Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/David Lynch filmography/archive1

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 Giants2008 17:12, 9 October 2012 [1].

David Lynch filmography

Featured list candidates/David Lynch filmography/archive1

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 05:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This man again. And he's nominating that man again—a man Mel Brooks described as "Jimmy Stewart from Mars". I'm pretty sure this one should be straightforward enough. It's based, loosely, on Spike Lee filmography though the differences should be clear enough. This is as comprehensive as I feel it's going to be (I don't think there's anything missing from it and as you can see from the sourcing there's been quite a few different places combed through to be sure. I even tracked down his television ad!); though I will need to keep an eye on The Cleveland Show (eurgh) to update any future episodes he appears in. Yes, the man who based a film about infanticide on the birth of his own disabled daughter is on a primetime US cartoon now. As always, I'll be on hand to respond to any questions and address any comments pretty promptly. GRAPPLE X 05:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Add table captions per MOS:DTT
Had to look up what this was but added. GRAPPLE X 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:BOLD, don't have years bold. That being said, add plainrowheaders to the tables so it mets both MOS:ACCESS and MOS:BOLD
Got it. Still don't understand why this isn't the default output for wikitables; but that's neither here nor there. GRAPPLE X 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"has voiced a recurring role". Sounds weird. He voiced the recurring role?
He did; but I've rephrased it. GRAPPLE X 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
cartoon series → animated comedy series
Just went with "animated series" for brevity. GRAPPLE X 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do colors in the table met WP:COLOR?
Yep, same green is used pretty much everywhere (cf. {{yes}}, {{won}} and their transclusions). GRAPPLE X 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref. 17 is being used a lot. Perhaps just reference it on the top of table
It's not used universally or I would; no point acting as though it covers everything when it doesn't. It's used often but it's not really a distraction as it's a bookkeeping and verifiability thing rather than an element of readability. GRAPPLE X 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBran dl ey 19:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I think I've responded to everything you've raised here. GRAPPLE X 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks pretty solid. Well done! TBran dl ey 20:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

;Comments from Crisco 1492

Do you need the table headers when you have section headers already? Seems redundant.
- I agree, but its per MOS:DTT. Regards. TBran dl ey 00:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I felt so too, but MOS:DTT seems to call them a "high priority". Could probably trim them though if you have a briefer wording in mind. GRAPPLE X 01:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what DTT says. Perhaps remove the section headings and find a way to get {{anchor}} to show up in the TOC? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would probably require constructing an artificial TOC; which I could do no bother but I'm not sure how kosher that'd be. Would trimming the table headers to just "Film roles" and "Television roles" while expanding the headings to be a bit more descriptive help? GRAPPLE X 01:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I noticed too. Nah, I guess this is acceptable by the constraints of policy and guidelines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Indeed, the surreal and in many cases violent elements to his films have earned them the reputation that they "disturb, offend or mystify" their audiences." - Is "indeed" necessary?
Probably not. Gone. GRAPPLE X 01:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did a copyedit, be sure to double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 01:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Add publisher (The Onion) to Ref. 34, match it with Ref. 37

Just a suggestion, but you might want to add publishers for some of the magazines, like Total Film (Future Publishing) and the International Herald Tribune (The New York Times Company)

Those are the only issues I could find, and they are super-minor.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I've added additional publishing info where possible; the reference to Pitchfork Media didn't get one as it seems to be its own parent company rather than an imprint of something else. GRAPPLE X 04:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You link "filmmaker" but not "oeuvre" which seems a little odd to me.
Included a link to wiktionary; our page is simply a redirect to work of art. GRAPPLE X 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would look neater if the various "category" columns were the same width.
All 65px now.
I prefer to see references in numerical order.
I believe I've got them all ordered; let me know if I missed any. GRAPPLE X 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead and music videos image captions need full stops.
Added. GRAPPLE X 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 6, 7, 8 - inconsistent linking.
Linked ref 7 to match the others. GRAPPLE X 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allmovie is AllMovie isn't it?
Got it. GRAPPLE X 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let me know if there's anything else. GRAPPLE X 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

