Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2012

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 19:14, 31 May 2012 [1].

---

Lloyd George ministry

Nominator(s): RGloucester (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is well done, provides a nice, simple intro. It also easily lists the cabinet members of the Lloyd George Ministry, and provides a nice table for the full list of ministers. Recently, I’ve done a lot of work on the British ministry articles (List of British governments). This one, I think is worthy of featured lists, and if it were chosen, would bring more people to these articles... RGloucester (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• The entire article is based on one general reference, "D. Butler and G. Butler, Twentieth Century British Political Facts (Macmillan, 2000)". Is that really sufficient? I'm not saying every word has to have a blue number after it, but for there to be no blue numbers anywhere... not something I'm used to seeing these days in featured content. Bencherlite^Talk 09:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Believe it or not, there is no other source of lists of members of British ministries in current existence. That one referenced, that was the first ever comprehensive list. It was copied in the early 2000s for the reference of ministries prior to 1900 (British Historical Facts) series. While some sources may list cabinet members (even these are very few), this is the only one that lists junior ministers and all the members of the ministry. I think this is a unique case. This is in direct opposition to both Canada and Australia, whose governments provide their own comprehensive lists of ministries (online, no less). I don’t know why Britain has no such list, but perhaps it is because of its longer history. Believe me, I’ve done the research while fixing up these articles….it was a pain in the neck….RGloucester (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I see I forgot to add references for the intro, I had them on hand, so I’ve added them in to make sure that that is cited. RGloucester (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• Lead is too short. Check WP:LEAD for what I'd expect, say three paras.

Will work on it. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is it "ministry" or "Ministry”?

This is a matter of some debate, but, properly, because this is not an official title (proper noun), it is “ministry”, just as one would refer to the “Thatcher government”, and not the “Thatcher Government”. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Lead image caption is an incomplete sentence, so it doesn't need a full stop.
• Perhaps link "honours" in the lead, not clear to all readers.

Done. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Structure of headings is odd, why have a 1 then 1.1 and 1.1.1 when you don't have any others (like a 1.2 or a 1.2.1 or 1.2.2)?

There is a 1.2 etc? The wartime cabinet (1.1) and the peacetime cabinet (1.2) have separate sections, with changes to each being listed under 1.1.1 and 1.2.1 respectively. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Cabinets section could use some introductory text.

Will work on it. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not strictly important, but plenty of redirects, mainly in the government positions. If you edit the article, you could resolve those.
• All of the Cabinets section is unreferenced.

This comes from the same source as the junior ministers list. It simply highlighted who was in the cabinet in the list, which makes life easier for those who only care about the cabinet. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Members of the Cabinet are in bold face." - see WP:BADEMPHASIS.

Done. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Refs 1 and 2 look identical to me.
• Overall, referencing is weak, just one offline ref for the entire article?

As said above, there are no other available references. If you were to go to the library and get that book, British Political Facts, and read the introduction, you would see that it is the first of its kind, and that even the compilers of that book had EXTREME trouble with finding out who the ministers of a government were. No other comprehensive source exists. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Can you point me to some independent third-party sources that would consider a "Lloyd George ministry" to be notable or relevant? Not trying to be difficult but what's the significance of this list?

Anyone that is interested in the characters that made up Lloyd George’s government, specifically if they are wondering about British leadership during the Great War, could use this. I’d say it is important. As a far as a source, the only one I would again point you to is British Political Facts. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Withdrawal - I suppose I will withdraw my nomination for now. I do not have time to complete this many edits now, but I will continue to work on this article and return here when it is complete. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 21:04, 30 May 2012 [2].

---

List of Bob's Burgers episodes

Nominator(s): Tate Brandley Stockwell 22:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it mainly meets criteria. If there is any problems, please tell me, I will try to fix the problem. Thank you. Tate Brandley Stockwell 22:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• The lead is not sufficient for a featured lists, three needs to be substantially more than the three short paragraphs that are currently used. Also with the recent failure of List of Friends episodes due to concerns over the template episode list meeting accessibility requirements, I'm not sure if those concerns have been fixed and the template now meets accessibility standards. Also the lead will references as well, when it has been suitably expanded. NapHit (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Regarding NapHit's comment about Template:Episode list and WP:ACCESS, the template is now fully MOS and DTT compliant, so there should be no issues in that regard.
• The lede is indeed too short. Those two para-sentences are too short and should be expanded. There are many Featured episode lists to take inspiration and guidance from, so check them out.
• The image fails [[WP:FL?#5(b).

• It needs a caption. What is it? Did an editor draw that or is it the show's logo? The reader has no idea.
• Why is the image in the article at all? The criteria requires images in the article that are appropriate to the topic, which in this case is a list of episodes. A show's logo does not identify a list of episodes, just the show, so it doesn't belong here.

• Criterion 5(a) requires suitable use of color. What was behind the choice for the yellow, pink and green for the table headers and square boxes in the overview table, and why make them so bright? Make sure they conform with WP:COLOR. WP:NAVBOXCOLOR has some text appropriate to this, and Help:Using colours has a color generation chart.
• You're transcluding content from other pages, but they have not gone passed WP:FLC or WP:GAN. The content of those pages may be changed at any time and anyone who had only this page watchlisted would not notice those edits, be they good or bad. The content of a Featured list article is scrutinized, but the only content here is the Lede. I would say it's necessary to have all content reviewed, so if you're going to transclude, those tables (and thus those season articles) need putting through the process first. However:
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television (which is an official part of the MOS rather than just a WikiProject's style suggestions) says "For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes, it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists." This series has far less than 80 episodes and the season articles contain nothing but the episode list tables. There's no decent Lede, nothing about cast, production, reception, or anything that would require separate pages per WP:SIZE, WP:SPINOUT, WP:SS or WP:SIZESPLIT.

So mainly as for being unnecessarily split, it's an Oppose. But if the tables were merged from the season pages into this page I would reconsider. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 02:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I undid the striking you did of my last two comments. Although you can say you've addressed them, it's for me to strike them, if I agree that they have been. Also, someone has actually reverted you at the article, so they're certainly not addressed any more. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 02:05, 26 May 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:50, 30 May 2012 [3].

---

List of highways in Harris County, Texas

Nominator(s): Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 08:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC), Feedloadr, Fortguy

I am nominating this for featured list because, after copy-editing and expanding this article, I feel that it is of similar quality to other similar lists that are recognized as featured. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 08:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I left some detailed comments on the nominator's talk page. To wit: by-county lists of highway have fallen out of vogue with the larger WP:USRD project for a while now, and there are a lot of items that will need updating here before it meets the FL criteria if other reviewers feel this is a worthy topic to consider on its own. Imzadi 1979 → 20:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comments:

1. I echo the concerns of by-county lists. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan. This information can be condensed and presented in the Harris County, Texas article. Alternatively, the scope can possibly be extended to cover the entire Houston metro area.

Unfortunately, it seems both alternatives would violate WP:SIZE. Even if list were to be condensed, it would somewhat overtake the Harris County article, not including adding at least 13 or so KB. I would support including the entire Houston Metro area, but doing this would also most likely also have issues with size. The official Houston metro area takes up 12 counties. In most states, this would be fine. But due to Texas's unique system of Spurs, Loops, and FM's, expanding this article in this fashion would at least triple the size, putting it somewhere around 80-90 KB. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 05:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

2. The lead should not have citations unless that information is unique there.

removed unnecessary refs. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 05:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

3. In the lead, once you define an abbreviation, keep using the abbreviation. For instance in "(Interstate 10 (I-10), known as the Katy Freeway and East Freeway, and Interstate 45 (I-45), known as the Gulf Freeway and North Freeway)", after defining the abbreviation for I-10, you do not need to spell out I-45 in full but rather simply abbreviate it.

Fixed, I believe. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 05:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

4. The prose has a lot of long sentences.

Split/shortened several sentences. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 05:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

5. There are a lot of redlinks in the lists. Can these be fixed?

Removed all unnecessary links. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 05:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

6. The article relies on a lot of TxDOT sources. Are there any other sources that can be used to supplement the information? Dough4872 23:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In the process of creating the references row, I am trying to add sources to Google Maps. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 05:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The images of the highway signs are far too small to read, especially the State Highways with three numbers, the purple ones and the Farm and Ranch ones. Are they even necessary, given that you also name each one in words?
• Is there a map available of the county? Perhaps one that displays Interstates, US and SH routes and major cities and towns? I have no idea what's in Harris County, the size of it, nothing, and most readers won't either. (Actually, it might be worth mentioning the county's area somewhere in the Lede.)
• Some of the route lengths are given as a whole number, like I-10, I-45, but others are specific to 1, 2 or even 3 decimal places. Can the ones rounded up or down be more specific too?
• It looks like all the Farm and Ranch to Market roads are farm roads. Is "Ranch" necessary in the section heading?
• The Lede says that many of the FM roads have been redesignated to Urban Roads. Could you perhaps indicate somehow which ones these are in the table?
• The opening sentence needs a slight adjustment. "The state highways in Harris County, Texas consists of approximately 1,213 miles" -- "consists" is pluralised, when it should be singular (The state highways consist of), unless you use a word like "system" (The state highways system consists of) but that's used later in the sentence.
• The termini column where it gives County names.. Does that indicate where the roads actually end, or does it just mean the border of Harris County and the ones named? Is it possible to be more specific by giving town or city names with all the termini? Stuff like "east of downtown Houston" means nothing if people don't know where Houston is, or what downtown means (it's a very American word)
• "I-610 to US 90 /FM 2100" probably needs a word space after the slash
• Are IH-10, IH-45, and IH-610 official abbreviations? I always assumed it was just I-10, I-45, and I-610
• Link to loop route, spur route and Park Road (Texas)#Park and recreational roads on first use for those non familiar with the terms
• Make sure you use {{nowrap}} or a nobreakspace for all spaces between "US 90", "SH 288", and everything else so that the numbers don't end up on a different line to the type of road

Oppose until at least these are addressed. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 02:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I would now like to withdraw this Featured List nomination. Due to the fact that I will be taking finals for the next few days, and will not have the time to fix this article, I feel that I cannot complete the necessary revisions that are needed in the time that is available to me. I hope to renominate this article in a week or two, after the revisions have been made. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 04:12, 30 May 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:17, 30 May 2012 [4].

---

List of Breaking Bad episodes

Nominator(s): Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel like it's a well detailed and very important list. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment, you should check out the discussion going on at List of Friends episodes FLC with regard to the use of {{Episode list}}, MOS:BOLD and MOS:DTT compliance and, in general, a reliance on transcluding season articles which inherently undermine the stability of the list (i.e. the season articles get edited but those watching just the list have no idea that's happened). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments okay, so the Friends list failed because we have an insistence from various places to mandate the use of transclusion from season pages. I'll review this with that in mind.

• The lead is, well, dry. The first para in particular is entirely dull. I would tell readers what the series was about before telling them when each and every series started and ended.
• The floating logo with no description is odd too. Would thumbnail it and place a caption there, like "The Breaking Bad logo".
• Could name the fictional family members.
• Don't use № or # per MOS:HASH.
• Explain what those mean, i.e. No. in series and No. in season.
• Most of these lists have production codes.
• It would be desirable to have the lists sortable since you have viewing figures. That way I could find out which the most/least popular episode was, who wrote the most episodes etc. (see WP:WIAFL 4)
• Also disappointing to see that each table has different column widths for the same information from section to section, very unappealing aesthetically (see WP:WIAFL 5a).
• My God, "minisode" is really a word? Really?
• Please ensure that titles of references comply with WP:MOS, in particular WP:DASH.
• Foreign language sources should be tagged using a language template.
• Some blogs used, are they reliable?

Overall there's enough for me right now to oppose this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2012 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 20:19, 28 May 2012 [5].

---

List of best-selling music artists

Nominator(s): Harout72 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is now quite close to becoming a featured list. Please note that List of best-selling music artists and List of best-selling music artists (page 2) have just recently been split into two parts due to its large size. The list was listed for peer review (see here) just a few months ago, further improvements have been made since then. Should I list both split pages separately?--Harout72 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to nominate both pages for FL, then you need to open separate nominations for both of them. However, as per the guidelines, you can't have two open nominations, so you'd need to wait for one to pass/fail and then nominate the other one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem, I'll wait until the first page passes/fails the nomination.--Harout72 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments some quick thoughts...

• I'm certainly not keen on the "continued on page 2" business. However, the slow load time of this page may necessitate a split. It may be that we need to think about renaming the list so it captures the number of sales more precisely, then we can just use See also for the other lists.
  • I guess we can think about that. Although, most likely there will always be inflated sales figures we have to put up with.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Still would prefer just a list of see also links. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Would you happen to have an example in mind for renaming it? Should we change it into something like List of best-selling music artists based on certified units? Or maybe List of top certified artists. Do you recommend not use sales claims anymore?--Harout72 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
        • No, no linked "headings", just a "see also" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Oh I completely misunderstood you. Ok done.--Harout72 (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• "Sections are to include maximum of seven images of the top certified artists/bands." is this note really necessary? I'm not sure the image galleries will be that popular either.
  • I thought having a basic guideline for images would be a good idea as fans every now and then either replace images with images of their favorites (see here), or simply add their favorites to what we already have (see here).--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Couldn't it be added as a hidden note? We don't normally have notes saying "do/don't edit this article in this way" actually visible on the article, frankly it looks a bit ridiculous IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    • We also have a hidden message which gets ignored as well. See this recent edit, for example, from the second page of the list. I re-phrased it into: The seven images are of the top certified artists/bands. I think it will serve its purpose, yet doesn't immediately sound like a do/don't.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
      • It's better but usually this kind of instruction is placed as a comment in the code rather than for our readers to see. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
        • By code, you mean a hidden message? I'll just leave the instruction as a hidden note.--Harout72 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Would "Certified sales" or "Certified units" work better? Those are the certified sales from available markets after all.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I think he means the column does not sort certified units highest to lowest, need to use {{ntsh}} to make it work I think. Mattg82 (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, I thought placing the largest market (the one generates the most sales) at the top and the smallest at the bottom would be a better idea rather than placing them in an alphabetical order. I based this on IFPI annual report (see page 24) that RIAJ releases every year.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
        • It's called Total certified units, so it should sort by the total sold in each case. Right now it doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. I think perhaps we can get rid of the word Total and have just Certified units. Would that work? Because I don't think it would be the right move to place some medium-size markets before the larger ones only because the formers occasionally generate more sales for some artists.--Harout72 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• No, you need to make sure the sorbability of the table works for that column as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Before I make the change, I just want to be sure I understand you correctly. We should place the bigger certified figures at the top and smaller figures at the bottom, correct?--Harout72 (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You should ensure that when I click on the heading of the column of "Certified sales" that it sorts by the total of sales. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Ok Done. Inserted "ntsh" for each, it now works.--Harout72 (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

*"From available markets" -> "from available markets". Done.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Sorting by "Total certified units" doesn't work. "2,000,000[210])(Also," weird spacing and ref placement. Fixed.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles. Fixed.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Ref 195 is broken. Fixed.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Ref 206 "Carl Bialik " all other authors are Last, First... check rest and be consistent. Fixed. Placed Last before First for all others as well.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Ref 214 & 220 need an accessdate. Done.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Refs 229 and 232 are incomplete. Fixed.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

CommentsSwitching to oppose

• Yeh, I'm not keen on the "(page 2)" title format either, as it offends against WP:TITLEFORMAT ("Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another"). But that's not this article, after all...
  • I'm going to remove the Continued from page 1 on Page 2.
    • You need to rename the list, not just remove the "continued from page 1". Bencherlite^Talk 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Why is the list split into multiple sections? If it was one table, you would be able to sort the entire lot and compare countries, periods, years etc, rather than just be able to sort within arbitrarily chosen sub-sections.
  • I believe having separate sections for artists with 100 million records and 300 million records is more specific and clear.--Harout72 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You're missing the point, I'm afraid to say. Bencherlite^Talk 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Basic point - use {{sortname}} to sort by surname etc rather than everything sorting by first letter.
• "To ensure a highest level of fact checking and editorial control, this list sources sales figures to news organizations and highly regarded music industry related organizations such as MTV, VH1, Billboard and Rolling Stone." Quite apart from the fact that "a highest level of fact checking" is not good English, I don't think we ought to be putting quality claims like that in articles, let alone repeatedly. I don't remember seeing featured articles that say "To ensure the highest level of fact checking, this article only uses the very best and most highly regarded sources", for instance.
  • The list attracts many music fans; therefore, I and other editors have been forced to come up with methods that could minimize insertions of sources which often claim inflated sales figures and fail to conduct thorough research before publishing their numbers. The wording is mine; therefore, it's probably not well constructed since I'm not a native English speaker. I have to add though that ever since we implemented that sentence, we've seen a big decline in poor sources.--Harout72 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Use an edit notice, then; don't have editorial instructions in articles. Bencherlite^Talk 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• The lead is poor, really - it tells us about how the list has been compiled but nothing about the list contents. It also tells us who isn't in the list, which leads onto the next point...
  • Well, that's not entirely correct as the lead does state about the content of the list: The world's best-selling music artists includes artists with claims of 50 million or more record sales in multiple third-party reliable sources. The sales figures within the provided sources include sales of albums, singles, compilation-albums, music videos as well as downloads of singles and full-length albums. The artists in the following tables are listed with both their claimed and certified sales figures and are ranked in descending order, with the highest claimed sales at the top. Artists with the same claimed sales are then ranked by certified units. Sales figures, such as those from Soundscan which are sometimes published by Billboard magazine, have not been included in the certified units column.--Harout72 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I can read, and thanks for making my point for me. I can't find the Beatles mentioned anywhere in the lead, for example, or who the highest-selling individual is, or who the highest selling group/person in genre X is... no summary of the content of the list at all. Bencherlite^Talk 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• "All artists included on this list have their lowest available claimed figure(s) supported by at least 15% in certified units.... However newer artists such as Lady Gaga and Rihanna are expected to have their claimed figures supported by at least 60% in certified units. " Why? Who's decided that 15% is the figure for older artists, and 60% for newer artists? Is that a ratio supported by reliable sources, or is it just something that Wikipedia editors have decided? WP:OR alert?
  • Unfortunately, inflated sales figures do come from reliable sources also. Therefore, we've designed a method to prevent the list from being filled with inflated sales claims. The discussion for that could be found here. While it may seem like an OR, all certification are supported by reliable sources. After all, the original research policy restricts what content can be added to articles, which is not the case for this list.--Harout72 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It is original research, then - there are names that could be included on the list which are being omitted because of inclusion criteria of your own devising that do not have support in reliable sources. Bencherlite^Talk 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• "The tables are to include two sources only for each claimed figure." Says who, and why?
  • We used to have fans inserting four and even five sources for their favorite artists to make their points. Again, while the requirement of two sources may sound like a dictation, it seems to work well. But it can be removed.--Harout72 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Is there any way we can avoid all the empty white space in each line?
  • If it's absolutely necessary the we could use
    Title text here

Body text line 1
Body text line 2

, which would get the job done. However, I feel that it's important to have the certified units by country visible once you land on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly a lot of work has gone into this but I have reservations about saying that this is ready for a star. Bencherlite^Talk 01:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Switching to oppose per above comments and responses. Bencherlite^Talk 06:36, 24 May 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 16:14, 28 May 2012 [6].

---

Grey's Anatomy (season 1)

Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it fits the criteria and deserves to be a FL. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: As this article is a GA now, I think it should be submitted to WP:FA if you would like it to further advance. Ruby 2010/2013 18:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I would say this is an article and not a list. Although it contains a list, most of the article centers around various aspects of production and reception. Articles may contain lists, but for FL the list needs to be the purpose of the article, rather than just another part of content. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:28, 25 May 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 13:42, 24 May 2012 [7].

---

Grey's Anatomy (season 2)

Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria and deserves to be a FL. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Per the guidelines, you are not permitted to open two FLCs at once. Please close one until the other has passed/failed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Also why are you nominating them to be featured lists, when they are good articles? NapHit (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

See Glee (season 1), they contain episode lists as subsections so they become FL not FA. TRLIJC19 (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 11:07, 24 May 2012 [8].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Mohammad Yousuf

Nominator(s): Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 12:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this meets the criteria and it also has a reference for each match. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 12:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• As far as contributions are concerned, I can't see a single edit made by you in this article. Also I think you've not consulted with User:Sahara4u, the major contributor. It's better to withdraw the nom before it gets archived. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The major/original editor of this article nominated this but withdrew it purely because they have another nomination, is there any reason for this drive-by from another editor who hasn't contributed to the list now? —SpacemanSpiff 15:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

Vensatry is right! Is there any reason to nominate a list without having a single contribution to the list? Yes, I withdrew because of another nomination but this was my next. Also, I have another list ready for nomination. ZiaKhan 06:07, 24 May 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 20:01, 17 May 2012 [9].

