Knowledge talk:What Knowledge is not

3492:. 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being discussed - hence comments like "the networks report this anyway" or "they're transient and will quickly get out of date", which are pretty good reasons not to list current schedules but are bizarre if applied to the historic block schedules.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 3502:

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.

3101:. 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. 2361:, 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. 3578:(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 2765:. 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 3621:(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. 2916:(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. -- 3827:. 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. 2682:. 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. 1929:

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. --

1300:(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 2595:

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

954: 966: 3933:

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. --

2958:). 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 2319:. 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. 879: 523: 4107:

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. --

147: 3008:, 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 1057:

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

3929:

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.

3425:. 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. -- 4709:

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.

1634:, 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 2529:

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.

1472:

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.

1822:

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.

2559:, "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. — 2822:) 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. -- 1852:. 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. -- 4616:

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

4526:

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

4522:

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

3924:

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)

3888:

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

2949:

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

2805:

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

2777:

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

2528:

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

2354:

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

1670:

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.

1471:

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

4708:

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

4298:

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

4126:

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

3620:

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

3602:

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

2740:

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

2695:

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

2053:

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

1821:

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

1425:

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

4783:

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.

4352:

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.

3976:

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

3550:

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,

3501:

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),

2839:

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

2113:

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

1928:

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

1295:

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

1150:

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

1056:

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,

4588:

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

4553:

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.

3791:

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

3698:

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

3565:

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

2442:

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

2428:

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

2019:

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

4106:

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

3932:

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

3849:

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

2594:

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

2234:

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

1615:

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

1154:

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

1131:

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

1109:

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

4083:

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

4079:

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

3166:

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

2760:

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

1787:

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,

3928:

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

3717:

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

4651:

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

3496:

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

1539:

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

1222:

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. --

1200:

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

4473:

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

2950:

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 (

4534:

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.

3408:. 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. 1026:

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)

2411:

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.

4532: 4530:

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:

4558:

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.

1493:

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

3442:. 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 1357:, 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 2873:

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

4604:

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,

4449:

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. :)

4333:

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. —

4299:

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. —

2852:. 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 4554:

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

1590:

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.

2880:

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

1973: 4497: 1782:

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

3116:

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

3497:

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

2840:

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

2806:

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

2389:

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.

2355:

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

1247:

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.

4736:

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

1671:

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.

2184:

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).

2114:

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

3559:, 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 1110:

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. --

3676:

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

2235:

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

3603:

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 --

1788:

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?

3382:

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.

4515:

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.

1518:

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.

4080:

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.

3792:

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.

3590:

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.

4722:, 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. 2072:

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.

1078:

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

2122:) 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. -- 1365:

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

1201:

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). --

3121:

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.

3772:. *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. -- 4633:"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. -- 2109:

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

2256:

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. --

2239:

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) --

1182:

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

2580:

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

1132:

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. --

4733:

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.

1367: 1018:

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

2456: 4547: 1880: 1019: 3555:

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

992: 2455:, 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 126: 114: 1028: 1361:, 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 130: 110: 122: 2647: 1635: 1884: 870: 514: 2794:

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.

2791: 2787: 2783: 2779: 1760:) 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 -- 4699: 4757: 2657: 1802:

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,

1652:

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.

2941:

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

4821: 2229: 1740: 1230: 2871:

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

2328: 1301: 1080: 571: 215: 4642: 2666: 2611: 2547: 1382: 3643:

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:

2725:

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

2501: 1743: 3816: 3551:

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

3511: 3484: 3417: 3134: 2349: 2311: 1695: 4442: 4384: 4068: 4048: 4030: 4010: 3913: 3583: 3575: 3556: 3455: 3434: 3392: 3377: 2265: 2045: 1861: 4802: 4084:

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

3781: 3582:

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

2629: 4609: 3878: 3354: 3220: 2514: 2367: 1982: 1261: 4626: 3831: 3754: 3533: 3326: 2762: 2696:

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. --

2637: 2356: 2036:

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.

1815: 1625: 1347: 1240: 3735:

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. '

3730: 3340: 3157: 3107: 2907: 2862: 2834: 2800: 2753: 2735: 2708: 2688: 2475: 2402: 2248: 1420: 1224: 924: 4577: 3490:

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

2895:

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. --

2568: 2288: 2063: 1773: 1716: 1585: 4689: 4407: 3899: 3597: 1394: 1289: 1183: 630: 274: 3971: 3859: 3708: 3693: 3296: 3285: 3183: 3024: 2999: 2978: 2928: 2421: 2031: 4465: 3384: 1661: 1647: 1195: 1050: 4776: 4663: 4523:

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.

4491: 4366: 3363:). There are certainly some exceptions, such as those critiqued in the references given above, but generally speaking, these aren't encyclopedic. -- 3266: 3255: 3239: 2435: 2010: 1999: 1837: 3313:

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

2194: 2171: 2149: 2131: 2100: 2082: 1600: 1564: 1167: 1141: 1122: 1100: 1073: 161: 4424: 4343: 4328: 4308: 3992: 1923: 1511: 1310: 1015:. I did this based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY #4, "an article on a ... station should not list ... current schedules". This seems clear and unequivocal. 4598: 3627: 3615: 917: 866: 862: 858: 854: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 810: 806: 802: 798: 794: 790: 786: 782: 778: 774: 770: 766: 762: 758: 754: 750: 746: 742: 738: 734: 730: 726: 722: 718: 714: 710: 706: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 678: 674: 670: 510: 506: 502: 498: 494: 490: 486: 482: 478: 474: 470: 466: 462: 458: 454: 450: 446: 442: 438: 434: 430: 426: 422: 418: 414: 410: 406: 402: 398: 394: 390: 386: 382: 378: 374: 370: 366: 362: 358: 354: 350: 346: 342: 338: 334: 330: 326: 322: 318: 314: 1435: 1213: 910: 666: 662: 658: 654: 650: 646: 642: 638: 634: 310: 306: 302: 298: 294: 290: 286: 282: 278: 2429:

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.

1946:

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.

