Talk:Chronicle (British TV programme)

Chronicle notability

From User talk:Atlantic306 (permalink) regarding the recent back-and-forth reverting:

Hi. You challenged the proposed deletion of Chronicle (UK TV series) based on the assumption that it’s likely to be notable, though the article’s only sources are primary or user-generated (which usually indicates a subject isn’t). Could you demonstrate its notability? Thanks. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• BBC series are reviewed in reliable sources such as The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Has this one been? The article has no mention of reviews. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. An extensive list of episode titles and airdates is sorely lacking in that regard. You clearly believe the series to be sufficiently notable for inclusion, and we’d most likely be able to pull contextual info from whatever sources you’ve seen it discussed in. I could have a go at it myself if you’d be willing to share what you’ve found. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Have a very big backlog at present, episode lists are not indiscriminate as there are hundreds of lists that are just episode lists so an episode list is expected for a tv series. Of course other content is needed but the list should not be removed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
      • An episode list that is not put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources is indiscriminate. If we really have hundreds of such articles with no episode summaries, production, reception, nothing, then we have hundreds of indiscriminate lists, which isn’t good and doesn’t make another one okay. If there’s nothing else to say in the article, it’s pretty much a shoo-in for AFD. So I ask again, what led you to believe that this particular series was WP:notable? —67.14.236.193 (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

If no improvement is forthcoming and no third-party sources are found, I’ll be listing this article at WP:AFD on WP:Notability grounds. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, really I don't have time for a long search at present but taking to AFD will be a waste of time as there will be editors there with better access than we have to archived newspapers and will find coverage very easily for a longrunning BBC series made at the time when there were only 3 or 4 TV channels In the UK, with no cable or sattelite, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Atlantic306: If you think it would result in sources being found for the first time in the eight year history of this article, I’d hardly consider that a waste of time. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

If you disagree with the removal of the episode list, please address the reasons behind its removal (see above) before reverting. Discuss the episodes. Discuss the series. Don’t just give a listing as if there’s nothing notable whatsoever about the show. Write an article if you think we should have an article here. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• There is no valid reason to remove the episode list, such actions are often considered vandalism so I suggest you replace it as episode lists are included in every non-stub tv article so it is certainly not indiscriminate. Ive already told you I have a big backlog but why don't you ask for help finding sources at the Wikipedia library and the WikiProject Television as they are experts in where to look and will advise you if it is really nonnotable which I doubt, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Atlantic306: Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, that of deliberately (emphasis not mine) obstructing the goal of creating an encyclopedia (emphasis mine). WP:INDISCRIMINATE describes how to provide encyclopedic value; information that is not presented in such a way is presented indiscriminately and is not encyclopedic (and certainly doesn’t belong in a stub article, which this is). If you don’t have time to improve this article by making it more encyclopedic, so be it, but please don’t take the time to make false accusations of vandalism when I improve this article by making it less unencyclopedic. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The bbc episode list link which you removed goes to a bbc page that gives the details of 19 of the episodes Atlantic306 (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • If you think some of those nineteen episodes are worth discussing here (especially if they’ve been covered in reliable sources), great, let’s do that. And we can certainly do that without indiscriminately listing all known episodes for no apparent reason. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion link in the AfD notice is pending; I’ve posted a request to the AfD talkpage. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Chronicle was a well-respected series and is considered a landmark in TV's first forays into archaeology. I have provided a provisional source from a book published by the Institute of Archaeology, University College, London, which discusses the series in some depth. From a cursory search there are other independent sources discussing the series and it's impact. It would appear to be notable. I do remember watching it as a child. Keep and improve. I would advise against deletion. Irondome (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I never doubted that it was on the air or that people watched it; I doubted whether anyone wrote about it, given the article’s long history of no reliable sources. If they can be found even with a “cursory search,” I’m at a loss to explain the total lack of editor interest. But thanks! —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's just been forgotten which is a shame. WP is a huge virtual warehouse, and it has unvisited, and unloved corners. We could fix the article up so it is fit for purpose. Appreciate the response. Thanks, Irondome (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

An episode list is perfectly valid for television article, and a search reveal plenty of sources for the television show. It is clear that the nominator is unaware of the guideline for television or indeeed deletion policy which requires a check per WP:BEFORE. Also notability is not determined by the sources in the article, but by the sources that can be found in searches. Read the guidelines first. Hzh (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hzh: I had trouble finding suitable sources (as did apparently every editor since 2010), but if you found some, great, let’s use them. No need for personal attacks, which I think is a rather more important policy. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Short Summaries

@Hzh: Any issues with shift to short summaries from the Notes field? The added content is a little bit of an exploration between the borders of WP:RS, WP:SKYISBLUE, WP:NOR, providing enough context for someone with no knowledge of a given topic, and WP:IAR. At some point, having some review from WP:ARCHAEOLOGY and WP:HISTORY project members would probably be sane. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide: No problem at all, you can do as you see fit. I made the table on a make-shift basis because of a number of issues, e.g. credits for the episodes may be given as producer/editor/director and it is often not clear what the distinction may be between them, and as writer and/or presenter/narrator. It is not the standard way of making the episode table. I only added a short note rather than a summary because I wasn't sure if the episode section will get too big due to the large number of episodes, but I suppose if it gets too big, it can be split off into a separate article. Excellent work expanding it. Hzh (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hzh: Thanks -- am not convinced it's quite the best use of time given the low pageviews (pagesplit can wait until much later, I think), but I am at least enjoying the work :-) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 22:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)