Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Batman: The Animated Series episodes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Batman: The Animated Series episodes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 18 days, 2 support, 1 oppose. No consensus to promote. Fail. Juhachi 10:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this page again, it was nominated previously twice. I have removed the copied summaries and I think it's ready now. Gman124 00:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the solution here isn't to simply remove the copied information. New edit summaries need to be created for it to be on par with List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes, List of Dad's Army episodes, and List of X-Men episodes which are all featured and have what appears to be original edit summaries. -Phoenix 04:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • but the only way to get original summaries is to watch every episode, and it's gonna take a long time. And I was thinking about making it look like the other Batman list I nominated, since the plot already appears on the individual episode articles, I don't think we need the summaries again at the list. Gman124 14:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that be the case, I'm not sure the list can be featured. It's not really fair to the other featured lists if this one doesn't have edit summaries. -Phoenix 20:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Episode summaries are optional, but if they're used, they must be solid. Everything done here was done well, and nothing missing is essential. Therefore, I support. Jay32183 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreeing with Jay, episode summaries are really optional. And when a show has had about 6 seasons or more, rather like this, it's not really practical to try to stuff a single page with summaries and pictures. This list is similar to List of Smallville episodes (and List of The Simpsons episodes to some extent), which is FL; and even though most LOEs have color coding, this series is probably an exception due to the multiple names, etc. This has improved since the previous nomination, and because of that I support. Cliff smith 00:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not really wild about the location of the episode number column, or that weird extra line in-between each episode line. Episode lists with summaries have this for extra clarity, since they involve two rows per episode line, but here we only have one row. Minor issues, and aside from that everything seems all well and done.. but I'm not sure if I would call it "featured" with just that, even with the formatting issues taken care of. The only reason I don't say oppose is because.. well... FLs really aren't being held to the same kinds of standards as FAs. Most of the FLs we have should really be "Good Lists" instead of being Featured Lists. The real goal of FLs is to drive improvement of the lists, and that has been done, all check marks green, the article has done what we asked of it, etc. I just feel rather indifferent about it. -- Ned Scott 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Please address the respective WP guideline for all your possible objections. For example, is there a guideline indicating that episode lists should include summaries, that there is an specific location for the episode number column or that the summaries should be "original"?

And Ned, could it be possible that FL lists are "featured" because they constitute good examples of lists that observed all the guidelines to go by. The way I see it is that there are some standards, if the article or list observates all of them, it becomes an example, and in order to showcase all good examples they must be featured. --T-man, the wise 05:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose!!!: Nevermind my previous comments, without the images and the summaries it sucksass big time. I can't believe I spent so much time in that article only to see it become that, its so sad. Key images are essential to graphycally identify an episode!! --T-man, the wise 05:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without the episode summaries the images definitely can't be added. Screenshots require critical commentary. Jay32183 17:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. That requirement sounds a little made up, and if not, you must quote your guideline (the one stating "Without the episode summaries the images definitely can't be added). Then again, I insist the article must have both, the summaries and the images. I put all of them the first time, I'm not doing it again and I'd won't encourage to feature such incomplete list. Regardless the observations of other editors, get it to be like it was a couple of months ago and you got my approbal (remember, we're not voting here, we're reaching consensus to decide if the article fits the guidelines for a featured articles).--T-man, the wise 03:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already said the episode summaries were optional. Without episode summaries the tv screenshots will fail WP:NFCC#6 and #8. #6 = Media specific content requirements that state that tv screenshots may be used for identification and critical commentary, but not identification without critical commentary. #8 = The non-free content must make a significant contribution to the article in which it is being used. Jay32183 04:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to comment and suggest that you use the captions of the images to expand upon them and provide relevant critical commentary; it would strengthen the fair use claim and could provide appropriate encyclopedic information. --Iamunknown 06:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you are talking about the images already in the article and used as series logos. I can agree with that. Jay32183 17:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I meant the logos. That there exist no free images to replace them is only one criterion justifying their inclusion. How is the image justified? Not by a caption that states, "Batman logo from season 1". What is significant and encyclopedic about the image? Has it been noted by pop historians as being iconic for a particular movement within popular culture? Is there any particularly interesting story behind it? What character came before Batman and lead to the artist deciding upon Batman? The caption does not necessarily have to directly reflect the text, it may provide relevant circumstancial information that is not addressed therein. --Iamunknown 19:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Featured list criteria just says that the image must be appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text and acceptable copyright status, and I think the logo images have all this. Gman124 00:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • To determine "acceptable copyright status" we must refer to WP:NFCC. Jay32183 01:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it has no summaries or images per episode doesn't mean that it can't be featured—and I could list you multiple featured LOEs that are similar to this one. As I stated above: "...when a show has had about 6 seasons or more, rather like this, it's not really practical to try to stuff a single page with summaries and pictures." Your opposition pertains to no criterion of WP:WIAFL anyway, and is therefore rather inactionable. Cliff smith 00:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