1488: 1466: 2463:

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

1955: 1941: 4121: 3951:

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

3919: 1528: 1404: 931: 157: 4292: 4412:

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

2555:

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

2381:

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

606: 250: 4116: 1088: 1037:

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

3271:

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

2778:

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

2020:

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

4313:

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

3945: 4538:

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

2599:

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

1914:

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

942: 4838: 156:

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

2891:

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

2091:

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

4817: 4685: 4438: 4380: 4044: 4006: 3789: 2225: 2119: 1476: 2279:

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

1333:

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

2943:

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

2140:

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

1343: 612: 256: 4764: 1084: 999: 878: 522: 118: 3997:

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

4571: 3968: 3727: 3690: 3180: 3131: 3021: 2975: 2904: 2831: 2750: 2705: 2608: 2541: 2472: 2399: 1379: 88: 37: 3290:

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

3167:

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

3151:

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

3082: 2987:, it is only a guideline and thus applied with common sense exceptions. This clearly seems to be one of those cases. -- 1896:"Please see our discussion on my talk page. There is consensus, and local Wikiproject consensus can not override policy" 1326: 1296:

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

1236: 972: 1002:, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below. 4617:

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

153: 1849: 2162:

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

1426:

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

1083:

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

2490:

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

2054:

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

1887: 1455: 1451: 4789: 4583: 2181: 2159: 2115: 1499: 1061:

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

556: 200: 77: 26: 1784: 4461: 3977:

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

1011: 1009: 983: 552: 196: 3845:

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

1447: 601: 245: 4015:

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

3468: 3089:

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

3139:

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

592: 236: 3345:

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

3244:

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

1008:

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

4813: 4681: 4434: 4376: 4040: 4002: 3841:

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

2966:

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

2221: 625: 269: 1794:

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

4797: 4594: 3964: 3925:

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

3846: 3723: 3686: 3176: 3127: 3017: 2971: 2900: 2827: 2746: 2701: 2604: 2468: 2395: 1570:

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

1375: 1339: 1013: 1631: 1023: 2324: 1399:" I fail to see how, what amounts to a nicely formatted TV schedule is encyclopaedic? Knowledge is 1091:

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

4104:

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

3463:

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

1972:

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

1752:

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

4638: 4566: 4035:

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

2536: 1701:

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

1255: 97: 84: 52: 33: 4527:

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

4389:

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

3475:

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

3245: 2499: 1733: 1320: 165: 3635:

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

4809: 4677: 4430: 4372: 4036: 3998: 3529: 3507: 3480: 3413: 2933:

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

2343: 2307: 2217: 1768: 1415: 4714:

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

4103: 2885:

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

183: 4794: 4785: 4727: 4723: 4590: 4429:

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

4404: 3890: 3561: 3451: 3430: 3388: 3374: 3282: 2773: 2284: 2261: 2167: 2127: 2078: 2041: 1857: 1643: 1507: 1334: 1137: 1096: 1046: 893: 537: 3909:. However, I believe that most of historical schedules may be transwikied to Wikisource — 8: 4792:

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

4753: 4748:

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

4323: 4287: 4063: 4025: 3987: 3777: 3749: 3098: 2767: 2320: 1974:

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

1832: 1711: 1580: 1284: 582: 226: 63: 3699:

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

1636:

Knowledge:Village_pump_(policy)#Discussion_regarding_per_station_TV_schedules_and_WP:NOT

4745: 4715: 4634: 4561: 4455: 3960: 3874: 3719: 3682: 3401: 3350: 3252: 3229:

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

3217: 3172: 3123: 3013: 2967: 2896: 2823: 2742: 2697: 2600: 2531: 2464: 2391: 2005: 1996: 1977: 1371: 1251: 1155:

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

597: 241: 175: 3260:

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

3081:

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

2620:

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

1881:

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

1756:. If the members of a particular wikiproject want to make a change to policy (such us 4772: 4622: 4543: 4487: 4362: 4112: 3828: 3655:

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

3636: 3322: 3118: 3005: 2882: 2577: 2492: 2382: 1811: 1725: 1657: 1621: 1354: 1316: 1306: 1191: 578: 222: 21: 3317:, not more of per-station schedules. We aren't a directory and we aren't TV guide. 1022:, that happened in 2007. My take on that was it was irrelevant, since our policy at 4502: 3793: 3587: 3586:

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

3571: 3525: 3503: 3476: 3409: 3360: 3336: 2819: 2815: 2596: 2447:

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

2337: 2303: 2244: 1672: 1616:

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

1541: 1463: 3542:

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

2639:

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

2358:

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

4420: 4394: 4339: 4304: 4092: 3941: 3910: 3704: 3611: 3447: 3426: 3405: 3364: 3272: 2995: 2924: 2892: 2811: 2564: 2417: 2280: 2257: 2190: 2163: 2145: 2123: 2096: 2074: 2059: 2037: 1937: 1911: 1853: 1639: 1503: 1362: 1297: 1209: 1163: 1133: 1118: 1092: 1069: 1042: 2761:

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

1790:

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

4749: 4315: 4279: 4055: 4017: 3979: 3952: 3773: 3741: 3667:

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

3640: 3148: 3086: 3009: 2946: 2887: 2678:

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

2444: 2386: 1951: 1919: 1824: 1753: 1703: 1596: 1572: 1524: 1484: 1431: 1358: 1276: 3788:

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

889: 533: 98:→‎The reason why the "unencyclopedic" argument just doesn't fly 68: 53:→‎The reason why the "unencyclopedic" argument just doesn't fly 4832: 4659: 4606: 4451: 3956: 3870: 3855: 3623: 3593: 3346: 3292: 3262: 3249: 3235: 3214: 3168: 3153: 3144: 3103: 2959: 2955: 2938: 2875: 2858: 2853: 2845: 2841: 2807: 2796: 2731: 2684: 2581: 2510: 2448: 2431: 2363: 2236: 2027: 1763: 1757: 1495: 1410: 1400: 1038: 4509:

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

3404:. These schedules change almost on a weekly basis, and I would concur it is 4768: 4618: 4539: 4483: 4478:

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

4358: 4108: 3567: 3543: 3467:, or in discussing how the timeslot pertains to a particular show (perhaps 3318: 2679: 2556: 1873: 1807: 1653: 1617: 1498:

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

1388: 1187: 4589:

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

4482:). There is no reason to change WP:NOT to ban these kinds of articles. -- 3842: 3547: 3521: 3464: 3332: 3140: 3094: 2934: 2590: 2452: 2240: 1459: 4808:

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

894: 538: 4719: 4413: 4335: 4300: 4085: 3934: 3700: 3604: 2988: 2917: 2585: 2560: 2413: 2186: 2141: 2092: 2055: 1930: 1885:

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

1407:

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

1202: 1156: 1111: 1062: 160:

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

4676:

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

1970:

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

1031:

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

3895: 3359:

I believe most are historically insignificant and should be removed (

1947: 1915: 1906:

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules

1845: 1592: 1520: 1480: 1443: 1427: 3093:. Gavin was still claiming the article was "unencyclopedic", citing 2624:

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

1329:) has reinstated some of the schedules Hammersoft removed. It seems 4654: 4520:

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

3851: 2302:

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

2022: 891: 535: 4357:

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

3639:. These schedules are no different from any other schedule unless 1848:

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

3664:

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

2576:

as Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information;

3652:

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

2457:

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

988:

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

4391:(such as the annual United States network television schedules) 152:

The project page associated with this talk page is an official

4511:

Content should be verified with citations to reliable sources.

