Talk:7flix

Contested deletion

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)

References needed for content

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)

Encores vs repeats

@SatDis: re: [1][2]

There is a distinct difference between an encore and a repeat; the former is something requested by the audience, 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

I question whether repeated programming should even be listed here at all, certainly not without a citation -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I question whether any programming should be listed here at all, given WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that, as programming lists are common and considered notable, but whether reruns are notable I would suggest not. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"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

Note that "historically significant program lists ... may be acceptable" - which implies that regular program lists are not, but the "should not" list mentions "current schedules" but not "program lists". (I would interpret "schedules" to include the days/times, which "program lists" would not.) Mitch Ames (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I've raised the question at WT:NOT#TV and radio program lists. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe the entire "programming" section is not encyclopedic. It's an unremarkable list of TV shows that aren't original to the channel. What can be said about it? What is said about it in reliable sources? A better "programming" section would consist of sourced prose about the programming ("it's a family channel with emphasis on body horror and experimental cinema"...) rather than a simple list. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Nearly every television channel article (not just Australian ones) carry lists of programming. If this one is deleted in whole or in part, you're going to potentially set a precedent for other articles, and if that decision is opposed elsewhere, it will be reverted here. I'd argue personally that if repeated content can be reliably sourced, it is acceptable, but agree endless lists of unoriginal programming that may or not be accurate can quickly become a problem. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that "nearly every" article about a television channel does this; if they do, they're going against MOS that discourages long embedded lists in prose and Wikipedia content policy that favors prose over seemingly indiscriminate lists. A quick skim of the better articles about television channels (Channel S, NTA Film Network, AMI-tv, ABC, NBC, ESPN, RT, Telejato, GSN, Spike, WPVI-TV, YTV, The CW, Comedy Central) shows that the good ones (A+, Good, B-class, the better C-class ones) more frequently have prose about the programming and a list of original programming, not an indiscriminate list of all programming with no prose to explain why these shows matter. Since these are the good ones, the ones that do have an indiscriminate list should strive to become encyclopedic and get a healthy chunk of prose that explains why these shows are relevant, otherwise relegate these borderline-unverifiable lists to "list of" articles. Bright☀ 20:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for missing this message. Thankyou for the clarification on "encores vs. repeats"; again, I was only basing the label from what 7flix itself lists. I do agree that lists of broadcast shows are un-encyclopedic, especially unreferenced, however for as long as this list remains without being deleted, I will make sure it is correct. As for the standard of current programming lists, most Australian television channels have the lists, such as 9Go!, 7TWO and Eleven (Australian TV channel). As implied, this page is not a high quality page. We could strive to make it better but I fear that none of the programming would even be notable to discuss in prose; and therefore the 7flix page as a whole might become obsolete. And removing the list would set a precedent for other articles. I am open to any discussion though. SatDis (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@BrightR: You clearly didn't look to hard then at those articles you named as not having lists of programs: List of programs broadcast by NBC, List of programs previously broadcast by NBC, List of programs broadcast by Spike, List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network, etc. As I say, removing the whole thing sets a precedent that should be set elsewhere, not just on one article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The articles are in prose. There are separate list-style articles. I made that very clear in my comment: 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)

There is a policy that explicitly discourages these sort of simple listings in prose. There is a guideline that says lists that overshadow the prose should be split into their own articles. You want to improve the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Follow them. You want an article that's a programming guide with original research in the form of "encore" and "repeat"? Keep the article as it is. I'm just tagging it as original research so readers are aware the information is not sourced. Bright☀ 11:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

And the policy you quote has a number of exemptions for appropriate use of lists, which this would fall in to. Are you critical of the information existing at all, or critical of how it is presented? They are two different arguments you seem to be making simultaneously. A programming guide would be a full schedule of shows with timeslot information, etc which this is not. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If the majority agreed in removing "repeats" from the list then I would have no problem with that. SatDis (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with removing "repeats" and "encores" from the list (although I'd rather remove the entire list). Mitch Ames (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

What are you defining as a "repeat" or "encore"? The channel doesn't carry any original programming, it carries some first run Australian programming, some first run free-to-air network programming, some Seven Network premiere programming (that has originally aired on another Australian channel) and programming that has run before on the other channels of Seven. What are other editors defining these terms as in this context? -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

When I edit the page, I go by Seven's standards - as in, a new episode is something that has never aired before on any of the Seven channels - whether it be Australian or international (I think nearly all on 7flix are first run US series). Seven lists any episode that has aired before as a "repeat", or sometimes an "encore". SatDis (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree - many titles not labelled repeats certainly are, and the overwhelming majority of 7flix titles are not first run by any stretch of the imagination -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You are probably right. I just do my best; and the page is open for any corrections.SatDis (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What you've described is original research and should be removed. Bright☀ 23:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"What are you defining as a "repeat" or "encore"?"
I read 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)

I definitely agree with removing (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)

I think you misunderstand - there's nothing currently listed that I am challenging, I was merely making the point. There are exceptions to things that don't have to be overtly sourced, such as plots of television shows and films, and lists of programming may also qualify. I was just raising the issue, and its one which should probably be raised elsewhere, not locally. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to stick to the children's programming, as it's what I know. I take it that repeats of local programming (The Woodlies, History Hunters) is not notable enough for this article? Or is that because they don't have articles to link to? SatDis (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Essentially, both. Shows aren't notable given it hasn't been established to have their own article, and a reliable independent citation hasn't been provided for this purpose either -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)