2491:Squidfryerchef 2484: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2439: 2438: 2421: 2402: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2345: 2344: 2323: 2322: 2305: 2304: 2274: 2273: 2256: 2255: 2237: 2236: 2218: 2204: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2141: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2078: 2072: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2035: 2034: 2012: 2011: 2010: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1917: 1916: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1758: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1685: 1684: 1643: 1463: 1462: 1434: 1414: 1413: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1322: 1315: 1314: 1296: 1295: 1274: 1273: 1174: 1173: 1167: 1166: 1152:An editor has 1147: 1146: 1139: 1129: 1127: 1114: 1111: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1098: 1091: 1084: 1070: 1069: 1060: 1058: 1057: 1054: 1053: 791: 790: 787: 786: 779: 774: 765: 759: 757: 756: 745: 736: 735: 732: 731: 730: 714: 713: 704: 702: 701: 698: 697: 435: 434: 431: 430: 423: 418: 409: 403: 401: 400: 389: 380: 379: 376: 375: 374: 358: 357: 349: 344: 340: 339: 320: 309: 304: 303: 300: 298: 296: 293: 291: 288: 287: 284: 282: 279: 276: 275: 272: 270: 268: 265: 264: 261: 259: 257: 254: 252: 249: 248: 245: 243: 241: 238: 236: 233: 232: 229: 225: 224: 198: 195:Administrators 189: 188: 173: 152: 126: 117: 116: 101: 70: 64: 62: 44: 36: 27: 23: 22: 14: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5044: 5033: 5030: 5029: 5027: 5016: 5012: 5008: 5004: 5000: 4999: 4997: 4993: 4992: 4989: 4984: 4980: 4975: 4974: 4971: 4967: 4963: 4959: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4952: 4948: 4944: 4940: 4932: 4928: 4925: 4922: 4918: 4914: 4910: 4906: 4905: 4900: 4899: 4898: 4884: 4880: 4876: 4872: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4865: 4864: 4863: 4858: 4854: 4850: 4849: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4837: 4833: 4829: 4828:Cameron Scott 4825: 4824: 4821: 4817: 4813: 4808: 4807: 4804: 4801: 4796: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4789: 4785: 4772: 4769: 4768: 4763: 4758: 4750: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4742: 4738: 4734: 4729: 4726: 4721: 4717: 4714: 4710: 4706: 4705: 4703: 4697: 4686: 4682: 4678: 4673: 4669: 4665: 4663: 4659: 4655: 4651: 4647: 4642: 4639: 4637: 4633: 4630: 4627: 4623: 4618: 4617: 4614: 4610: 4606: 4602: 4598: 4596: 4592: 4588: 4581: 4579: 4576: 4573: 4569: 4562: 4558: 4556: 4552: 4548: 4544: 4540: 4538: 4534: 4530: 4526: 4521: 4515: 4511: 4507: 4502: 4501: 4500: 4495: 4491: 4489: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4459: 4455: 4453: 4446: 4437: 4434: 4431: 4428: 4425: 4422: 4419: 4416: 4413: 4410: 4407: 4404: 4401: 4398: 4395: 4392: 4390:Gavin.collins 4389: 4386: 4383: 4380: 4377: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4369: 4368: 4362: 4359: 4356: 4353: 4350: 4347: 4344: 4342:Themfromspace 4341: 4338: 4335: 4333:ViperSnake151 4332: 4331: 4330: 4327: 4326: 4320: 4317: 4314: 4311: 4308: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4289: 4288: 4284: 4280: 4275: 4264: 4260: 4252: 4248: 4240: 4235: 4231: 4229: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4216: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4197: 4193: 4191: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4178: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4159: 4155: 4153: 4145: 4143: 4140: 4136: 4132: 4131:Gavin Collins 4128: 4124: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4100: 