Should this article include tables that list each individual episode along with title and date? Andrew Englehart (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No - These tables were created out of thin air and add no value to the article. The "titles" (Roll Call #1, Roll Call - 8.18.17, etc.) are made-up and unsourced. The dates are basically a mirror of the Live PD episode list, as this show was merely a 6-minute teaser that aired an hour before live episodes of Live PD. There are no descriptions of the epsiodes, and as the show has been canceled, there aren't going to be any. A single table that lists the seasons and # of episodes in each season is already at the top of the list, and that's all that's needed. The rest is just filler and as Toddst1 (talk) pointed out in the talk page discussion, a violation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Andrew Englehart (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - Titles are source here, maybe if you (Andrew Englehart) clicked the source that's listed in the episode table you'd notice that . Episode tables don't need to have summaries to exist, that's never been a requirement in MOS:TV, WP:TV, or the template instructions. The show aired with it's own title card, and own listings so more than just a teaser. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes – General support for tables. Source checks out. Value added may not be huge, but it provides a framework for possible future expansion. Even small improvements are improvements, and to have it deleted as 'incomplete' would bring into question every article below a GA. It's the last section of the body and doesn't clutter the article. I'd like to see more text/prose, but I don't see anything wrong with this that would require its removal. NOT:REPOSITORY specifically talks about media and external links which doesn't apply here. WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to lists of works and statistics, and I feel that there is a long-established exception for episode listings. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"provides a framework for possible future expansion" - there's no possible future expansion. The show is canceled. The episodes in question are not discussed in any sources - none. There's a TV listing that proves they were there; that's it. The long spreadsheet-like table provides nothing of value to anyone. Andrew Englehart (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No (Summoned by bot) - Taking a look at the content in question in its full context, I really have to give my support to Andrew's take on this: this content is just too lacking in appropriate encyclopedic function to survive scrutiny under WP:NOT. It's worth saying that while WP:NOTREPOSITORY, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE all obviously inform upon this topic, the guidance there is indirect. WP:NOTDIR does arguably foreclose this list by saying that program listings should be "historically significant", but I'd say I think it's actually the header to the content section of that policy, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, that really helps to clarify what our priorities are meant to be in a case like this: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." (emphasis in original).

In that light, looking at this truly massive listing of virtually indistinguishable information that can only be reasonably be described as raw airdate data, in a format where it dwarfs (at an insane ratio) the rest of the blurb-scope content of the article, this goes beyond WP:NOT and indeed begins to enter into the territory of a WP:WEIGHT--specifically WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.". Here we have a single source providing an airdate listing, without critical analysis or contextual insight whatsoever, which we are simply replicating in a table that is itself essentially a massive spreadsheet that adds nothing but numerical airdate data for hundreds of episodes, without the slightest whiff of encyclopedic context.

And look, I'm broadly for episode listings in almost all contexts--I can't ever remember opposing one when working on content in this area or responding to an RfC pertaining to one. Even in the case of reality television shows generally, where often such listing can't say much more than the air date and a few other details about the production, presentation, and persons involved or vague function of the episode, I can still be swayed to see some potential utility to the occasional reader for some purpose, and that is enough to allow me to see past the fact that such content is otherwise not the strictly most encyclopedic content in the world.