---

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes

Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 11:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, well, the list is pretty much finished: sourced with enough information :) Khanassassin ☪ 11:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Quick oppose - firstly you should familiarise yourself with the discussions initiated at the List of Friends episodes FLC about the compliance of the use of transclusions and the episode list template. That has a direct impact here. Don't start "This is an episode list...", we haven't done that for about a year-and-a-half.  Done Don't bold link in the opening sentence per WP:MOSBOLD.  Done There's no fair use rationale for the inclusion of File:EEnE Titles.jpg in this article.  Done See WP:DASH for advice on what to use in year ranges (e.g. an en-dash, not a hyphen...)  Done Really? "of the 1930s-1950s."? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)  Done :) Don't think you need to link adolescent.  Done Or suburb.  Done Not sure why the awards are in this list of episodes when the exact same info is in the main article.  Done Avoid all the over-bolding in the table (episode names, twice in some cases), but heh, that's just part of the ongoing debate above.  Done Where are all the original air dates referenced? Comment: iTunes. I don't see that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Oh, sorry, I meant they are on iTunes. I'll add'em there right away! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 17:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC) And incidentally, any info on individual episodes is unavailable to me (in the UK), because it seems to be restricted to US iTunes users... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Heheh, I'm not anywhere near the US! I'm from Slovenia! Luckily, I see everything. --Khanassassin ☪ 17:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Lucky you, I spent a happy few days in Ljubljana, lovely people. But it's not a brilliant source if we can't all see it.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Just BTW, I'm a Bosnian who lives in Slovenia (about 20 minutes from Ljubljana). :) Sadly, it's the only source. Though the show is popular, it doesn't have a wide selection of sources... Though not the best source (because of limited-viewership) - it's the only source... So,  Done :) Don't mix date formats in the references.  Done Ensure all refs have as many fields as possible, e.g. who publishes ref 16?  Done - the needed ones are all in. :) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose – At least several instances of plagarism/copyvio from what I've seen. If I looked harder, I'd likely find more.

• "Edd isn't too excited about going, but naturally, Eddy is stoked" is copied from here
• "Report card day is no fun for Ed and Eddy, because Edd is delivering their report...". The link above has "Report card day is no fun for the Ed's, because Edd is delivering Eddy and Ed's report...".
• "Eddy starts publishing a newspaper full of lies about the other kids, and sells them for cash." This is copied from the link above as well.
• "Jimmy doesen't believe in fairy tales anymore after a failed scam." The link above has "Due to another scam failure, Jimmy doesn't believe in fairy tales anymore".

This should be withdrawn, and shouldn't come back here until it has undergone a full rewrite to remove copyvio. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't why some of the similar-looking sentences are considered copyvio. For example, there's really no other way to explain the "Jimmy-Farytails" issue, and plus, it's written differently. --Khanassassin ☪ 18:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't strike comments by reviewers; let them do that. In checking the changes that have been made, I found multiple glaring typos: "aren't to excited about report day" and "after yet anothrt failed scam...". What else is lurking in the rest of the list, and how many more instances of straight-up copying from websites are there? Still think this needs to be withdrawn and worked on extensively before resubmission. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:35, 11 May 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:48, 16 May 2012 [10].

---

List of accolades received by Millennium

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 04:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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.
    • I think I've seen to this. GRAPPLE X 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Looks good. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "début" I could be wrong but I think this is sufficiently Anglified that we don't need an accent.
    • Yeah, that's a habit I need to break. Changed to an accent-less e. GRAPPLE X 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Funny thing is, I think "melee" is still preferred with the accent. Oh well. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "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".
    • I've split this into a few sentences now, it had grown a little too unwieldy as new award sources turned up. GRAPPLE X 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I can live wit hthis. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "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.
    • Fair enough, changed those (was a fourth one in Young Artists too). GRAPPLE X 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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.
    • Rephrased this a little bit, let me know if it looks alright now. GRAPPLE X 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Looks good. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for giving this a look over. Glad to see another fan out there, it's always been an underrated show. I think I've addressed all of your concerns, just give me a stern nudge if I've missed anything. GRAPPLE X 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Still has the factual error of it lasting three seasons. ;) Support. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments Infobox caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop. Added. GRAPPLE X 15:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC) "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"? Changed to "awards" just. GRAPPLE X 15:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Our article has a small "f" for 3rd Rock from the Sun. So it does. Fixed. GRAPPLE X 15:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC) No need to relink "Somehow, Satan Got Behind Me" in the table. I disagree with this; a table should not rely on its surrounding prose for links. They aren't paragraphs, they exist atomically. --Golbez (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 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) Thanks for having a look over everything. I think I've addressed your points, let me know if I missed anything when removing links. GRAPPLE X 15:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• Image review: No complaints. Goodraise 12:26, 19 April 2012 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 00:06, 10 May 2012 [11].

---

List of Friends episodes

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this meets the WP:FLC criteria. Apart from prose, my main concern is does the list violate 3b in that season synopses have by and large been obtained from the main article. This was a suggestion from the peer reviewer because articles for many episodes have hardly been created so synopses would be understandable for the reader. The list's overview section and ratings mirror that of List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Family Guy episodes so the requirements might have changed from that of a year or so ago. I welcome any comments, suggestions, criticism, feedback, et al, cheers -- Lemonade51 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments There's no need to wikilink US in the opening sentence, and I know TRM at peer review said to use "US" over "American" but after looking at any FA or FL about songs, episodes, films from the US, they all say "American". In both regular conversation and formal language, for me I think "The US sitcom Friends" jars compared to "American" Done "Friends was broadcast in 236 episodes" in doesn't sound correct here Fixed order "Each episode excluding the season finale has the title which starts with 'The one...' " is incorrect. The pilot is called "The Pilot", and it's the series finale, not season finale, which also doesn't end with "The One..." One needs capitalising, too, as it's a quote of the titles. Fixed That entire sentence is a bit long, and would flow better if it was recast as separate sentences, especially since the topic jumps from titles to length. Fixed "for a 30-minute timeslot" perhaps clarify by mentioning this is to allow for commercial breaks Done is there an article for "first unit"? It's a bit of a specialised term that many people won't get There isn't, I could only find Second unit. I have rephrased the terminology. Sentences shouldn't begin with "However", just as they shouldn't begin with a But, Although, etc Fixed "filmed in Burbank" vs "Taped in London" Fixed "broadcast on NBC after the first airing of "The One with Joey's New Brain" (February 15, 2001)" ---> "broadcast following "The One with Joey's New Brain" on February 15, 2001" Replaced "Conan O'Brien hosted a light-hearted discussion with the cast from the Central Perk set" needs recasting, it currently sounds like "the cast from the Central Perk set", as opposed to him hosting it on the set Fixed As well as DVDs, have episodes been released on BluRay, or for streaming at Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, etc? Complete series on Blu-ray. Would I need to include a seperate table for that? Blu ray has been confirmed but no release date as of yet. "but Chandler falls in love with her only to break up when he suspects she is cheating on him with a fellow actor." -- "only to break up" what does this mean? You haven't told the reader they got together The season summaries need work. Have they been copy edited? Some of the sentences are a bit run-on or poorly structured in other ways. Some are contradictory, such as "Season five features Monica and Chandler trying to keep their new relationship a secret from their friends." ... "Monica and Chandler go public with their relationship" Season 8's "The One After "I Do"" -- because the template forces "" around the title, you should use single quotes around the I Do to avoid the repetition of "" Were Pheobs, Chandler and Monica absent from season 8? For me, you don't have to have the season plot summaries. It doesn't violate 3b by including them or excluding them. This is a page that just lists the episodes and any further information such as what happens in them can be found by looking at the season specific articles which have summaries for all episodes. There aren't many Featured episode lists that do this anyway -- certainly not the more recently promoted -- and looking through most of them I found only a couple that do. List of Veronica Mars episodes is one, and that has a lot of episode articles anyways so the summaries aren't really necessary. List of Lost episodes is another, but again, each episode has its own article. Those that don't have a lot of episode articles and also don't have summaries include List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes, List of Dexter episodes, List of Numb3rs episodes, List of Gunsmoke television episodes, List of The Unit episodes and List of Smallville episodes so I'm not sure where the precedent is for that request. I decided to exclude the season summaries because they are covered in the seperate season articles (some in detailed length). MOS:HASH says to avoid using "№" and "#". I would name the first two columns "No. in series" and "No. in season" for clarity Fixed The specials don't have numbers, so you don't need those columns in those tables Fixed TRM said in the PR to make sure all tables meet MOS:DTT. Do they? What's the reasoning for the two left Ratings columns to be a different background colour, and why small text for the year ranges? I assume rowscopes are needed to highlight ratings? Titles, writers, directors and production numbers and airdates are still unreferenced, despite being marked as Done in the PR. They come under the 'General' reference, the 15th anniversary DVD which includes the specials. Not all articles lend themselves to images. The FL? doesn't require one to be promoted, it says they're to be included if appropriate for the topic. Here the topic is specifically the list of episodes, and a photo of a couch and coffee table doesn't illustrate a list of episodes even if those episodes did feature that prop. Have removed the image. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Everythink looks alright from here. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 11:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – Lack of reliability in the source department is my biggest concern. "Each episode excluding the series premeire and finale has the title which starts with 'The One...'". Second "the" should be "a". Fixed Might want to let those who haven't seen the show know what "the Central Perk set" means. Added In each table, Prod No. should be Prod no. as the second word is being overcapitalized. Fixed Refs 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, and 28 need publishers (DVD Warehoure in each case). Fixed Refs 29 and 30 have printed publishers, which should be italicized. For 29, the Chicago Tribune needs cites in addition to The Washington Post. Italicized ref 30, removed Chicago Tribune ref and replaced it with a better one. What makes Dan G's Website (ref 31) a reliable source. It looks like somebody's personal website to me. Removed What makes Classic TV Hits (refs 34 to 38) reliable? Removed and double checked all sources which replaced it. Ref 41 is a Google Groups site, and forums are not reliable sources. I can accept the occasional style defect that can easily be fixed, but when personal websites and forums are being used to cite much of the ratings section, that's where I reach the point where I need to oppose. It's not like reliable publications never wrote about this show and its ratings when it was on the air. I suggest finding some of those publications and using them. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Replaced that ref with a BBC one. Thank you for your review. – Lemonade51 (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC) The general reference and all DVD Warehouse refs need en dashes in their titles to replace the hyphens. Same for ref 42. Fixed General ref still needs two dashes in its title, by the looks of it. Ref 38, a new one, also needs one. Giants2008 (Talk) 11:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Whoops, have fixed them now. – Lemonade51 (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC) The bolded episodes violates WP:MOSBOLD. Note that we tend to bend that guideline a bit when bolding is forced by scopes, but I can't tell whether that's the case as the formatting is on a separate template. Come to think of it, does anyone have a problem with the tables being on separate templates? I'm not too familiar with this type of formatting myself, so I can't say if it violates any guidelines or not. Formatting has been done on the seperate season articles. Similar to the Family Guy list or the ones Matthewedwards has named above. Mostly all episode lists transclude the episode table from season articles, calling on {{episode list}} to do so. If you look through the history of episode list FLC nominations, I have often queried and opposed because of that, because we're basically reviewing content written on other pages not the page in question. There's also issues regarding what happens when bad information gets added at the season page or it's vandalised. Because it automatically gets displayed on the episode page, we have a case of two incorrect articles and those who have the episode list watchlisted might not necessarily watchlist the season pages, so they don't notice that it's been messed with (when I was a FL director I had all FLs watchlisted). However, WP:TRANSCLUSION seems to okay this practice (and I've been told that it's actually okay because at least both articles are the same -- even if they're wrong -- rather than having conflicting information across two pages!!!!), MOS:TV is indifferent, and it felt like I was running a losing battle. As for the bolding, that's set by {{episode list}}, so all episode and season lists automatically display it as bolded, and there's no way to undo it without changing the template, which would require discussion on the template's talk page. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Looks like there's been some discussion about this before. Suggest we try to comply with MOS if possible... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Right, used |RTitle= on all the episodes. – Lemonade51 (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Looks in good shape, just one concern, do the episode tables meet MOS:DTT, I'm not sure if they do. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure if it meets DTT as they aren't wikitables -- it derives from a template: Template:Episode list. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Is there a reason why it couldn't be made to comply with DTT? I often find User:RexxS can be extremely helpeful with this sort of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC) WP:TRANS? Perhaps I could just create tables from scratch, like List of M*A*S*H episodes? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC) I guess until the episode list template has a consensus to be modified to meet DTT, hand-coding a simple Wiki table would be the best approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Right, tables done. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Cool, will review tomorrow. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Good stuff, but you need to add rowscopes as well, sorry to be a pain. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Whoops, have added, cheers! – Lemonade51 (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments A shame there's not even a single image to brighten the lead up. Added, Goodraise or another reviewer may need to double check the image. Shouldn't ten year run have a hyphen somewhere? Done "They are on average 22 minutes " would recommend a comma after are and average. Done You have "Warner Brothers" and "Warner Bros.", suggest consistency here. Fixed Ross' Wedding is Ross's Wedding. Fixed "The One with the Ick Factor has a spare " Fixed Check "The One Where Old Yeller Dies"'s number in series. Fixed Four episodes (all different titles) have (1) or (2) after them, why? -- They are considered two-part episodes because the dialogue continues into the next episode. However, they haven't been coupled in the DVD's so it's removed. "The One Where They're Going to Party!" are the italics intentional? Fixed "The One with Chandler and Monica's Wedding (1)" our article on the episode has it as Monica and Chandler, not Chandler and Monica. Fixed Don't think you need # in the rank column, it's pretty obvious that what follows is a number... Removed The 1998 A & E Entertainment Almanac has missing info e.g. ISBN. Added Not overly keen on using Amazon and DVD warehouse to reference this, have to see what others think. It's pretty difficult to find any press releases dating back to 2000 regarding the release dates of Friends DVDs. Particularly for Region 4, hence why I used DVD Warehouse, a retailer. Ref 38 should be pp. not p. Fixed The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Thank you for the thorough review. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: Nothing to review. No images used. Goodraise 11:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• The one image used depicts a logo that may be copyrighted, but probably isn't. See File:Hercules 1998 Intertitle.png for an example of how to deal with such cases. Goodraise 12:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Have added 'PD-textlogo' license. Would that be sufficient on its own? – Lemonade51 (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Revisited. Goodraise 09:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Remove link of "The One with the Sonogram at the End", as it only redirects to Friends (season 1). Also, what is "Friends: The Stuff You've Never Seen"? I assume it's a behind-the-scenes show, but a summary would help. It is included in Friends (season 7), but as it's not a regular episode a description in this list would be helpful. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Have removed link. A summary of 'Friends: The Stuff You've Never Seen' is in the final paragraph of the lead. Unless you want it in the list itself? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm posting the following because Lemonade51 asked me to post my 2 cents here.[12] Changes made to List of Friends episodes since it was nominated go against standard practices with TV articles and against common sense. {{Episode list}} makes it easy for editors not versed in table construction to easily add content to list articles. [[List of <foo> episodes]] articles are normally created using {{Episode list}} and built upon. List of Castle episodes is one such article out of many. Once large enough, or when there is extra content beyond just tables listing the episodes, these articles are split in accordance with WP:SPLIT and Template:Episode list#Sublists. The episode lists in the individual season articles are transcluded into the main episode list article, as was the case with List of Friends episodes before it was nominated.[13] Removing transclusion and building tables that duplicate what is already in the season articles will (I've seen it too many times) result in duplication errors. The coding used in the edits since 1 March 2012 has blown the article out from 14,184 to 82,569 bytes with this edit, and that's without any episode summaries for the 236 episodes and 3 specials. This is a phenomenal amount of code compared to other similar articles. Lemonade51 claims that transclusion has been discouraged here. If transclusion is not used, in order to eliminate duplication errors, episode tables will need to be removed from the season articles. This doesn't make sense though. With transclusion, all content related to each season is within the season article. Without transclusion, content is in two places, which doesn't help our readers. Additionally, episode summaries will need to be moved to the list article, blowing it out to an enormous size which will justify a WP:SPLIT. But if we don't transclude, how does that happen? If "Lemonade51's version" of this article reaches FA status there is precedent to make articles for other series' follow suit. Some season articles contain little more and will really not need to exist. Instead, we'll just end up with bloated episode lists. The present system of transcluding the sesson articles seems to work just fine. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if someone can make the template meet the requirements of WP:ACCESS & WP:MOSBOLD then we could reconsider its use. While the code size has increased, I'd be interested to know if the load time has increased because there are significantly fewer templates to load (which are notoriously slow to load). Addition of other episodes is moot here because the series has finished. And as for the complexity of code, I think that's in the eye of the beholder, I personally find intricately coded templates a bind compared with plain table coding. It's a personal thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to reconsider. The template is used in 5,068 articles. It's standard practice to use it in TV lists. Changing an article to introduce coding that isn't understood by most editors (that's why we have templates) and duplication errors is not the way to fix a problem. Nor is it appropriate to introduce such a problem under the guise of making a list, which is intricately linked to several other articles, a featured list. The correct, and most appropriate, process is to change the template if it's deemed necessary. While addition of new episodes is moot, duplication errors are not. People will edit the episode list and not the season article, or vice versa. If a side effect of making an article featured is causing errors, then not being featured is preferable. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well just because it's used in a large number of articles, it doesn't make it right, does it? Templates aren't used because coding isn't understood by most editors, where's the evidence supporting that? Templates are convenient, sure, but their overuse can result in very slow page load times. In any case, as I said, we need our featured lists to meet the manual of style with regard to both visual and non-visual appearance. What goes on behind the scenes is irrelevant to whether this list should be featured; if it meets WP:WIAFL then it should be featured. If someone would fix the template (our resident expert in ACCESS matters, User:RexxS should be able to assist with exactly what needs to be fixed) then there'd be no need for the discussion. As it stands, this list now meets the requirements mandated by the MOS, which is correct for Wikipedia's finest work. Just because 5,068 other articles don't comply with MOS, I don't see why this one shouldn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) It was standard practice to send Jews to concentration camps. Didn't make it right, even though some people believed it was at the time. Are you seriously saying that the majority of editors don't know how to construct tables? Well if they don't, we have plenty of help pages guiding editors on how to build them. We shouldn't find a workaround for them so that they continue to stay in the dark about it. You keep talking about duplication errors, don't you mean non-duplication errors, because surely the error will only be duplicated when it is transcluded? If there is no transclusion there can be no duplication, so one page will be correct, which is better for readers than having two pages with incorrect information. If you're worried about it, include notes to editors at the top of each editable section in hidden tags <!-- like these --> that ask editors to make changes at the 'other' page. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Templates are certainly convenient, and we use them for because of that, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that most people seem to have difficulty with coding tables. People screw tables up all the time. Most of the table damage I see just happens to be in TV articles. There may be help pages for tables but they're clearly not understood based on the number of basic errors that I've had to fix. Templates simplify table coding enormously. Unless you're Superman, or Mr Data trying to stop a core breach on the USS Enterprise, slow page load times really don't affect most articles. A few milliseconds here or there just isn't noticed by the average human. What goes on behind the scenes is very relevant to featured list discussions. If an article can't be promoted to featured status because it uses standard templates, then there's something wrong with the system. Instead of sticking heads in the sand and altering the article almost completely so that it does comply, the issues with the templates should be addressed so that the article doesn't need a complete rewrite.

"You keep talking about duplication errors, don't you mean non-duplication errors" - If the same information is included in two different pages the content should be duplicated exactly on both pages, so the content isn't contradictory. Inevitably though, the information will become out of sync and the information will not be duplicated exactly on both pages. This is what the changes to List of Friends episodes will cause. There is no proposal to remove the episode lists from the individual season pages. That's not part of this nomination.

"If you're worried about it, include notes to editors at the top of each editable section in hidden tags" - OK, I haven't looked at your profile but I assume from that suggestion that you live in Utopia where nothing ever goes wrong. People ignore hidden comments all the time. Sometimes it's a never-ending battle trying to stop people from ignoring notes. Have a look at the notes in the "|starring=" field of the infobox at The Big Bang Theory. They're always being ignored. Articles on TV programs that have ended constantly have "<foo> is a" changed to "<foo> was a", even when the note is right next to is. "International broadcast" tables that have a note at the beginning of the section saying "please add countries to this list in alphabetical order" are often re-ordered, or added to by somebody to whom the alphabet apparently starts with "azfkewpb".