2652:. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8108-4270-X. 1353:

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

895: 539: 4498:

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

4471:

Keep historic, nationwide (or almost nationwide) TV schedules

3889:

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

3661:

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

2508:

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

3658:

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

2792:

1976–77_United_States_network_television_schedule#References

2788:

1966–67_United_States_network_television_schedule#References

2784:

1956–57_United_States_network_television_schedule#References

2780:

1946–47_United_States_network_television_schedule#References

146: 2588:

knows that that Knowledge is an encyclopedia incorporating

1904:

stating: rv re-inclusion of schedules against consensus at

2715:

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

66:

to this revision, which may differ significantly from the

4788:

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

1058: 1991:-encyclopedic? I'm sure everyone would be up in arms if 1876:

reverted your deletions of other editors contributions:

4371:

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

2850:

allows for the annual U.S. television network schedules

2633:(4th ed.). New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-024916-8 3446:

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

2658:

The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network TV Shows

1905: 2661:(9th ed.). New York: Ballantine. ISBN 0-345-31864-1. 1403:

a record of everything under the sun. In my opinion

547: 191: 3524:, what EV is provided through listed TV schedules? 1540:Knowledge, for any reason, is always a good thing. 1302:

2009–2010 United States network television schedule

1081:

2009–2010 United States network television schedule

4700:Requested clarification of meaning of Not:Memorial 1089:List_of_programs_broadcast_by_CBS#Current_schedule 3576:1960–61 United States network television schedule 3331:Agree with removal; Knowledge is not a TV guide. 2869:I don't think there can be any misunderstanding. 4830: 4740:Other editors disagree that WP:NPOV is relevant. 4505:, first pillar, first sentence (boldface mine): 3440:Support removal and suggest strengthening policy 3004:Once again, the only alternative to notability, 2945:. You are trying to sidestep the issue that the 2667:Watching TV: Four Decades of American Television 2216:Sources discuss this stuff, and so should we. - 4053:Only because some lunatic hasn't done it yet. 2317:Keep network block schedules, remove specifics 1901:You again deleted other editors contributions, 1305: 1034:Despite this, I am starting to get reverted. 3869:and endorse our current policy as expressed. 2553:Support retention of Major-network Schedules. 2004:Yep, thanks. Spellchecker gone wild I think. 3361:Knowledge is not an electronic program guide 2648:The DuMont Television Network: What Happened 2334:Keep network and programming block schedules 4507:Knowledge is an encyclopedia incorporating 4132:Overturn WP:NOT an electronic program guide 1870:Can you please explain this inconsistency: 1446:has started canvassing on this issue (see 2856:randomly. It's still happening, however. 2741:your assertions would be most welcome. -- 1395:United States network television schedule 1184:United States network television schedule 934:(July 2007 - ongoing; partially archived) 2664:Castleman, H. & Podrazik, W. (1982) 1500:User_talk:Jon2guevarra#Program_Schedules 1368:Knowledge is not Movie, Book or TV Guide 76:Revision as of 19:15, 22 August 2009 by 47: 2655:Brooks, Tim & Marsh, Earle (2007). 986:from other editors for this discussion. 75: 14: 4831: 3737:TV schedules should be and all will be 3681:defence against deletion or merger. -- 3574:which was directed at the Big Three's 3520:But outside of the rare instance like 2717:It's not "pure speculation", and when 4765:the edit that introduced it to policy 3469:Firefly (TV series)#Broadcast history 44: 25: 1266:Enforcement of no schedules must be 960: 948: 141: 17: 2645:Bergmann, Ted; Skutch, Ira (2002). 555:for discussing improvements to the 199:for discussing improvements to the 139: 108: 3718:provide evidence of notability. -- 3147:, and which are presented from a 140: 4850: 3641:verifiable evidence of notability 2888:verifiable evidence of notability 1726: 993:Knowledge policies and guidelines 62:. The present address (URL) is a 2947:verifable evidence of notability 1315:Just giving you a heads-up, but 1186:series should be reconsidered. 964: 952: 943:Per station television schedules 877: 572:Click here to start a new topic. 521: 216:Click here to start a new topic. 145: 4127:yourself into the proper spot. 3955:, all barebones schedules fail 3953:veriable evidence of notability 3622: 3592: 3291: 3261: 3234: 3152: 3102: 2857: 2848:to me when WP:DIR specifically 2795: 2730: 2683: 2642:, McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0070102775. 2509: 2430: 2362: 2182:Knowledge:Village pump (policy) 2160:Knowledge:Village pump (policy) 2116:Knowledge:Village pump (policy) 1734: 4839:Knowledge requests for comment 4767:, and the background to that. 4400: 4396: 4314: 4278: 4102:A subsection I started below, 4054: 4016: 3978: 3740: 3370: 3366: 3278: 3274: 2962:, because they do not contain 2385:. What seems to be missing is 2180:No, but the people who _read_ 1823: 1761: 1702: 1632:Knowledge:CONSENSUS#Exceptions 1571: 1477:WP:Don't template the regulars 1408: 1397:series should be reconsidered. 1275: 1151:aren't national to begin with. 1024:Knowledge:CONSENSUS#Exceptions 158:policy editing recommendations 13: 1: 4572: 3213:Knowledge is not a tv guide. 2542: 1767: 1414: 569:Put new text under old text. 213:Put new text under old text. 4562: 4316: 4280: 4056: 4018: 3980: 3742: 3012:for a standalone article. -- 2582:Knowledge's content policies 2532: 1825: 1762: 1704: 1573: 1409: 1277: 971:Please consider joining the 7: 4822:15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4803:13:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4777:04:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 4758:20:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 4690:02:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 4664:02:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 4643:22:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 4627:22:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 4610:21:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 4599:13:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 4578:19:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4567: 