Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2008: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
promoting 11 |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Florida Panthers head coaches}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Arizona Cardinals head coaches}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of St. Louis Rams head coaches}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Detroit Pistons head coaches}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best other work}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Cure discography}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Washington Capitals head coaches}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day starting pitchers}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Joking Apart episodes}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of states and union territories of India by population}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel Laureates}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel Laureates}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ECW Television Champions}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ECW Television Champions}} |
||
Revision as of 00:56, 17 December 2008
- 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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 00:56, 17 December 2008 [10].
This list is an attempt to provide context to the growing number of Antarctic expedition articles within Wikipedia. Although individually organised, with their own objectives, the 16 expeditions of the "Heroic Age", listed here, were part of a common endeavour – the discovery and opening up of the continent of Antarctica, in a concentrated period of activity. A subsidiary list provides details of the explorers who died during this endeavour. This could possibly be hived off and linked to the main list, but I would prefer not to do this if possible. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- "an era which extended from the close of the Victorian epoch to the years immediately following the end of the First World War." Could you give dates so that the readers unfamiliar with one or both periods?
- It's difficult to give actual dates, because opinions differ over the start and finish, but I have altered the text to read "...close of the 19th century to the early 1920s." Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a bit concerned over comma usage. It seems a bit excessive in places:
- "a lecture given to the Royal Geographical Society in London, in 1893, by Professor John Murray of the Challenger oceanographical expedition, 1872–76." --> "a lecture given to the Royal Geographical Society in London in 1893, by Professor John Murray of the Challenger oceanographical expedition (1872–76)."
- "In August 1895, at the Sixth International Geographical Congress, also in London," first comma is unnecessary, I think
- I've adopted your punctuation for the first sentence and rewritten the second to eliminate commas altogether! I've also checked the rest of the text; I can't see any more obvious overuse of commas but I'll keep looking. (Trouble is, some editors like commas and complain I don't use them enough.) Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Most histories consider that the era extended for the quarter-century until Shackleton's final expedition in 1921–22, although some define it more narrowly, as between 1901 and 1917." Ref 4 supports the claim that it began in 1901, and ended in 1922.. Where are the references to support 1917? Where are the sources to support "most histories"?
- Changed "most" to "some" - too difficult to prove "most". I've also chopped this section, which deals with the origins and beginnings of the Heroic Age and shouldn't be concerned with when it ended. That discussion belongs in a later section, where I have reorganised the text and added to the references.
- Are the flags necessary for country? What do they offer, besides colour, that the words themselves don't?
- I suppose they are not absolutely necessary, but that is true of most images, isn't it? Flags appear on almost every featured list I've seen that has an international content. In this case, since the expeditions were very much flag-carrying affairs, I think there is every justification for keeping them. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- "This was the first expedition to winter", "The first expedition to overwinter": What does "to winter"/"overwinter" mean?
- They mean the same thing - to spend the winter in a particular place. I've changed "winter" to "overwinter" for consistency, and linked the term. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Full stop and the end of the sentence of the first expedition summary.
- Fixed
- "United Kingdom" in the first table, "U.K." in the second. It would be nice to have consistency. If not, it should be "UK", per Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations and MOS:ABBR.
- The flag template produces "United Kingdom" in full and I assume it can't be changed. So for consistency's sake I've changed UK in the second table to United Kingdom .Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- (later) But see below; someone has showed me how to fix this and so it is now UK in both tables. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- The flag template produces "United Kingdom" in full and I assume it can't be changed. So for consistency's sake I've changed UK in the second table to United Kingdom .Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are 6 deaths listed for the Terra Nova Expedition, but the expedition summary box says "Scott and four companions". Where did the sixth guy come from?
- The "deaths" table indicates that he drowned in New Zealand, where the expedition ship was overwintering. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Slicing the Silence: voyaging to Antarctica" I think "voyaging" should be with a capital V, no?
- Yes. I've also added the book into the list of sources. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Referencing:
- Ref 4 needs formatting correctly
- Done'
- Refs 3, 6, 20, etc, give "www.south-pole.com" as the website name, but according to the site it should be "South-Pole.com" ***Fixed
- Same with "www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz" --> "University of Canterbury"
- Fixed
- "www.coolantarctica.com" --> "Cool Antarctica"
- Fixed
- "www.norway.org.uk" --> "Embassy of Norway"
- Fixed
- "www.ast.leeds.ac.uk" --> University of Leeds
- Got rid of it - site content seems to have changed
- What makes http://www.south-pole.com a reliable source?
- I have some reservations myself, which is why I only use it in conjunction with other sources, never as the sole source. On the face of it, it is an admirable resource, covering every significant Antarctic expedition since before Captain Cook, with excellent pictures, good suplementary reading lists and some admirable material, particularly that relating to postal services in relation to Antarctic expeditions. My main reservation is that I can't find out who's behind it. Also, its prose is a bit journalistic and sensational at times. I'd be sorry to lose it altogether, but I suppose it could be demoted to External links? However, as I say, everything cited to it is cited to somewhere else. Brianboulton (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- PS But see comments under Sources review, below Brianboulton (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have some reservations myself, which is why I only use it in conjunction with other sources, never as the sole source. On the face of it, it is an admirable resource, covering every significant Antarctic expedition since before Captain Cook, with excellent pictures, good suplementary reading lists and some admirable material, particularly that relating to postal services in relation to Antarctic expeditions. My main reservation is that I can't find out who's behind it. Also, its prose is a bit journalistic and sensational at times. I'd be sorry to lose it altogether, but I suppose it could be demoted to External links? However, as I say, everything cited to it is cited to somewhere else. Brianboulton (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- What makes http://www.coolantarctica.com a reliable source?
- Another multi-purpose site, but this time we know who's behind it - Paul Ward, a teacher and marine biologist, a former member of the British Antarctic Survey Team. The site is very well regarded, having been selected as the "world's best Antarctic website" (see here) I'm not sure of the status of this accolade, but the site is used as a source on other sites, for example this and this. I have no doubts about this site as a reliable source. Brianboulton (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ref 4 needs formatting correctly
- Note: I have not been checked any other references for reliability.
