Talk:Men's interest channel

Not a list article

I've removed two list of channels from this article for the following reasons.

• It's not a "list of" article
• the lists dominated the article
• the lists were overwhelmingly unsourced, so the description of the channels as "men's interest" was mostly unverifiable opinion
• many of the channels were obsolete anyway
• the lists started out as "examples", but then seemed to have set off to list every possible channel that someone might have the opinion qualify. Examples only require a few channels, and preferable be sourced in a way that demonstrates what makes them typical of the article subject, and therefore good examples.

Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@ClarkKentWannabe: reverted my edit with the explanation that "ALL channels are sourced, whether from their own articles, or from their article on a foreign-language Wikipedia". Firstly, whether they are sourced or not is only half the problem. Secondly, this isn't true. I picked three links at random, and found only one of their articles describes it as something resembling "Men's interest"; Duo 5, TV3+ (Norwegian TV channel), Spike ("The First Network for Men").

Cites in entirely different language versions of Wikipedia count for nothing. But while the et:Duo 5 article does say it's primarily for men, this is equally unsourced. The no:TV3+ Norge article says nothing about it.

The question still remains, why does this article need 70 "examples" of what a Men's interest channel is? I think most readers would get the idea with less than ten, and with better, sourced, examples. These lists do nothing for this article except fill it with listcruft. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

So, do you take offense to the fact that the media conglomerate article lists every major media company?

To an extent, most articles about something are going to have lists that provide examples of what the thing is. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@ClarkKentWannabe What is on other articles is irrelevant. My question is about this article. It does not need over 70 "examples", some of which are bad examples, and some of which have nothing to verify that they are examples at all. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and an FYI...

When making such a change to a Wikipedia article much in the vein of what you attempted (erasing large section of content in preparation to delete it), it is considered Wikipedia policy to DISCUSS said content, as far as its article-worthiness, BEFORE taking such an action. I highly doubt you'd want to end up having your account SUSPENDED for doing something as INAPPROPRIATE as attempting to get rid of a Wikipedia article BEFORE your fellow editors have had the chance to weigh in on whether or not they think the content is notable enough to have an article on here.

So, some advice...

The next time you question if the content of an article is notable enough to have an article on here, start a discussion on the article's talk page BEFORE you do ANYTHING to the article itself. Then, wait to see what the community consensus is. IF the consensus is that the content isn't worthy enough to have an article on here, THEN you can attempt to go through & delete said article, but not BEFORE a consensus has been reached.

And, not just to leave you a reminder here, but also to provide a written record of this statement as well; I am officially giving you a warning that, the next time you decide to repeat this behavior (not seeking consensus from other editors BEFORE attempting to remove article content from Wikipedia), a complaint will be left at the Administrators' Noticeboard, informing them of your disruptive behavior. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 06:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I don't believe I need it and unfortunately you are wrong. Please read this. I ask that you cease making threats. No one said anything about deleting the article, only improving it. Consider this a warning regarding your lack of assuming good faith and combative attitude. Whether you want to consider that "official" or not is up to you.

Can we continue discussion constructively and address the issue? Why does this article need over 70 "examples"? What makes this list not simply WP:LISTCRUFT?--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@ClarkKentWannabe Despite you issuing warnings about the need for discussing edits, you've not responded to my question. A discussion is not possible one sided. You're not obliged to respond, of course, but if you can't think of a reason why this article should have over 70 poorly sourced and bad examples, I'll go ahead and bring it down to a more sensible size of good and sourced examples. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Escape_Orbit You know, it's the height of irony for YOU to complain about a discussion not being possible if one-sided when YOU didn't even think to discuss the changes YOU wanted to make BEFORE you went through & made them. And, at this point, since you've made CLEAR your intention to CONTINUE disregarding Wikipedia policy, as well as the valid warning I gave you (and then you even made a bad faith effort to warn me when I was simply pointing out you not following Wikipedia policy), it's no longer a question of entertaining your now disruptive behavior as it concerns this article.