4548:15:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4492:16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4466:08:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4443:04:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4425:04:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4408:01:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4385:22:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4367:22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4344:17:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4329:22:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4309:22:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4293:21:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4117:15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4069:20:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4049:20:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4031:20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4011:20:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3993:20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3972:20:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3946:15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3914:17:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 3900:13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 3879:12:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 3860:23:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3832:15:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3817:11:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3782:11:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3755:08:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3731:08:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3709:08:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3694:08:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3628:07:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3616:06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3598:05:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3584:began sending their signals 3534:19:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 3512:17:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 3485:15:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 3456:07:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 3435:21:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 3418:15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 3393:20:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 3378:01:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 3355:23:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3341:20:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3327:19:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 3297:06:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 3286:05:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 3267:16:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 3256:16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 3240:15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 3221:09:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 3184:07:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3158:03:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 3135:15:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3108:14:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3025:13:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3000:13:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 2979:13:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 2929:12:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 2908:07:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 2863:21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2835:20:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2801:19:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2754:17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2736:16:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2721:say "my guess is..." it is 2709:16:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2689:15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2612:09:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2569:22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2548:16:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2537: 2515:13:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2502:04:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2476:14:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2436:14:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2422:14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2403:14:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2368:04:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2350:21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 2329:18:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 2312:17:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 2289:21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 2266:22:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2249:21:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2230:20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2195:12:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 2172:21:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2150:20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2132:19:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2101:19:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2083:18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2064:18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2046:11:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2032:22:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2011:21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2000:20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1983:20:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1956:16:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1942:15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1924:15:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1862:13:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1844:I am now being reverted by 1838:09:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1816:08:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1804:content that is a falsehood 1774:07:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1744:05:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1717:03:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1696:03:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1662:19:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1648:13:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1626:01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1601:01:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1586:00:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1565:00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1529:16:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1512:14:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1489:01:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1467:00:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 577:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 221:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 24:of