Looks good, but not there just yet, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I believe I have answered them all; please let me know if there are still points outstanding. Brianboulton (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments. List look OK. I would use UK throughout, especially in the second table, where united on one line, then kingdom, looks poor. Most of the improvement is needed in the introduction, which needs more extensive citing. If the lead is not summarising the article text, then it should be cited, which generally means leads for FLs should always be cited, as thelead is an introduction instead of a summary.Dillypickle (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- On your first point, I had "U.K" in the second table, but changed it for consistency's sake. I could only have "U.K" in both tables by giving the flags up, because the template yields "United Kingdom". As explained above, I don't want to lose the flags, so if consistency is required, it's got to be the longer form in both tables. Personally, I would see nothing wrong with reverting to "UK" in the second table and leaving the main table alone. On my screen display, incidentally, the words "United Kingdom" do appear on a single line.
- Technically, you could use Template:Flagicon:
UK. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you - I wasn't aware of this. I have now used U.K. in both tables, so there is consistency, and no reason to ditch the flags. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Technically, you could use Template:Flagicon:
- Second point: I have added citations to sentences in the lead which I thought were not covered, or not covered adequately, by the citations in the text. Please let me know if you think there are other statements in the lead that require similar specific citation.
Thank you for your helpful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Many of your links to individual ships go to disambiguation pages instead. Otherwise good work, I'll put in a proper review over the weekend.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- All ship links sorted out now. Thank you, Brianboulton (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support An excellent article that forms a very interesting summary of the events and the period. I was particularly looking for an explanation of how the boundaries of the age were defined and also an explanation of the potentially "peacock" term Heroic. I was thus very pleased to see well reasoned explanations of both. My minor suggestions are to create an article for each of the ships involved and also to seperate the references into book sources and web sources under third level headings. Very good work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support and suggestions. The ships would have to be a long term project, but it would be great fun to do. I've separated the books and the web sources in the sources list, with e-books in the web section. The web sources do not all format in the same way, because some have authors and others not. However, if you think it an improvement I'm happy for it to stay. Brianboulton (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would actually suggest putting the e-books in the books section since that is the way they are formatted, however I leave the style of it up to you (and if you disagreed with my original suggestion I wouldn't hold it against you or the article).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Its just occurred to me, but your German flag is anachronistic, you want
German Empire instead (or Germany).--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Its just occurred to me, but your German flag is anachronistic, you want
- I would actually suggest putting the e-books in the books section since that is the way they are formatted, however I leave the style of it up to you (and if you disagreed with my original suggestion I wouldn't hold it against you or the article).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments on sources
- Sources looks good, checked with the Checklinks tool. Cannibaloki 02:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Not quite, see my comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)- Sources are good now. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) A well-written and interesting article. Suggestions:
- "During this relatively short period the Antarctic " Relatively short compared to what? Comma after "period".
- Changed "relatively short period" to "25-year period". No comma necessary after period. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- "The common factor in
allthese expeditions was the limited nature of the resources available to them, before advances in transport and communication technologies revolutionised the work of exploration." Also, I don't think the comma is necessary.- "all" and comma deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- "by Professor John Murray of the Challenger oceanographical expedition 1872–76" Is 1872–1876 part of the title?
- No, some words got lost, now restored to text:"...expedition, which had sailed to Antarctic waters in 1872–76". Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- "During his address Borchgrevink outlined plans for a full-scale pioneering Antarctic expedition, to be based at Cape Adare." Comma after "address".
- "However, the Heroic Age was inaugurated by an expedition launched by the Belgian Geographical Society in 1897, Borchgrevink following a year later with a privately sponsored expedition."-->However, the Heroic Age was inaugurated by an expedition launched by the Belgian Geographical Society in 1897; Borchgrevink followed a year later with a privately sponsored expedition.
- Amended per your version. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- "The designation "heroic age" came later; the term does not occur in any of the early expedition " Terms do not "occur", they are written or used.
- Changed "does not occur" to "is not used" Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- "It is not clear when the term was first coined or adopted generally; it occurs in an article by the British explorer Duncan Carse in The Times" Same as above.
- "occurs" changed per above. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- "British explorer Duncan Carse in The Times, in March 1956."-->British explorer Duncan Carse in March 1956 edition of The Times. This suggestion is of personal preference, I think the elimination of the repetition of "in" supercedes the slightly increased wordiness.
- Sentence reorganized to further reduce wordiness. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Some terms are overlinked in the tables {Auora, Ross Ice Shelf, etc.).
- Repeat links removed from tables. I have linked first mention of the terms in each of the two tables. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- "These included wireless, an electically heated crow's nest and an "odograph" which could trace and " I think "which" should be that.
- Done
- Sources:
- WRT to http://www.south-pole.com/, you might as well make it an external link. Removing it from the source list shouldn't have any other effects because as you said, "everything cited to it is cited to somewhere else."
- Well, I could do this. But I have just discovered, via this, that SouthPole.com has the blessings of the Scott Polar Research Institute. From their Index of Antarctica page you get links to what SPRI calls "the best" expedition summaries, and these links take us to the South-Pole.com pages. I'd say that SPRI's blessing is enough for them to be taken as reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- What does (First Burial) signify on Ref 55?
- Its a section heading in the site, full name First Burial on the Continent. I have amended the reference
- Some of your web sources need publication dates (sometimes they are written as date of last update). For example, http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A100444b.htmd/ http://www.heritage-antarctica.org/english/ExpeditionMembersContinued/ needs a publication date (last update date). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Dates added to all web sources, except in a couple of cases were no dates are given. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- WRT to http://www.south-pole.com/, you might as well make it an external link. Removing it from the source list shouldn't have any other effects because as you said, "everything cited to it is cited to somewhere else."