4096: 4085: 4082: 4078: 4075: 4074: 4071: 4068: 4067: 4062: 4057: 4054: 4053: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4035: 4034: 4031: 4027: 4023: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4007: 4006: 4003: 4000: 3996: 3993: 3992: 3989: 3988: 3984: 3983: 3960: 3957: 3956: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3941: 3938: 3937: 3926: 3921: 3917: 3915: 3908: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3899: 3895: 3891: 3890:Gavin Collins 3886: 3880: 3876: 3872: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3862: 3858: 3854: 3853:Gavin Collins 3850: 3845: 3836: 3833: 3830: 3827: 3824: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3804: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3795: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3765: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3734: 3733: 3728: 3724: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3683: 3679: 3675: 3670: 3665: 3661: 3658: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3629: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3608: 3606: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3591: 3589: 3585: 3581: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3566: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3551: 3549: 3546: 3543: 3539: 3532: 3528: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3481: 3468: 3464: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3454: 3451: 3447: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3434: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3424: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3407: 3402: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3392: 3389: 3386: 3382: 3379: 3378: 3355: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3343:Gavin Collins 3340: 3335: 3329: 3325: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3294:Gavin Collins 3290: 3285: 3279: 3275: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3253:still arguing 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3196: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3184:Gavin Collins 3181: 3177: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3156: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3138:Gavin Collins 3135: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3118: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3085: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3067:Gavin Collins 3064: 3060: 3059: 3054: 3047: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2994:Gavin Collins 2991: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2968: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2946: 2945: 2940: 2939: 2934: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2913:Gavin Collins 2909: 2908: 2907: 2903: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2868:Gavin Collins 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2856: 2851: 2847: 2844: 2839: 2838: 2833: 2830: 2829: 2824: 2821: 2819: 2814: 2811: 2810: 2805: 2802: 2801: 2796: 2795: 2793: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2783: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2771:Gavin Collins 2768: 2763: 2762: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2742: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2721: 2719: 2716: 2715: 2710: 2705: 2697: 2693: 2690: 2689: 2686: 2682: 2677: 2676: 2673: 2670: 2667: 2666: 2659: 2658: 2647: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2635:Gavin Collins 