this page, as edited by 10: 4855: 2985:Notability is not a policy 2810:has various prohibitions ( 1436:19:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 1421:19:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 1383:11:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 1348:10:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 1311:23:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1290:23:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1262:22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1241:22:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1214:22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1196:22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1168:23:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1142:22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1123:22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1101:22:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1074:22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1051:22:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 173: 95: 50: 4415: 4353:Program guides which are 4087: 3936: 3847:2008_New_York_Mets_season 3606: 3566:others) Let's not forget 2990: 2919: 1932: 1723:Remove. Not encyclopedic 1204: 1158: 1113: 1087:are not fine. Similarly, 1064: 607:Be welcoming to newcomers 251:Be welcoming to newcomers 4763:I suggest starting with 3891:Lost (TV series)#Ratings 2670:. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1995:material was removed ;) 973:feedback request service 4704:WP:NotMemorial states: 4584:The reality as I see it 3572:"vast wasteland" speech 3091:World Book Encyclopedia 2451:are not likely to fail 1387:I am in agreement with 3624:Firsfron of Ronchester 3594:Firsfron of Ronchester 3293:Firsfron of Ronchester 3263:Firsfron of Ronchester 3246:Knowledge:NOTDIRECTORY 3236:Firsfron of Ronchester 3154:Firsfron of Ronchester 3104:Firsfron of Ronchester 2859:Firsfron of Ronchester 2797:Firsfron of Ronchester 2732:Firsfron of Ronchester 2685:Firsfron of Ronchester 2675:There are many others. 2636:Castleman, H. (1984). 2511:Firsfron of Ronchester 2432:Firsfron of Ronchester 2364:Firsfron of Ronchester 602:avoid personal attacks 246:avoid personal attacks 162:keep cool when editing 4652:comprehensiveness. 3546:)? Above you mention 3119:subjective importance 3006:subjective importance 2883:subjective importance 2627:McNeil, Alex (1996). 2578:subjective importance 2383:subjective importance 1355:subjective importance 913:(Nov 2005 – Jan 2006) 871:Auto-archiving period 557:What Knowledge is not 515:Auto-archiving period 201:What Knowledge is not 45:19:15, 22 August 2009 4786:War of Jenkins' Ear 4728:Bloody Sunday (1972) 4724:Ballymurphy massacre 4122:The consensus so far 3920:Historical schedules 3850:their significance. 3739:deleted. Let it go. 3562:Life is Worth Living 3461:100% support removal 3085:for the deletion of 2952:significant coverage 2774:Life is Worth Living 2763:nearly two years ago 2727:The TV Schedule Book 2524:of current lineups. 2336:per Squidfryerchef. 1893:You responded that: 1359:inherited notability 998:When discussion has 4744:A discussion began 3143:the content, which 2768:Texaco Star Theater 2445:verifiable evidence 1735:cricket photo poll! 1274:. Remove them all. 1085:schedules like this 115:← Previous revision 4716:Warrenpoint ambush 4480:The New York Times 3557:1955-1956 schedule 3471:for example, IIRC 3095:lack of notability 3010:verfiable evidence 2387:verfiable evidence 1335:上村七美 (Nanami-chan) 984:requested comments 918:Newspaper Articles 613:dispute resolution 574: 257:dispute resolution 218: 4159:Allow some guides 2964:balanced coverage 2937:, then they fail 2526:Support retention 2348: 1454:, and especially 1346: 1194: 1006: 1005: 979: 978: 940: 939: 920:(May - July 2007) 902: 901: 593:Assume good faith 570: 546: 545: 237:Assume good faith 214: 172: 171: 4846: 4810:Peregrine Fisher 4678:Peregrine Fisher 4574: 4569: 4564: 4431:Peregrine Fisher 4417: 4402: 4398: 4373:Peregrine Fisher 4327: 4320: 4291: 4284: 4145:Peregrine Fisher 4089: 4067: 4060: 4037:Peregrine Fisher 4029: 4022: 3999:Peregrine Fisher 3991: 3984: 3938: 3812: 3809: 3806: 3803: 3800: 3797: 3753: 3746: 3626: 3608: 3596: 3372: 3368: 3295: 3280: 3276: 3265: 3238: 3156: 3106: 2992: 2921: 2912:Notability is a 2861: 2799: 2734: 2729:might be about? 2687: 2680:reliable sources 2630:Total Television 2544: 2539: 2534: 2513: 2495: 2459:are just random 2434: 2366: 2346: 2342: 2340: 2218:Peregrine Fisher 2008: 1980: 1934: 1850:See for yourself 1836: 1829: 1772: 1771: 1766: 1741:paid editing=POV 1736: 1728: 1715: 1708: 1691: 1688: 1685: 1682: 1679: 1676: 1584: 1577: 1560: 1557: 1554: 1551: 1548: 1545: 1419: 1418: 1413: 1338: 1309: 1288: 1281: 1260: 1258: 1254: 1227: 1206: 1190: 1160: 1115: 1066: 968: 967: 961: 956: 955: 949: 925:"Unencyclopedic" 904: 903: 896: 882: 881: 872: 548: 540: 526: 525: 516: 192: 186: 149: 142: 127:Newer revision → 105: 103: 101: 92: 71: 69:current revision 61: 60: 58: 56: 46: 42: 41: 4854: 4853: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4845: 4844: 4843: 4829: 4828: 4702: 4591:Officially Mr X 4586: 4500: 4124: 3922: 3907:Support removal 3886:Support removal 3867:Support removal 3839:Support removal 3810: 3807: 3804: 3801: 3798: 3795: 3770:Support removal 3588:avoid recentism 3532: 3483: 3406:unencyclopaedic 3398:Endorse removal 3211:Support removal 2574:Support removal 2522:Support removal 2493: 2344: 2338: 2300:Support removal 2006: 1987:Don't you mean 1978: 1912:User:Dillmister 1689: 1686: 1683: 1680: 1677: 1674: 1558: 1555: 1552: 1549: 1546: 1543: 1298:C4 (TV channel) 1256: 1250: 1249: 1225: 980: 965: 953: 945: 898: 897: 892: 869: 619: 618: 588: 542: 541: 536: 513: 263: 262: 232: 190: 189: 182: 178: 138: 137: 136: 135: 134: 119:Latest revision 107: 106: 96: 93: 82: 80: 67: 51: 48: 31: 29: 12: 11: 5: 4852: 4842: 4841: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4780: 4779: 4742: 4741: 4738: 4734: 4731: 4711: 4710: 4701: 4698: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4669: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4646: 4645: 4630: 4629: 4613: 4612: 4585: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4499: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4468: 4446: 4445: 4427: 4410: 4387: 4369: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4266: 4263: 4260: 4257: 4254: 4251: 4248: 4245: 4242: 4239: 4236: 4233: 4230: 4227: 4224: 4221: 4218: 4215: 4212: 4209: 4206: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4191: 4188: 4185: 4182: 4179: 4176: 4173: 4170: 4167: 4166:Squidfryerchef 4164: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4149: 4146: 4143: 4140: 4137: 4123: 4120: 4101: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4081: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 3974: 3921: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3903: 3902: 3882: 3881: 3863: 3862: 3835: 3834: 3821: 3820: 3785: 3784: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3665: 3662: 3659: 3656: 3653: 3645: 3644: 