"It was standard practice to send Jews to concentration camps" - Now this is getting silly. It was standard practice in Nazi Germany only. It was a practice rejected by the rest of the world. Do I need to invoke Godwin's law here? --AussieLegend (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It was just Data, not Mr Data as far as I recall. And your comments are very interesting reading, but seem to ignore one key issue. The templates don't comply with WP:MOS. Make them comply and we'll be happy to use them. While they don't comply, we shouldn't use them. If fixing them would improve over 5,000 articles, why not just do it and then we can move on? But before that, can you tell me where you get the misguided idea that "What goes on behind the scenes is very relevant to featured list discussions." is true? Can you show me a discussion that consensually backs up your opinion? Ooh, and finally, overuse templates certainly does result in problems and load times. Just look at List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.... zOMG. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I know it was Data, but I was trying to cater for people who have a life outside Star Trek, if there are any here. (BTW, Picard and Riker often called him Mr Data, but it doesn't really matter.) Your response ignores the fact that bolding is not an issue if you use "|RTitle=" instead of "|Title=". Stating "Make them comply and we'll be happy to use them" ignores the fact that the template is used in over 5,000 articles, or over 100,000 times, since it's used multiple times in each article. Not using it in List of Friends episodes won't stop it being used. In any case, it's not actually used in the article at all. The template is used in 10 other articles and the content of those articles is only transcluded. It's pretty arrogant for a handful of editors to say that they won't use the template when it clearly has wide consensus for use, even "if" it doesn't comply with the MOS. "What goes on behind the scenes is very relevant to featured list discussions" is not misguided at all. Cause and effect. By demanding changes to an article that has been built in compliance with a significant Wikiproject you're affecting that project and the work of hundreds or thousands of other editors. It's not just one article being affected here, it's 11 directly, 10 of which aren't even nominated and the changes have a carry-on to any other TV list. Instead of changing the article and expecting other editors to work out why, you should be going to WP:TV and saying "Hey, we can't promote TV lists to featured status if you continue to use a template that doesn't comply with the MOS" and then work with the people who look after {{Episode list}} to fix it so you can promote lists without completely rewriting them. If you want to force people to use raw code, rewrite WP:DTT in a way that most editors can understand. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you entirely misunderstand. This article meets our criteria. It doesn't matter that it doesn't use a foul template that isn't correctly coded. That's your issue. The fact you can't understand MOS:DTT is your issue, hundreds of lists recently promoted proves that people who bother to care about it do understand it. You have raised an issue but seem unwilling to do anything about it. The community here is content that this is a very good piece of work and uses coding to help those who need a little bit of extra thought. Rattling out the mantra that something used 5,000 times makes it right is nonsense. We have nearly 4 million articles. Who cares if these 5,000 articles don't give a damn about those readers who aren't just looking at pretty templates? I will never go to a project and say we can't promote a list if it meets WP:WIAFL. How ridiculous. You need to re-read the criteria and tell me where it says we need to use the templates you prefer. It's more than arrogant for you tell me it's arrogant for us to refuse to use a shoddy template that doesn't meet MOS. Classic lemming. You've made the fuss about this approach, you deal with the fallout. And I look forward to the day when I can encourage our editors to use a decent template that actually cares about all of our readers, not just the ones you think need to read Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You entirely misunderstand that every TV episode list could meet your criteria if they were built the way you want them but that virtually none of them are. Friends certainly wasn't before Lemonade51 started playing. They're nearly all built the way that Friends was because that's the standard way that episode lists are built. You might care to read what I wrote again. All I suggested, since it is a problem that you seem to completely understand, is that you go to WP:TV and explain that {{Episode list}} has certain problems that need to be fixed so that articles using it can comply with your requirements. There's no point me doing it. I've already identified that there is a problem but I don't know how to fix the template. I don't understand why it doesn't comply. It looks fine to me based on what I can understand of the source.

"It's more than arrogant for you tell me it's arrogant for us to refuse to use a shoddy template that doesn't meet MOS" - LOL. It's arrogant for you to expect me to fix a template that I can't because I don't know the specific problems, but you do. Next. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's WP:MOSBOLD and MOS:DTT. How many more times? You shouldn't bold text unnecessarily, you need to use row and col scopes, and you need to gain an appreciation of what it's like to browse Wikipedia's finest articles when you can't necessarily see each and every detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

How many more times does someone have to say that if you use RTitle instead of Title, bolding isn't an issue? --AussieLegend (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

How many more times do I have to say MOS:DTT to you? If you can't be bothered to read it, and understand it, that's one thing. Hundreds of lists have proved that's not beyond the wit of man. But if you can't be bothered, that's your problem, not mine. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You only needed to say it once. I've read it and understood it. Your assumptions are incorrect. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Without transclusion, content is in two places, which doesn't help our readers" Readers don't care that content is in two articles. Lazy editors might, though. Next you'll be saying that we should transclude article content into the lede section (or vica verca) so people don't have to type repeated stuff there too.

"Removing transclusion and building tables that duplicate what is already in the season articles will (I've seen it too many times) result in duplication errors." Transcluding from many articles means that when those articles are edited incorrectly or vandalised, both pages display errors. (I've seen it too many times.) I'd rather have one page display an error and another page display the right thing.

Why do the summaries need to be moved to the list just because there's no transcluding? I don't get that. About 4 years ago none of the featured episode lists transcluded from the season pages, and they didn't have the summaries. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Readers don't care that content is in two articles. Lazy editors might, though" - Lazy editors have nothing to do with it. Readers shouldn't have to look in multiple articles to find content that is intimately related. It makes absolutely no sense to include everything about a season except for the episode list in one article, and the episode list in another. That's why, when TV list articles are split we include everything in the season article and transclude only the actual episode list, with no summaries, back to the main list.

"Next you'll be saying that we should transclude article content into the lede section...." - Well, at least you didn't mention the Nazis, but it's almost as silly. The content in the lede is a summary of the entire article. The episode lists are one section and it makes no sense to include them anywhere other than the season article. It makes perfect sense to transclude the content, rather than duplicate it, because then only one article needs to be edited and you don't end up with two articles that contradict each other because somebody edited one article and not the other.

"I'd rather have one page display an error and another page display the right thing." - If you have one page correct, and another that's wrong, how do you know which one is right? Sometimes the incorrect information goes undetected for months, even years. I've had to go through the process of repairing a TV series where errors existed in the episode list article as well as the season articles and it was hell trying to fix it all. With transclusion, the error can only occur in one article because the information only actually exists in one article.

"Why do the summaries need to be moved to the list just because there's no transcluding" - It's a fairly basic principle that content only exists in one article. (We regularly delete articles that duplicate existing articles under WP:CSD#A10) If we already have an article on one subject we don't create another article with the same content. We link to it, with {{tl|see also||, {{main}} or some other similar link, and include the basics from the other article. For example, the "Political divisions" section of United States doesn't duplicate U.S. state. It uses {{main}} to link to U.S. state and sumamrises points from U.S. state. The tables that were created at List of Friends episodes substantially duplicate the tables that are in each of the season articles. Only the episode summaries are excluded. For reasons that I've explained at length, identical, or almost identical content shouldn't exist in two places. Because the episode numbers exist in the main list, they shouldn't also exist in the season articles. That leaves the episode summaries orphaned, so they should be moved from the season articles to the main list.

"About 4 years ago none of the featured episode lists transcluded from the season pages, and they didn't have the summaries." - That was then, this is now. {{Episode list}} wasn't in as wide a use as it is now. It was only created in 2006 and by the time it became widely used, lots of TV lists already existed using custom tables. Now, most, if not almost all, TV lists are created using {{Episode list}} and we have to adapt. If the table is flawed, it needs to be fixed. The only dicussion about bolding seems to question whether MOS:BOLD actually applies to tables. In any case, this is not a real issue. Using "|RTitle=" instead of "|Title=" avoids the bolding issue. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Fix the template so it meets WP:MOSBOLD (we do apply it tables, it's an accessibility issue, not a prose vs table issue) and MOS:DTT (for screen readers, predominantly to tell a blind or partially sighted reader where rows and columns start and aid them in understanding the content) and it fixes the issue. You're the one making the fuss about it, so suggest you fix the template and then we'll be happy to use it. In the meantime, hand-crafted tables (which are used in 100s of 1000s of articles, not just 5,068 articles which fail to comply with our MOS and prejudice those who need WP:ACCESS to be applied correctly) which comply with our requirements for FL will be the way ahead. It could be that you simply aren't interested in making sure the readers of Wikipedia with limited sight or visual perception shouldn't enjoy the site, but I doubt that. That's why we insist on these things. I hope you understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Unlike others here, I've posted at both WT:TV and Template talk:Episode list regarding this matter There's little more that I can do. I don't have any control over {{Episode list}}. I can't edit it because I'm not an administrator. Perhaps you know one? --AussieLegend (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Pardon? What has being an admin got to do with getting a community consensus to make a crappy template meet our own MOS? Nothing. I look encourage your efforts in resolving this issue with the poor template and look forward to seeing a great outcome where we can improve 5,000 articles rather than trying to force more and more articles to use rot-laiden templates which prejudice against those with limited or no vision. And from the looks of things, your request has (per normal for these niche issues) fallen on dead ears (we, i.e. WP:FLC have tried this discussion before you know....) ... (by the way, the second link doesn't work).... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You keep telling me to fix it. How can I do that if you can't? You can gain consensus just as well as I can and since you seem to know specifically what's wrong with it, you have a better chance than I do. However, I've made the best request that I can. I can do no more. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you claim that we must use this god-awful template ("because everyone else does" [paraphrased]) then you need to get a consensus to do that. There's no rule anywhere that says that using a poorly formatted template is better than using correct markup. If you keep insisting on the use of code that prejudices others then that's one thing. If you can go off and solve your own problem, that's another. I've told you, WP:MOSBOLD and MOS:DTT are the issues. Hundreds of FLC editors can deal with it. I see no reason to compromise just to use something that "because everyone else does" ([paraphrased]).... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You've misread what I said, which was that rather than completely rewrite articles so that they comply, it's far better to fix the template so that completely rewriting articles is unnecessary. Fixing one template makes a lot more sense than rewriting 5,000 articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So help fix it. I see that you've put a few messages out there. What's important to know is that we've tried this sort of thing before and because no-one cares about ACCESS details, especially those who craft these intricate and delicate (and MOS-failing) templates. We seem to be getting somewhere, thanks to Matthewedwards, but in any case, there's no reason for us to compromise here just because you want to use templates, and we all want to use MOS-compliant coding. (By the way, those 5,000 articles probably aren't featured, so no-one cares about them, unlike this list....) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been helping. As you've noticed, and as I've pointed out here, I've made several posts at relevant WT:TV and Template talk:Episode list, including an edit request that has prompted some action. You may have "we've tried this sort of thing before" somewhere, but you don't appear to have done so at {{Episode list}}, which is why I was asking you to do so there, since you seemed to know what the problems were. You can't expect others to help you if you aren't willing to take some action yourself. Nobody is asking you to compromise; it just makes a lot more sense to fix one template than have to rewrite every TV list that is nominated. As for no-one caring about those 5,000 articles, that's not the case at all. You may not care but you aren't everyone. If you did care, you could use the fact that those 5,000+ articles will never reach FA/FL status with the template in its current form to force WP:ACCESS changes to the template and save a lot of work in the future, when some do come up for nomination. You need to look at the bigger picture. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, as I said before, fix the template and we'll use it. That is the bigger picture! In the meantime, we'll just stick to compliance with MOS. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment only just noticed all the edits made despite ongoing discussion as to the way ahead. How disappointing. Well, for now it's an oppose based on the use of the template which fails MOS in its current form. Sorry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Would your decision change if it was reverted (I had intended to do so when the edits were made)? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't oppose any longer it as it would meet MOS. But I won't encourage edit wars either... perhaps we need to ensure that, at the very least, the transcluded information complies with MOS, so change all the season templates to unbolded text and ensure they have row scopes implemented.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Since multiple editors reverted your changes, it would be unwise to revert as the changes are clearly contested. Before any reversions, you need to discuss on the article's talk page. Remember, in any content dispute you should follow WP:BRD and the status quo prevails. There's now some discussion at {{Episode list}} and the template will probably be changed, so any changes made at season articles should be limited to edits that won't need to be reverted when the template is "fixed". Wikipedia is not working to a deadline so there's no urgency to "pre-fix" things. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hence why I haven't reverted in the first place. Heck, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination until the problem has been fully resolved. But I assume this could be sorted out in weeks, not months. BTW, I know the WP:MOSBOLD can be resolved; has it been possible to correct the row scopes? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. And you're being very reasonable about all this reverting after all the work you put into it, so I'm grateful for that. I think we may have a solution for the row scopes, but regarding the unbolding, you'd need to be sure that the various other places where the episode lists are transcluded are happy having their version unbolded. That could start its own edit war (predominantly because some people seem to prefer ignoring the MOS rather than complying with it). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, as I feared, the discussion over removing the bold text looks likely to last a while... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Lemonade51, having done plenty (read: too much pointless) discussion into this issue, and noting that the TV project people are basically playing these lists into a corner (i.e. you must use the template, and you can't change the template, simultaneously), my advice now is to skip the use of the Episode list template and revert to the hand-crafted table which is just fine per WP:FLC. The only data that is transcluded is the episode name in this instance and I can't see a good argument that it will suddenly be out of synch with other uses of the title. Unbold that (per the Simpsons etc) and we've got a winner! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. There's nothing at MOS:TV that says that episode lists must use the template and that they must be transcluded. In fact, if you look through the talk page archive of the template, it says repeatedly that no one is forced to use it, and that it just facilitates easier data entry for those who can't read tables. Since the series is over, there won't be any new episodes listed, and any edits that do arise will be purely maintenance. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your patience and persistence on the episode list matter. Have reverted the tables, is there anything more to be done? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I have substitued the Season article by this: {{subst::Friends (season 1)}}. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't solve MOS:BOLD and MOS:DTT concerns. Think the wikitables are perfectly fine at this moment in time. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm quite disgusted by what has gone on in the past few hours. Attempts to remove bolding from {{Episode list}} are underway at the template talk page, and scopes are also being addressed. Despite this, two editors who have been involved in the discussions and template modifications, have now decided to bypass these attempts and encourage another editor to edit a page where the changes are clearly contested, instead of further discussing those changes at the article's talk page (as I earlier suggested here) or waiting for the template to be changed. That editor has, quite inappropriately, reverted the changes as vandalism, when they clearly were not.[14][15] Discussions here have no authority to override anything else that is going on at Wikipedia. They are only about whether the article should be promoted to featured status. The one good thing that has come about from the recent activities is that it has shown how transclusion is clearly necessary. Yesterday, changes were made to 9 of the 10 season articles. These seem to be reasonable changes and were immediately visible in List of Friends episodes when it was transcluded. However, Lemonade51's changes immediately made the article inconsistent with those 9 articles, which is unnaceptable. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any mention or accusation of "vandalism" in the edit summary. You're insisting on using the template and there is nothing, anywhere, that says the template has to be used. MOS:TV only says that the tables should appear consistent but it doesn't say how to do that. Talk page archives of the template say that if you want to use regular table coding, well then that is fine. The only thing that is being bypassed is the fact that the template doesn't conform to WP:MOS. Those who want to see this pass FLC want it to conform to MOS because WP:FL? says it has to follow MOS in order to pass. Since the template doesn't, the only way around that is to not use the template. As long as the facts are all correct in the season articles and the list of episodes page, that's okay. Nothing in MOS:TV or anywhere else says that they have to be identically formatted or transcluded or anything else. There was nothing unacceptable about it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Each of the edit summaries starts with "rvv" which represents "ReVerting Vandalism". "Revert" is simply "rv". You're insisting on using complex custom tables that facilitate the introduction of inconsistencies and which in fact did that. There is nothing, anywhere, that says the tables have to be used and transclusion has to be removed. Do you see where we are now? Inconsistencies between related articles is unacceptable when there is absolutely no need for those inconsistencies. Transclusion has been proven (today in fact) to eliminate the inconsistencies. Now to summarise the situation:

1. We can use the template unaltered, which doesn't comply and the article won't be promoted - If it doesn't get promoted, what's the effect on Wikipedia? Very little I expect.
2. We can replace 875 bytes of transclusion code with 57,873 bytes of custom tables and suffer from inconsistencies between articles. Inconsistencies aren't just a threat, they actually happened when Lemonade51 followed your recommendation. OR,
3. We can
   (a) Add "scope="col" to each of the header rows in the season articles (we don't actually need to do that because I've already taken the initiative and done it since it was required by WP:DTT anyway)
   (b) Make 1 small change to {{Episode list}} to unbold episode titles. (Discussion on this is already underway and in the meantime I've unbolded all of the episode titles in all of the season articles while we're waiting for this to happen)
   (c) Make 1 change to {{Episode list}} to add row scopes and
   (d) wait patiently (like adults) while (b) and (c) happen.

As of now, only 3(c) needs to be done in order for this article to comply using transclusion. Option 2 makes a single article compliant, while suffering from demonstrated inconsistencies, both with other related articles and most of the article under the WP:TV banner. On the other hand, option 3 will make 5,080+ articles (Use of {{Episode list}} has increased by 16 articles in the past 4 days!) have a much easier time complying, which has to be a lot better for Wkipedia. Even option 1 seems a better option than option 2 at this time. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I suppose the way it is right now is alright (transclusion is another discussion), except that the episode titles need quote marks around them per WP:MOS, MOS:TEXT, MOS:TV and MOS:TITLE. Using AltTitle= instead of RefTitle= would achieve this, or manually inputting the quotemarks around the titles. But if the latter is done, when the episode list template is changed someone would have to go around deleting them all and changing RefTitle= to Title=, as opposed to half the work of changing AltTitle= to Title=. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, how do you know there are 16 more articles using it, and which ones are they? Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither the 26 April or today's version of the article by Lemonade51 included quotation marks. Since those versions were acceptable here I decided to mimic them. That's why I used RTitle instead of AltTitle. When I checked the transclusion count 4 days ago, 5,068 articles use the template. Today when I checked it was 5,084. Now it's 5,085.[16] I have no idea what the new articles are. The toolserver doesn't tell you that. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you didn't introduce the lack of quotemarks, but they still need to be there. Matthewedwards :  Chat  12:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the use of this Episode template to keep episode summaries consistent seems reasonable. But the use of the template here is not to provide episode summaries at all, simply to provide the episode title. That should be stable and therefore there's no need for any transclusions. Using the hand-crafted table for this kind of "summary" list is perfectly acceptable, and avoids the nonsense lose-lose argument being propounded by the TV project collective. Incidentally, a good reason not to transclude these episodes is demonstrated by this edit which, to anyone watching the potentially featured list (and not all the sub-articles transcluded) would miss. This has removed an episode and associated production code information etc. This would have been correctly preserved if we didn't use this transclusion. Similarly, this handy edit has, via transclusion, now introduced an non-MOS-compliant number range (see WP:DASH) to the article. Same with this delight and this etc etc. It's also resulted in the columns being different widths from season to season which is also undesirable. Oh, and the formatting of grey/non-grey backgrounds has gone awry in seasons 4 and 5 as well. We can't rely on people editing the transclusions to realise the content is potentially part of featured material and therefore all edits must comply with MOS and WP:WIAFL. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The template doesn't just provide the episode title. It also provides writers, directors, air dates, production codes and two episode numbers for each episode. While one who isn't experienced with TV articles may think they should be stable, they aren't, as yesterday's edits showed. The content that this edit removed was incorrectly restored by the custom table. That episode aired as a single back to back episode, not as two separate episodes. As I've said on my talk page, I really don't see the point of nominating just the overall episode article on its own when it has been split out to season articles. All of the articles are intimately related and nominating the episode list is like nominating only the lede of any other article. All of the articles need to be featured, or none at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the whole point of detaching from the need to transclude. The season articles are internally inconsistent, badly written and full of MOS failures. They'd struggle to be Good articles, let alone featured. Until the mess is cleared up (and the "edit" you mention incorrectly used hyphens, while other such edits actually removed information), it's extremely arrogant to try to mandate that sub-standard articles must be transcluded, despite them containing errors and MOS fails. By the way "incorrectly restored by the custom table" is entirely wrong. It was restored to a different method of presentation (i.e. two rows) and a note saying the peisodes were aired back to back. And it wasn't a "custom table", it was a "wikitable" which is very much normal, not "custom". Also, one more thing, merging those two episodes then means you lose who wrote each of the episodes explicitly. Another curious "improvement". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's a couple of questions: List of The Simpsons episodes is a featured list. Is {{The Simpsons}}, a navbox that appears at the bottom of the article considered to be a part of the article? Is it a featured template? --AussieLegend (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's part of the article. No, there's no such thing as a featured template. And it's just a nav box, not the entire main content of the page. I think you're attempting to compare apples with pears. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I've got nothing to add to this. If you choose to look through the archives of FLC for previously nominated episode lists, you can see my hatred of transclusion for all of the reasons TRM has already given. Matthewedwards :  Chat  12:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not comparing apples to pears. Both involve transclusion of content. You can't apply one rule to one set of transclusion and a different one to the other. You need to be consistent and apply the same rules to all transclusion. When it all comes down to it, List of Friends episodes is this. The episode tables and navbox aren't actually part of the article. They only appear to be because of the transclusion process. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. And you can't see why that's wrong? A page that is titled list of episodes has no episodes listed. It has a table that tells us when DVDs for each season were put out for sale. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"A page that is titled list of episodes has no episodes listed" is clearly incorrect because the episodes are listed on the page, without actually having to include the lists in the article, all thanks to transclusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