Comment
- It is a shame, but some of these images may need to go. Image:DrWSBruce1905.jpg will do, as I doubt a fair use claim is justifiable here. Also some of the licensing tags might not be correct, so i'd recommend asking an experienced image reviewer like User:David Fuchs to take a look at the images. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can you indicate which images, apart from Bruce, you are questioning? Alternatives might be possible. Also which licensing tags you think are incorrect? Bruce is a problem, in that I'm pretty sure no free image exists anywhere. Probably it's no FU, no Bruce. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- For the sake of clarity, is the above image the only fair use image used in the article? I'm afraid I am not sufficiently versed in the rules governing fair use to comment on whether the image should or shouldn't be removed as according to wikipolicies, but from an aesthetic point of view it would certainly be a shame if this or other images had to go. Its removal or not would not affect my support either way however.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify, Bruce is the only fair use image. I don't know what the other image queries are. Wikipedia allows use of non-free images considered essential to the article, or the reader's understanding of it, provided no free version are available or can be made. Thus the Bruce image was approved on his biographical article and on his expedition article, there being no free versions to be had. As Bruce is not the focus of this article, merely an important element of it, the image's free use may be considered unjustified. But we must await the comments of an image reviewer. Thank you, anyway, for your comment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- For the sake of clarity, is the above image the only fair use image used in the article? I'm afraid I am not sufficiently versed in the rules governing fair use to comment on whether the image should or shouldn't be removed as according to wikipolicies, but from an aesthetic point of view it would certainly be a shame if this or other images had to go. Its removal or not would not affect my support either way however.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Further comments from Rambo's Revenge as requested by me. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- The world of images is a bit of a minefield to me. However having observed other image reviews I will outline anything that might be problematic. I may me completely wrong about all of these, and this is just my opinion when trying to be as picky as possible. Being inexperienced with images I have replied here and not on the FLC page.
- Image:DrWSBruce1905.jpg - this is the only one I am sure about. It has to go as it fails WP:NFCC #8 Significance.
- Image:AeneasMack.jpg, Image:Shackletonold.jpg, Image:Scottski.jpg, Image:Shackletonhead.jpg - only PD if first published in the US prior to January 1, 1923. The rationale only mentions publication in London. I believe these can be used if the tag is changed to {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}.
- I've added details of the first US publication which was 1920. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Otto Nordenskjöld.jpg, date unknown. So cannot confirm first publication and that it is PD.
- For images marked with "No known restrictions on publication", like {{PD-Bain}} the site states that "These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain"[11], so can these be used?
- Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- On the basis of the above comments the queried images, apart from Bruce, are:-
- Nordenskjold, because the publication date is unknown and PD cannot therefore be confirmed.
- Charcot, a Library of Congress photograph from the Bain collection. As stated above, the site says "These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain...", but this statement goes on: "...but do indicate that no evidence has been found to show that restrictions [on publication, distribution etc] apply". This seems pretty conclusive to me—the image may be used, but should further evidence be found, restrictions can be imposed.
- Filchner, another from the Bain collection, so the Charcot remarks apply.
- On the basis of the above comments the queried images, apart from Bruce, are:-
On this basis I will remove Bruce, and also Nordenskjold until/unless I can establish original publication. I will leave the others in place until further confirmation is available. Brianboulton (talk)
(Later) I have also removed the repeated Charcot and Shackleton images, which makes the missing images look less isolated, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- In order to be free for our purposes, an image must be public domain in the United States; as such, Image:Douglas Mawson.jpg needs an additional template; same with Image:Nobu Shirase.jpg
- Image:Jean-Baptiste Charcot.jpg can't be listed as pd
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
OK.
- No problem with Mawson, the photograph was published in the US in 1915 and I have added the template.
- Shirase: no more information than that on the existing template. I can't confirm publication in the US o I'll take the picture out.
- Charcot: your comment is cryptic. Does the unwritten part of the sentence continue "and must therefore be withdrawn"? Clarification, please.
- Finally, does this complete your image review?
Thanks for your time,anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think that takes care of all my otherconcerns; for the Baptiste image, you have a LoC no restrictions template and then a pd-template per work of the US gov't. It doesn't appear to be the work of the US gov't, and either way you should only have one of the licenses (the first one.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Note for reviewers: In view of the loss of some images from the main table, and the possible impression this may have on readers about the relative importances of expeditions, would it be a good idea to remove all the images from the table, and have a gallery of a few selected images at the end? I've tried this in a sandbox - please see for yourself at User:Brianboulton/Sandbox4. Advantages: uniformity in the table, number of images in the gallery can be varied without disturbing the table. Disadvantage: Images distanced from their text. And I've got a feeling that WP doesn't like galleries. But I'd be interested to hear what people think. Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind image galleries, but if you did it, is it possible to centralise the gallery instead of having it at the left side of the page? Also, it's UK, not U.K. or U.K. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed the UKs. I am investigating WP:GALLERY to see if it is possible to centralise (I know nothing about galleries so any advice is welcome). The question is, does the list look better with a gallery than with the partial set of pics in the list? If the consensus is that it doesn't, then I won't spend hours on the gallery option. Brianboulton (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- The gallery is now centred. I will shortly transfer it here, so that reviewers can see it in full context. I think it presents better than the intermittent images at present in the list. Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- (Later) I have uncovered a source which will provide PD images for some of the missing faces, so I am holding off on the gallery for a bit. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- The list now has images in every slot. I am awaiting confirmation of the licensing details on Charcot, that is all. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- None of the image reviewers I have approached has identified problems with the images as they now stand, however reluctant they are to come to the page and say so. I have done all I can to meet image queries, and am satisfied that all is in order on that front. The article/list should be judged as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed the UKs. I am investigating WP:GALLERY to see if it is possible to centralise (I know nothing about galleries so any advice is welcome). The question is, does the list look better with a gallery than with the partial set of pics in the list? If the consensus is that it doesn't, then I won't spend hours on the gallery option. Brianboulton (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1995
- 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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [28].
After much work and help from various users, this "great monster" is ready. Cannibaloki 17:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments from SRX[TRUco]
Comments - Excellent list and well referenced, but a few notes.
- After several auditions and lineup changes, the band settled on vocalist Paul Di'Anno, guitarists Dave Murray and Dennis Stratton, and drummer Clive Burr.-They settled for this when they made their debut, correct? (Just making sure..)