According to Wikipedia:Filmographies_and_Discographies#Filmographies we should be using a table that has the film name first and year second and avoid the use of rowspans as it's an accessibility issue.
Had to poke around to find WP:FILMOGRAPHY to see that mentioned; but as a result I've removed the rowspans. Haven't gone film first though as it's not actually specified, and only one of the filmographies listed at WP:FL does it this way (Jennifer Lopez filmography goes film then year, everything else including the very-recent Ronald Reagan filmography is happy enough with year then film). Can't say I'm keen on how cluttered it looks so if there's another way to comply with WP:ACCESS without so much repeated info I'd prefer that. GRAPPLE X 18:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth getting the opinion of RexxS on this, as I do think the film should come first as its the obvious row header. I did raise the same issue at the Reagan FLC, but no-one picked up on it. I'll give Rexx a message and see what he thinks so either way the issue is sorted, apart from this there are no other issues I can see with the list. NapHit (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see no reason why tables cannot be sortable either
Had avoided it as rowspans and sort functions don't gel well; removing the former means I have now added the latter. GRAPPLE X 18:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"1966's Six Figures Getting Sick" this makes it sound like it was made by 1966, which obviously is not the case. Would reword for clarity
Rephrased a bit. GRAPPLE X 18:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"until Nance's death in..." as Nance is the subject of the sentence, don't need to repeat his name of second use, change to his
Done. GRAPPLE X 18:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support NapHit (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

On the issue of which column to put first: Many screen readers are able to identify a "row header" and speak it when the user is navigating around a table. Let me take the example of the "David Lynch's film appearances and roles" table. Someone using JAWS, for example, could navigate down the Other column. They could set JAWS to read out the headers along with each cell, so they would hear "Other, 1966, Animator"; when they moved down one cell, they would hear "Other, 1968, Editor" - this is because the Year is being identified as the row header.

Now, if we made the Film entries into row headers (I'd prefer to call it Title because the whole row is the film, but that's just a nit-pick), the JAWS user would hear "Other, Six Figures Getting Sick, Animator"; followed by "Other, The Alphabet, Editor". Don't you think that is preferable?

If we wanted to change to using the titles as row headers, we could simply move the '! scope="row"' markup onto the Film entries in the table and most modern screen readers that I'm aware of would respect that and use those titles as row headers. It is possible that older and more primitive readers may ignore the markup and simply pick the first column as row headers, so swapping the Film column with the Year column would cover more cases than leaving it alone.

@Grapple: I don't intend to prescribe (or proscribe!) anything here, but I hope I can point you in the direction of improving access (and for whom you are improving it). You need to agree between yourself and the reviewers what are the best row headers and how to weigh the value of having them in the first column compared with your aesthetic preference for the year first. I can't make that decision for you, but it was that consideration that drove the Discography folks to putting title first. Hope that helps.

On other accessibility concerns, I'd recommend not using constructions like "Here Today Gone Tomorrow"<br/>"Truck Stop" to make lists of titles - using {{ubl | "Here Today Gone Tomorrow" | "Truck Stop" }} will produce a real list for the screen readers while displaying the same for sighted viewers like this:

"Here Today Gone Tomorrow"
"Truck Stop"

While I'm here, can I just point out that we are moving to HTML 5 very soon. In that version, tags like <center>...</center> are deprecated, so I think our best articles ought to be demonstrating best practice such as using style="text-align:center;" instead. I'd also use style="width:65px;" rather than width=65 for the same reason. It's not crucial because mediawiki software and browsers will cope with ancient markup for some time to come, but at some point it will have to be updated and we can encourage good markup by providing those who will copy and adapt our best work with good examples. --RexxS (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I had assumed that a screenreader would give the full row rather than being able to break it up, and would read "1966, Six Figures Getting Sick... etc ... Animator"; given that insight I guess it makes much more sense to change it. I'll get to that now; same goes for {{ubl}}, etc. Thanks for that, as I wouldn't have realised it was an issue otherwise. GRAPPLE X 18:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have made the changes to the film table; will do the TV/web one now. I'll set the headings there based on the titles of the episodes in question rather than the series as it would seem to make the most since given the above. GRAPPLE X 18:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GRAPPLE X 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification and your time Rexx, much appreciated. NapHit (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments –

What makes Pitchfork Media (ref 32) a reliable source?
Per their staff page, the site can be seen to retain employed editors and journalists; their editorial staff consists of several people (the article used in this list was written by one of the site's associate editors). I feel the site is professional enough about its standard of editorial practice (their taste and pretension notwithstanding of course :P). GRAPPLE X 22:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Consequence of Sound (ref 33) reliable? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The site seems to be held in reasonably high regard by more established media, enjoying a partnership with Time magazine ([2]), while its reviews are collected by the harsher-than-we-are Metacritic. As for its editorial practices, their about page mentions that they retain an employed staff and similarly lists their editing staff. GRAPPLE X 22:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I just gave this a good look over. After all the suggestions that have been fixed, this page is in prime shape. I vote aye.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:17, 5 October 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.