But there's a limit to that argument, and these tables have shot so far past it that they have broken orbit. I'd be surprised if so much as a single user got any functional utility out of a 236-rows-long set of tables listing nothing but the archived air dates for the preview segments for a reality tv show. Strain myself as I might, I can't imagine how that will be of use to anyone, ever, but even if I assume there is some niche use for the rare reader that I am failing to consider, there's no question that this content still violates the mandate that articles be an encyclopedic summary of notable information regarding a topic, as discussed in reliable sources--not a detailed listing of extremely niche broadcasting minutia. Honestly, if it doesn't apply to this case, I'm not sure why we'd even bother to have a WP:NOT policy (and certainly its WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE sections) at all. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No (Summoned by bot) This is looks like a very long and boring excel spreadsheet. Comatmebro (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards Yes It seems like List of Cops episodes have a similar format as this, but at least this article has sources. Even though it's not required, adding a bit of summary, even if it's only a one-line summary sentence, to each episode would improve the article. (Summoned by bot) Some1 (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to include something. Also, the Cops episodes at least have distinct titles. If these tables had that (sourced), I would say they belong here. But they don't. Andrew Englehart (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the List of Live PD episodes and it seems like the show just titles their episodes using the episodes' air dates in month.date.year format. Regarding Roll Call (this article), they most likely did the same thing and it appears that the episode titles in the table are already sourced to The Futon Critic. I also found this on TV Guide [2]. I'm not too familiar with the show, so maybe TheDoctorWho might know more about the show's episode titles. Some1 (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that distinct titles is a criteria for notability. See Untitled for many such artworks. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, since when is "most likely" a good criterion for a vote? If no titles exist in reliable sources, then Wikipedia has no titles. That's it. Second, if you're not familiar with the show, let me inform you: it was really just a glorified promo. It ran for a few minutes, one hour before that night's episode of Live PD, and served solely to urge viewers to watch that night's Live PD. There's nothing of value in those tables. Andrew Englehart (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Englehart and Some1: I did source the episode tables from The Futon Critic, I've only mentioned that ten times if you ten times if Andrew finally wants to listen . And it's not "most likely" what they did it IS what they did which can be verified by a quick look at the Futon Critic source. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since each Roll Call episode "served as promotion for that night's episode of Live PD" and "previewed that evening's Live PD episode," how about merging this article to the Live PD article and the tables from this article can be incorporated into the already existing tables at List of Live PD episodes? Some1 (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion makes a lot of sense. I would get behind Some1's proposal 100%. Andrew Englehart (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No I was baffled by the presence of the tables, until I saw this discussion on the talkpage. I agree with the other "no" voters that there is no value added by these tables, and they should be deleted. Wes sideman (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Bilorv, Reidgreg, IJBall, and Mattystevo: other people who contributed to the discussion throughout multiple places as well as other contributors to the article all of who may be interested in joining in again. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Summoned by bot) TDW, I've only just looked at the content of your pings here and realized that you seem to have selected, from among those editors recently involved in the article/participating in relevant discussions, those who have supported your view, while leaving out others who have disagreed with your take or taken no particular stance on the issue as yet. That's rather an absolute violation of WP:CANVAS, which makes clear that any such collection of pings must be made on a more neutral basis (i.e. "the last X number of editors to edit the page" or "everyone who participated in the previous talk page thread on this topic"). So you may want to ping some additional people here to make the above names a less biased class of summoned parties, so these efforts do not give the impression of vote stacking--which could not only hurt your argument here but also lead to accusation of a bad-faith (or even WP:disruptive) approach, which would only cloud the issues the RfC should be resolving, one way or another.

Also, in future such cases, I would recommend (both as regards RfCs or even run-of-the-mill threads) against requesting support from the regulars of a WikiProject. The idiosyncratic rules addressing particular content questions that are formed at Wikiprojects are not policy, as established by WP:Advice pages and numerous ArbCom rulings: WikiProjects are not allowed to come up with their own pet rules for articles they perceive to be within their purview and then treat such rules as defacto policy or style guidance: any such rules must be advanced for community vetting through an appropriate WP:PROPOSAL process and added to an actual policy, guideline, or style page before they have the status of true community consensus. So it's a bad look when one goes to a WikiProject to call for reinforcements who will try to apply the project's own idea of the "correct" standards, as you seem to have done both here and in the previous thread. Of course, Andrew arguably started the ball rolling in this regard when he invited Toddst1 to the first discussion, knowing Todd's stance on the issue. But I'd advise you both to be careful about this: editors have been sanctioned for less egregious examples than what I am seeing here. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: I apologize if I missed anyone and if I did let me know or correct me if I'm wrong and I'll gladly ping them. I pinged everyone who participated in the discussion here and on other talk pages with the exception Toddst1 who was pinged in this edit as their user page is linked. I'll take the rest of your message about WikiProjects into advice if I ever run into similar issues in the future, my intention there was just to get input from people who may be interested, from my experience people at this WikiProject have no problem telling editors if their wrong in a stance. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Englehart and Snow Rise: (and anyone else questioning The Futon Critic's reliability) here's two previous discussions about it July 2008 and May 2015 from the WP:RSN that support TFC's use. TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that extra context, TDW. Given the size and scope of involvement of those RSN discussions, my concerns are not 100% obliterated about the sourcing, but I also don't think it's a question that needs to be belaboured/resolved here: afterall, as a matter of practice, we allow a lot of tables in a lot of articles about TV shows that have content that is not appropriately sourced to any secondary source, so I'm not sure it would make much sense to try to remove this content on a WP:V basis nayway. So I'm happy, for the purposes of this discussion anyway, to presume the RSN conclusions are correct and the source reliable--I'll even amend my !vote above accordingly. But that still leaves us with a number of other salient objections and, at the end of the day, we have to remember that WP:ONUS is the reality here: just because something can be verified does not establish a presumption that it is useful encyclopedic content that is suitable for inclusion; verifiability is merely the start point of that analysis. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the WP:CANVAS violation mentioned by @Snow Rise:, consensus is against including the list. After removing the list, I propose that someone add a column in the List of Live PD episodes to indicate whether or not that episode included the 6-minute Roll Call promo one hour before the show. I may attempt it myself, but fair warning, I have zero experience with tables on Wikipedia. Andrew Englehart (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]