- There needs to be an overall count of their discography in the lead somewhere.--TRUCO 21:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Great article, there is very little wrong with it. The only thing that I feel is worth mentioning is that the paragraphs in the lead seem a little intimidating. Per WP:Layout and WP:Lead I would suggest redistributing them into three or four paragraphs (ideally four). The first paragraph should include the current first sentence, and a breakdown of the discography by type – Ikara talk → 00:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I really don't agree with putting a sentence on top of the lead saying how many albums, singles, compilations, etc they have released, as it can easily be seen on the sand infobox and only makes they lead longer. Also, I've seen in many FL that it's no longer used the phrases: "Discography of", "List of awards and nominations recived by".; That's my opinion. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you; a bit redundant, since have an infobox to make the count. Cannibaloki 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- You may want to remove the phrase "discography of..." from the first sentence, and instead use something like: "Iron Maiden are a British heavy metal band. They have released..." If you keep it as is, there should really be a comma after "Iron Maiden" in the first sentence. However, note that infoboxes are intended as a summary of information in an article, not an alternative, so the list of releases should be included in the prose somewhere. The lead is the most sensible choice in this case – Ikara talk → 12:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Looks great, but TNOTB has been certified gold in Germany. --78.48.76.229 (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Done Everything has been updated. The first paragraph of the lead was re-written, and shortedned as much as possible. TNOTB recieved a gold certification in Germany: that was updated too. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent! You have my support as well. --Hullu poro (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
It looks great, you have my support now. All the best – Ikara talk → 00:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Disclosure: I helped with the copy-editing of the article. However, all the credit goes to Cannibaloki and Rockk3r. Great job! Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Support igordebraga ≠ 22:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [34].
This has undergone a brief peer review, and the four season it covers (& transcludes are in parts) are all featured. I think it meets all the criteria. Thanks in advance for comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The show ran until February 22, 2007, with a total of 92 episodes split over four seasons."-->The show ran until February 22, 2007, with 92 episodes split over 4 seasons. MOSNUM says to make comparative quantities written out the same way.
Done - "Season three was twenty-five episodes long, but only sixteen episodes were ordered for the final fourth season as falling ratings meant the show was cancelled."-->Season three was twenty-five episodes long, but only sixteen episodes were ordered for the final fourth season as falling ratings led to the show's cancellation. Done
- "Additionally The O.C. The Complete Series was released on November 27, 2007" Comma after "Additionally". Done
- "For registered members of the US iTunes Store episodes of the first, second, and fourth season are available to purchase and download." Comma after "Store". Done
- The Note system is not working properly.
On hold- Comment this is because the note is in a transcluded table. The link down works, but not back up as I guess it tries to go to the transcluded article. I cannot see a way round this, without transcluding the notes section from the season pages, but this wouldn't allow the wording to differ, hence I have not done it. I am very open to suggestions on this though. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Consider using Template:Ref label system. I can do it if you want. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for that I didn't think it would work. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Consider using Template:Ref label system. I can do it if you want. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment this is because the note is in a transcluded table. The link down works, but not back up as I guess it tries to go to the transcluded article. I cannot see a way round this, without transcluding the notes section from the season pages, but this wouldn't allow the wording to differ, hence I have not done it. I am very open to suggestions on this though. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good list, good introduction and well sourced. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments - Sorry I missed the PR, I was having some issues.
- "The O.C." and "iTunes Store" are WP:Overlinked Done
- "troubled teen": WP:TONE --> "troubled teenager". I'd also prefer "teen drama" to be "teenaged drama" Done
- "The show" implies it's a one-off. "The series" is better, IMHO Done
- Use "United States" before "US", and "United Kingdom" before "UK" Done
- "For registered members of the US iTunes Store, episodes of the first, second, and fourth season are available to purchase and download." This implies not all episodes of the seasons are available, but my guess is that they all are. Done
- "This section indexes official specials and recap episodes that were made specifically by the creators of The O.C." Don't refer to WP. How about something like "Two special episodes, not part of the official continuity, were produced to complement the second season and were broadcast on Fox in the weeks leading up to the season premiere. The first documents the shows impact on popular culture, and the second provides "a day in the life" of the show.[1]" Done
- "In America airing of "The Return of the Nana"" either a comma or a word is missing from after "America". You should use "United States" or "US", too, since "America" could be seen to encompass Mexico, Canada, Cuba, the West Indies, etc. Done
- I don't see the four general references as necessary. Wouldn't The OC Insider be better since it also offers airdates? If you do stick with it, use {{cite video}}. Done
- Ref 4 needs formatting correctly. TVShowsOnDVD.com is a website and doesn't need formatting. Just remove TV Guide from the publisher=field, and put TVShowsOnDVD there instead of at work= Done
- Sorry, I meant it doesn't need itallicising, but I guess you knew what I meant. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Categories need fixing. It appears in Category:Lists of soap opera episodes, but no article about The O.C. describe it as a soap opera, rather a teen drama. What about Category:Lists of drama television series episodes instead? Done
Everything else looks good. FL Criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 appear to be met. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Consider whether it's worth mentioning that the Fox/NBC joint venture Hulu carries some episodes [35]
- On hold I can see this info. but before it's addition please see comment below.
- Done
- On hold I can see this info. but before it's addition please see comment below.