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2603: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2574: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2562:Gavin Collins 2558: 2554: 2550: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2539: 2535: 2530: 2529: 2523: 2521: 2517: 2511: 2505: 2502: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2485: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2468: 2467: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2422: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2403: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2382: 2381: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2353: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2328:If notifying 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2282: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2222: 2219: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2194: 2188: 2182: 2179: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2151: 2145: 2139: 2138: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2077: 2073: 2070: 2065: 2064: 2062: 2058: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2047: 2045: 2042: 2041: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2004: 2000: 1998: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1956: 1951: 1950: 1945: 1940: 1935: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1915: 1912: 1908: 1907: 1900: 1899: 1892: 1888: 1883: 1879: 1877: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1863: 1862: 1839: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1784: 1783: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1759: 1757: 1752: 1748: 1746: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1732: 1731: 1708: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1687: 1686: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1587: 1582: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1566: 1560: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1542:Gavin Collins 1539: 1536:encyclopedic. 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1495: 1492: 1488: 1483: 1482: 1478: 1473: 1469: 1461: 1456: 1452: 1450: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1433: 1429: 1423: 1422:ViperSnake151 1416: 1415: 1412: 1408: 1405: 1402: 1398: 1391: 1390: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1350: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1323: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1230: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1205: 1202: 1200: 1195: 1191: 1186: 1184: 1182: 1180: 1171: 1165: 1164: 1160: 1159: 1157: 1155: 1144: 1140: 1133: 1132: 1128: 1121: 1120: 1117: 1103: 1099: 1096: 1092: 1089: 1085: 1082: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1056: 1055: 1050: 1046: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 974: 970: 966: 962: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 934: 930: 926: 922: 918: 914: 910: 906: 902: 898: 894: 890: 886: 882: 878: 874: 870: 866: 862: 858: 854: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 810: 806: 802: 799: 797: 793: 792: 784: 780: 778: 775: 773: 769: 766: 764: 761: 760: 754: 750: 749:Learn to edit 746: 743: 738: 737: 734: 733: 728: 724: 720: 719: 700: 699: 694: 690: 682: 678: 674: 670: 666: 662: 658: 654: 650: 646: 642: 638: 634: 630: 626: 622: 618: 614: 610: 606: 602: 598: 594: 590: 586: 582: 578: 574: 570: 566: 562: 558: 554: 550: 546: 542: 538: 534: 530: 526: 522: 518: 514: 510: 506: 502: 498: 494: 490: 486: 482: 478: 474: 470: 466: 462: 458: 454: 450: 446: 443: 441: 437: 436: 428: 424: 422: 419: 417: 413: 410: 408: 405: 404: 