How is that statement clearly incorrect when the page you linked to has not a single episode listed, just a bunch of section headings? Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Really??? Do you really need that explained? The page that I linked to was clearly one of my user pages, showing what List of Friends episodes would look like if it didn't transclude the episode lists. It wasn't the actual List of Friends episodes (I'd have to make some inappropriate edits to do that) but the only difference was that the individual season transclusion ({{:Friends (season x)}}) and navbox tags were commented out. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"You can't apply one rule to one set of transclusion and a different one to the other". Of course I can when it comes to application of common sense and what's best for Wikipedia. Your "transcluded" version is now non-MOS compliant, not complete, and stylistically poor. Seriously, I cannot see your logic at all, why would you advocate that the content of a page be transcluded from rubbish? And actually, until you can point me to a policy that states we have to transclude incorrect rubbish from one article to another for your so-called demand to "be consistent", there's nothing at all stopping us from reverting back to the untranscluded version since we're have a clear consensus to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Common sense dictates that it is better to get all ten season articles MOS-compliant than just concentrate on the episode list. Eleven MOS-compliant articles has to be better and one don't you think? And how is the episode list incomplete? There's nothing in the MoS that says we have to use custom tables and incorporate the inconsistencies that were demonstrated yesterday. MoS is not policy. What is stop reverting back to the non-transcluded version is standard Wikipedia practice. The changes have been opposed recently by at least 3 editors who have actually edited the article. There's clearly no consensus for the change and WP:BRD says it needs to be discussed. While that discussion is underway, WP:STATUSQUO says that if there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. There are discussions under-way that will hopefully lead to a better result across the project. Please try to be patient, as I've asked above. In the meantime, you could help by starting to get the season articles up to par. I'm a bit "off" at the moment, so I've had to put it on the back-burner for now. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Common sense would say that we look at the list you objected to, note that it was complete, comprehensive, MOS-compliant, stylistically correct and not dependent on keeping ten other articles which are in a dreadful state, and agree that it's better for our readers that we adopt that approach, rather than transclude rubbish. I'm waiting for you to tell me which policy mandates your approach. As you know, the list, in the state you reverted, has support from a number of editors. Your version doesn't. The fact that you actually approved of the edits to the articles you want to transclude despite the damage it's done to this list article is a real eye-opener. If you'd be happy with those sorts of edits, and happy with the resultant impact on featured material, perhaps trying to discuss this with you is a lost cause because we can't have this kind of rubbish as featured material. I look forward to the discussion coming to a timely conclusion so we can move on without being hog-tied to sub-standard rubbish. Finally, please stop referring to simple wikitables as "custom" tables. They are not "custom", they are simple. If anything, this insistence on transcluding from here, there and everywhere is "custom". And maybe familiarise yourself with the requirements of MOS before you think the "inconsistencies" that were introduced yesterday in the season articles are correct. Oh, and MoS is policy when it comes to WP:WIAFL so we have every right to expect our simple lists to meet those requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The rambling man notified me of this discussion as I supported the list in its previous state. My concern before I supported was the fact that the templates being used did not meet MOS:DTT, which is why the wikitables were used, as they ensured the list complied with MOS. To want to undo this because its common practice by the TV project to use templates that don't comply with MOS is madness. Your use of WP:STATUSQUO seems a bit odd as the status quo was the version I supported not your version before this discussion came about. So why is the template version in use when the consensus was for the table version. I really don't see what there is to be gained f rom using the template as opposed to the table version, I for one would much rather see the table used as it is MOS- compliant and as TRM states does not rely on the season articles being kept in a good state. NapHit (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There are discussions presently underway aimed at modifying the template so that it complies with WP:DTT and MOS:BOLD which will benefit all 5,085 articles that use this template (roughly 100,000 uses of the template) but The Rambling Man doesn't want to wait. The benefits of transclusion have been explained above (I suggest you read the recent posts) and one of those, avoiding inconsistencies between the 10 related season articles and the episode lists was painfully demonstrated yesterday, when custom tables replaced simple transclusion, without bothering to synchronise the tables with the season articles that were recently modified. The version of the article that existed prior to this discussion was the transcluded version, which had existed since individual season articles were created in August 2010. The changes made as a result of this discussion were made without any involvement or notification to editors who had been actively editing Friends and related articles. Lemonade51 had nominated the article without even mentioning it on the article's talk page or at the main Friends article, so nobody seemed aware of it. I only became aware a few days ago, after I had edited the article to improve the image. It was then that I noticed another editor start to restore the original transclusion. When his edits were reverted as vandalism, citing "WP:BOLD and MOS:DTT" I decided to look further. There are absolutely no indications in the edit history that any of the edits had anything to do with this discussion and another editor has reverted the edits back to the transclusion version, which correctly reflects the season articles. The table version does not. Since the transcluded version is the most stable, and the standard method used by WP:TV (as I indicated earlier, another 17 articles have started using the template in the past 5 days) this is presently the best version to use. Cleanup of the season articles and the proposed changes to the template will make this article MOS-compliant without needing to use the custom tables that were recently added. The Rambling Man has problems with the tables being called "custom", preferring to call them "simple", which they clearly are not. Simple is a template with a 7 fields that may be placed in any order and, with the addition of a single switch, can have 230 odd uses of the template across 10 articles automatically appear in another article. The tables are custom because they are unique to each article. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether the article should be promoted to featured status, not to completely rewrite it and the suggestions show a distinct lack of understand as to how the article should be "fixed" so it is worthy of promotion. As I indicated earlier, the article that was nominated did not actually inlude any episode lists, only a lead, season overview table and 850 bytes of transclusion code. The episode lists are in the season articles. The remedy is to clean up the season articles, which I started doing before I became ill, not to make this article something that is completely different to what was nominated. In any case, the version that contained the tables, apart from having incorrect content, was not MoS-compliant. Matthewedwards says the episode titles should be inside quotation marks. They are not. Instead the table cells were shaded. row scopes were incorrectly added and weren't even present in the series overview table. In the version that was restored yesterday, col scopes did not exist in the series overview table. Aside from these errors, the article contained a ratings table that unnecessarily duplicated the table in the main series article, which is immediately subject to becoming "out-of-sync". That's why we don't duplicate significant amounts of content between articles and why we transclude navboxes, instead of building a new navbox in each article. The changes made because of this discussion certainly made the article look prettier, but it didn't make it a better article! --AussieLegend (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"Lemonade51 had nominated the article without even mentioning it on the article's talk page or at the main Friends article", yet I mentioned it on the Television taskforce, which was seen by TonyTheTiger, who left me this message on my talkpage. As with every page I nominate for reviewing, I attempt to notify the three main contributors. Which in this case were Drzoidberg91, TyDwiki and Tenwin9. Two have been inactive for some time, the other is banned. I don't see the point discussing it in the talkpage of the article -- you are better off leaving a message on the taskforce which can be seen by the members. Plus the article was on peer review, another opportunity for discussion. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) @Aussie: We'll have to agree to disagree that the current version is an improvement. I don't think it is, and neither do the rest of the FLC regulars. There's a comment above about how scopes "were incorrectly added"; row and column scopes are now expected of FLs per accessibility standards. I'm also very uncomfortable with the transclusion; what if the article being transcluded is vandalized (a title change, for example), and I go to fix it here, but can't because the actual content isn't editable here? My fellow reviewers have good reason to distrust it. In any case, the conversation here has gone beyond this list and the FLC is not going to pass at this point, so I'll probably end up archiving this the next time I go through FLC (probably Wednesday, after finals at college). To be frank, I think the nominator got screwed over here, though that's only my opinion and others are free to feel differently. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

@Lemonade51 - Even if you don't see the point it's always a good idea to leave a message on the talkpage. Because the episode list is transcluded, it's pretty much maintenance free but there are still 87 people watching it. I'd even consider leaving a message at Talk:Friends as 664 people watch that. By contrast, WT:TV is only watched by 245 people and not all of them are interested in Friends. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you the only person in Wikipedia actually engaging in this specific debate with this viewpoint? Right now you're the only person here that thinks that transcluding templates full of errors is the correct way forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm the only person here because most editors don't seem to want to get involved, much in the same way that you didn't want to raise the issues with {{Episode list}} on the template's talk page and expected me to do it for you. As you should realise now, 3 editors have reverted changes at the article and others at {{Episode list}} and WT:TV have expressed faith in transclusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

They should be here then to help us get a consensus. Right now, there's no consensus to keep transclusions. One of the editors who reverted did so because of MOSBOLD, not because of transclusions, as well you know, the second conceded by suggesting we "subst" the templates. You're on your own. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they should be here but you can't force them. Right now, there's no consensus either way. Lemonade51's edits were reverted by three editors. The one who reverted because of MOSBOLD was Lemonade51, when he restored his edits. Another editor restored transclusion as the "proper way of doing things". The other reverted most of Lemonade51's edits and he hasn't conceded. He simply rebolded the titles and added "plainrowheaders". He then posted here suggesting that we subst. We don't know the current thinking of either of these editors. In the absence of consensus either way we have to stick with the state of the article before Lemonade51's edits, which is transclusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can "force them" then you won't get your way. There's a clear consensus, here at least, that you're on your own. And excuse me but what does "proper way of doing things" mean to anyone?! That's funny. Can you show me any evidence of policy or guideline that says transcluding error-prone templates is the "proper way of doing things"? And no, we don't "have to stick" with anything. If that were true, we'd revert all the way back to before Lemonade51 started his (very welcome and good) attempt at creating a featured list. Perhaps you'd like to do it, go back to this version, right? You've just "BRD"ed bits you didn't like despite having no consensus to do so, no policy or guideline backing it up and no reasonable argument in the meantime to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

@Giants2008 - I'm aware that row and column scopes are required. My point is that they weren't added correctly, so what'sthe point of having them. For the record, I've tested all versions of the article with Jaws (apparently the recommended screenreader) and it has no problems with the transcluded version. As for editing, it's really quite simple. If you try to edit the article there is an obvious message for editors unfamiliar with transclusion stating "To edit the episodes in this section, you need to edit the article listed above", so all you do is click the link to the season article in that section. Any editor should be able to work it out from there. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"The changes made because of this discussion certainly made the article look prettier, but it didn't make it a better article!" Incorrect assertion. If the list had been a simple wikitable rather than a bunch of transclusions, the following would be true:

• It would meet WP:MOS (specifically MOS:BOLD and WP:DASH), a guideline for Wikipedia but a key element of WP:WIAFL and, frankly, something we should all be aiming to do in all articles.
• It would be accessible, so not prejudice directly against people who have limited vision or use screen readers, per MOS:DTT.
• It would be accurate, i.e. production codes wouldn't suddenly go missing, specific episode writers for two-part episodes wouldn't suddenly be merged.
• It would be stylistically preferable, i.e. it would have columns of equal width from section to section, it would have consistent on/off shading of rows etc.
• It would be stable, i.e. anyone watching this specific list would see any changes made to it immediately and be able to revert vandalism or undo misguided edits such as those you claim to be a current improvement to the transcluded version of the article.
• It would be larger in terms of KB. Yes, we can all admit that it would be a larger article, but really, so what? I've tested load time with and without the transcluded version and there's no perceptible difference. Load more code or load more transcluded templates, horses for courses.
• It would be editable from here. This is, from my perspective, a great idea because it means it can be maintained with current featured list standards and there's no confusion to our editors when they click "edit" and see nothing but a bunch of templates. From others points of view, this means the featured list could potentially drift in consistency from the transclusions. Noted, but really not a significant issue, unless I've missed talk about consistency between articles in Wikipedia. Rest assured, if this was made featured, it'd have many more eyes on it than a dubious season article where "anything goes" it would seem. It should also be noted, in this case, that the Friends season articles are not even internally consistent, so attempts to claim some kind of consistency cross-article seems astonishing.
• It would be obvious, with a bronze star, that the list is featured. People editing the transcluded version would have no idea that what they were editing was part of a bigger picture. People editing the simple table version would realise immediately that they're editing part of Wikipedia's finest work which is subject to much higher quality standards than the rest of Wikipedia.

I'm not really seeing why, as Giants2008 puts it, the nominator needed to get "screwed over" here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

@AussieLegend, "it's pretty much maintenance free but there are still 87 people watching it", I take it you weren't one of the watchers before I nominated the list or even when I changed it to a hand crafted table. If this was such a problem, surely you would have noted the changes I was making on 10 April 2012‎ and acted much quicker? Regardless, I gave notification and the nomination has recieved a sufficient amount of feedback from reviewers -- which is what I intended for at the start. I'm far from anti-template; as I've said before I'll be happy to wait for a consensus. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I was one of the 664 people watching Friends. "If this was such a problem, surely you would have noted the changes I was making on 10 April 2012‎" doesn't make a lot of sense since, as you've assuemed, I wasn't one of the 87 people watching the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate your comments on the items I've laid out above. After all, I wouldn't want to mischaracterise any of the ongoing issues. Please be specific, it's beginning to become unclear what your point is, other than "to maintain consistency" which, of course, the articles themselves don't, and "for a smaller article", which is neither here nor there. Ultimately, we don't live in an ideal world where all the Friends editors care about MoS, care about FLC etc, and therefore material in sub-articles like the season articles is always going to be sub-standard unless someone cares about it enough to do something. That, apparently, isn't the case. However, it should most certainly not preclude somebody writing an article about the episodes, just to be constrained by other articles in Wikipedia which fall way below our best endeavours as a project. Do you think that featured articles which link to other articles check each and every one? Not a chance. This is analogous other than the content of the sub-standard linked articles is (unfortunately) transcluded, while in FAs etc, it's simply a link. Show me the policy, show me the guideline that it transcluding television season summaries should be done this way. If not, then we'll defer to consensus, and right now, that's (actively) in favour of a stand-alone simple table, despite your claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I was already doing what you've asked me to do.

• "something we should all be aiming to do in all articles" - Umm, yeah. That's what I was getting at when I said we need to fix all 10 season articles, but you don't seem interested in that.

• That's down to the Friends and TV projects. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• "It would be accessible" - Again, umm yeah. That's the point of fixing the template. Do that and 5,085 articles are accessible. Changing this article makes a single article accessible. Again, you don't seem interested in that.

• Sure I'm interested in both. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• "It would be accurate, i.e. production codes wouldn't suddenly go missing, specific episode writers for two-part episodes wouldn't suddenly be merged" - Sorry, but that's crap. Every article is subject to change, even featured articles. You forget, or ignore, that this edit introduced errors.

• You have sanctioned errors being introduced and seem more than happy to accept them. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• "It would be stylistically preferable" - Changes to the season articles will do the same.

• No, changes to individual tables in individual articles will have unexpected effects when transcluded because they cannot guarantee what they're being included with. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• "It would be editable from here" - And each time this article was changed, you've have to edit at least one more. If one of those articles was edited, this article wouldn't see the changes and you'd have no idea that the article was now in error, as happened with this edit.

• No, we wouldn't be obliged to edit season articles, that's not our mandate. The season articles are more than weak and should be fixed, but per above, that's your problem. We want to create excellence, not be held back by mediocrity. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Rest assured, if this was made featured, it'd have many more eyes on it than a dubious season article where "anything goes" it would seem." - More eyes doesn't necessarily mean less errors. In any case, isn't it preferable to also get the intimately related season article featured so that it has "more eyes on it"?

• I never said "less errors" (actually, fewer errors) but I said it'd be seen by more people. No, no preference to get season articles promoted. The problem remains. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• "People editing the transcluded version would have no idea that what they were editing was part of a bigger picture." - Again, a reason to get all the articles featured since they are so intimately related.

• Not part of our issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that none of your suggestions here really solve more problems than they create and they're rather inward looking, rather than looking out at the whole picture. I'd highly recommend getting involved in some TV series and season articles, actually maintaining them, not just making them prettier to a very limited number of people. If you're interested, I have 11 immediate examples. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that none of your responses have shown why we can't write an article without being forced to depend on other crappy articles. Your "prettier" argument wears thin when it's about promoting excellent material and I'm afraid it's undermining your viewpoint. You know it's more than that. We shouldn't be held back by our weakest links. You know that too. Anyway, consensus is ever-changing and right now there's nothing holding us back from reverting to a decent, accurate, stylish table. Perhaps you should pop over to WP:FAC and tell them that they shouldn't promote any article to FA without checking that all the articles linked to are featured as well (because nothing mandates transclusion, remember?), that seems to be what you're saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS: I'm sorry I'm late to this discussion, but I've only just become aware of it. I've just read a few hundred kilobytes of text, spread over several pages, and I'd like to suggest having a break at this point, and considering what common ground might be found. The current version of the transcluded tables seem to me to now comply with MOSBOLD, and to comply with DTT to the extent of correctly identifying column headers and applying the column scope to them. That helps anyone using a modern screen reader as they can have it announce the column header before each data cell if they are navigating around the table. As an example, for the episode 10 director cell, they might hear "10", "Directed by", "Peter Bonerz" - which is the intent of the extra markup, although we would be relying on the screen reader itself to make use of the first column as a row header. In other tables, the row header may be explicitly defined and marked up with the ! scope="row" syntax, as then we don't have to rely on the screen reader to make a guess. I'd rather not re-ignite the debate of using the episode title as a row header, because I think the transcluded tables as they stand now are probably a sensible compromise that everyone could live with, and the consequent issues of altered formatting for sighted viewers are better left for the future.

Having said all of that, I should point out that the first table, in the Series overview section has misunderstood what DTT wants us to do. I'll edit it into how it should be, and hopefully it will be then clear what is needed. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

RexxS, as ever I appreciate and value your opinions, and I'm very pleased to see that our efforts to get the table (in its currently transcluded form) more accessible. And that's a good thing. The other issue, which perhaps isn't necessarily of your interest, is that of transclusion, particularly of those templates which no longer meet MOS, which contain errors and omissions etc, which get automatically transferred to this list. Anyway, if you've read the 100kbs, you probably know that already! But much appreciate your comments, especially if we've managed to get {{Episode list}} a little better, if we don't achieve anything else. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the accessibility improvements to {{Episode list}}, particularly the {{Episode list/sublist}} which does the work of making transcluded lists more accessible such as in articles like this one. That's actually a significant accessibility gain across 5,000+ articles, and is very much worthwhile. I do understand your concerns about keeping transcluded pages up to the standard of FL, but the same concerns apply to all transcluded content (such as any template) and I would humbly suggest that we simply have to work these issues out - frustrating as it may be at times - because whenever we improve a transcluded page, we potentially improve many articles at the same time. --RexxS (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No complaints with that, the better we make {{Episode list}}, the better the experience for all. My main issue with the transclusion here is that it constitutes 90% of the article, not just a navbox at the bottom. If 90% of the content of a FL is subject to transcluded errors and omissions, then I don't think it should happen. My issue is that we're somehow being forced to transclude clearly inappropriate, inaccurate, ill-formatted material. Perhaps we have to wait until the Friends people improve all the transcluded articles to meet WP:WIAFL but I don't see that happening at all, and in the meantime, I don't think it's fair that we shouldn't have a featured list about the episodes. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:08, 9 May 2012 [17].

---

Timeline of modern American conservatism

Nominator(s): – Lionel ^(talk) , Rjensen (talk), Toa Nidhiki05 (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured list because it encompasses the characteristics of a Featured List. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I haven't thoroughly read through this list, but the first thing that jumps out at me is that the quality of references and reference formatting are not to the standard required of a featured list. Specifically:

• Web references should have a title, publisher and access date given at the very least. Authors, publication dates, etc. should be given if available.

•  Done

• Books, including those accessed through Google Books, should be formatted with title, author, publisher, page numbers and publication year at the very least. ISBNs are often included, as well.

•  Done – Lionel ^(talk) 13:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• A person is not a reliable source for potentially controversial information about themselves. For example, the list says "Socialist Michael Harrington popularizes[90] the term "neoconservative"", with ref #90 being to an article by Harrington. No! You need a reliable source written by someone else to prove that this is something other than Harrington's own pet phrase.

The reliable source is in the attached footnote: Justin Vaïsse, Neoconservatism: the biography of a movement (2010) p. 298

•  Done moved to talk – Lionel ^(talk) 01:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• For a list this long (over 65 kb) the lead needs to be longer - 3-4 paragraphs in general.

•  Done– Lionel ^(talk) 01:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I haven't read the whole thing. However, these need to be addressed before the article is of FL quality. Dana boomer (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - based on the complete lack of response to my comments and those of Giants, below. The issues the two of us have listed make this list stand quite far from FL status, and significant work is necessary to bring it up to speed. Dana boomer (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Back from wikibreak. Thanks for your patience. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – I appreciate that this is a difficult list to work on, but I'm not feeling comfortable with the writing or the formatting. Dana's right, I'm afraid: this isn't ready for FL right now.

• I'm not liking the table of contents being forced into the upper right part of the page. Not only do I think it should be in a more regular position, but I think the intro would be enhanced with a photo of a prominent conservative (Reagan, perhaps?).

• If I recall correctly, the TOC is on the right because the lead is short and the TOC ran into the first section header, "Chronology of events." An expanded lead should make a left-TOC aesthetic. I'll revisit after lead expansion.– Lionel ^(talk) 10:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Got a two-fer: Reagan and tax cuts. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why is Timeline capitalized in the first sentence? That's not part of an official title or anything, so why force improper capitalization?