- As does The WB's new website [36]
- Comment Not being from the US, the link automatically redirects to [37]. I cannot therefore see what information (episodes) are available. I would happy for the addition of this with the a summary of episodes on Hulu (above) however I would need a US user to do this, as I can not verify the content on the WB site. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's just a small selection of episodes, which changes regularly. Like right now, all the episodes they have, Friends, Gilmore Girls and The OC have Thanksgiving and Christmas episodes up. A couple of weeks ago it was a different theme. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done, assuming this is an accurate description of what is available. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- That appears to be a good summary, and works for me. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's just a small selection of episodes, which changes regularly. Like right now, all the episodes they have, Friends, Gilmore Girls and The OC have Thanksgiving and Christmas episodes up. A couple of weeks ago it was a different theme. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not being from the US, the link automatically redirects to [37]. I cannot therefore see what information (episodes) are available. I would happy for the addition of this with the a summary of episodes on Hulu (above) however I would need a US user to do this, as I can not verify the content on the WB site. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I have tried to find these beleive me. But ABC Medianet has broken pictures or ratings before Feb 11 2004 (Like this) I have also trawled through every Mediaweek Programming Insider from then with no luck. If anyone knows anywhere else please let me know. However, that said Season 1 was originally promoted without any viewer figures. Other episode lists contain no figures, remaining comprehensive without them, but surely removing 89 verifiable viewing figures goes against common sense, and that not including them per comprehensiveness goes against improving Wikipedia, and should be ignored. Let me know your thoughts on this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- It was promoted without viewing figures because they weren't initially included and so the "complete set of items" rule didn't apply. The set of items that were there were episode and series numbers, titles, writers, directors, airdates and prod codes. Adding in only some viewing figures provides another set of items, and that set is not complete. I'm happy to wait and see if anyone else comments on this though. Perhaps request someone from WP:TV, such as User:Collectonian, User:Bignole or User:Thedemonhog to comment here? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Request for comment made to all above mentioned users. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I have always believed in the philosophy (only when it comes to these types of situations), if you don't have it all then don't list it partially. Viewing figures are nice, but they are not necessary given that (unfortunately) at the moment you have an individual page for each episode, AND a season page. Then again, you're only missing 3, so it's not like you're missing the first couple of seasons, but have the later ones. I have to assume that if they are there for the episodes before, after, and in between these vacant spaces then they must be there for the ones you don't have as well. One thing I would like to ask, where did this production number come from? Production numbers are hard to accurately verify. Please tell me they didn't come from TV.com or IMDb.com (which are virtually the same in their respect in fact that we cannot cite them as sources because of the way they attain a good portion of their content). The reason I mention this is because, not only are they hard to reliably verify, but they really hold not actual value to the article. The average reader won't understand what they are (kind like listing viewership numbers for anything other than the overrall viewership, e.g. 17/60 males...average readers don't understand that in a table). If an episode was filmed out of order, then it's easier to put a star beside it and put a "Notes:" section below the respective table and indicate that said episode was filmed early (but only when you have a reliable source to prove that). You also need a source for those airdates. TVGuide and MSN are some good sources for airdates (see the MSN listing here). Now, I'm going out of town, so I won't be able to respond any any responses/rebuttles to my comments. For the initial reason I was brought here, I have to side with Matthew on this one, because it's clear that the numbers are there for all the other episodes, and why these three cannot be found is odd to me. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the airdates are referenced, sort of, to the one general reference, however you have to go through and click on each individual episode to see the airdate. Might be better if the nom replaced that general ref with more specific ones for the individual ep pages at same site. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think replacing one encompassing general reference by 92 specific ones is excessive, and as such will leave it as it is, unless further objection is raised. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was actually meaning that you should place a ref name tag in "Original Airdate" section of each table. That will easily show that each season is referenced. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the airdates are referenced, sort of, to the one general reference, however you have to go through and click on each individual episode to see the airdate. Might be better if the nom replaced that general ref with more specific ones for the individual ep pages at same site. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree with the others. If all of the figures are not available, it can not be considered to meet "Comprehensiveness" as is. I can not imagine that figures are not available for those few episodes if they are available from all. If those few pages from the ABC Net site are broken, I'd recommend emailing their webmaster and asking them to fix those pages. I also must second the question on those production numbers. If they are from TV.com or IMDB, the column needs to go. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have emailed the webmaster Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Assuming the webmaster doesn't fix this, the missing figures can be calculated from reliably sourced data. Would this be acceptable? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, you couldn't do that math yourself. If you don't know the 3 numbers, then they could theoretically be anything. As one number could be higher than you calculated, while another could be lower, and in such case they would offset each other in the average for the season. If you have the original url (I read above about somethinb being "broken"), then have you tried the Internet Archives? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- But two of them are not theoretically anything, as they are directly related to the Nielsen Share rating. That leaves one missing, which can be worked out with maths from the average. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Then why aren't they listed? If you know them, then they should be there. If you have a source for them, then use it. If you don't, then you don't know what they are, and are hypothesizing what they are. Also, the season average is based on the final, official numbers. The numbers you have for each episode are the estimated figures. The official numbers are usually not calculated until about a week later (well, not released until then). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- But two of them are not theoretically anything, as they are directly related to the Nielsen Share rating. That leaves one missing, which can be worked out with maths from the average. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Production codes are listed at the end of each episodes credits. If you want web verification they cannot all be found in any one place but reliable sources that verfy them include IGN which lists some of the production codes in a summary box next on individual episode pages (like this) and CNBC-e who also list some. (An example) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just confirming that production codes for The O.C. are shown on screen at the end of each episode's credits, so the episodes are the reference for this. I don't know if including them in an episode list is something to be discussed in a FLC. The article is utilizing {{episode list}} which includes the
prod code=field. I feel that part of the discussion should be taken up at [[Template talk:Episode list}}. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- The production codes appear right at the end of the credits, like this one for the pilot episode - Image:TheOCprodcode.jpg (apologies for the low quality) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
My issue with them is over their relevance. What relevance do they hold for the average reader? Does the average reader even know what they mean? Most don't, and if you have to explain that it shows if they were filmed out of order, then you might as well do that in prose and drop the needless columns. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)- They are part of the template, and as Matthew said the validity of their inclusion is not really something for FLC. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just confirming that production codes for The O.C. are shown on screen at the end of each episode's credits, so the episodes are the reference for this. I don't know if including them in an episode list is something to be discussed in a FLC. The article is utilizing {{episode list}} which includes the
- I have emailed the webmaster Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I have always believed in the philosophy (only when it comes to these types of situations), if you don't have it all then don't list it partially. Viewing figures are nice, but they are not necessary given that (unfortunately) at the moment you have an individual page for each episode, AND a season page. Then again, you're only missing 3, so it's not like you're missing the first couple of seasons, but have the later ones. I have to assume that if they are there for the episodes before, after, and in between these vacant spaces then they must be there for the ones you don't have as well. One thing I would like to ask, where did this production number come from? Production numbers are hard to accurately verify. Please tell me they didn't come from TV.com or IMDb.com (which are virtually the same in their respect in fact that we cannot cite them as sources because of the way they attain a good portion of their content). The reason I mention this is because, not only are they hard to reliably verify, but they really hold not actual value to the article. The average reader won't understand what they are (kind like listing viewership numbers for anything other than the overrall viewership, e.g. 17/60 males...average readers don't understand that in a table). If an episode was filmed out of order, then it's easier to put a star beside it and put a "Notes:" section below the respective table and indicate that said episode was filmed early (but only when you have a reliable source to prove that). You also need a source for those airdates. TVGuide and MSN are some good sources for airdates (see the MSN listing here). Now, I'm going out of town, so I won't be able to respond any any responses/rebuttles to my comments. For the initial reason I was brought here, I have to side with Matthew on this one, because it's clear that the numbers are there for all the other episodes, and why these three cannot be found is odd to me. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Request for comment made to all above mentioned users. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. If a FLC can determine what needs to be added, then it can determine what should not be included. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done 17:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Criterion 6. Visual appeal Give all four tables of the seasons the same column widths so everything aligns