3537: 3536: 3528: 3515: 3514: 3487: 3479: 3458: 3437: 3420: 3395: 3380: 3357: 3343: 3329: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3233:for the week. 3231:local listings 3224: 3223: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3087:Theba, Arizona 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 2879: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2676: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2662: 2653: 2643: 2634: 2615: 2614: 2571: 2550: 2518: 2517: 2505: 2504: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2406: 2405: 2371: 2370: 2352: 2331: 2321:Squidfryerchef 2314: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2269: 2268: 2251: 2232: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2175: 2174: 2153: 2152: 2135: 2134: 2104: 2103: 2086: 2085: 2067: 2066: 2048: 2034: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 1971: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1908: 1902: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1865: 1864: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1747: 1746: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1588: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1515: 1514: 1473: 1293: 1292: 1264: 1244: 1243: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1152: 1145: 1144: 1126: 1125: 1104: 1103: 1004: 1003: 997: 996: 982:An editor has 977: 976: 969: 959: 957: 944: 941: 938: 937: 936: 935: 928: 921: 914: 900: 899: 890: 888: 887: 884: 883: 621: 620: 617: 616: 609: 604: 595: 589: 587: 586: 575: 566: 565: 562: 561: 560: 544: 543: 534: 532: 531: 528: 527: 265: 264: 261: 260: 253: 248: 239: 233: 231: 230: 219: 210: 209: 206: 205: 204: 188: 187: 179: 174: 170: 169: 150: 78: 64:permanent link 27: 16: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4851: 4840: 4837: 4836: 4834: 4823: 4819: 4815: 4811: 4807: 4806: 4804: 4800: 4799: 4796: 4791: 4787: 4782: 4781: 4778: 4774: 4770: 4766: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4755: 4751: 4747: 4739: 4735: 4732: 4729: 4725: 4721: 4717: 4713: 4712: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4691: 4687: 4683: 4679: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4656: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4644: 4640: 4636: 4635:Cameron Scott 4632: 4631: 4628: 4624: 4620: 4615: 4614: 4611: 4608: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4596: 4592: 4579: 4576: 4575: 4570: 4565: 4557: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4545: 4541: 4536: 4533: 4528: 4524: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4512: 4510: 4504: 4493: 4489: 4485: 4481: 4477: 4472: 4469: 4467: 4463: 4460: 4457: 4453: 4448: 4447: 4444: 4440: 4436: 4432: 4428: 4426: 4422: 4418: 4411: 4409: 4406: 4403: 4399: 4392: 4388: 4386: 4382: 4378: 4374: 4370: 4368: 4364: 4360: 4356: 4351: 4345: 4341: 4337: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4325: 4321: 4319: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4306: 4302: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4289: 4285: 4283: 4276: 4267: 4264: 4261: 4258: 4255: 4252: 4249: 4246: 4243: 4240: 4237: 4234: 4231: 4228: 4225: 4222: 4220:Gavin.collins 4219: 4216: 4213: 4210: 4207: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4199: 4198: 4192: 4189: 4186: 4183: 4180: 4177: 4174: 4172:Themfromspace 4171: 4168: 4165: 4163:ViperSnake151 4162: 4161: 4160: 4157: 4156: 4150: 4147: 4144: 4141: 4138: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4119: 4118: 4114: 4110: 4105: 4094: 4090: 4082: 4078: 4070: 4065: 4061: 4059: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4027: 4023: 4021: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3989: 3985: 3983: 3975: 3973: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3961:Gavin Collins 3958: 3954: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3930: 3926: 3915: 3912: 3908: 3905: 3904: 3901: 3898: 3897: 3892: 3887: 3884: 3883: 3880: 3876: 3872: 3868: 3865: 3864: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3837: 3836: 3833: 3830: 3826: 3823: 3822: 3819: 3818: 3814: 3813: 3790: 3787: 3786: 3783: 3779: 3775: 3771: 3768: 3767: 3756: 3751: 3747: 3745: 3738: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3720:Gavin Collins 3716: 3710: 3706: 3702: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3683:Gavin Collins 3680: 3675: 3666: 3663: 3660: 3657: 3654: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3625: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3595: 3589: 3585: 3581: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3564: 3563: 3558: 3554: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3500: 3495: 3491: 3488: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3459: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3441: 3438: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3421: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3396: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3381: 3379: 3376: 3373: 3369: 3362: 3358: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3311: 3298: 3294: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3284: 3281: 3277: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3264: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3254: 3251: 3247: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3237: 3232: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3222: 3219: 3216: 3212: 3209: 3208: 3185: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3173:Gavin Collins 3170: 3165: 3159: 3155: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3124:Gavin Collins 3120: 3115: 3109: 3105: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3083:still arguing 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3026: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3014:Gavin Collins 3011: 3007: 3003: 3002: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2986: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2968:Gavin Collins 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2915: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2897:Gavin Collins 2894: 2890: 2889: 2884: 2877: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2824:Gavin Collins 2821: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2798: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2776: 2775: 2770: 2769: 2764: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2743:Gavin Collins 2739: 2738: 2737: 2733: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2698:Gavin Collins 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2686: 2681: 2677: 2674: 2669: 2668: 2663: 2660: 2659: 2654: 2651: 2649: 2644: 2641: 2640: 2635: 2632: 2631: 2626: 2625: 2623: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2613: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2601:Gavin Collins 2598: 2593: 2592: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2572: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2551: 2549: 2546: 2545: 2540: 2535: 2527: 2523: 2520: 2519: 2516: 2512: 2507: 2506: 2503: 2500: 2497: 2496: 2489: 2488: 