            • WP:WIAFL doesn't deal with images in episode list. We need to find out more specific guidelines. Also, the season logos don't have to be "noted by pop historians as being iconic" to be included (if so, point the guideline). They are relevant because they were used during that specific season the article is talking about. they are relevant and useful because they ilustrate as visual references to the respective season. It's almost the same case with the Seinfeld logos, each one is characteristic of certain seasons.--T-man, the wise 03:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...exemplifies our very best work" is my concern. This just seems run of the mill right now, as does other existing FL LOEs. -- Ned Scott 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you got me thinking there. There would be 2 ways of ...exemplifies our very best work: a) By having a limited number of every kind of Featured List, so that we'd have an ever changing list of lists in an evolutive competition to be featured... (I believe this is your position) or b) by featuring every single list that meets the standard, so that it becomes clear for list editors what to do in order to make good lists. The more the merrier. the more examples of the same standards we have the clearer it becomes to know what to do (whitout knowing the respective guideline, this is kinda my position).
But the real question, as always, is which way are the guidelines currently supporting (I don't know). That alone would be the anwer to your concerns.--T-man, the wise 04:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-man, the wise, would you kindly refer me to whichever policy you are referring to when you suggest that non-free content may be used merely as decorative material "useful because they ilustrate as visual references to the respective season"? --Iamunknown 04:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fear enough. Well, there is the WP:Image line stating "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)." But I think I picked up the idea somewhere else... Let's see... This one is from WP:Perfect "the perfect aricle (...) includes informative, relevant images — including maps, portraits, photographs and artworks—that add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text, but not so many as to detract from it. Each image should have an explanatory caption." ...aaaand that's about it.--T-man, the wise 05:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget that we are dealing with non-free content? How does the current use and the use your desctribe reconcile with Wikipedia:Non-free content? --Iamunknown 05:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't forget it. " ...they (Non-free content images) are permitted only if they meet the restrictions of this exemption policy and can also be considered fair use under US law. If the logos don't fit that criteria, the solution is to fill any missing ( and redundant if you ask me) copyright crap. But my main point is that images in Wikipedia doesn't need images to be "noted by pop historians as being iconic for a particular movement within popular culture" in order to be included--T-man, the wise 06:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting indeed. How is an image framed by the caption "Batman: The Animated Series credits logo" relevant to a list of episodes? The former details the credit scenes and the ambience surrounding the end of the film reel; the latter details the individual episodes, their content and organizes them in an accessible format. Curious discrepancy, isn't there? --Iamunknown 06:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, that's because that's the most memorable image of the series. It helps readers to visually identify the series that the article is all about. If the name of the series doesn't ring a bell (or makes the reader confuse it with some of the other batamn animated series), the image might. It is also relevant because it was used in the closing credits of the first, third and fourth seasons, but not the second, so it's totally relevant to the seasons. And yes, the discrepancy is curious, but that's because of it's too thorough for something that is just fine. As I said, if the pictures have their license requirements in their page in order they're just fine as they are placed.--T-man, the wise 06:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on... you have to reinclude the remaining title card images in the list unless you want them to be erased (and I swear this time I won't uploading them again). Without the images my say, for whatever it's (or not) worth, will ramain against making it a FL.--T-man, the wise 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • T-man, The images you uploaded didn't have any source, so that 's why they were removed, and most have already been deleted. Gman124 15:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware of all of that. 40% are still around. You could see which ones by using storaged version in the history of the article. You'd be able to see the only the pictures that are still around. The lack source isn't a good reason to remove them, it's a good reason to source them or a good reason to change them, but not a good reason to take them all from the article.--T-man, the wise 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, if the image has been on Wikipedia for over a week without a source, the image gets speedily deleted. That is, the images get deleted without discussion. Uploaders are supposed to include all copyright information upon uploading. Jay32183 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes and no. Yes, they are about to be deleted in a week, and no, they've not been deleted yet, the week is just on his 3rd day or so.--T-man, the wise 01:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's actually 48 hours. -- Ned Scott 22:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whatevah, the point is some of those (about 40%) are still around but are about to be erase. The message said 7 days.--T-man, the wise 22:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The later sections need a brief intro, in the same way "Season One" and "The Adventures of Batman & Robin" have. I'll be happy to uspport when that gets dealt with. Tompw (talk) (review) 10:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In summary, considering that in contrast with other forgotten series, the visual aid are all available (if not in wikipedia) all over the internet, the fact taht several attractive and featured list include them, the WP:PERFECT image criteria, the fact that articles should be as useful and informative as possible; I will support this nomination whenever it features the following:

  • Title card/ characteristic images with proper source, licensing and copyright holder information.
  • No more than 3, no les than 2 original Synopsis OR the original Warner Bros. synopsis in italic with one proper note indicating the source somewhere in the article.
  • Section Intros. They can be brief original season synopsis.

Considering the production data of each episode must be in order, that's what I perceive a good episode list with high quality standards is made of. I currently oppose the nomination and I permanently will. I'm going to mind other issues and (finally!) shot up and stop replying here. But if the article reaches the standards I just mention, you can throw me a word at my user page and I'd gladly support the nomination.--T-man, the wise 01:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title card images[edit]

I created this Template:BTAS screenshot to make the process of adding the copyright info. If some data is missing it can be added directly to the template page. You only have to copypaste {{BTAS screenshot|{{{PAGENAME}}}''}} into the images missing copyright info. The template will show this: 

This is a screenshot of ''{{{PAGENAME}}}'', an episode of [[Batman: The Animated Series]], an animated series produced by [[Bruce Timm]] and [[Paul Dini]], distributed by [[Warner Bros.]] and originally aired on [[Fox Network]].

If you feel the template is missing info, you can add it directly into the template page (Template:BTAS screenshot). All images were actually taken from http://www.worldsfinestonline.com .

I did about 1/3 of the images, but I won't be finishing the rest. These images also serve the individual episode articles, but the stupid orphanbot just blocked them from appearing, so somebody will have to take the work of unblocking them again.--T-man, the wise 02:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Batman:_The_Animated_Series_episodes&oldid=447042377"