- Comment. I have considered this, but (using D:TNG as an example) this puts the column headings in strange alignments on the individual season pages (somewhere between left and centre align). IMO this equally in breach of Cr. 6, and as there doesn't seem to be a solution that satisfies both. Surely 1 list with a slight problem is better that 4 with problems. Please let me know your opinion on this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- D:TNG uses {{episode list}}. Any alignment is forced by that template. <shrugs> Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Further comment - I know this is by no means justification but in List of Lost episodes, season 3 is not of the same width as the other seasons and the air date wraps onto 2 lines in season 1 & 4, which I guess is also undesirable by Cr. 6 (and probably forced by the template too) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Adjust it, it should be completely over. Another issue. Linking. This page is severely overlinked. You should only link a name once, not every instance. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've had this discussion with The Rambling Man before about WP:OVERLINK, and it does not apply here. "Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done I have sorted the Cr. 6 Visual appeal and managed to transclude the tables at 99% length, thanks to an edit by Bignole. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Adjust it, it should be completely over. Another issue. Linking. This page is severely overlinked. You should only link a name once, not every instance. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Further comment - I know this is by no means justification but in List of Lost episodes, season 3 is not of the same width as the other seasons and the air date wraps onto 2 lines in season 1 & 4, which I guess is also undesirable by Cr. 6 (and probably forced by the template too) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- D:TNG uses {{episode list}}. Any alignment is forced by that template. <shrugs> Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I have considered this, but (using D:TNG as an example) this puts the column headings in strange alignments on the individual season pages (somewhere between left and centre align). IMO this equally in breach of Cr. 6, and as there doesn't seem to be a solution that satisfies both. Surely 1 list with a slight problem is better that 4 with problems. Please let me know your opinion on this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Formal oppose.
The more I look at this page the more I find things wrong with it. First, there was the fact that all of the tables were linked to the season pages, so you had to go to the season pages just to edit them and even then certain edits would not be reflected here. I have personally fixed this. You should never send someone to another page to edit the one that they are on.Next, why do we ever list the DVDs if you provide no information about them? This page keeps linking everything away. That DVD section should have release dates for Region 1, 2, and 4...given that the lead of the page claims that the DVDs have been released in all of the sections. Counting up the episodes in that section? Pointless really. People can do the math themselves, it isn't hard. People can also see that the show first released a DVD set in 2003 and finally in 2007, they don't need a separate line telling them such. You don't need a link to season 1 and then a link to season 1's DVD section in the same line. Maybe each row should stand alone (which I question, and have sent a request to the guideline page for clarification, as this is the first time I have read such a thing on that page), but not each cell. You don't need need the title "The O.C. - The Complete First Season", as you're presenting it as if it has its own page. Take a page from here.Last (at the moment), where are the writers and directors for those two special episodes? Documentaries DO have writers and directors. There is no need to ignore them just because these are not official "episodes".BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)- First indented points below are responses from Rambo's Revenge (talk) at 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- What! You have just taken (diff) a 11,972 byte page to 100,003 bytes without adding any information. How is that a good idea. Featured episode lists commonly transclude e.g. Lost, D:TNG, The Office etc. Just because "your" Smallville one doesn't, that does not mean it is right! I have added back the transclusion as, thanks to you, I found a way to fix the visual appeal width issue at the same time.
- Size isn't a problem. The 100k is all code, thus it doesn't meet the idea of the article being too big. Just because others did it doesn't make it right. You should not force editors to have to go to another page just to edit this one. If an anon doesn't know how to actually do that, they will be quite confused as to how to edit this page when they click the "edit" button on each section. You have to remember, this isn't YOUR page, it's everyone's page and it must be designed so that ANY person that comes along and sees a problem can fix it. It should not be designed so that someone has to put in a request to have someone fix the page for them because they cannot figure out that the actual list is on another page and is being mirrored over here. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I can see your point of view, however it doubles the required maintenance and transclusion was requested at the List of The Office (US TV series) episodes FLC I have not reverted your change at the moment, and have requested comment from Gary who brought this up there. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's useful to transclude the tables, because the information in the tables will not change very often. There are no plot summaries, which are typically the parts that receive the most edits. I suggested this format in the other FLC because I saw it used in other episode list FLs, however. Gary King (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's very useful, to people that know how to use it. But, assuming that nothing will change doesn't mean that it won't, and limiting the editors that can edit the page to ones that know how to edit a transcluded section is not what Wikipedia was designed for. It wasn't meant to basically seclude pages from the public. Scrolling reference boxes were nice too, but we discourage them because they forced people to actually have to scroll through to exam sources. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also, another advantage of using it is so that there isn't two versions of the same information on two pages. Gary King (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's also a pitfall, because if there is something wrong on one page it will be wrong on both pages. If someone comes in and messes up the code on the season three page, it will be noticed on the LOE page but not the season three page (depending on the error). If the error has to do with the transcluding link, people will be wondering where the section went on the LOE page (and if you don't check the page regularly you won't know it is missing because the edit doesn't appear on the LOE page). If you aren't reading carefully into someone's edits on a season page (maybe they made a lot of good edits and accidentally removed one of the code tags in the process)? I've seen this happen and go unnoticed for quite awhile because (as you said), since the LOE page wasn't going do go through any real changes, no one bothered to check to make sure it appeared good on a regular basis. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done Translcusion is gone, per discussion with Scorpion0422. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's also a pitfall, because if there is something wrong on one page it will be wrong on both pages. If someone comes in and messes up the code on the season three page, it will be noticed on the LOE page but not the season three page (depending on the error). If the error has to do with the transcluding link, people will be wondering where the section went on the LOE page (and if you don't check the page regularly you won't know it is missing because the edit doesn't appear on the LOE page). If you aren't reading carefully into someone's edits on a season page (maybe they made a lot of good edits and accidentally removed one of the code tags in the process)? I've seen this happen and go unnoticed for quite awhile because (as you said), since the LOE page wasn't going do go through any real changes, no one bothered to check to make sure it appeared good on a regular basis. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also, another advantage of using it is so that there isn't two versions of the same information on two pages. Gary King (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's very useful, to people that know how to use it. But, assuming that nothing will change doesn't mean that it won't, and limiting the editors that can edit the page to ones that know how to edit a transcluded section is not what Wikipedia was designed for. It wasn't meant to basically seclude pages from the public. Scrolling reference boxes were nice too, but we discourage them because they forced people to actually have to scroll through to exam sources. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's useful to transclude the tables, because the information in the tables will not change very often. There are no plot summaries, which are typically the parts that receive the most edits. I suggested this format in the other FLC because I saw it used in other episode list FLs, however. Gary King (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I can see your point of view, however it doubles the required maintenance and transclusion was requested at the List of The Office (US TV series) episodes FLC I have not reverted your change at the moment, and have requested comment from Gary who brought this up there. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Size isn't a problem. The 100k is all code, thus it doesn't meet the idea of the article being too big. Just because others did it doesn't make it right. You should not force editors to have to go to another page just to edit this one. If an anon doesn't know how to actually do that, they will be quite confused as to how to edit this page when they click the "edit" button on each section. You have to remember, this isn't YOUR page, it's everyone's page and it must be designed so that ANY person that comes along and sees a problem can fix it. It should not be designed so that someone has to put in a request to have someone fix the page for them because they cannot figure out that the actual list is on another page and is being mirrored over here. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have added directors for the specials. They have no writers as such, as they are just clips, cast interviews etc.[38][39]
- That's cool. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- The official DVD names are "The O.C. - The Complete ... Season" and as such are named like that, regardless of them not having their own article, and as for take a leaf from Smallville, it sums up episodes, double standards perhaps?