So, at this point, I will now give you a second & final warning; do NOT make ANY changes to the article BEFORE having a discussion about the changes you wish to make. And, from here on out, ANY further changes to the article made by you NOT related to the result of a discussion WILL be treated as vandalism & WILL result in a complaint filed at the Administrators' Noticeboard. (NOTE: At this point, expect that ANY further bad faith "warnings" put forth by you about how your disruptive behavior is being handled WILL be ignored, and may even be used as just cause for a secondary complaint filed about your disruptive behavior)

Also, at this point, because of your now clear intentions towards disruptive behavior (as far as refusing to follow Wikipedia policy), I will no longer respond to ANY further comment you leave for THIS thread. If you want me to engage with you in a discussion about the contents of the article, then create a discussion area on the talk page here outlining your proposed changes, then WAIT for other editors (such as myself) to respond with their opinion. Should said discussion come to a result with the majority favoring trimming down the article's content, THEN you may proceed with your proposed changes, but NOT before.

However, if necessary, I'm willing to cut you SOME slack; if you want, especially if you're unsure as to how to go about doing it, I can go through & create a discussion area on this talk page for you. Afterwards, either I can do my best to describe/summarize the changes you want to make, so that other editors can discuss them/air their opinion on them, or you can replace my statement with one of your own describing/ummarizing your proposed changes, again, so that other editors can discuss them/air their opinion on them. If THAT course of action is easier for you, then let me know either way what you want to do on my talk page, and I will gladly help you out. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@ClarkKentWannabe This is the area for discussing changes to the article, so I'll keep doing that. And again, you still appear to be sadly misinformed on how Wikipedia works. So, last chance. Continuing on this course of bluster and threats in an attempt to avoid discussion won't get you anywhere. I've made it perfectly clear what the problem on the article is, and what I plan to do about it. Either explain why you don't agree or step back and let me fix this article. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Escape Orbit, trimming down more than 60 (I counted 61) examples, more than the actual category has is hardly an unreasonable edit. If you want a list, make a list. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously. @ClarkKentWannabe has almost exclusively ignored content questions despite being given a totally reasonable venue for discussion, in favor of hysterical ranting about conduct questions, despite also clearly being in the wrong about conduct policy. Their sole point I divined that was actually about content was canonically fallacious; ("what about other articles?", cf. WP:OTHERCONTENT) any pragmatic reader will dismiss them as someone who has some inscrutable personal attachment to the previous version of the article but has no actual leg to stand on, and has chosen to pound the table and blow smoke instead. Remsense ‥ 论 03:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

As I stated at the Adminstrators' Noticeboard, I am withdrawing my comments & my objections to Eclipse Orbit's edit. I honestly viewed their actions (removing huge chunks of article content) as being a major edit, which is why I cited WP:CAUTIOUS. And, in according to dropping my objection, I am striking out my commments. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Re: Not a list article...

To @Escape Orbit: How would you figure out what to list, as well as how many to list, as examples for both regular & niche men's interest channels? And, I suppose the same could be done for Women's interest channels as well (what to list & how many). ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the article needs, first of all, is some sources about the topic itself. My initial search seems to indicate that it is not a topic that is much discussed online, mentioned perhaps, but not so much discussed. But some could be scrapped together. Once we have that, a few, good, examples could do much to flesh it out. I would suggest that a good example would;

• be well sourced in describing it this in this manner. (We perhaps don't need the exact phrase, but something very close to it)
• be archetypal - fitting very well within what is described in the article without being an edge case
• be reasonably popular, not a tiny obscure channel.
• be currently broadcasting (unless being particularly well suited. The fact it discontinued could be discussed in sources as due to the challenges faced by niche channels)

I would also suggest that the examples shouldn't be presented in list format. This guideline has helpful suggestions regarding this. Lists have the tendency to attract entries, regardless of whether they are suitable or add anything informative. So examples that can actually be used to discuss the topic would be ideal. e.g. What might be cited as the first "Men's interest channel"? What have sources described as a particularly successful channel? Which has been broadcasting longest? Which has spawned the most imitators?

The inclusion of niche channels also needs some thought. What makes these niche channels "men's"? It's a position that should be supported by good sources, otherwise it could be regarded as a somewhat sexist opinion being suggested by the article.

We're unlikely to get a lengthy article out of the subject, or get everything we might look for in sources. But this would go far in improving the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

So, besides this article & "women's interest channel", there's also children's interest channel as well that apparently needs a re-write. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

ClarkKentWannabe, Escape Orbit's criteria seem well thought-out and reasonable. Since you are so interested in this article, what channels would you suggest that might fit these criteria? Before going to work on additional articles, you might start with this one if you are interested in content creation which I assume is the case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)