398: 394: 393:Learn to edit 390: 387: 382: 381: 378: 377: 372: 368: 364: 363: 355: 351: 350: 347: 337: 333: 329: 325: 321: 318: 314: 313: 307: 299: 297: 292: 290: 289: 285: 283: 280: 278: 277: 271: 266: 260: 258: 253: 251: 250: 244: 242: 237: 235: 234: 226: 222: 212: 196: 192: 191:Autopatrolled 185: 181: 176: 167: 162: 158: 150: 140: 124: 120: 113: 109: 104: 102:Themfromspace 95: 91: 73: 58: 51: 41:Content added 33: 30: 20: 4986: 4936: 4896: 4846: 4780: 4753: 4748: 4730: 4722: 4718: 4712: 4711: 4707: 4701: 4699: 4694: 4649: 4645: 4640: 4628: 4565: 4560: 4525:functionally 4524: 4487: 4451: 4444: 4443: 4411:Juliancolton 4396:YellowMonkey 4381:Collectonian 4370: 4328: 4301: 4295: 4270: 4227: 4189: 4151: 4101: 4097: 4093: 4076: 4064: 4055: 4036: 4008: 3994: 3985: 3964: 3939: 3913: 3906: 3848: 3802: 3749: 3738:Newton Minow 3730: 3722: 3668: 3663: 3659: 3642: 3630: 3613: 3609: 3592: 3567: 3535: 3484: 3443: 3400: 3380: 3267:: check the 3260: 3154: 3133: 3121: 3112: 3083: 3056: 3040: 3019: 2990:WP:NOT#STATS 2986:WP:NOT#GUIDE 2942: 2936: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2835: 2826: 2816: 2808: 2798: 2791: 2759: 2743: 2722: 2700: 2695: 2691: 2664:Juliancolton 2661: 2630: 2548: 2527: 2503: 2486: 2469: 2446: 2424:RfC comment. 2423: 2383: 2280: 2220: 2191: 2163:encyclopedic 2162: 2158: 2044:User:Gadfium 1996: 1973: 1969: 1968:week? What 1965: 1961: 1959: 1902: 1897:YellowMonkey 1894: 1875: 1864: 1843: 1800:Please note 1744: 1733: 1712: 1562: 1559:User:Rossami 1500: 1493: 1487:Jon2guevarra 1484: 1464: 1448: 1441: 1437: 1403: 1396:Collectonian 1206: 1203: 1187: 1177: 1161: 1151: 1116: 1044: 794: 721:This is the 688: 438: 365:This is the 4432:Staxringold 4426:Ohconfucius 4408:Madcoverboy 4357:TheGrappler 4339:Powergate92 4312:Dream Focus 4013:Must See TV 3718:Must See TV 3696:Staxringold 3692:Must See TV 3674:TheGrappler 3647:Staxringold 3635:Must See TV 3593:Observation 3580:Ohconfucius 3572:WP:Fancruft 3315:are sourced 3153:Once again 2509:Powergate92 2474:Madcoverboy 2221:Wrong venue 1474:different?- 336:don't panic 221:Next edit → 143:my thoughts 32:Next edit → 4991:Farmbrough 4913:Omagh bomb 4447:. Thanks, 4429:Rivertorch 4423:Irbisgreif 4405:Tryptofish 4375:Hammersoft 4354:Cybercobra 3807:WP:IKNOWIT 3618:Rivertorch 3597:Tryptofish 3555:Irbisgreif 3063:WP:NOT#DIR 2982:WP:NOT#DIR 2754:. I think 2613:providing 2451:Tryptofish 2447:Suggestion 2428:Tryptofish 2334:Hammersoft 2294:Hammersoft 2245:Hammersoft 2208:Dougweller 2024:Hammersoft 1810:Hammersoft 1674:Hammersoft 1612:Note that 1575:Hammersoft 1563:The whole 1304:Hammersoft 1263:Hammersoft 1213:Hammersoft 4943:Mooretwin 4696:WP:PILLAR 4494:reasoning 4488:Abductive 4458:reasoning 4452:Abductive 4435:SmokeyJoe 4384:Abductive 4234:reasoning 4228:Abductive 4196:reasoning 4190:Abductive 4158:reasoning 4152:Abductive 4139:contribs) 3995:Keep some 3944:SmokeyJoe 3920:reasoning 3914:Abductive 3898:contribs) 3861:contribs) 3351:contribs) 3302:contribs) 3269:talk page 3192:contribs) 3146:contribs) 3084:guideline 3075:contribs) 3002:contribs) 2921:contribs) 2876:contribs) 2779:contribs) 2767:WP:NOTDIR 2643:contribs) 2570:contribs) 2080:Why does 2016:User:Ikip 2003:reasoning 1997:Abductive 1955:this edit 1882:reasoning 1876:Abductive 1751:reasoning 1745:Abductive 1645:Also see 1614:User:Ikip 1561:in that " 1550:contribs) 1533:synthesis 1455:reasoning 1449:Abductive 1442:heartless 1438:merciless 1081:Galleries 785:if needed 768:Be polite 723:talk page 429:if needed 412:Be polite 367:talk page 231:Line 271: 228:Line 271: 5026:Category 5011:contribs 4879:contribs 4800:A