•  Done– Lionel ^(talk) 10:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• 1930s: "Republicans and conservatives are pummeled by a series of electoral blows in 1930, 1932 and 1934:. "pummeled by a series of blows" is really informal language for a featured piece of content. I'd recommend toning it down.

•  Done– Lionel ^(talk) 10:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Conservatives had been energized in 1937–38 and liberals discouraged by the a souring of Roosevelt's political fortunes...". The "a" is a grammatical error.

•  Done– Lionel ^(talk) 09:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• I see "court-packing" and "Court packing" near each other. They should be made consistent in capitalization and hyphenation (hint: I don't believe this should be capitalized).

•  Done– Lionel Btw it is capitalized when referring to the Supreme Court.^(talk) 10:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• While on the topic: "his Court packing plan was a fiasco" sounds quite POV to this independent (literally) reviewer. Again, please consider toning down the language, or provide something in the way of details that shows it was a fiasco.

•  Done– Lionel ^(talk) 10:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Recession of 1937–38" is another item that shouldn't be capitalized. I'm not going to point out any more of these, but please check the whole article for situations like this.

•  Done checked article – Lionel ^(talk) 22:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Abbreviations like AFL, CIO, and NATO should be spelled out when first used. If the abbreviation is provided in parentheses afterward, that would be ideal.

•  Done Think I caught all of them. Incidentally NATO is specifically exempted here [18].– Lionel ^(talk) 08:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Peter Vierick's article 'But—I'm a Conservative!' is published in the Atlantic Monthly." At first glance, this doesn't appear significant enough to be included in such a list. Is it an early use of the phrase conservative? If so, that's definitely worthy of mention here, as that would be a good reason to include it.

•  Done moved to talk – Lionel ^(talk) 11:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Liberal icon Franklin D. Roosevelt is elected to fourth Presidential term". Feels like it's missing "his" or "a" before "fourth".

•  Done– Lionel ^(talk) 09:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Previously a Keynesian". What is that, exactly. I know it has to do with John Keynes because I've taken economics classes, but the general reader may not know this immediately. Don't be afraid to use a wikilink here.

•  Done Good idea – Lionel ^(talk) 09:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• 1967: ""Their anti-American venom and efforts to disrupt the draft...". Venom seems like a loaded word to me, at least in this context. Perhaps a replacement can be found? Also, the space before ref 74 should be removed.

•  Done And how did a label of "anti-American" get into this article? LOL. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Richard Nixon elected over Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace". Shouldn't "is" or "was" come after Nixon's name?

•  Done– Lionel ^(talk) 09:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• There are some uncited bits such as Reagonomics and the elder George Bush's election. They aren't the most contentious points here, but FL criteria demands cites for content so they should be referenced along with everything else.

• Question: Doesn't "November 8: George H. W. Bush is elected president" fall under WP:CK? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Most people may know he was elected that year, but I doubt they remember the date of the election, which is provided. For a featured piece of content, I'd expect all the information to be cited anyway. It shouldn't be too much effort to find a source for this. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Done – Lionel ^(talk) 00:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Christopher Ruddy starts conservative new website Newsmax.com." "new" → "news".

•  Done– Lionel ^(talk) 09:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• "George W. Bush embodies what he describes as compassionate conservatism" is a statement that cries out for attribution; otherwise it sounds like Wikipedia is editorializing in this regard.

• How does it look now? – Lionel ^(talk) 11:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• A bunch of references need en dashes for page ranges.

•  Done also went though the body and converted date ranges, etc., for extra credit. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• You missed hyphens in ranges in refs 14 and 178 (2 in that one), and I noticed formatting issues with ref 152. Please make sure that these are taken care of, and that other similar issues aren't still present. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• All fixed. Btw those hyphens are recent additions, subsequent to my en masse replacement. I'll keep an eye on future additions. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 177 still has a hyphen, and ref 135 is missing the second part of the page range. Other than those two cases, the issue appears fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed. – Lionel ^(talk) 13:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• As a final note for now, I'm not convinced about the copyright status of the caricature of the 2012 candidates. I've seen likenesses of living people be used in the past to illustrate articles where there weren't any free images (Susan Boyle was one), and they were never found to be acceptable. Personally, I don't see why a composite image couldn't be made with actual photos; these drawings aren't the most flattering things in the universe anyway. Also, I don't know if the 1960 Modern Age cover is valid free-use; usually magazine covers aren't unless they're out of copyright, and I don't know if only having titles on the cover makes it non-copyrighted. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Caricature removed; Modern Age cover listed at WP:CQ. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result at WP:CQ re: Modern Age cover was "probably." For my part I think the preponderence of the evidence shows that is is PD. That should wrap this one up. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note to reviewers: the TOMAC team has assembled on the talk page to in an all out no holds barred effort to resolve all of the remaining issues.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Can your team do something about the massive amount of tags that are now spread throughout the page? And can all of these issues be fixed in the normal time frame of an FLC? I don't see any way that this can pass until the tags are all dealt with. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Team TOMAC (doesn't that have a nice ring to it?) should have all of the tags fixed within a day.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • All tags resolved. – Lionel ^(talk) 13:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I first found this article when it was up as a DYK nom. I opposed this article appearing as DYK because there's some serious bias issues here, tagged the article, and listed on the talk page Talk:Timeline_of_modern_American_conservatism#Bias a number of the most glaring problems. Six months later, I see the tag has been removed, but not a one single of the problems I pointed out has been fixed. There's still no mention of (for example) Jim Crowe, the Southern Strategy, the great recession, Nixon and his dirty tricks or how they come to the present through Lee Atwater/Karl Rove. Raul654 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Raul654 has a litany of Democratic rhetorical attacks against Republicans. That's his own POV but it does not help an article on the conservative movement. Nixon (dirty tricks, Southern Strategy, Atwater) for example was more of a liberal or moderate Republican (and yes Watergate is covered). Segregation is given several entries (see 1948 and 1960s). Rjensen (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen's claim that Nixon was a liberal should give you some idea of his POV and grasp of historical facts. The reality is that Nixon was reviled by liberals and retrospective attempts by conservatives to claim 'he wasn't really one of us' are less a reflection of Nixon's policies than the fact that they want to distance themselves from a president that history has judged very poorly. (The very same thing can be said about attempts these days to claim George W. Bush wasn't really a conservative either. It's politically convenient but completely untrue in every respect.)

Getting to the specific facts Rjensen mentioned:

He claims that the Southern strategy was somehow an example of Nixon's liberalism. This claim is so bizarre that I'm really at a loss to respond. (A) It has nothing to do with liberalism, and (B) It wasn't just Nixon that practiced it. He started it, but every Republican candidate since has used it.

On a related note, Rjensen says segregation and the civil rights movement are covered (1948 and the 60s). Read through the article, and see how many times you can find things mentioned about them. There's not many - especially given how important it was as a movement - and the few times they do come up the article facts carefully selected (in what is included and omitted) in ways that tend to leave the reader with a false impression. For example: Deep South Democrats lead by Strom Thurmond split from the National Democratic Party to form the pro-segregation States' Rights Democratic Party or Dixiecrat party. They are protesting support for civil rights legislation in the party platform and make Thurmond their nominee for president in the 1948 election. Nearly all return to the Democratic party in 1949. - this is factually true, in that the racist southern Dixiecrats didn't permanently leave the Democratic party until the mid-60s, after the passage of the civil rights and voting rights acts. Notice that the permanent defection is not mentioned anywhere in the article, which is interesting because Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms (both defectors) both have entries in here. (Traditional conservative Jesse Helms of North Carolina takes his Senate seat; he retires in 2002. As long-time chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he demands a staunchly anti-communist foreign policy that would reward America's friends abroad, and punish its enemies. His relations with the State Department are often acrimonious, and he blocks numerous presidential appointees. His National Congressional Club uses state-of-the-art direct mail operation to raise millions for conservative candidates and for Helms' own sharply contested reelections.[103]) This article has been carefully written so as to avoid giving the reader the impression that they joined the Republican party because the Democratic party had made it clear it would no longer tolerate racists. Here's another example, where the article glowingly mentions that Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL) plays a key role in passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to end segregation Reading this, a reader would be left with the impression that the Republicans played an important role in ending segregation. Frankly, it's hard to imagine something further from the truth.

Notice that of the things I mentioned on the talk page six months ago: - Southern strategy, (B) Jim Crowe, (C) Nixon's Dirty tricks, (D) Lee Atwater/Willie Horton/Karl Rove, (E) Iran Contra, (F) The Great Recession - not a single one is mentioned by name, and only one of them is even tangentially covered (Watergate for dirty tricks). It seems the standard response of the article's authors is to claim that these don't relate to conservatism. And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

I'd go on, but frankly I think it's beating a dead horse. This article's authors don't listen to feedback, so I don't really think it's worth wasting more time spilling ink over it. Raul654 (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Raul certainly has his opinions but he does not have any sources for his POV. He is simply out of touch with modern scholarship. Segregation is mentioned several times (it would be mention more often in the Timeline of Liberalism article). Dirksen did play a major role. "Jim Crowe" gets mentioned twice by Raul654; the spelling is "Jim Crow" and it's actually the informal name for segregation. As for Nixon/ Dirty/Tricks/Atwater, no Nixon was not on the conservative side of the GOP -- better read Joan Hoff's book--he's famous for imposing price controls, detente with USSR, expanding the Great Society, imposing Affirmative Action by exec order, expanding NEH and NEH, and creating the Environmental Protection Agency by executive order. That's pretty liberal for a Republican. Did liberals like Raul654 hate him? obviously he still does! Rjensen (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again Rjensen is simply saying that all the problems identified above aren't really problems. And once again, his claims about Nixon are so divorced from reality it's hard to know where to start.

Regarding sources - I would supply them if I thought it was worth wasting time arguing with the POV pushers from wikiproject:conservatism who own the article. It's not, but just for everyone's benefits I'll supply one of them: Here is a blog entry by Keith Pool, a University of Georgia professor who has built his academic career on quantifying how liberal or conservative politicians are. Notice that, unlike Rjensen's laughable claims above, Nixon is most definitely conservative. Very, very conservative. More conservative than any democratic president was liberal, and more conservative than other republican except Reagan and the Bushes. And his list of Nixon's "liberal" accomplishments aren't really all that liberal. In his later years, Reagan saw an improvement in Soviet relations too. Does that also make him a liberal? Environmental protection was, until very recently, essentially a non-partisan issue. (It still is too, at the state level) Conservatives like breathing clean air and drinking clean water too.

Dirksen did play a major role. - Did you even read what I said above? I'm not disputing the veracity of this statement. What I said was that it's problematic to give credit to one republican while simultaneously not mentioning (A) the much greater support the bill got from the majority democrats in the congress (in absolute terms, not proportionally) and President Johnson; and (B) that the republicans used the aftermath of the bill to capitalize on the political environment to woo racist white southerners to the republican party. (The Southern Strategy) Not all facts are equal, and mentioning certain ones without mentioning other more important ones tends to leave readers with a false impression, which is *exactly* the problem throughout this article.

As for Nixon/ Dirty/Tricks/Atwater, - you *do* realize that Atwater worked for Reagan and Bush Sr, right? And that Karl Rove, Atwater's protoge, worked for Bush Jr. Once again you have ignored this most inconvenient fact to push your fun-house mirror brand of historical revisionism.

Segregation is mentioned several times - Well, let's see. Although this is subjective, the Civil rights movement was probably one of the four most important social movements of the 20th century. (Along with the Wilsonian Progressives, the New Deal and the Reagan Revolution. And it was lasted far longer than the Reagan or New Deal movements - from Post WIII until about 1970) I count *exactly* five mentions including one in passing (Strom Thurmond/1948, the 1960s intro paragraph, "...and civil rights be included.", Wallace/1963, 1964/Civil rights act). As I've already mentioned above, two of these are misleading (Derkson and Strom Thurmond). Not one of them mentions the general defection of the south to the Republicans that has been the defining political reality of the parties for most of the last thirty to fifty years.

And you *still* have not responded to the other 5 or 6 topics I've already mentioned that get no mention in the article at all. Raul654 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Raul654 still has not found any reliable sources for his personal POV--note that the article he challenges has over 150 different citations to RS. As for segregation/Jim Crow he said it was ignored; he now finds we had five different mentions. (He misses the section on Wallace, which explains some of the defection of the South) Dirksen played a key role in the civil rights legislation as the RS say. The complaint seems to be that liberals are not given as much attention as conservatives. That is indeed true in an article on conservatism. Raul654 would be more constructive by starting an article on the timeline of liberalism, which clearly interest him much more than this page. Rjensen (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Raul654 still has not found any reliable sources for his personal POV - I would have provided citations, except (A) you would simply ignore it, as you have done time and again in this thread when I have debunked your talking points, and (B) talk pages like this one are not articles, and citations aren't mandatory unless there's some factual dispute. Nothing I've said above is particularly contentious as to require a citation. You're the one making preposterous claims like Nixon was a liberal, or that having lots of citations somehow means this article isn't absurdly biased in its selection of facts for inclusion or omission. (A point that seems to have gone miles over your head)

As for segregation/Jim Crow he said it was ignored; he now finds we had five different mentions. (He misses the section on Wallace, which explains some of the defection of the South) -- Bzzzzzt. Wrong again. What I said was "Notice that of the things I mentioned on the talk page six months ago: - Southern strategy, (B) Jim Crowe, (C) Nixon's Dirty tricks, (D) Lee Atwater/Willie Horton/Karl Rove, (E) Iran Contra, (F) The Great Recession - not a single one is mentioned by name, and only one of them is even tangentially covered" - Jim Crow is not mentioned by name, nor are the Southern strategy, dirty tricks, Lee Atwater, Willie Horton, Karl Rove, Iran Contra, or the Great Recession (Notice that every single one is important enough to merit its own article) I admit that it should have said *two* of those six are covered instead of one, as segregation is mentioned, but nitpicking aside, you have still not addressed my larger point.

The complaint seems to be that liberals are not given as much attention as conservatives - Nice strawman. As I'm sure pretty much anyone reading this now should realize from the last three times I said it, this article's authors have carefully chosen which facts to include, so as to (for example) give conservatives credit for civil rights achievements that were primarily the work of liberals, while simultaneously omitting fifty years of conservative race baiting. And as I've already mentioned several times - to which you have very obviously failed to respond - there are many other things about conservatism that have been selectively omitted from this article, such as thirty years of opposition to science, or how conservative opposition to regulating the derivatives market led directly to the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. (Even Alan Greenspan himself now says this was a mistake).

And in your next comment, it would be very welcome change from your past replies if instead of constructing strawmen to tear down or nitpicking one or two details while ignoring the broader arguments I'm making,, if you could actually produce a meaningful response. Raul654 (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

get some sources. Rjensen (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

For what, exactly? Citations aren't here for masturbatory pleasure. Is there something I've said above whose factual accuracy you disagree with? If so, I'll provide a source. Otherwise, I'm not wasting my time digging up citations for obviously true statements such as "Lee Atwater worked for Reagan".

Also, as you have again failed to respond to any of the points I've made above about bias in the choices of facts to include or omit from this article, I'll take your continued non-response as a concession of the point. Raul654 (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

concession? No your complaints are poorly stated because they are based on person POV and not any reliable sources. Wikipedia can only use RS and is not allowed to edit based on POV. As the tag line (below SAVE PAGE) says, "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." I fear that none of Raul654's personal complaints meet that criterion. Rjensen (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I think it's pretty clear the article's authors aren't interested in feedback or improving this article beyond its current highly-biased condition. Rjensen's above response is pretty indicative of the problem here -- laundry lists of problems go unresponded, except for repeating requests for sources that do not specify what is being requested. I'm done here. It's not worth wasting my time trying to educate someone who doesn't know how to edit within Wikipedia's framework. Raul654 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I agree that Raul654 has wasted his time. Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I for one welcome any and all suggestions for improving the timeline. But before I go into the issues Raul has raised, I'd like to say that I think he mischaracterizes the "article's authors." The implication is that there is a vast right wing conspiracy taking ownership of the timelime. That could not be further from the truth. In fact 6 mos. ago I wrote:

Most of the editors from the AfD are here... This group of editors, who often butt heads against one another, have a real rhythm--let's get as much productivity out of this esprit de corps while it lasts, ok? (ital. added)

The roster of editors at the article is representative of a myriad of ideologies and viewpoints: from the right and the left. Even amongst Rjensen and myself there is not unanimity. E.g. I favor including S Strategy--Rjensen is opposed. To address Raul's particular points,

• Jim Crowe: the establishment of these laws pre-dates this timeline. And as Rjensen points out the effect was segregation. Segregation is covered.
• Southern Strategy: IMO it did affect conservative politics--Rjensen disagrees however.
• Great Recession: I never thought of this as a conservative issue. I don't see how adding that the Democrat-sponsored CRA and the Clinton repeal of Glass–Steagall caused the recession is within the scope. Oh and btw Greenspan is a libertarian. We have to keep in mind that every RS posits a different cause for the recession. There is certainly no consensus that it was caused by conservatives.
• Nixon/dirty tricks: Raul is misquoting Rjensen. Rjensen did not say that Nixon was a liberal, he said Nixon was a liberal Republican. There is a word (and an article) for Nixon: Nixonian!!! This is not the Republican timeline, it is the conservatism timeline.
• Lee Atwater/Willie Horton dirty tricks: the only entries about elder Bush are (1) his election and (2) defeat. Elder Bush is just not that impactful on conservatism. His interest was in foreign affairs. The only reason he's in the timeline is because he broke a tax pledge. And that angered conservatives. Horton is a barely a blip in the grand scheme. Horton rates a brief mention if anything. Regarding Atwater, there are no campaign managers in the timeline. He is UNDUE.
• Karl Rove dirty tricks: so he was extremely successful in masterminding W's election. That's what good campaign managers do. Not one Bush administration member is in the timeline: not Colin, not Condi, not even Darth Vader.
• Iran/Contra: it isn't as much a conservatism issue as it is an issue relating to a prominent conservative, Reagan. Brief mention on how it affected Reagan's polling.

The topics that Raul wants included for the most part are (1) beyond the scope and/or (2) not DUE for this timeline and/or (3) noone has gotten around to it. E.g. Nixon was not a conservative: Reagan was. Atwater was only a campaign manager: he is not DUE for this article. On the other hand, both of these personalities would feature prominently in the Timeline of the Republican Party.

Another thing, I don't appreciate Raul issuing orders on the talk page and then deriding the editors when his pet projects aren't completed according to his schedule: this timeline is not FAC. We're volunteers here and we work on what we want to work on. The fact of the matter is that the diverse group of editors at talk just doesn't assign the same importance to Raul's agenda that he does. And while the timeline is very large, there is still an enormous amount of information to be added. It covers 90 years! We don't have Cheney, vast right wing conspiracy, gun rights, and dozens of others. It will never be finished. That said, this timeline is well written, extremely well sourced, amply covers the topic--and will make an excellent FL--even taking into account its shortcomings.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me interject and say that I've seen multiple instances in this discussion where it has been said by the nominating team that the list isn't complete. If that's the case (keeping FL comprehensiveness requirements in mind), shouldn't this have the dynamic list template, as seen here, to recognize this? As you say, this is not the type of list where inclusion is easily defined, and I think it's best to make that clear from the beginning. Also let me note that I think your team should have gotten together and fixed the many issues requiring tags before coming here, as that would surely have saved a lot of trouble and stress, and made the list more appealing to reviewers. Just something to think about if you have any future nominating plans at FLC or FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The timeline is comprehensive, thorough and covers "all of the major items." "Isn't complete" means that the timeline will always be subject to improvement and from that perspective is not finished. This is our first FL/FA and I think we underestimated the process and didn't realize how rigorous it is. I for one have gained alot from this experience--and maybe next time I'll start with peer review. – Lionel ^(talk) 13:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per POV promoted through inclusion and exclusion of details. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:08, 9 May 2012 [19].

