Talk:Homecoming (TV series)

RfC: Are sources required in this article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:V is a core content policy. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Are sources required for material in the infobox if the information is not sourced elsewhere in the article? 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - An editor has repeatedly claimed that unsourced material in the infobox (specifically camera setup) does not require a source anywhere in the article because of WP:PRIMARY. WP:PRIMARY makes no exception for the policy of WP:V; it only provides that a primary source can be used. That primary source should be cited. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment: In terms of Camera type when episodes have been aired/released, you don't need it. You only need if the TV series have not aired/released episodes yet. — Lbtocth^talk 22:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lbtocth: Thanks for you comment, but I fail to see how your argument provides an exception for WP:V. It seems you are saying that the fact that a series is released is justification for the exception? Please explain. Thanks. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• I would provide citations wherever there is any possibility of dispute. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Per WP:V all information should be verifiable (any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation, that directly supports the material - which seems the case here) and if the primary source (the episode) does that, I guess it's ok, but I doubt the camera setup information can be gained from the episode (without WP:OR). Also, MOS:INFOBOX's lead explains that information in the infobox should be a summarize of what is found in the article, not new information (the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article). While MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE does allow for exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, the camera setup can easily be added to any production section, such as Homecoming (TV series)#Production here. --Gonnym (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jacknstock: I agree. And I disputed it but was told that a citation isn't necessary because of WP:PRIMARY. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Or it could easily be cited in the infobox. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Gonnym here. When it comes to credits, names are readily determinable, hence why we don't need an inline citation for every name in the infobox. However, for camera setup, I don't find that readily determinable. It also helps to put it in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Call for immediate close

• Close this RfC :Per WP:V, " All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable... any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." (Emphasis added). You cannot overturn WP:V with an RfC on Talk:Homecoming (TV series), so this RfC is invalid and should be closed. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Just to make sure you understand, I wasn't trying to overturn WP:V with the RfC. I was trying to get it enforced. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

RfCs are the wrong way to attempt to do this. The right way is to first try to convince them on the article talk page, and if that doesn't work to file a report at ANI documenting the refusal to follow our policies. Make really sure that you are properly understanding our policies first -- ANI really doesn't like reports about imaginary policy violations. If you have even the slightest doubt, ask at the helpdesk first. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: With respect, I disagree that it was wrong to start this RfC. Two editors were hopelessly deadlocked in disagreement. The RfC is generating discussion from other editors, and it may help to quickly resolve this without a major argument at ANI. I don't think the procedures of dispute resolution are so carved in stone as long as policies are respected. If someone wants to take this to ANI I don't object, but I think this discussion here may take care of the problem. But thanks for your comments. If your comments get an admin here it might lead to a quicker closure 75.182.115.183 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

So what are you going to do if the result of the RfC goes against you? If it goes your way and thus determines that sources are required for material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, it simply duplicates WP:V and is redundant. If it goes against you and determines that sources are not required for material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, it will be instantly overturned as an improper attempt to overrule WP:V. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. If it goes contrary to the way I would hope, I will take it to ANI. But I really don't think that will happen. There may be a WP:SNOW close. As you say, a policy can't be overturned by an RfC for an article. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Close immediately - Wrong venue Article-level local consensus cannot overturn WP:V. –dlthewave ☎ 23:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox sourcing

An editor has challenged the "single-camera" description in the infobox as "unsourced". This was reverted multiple times by editors citing "Covered by WP:PRIMARY", "all tv dramas use single-camera setups (it doesn't *literally* mean one camera)", "I think there is a fundemental lack of understanding of what a Multiple-camera setup and Single-camera setup looks like. I would advise the other editor to read up on the articles." and "The infobox, cast and characters section and episode table are covered by WP:PRIMARY per MOS:TV". My reading of the cited policies does not provide for the inclusion of unsourced content in the infobox. Could editors wishing to include this content please provide a source for "single-camera" or otherwise explain why it should be included? –dlthewave ☎ 00:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Chiming in to make to say that I will no longer challenge the edit. It appears, given the conversation above, that I was misled into believing that the edit was in the clear and that the series itself provided sourcing for that parameter of the infobox. As I means of explaining why I was let to believe that, I'll mention that numerous prolific editors over at WP:TELEVISION had espoused that belief to me over the last year. So, again, I apologize for my confusion and I hope that all involved know that my edits were made in good faith. One more question just so as to clarify was has been explained above: articles like Doctor Who, The Wire, The Sopranos, and Lost should also have the camera setup parameter removed, right? A quick word search of the articles shows no mention of the camera setup in the body of the articles. This little incorrect assumption may be an issue that effects quite a number of good or featured articles and it might behoove an experienced editor who can explain all of this clearly to drop a message over at WP:TELEVISION and elsewhere. – BoogerD (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't believe I even have to write this, but no one asked that camera setup in all infoboxes should be "removed". I made a simple request that a source be provided. By the way I would appreciate some diffs to demonstrate that this plethora of "prolific editors" have agreed that information in the infobox should not require a source. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Erik, Gonnym, Jacknstock, and Redrose64: Given the closure of the RfC, would someone be kind enough to make the appropriate revert so that there will be no more tag-team edit warring against me. Thanks. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Most of the infobox fields can be sourced to the series itself since they appear in the credits, but classifying it as "single camera" would be original research performed by an editor, even if it seems self-evident to those familiar with the topic. Unless the description appears in secondary sources, it probably should be removed from other articles as well. –dlthewave ☎ 02:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That's all I was attempting to express above. I was apologizing for my confusion and merely pointing out that this issue effects numerous other television series articles. I suggested that someone, who can explain all of this clearly and succinctly, might make a post over at WP:TELEVISION to make other editors of television series articles aware of the situation and prevent further confusion if and when the camera setup parameter is blanked in those articles that don't mention camera setup in the body of the article. – BoogerD (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad we're on the same page. I posted a message at WT:Television. –dlthewave ☎ 02:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that much of the infobox doesn't require sources if it's clear in the film or show itself. Camera setup is not one of those exceptions to WP:V. By the way, in less than 30 seconds I found this source that confirms camera setup for Homecoming. It would have been nice if someone had spent those 30 seconds finding the source instead of hours climbing the Reichstag just to make a misguided point. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)