2477: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2465:Gavin Collins 2462: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2433: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2404: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2392:Gavin Collins 2388: 2384: 2380: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2369: 2365: 2360: 2359: 2353: 2351: 2347: 2341: 2335: 2332: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2315: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2298: 2297: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2252: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2233: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2212: 2211: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2183: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2158:If notifying 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2112: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2052: 2049: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2024: 2018: 2012: 2009: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1981: 1975: 1969: 1968: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1907: 1903: 1900: 1895: 1894: 1892: 1888: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1877: 1875: 1872: 1871: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1834: 1830: 1828: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1786: 1781: 1780: 1775: 1770: 1765: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1737: 1730: 1729: 1722: 1718: 1713: 1709: 1707: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1693: 1692: 1669: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1614: 1613: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1589: 1587: 1582: 1578: 1576: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1562: 1561: 1538: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1517: 1516: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1417: 1412: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1396: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1372:Gavin Collins 1369: 1366:encyclopedic. 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1325: 1322: 1318: 1313: 1312: 1308: 1303: 1299: 1291: 1286: 1282: 1280: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1263: 1259: 1253: 1252:ViperSnake151 1246: 1245: 1242: 1238: 1235: 1232: 1228: 1221: 1220: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1180: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1153: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1060: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1035: 1032: 1030: 1025: 1021: 1016: 1014: 1012: 1010: 1001: 995: 994: 990: 989: 987: 985: 974: 970: 963: 962: 958: 951: 950: 947: 933: 929: 926: 922: 919: 915: 912: 908: 907: 906: 905: 886: 885: 880: 876: 868: 864: 860: 856: 852: 848: 844: 840: 836: 832: 828: 824: 820: 816: 812: 808: 804: 800: 796: 792: 788: 784: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 760: 756: 752: 748: 744: 740: 736: 732: 728: 724: 720: 716: 712: 708: 704: 700: 696: 692: 688: 684: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 648: 644: 640: 636: 632: 629: 627: 623: 622: 614: 610: 608: 605: 603: 599: 596: 594: 591: 590: 584: 580: 579:Learn to edit 576: 573: 568: 567: 564: 563: 558: 554: 550: 549: 530: 529: 524: 520: 512: 508: 504: 500: 496: 492: 488: 484: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 460: 456: 452: 448: 444: 440: 436: 432: 428: 424: 420: 416: 412: 408: 404: 400: 396: 392: 388: 384: 380: 376: 372: 368: 364: 360: 356: 352: 348: 344: 340: 336: 332: 328: 324: 320: 316: 312: 308: 304: 300: 296: 292: 288: 284: 280: 276: 273: 271: 267: 266: 258: 254: 252: 249: 247: 243: 240: 238: 235: 234: 228: 224: 223:Learn to edit 220: 217: 212: 211: 208: 207: 202: 198: 194: 193: 185: 181: 180: 177: 167: 163: 159: 155: 151: 148: 144: 143: 132: 128: 124: 120: 116: 112: 99: 90: 86: 81: 79:Themfromspace 74: 73: 70: 65: 54: 39: 35: 30: 28:Themfromspace 23: 4793: 4743: 4703: 4653: 4587: 4560: 4555: 4537: 4529: 4525: 4519: 4518: 4514: 4508: 4506: 4501: 4479: 4475: 4470: 4458: 4395: 4390: 4355:functionally 4354: 4317: 4281: 4274: 4273: 4241:Juliancolton 4226:YellowMonkey 4211:Collectonian 4200: 4158: 4131: 4125: 4100: 4057: 4019: 3981: 3931: 3927: 3923: 3906: 3894: 3885: 3866: 3838: 3824: 3815: 3794: 3769: 3743: 3736: 3678: 3632: 3579: 3568:Newton Minow 3560: 3552: 3498: 3493: 3489: 3472: 3460: 3443: 3439: 3422: 3397: 3365: 3314: 3273: 3230: 3210: 3097:: check the 3090: 2984: 2963: 2951: 2942: 2913: 2886: 2870: 2849: 2820:WP:NOT#STATS 2816:WP:NOT#GUIDE 2772: 2766: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2665: 2656: 2646: 2638: 2628: 2621: 2589: 2573: 2552: 2530: 2525: 2521: 2494:Juliancolton 2491: 2460: 2378: 2357: 2333: 2316: 2299: 2276: 2254:RfC comment. 2253: 2213: 2110: 2050: 2021: 1993:encyclopedic 1992: 1988: 1874:User:Gadfium 1826: 1803: 1799: 1798:week? What 1795: 1791: 1789: 1732: 1727:YellowMonkey 1724: 1705: 1694: 1673: 1630:Please note 1574: 1563: 1542: 1392: 1389:User:Rossami 1330: 1323: 1317:Jon2guevarra 1314: 1294: 1278: 1271: 1267: 1233: 1226:Collectonian 1036: 1033: 1017: 1007: 991: 981: 946: 874: 624: 551:This is the 518: 268: 195:This is the 22:old revision 19: 18: 4262:Staxringold 4256:Ohconfucius 4238:Madcoverboy 4187:TheGrappler 4169:Powergate92 4142:Dream Focus 3843:Must See TV 3548:Must See TV 3526:Staxringold 3522:Must See TV 3504:TheGrappler 3477:Staxringold 3465:Must See TV 3423:Observation 3410:Ohconfucius 3402:WP:Fancruft 3145:are sourced 2983:Once again 2339:Powergate92 2304:Madcoverboy 2051:Wrong venue 1304:different?- 166:don't panic 102:my thoughts 57:my thoughts 20:This is an 4798:Farmbrough 4720:Omagh bomb 4277:. Thanks, 4259:Rivertorch 4253:Irbisgreif 4235:Tryptofish 4205:Hammersoft 4184:Cybercobra 3637:WP:IKNOWIT 3448:Rivertorch 3427:Tryptofish 3385:Irbisgreif 2893:WP:NOT#DIR 2812:WP:NOT#DIR 2584:. I think 2443:providing 2281:Tryptofish 2277:Suggestion 2258:Tryptofish 2164:Hammersoft 2124:Hammersoft 2075:Hammersoft 2038:Dougweller 1854:Hammersoft 1640:Hammersoft 1504:Hammersoft 1442:Note that 1405:Hammersoft 1393:The whole 1134:Hammersoft 1093:Hammersoft 1043:Hammersoft 4750:Mooretwin 4503:WP:PILLAR 4324:reasoning 4318:Abductive 4288:reasoning 4282:Abductive 4265:SmokeyJoe 4214:Abductive 4064:reasoning 4058:Abductive 4026:reasoning 4020:Abductive 3988:reasoning 3982:Abductive 3969:contribs) 3825:Keep some 3774:SmokeyJoe 3750:reasoning 3744:Abductive 3728:contribs) 3691:contribs) 3181:contribs) 3132:contribs) 3099:talk page 3022:contribs) 2976:contribs) 2914:guideline 2905:contribs) 2832:contribs) 2751:contribs) 2706:contribs) 2609:contribs) 2597:WP:NOTDIR 2473:contribs) 2400:contribs) 1910:Why does 1846:User:Ikip 1833:reasoning 1827:Abductive 1785:this edit 1712:reasoning 1706:Abductive 1581:reasoning 1575:Abductive 1475:Also see 1444:User:Ikip 1391:in that " 1380:contribs) 1363:synthesis 1285:reasoning 1279:Abductive 1272:heartless 1268:merciless 911:Galleries 615:if needed 598:Be polite 553:talk page 259:if needed 242:Be polite 197:talk page 4833:Category 4818:contribs 4686:contribs 4607:A Nobody 4476:TV Guide 4462:contribs 4452:Casliber 4439:contribs 4381:contribs 4250:Jclemens 4244:Garion96 4232:Amalthea 4223:Cabe6403 4151:A Nobody 4148:Firsfron 4045:contribs 4007:contribs 3871:Eusebeus 3347:Jclemens 3250:Garion96 3215:Garion96 2226:contribs 2214:Keep all 2120:see diff 2007:Amalthea 1997:MuZemike 1979:Amalthea 1879:citing, 1344:contribs 1340:talkback 1327:contribs 1237:contribs 626:Archives 583:get help 270:Archives 227:get help 176:Shortcut 89:contribs 38:contribs 4790:Jenkins 4769:Uncle G 4737:forces. 