Nobody 4646:TV Guide 4632:contribs 4622:Casliber 4609:contribs 4551:contribs 4420:Jclemens 4414:Garion96 4402:Amalthea 4393:Cabe6403 4321:A Nobody 4318:Firsfron 4215:contribs 4177:contribs 4041:Eusebeus 3517:Jclemens 3420:Garion96 3385:Garion96 2396:contribs 2384:Keep all 2290:see diff 2177:Amalthea 2167:MuZemike 2149:Amalthea 2049:citing, 1514:contribs 1510:talkback 1497:contribs 1407:contribs 796:Archives 753:get help 440:Archives 397:get help 346:Shortcut 184:contribs 112:contribs 56:Wikitext 4983:Jenkins 4962:Uncle G 4930:forces. 4812:Protonk 4733:Noroton 4672:WP:NPOV 4654:Noroton 4529:Protonk 4445:6:10:22 4399:Uncle G 4387:gadfium 4378:Rossami 4360:Stevage 4351:Protonk 4279:Noroton 3999:Stevage 3803:Comment 3750:Firefly 3643:Firefly 3614:readily 3489:Protonk 3319:neutral 2941:; only 2883:Gavin, 2761:notable 2549:Comment 1978:Uncle G 1824:Protonk 1788:Protonk 1477:gadfium 1358:Rossami 1100:Topic: 1093:Topic: 1086:Topic: 1079:Topic: 4677:Hiding 4575:(talk) 4417:Stifle 4371:Uphold 4127:WP:NOT 3664:format 3545:(talk) 3503:Stifle 3453:(talk) 3423:(talk) 3388:(talk) 3339:WP:NOT 3311:verify 3130:WP:NOT 3126:WP:GNG 3109:WP:NOT 3046:WP:GNG 3024:WP:NOT 3016:WP:DIR 3012:WP:NOT 2988:& 2978:WP:NOT 2792:do not 2619:WP:NOT 2411:mhking 2407:WP:TVS 1962:Monday 1928:WP:NOT 1666:WP:NOT 1630:Calton 1362:(talk) 1209:WP:NOT 1102:Trivia 1097:(2003) 1045:7 days 689:7 days 354:WT:NOT 334:, and 324:policy 200:45,133 174:Hiding 128:29,409 67:Inline 49:Visual 4853:talk 4766:Space 4571:cobra 4567:Cyber 4506:PyTom 4471:PyTom 4363:Hobit 4348:Pytom 4306:Masem 3981:Focus 3871:PyTom 3714:WP:EV 3669:lists 3541:cobra 3537:Cyber 3485:fewer 3449:cobra 3445:Cyber 2756:Pytom 2731:PyTom 2727:WP:5P 2713:Space 2631:stuff 2584:Hobit 2357:Hobit 2312:Hobit 2263:Hobit 2226:Hobit 1860:Focus 1729:Focus 1427:Talk 1170:ended 801:Index 781:Seek 729:page. 445:Index 425:Seek 373:page. 202:edits 130:edits 5007:talk 4988:Rich 4977:The 4966:talk 4947:talk 4939:here 4875:talk 4832:talk 4816:talk 4788:talk 4761:From 4756:Them 4737:talk 4670:and 4668:WP:V 4658:talk 4626:talk 4605:talk 4586:ASEM 4563:" -- 4547:talk 4533:talk 4510:talk 4475:talk 4309:Ikip 4283:talk 4258:ASEM 4211:talk 4173:talk 4135:talk 4129:. -- 4107:ASEM 4066:Tone 4063:. -- 4045:talk 4026:talk 3948:talk 3894:talk 3875:talk 3857:talk 3849:real 3777:ASEM 3700:talk 3678:talk 3651:talk 3622:talk 3601:talk 3584:talk 3570:per 3559:talk 3521:talk 3507:talk 3493:talk 3347:talk 3341:. -- 3298:talk 3188:talk 3161:ASEM 3142:talk 3124:per 3105:WP:N 3090:ASEM 3071:talk 3014:and 2998:talk 2917:talk 2872:talk 2775:talk 2735:talk 2708:From 2703:Them 2639:talk 2623:WP:N 2588:talk 2566:talk 2515:Talk 2495:talk 2478:talk 2455:talk 2432:talk 2415:talk 2392:talk 2361:talk 2338:talk 2316:talk 2298:talk 2267:talk 2249:talk 2230:talk 2212:talk 2198:talk 2122:talk 2118:Ikip 2103:ASEM 2090:talk 2086:Ikip 2053:and 2028:talk 1982:talk 1966:last 1939:6403 1934:Cabe 1924:vote 1828:talk 1814:talk 1808:. -- 1792:talk 1767:talk 1763:Ikip 1695:talk 1691:Ikip 1678:talk 1672:. -- 1655:talk 1651:Ikip 1634:Talk 1628:. -- 1626:here 1622:here 1618:here 1602:talk 1598:Ikip 1586:6403 1581:Cabe 1546:talk 1540:. -- 1491:talk 1440:and 1401:talk 1375:ASEM 1329:ASEM 1308:talk 1284:ASEM 1267:talk 1235:ASEM 1217:talk 1211:? -- 1199:here 1190:here 770:and 414:and 180:talk 166:undo 161:edit 108:talk 94:edit 5009:) ( 4919:or 4911:or 4877:) ( 4848:DGG 4749:why 4607:) ( 4549:) ( 4438:JJL 4345:DGG 4213:) ( 4175:) ( 4081:vvv 4022:JJL 3740:'s 2893:you 2889:you 2394:) ( 2281:any 2193:DGG 1976:. 1970:can 1571:not 1501:any 1229:WGN 5028:: 5013:) 4998:. 