- No, it lists the number of episodes in the season. I do not believe it actually holds the readers' hands and says "2+2=4". It allows them to add it up themselves. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- The thing you consider as a "DVD table" is a Series overview. The information is all presented elsewhere, what the hell is the point in mindlessly repeating it elsewhere. In fact you have said "what I find to be unnecessary is the repetative issuing of information in each of the [season] pages" at a previous FLC. Now you are arguing for repetition of DVD release dates.
- A little different in this case, as you're providing an overview of when each season was released on a page that is an overview of the entire series. I didn't say repeat it all, I said add some release dates so that the reader doesn't have to go visit every single damn article just to find out when something was released. Not that hard. Don't get pissed because I'm trying to get you to pull the page up to a higher standard than I have been seeing in FLCs lately. To clarify, my oppositioni on the other FLC was over the huge chunk of repeated information being presented, in this case, the only information I'm saying should be present is the release dates for each region for each season. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- For "not each cell [standing alone]", the rows do not link something that has been linked in the row before, it says rows not columns.
- There seems to be dissention over at the WP:OVERLINK talk page on this issue. It seems that others are slightly confused as well. I've asked for clarification on linking a name each time it appears when it appears in 3 rows in a row. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support as article is easy to follow (works good as a table of contents to other articles) and well verified with multiple references. Good job! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with Bignole that everything should be on the page, not transcluded from somewhere else. Why there are episode summaries when I press the edit button, but they don't show up on the page? -- Scorpion0422 22:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- They are not meant to be there, it was just that Bignole copied the info from the season pages. If you think that they shouldn't transclude i'll get to work on remove the excess stuff that doesn't need to be there (the things that didn't transclude before) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've just never really been a big fan of transcluding lists, especially when it comes to FLs. It is confusing for IPs and even veteran users to edit. I'd prefer to see the tables here have some differences from the season tables. Perhaps the production code or ratings could be removed? -- Scorpion0422 22:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have removed the "hidden" episode summaries. Do you think the production codes and ratings should go as well? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's up to you, it doesn't matter to me either way. -- Scorpion0422 22:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would leave the ratings, not sure bout the prodcodes. It would require a new template to be made. (See this) But I will do this if there is enough demand for it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- You know my stance on the prod codes, but I would keep the ratings. It's nice to see the transition in ratings as the seasons went on (as opposed to making that season only, in which case you'd have to look at every season page to get an idea of how the ratings increased/decreased over time). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done, prod codes have gone, ratings have stayed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- You know my stance on the prod codes, but I would keep the ratings. It's nice to see the transition in ratings as the seasons went on (as opposed to making that season only, in which case you'd have to look at every season page to get an idea of how the ratings increased/decreased over time). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would leave the ratings, not sure bout the prodcodes. It would require a new template to be made. (See this) But I will do this if there is enough demand for it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's up to you, it doesn't matter to me either way. -- Scorpion0422 22:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have removed the "hidden" episode summaries. Do you think the production codes and ratings should go as well? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've just never really been a big fan of transcluding lists, especially when it comes to FLs. It is confusing for IPs and even veteran users to edit. I'd prefer to see the tables here have some differences from the season tables. Perhaps the production code or ratings could be removed? -- Scorpion0422 22:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- They are not meant to be there, it was just that Bignole copied the info from the season pages. If you think that they shouldn't transclude i'll get to work on remove the excess stuff that doesn't need to be there (the things that didn't transclude before) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
CommentIs there a reason to use the full month names in the table? Are 3 letter abreviations not considered standard enough to be used? I noticed beacuse some cause entries to be twice as high as others, which attracts the eye. Abbreviating would fix this. Other than that, this looks as good as the other FLs, so i support.Dillypickle (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- The 3 letter month abbreviations are not used. WP:MONTH says that months should be expressed as "whole words". Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Sam Roberts
- 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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008 [45].
