Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Millennium/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:48, 16 May 2012 [1].

List of accolades received by Millennium

[edit]

List of accolades received by Millennium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 04:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wait ... worry ... who cares?

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Although the list isn't that long, it's not a long way off other accolade FLs in terms of the number of awards discussed, and in terms of prose size it's substantially larger than some of those I took as examples (this, this or this, for instance), so I'm confident that WP:FL? criterion 3 is met. MOS:DTT should not be an issue, as the table formatting has been modelled on my previous successful FL candidate, List of accolades received by David Lynch; col and row scopes are included for screen readers and colouring is, for the most part, done with greyscale visibility in mind (barring the {{won}} and {{nom}} colours, everything is in a progression of monochrome that will translate well to grey). Stability is not an issue as the series in question is deader than Dillinger, so no updating will be required in future. The lead and overall structure are both thought out with ease of navigation in mind, with the article broken down by awarding body alphabetically and further introduced in prose within each section. Lastly, for those interested in context, Millennium was a mid-90s teevee series which tried to translate the darkness of films such as Seven and Manhunter into a detective show built on a study of objective morality. Also Bishop from Aliens and Kendall from Alias duke it out and that's got to count for something. GRAPPLE X 04:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • God, I loved this show. It was among the greatest two seasons of TV ever produced. What's that, you say there was a third season? Nonsense.
    • "Millennium starred Lance Henriksen, Megan Gallagher, Klea Scott and Brittany Tiplady; with both Henriksen and Tiplady earning award nominations for their roles." That semicolon looks out of place; I think if you add a serial colon after Scott, you can change the semi to a colon. Also not sure if 'both' is necessary.
    • "début" I could be wrong but I think this is sufficiently Anglified that we don't need an accent.
    • "In its three-year tenure, the series earned a total of twenty-one award nominations, with cinematographer Robert McLachlan and actress Brittany Tiplady providing the series' only individual wins, the first season episode "Broken World" earned its only episodic win, while a People's Choice Award for Favourite New TV Dramatic Series was the only award won by the series as a whole." This seems to run on too long and could be split up. If kept as a single sentence, at the very least, the colon after 'wins' should be a semicolon, and "win, while" should become "win; and".
    • "Millennium has been nominated for four American Society of Cinematographers awards, without winning any of them." I could be wrong, but since Millennium has been long cancelled, I don't think we need present perfect here, and can go with 'Millennium was nominated'. Same deal in the Canadian and Emmy entries.
    • I'm a little sad there's so many blacklinks, but I agree with these not being redlinked.
      • I've been meaning to flesh out production crew articles for 1013 series, so these might get created in due time. I'd not link them until such time though. GRAPPLE X 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly, which is why I came up with the term "blacklink", things that should eventually have articles but don't now, and we don't need redlinks to indicate this, unlike in some lists of more notable items. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Genesis entry is different from the others; the others, even the ones that are only winners, begin 'received x nominations,' but this one starts 'won an award,' which, compared to the rest of the article, leaves out how many noms it got. I know it got one, it's in the table, but the prose stands out in the article by not stating this.
  • That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Infobox caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop.
  • "has received several award nominations" and you go on to list the ones it won, so perhaps "has received several awards, including..." or replace "award nominations" with "accolades"?
  • Our article has a small "f" for 3rd Rock from the Sun.
  • No need to relink "Somehow, Satan Got Behind Me" in the table.
  • Ditto for other overlinking in subsequent sections.
    • Think I've got all these. I'd been using Ucucha's duplinks script to spot overlinking and it doesn't seem to pick up on entries that aren't in prose. I wasn't sure that these actually counted towards overlinking (it's not an issue that I've had raised before) but I've taken them out for now since it's easy to reverse. GRAPPLE X

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – I'm unconvinced that this meets criterion 3b. There are 21 items in the lists, and all of the lists linked above have at least 30, so there is a distinction in terms of size. Similar lists of similar size to this one have been delisted in the past (see here, here, and here). Can we really say that this can't reasonably be merged into another article, like the one on Millennium? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I felt that the relative paucity of individual awards would be balanced out by the fact that they're discussed in prose to an extent which would would be disproportionate if just slotted into a larger article. If criterion 3 is judged on the number of entries alone then I guess there's nothing I can do about that, but it'd be a shame to have things sit in a grey area between being large enough to warrant existing but too small to go anywhere. I'll defer to your judgement here since you have the experience with these judgments. GRAPPLE X 02:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Item counting is bad. That said, I believe this article appears large because the information is presented in the form of several tables in subsections. Converting all (or most) of it to prose would make it fit nicely into Millennium (TV series). Thus, I'm opposing this as failing criterion 3b. Goodraise 21:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: No complaints. Goodraise 12:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_accolades_received_by_Millennium/archive1&oldid=1089077984"