![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is part of a larger article -- 27.111.71.104 ( talk) 00:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
There are a number of statements regarding programming content and distribution that are unsourced. Some have citation needed tags. I couldn't find sources for either of those tagged, and I'd suggest if anyone could add a source they should do so ASAP, otherwise the unsourced statements should be deleted. -- Whats new? (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a distinct difference between an encore and a repeat; the former is something requested by the audience, [1] whereas the latter need not be. If 7flix is explicitly listing them as "encores", I suggest that an an inline citation would be a good idea to support the use of the term.
References
"as programming lists are common and considered notable"— It might be worth getting WP:NOTDIRECTORY clarified on that point. Currently it says (with my emphasis here):
... an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable
MOS that discourages long embedded lists in prose. The precedent has already been set in the guidelines and policies I linked, and Wikipedia doesn't operate on precedent, it operates on consensus, which the guideliens and policies represent. You link to list-style articles. You want to place a list of programming in a list-style article, be my guest. You want to drown out prose in embedded lists? That's against MOS and policy. Bright☀ 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Obviously the lists have been broken out into seperate articles to prevent the main article becoming too long. That, as yet, isn't a concern with 7flix. Lists are more than acceptable within articles, prose or otherwise. -- Whats new? (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
"What are you defining as a "repeat" or "encore"?"
removing "repeats"as removing the word "repeats" rather than removing the program from the list - in which case we don't need to define "repeats" and "encores", because any program being aired gets listed. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
(repeats)and
(encores)and it should be done sooner rather than later. I'm certainly open to keeping the repeated programming listed, but my concern would be with verifiability that these shows actually do air on the channel (ie. what's to stop an editor adding any random show to a list?) -- Whats new? (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much. (1) There appears to be consensus to remove the "repeats" and "encores" because as they currently stand they appear to be WP:OR, so let's get to it. (2) The programming list can easily be WP:CHALLENGEed, meaning it would eventually be removed if not cited to reliable sources, so you might as well get to it now, because frankly Whats new? just challenged it. Bright☀ 23:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is part of a larger article -- 27.111.71.104 ( talk) 00:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
There are a number of statements regarding programming content and distribution that are unsourced. Some have citation needed tags. I couldn't find sources for either of those tagged, and I'd suggest if anyone could add a source they should do so ASAP, otherwise the unsourced statements should be deleted. -- Whats new? (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a distinct difference between an encore and a repeat; the former is something requested by the audience, [1] whereas the latter need not be. If 7flix is explicitly listing them as "encores", I suggest that an an inline citation would be a good idea to support the use of the term.
References
"as programming lists are common and considered notable"— It might be worth getting WP:NOTDIRECTORY clarified on that point. Currently it says (with my emphasis here):
... an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable
MOS that discourages long embedded lists in prose. The precedent has already been set in the guidelines and policies I linked, and Wikipedia doesn't operate on precedent, it operates on consensus, which the guideliens and policies represent. You link to list-style articles. You want to place a list of programming in a list-style article, be my guest. You want to drown out prose in embedded lists? That's against MOS and policy. Bright☀ 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Obviously the lists have been broken out into seperate articles to prevent the main article becoming too long. That, as yet, isn't a concern with 7flix. Lists are more than acceptable within articles, prose or otherwise. -- Whats new? (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
"What are you defining as a "repeat" or "encore"?"
removing "repeats"as removing the word "repeats" rather than removing the program from the list - in which case we don't need to define "repeats" and "encores", because any program being aired gets listed. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
(repeats)and
(encores)and it should be done sooner rather than later. I'm certainly open to keeping the repeated programming listed, but my concern would be with verifiability that these shows actually do air on the channel (ie. what's to stop an editor adding any random show to a list?) -- Whats new? (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much. (1) There appears to be consensus to remove the "repeats" and "encores" because as they currently stand they appear to be WP:OR, so let's get to it. (2) The programming list can easily be WP:CHALLENGEed, meaning it would eventually be removed if not cited to reliable sources, so you might as well get to it now, because frankly Whats new? just challenged it. Bright☀ 23:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)