Despite this article just being created, there is nothing more I can really add. The Timeline follows the structure of the other Atlantic Timelines and all storms are included. With nothing more I can really do with it, I am nominating it for Featured List. All thoughts and comments are welcome :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the formation for TD 1? Also, on the bottom, should it really say "none" for timelines before and after? Is that the format? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed both of them. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support- Even though I rated this article like 20-30 min ago, I think it is good for a FLC.----Neka 2008! 23:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you think I am biased, you can get rid of my support.--Neka 2008! 23:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Review by SRX [TRUco]
Comment - excellent list, comprehensive prose and list, one thing however - The season ended about a month and a half later on September 30. ~ this needs to be more specific i.e one month and 28 days per WP:Weasel.--TRUCO 23:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, changed it to "month and 16 days later" Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - my review was addressed in order to comply with WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 23:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - the only thing i saw wrong with it was the year in the lead but since it was so minor i just corrected it Jason Rees (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
OpposeThe timeline picture is very confusing at first glance. Please consider making a new one, as it took me a good while to understand it. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I should have put a note here first, sorry. There is currently a bug on the site which I cannot fix. It has been reported and hopefully it is being worked on. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Err....That auto edit killed the timeline...It's a very fragile image, if one thing in it is changed, it might not show up until the correct spacing (I don't know why, it just works) is done to allow just the image to show. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)- Meddled around to fix timeline.--Neka 2008! 00:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- That is very interesting. In that case, I'll still keep my oppose up, but please don't take it personally, as I just want all of the Featured Lists to be at the best possible detail. Also, the picture is broken in every previous revision and the current one. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I understand. BTW, when I said killed, I meant that the image was a ? in a box, now it at least shows the image. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- See bug 16085 regarding the timeline function. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I understand. BTW, when I said killed, I meant that the image was a ? in a box, now it at least shows the image. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- That is very interesting. In that case, I'll still keep my oppose up, but please don't take it personally, as I just want all of the Featured Lists to be at the best possible detail. Also, the picture is broken in every previous revision and the current one. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Opposebased on the bug with the timeline. While the bug may be beyond control, I'm afraid that I cannot support the featuring of this list while it remains inaccessible to many users. Hopefully a way around this can be found, as the rest of the list looks very good. The thumbnail (right) is what I see. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I see with the timeline too. How is the page inaccessible? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is the timeline that is inaccessible. It has no text on it, no legend, no labels, nothing. However the code suggests it should have labels etc.
e.g.from:01/05/1983 till:01/06/1983 text:May
Notice that no text is shown in the screenshot image (right). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)- That's what the bug does. It doesn't show text for me either. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I know that is what the bug does. I am saying that because it should display text, and I cannot endorse the supporting of the list with this bug in it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's what the bug does. It doesn't show text for me either. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is the timeline that is inaccessible. It has no text on it, no legend, no labels, nothing. However the code suggests it should have labels etc.
- Can i just point out to all those who are opposing this FLC because of the bug, thats affecting ALL of the timelines at the minute that have been edited in the last month. That the Timeline of the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season passed its FLC with the timeline image not showing up the text.[[46]] Jason Rees (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, and I advise people to not oppose an article because of a bug that is affecting all such timelines, and cannot be addressed by the nominator. It will likely be disregarded by the closing FL director, as it is not actionable. Thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think I have a Solution, I made an image out of the timeline, This is for 2003, but see please. --Neka 2008! 23:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, and I advise people to not oppose an article because of a bug that is affecting all such timelines, and cannot be addressed by the nominator. It will likely be disregarded by the closing FL director, as it is not actionable. Thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Great job, so much for it being "not actionable"!Yobmod (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, didn't think of an image at first ;) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Great job, so much for it being "not actionable"!Yobmod (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note: There is now an ongoing centralised discussion about opposes based on bug 16085 here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Opposingwith current timeline bug. The image idea might be an ok stopgap, but the current state is certainly not. An article in which the info is not displayed due to a bug is certainly not an example of wikipedia's best work. Why aren't people fixing it instead of submitting FLC like this?Yobmod (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Because its a wikipedia wide problkem Jason Rees (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing I can do either. I barely know how the timeline image works, let alone how to fix it. As Jason Rees stated, the 2003 timeline was promoted with the same issue, as was the Timeline of the 2005 Pacific hurricane season. I understand that the timeline is an issue, but what I don't understand is how something that cannot be fixed by us (I think) is such an issue. JW, any thoughts on the actual Timeline not the image? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- If the tempate isn't working, why use it? Make another one, using table wikiformatting, or find another way to show the info. I understand it is not the articles editors fault that this broke, but it still doesn't show wikipedia's best work, unless our best template editors are really that bad.Yobmod (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- As Elena85 has done with the 2003 timeline, I created an image of it and added the text, I've already put it on the page so things should be good on that end (just with the timeline, not the overall issue with the bug). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I struck my oppose mow that image is there.
- Further comment: why does August 27th have 2 entries, both with the same cite? Shouldn't they be combined?Yobmod (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed, the second one was the 28th and the second 28th is now the 29th Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Because its a wikipedia wide problkem Jason Rees (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Much better with the image there now. I took it upon myself to do an image mapping to provide the links that the unbugged timeline should. Hope you don't mind. Only thing is that in the image it should say Alicia not Anita. Otherwise, fine Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Haha, oops, I'll fix it soon and thanks for mapping it :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy! I now support this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- Sorry I didn't comment sooner, I was waiting for all the image issues to blow over.
- "during which
onlyfour tropical cyclones formed." - Image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end.
- "
However, the first named storm, Hurricane Alicia, formed on August 15. " - "Hurricane Alicia had its name retired due to the loss of life and severe damage in Texas."-->Hurricane Alicia had its name retired due to the fatalities and severe damage caused in Texas.
- "Hurricane Barry was a weak Category 1 hurricane which traveled almost due west across the Gulf of Mexico for most of its track, before making landfall in extreme northern Mexico."-->Hurricane Barry was a weak Category 1 hurricane that traveled almost due west across the Gulf of Mexico for most of its track before making landfall in extreme northern Mexico.
- "Tropical Depression One passes over the island of Saint Lucia with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)" Needs a period at the end.
- "Hurricane Alicia strengthens into a major hurricane—a storm with winds of 111 mph " Needs a period at the end.
- You've mixed Template:Citation with Template:Cite XXX, per MOS, you should only use one format. I suggest changing refs 10 and 11 to use the cite news template. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's ok, at least you did comment. :) I have correct all but one of the issues you addressed. The only one not done is the second to last one you mentioned since the period is already there. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whoops, didn't see the line break there. Why did you delete that sentence with the statistics about Alicia? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- My bad, I just put it back. I accidentally lumped it together with the sentence before it which needed to be changed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whoops, didn't see the line break there. Why did you delete that sentence with the statistics about Alicia? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of universities in Atlantic Canada Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of universities in the Canadian Prairies
- ^ FOX: Press release (2004-08-26). "The O.C.' returns with two specials featuring exclusive behing-the-scenes footage, Thursday, Sept. 16, and Thursday, Sept. 23, on FOX". The Futon Critic. Retrieved 2008-11-21.