---

List of The Doon School alumni

Nominator(s): Merlaysamuel :  Chat  02:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this list has great potential to become the first Featured List from India (schools). I have worked tirelessly reforming it. There is a dearth of featured lists from Schools category (only 3 as of now) and therefore it'll be great if this can achieve FL status. Moreover, this seems to be the only potential alumni Featured list from India (schools, colleges and university included). I will be deeply grateful for all your suggestions and comments. Thanks!Merlaysamuel :  Chat  02:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Comment I appreciate the hard work that the author of this list has put in, but sometimes a list is simply not notable enough for FL. The list is mainly a Who's Who of the smugly corrupt elite that has garnered India its exceptionally high position on the Corruption perception index. There are scores of schools in India that take in the children of the privileged. Why single this one out? More pertinently, why not a list of schools that India's less privileged—80% of its population—go to? A featured list of Government schools, whose students, lacking a putrid parental legacy of ill-gotten gains, lacking decent class rooms, decent teachers, and any playing fields, are nevertheless able to make a decent life for themselves. Why are people who dropped out of the school in the list of alumni? I can easily spot a few (Rahul Gandhi who was not in the "Class of 88," but rather dropped out in 83, Sanjay Gandhi). I'd like to see proof that the rest of the people listed actually graduated (and didn't just spend a year or two as the Gandhis did). Why is the lead so innocuous sounding? Why nothing critical about the school? I'm sure reliable sources abound. Why is Karan Singh, for example, listed as a harmless upper house politician? Why are we not told that he was the Sadr-i-Riyasat of Kashmir and the last of the unpopular Hindu Dogra "Royalty" of Kashmir which after having purchased the Kashmir valley from the British in 1846 then proceeded to screw the 96% Muslim majority of the valley out of house and home for upward of a century? The lead is poorly written. It is an airbrushed picture of the school. It has inadvertent humor: "was founded in 1935 by Satish Ranjan Das, who sought to establish a public school that would be adapted to Indian traditions and culture. Its first headmaster was Arthur E. Foot, a former science teacher at Eton College." Wikipedia can't give its imprimatur to lists that really should be alumni pages on private websites surfed in the never-never-land of whiskey and soda. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi there Fowler, I've been asked to comment here since I am one of the editors currently working with Merlay and DoscoinDoon to get The Doon School up to GA. Now, I've never even looked at a FL and have no idea what the criteria are, but what does the notability of the list have to do with passing or failing? Maybe FL is completely different from other Featured/Good areas, I don't know. I understand your concerns about the general airbrushing...I've been working on that at The Doon School as well. Any explanations would be gratefully appreciated. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Well, articles themselves need to be notable. Doon is a relatively new school (opened in 1935). (The British opened thousands of schools in India both during Company rule (especially in the 1830s, 40s, and 50s) and during the Raj (especially during the years 1857–1887). Many, many of these schools have alumni that are more notable. For example, the List of alumni of Alfred High School, Rajkot, which includes Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, is historically more important, and is likely more notable by Wikipedia standards. When non-notable lists, such as Doon's, (for which I note the principal author has recently created dozens of pages to hastily accord the listees belated recognition) appear on FL, they sap the time and energy of reviewers who could better employed in other Wikipedia related endeavors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

To which I roughly say, so what? So there's another article that would be better off as featured...ok, I'm sure you know the whole Vital articles problem (Vital articles are one of the most important and least maintained groups). We don't say that articles about individual species can't get to GA because Animal is not there as well. If FL actually looks at the content of the list itself and judges it bases on other more "important" lists, that's fine: I've never seen anything in the criteria other than content, formatting and sources though. If this list is not completely comprehensive that is one thing, but saying that Alfred's alumni list is not featured so this one shouldn't be either seems really odd. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, not quite. If an individual species page gets the FA star, we don't say it is in danger of becoming more vital than Animal. Here, by contrast, by assigning the FL star, we can make an elite private school which, has produced some upper level politicians, bureaucrats, and army men in India, but nothing exceptional (no Nobel laureates, no outstanding musicians, no famous scientists), into something that may begin to appear vital. By assigning the FL star we are indirectly implying that mediocre but successful politicians, business men, bureaucrats, and army men, are just as vital as India's exceptional citizens (a Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, a Rabindranath Tagore, or a C. V. Raman) none of whom went to elite private schools. Anyway, this is as far as I go. I'm tired. I'm traveling and editing in snatches of time. I have little interest in Doon School. If you guys want to spend your time pushing the fluff, its your business. I've registered my opposition. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand, and thank you for your comments. As I said before, I realize that there is a problem with the fluff, am not pushing it (I wouldn't have advised filing this FLN until some of that had been sorted out) and had you opposed on those grounds I would have thought it entirely justified. I just don't quite get the point about making this list appear more vital then it deserves (and that point applies to a lot of list/articles)...that may be the case, but isn't it up to the editor to decide what articles they want to improve? IFF the list meets the FL criteria (absolutely no comment from me on that) then the list should go featured, right? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Umm... perhaps, Fowler, you should take a look at:

• WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLEGROUND- Wikipedia is not a soapbox or battleground for your favorite cause, including critiquing Indian elites (elites on which, in matters such as the variety of racism known as caste, I suspect I have more agreement with you than you might think).
• WP:CENSOR - Wikipedia is not censored to eliminate the mention of organizations that offend you, nor information about them.

If you want a listing of government-run Indian schools and/or their notable alumni, then I invite you to put one together, instead of spending your time critiquing this list for not being what you're looking for. You may well have some valid points in what you've written above, but thanks to the rest of it, nobody is that likely to listen to them. Allens (talk | contribs) 03:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What you see as soapboxing is simply a provocative way of pointing out that the list is shamelessly biased. Why have list of cabinet ministers? Why not list of cronies of Rajiv Gandhi who have been accused of corruption? There are likely more reliable sources attesting to the latter, including on their own pages. See for example: Kamal_Nath#Controversies. Are there any Wikipedia guidelines that don't allow those section titles? I can easily add them and make this article more balanced. How about a section that has a list of Doon school children of India's impossibly rich? I'm sure that section will be quite long. A section, on the other hand, of scholarship candidates at Doon School, is in danger of never starting. I am claiming that the manner of choosing section titles biases the reader into viewing the school in a favorable light. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly see labeling any alumni who have been convicted of corruption, and perhaps anyone who has been formally charged (although any immunity laws in India may cause a problem with convictions/charges as a criterion); allegations/accusations can happen to anyone, innocent or guilty. How do you define "impossibly rich" without bias? I am uncertain regarding how to display such an additional grouping - is it customary to have entries of people under more than one category (if all the categories are applicable)? Allens (talk | contribs) 14:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, many alumni appear in multiple categories. I'm sure one could replace "impossibly rich" with something quantifiable, perhaps even millionaires" (in a country whose per capita income is less that $2,000). I just noticed too that the sourcing is quite sloppy. An author's google book page is used as the source for the author as writer; I even noticed some CVs. The School's web site is used for some assertions favorable to the school, and so forth .... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Why are people who dropped out of the school in the list of alumni?" • Alumnus: 1. a graduate or former student of a specific school, college, or university. • In this respect, "list of alumni" differs from "list of graduates." --Raven (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment for Fowler To begin with, I am a Doon School student in Grade 9th and though I could have been biased by supporting this list, I'll only like to refute each on of Fowler's sloppy arguments, and that too by Wikipedia guidelines not through my biased opinion. Let me take them one by one-

(i)The very first thing you say a list is simply not notable enough for FL well, we'll leave that for more experienced school editors to decide and let the readers decide for themselves.
(ii) The list is mainly a Who's Who of the smugly corrupt elite - Notable alumni, in fact, comprises the Who's who, so I can't really understand what you mean by that comment. Also, to make a sweeping generalization that they are smugly corrupt elite is your personal opinion. Why then don't you mention Bunker Roy who opened the Barefoot College Tilonia college and spending his entire life for the underprivileged or Kobad Ghandy who is fighting for the Naxals. You might be just looking at 1-2 politicians and that might have driven you to make the trite remark.
(iii) There are scores of schools in India that take in the children of the privileged. Why single this one out? More pertinently, why not a list of schools that India's less privileged—80% of its population—go to? - There is no such thing as singling out a list. It just happened that this list already existed and the editor only worked hard to bring it to FL level. Also because finding Wiki articles for the alumni was easier. If you're really concerned about the others, why haven't you taken any step towards it? Why didn't you start a list? Do you not practice what you preach? It just shows double-standards! This is not a forum to show your sympathies for the 80% as you put it but to objectively review somebody's hard-work!
(iv) Why nothing critical about the school? I implore you, by all means, please add whatever you think is critical of the school alumni in the list with reliable references. I will be only too happy to see it. You come out of nowhere and just say 'why nothing critical?' without giving a thought that there is a possibility that there is nothing overtly critical about it...! Do you do this everywhere on Wikipedia..just go to each article and spout 'but what is the critical point?'
(v) Why is Karan Singh listed as a harmless upper house politician? Why are we not told ..... Now this is what should be called singling out. This sort of information should be placed on Karan singh's page and not next to his entry. And, just for the record, how do you say he is listed as harmless upper house politician?? He is just there with all other people with appropriate categories..!
(vi) The lead is poorly written - Why do you say that? It's easy to make allegations and shallow-comments. Tell us why if you can make any significant contribution. Don't just vent in the air...!
(vii) It has inadvertent humor: "was founded in 1935 by Satish Ranjan Das - I'm either too obtuse to grasp the humour in that line or there isn't any. I really don't know what's the inadvertent humour in it??
(viii) Your very last line just escapes me. I really don't understand your motives here. I re-iterate my previous point:- why are you making sweeping generalizations against innocent and praiseworthy people? Not all of them are what you think they are. Not even some of them I reckon judging by your comments.
Conclusion - I believe Fowler has something against The Doon School. S/he is not objectively acknowledging the work that the editor has put in to make it a presentable list. Fowler, may I request you to distance yourself while reviewing it and not go hysterical. Because your comments are just a slap in the face of everybody associated with the list. Please hold your emotions..this is not the right platform. The time you took writing all that baloney could have been well-spent in making a Featured list for other schools which couldn't have been singled out, and that would have done us all proud! Thank you!

DoscoinDoon (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S:- Fowler, if you have anything to say to me regarding this, please do so on my talk page. Don't waste this space please. We are all looking forward to hear from more serious and objective reviewers. Thanks! DoscoinDoon (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to worry; there's no danger of that. As for serious and objective reviewers, be aware that I've reviewed a featured article or two in my time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In 2009, yes. Allens (talk | contribs) 03:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, tending toward Support (BTW, while I've done some editing on the related The Doon School article, including some mention of critical material - some of which I see is now in the list article - I've never edited this article):

• I'm not sure what the faculty:student ratio or the IB have to do with a list of alumni. The second paragraph has rather more to do with with it. Please clarify the relevance of, or remove, most of the first paragraph. (I realize that some introduction is necessary to give people an idea of what Doon is, but I doubt the faculty:student ratio or use of the IB has that much to do with it, without further evidence otherwise.) RESOLVED
• The notability of the list is rather firmly established by the lengthy listing of references, the material in the second paragraph, etc. I do see a few (not many) inclusions without their own articles; such should have at least 2 independent, secondary-source, reliable references to establish notability, not only a reference to establish their being Doon school alumni (although this can be combined with one of the two references for notability).
• There is some confusion as to whether someone should be termed an "alumnus" if he did not actually graduate from the Doon School (although evidently such a person would qualify as an "ex-Dosco", having formerly been a "Dosco"). This criterion should be made clearer; perhaps a different coloring or other marking could be used if the person did not actually graduate, if such are to be included? RESOLVED

• There need be no confusion on that point: a "list of alumni" would include both "graduates" and "former students." A "list of graduates" would include graduates only. Definition given and linked in my comment above, but please feel free to check other dictionaries as well. --Raven (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• The formatting initially looks good, although I'll have to take a look at current FLs to compare.
• I can see an argument for the mentioning of admission criteria; that it's male-only (and the criticism of this) should be rather clearer.RESOLVED
• There are quite a few links to "MD" - which is a disambiguation page; please be more specific in what is meant. If it's "medical doctor", link to that page, and note that this is not a position in a corporation, unlike "CEO" - "MD of Ranbaxy" is not correct terminology.RESOLVED

• That's all for the moment; I will see if I can come up with more comments.Allens (talk | contribs) 03:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you for resolving some of the above; note that the "peer reviewer" (accessible via the toolbox) is finding a few problems, most notably a contraction ("can't" - of course, this may be in the title of a reference or something...) and, more problematically, a dead link. I also note the problematic sentence fragment in the second paragraph of "Doscos have achieved prominence in politics, government service,". I've done a bit of copy-editing on the last lead paragraph. Allens (talk | contribs) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment a quick scan of Google News items seems to reveal that Doon School (of which I've never heard) has received sufficient coverage to be notable, and therefore an alumni article of a notable school is generally agreed to be notable as long as every member of the list is indeed notable and referenced per our criteria. Fowler&Fowler has doubts this list should exist, let alone a nomination here for FLC, I'm not sure I understand why. For what it's worth, this is a 2012 featured list candidate, not a 2009 WP:FAC, so I'm not sure of the relevance of the link to a set of old FAC reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The last time I looked at the Indian dailies, most stories carried by them did not constitute reliable sources. Sentences such as "Back in the 1990s, the Economist said ....," the kind of chatter you might hear in a pub, were not uncommon (and was in fact being used in this article until I removed it). In my view, a list which is being overwhelmingly cited to Indian dailies is not necessarily notable. Since you seem to be reposing implicit faith in Indian news, I'm happy to take another look at the sourcing. Perhaps they have improved as dramatically, since 2009, as you seem to be implying Wikipedia has. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, firstly I couldn't see the relevance of reviewing 2009 FACs when this is a 2012 FLC, different criteria, different types of article. Secondly, I just did a Google News search on Doon School and found many BBC reports (including this and this) which seem to assert reasonable notability... I don't recall mentioning the legitimacy of Indian news sources anywhere.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a spurious, if not preposterous, thing to say that Indian dailies can't be trusted. The Doon School is an Indian school and therefore its Media coverage will be by-and-large Indian. Though I will be only too happy to show you the Doon school in global papers such as The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Independent...a few I can think of right now... Fowler, I don't understand what your issues are here. You are not reviewing the list, which you should do, instead you're just rambling on why it shouldn't be here or why other less-notable schools don't have a list. As for The Economist reference, I have been trying relentlessly to get access to The Economist's Archives. It's not an easy thing to procure a reference from the 1990s + an indian daily such as The Economic Times is a reputed one and till the time the primary reference is found, that reference should be allowed. I'll also be glad to see, Fowler, any lists you've been working on lately for which you've shown us your utmost sympathies in the posts above... Merlaysamuel :  Chat  09:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you have your work cut out for you. It says, "Back in the 1990s ..." If the Economics Times journalist is remembering right, you only have ten years to search. Until then, I'm afraid, the Economics Times will not do as a source for what the Economist said. Do you seriously believe that Doscos constitute the world's second most influential network after Harvard? (Oxford, Cambridge, Eton, Harrow, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Mayo College, KGB, Communist Party of China... are all trailing in their networking?) I've rewritten the lead. Made is more realistic and removed the grandiose fluff. It is now better sourced. Both David Macdougall's book (Princeton) and the Outlook magazine article by Anjali Puri are more reliable references. When I find time, I'll look at the actual list. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment First, let me compliment the creators of the list on the obvious labor of love that has gone into creating something this well referenced and apparently reasonably comprehensive. You're all probably too mad to notice this but Fowler's acerbicness has taken an already good lead one notch higher. About notability, I don't see that as a criterion in the featured list criteria but, regardless, I believe, that the Doon School is notable enough. I'm inclined to support making this a featured list but a few nits:
  • As I've indicated in the talk page, I don't like the idea of an Indian school highlighting royalty. That is fine for Harrow and Eton but Indian ex-princes do not have the same notability as do British Dukes and Barons. I suggest moving that section to the bottom of the list. Imo the sections should be in alphabetical order for neutrality but, if not, royalty should not be highlighted.
  • I suggest removing the separation by nationality. It makes the list jerky and is unnecessary because there are few non-Indians on the list anyway. For example, Syed Mustafa could be labeled as Ambassador of Pakistan to Indonesia, etc.
  • In some sections, there are large gaps between the section header and the first item because of image placement. These need to be fixed.

Other than that, great work! --regentspark (comment) 11:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment about sourcing I just went through the sourcing for the Cabinet Ministers section. I'm afraid it is might not be up to par. In some cases, the link is what a Google search would throw up if you searched for "Doon School" and "Mr. X". In other words, the link might have those two expressions but not in the same place and not applying to each other. In other instances there is a reference to the "Doon School buddy" but nothing is said graduation or alumni status, no reference to the Cabinet post or the years of tenure. I've refrained from posting my objections here; I simply left them in in-line tags in the text, but if this is a fair sampling of the entire article, then I'm afraid the sourcing will need reworking. I know the author has put in a lot of work and that he is a new Wikipedian. I don't want to discourage him, but at the same time FL sourcing standards will need to be maintained. Perhaps, one option would be to seek help from an expert such as user:Fifelfoo; the author could also temporarily withdraw the FLC, work on it without the pressure, and then resubmit in a few weeks when it is more rigorous. There's nothing shameful about withdrawing and resubmitting. (I did that myself with the Mandell Creighton FAC in late December 2011, when it became clear that it would not be resolved before my travels began.) I would have liked to help myself, but I'm traveling and often unavailable. This might also mean that some entries in the list will need to be taken out until such time as rigorous sources become available. One last point: it might be best to have all refs in one format, the "citation" format. This will likely be my last post here. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

PS All three current Featured Lists in Wikiproject:Schools are alphabetical: List of Old Guildfordians (Royal Grammar School, Guildford), List of Benet Academy alumni, List of Boston Latin School alumni. That, among other things, prevents double listing and triple listing, as seems to be the case with this list. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Fowler, as I pointed out earlier, alphabetisation cannot work with this list. The featured lists you mention are different because they are short. And also, each school is different. We do not have to necessarily adopt their model. I am afraid alphabetical list will be of no use here.

Merlaysamuel :  Chat  10:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I have only glanced at the list, but looking at the sourcing, has me worried. You have a number of references that have not been formatted properly, remember featured lists are supposed to represent wikipedia's best work, so this is an absolute must. In one ref you have The Indian Express and another Indian Express, consistency is essential between refs. I'm also not convinced of the reliability of some of the sources. For instance what makes socialedge.org and careers360 reliable sources. The tables also do not meet MOS:DTT, and tables with multiple entries could be sortable. There is too much work to do on this list for it to pass in the timescale of this nom, I would recommend withdrawing it, working on it and then getting it peer reviewed, before bringing back again. NapHit (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment The nominator of this FLC hasn't edited since 22 April, so I'll be moving to archive the nomination in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:08, 9 May 2012 [20].

---

List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis

Nominator(s): Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I created and expanded this list entirely, and have been working on it for the past four weeks. I've made sure that comments which helped List of songs recorded by Rihanna be promoted have been applied to this list as well, such as the Key, templates and table format. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments Seems to be nearly on a par with the Rihanna list from my brief look over. I've made a few edits myself (see here). But the thing that struck me most when looking over the article was that a lot of the lead is uncited – there are no citations in the first paragraph at all, and only two in the second. I'd look into finding some sources to confirm some of the sentences in the lead (like that she'd recorded an album before winning The X Factor, for example). Is there a more formal word that could be used rather than "treat"? Changed to gift. Aaron • You Da One The Labyrinth Tour needs to sort under L rather than T. Sorted :). Aaron • You Da One You use (pictured) in the caption for the image of Jesse McCartney, but nowhere else. I'd say remove it for the sake of consistency. Removed. Aaron • You Da One It's rather unfortunate that the Album column should be so long, especially when the most of the albums have such short titles (e.g. Spirit and Echo). Not entirely sure what the official Wikipedia policy is on this, but it might be worth considering using ''[[For Colored Girls: Music From and Inspired by the Original Motion Picture Soundtrack|For Colored Girls: Music From and Inspired<br>by the Original Motion Picture Soundtrack]]'' instead, to separate the album's title over two lines, and thereby narrowing the width of the column. You did this anyway lol. Aaron • You Da One Nice work, overall. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks. It's late, I will address points in the morning. Aaron • You Da One 23:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC) I have addressed everything, and have cited points in the lead. Thanks. Aaron • You Da One 11:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Is it entirely necessary to list remixes of Lewis's songs? They don't represent anything new that she has recorded, just previous material that someone else has altered - she probably had barely any input into those tracks at all. It is only a few songs, and they were including on the album. So I think yes. Aaron • You Da One I see your point, but my issue is that they're not songs recorded by Leona Lewis, which is what the list is meant to be of – if the article were "List of tracks featured on releases by Leona Lewis", I'd be more inclined to agree. If we include these remixes, then why not others? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC) In the released songs table, I have included every song which appears on any edition of her albums. Those few remixes from Best Kept Secret are apart of the tracklisting. Aaron • You Da One 11:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Good work adding citations to the lead - it looks a lot better now. You're just missing one for the final sentence of paragraph one. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Added. Aaron • You Da One 11:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Do we know why Best Kept Secret was never released? It was a demo album, but didn't really get recognised by anyone. But UEG did release it in 2009. Aaron • You Da One Fair enough, but in that case I think it might be worth expanding on this in the lead, as I was still left with some questions. If no label released the album, then who recorded it? Was it a self-financed project? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC) UEG financed the project, and apparently spent £70,000 on her. They didn't release it themselves at the time, but no one else was interested in signing Leona from the demo album. Because it wasn't a proper recording contract, Leona was allowed to stay in the X Factor, as rules are that contestants must not have had a prior record deal. But, Sony decided the release the album in 2009, of which Leona received half the royalties. Aaron • You Da One 11:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Ah, okay then. But that's the sort of information that a reader would want to know too. It might be worth adding it to the lead, cited by reliable sources, of course. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Added. Aaron • You Da One 19:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC) You call Can't Fight It a "Ne-Yo demo" - what do you exactly mean by that? Did he write it, did he produce it, was it originally intended for him to sing, or is it something else entirely? Ne-Yo wrote it yes, and recorded a demo for Leona, but Leona never recorded her own version (as far as we know). But the song was indeed for Leona. Aaron • You Da One 11:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC) So, wait, if she never actually recorded a version herself, surely it shouldn't be included on this list? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Well, it was confirmed to be written for her, and Ne-Yo did a recording of it for her. So I don't know :S. It's still one of her unreleased songs IMO. Aaron • You Da One 19:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC) If Lewis never actually recorded a version though, I personally think it falls outside of the scope of this list. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC) We don't know if she did record her own version though, but as it's not logged with BMI or ASCAP I'll remove it. Aaron • You Da One The charity singles that she has recorded (e.g. "Everybody Hurts", "Just Stand Up", etc.) are not listed, even though the lead mentions her recording of charity singles. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Added. Aaron • You Da One 19:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Nice work, although I seem to recall that Everybody Hurts was credited to just "Helping Haiti", rather than "Helping Haiti Artists". I don't think it needs to be italicised either. Finally, what about "Inaspettata (Unexpected)"? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Added. I don't know who wrote the song though. Aaron • You Da One

• Had another look over the lead and made a few more edits (see here). In all, I think this meet the criteria so, assuming that the comments below are resolved, I support this nomination. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks :). Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

upright, but should not be forced to other sizes. Done. Aaron • You Da One "on their respective albums" no need for "their respective". Had removed. Aaron • You Da One "recorded a a demo album" hmmm... What? Aaron • You Da One Hehe. Removed. Aaron • You Da One Read the comment one word at a time... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC) ?. What's wrong with "recorded a demo album"? Aaron • You Da One The original comment said "recorded a a demo album". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Removed. Aaron • You Da One 17:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Who are "UEG Entertainment "? Link? It's a company Leona recorded under, and there is no link. Aaron • You Da One "work with producers Ryan Tedder and Steve Mac,[4] among others, for her official debut studio album Spirit," how many producers in one album?! Any reason why you pulled out Tedder and Mac? What do you mean how many producers?? And I chose Tedder and Mac because they produced two songs each. Aaron • You Da One Check all your "Footprints in the Sand" links that should point at Footprints in the Sand (song) actually do... Done. Aaron • You Da One "The re-release of Spirit in November 2008 saw Lewis release a cover" maybe, "... 2008 was followed by a cover..." Okay, but they were at the same time. Aaron • You Da One "as a gift to her fans while she finishes production of her third studio album" is this some nonsense copied from her website or something?! "a gift to her fans"? Please. No, she said it herself, but I paraphrased. Aaron • You Da One It's not encyclopaedic prose to suggest something was released "as a gift" unless it was completely free, in which case I would replace "as a gift" with "free of charge". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Lol I changed it. Aaron • You Da One 17:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Make sure ref titles comply with WP:DASH. Added. Aaron • You Da One The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments —

• Looking down at the writers, Leona is certainly not a singer-songwriter. She's a recording artist, who occasionally writes.