4994:, 4968:) 4949:) 4881:) 4855:) 4834:) 4818:) 4798:-- 4790:) 4739:) 4660:) 4634:) 4611:) 4593:) 4553:) 4535:) 4512:) 4477:) 4285:) 4217:) 4179:) 4114:) 4047:) 4028:) 3950:) 3877:) 3784:) 3723:un 3680:) 3624:) 3603:) 3586:) 3561:) 3523:) 3509:) 3495:) 3418:. 3292:-- 3168:) 3097:) 3048:. 2984:, 2960:, 2956:, 2952:, 2737:) 2668:| 2590:) 2560:-- 2497:) 2480:) 2457:) 2434:) 2417:) 2398:) 2363:) 2340:) 2318:) 2300:) 2269:) 2251:) 2243:-- 2232:) 2214:) 2200:) 2159:un 2146:. 2124:) 2110:) 2092:) 2030:) 1984:) 1909:) 1830:) 1816:) 1794:) 1769:) 1697:) 1680:) 1657:) 1649:. 1632:| 1620:, 1604:) 1512:| 1507:| 1409:) 1382:) 1336:) 1310:) 1291:) 1269:) 1242:) 1219:) 1043:: 1037:59 1035:, 1033:58 1031:, 1029:57 1027:, 1025:56 1023:, 1021:55 1019:, 1017:54 1015:, 1013:53 1011:, 1009:52 1007:, 1005:51 1003:, 1001:50 999:, 997:49 995:, 993:48 991:, 989:47 987:, 985:46 983:, 981:45 979:, 977:44 975:, 973:43 971:, 969:42 967:, 965:41 963:, 961:40 959:, 957:39 955:, 953:38 951:, 949:37 947:, 945:36 943:, 941:35 939:, 937:34 935:, 933:33 931:, 929:32 927:, 925:31 923:, 921:30 919:, 917:29 915:, 913:28 911:, 909:27 907:, 905:26 903:, 901:25 899:, 897:24 895:, 893:23 891:, 889:22 887:, 885:21 883:, 881:20 879:, 877:19 875:, 873:18 871:, 869:17 867:, 865:16 863:, 861:15 859:, 857:14 855:, 853:13 851:, 849:12 847:, 845:11 843:, 841:10 839:, 835:, 831:, 827:, 823:, 819:, 815:, 811:, 807:, 803:, 751:; 687:: 681:59 679:, 677:58 675:, 673:57 671:, 669:56 667:, 665:55 663:, 661:54 659:, 657:53 655:, 653:52 651:, 649:51 647:, 645:50 643:, 641:49 639:, 637:48 635:, 633:47 631:, 629:46 627:, 625:45 623:, 621:44 619:, 617:43 615:, 613:42 611:, 609:41 607:, 605:40 603:, 601:39 599:, 597:38 595:, 593:37 591:, 589:36 587:, 585:35 583:, 581:34 579:, 577:33 575:, 573:32 571:, 569:31 567:, 565:30 563:, 561:29 559:, 557:28 555:, 553:27 551:, 549:26 547:, 545:25 543:, 541:24 539:, 537:23 535:, 533:22 531:, 529:21 527:, 525:20 523:, 521:19 519:, 517:18 515:, 513:17 511:, 509:16 507:, 505:15 503:, 501:14 499:, 497:13 495:, 493:12 491:, 489:11 487:, 485:10 483:, 479:, 475:, 471:, 467:, 463:, 459:, 455:, 451:, 447:, 395:; 213:: 193:, 182:| 141:: 121:, 110:| 5005:( 4964:( 4945:( 4923:. 4873:( 4851:( 4830:( 4814:( 4786:( 4735:( 4681:T 4656:( 4629:· 4624:( 4603:( 4591:t 4589:( 4584:M 4545:( 4531:( 4508:( 4496:) 4492:( 4473:( 4460:) 4456:( 4281:( 4265:) 4263:t 4261:( 4256:M 4236:) 4232:( 4209:( 4198:) 4194:( 4171:( 4160:) 4156:( 4137:| 4133:( 4112:t 4110:( 4105:M 4043:( 4024:( 3978:m 3975:a 3972:e 3969:r 3966:D 3946:( 3922:) 3918:( 3896:| 3892:( 3873:( 3859:| 3855:( 3782:t 3780:( 3775:M 3676:( 3620:( 3599:( 3582:( 3557:( 3519:( 3505:( 3491:( 3349:| 3345:( 3300:| 3296:( 3190:| 3186:( 3166:t 3164:( 3159:M 3144:| 3140:( 3095:t 3093:( 3088:M 3073:| 3069:( 3000:| 2996:( 2919:| 2915:( 2874:| 2870:( 2820:? 2777:| 2773:( 2733:( 2641:| 2637:( 2586:( 2568:| 2564:( 2493:( 2476:( 2453:( 2430:( 2413:( 2390:( 2359:( 2336:( 2314:( 2296:( 2288:( 2265:( 2247:( 2228:( 2210:( 2196:( 2120:( 2108:t 2106:( 2101:M 2088:( 2026:( 2005:) 2001:( 1980:( 1901:( 1884:) 1880:( 1857:m 1854:a 1851:e 1848:r 1845:D 1826:( 1812:( 1790:( 1765:( 1753:) 1749:( 1726:m 1723:a 1720:e 1717:r 1714:D 1693:( 1676:( 1653:( 1600:( 1548:| 1544:( 1494:· 1489:( 1457:) 1453:( 1404:· 1399:( 1380:t 1378:( 1373:M 1334:t 1332:( 1327:M 1306:( 1289:t 1287:( 1282:M 1265:( 1240:t 1238:( 1233:M 1215:( 1145:. 837:9 833:8 829:7 825:6 821:5 817:4 813:3 809:2 805:1 798:: 755:. 481:9 477:8 473:7 469:6 465:5 461:4 457:3 453:2 449:1 442:: 399:. 338:. 215:c 186:) 178:( 114:) 106:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.