4619:Protonk 4540:Noroton 4484:Noroton 4359:Protonk 4275:6:10:22 4229:Uncle G 4217:gadfium 4208:Rossami 4190:Stevage 4181:Protonk 4109:Noroton 3829:Stevage 3633:Comment 3580:Firefly 3473:Firefly 3444:readily 3319:Protonk 3149:neutral 2771:; only 2713:Gavin, 2591:notable 2379:Comment 1808:Uncle G 1654:Protonk 1618:Protonk 1307:gadfium 1188:Rossami 930:Topic: 923:Topic: 916:Topic: 909:Topic: 4405:(talk) 4247:Stifle 4201:Uphold 3957:WP:NOT 3494:format 3375:(talk) 3333:Stifle 3283:(talk) 3253:(talk) 3218:(talk) 3169:WP:NOT 3141:verify 2960:WP:NOT 2956:WP:GNG 2939:WP:NOT 2876:WP:GNG 2854:WP:NOT 2846:WP:DIR 2842:WP:NOT 2818:& 2808:WP:NOT 2622:do not 2449:WP:NOT 2241:mhking 2237:WP:TVS 1792:Monday 1758:WP:NOT 1496:WP:NOT 1460:Calton 1192:(talk) 1039:WP:NOT 932:Trivia 927:(2003) 875:7 days 519:7 days 184:WT:NOT 164:, and 154:policy 4660:talk 4573:Space 4401:cobra 4397:Cyber 4336:PyTom 4301:PyTom 4193:Hobit 4178:Pytom 4136:Masem 3811:Focus 3701:PyTom 3544:WP:EV 3499:lists 3371:cobra 3367:Cyber 3315:fewer 3279:cobra 3275:Cyber 2586:Pytom 2561:PyTom 2557:WP:5P 2543:Space 2461:stuff 2414:Hobit 2187:Hobit 2142:Hobit 2093:Hobit 2056:Hobit 1690:Focus 1559:Focus 1257:Talk 1000:ended 631:Index 611:Seek 559:page. 275:Index 255:Seek 203:page. 4814:talk 4795:Rich 4784:The 4773:talk 4754:talk 4746:here 4682:talk 4639:talk 4623:talk 4595:talk 4568:From 4563:Them 4544:talk 4488:talk 4456:talk 4435:talk 4416:ASEM 4393:" -- 4377:talk 4363:talk 4340:talk 4305:talk 4139:Ikip 4113:talk 4088:ASEM 4041:talk 4003:talk 3965:talk 3959:. -- 3937:ASEM 3896:Tone 3893:. -- 3875:talk 3856:talk 3778:talk 3724:talk 3705:talk 3687:talk 3679:real 3607:ASEM 3530:talk 3508:talk 3481:talk 3452:talk 3431:talk 3414:talk 3400:per 3389:talk 3351:talk 3337:talk 3323:talk 3177:talk 3171:. -- 3128:talk 3018:talk 2991:ASEM 2972:talk 2954:per 2935:WP:N 2920:ASEM 2901:talk 2844:and 2828:talk 2747:talk 2702:talk 2605:talk 2565:talk 2538:From 2533:Them 2469:talk 2453:WP:N 2418:talk 2396:talk 2345:Talk 2325:talk 2308:talk 2285:talk 2262:talk 2245:talk 2222:talk 2191:talk 2168:talk 2146:talk 2128:talk 2097:talk 2079:talk 2060:talk 2042:talk 2028:talk 1952:talk 1948:Ikip 1933:ASEM 1920:talk 1916:Ikip 1883:and 1858:talk 1812:talk 1796:last 1769:6403 1764:Cabe 1754:vote 1658:talk 1644:talk 1638:. -- 1622:talk 1597:talk 1593:Ikip 1525:talk 1521:Ikip 1508:talk 1502:. -- 1485:talk 1481:Ikip 1464:Talk 1458:. -- 1456:here 1452:here 1448:here 1432:talk 1428:Ikip 1416:6403 1411:Cabe 1376:talk 1370:. -- 1321:talk 1270:and 1231:talk 1205:ASEM 1159:ASEM 1138:talk 1114:ASEM 1097:talk 1065:ASEM 1047:talk 1041:? -- 1029:here 1020:here 600:and 244:and 131:diff 125:) | 123:diff 111:diff 85:talk 34:talk 4816:) ( 4726:or 4718:or 4684:) ( 4655:DGG 4556:why 4437:) ( 4379:) ( 4268:JJL 4175:DGG 4043:) ( 4005:) ( 3911:vvv 3852:JJL 3570:'s 2723:you 2719:you 2224:) ( 2111:any 2023:DGG 1806:. 1800:can 1401:not 1331:any 1059:WGN 43:at 4835:: 4820:) 4805:. 4801:, 4775:) 4756:) 4688:) 4662:) 4641:) 4625:) 4605:-- 4597:) 4546:) 4490:) 4464:) 4441:) 4423:) 4383:) 4365:) 4342:) 4307:) 4115:) 4047:) 4009:) 3944:) 3877:) 3858:) 3780:) 3707:) 3614:) 3553:un 3510:) 3454:) 3433:) 3416:) 3391:) 3353:) 3339:) 3325:) 3248:. 3122:-- 2998:) 2927:) 2878:. 2814:, 2790:, 2786:, 2782:, 2567:) 2498:| 2420:) 2390:-- 2327:) 2310:) 2287:) 2264:) 2247:) 2228:) 2193:) 2170:) 2148:) 2130:) 2099:) 2081:) 2073:-- 2062:) 2044:) 2030:) 1989:un 1976:. 1954:) 1940:) 1922:) 1860:) 1814:) 1739:) 1660:) 1646:) 1624:) 1599:) 1527:) 1510:) 1487:) 1479:. 1462:| 1450:, 1434:) 1342:| 1337:| 1239:) 1212:) 1166:) 1140:) 1121:) 1099:) 1072:) 1049:) 873:: 867:59 865:, 863:58 861:, 859:57 857:, 855:56 853:, 851:55 849:, 847:54 845:, 843:53 841:, 839:52 837:, 835:51 833:, 831:50 829:, 827:49 825:, 823:48 821:, 819:47 817:, 815:46 813:, 811:45 809:, 807:44 805:, 803:43 801:, 799:42 797:, 795:41 793:, 791:40 789:, 787:39 785:, 783:38 781:, 779:37 777:, 775:36 773:, 771:35 769:, 767:34 765:, 763:33 761:, 759:32 757:, 755:31 753:, 751:30 749:, 747:29 745:, 743:28 741:, 739:27 737:, 735:26 733:, 731:25 729:, 727:24 725:, 723:23 721:, 719:22 717:, 715:21 713:, 711:20 709:, 707:19 705:, 703:18 701:, 699:17 697:, 695:16 693:, 691:15 689:, 687:14 685:, 683:13 681:, 679:12 677:, 675:11 673:, 671:10 669:, 665:, 661:, 657:, 653:, 649:, 645:, 641:, 637:, 633:, 581:; 517:: 511:59 509:, 507:58 505:, 503:57 501:, 499:56 497:, 495:55 493:, 491:54 489:, 487:53 485:, 483:52 481:, 479:51 477:, 475:50 473:, 471:49 469:, 467:48 465:, 463:47 461:, 459:46 457:, 455:45 453:, 451:44 449:, 447:43 445:, 443:42 441:, 439:41 437:, 435:40 433:, 431:39 429:, 427:38 425:, 423:37 421:, 419:36 417:, 415:35 413:, 411:34 409:, 407:33 405:, 403:32 401:, 399:31 397:, 395:30 393:, 391:29 389:, 387:28 385:, 383:27 381:, 379:26 377:, 375:25 373:, 371:24 369:, 367:23 365:, 363:22 361:, 359:21 357:, 355:20 353:, 351:19 349:, 347:18 345:, 343:17 341:, 339:16 337:, 335:15 333:, 331:14 329:, 327:13 325:, 323:12 321:, 319:11 317:, 315:10 313:, 309:, 305:, 301:, 297:, 293:, 289:, 285:, 281:, 277:, 225:; 117:| 113:) 100:: 87:| 55:: 36:| 4812:( 4771:( 4752:( 4730:. 4680:( 4658:( 4637:( 4621:( 4593:( 4542:( 4486:( 4459:· 4454:( 4433:( 4421:t 4419:( 4414:M 4375:( 4361:( 4338:( 4326:) 4322:( 4303:( 4290:) 4286:( 4111:( 4095:) 4093:t 4091:( 4086:M 4066:) 4062:( 4039:( 4028:) 4024:( 4001:( 3990:) 3986:( 3967:| 3963:( 3942:t 3940:( 3935:M 3873:( 3854:( 3808:m 3805:a 3802:e 3799:r 3796:D 3776:( 3752:) 3748:( 3726:| 3722:( 3703:( 3689:| 3685:( 3612:t 3610:( 3605:M 3506:( 3450:( 3429:( 3412:( 3387:( 3349:( 3335:( 3321:( 3179:| 3175:( 3130:| 3126:( 3020:| 3016:( 2996:t 2994:( 2989:M 2974:| 2970:( 2925:t 2923:( 2918:M 2903:| 2899:( 2830:| 2826:( 2749:| 2745:( 2704:| 2700:( 2650:? 2607:| 2603:( 2563:( 2471:| 2467:( 2416:( 2398:| 2394:( 2323:( 2306:( 2283:( 2260:( 2243:( 2220:( 2189:( 2166:( 2144:( 2126:( 2118:( 2095:( 2077:( 2058:( 2040:( 2026:( 1950:( 1938:t 1936:( 1931:M 1918:( 1856:( 1835:) 1831:( 1810:( 1731:( 1714:) 1710:( 1687:m 1684:a 1681:e 1678:r 1675:D 1656:( 1642:( 1620:( 1595:( 1583:) 1579:( 1556:m 1553:a 1550:e 1547:r 1544:D 1523:( 1506:( 1483:( 1430:( 1378:| 1374:( 1324:· 1319:( 1287:) 1283:( 1234:· 1229:( 1210:t 1208:( 1203:M 1164:t 1162:( 1157:M 1136:( 1119:t 1117:( 1112:M 1095:( 1070:t 1068:( 1063:M 1045:( 975:. 667:9 663:8 659:7 655:6 651:5 647:4 643:3 639:2 635:1 628:: 585:. 311:9 307:8 303:7 299:6 295:5 291:4 287:3 283:2 279:1 272:: 229:. 168:. 133:) 129:( 121:( 109:( 104:) 94:( 91:) 83:( 72:. 59:) 49:( 40:) 32:(

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