  She has co-written 31 songs in this list. The bio also says singer-songwriter. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Four studio albums? Maybe my math is wrong but Spirit, Echo and the upcoming Glassheart only equals three.

  I had included Best kept Secret.

• The lead sentence is just way to long. Try reading it aloud, if you can't do it without having to take a breath, it should be condensed, or separated into two sentences.

  Same as Rihanna's, which is an FL. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Doesn't matter whose label it is.
• Among other what?

  Producers. I didn't write producer again to avoid repetition. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Official debut album, and I missing something?
• Who cares when the singles were released? This isn't an album article.

  It's talking about the re-release of the album, and a new song. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Honestly, from there on, the lead just keeps getting worse. Good on Simon for conceptualised (which is properly spelled conceptualized) "Footprints in the Sand" and receiving a writing credit! What does that have to do with her songs? She has about 30 or so released songs, correct? Picking a few and putting random little facts about them in the lead doesn't summarize the article. Just sum up what her songs are generally about, name a few (covers would probably be best to do).

  It's a list about the songs she recorded, if Simon hadn't of conceptualised it, it's 99% probable that she never would have recorded it. The list lists the songwriters, so this is perfectly acceptable.

  Pedantic comment - "conceptualised (which is properly spelled conceptualized)" - as this article is about a British subject, WP:ENGVAR says it should use British English, therefore the "proper" spelling of the word is with an S ;-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Having Leona Lewis in the artists section seems redundant. Who else is the song gonna be recorded by? This is a List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis.

  Same as Rihanna's, which is an FL. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Remove "Music from the Motion Picture" from the titles.
• I don't see any reason remixes should be included. They aren't new songs. Unless they were re-recorded or with additional vocals by another artist it shouldn't be included.

  Included on the tracklisting Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Video interludes? Unless they were included on the live CD part of the release, it's not a song.

  Either way, she recorded them in a studio.

• Remove the Glassheart unreleased songs. You don't know if they will not make the album.

  No, they are currently unreleased. This is where they belong. When the albums tracklist is revealed, then I can sort them into the released table. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Have the alt titles as notes.

— Status (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but if you insist to not correct the errors I have pointed out, I am going to have to oppose. "Same as Rihanna's FL" is not a valid reason to not do something. WP:OSE — Statυs (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  I know I haven't done everything yet. And you said on your talk page that they are suggestions and that I don't have to do them. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  I was only referring to the suggestions being the new lead. And I took it as you were done, as all you did was comment on a few and move onto something else. — Statυs (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment

• Ref 15 has a spelling mistake I believe -- Lemonade51 (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - you do realise there are other comments I've made that you haven't resolved, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments – The first sentence in the second paragraph has a slash in it, which the MoS generally discourages in prose. How about putting the U.S. dollar value in parentheses instead? Done. Aaron • You Da One I don't comment on alt text too much when it's present, but surely the order of the last two words in "A woman blonde" should be reversed? Done. Aaron • You Da One The Jesse McCartney photo's alt text has "A picture of a wearing a white shirt...". Something missing? Done. Aaron • You Da One Ref 32 is to a Rolling Stone story, but is linked to jrecords.com. Does this website have the right to reprint the story? Either way, if a link is avaliable from Rolling Stone I'd suggest using that instead. It's from a magazine so I doubt there is a weblink. Aaron • You Da One Don't italicize Digital Spy in ref 35. Done. Aaron • You Da One What does HFA stand for in ref 49? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Harry Fox. I don't know if this is a reliable source? Aaron • You Da One 23:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC) It may well not meet reliability standards. Is a replacement possible? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Removed. Aaron • You Da One 17:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Note 1: "in" is missing from "before Lewis entered The X Factor 2006." That doesn't make sense? Aaron • You Da One "before Lewis entered The X Factor in 2006" makes perfect sense to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Added "in". Aaron • You Da One The "in" is in the wrong place. It should be after The X Factor, not before. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Moved. Aaron • You Da One Reference 6 goes to a YouTube video. Is this from an official channel of T4? If not, there may be copyright issues with the video that would make it a bad source. It's a T4 interview which is the primary thing we are looking at. Aaron • You Da One Yes, but did T4 post it on YouTube, or was it some random user who probably didn't have the right to post it? That's what I'm concerned about here. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC) How else should I reference it? Aaron • You Da One You could just cite the interview itself without a link. Just provide a time marker so that any source checkers will know where to look to find the relevant part. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Changed. Aaron • You Da One

• The publisher of refs 11 and 12 (Idalator) is a blog. What makes it a reliable source?

  It's a blog? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  More blogs aren't reliable sources than are. Are the authors experts in the music field? If not, the sources aren't going to be reliable enough for FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

  The publisher of Idolator, Buzz Media, also publishes OK! Magazine. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  I'll leave this out to see if anyone else has any thoughts on it. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from Sanders11 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I question whether there is any necessity for this list. It seems a lot of lists of songs have been popping up lately and would be interested to know your thoughts on how much material an artist should have before it is a worthwhile list. My instinct is at current this list is borderline, there really aren't that many songs and they are mostly covered by two albums articles.

• 2 studio albums, both have over 15 songs. There is a demo album, and there is also another demo album I had forgot to add called Twilight. There is an EP as well as featured/charity singles. Also two albums worth of unreleased songs. She is also recording for her third studio album. There is definitely enough songs to warrant the list.

Good enough for me.

• "four studio albums" - I understand you are including Best Kept Secret, Spirit, Echo and Glassheart in that but I think it leads to confusion as the articles refer to Spirit as the first and Echo as the second, and the discography states two albums in the lead. Perhaps something like "...recorded material for a demo album, three studio albums and an EP"?

• Yep, changed to that. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Do we need to know the value of the record deal?

  I think so :D Aaron • ^{You Da One}

I think it's too much detail but certainly a minor point that I'm not going to quibble over.

• I feel like on the whole the lead is very cover heavy, it mentions almost every cover released by her. I would suggest removing some of the less notable covers and possibly replace with a more notable song if you see fit. I would personally ditch I Will Be and Stop Crying Your Heart Out.

• Yeah. I'm removed those two.

• "harder" is meaningless without context - harder to writer, harder to sing, harsher sounding?

• Gave it context. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Again I understand it's difficult to summarise the songs on the album, I would have tried to pick up the more notable songs eg Happy and My Hands, but I presume you went for Love Letter and Don't Let Me Down as they had the most significant writers?

• Yes. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I find the change of tense very jarring in that sentence, anyway you could reword it? Or even just change finishes to finished.

• She is still recording for Glassheart though. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Link EP either here or in the opening sentence if you add it there.

• Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Incredibly pedantic but technically with the pushbacks of the album Collide could be left off the tracklisting so "its single" may not be accurate. Though I accept it more than likely is.

• At the moment it is still cited as the lead single from the album. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "features"? A collaboration with Avicii perhaps

• Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "not being released" -> "not yet being released"?

• Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Is the performance of Glass Heart relevant when (again being very pedantic I know) there's not a recorded version released?

• A song called "Glass Heart" has been recorded and performed live for Glassheart. So I think it's relevant. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Link The Labyrinth in the image caption.

• Linked. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Sex and the City should come before I Remember Me.

• Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Would it be better to rename the second heading to Demos and unreleased songs and move Best Kept Secret down there? I understand your inclusion of it but it feels a bit out of place.

• No, Sony released it commercially. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I wouldn't have included the video interludes but I understand your logic as to why you did.

• It's not the video I am talking about, it's the fact that she recorded them in a studio. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• As a side note I'm confused as to why you say only the Ne-Yo demo version of Can't Fight It leaked as Leona's version leaked ages ago.

• Because I couldn't find a source for Leona's/I didn't know if she had even recorded it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I still feel it's not quite there yet, how about "British singer-songwriter Leona Lewis has recorded material for a demo album, three studio albums and an EP, as well as charity singles, soundtracks and collaborations on other artists' albums"?

  I put into two sentences so it's not quite so abrasive. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• You mention some of the producers she worked, as the article lists the writers of the songs rather than the producers it may be more relevant to discuss some of the writers she worked with.

• It's commonly referred to as working with producers though. I can change it if you like. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Well since Ryan Tedder was one of the significant writers I don't think it would involve much change. Have a go and if you don't think it works just leave it.

• Just changed from producers to writers. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I think it's difficult to summarise the songs on the albums when they were written and produced by lots of different people, and I think that if these lists were kept for artists with a slightly more substantial back-catalogue they would be easier to summarise.

• Okay. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Likewise more guitar driven doesn't mean much when there is no indication of the amount of guitar in Spirit. I think you could maybe find a better way to describe the album, preferably in your own words rather than quoted.

• Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "Echo was very guitar orientated than Spirit"?

• Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I think the opening sentence could use some work:

• "British singer-songwriter Leona Lewis has recorded material for her four studio albums" - I instinctively pause after that and think to myself well of course she has, would be a bit weird if someone else recorded the material.

• I don't want to be labelled as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I promoted List of songs recorded by Rihanna to FL last month and this article for Leona follows the same structure, so I don't see a problem with it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I know but that was the first list of its kind so it will likely take a few revisions to get everything spot on.

• I would lose "as something", possibly even "as something to bridge the gap for fans".

• No, because that is the primary reason for the EP. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I know you've tried different words instead of something but "as something to bridge the gap" isn't brilliant prose. "...in December 2011, to bridge the gap for fans while she finishes" conveys the same information.

• Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I think there should be some mentions of the fact that she has featured in several soundtracks, I See You is a pretty notable recording.

• Added. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "Lewis appeared on the soundtrack to the 2009 film Avatar called "I See You (Theme from Avatar)"" the soundtrack wasn't called I See You.

• Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Some typos - I'm Here, Leona Lewiss

• ? Not that I can see. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I'm Here should be I'm You, Lewiss is at Here I Am

• Corrected. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Some of the artist credits are wrong eg Jennifer Hudson & Leona Lewis, Helping Haiti artists (which probably should be linked)

• Lol, it is Jennifer Hudson & Leona Lewis. They are both on it. There is no link for Helping Haiti artists. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• It should be JH & LL not LL & JH. Either Helping Haiti or Helping Haiti artists

• Switched those two around. Linked Haiti. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• There is a mixture of linked and unlinked Leona Lewis, I would suggest unlink all.

• I'll link them the one that doesn't. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Still unlinked at You Bring Me Down.

• Linked. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The images only cover the songs up to F and there are two for Collide. If you're going to have them you should spread out what songs they are for.

• Not when ones after that don't have pictures :). Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Well there are free images of Avril Lavigne, Noel Gallagher, Michael Jackson, Ryan Tedder so you could spread it out a bit more. At least change it so there aren't two images for Collide.

• I don't think this is that big of an issue tbh. Before I added Best Kept Secret, the last picture was next to the bottom of the table. It's more a case of not cramming too many picture as oppose to not being able to find them. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I don't think it's a big issue either, I just thought they should represent a spread of songs and not just the ones from the first six letters of the alphabet.

• The youtube reference is a copyright violation and should probably be referenced used cite episode.

• Have changed to the cite interview template. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Ref 49 isn't working for me.

• I've removed a few since so I don't know which one you mean now as there are 47 references now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• You've removed it so that's fine.

• Related to the above Best Kept Secret is not the only pre-X Factor recording she did, there is also Twilight and It's All For You, though I suspect you would struggle to find much in the way of reliable sources on them.

• Yeah I just said about Twilight above. I've never heard of It's All For You? Is that an album or a song? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• It's All For You is an EP. I think if you can get a good source for either they should be mentioned at some point here.

• I can't find a sourced for the tracklisting of Twilight. Is this reliable enough to source It's All For You ? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I'm not sure but would err on the side of caution and say no because Yahoo's not always that reliable. It's not a very notable recording so I don't think it's an issue to not include it since you can't find a source.

• "for duets and featured songs on albums and charity singles" - A lot of ands in the second half of the sentence. Has she actually been credited as featured on songs? Might want to add soundtracks?

• It's a new sentence now. Yes she is credited and I've added soundtracks. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Which songs is she credited as featured?

• Inaspettata Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Pedantic point but that is one song whereas lead says featured songs. And Itunes and Amazon both have it credited as a duet not a feature.

• I think you have a little bit too much detail on Best Kept Secret in the lead. "licensed by UEG Entertainment but not released.[1][2] UEG spent approximately GB£70,000 on the singer's recording and production, but the demo failed to capture the interest of [a] record labels or executives.[1][2] It was released by UEG in 2009, who claimed that they had [to own] the rights to the album, even though Lewis revealed that she never signed a contract which stated that Best Kept Secret could possibly be released" - Just some suggestions you can modify as you wish.

• An editor above asked I expanded it, so I did. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• How about adding that extra detail to note one and condense it in the lead slightly?

• Huh? Lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The lead has more detail about Best Kept Secret than Echo despite it being a much less notable recording. If you want to keep that level of detail I was suggesting you could add it to "Best Kept Secret was recorded under licence by UEG Entertainment before Lewis entered The X Factor in 2006. However, Sony UEG released the album to iTunes in January 2009." at note one and reduce it slightly in the lead.

• You don't mention the genre of music she sings anywhere.

  I will add them in as I edit some of her articles. Information for Leona is harder to find than for other singers on here. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Would be good if you could add something regarding the general style or content of Spirit, I'd imagine it must be fairly easy to find a source saying the album is ballad heavy or something along those lines.

• I'll see what I can find in reviews. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Perhaps mention Leona wrote more songs on her second album?

• I don't think there's a source which says "Lewis wrote more on Echo". Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The album liner notes?

• Can that be used for "Lewis wrote more songs" ? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Yeah it's a basic piece of information that isn't contentious so referencing both Spirit and Echo's notes is fine.

• The lead seems over-referenced, the lead should summarise the contents of the article and if referenced within the article there is no need for a reference. I would only expect references for the extra information added to give a bit of context and make the lead less dry.

• I was told by another editor to add references in to those parts. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Per WP:LEADCITE references are only really needed for contentious info. Things already referenced in the articles don't need a duplicate ref in the lead.

• There aren't that many references. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Did you try out different versions of the table before you found one that worked well? I only ask because I'm curious about listing each writer on a separate line, its a bit jarring going between really wide rows like Can't Breathe and Angel to one line rows. Did you consider using a format more like List of Kelly Clarkson songs which just uses commas between writers? I know it would be a lot of work but I would consider ditching the images down the side and using that to display the writers. I say this because on smaller screens the images squish the table and then the writers column shrinks and it is unclear where one writer ends and the next begins. At the very least you should add commas after each writer's name.

• Ohhhh god yes. Look at the history of Rihanna's list. If I hadn't of used this style for Rihanna's, or for any of list of songs I do, two particular editors would have refused to support. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Fair enough but I think you do need to add commas between the writers.
• That doesn't look good. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Looks fine to me. Not going to insist on you changing it but I think conveying the information in the best way possible is more important than the appearance.

• Several songs are missing like Heartbeat and Inaspettata

• Inaspettata is there. Where is Heartbeat from? Was is a B-side? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• B side to I Got You

• Added Heartbeat. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• It doesn't feature on any version of Echo so you can't have that as the album.

• Removed Echo and put a footnote there instead. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 20:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think you should include remixes.

• Even though they were included on the album? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• It's a list of songs not a list of tracks which feature on an album by Leona.

• I think you need a better way to differentiate between the different versions of Spirit and Echo. I suggest either adding a note for all songs that don't appear on every version of the album or for every song. Either the way you've added a note of Best Kept Secret or to denote songs as a remix.

• I added a note to the Spirit deluxe songs saying that they were included on the re-released. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I don't think that's enough. I think it's clear to someone who is very familiar with Leona's stuff what it means but any casual fan would be completely confused as to why Run has the note but Forgive Me and Misses Glass don't and then some track they haven't heard of called Myself is. And then North American people would look at other tracks and be confused. I'm not sure what is the best way to present the information clearly. Perhaps use the international version of the album and then add notes to the ones that differ on the North American release?

• I asked in the Rihanna FLC what Year meant and you said it was the year recorded but it's clearly not in this case. It looks like it is the year the album was released which creates some anomalies like A Moment Like This and Forgive Me both having 2007 as a year.

• Just typos. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• So what is Year meant to be? Year released?

• Yes. Year of album release. A Moment Like This is a little different though.

• Well you have to remain consistent on what that column is used for. At present You Bring Me Down, Forgive Me and Forgiveness say 2007 but the versions of the album featuring those songs were released in 2008. Heartbeat doesn't feature on any version of an album but was released in 2010 not 2009.

• Again I don't think Originating album is the best title if you want to include muliple albums for one song. Either stick to the actual originating album or rename the title to Album(s). I think Album(s) would be the best way forward and you should include B-side to Forgive Me or whatever in that column.

• Album(s). Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• It's not been changed.

• It has. The column clearly says "Originating album(s)" Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Ah right, from your comment I was expecting "Album(s)" not "Originating album(s)" so didn't notice the change. I still think the B-sides should say which single they appear on in this column too.

• Why have you referenced all the Spirit songs to ref 5 apart from Better in Time and Bleeding Love? Also I don't think you can reference them all to one set of album notes seeing as all the tracks don't appear on one version of the album.

• I just used ASCAP/BMI for those ones. No biggie. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Lol just my OCDness. I do stand by my thoughts that you can't reference them all to one set of liner notes. You've referenced the US version which doesn't contain a number of the tracks.

• Still the same though. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Well no it's not, the code 8 86970 25542 4 applies to the North American version, which doesn't have a number of these songs.

• Unfortunately I think a large part of the unreleased section isn't supported adequately by the references. Many of the references simply list Leona as a writer, with no mention of her recording it, which album it was intended for and whether it leaked. I would think the leaked column would have to go as whilst it has some use it will always be a nightmare to reference.

• I don't see any problem. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The reference for 1000 Lights doesn't mention she recorded it or it leaked. Another Land doesn't mention she recorded it. Burn doesn't mention she recorded it or what album it was for. These issues are true for almost every song on the list and need addressed.

• 1000 Lights is on Youtube and is logged on BMI. Burn and Another Land are alos logged on BMI. A song can only be logged if it was been written or recorded for that singer, and Leona's name is next to them. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I'm not disagreeing that she wrote the song, this is a list of songs she has recorded so there has to be a source saying she recorded it which is not the case for many of these songs. The ASCAP sources mention her as a performer but the BMI ones do not so for all you know she wrote them for someone else and never recorded her own version. On top of that around half of them make no reference to which album they were intended for.

• I had a quick skim over the references and there quite a few inconsistencies in linking, publisher mentions, date formats and at least one error in the writer's name.

• Have gone through and corrected all that I could see.

• Daily Mail isn't linked in ref 2, Gordon Smart is the writer for 15, Broadcast Music is linked at 20 so doesn't need to be at 28.

• Why have a different colour for a foreign language recording? Why does it matter that she sang in English and Italian?

• Because it's clearly a foreign language song title. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Well if it's clear why is a different colour needed? According to the ref on the discography page it was a single which would mean it should be purple, though there seems to be no other information out there on the single release.

Quite a lot of issues. Some of this is nitpicky and personal preference so I don't expect every single issue to be changed, but I do think quite a lot needs addressed. Sanders11 (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses, seems to be good progress so far :) Sanders11 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. have addressed every point now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Capped most things now. Sanders11 (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of comments above from several users that appear to still be outstanding. Is there a plan for when they are going to be addressed? This is more comments than there are at most peer reviews, and FLC isn't a peer review service. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I will do it today. If you look at my contributions I haven't been very active over the last few days. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:01, 15 April 2012 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 21:11, 2 May 2012 [21].

---

List of The Simpsons video games

Nominator(s): — Statυs (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating List of The Simpsons video games to become a featured list because I believe that after my work on it (from this to its current revision), it now meets the FL criteria. — Status {^talk_contribs 07:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Original style issues from Golbez (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, multiple issues: No qualification is given for the release dates; were these the North American release date? European? Japanese? Were the multi-platform games released all on the same day? Above the table, it clearly states: "and it's first known release date." — Status {talkcontribs 16:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC) I missed that. However, that same wording is reused in the later tables when it makes less sense (I mention this in a lower bullet point). However, you don't specify which console and region this first known release date was for. I might be asking for too much, I don't know, that's why other people will chime in as well. --Golbez (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC) In the intro, it's confidently stated that the Simpsons Arcade game was the first game released, and Bart vs the Space Mutants was the second. However, in the table, the Arcade Game and Bowling are listed first and second, with just '1991' as the date, Bart vs the World is listed third with a date of 2/1/91, and Bart vs the Space Mutants is listed fourth at 4/25/91. So either the text is wrong or the table is wrong. I suggest, if we don't have solid dates on the arcade games, that you don't state which came first. Why is Genesis listed as 'Genesis' and Game Gear as 'Game Gear', but Master System is listed as 'Sega Master System'? Now, for entry-specific issues. First, The Simpsons Arcade Game This might come across as being a total douche, but nothing in reference 5 supports the list of platforms. It never says it was in arcades. I suggest arcade-museum.com. In fact, and someone more versed in these matters should chime in, but I'm not sure how much Mobygames qualifies as a reliable source, seeing how it appears to be somewhat wikiesque. The Simpsons Bowling Reference 6 does not contain a release date for Simpsons Bowling; according to [22], it should be 2000, not 1991. Reference 7 is not about Simpsons Bowling, it was saying the arcade game is a fun game to play at a bowling alley arcade. So it is not a source to say Simpsons Bowling came out in 1991. Bart vs the World You list multiple publishers, presumably that means different platforms were published by different companies? I think it should be specified who did what. According to Mobygames, you're missing several publishers, Flying Edge and Erbe. This repeats in several other games, so I won't mention it further. Your sources disagree on the release date; ref 8 says Dec 1991, ref 9 says February 1, 1991. My own personal experience was that Space Mutants came out first, so I'm inclined to think it's Feb 1 1991, but without solid sourcing it's impossible to say. Bart vs the Space Mutants Nothing new to report Krusty's Fun House Where was it 'aka Krusty's Super Fun House'? Is this an official name used on some platforms, or a colloquial one? If that was its name for some consoles, say which. Bartman Meets Radioactive Man More date discrepancy - Moby says Dec 1992, IGN says June 1 1992. I won't mention date discrepancies from here on; where you're relying on two sources and they disagree on something like this, you need to reconcile it with another source. Moving on to the other tables "The following table represents the video games released in The Simpsons series that were released exclusively on the Game Boy and its successor the Game Boy Color for its initial release." What do you mean by 'its initial release'? Either it's exclusive to Game Boy or it isn't; if its "initial release" was on Game Boy but it later went to other systems then doesn't that make it multiplatform? If that isn't the case for any of these then this sentence needs to be reworded. "Included in the table is the game's title, it's developer, publisher and it's first known release date. All other information can be found in each of the game's corresponding articles." First of all, it's -> its. Second of all, I'm of the mind that a list should be comprehensive and have full release information on everything. Why list The Simpsons Arcade Game reissue separately? It's the same thing, it's a legitimate platform, I say include it with the rest of them. Finally, I'm not sure it needs to be split up into multiple tables. What's wrong with combining everything into one table, and just having the single console entry in the platform cell? There's promise here but it needs a more work. Please compare it with existing featured lists of video games, in particular List of Metroid media and List of Final Fantasy media to see two good ways of handling a large amount of release platforms. --Golbez (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have merged everything together into one table. I have come into difficulty finding exact release dates for a lot of the titles, so I've been using sources for the developers, publishers and platforms, and another for the release date. — Status {^talk_contribs 17:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good, no harm in sourcing every piece of info in a list like this. I'm guessing what's there now is a work in progress, if it's going to take more than a day or so this FLC should probably be withdrawn until this is done. Also, you're now missing "Arcade" as a platform for the arcade game. :) Finally, and someone else will have to chime in on this, but I don't know if it's valid to rely solely on flags to indicate what region it was released in, especially (may not be relevant for Simpsons games) multilingual European releases. --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please note: The tables in this article are currently being reconstructed. Please do not comment on the FLC or close it during this time. I, the editor, should have this done within a few hours. I will post a new message here when completed. Thank you, — Status {^talk_contribs 18:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Done — Status {^talk_contribs 19:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• OK, so, commenting on the newer version:
  • The list is ordered alphabetically... the other featured lists of games in franchises all list chronologically.
  • I'm no expert but I'm not sure including the flyer will work within fair use rules. If it stays, then we need more, because it's squeezing the table with little payoff, but I have the feeling others will say remove it.
  • The text in the right cell in Itchy & Scratchy in Miniature Golf Madness is large.
  • I still think this could be more like, say... the list of One Piece games. But that's a lot of work, and as pointed out, we don't have great resources on release dates for some of these. I'll wait for others to comment. --Golbez (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean about by release date, but as we've already talked about, we don't know which came first, all we have is a year, so I think it would be much easier to just list them in ABC order. — Status {^talk_contribs 00:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Comparing this to other Video Game FLs, this is in poor standards. Like, for example, the games need to be in chronological order (EX: List of Final Fantasy video games). GamerPro64 00:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Point me towards the guideline that says as such. — Status {^talk_contribs 01:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think chronological order is better for video game lists. With alphabetical order, you're fine if you know the game and just want to navigate to it. But chronology gives you a bit of a narrative so you can follow the series progression. Obviously, it's not perfect due to re-releases and the like, but I think arranging it by date of first release would be superior. - hahnchen 11:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I realize that chronological order is usually preferred in everything, but MOS:LIST states: "Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized. The most basic form of organization is alphabetical or numerical (such as List of Star Wars starfighters), though if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable (List of Belarusian Prime Ministers)." This is exactly what applies here. We don't have exact dates for any, besides ones that have been released in the last couple of years. This isn't like a normal video game series, several developers and publishers have the rights to the series, and release games based off of it. There's no, "this is the second video game in the franchise; The Simpsons 1, The Simpsons 2"; it's all over the place. — Status {^talk_contribs 19:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. I didn't mean narrative as in a continuing storyline through the games, but more like an evolution of the games - you can see the type of games they used to make, and the type of games they make now. I think this gives the reader a better sense of the games than an alphabetical list. List of X-Men video games is a good example. - hahnchen 11:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 14:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "Video games based off the series have reached multiple platforms since its debut in 1991." I thought the series debuted in 1989. Or is this referring to the games? A little unclear now. Also, the year link doesn't add anything to the article. "The Simpsons first video game release". Apostrophe needed at end of Simpsons, and a comma is needed directly after "release". "further expanded the franchise into new heights." Not sure we can say a game caused a series to reach "new heights" without some evidence of that other than some new systems. There's no reason whatsoever to have a non-free logo from the show in a list of video games. That would be fine in the main Simpsons article, but I don't believe this meets non-free content criteria. What makes ClassicTVHits.com (reference 3) a reliable source? Ref 24 has some access date coding showing up in the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Fixed the grammar errors, removed the logo and video game year templates, ClassicTVHits.com source, and I'm not sure what you mean with Ref 24. — Status {talkcontribs 09:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC) That ref (now 23) has "accessdate=2012-03-22" appearing, as opposed to "Retrieved on..." as you would expect. A pipe is probably missing somewhere in the citation. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Okay, alright. I see what you mean. I've fixed it. I must have been looking at the wrong ref earlier. — Statυs (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I really like how the list looks. For my taste the table is flawless. The only thing that bothered me is this part of the second sentence - epitomized by its eponymous family, it reads awkward, maybe you can change it. The references are also fine. All in all good work. — Tomica (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Going to go out on a limb here, I feel that the table at the moment is not in the best state it could be. I'm not a fan of the release information column, I feel it would be better if you had the info that is in this column in individual columns. For instance Bart & the Beanstalk would have game boy in console column, february 1994 in release date column, and then publisher and developer columns. This would provide a much more user friendly and would allow the table to be sortable which would provide the reader with more functionality than is presently available. I know there is an issue with games being released on multiple consoles to get around this I would split the rows utilising the method in this list. At the moment with the table the way it is I have to regrettably oppose the nomination as the table can be improved. NapHit (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Could you do up a draft with the first one as an example to show me what you mean? I had them in separate columns and sortable before, but it didn't work out. — Statυs (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done an example in my sandbox, it's only one row but still shows the premise. NapHit (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna ask Golbez to see he thinks about this before doing anything. — Statυs (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: Nothing to review; no images used. Goodraise 21:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: This would be an Oppose if not for the fact that I had been gone so long. I'm just curious as to if you can still use Gamefaqs for Release Data, I know when I was working on lists it was acceptable, and they provide exact dates, usually confirmed by instruction booklets or the companies themselves, and if you can only get 'aroundabout' dates, that's okay (As seen in the Donkey Kong list). If I were to vote, it would be an oppose, FL's in my opinion, should feature the best that wikipedia has to offer, and should be staple across it's highest rated articles. This article departs not from guidelines (since there are none) but from the precedent that has already been set by previous lists. I mean there is a perfectly good template for video game lists, and yet you haven't used it despite it featuring in all the other lists, all the other lists are in chronological order (except in the case when listed by series within a series (such as Final Fantasy) and even then it does it's best to stay in order. These clean-ups to align with current practices shouldn't take more than a day to fix.

When compared to the original list, it is a lot more informative then yours, I'd keep the total amount of games (but it's not necessary), and I'm assuming you couldn't find a source for the hit and run sequel, but that would be great to include had you found one, same with the comment about the limited edition Xboxes. Table wise, it's important to reference the developers and publishers, and the genre should be included as well.

As an editor of video game lists from the past I will say this, don't be discouraged as I was just because you haven't gotten many votes, video game lists are one of the least voted on that you'll find, but that in no way detracts from their notability. They are important. And your work is great, your lead in my opinion is fantastic, the issues for me lie in the list itself. This is a difficult list for numerous reasons including the fact that the games are western developed, meaning no section on the difference between releases for multiple countries or regions (not to say they couldn't be included) also the fact that it is the television series that spurred the games, and the fact that there is no real connection between many of the games. Also the fact that, as you noted, several of the games are almost pre-internet era and as such lacking in online documentation, and I'd imagine even print information. Don't give up. --Lightlowemon (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - This should be an A-class list if possible but not a FL. --J (t) 01:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not a bad list, but not good enough to qualify for a FL yet. Zappa (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• The previous two votes are meaningless since they are not explained. Still I am not 100% convinced with the current format of the table. There could be another column with the date of the first release, and another table with some statistics across all platforms. Nergaal (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2012 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 21:11, 2 May 2012 [23].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Kapil Dev

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. It is based upon existing FL, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Anil Kumble. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Question – Before I offer a full review, I must ask about a possible 3b concern. I've seen editors say before that the minimum number of occurances they want to see in lists like this is 25, but this has only 24 five-wicket hauls. Not that I'm worked up over it being one instance shorter than 25, but I'm curious as to where people think the line should be drawn. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm unaware of the minimum figure. I thought the minimum figure was 15 since there was a link to all bowlers who had taken 15+ five-wicket hauls in this template. Almost all FLs had the following phrase, "fewer than 40 bowlers have taken more than 15 five–wicket hauls at International level in their cricketing careers". So I thought 15 would be the minimum figure as more emphasis was made on that. Also I thought this list wouldn't get into trouble as the main article was long enough and Kapil Dev is a highly notable cricketer. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think it's fine with regard to 3b and certainly wouldn't do the Wikipedia any good if it was merged in Kapil Dev's main article which is massive already. I will review fully in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• No problem with regards to 3b; I think the 25 was in connection with century lists rather than five-wicket hauls.

Resolved comments from Harrias

* In the first sentence, "bowler" double redirects through Bowler (cricket) to Bowling (cricket). Try to direct it straight to the end article. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) "...cricketer who represented India. A fast bowler who represented India..." – Avoid the repitition of "who represented India" Made slight modifications in the sentence. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) "He has taken 434 wickets in Test cricket and 253 wickets in ODI cricket." – Again, the repitition is unnecessary here: I'd cut it back to "He has taken 434 wickets in Test cricket and 253 in ODIs." But others may disagree. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) "With 24 five–wicket hauls, Kapil has the third highest number of Test and combined international five–wicket hauls among Indian cricketers.." – This is the only place in the prose that you use just "Kapil" rather than "Kapil Dev". Also, I don't think that "Test and combined international" makes sense. I can't quite think of the best way to rephrase it though! Done. As for the second statement, I've rephrased it a bit. Does it look satisfactory ? —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) "He is the only player in the history of cricket to have taken more than 400 wickets and scored more than 5,000 runs in Tests, making him one of the greatest all–rounders to have played the game." – This repeats a lot of what has been mentioned already: we already know he has more than 400 wickets, and the article has already said that he is considered among the best all-rounders to play cricket. Repeating this appears to breach NPOV. The sentence is the hook for the DYK nom of the article. I've cut the previous sentence in order to avoid repetition. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) "Kapil Dev took combined five–wicket haul of 24 was thirteenth in the all–time lists for taking five wickets in both Tests and ODI." – Is just plain bad English. Rephrased. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Faisalabad cricket ground redirects to Iqbal Stadium, as earlier, direct the link straight to the right article. Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) The first use of "five-wicket haul" in the second paragraph isn't hyphenated at all, with an endash or a normal hyphen. Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Also, why does "Faisalabad" direct to the cricket ground, but "Birmingham" directs to the city? I think it's better to link to cities in the lead. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) "His One Day International (ODI) debut.." – You don't need to explain this again, because you did it in the first paragraph. First paragraph? I didn't get you. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) "Kapil Dev retired from International cricket.." – "international" shouldn't be capitalised. Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) When sorting by wickets, I'd like a secondary sort key for the number of runs conceded so that they sort in order of best figures. Wickets and runs are used in two different columns. Can you elaborate a little more on this. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Now I got it. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC) The referencing is inconsistent; particularly with relation to the ESPNcricinfo links, particularly #4 #15 in comparison to the others. Check throughout. I think they are fine now. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) I don't agree with the use of endashes in "five-wicket", a standard hyphen should suffice. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) A number of terms still use endashes, including the first instance of "five–wicket haul" in the article. Note that WP:ENDASH states that an endash is not used in place of a hyphen where it occurs in standard English, but rather in four specific cases listed there. I would similarly suggest using a hyphen in "five-for" and definitely in "all-rounder". Converted all en dashes into hyphens. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC) "His career–best figures for an innings were 9 wickets for 83 runs.." – An explanation of what this means is needed. I think it's self explanatory. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) To someone who doesn't follow cricket, I don't think it is obvious at all. See the note provided in the George Macaulay article for how this can be explained. Harrias talk 23:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Added a note. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC) The ground column of the table is inconsistent, it uses "cricket ground" or "stadium" in places, but not in others. Lord's doesn't have a city listed after it, while all the others do. Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) I would suggest splitting the links to National Stadium and Karachi. (#13) I think it should be Gaddafi Stadium, Lahore, unless the game really was played in Muammar Gaddafi? (#15) Oops! Fixed. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• In general I think that the prose section of this article is certainly not a "professional standard of writing", and needs a full re-write.
  • My concerns about the prose section of this remain: it reads like a string of bullet points that have been put one after another with no semblence of flow or continuation. More attention needs to be given to presenting the information in an engaging fashion. Harrias ^talk 14:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I made some copyedits/content addition and arranged a few sentences for better flow of presentation. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose given the number of concerns, and the major nature of some of these, I don't feel I have an alternative at the moment but to oppose this list at the moment. Harrias ^talk 19:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with my computer right now, so I'll address the comments in the next few days (am not abandoning the nomination). —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Striking the comment, as I have addressed most of the concerns. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed all. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments Lead image needs a caption. Don't over link cricket in the lead. "have taken more number of" grammar fail. "put together." unclear if you mean the two bowlers or the two formats here. "he only player in the history of cricket to have" -> "in the history of cricket" is redundant. "making him one of the greatest all-rounders" you have a statistical ref backing this up so really you need to stick to the facts, rather than "one of the greatest". thirteenth... actually no, he's 11th equal. "but still ended on the losing side" grammar fail. "; despite this, India lost the match but went on to win the final." or something would be better. "At the time of his retirement, he held the world record for the most number of wickets taken in Test cricket" and then "and was the leading wicket taker in both Tests and ODIs at the time of retirement" is there any need to be repetitive? Or would it be better to note earlier on that he was best at ODI wickets when he retired in the ODI section of the lead? "One of two five-wicket hauls by Kapil Dev in the match." is the only meaning with a full stop. No point at all in the ODI table being sortable when he's retired and there's no chance of any other entries being added. " Records correct as of 07 April 2012." no need for the leading 0 in 07 April. " nine for 83" should really be "9 for 83". I would disagree on this point: MOS:NUM only suggest single digit numbers should be digits when they are being compared to other numbers, and in this case as the nine is in reference to wickets, and the 83 runs, I think the nine should be written as it is. Harrias talk 14:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC) I agree that's what MOS says, but I'm not sure I've seen cricket figures given like this anywhere (unlike 9-83 for instance like the Beeb). And strictly accurately, with reference to your comment Harrias, I think MOS says about using numbers always or digits always "for comparable values" not when "being compared to other numbers", the difference is subtle but important... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Wisden almost always writes it in that fashion in their prose, only using digits for the wickets in their brief score summary. I have no problem with digits being used, but I think it can be done either way, and my personal preference is for the wickets to be written. Harrias talk 15:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Then neither do I, no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Check references, date ranges in Cricinfo titles should use en-dash, not hyphen. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC) All Fixed. I didn't get your #1. The lead image has a caption. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I meant the lead image caption needs a full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Also in #3, which one are you referring to? —Vensatry (Ping me) 01:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry? "have taken more number of" is not grammatically correct (is that the one you're referring to?), it needs to be reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Already fixed! —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: All used images appear to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 14:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 11:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – Concerned about the prose quality, which I found lacking in several places. Since we have full and abbreviated versions of the ICC close to each other, I think it makes sense to add the initials in parentheses after the use of the full version. No need to repeat his full name after it's first used. I see this issue in the last three paragraphs of the lead, and in note 2. His full name is "Kapil Dev Ramlal Nikhanj", and is better known as Kapil Dev. Neither Kapil nor Dev is common. "has taken 434 wickets in Test cricket and 253 in ODIs." Should be in past tense since Dev has retired. Can this be made into "took" instead of "had taken"? I think that is an improvement. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC) "has the third highest number international five-wicket hauls among Indian cricketers". Needs "of" after "number". "he held the world record for the most number of wickets taken in Test cricket, a record subsequently broken by Courtney Walsh in 2000." This is wordy and has a redundancy running throughout in "record". Consider something like "he held the world record for the most wickets taken in Test cricket, which was broken by Courtney Walsh in 2000." "made his Test and ODI debut against Pakistan". "debut" → "debuts", since this is a plural. Capitalize "test" in the following sentence. "and was the leading wicket taker ODIs at the time of retirement." Needs "in" before ODIs, and "his" before "retirement". "His combined tally of 24 five-wicket hauls is the eleventh in all–time list". Move "the" to before "all-time", and replace the en dash there with a hyphen. The lead photo's caption could use a reference, since it doesn't appear to be supported anywhere else. I see instances where notes come before references when together, and vice versa. This should be made consistent, one way or the other. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Fixed all. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.