Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/June 2008

Kept

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by User:Matthewedwards 23:54, 19 June 2008 [1].

---

List of HIV-positive people

Contacted Garion96, Orlady and Trezatium.

• Keep—Glad the article has been improved during the process. Still a little hazy about the "pragmatic" approach to the requirement for comprehensiveness. I'll shut up about it and watch how the issue is treated. Utterly fails Criterion 3: Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate,...

Since this is of the second type (the "otherwise"), it must include at least all of the major items, i.e., all of the major people who have HIV in each category. It doesn't. It will never be able to to do this, since (1) many many people do not disclose their HIV-positive status, and (2) many many people don't know their HIV-positive status.

A second aspect of non-comprehensiveness is the bias towards American and, to a lesser extent, British people. How many Indian actors, for example, have HIV?

What's an "adult film actor"? If that's coy-speak for "porn star", it should be linked to that article, at least on first occurrence.

A minor issue: why the final periods after non-sentences in the "Comments" column? TONY (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It does include all of the major items. Of course only published in reliable sources. The fact that many people don't include their status or don't know about it is not a reason to say it is not comprehensive. These are obviously not included in reliable sources so can't be in the list. Regarding the bias towards the Anglo-Saxon world. The reason for that is that it was decided to not use red links in the list per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Only people with a Wikipedia article are included and since this is the English Wikipedia....

I think adult film actor was the name of the article at the time it was featured. I see it is now Pornographic actor so I can add a link to that. The same for the final periods, if it is grammatically correct to have no periods they can be removed. Garion96 (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I not understanding something. If it's a "dynamic" or "incomplete" list, it must include at least all of the major items (people, in this case). The way the scope (and title) are framed, this is impossible. I know of someone "major" who should be listed, for example, but it's a private matter. At the moment, it's impossible to guage whether the selection is POV, and that is another breach of the criteria. Just how were they selected? TONY (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is not published in a reliable source how can it be "major"? Only in regards to Wikipedia of course. The criteria for the list are 1: Person has a Wikipedia article 2: HIV/AIDS information is published in a reliable source. Garion96 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding selection methods, I have spent quite a while trawling the archives of the New York Times and other newspapers, books on the history of AIDS, and Wikipedia itself (using Google). Given the nature of these sources, some geographical bias is inevitable (and consistent with the rest of en-WP). Nevertheless, I would be very surprised if anyone found a really notable omission. Trezatium (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep WP has always taken a pragmatic approach to judging the comprehensiveness of effectively unbounded people lists. If reviewers can find many more entries for the list, then it is probably not comprehensive. For a list this size, I'd expect to be able to find a few either overlooked or recently made public. You'd also expect to find a handful that might be added if only reliable sources could be found.

The title cannot contain the words "notable" or "famous" because WP guidelines forbid it, and WP lists only notable people anyway. I suggest the scope definition in the lead be tweaked to include "notable" to clarify things. Notability, for these purposes, has always been defined as having (or a reasonable expectation of having) an en-WP article. The HIV status of these people must be known and in the public domain. I think that is reasonably clear from the lead definition + the requirements of WP:BLP.

The list is biased but that is probably a consequence of being on en-WP, requiring reliable sources, the nature of the disease, the freedom to which certain societies allow people to be open about having it, and the extent to which journalists are interested in writing about people with some careers rather than others. If, for example, there are several notable Bollywood actors missing from the list, then that might imply the editors weren't researching wide enough. Some specific examples of insufficiency are needed. Colin°^Talk 18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That might help, but the title is still wrong: "List of known HIV-positive people" would normally be a tautology in this context, but here it's essential, since so many people in the categories chosen do not know.

PS Is there a list of people with Hep-C? TONY (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

List of people with hepatitis C, of course. I know there are missing attributes in the title of these lists, but WP:NAME encourages a compromise between simple, obvious titles and precise but unwieldy ones. Where do we draw the line: "List of people known to be HIV-positive, who are open about it, and have been written about by English-language journalists"? With Hep C, the unknowns utterly dwarf the knowns. That's mentioned briefly in the lead, but a full discussion of the epidemiology of Hep C belongs in the disease article. Perhaps the HIV list could mention some basic stats about what proportion of HIV-carriers are ignorant of their status? I wouldn't oppose changing the name to "List of known HIV-positive people" but don't feel it is "essential". Colin°^Talk 08:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In which case, the scope of the list might be more carefully delineated in the lead. At the moment, "categorised" is vague in the first sentence, and seems to promise that all whose HIV-positive status is known (just to themselves and their doctor?) will be listed below. The second sentence says the list is 33.2 million (which, BTW, I find too precise at one decimal point, given the limits of the methodology).

This is a categorized, alphabetical list of people who are known to have been infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the pathogen that causes AIDS, including those who have died. UNAIDS and the WHO estimate that, as of December 2007, the number of people living with HIV has reached its highest level, at around 33.2 million

TONY (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. 33 million is more appropriate here. Should the "categorized, alphabetical" aspect of the list be moved out of the lead sentence? How would you make "categorized" less "vague" and why? It is just an arbitrary grouping for convenience, rather than any exact scientific division. I'm puzzled about the "reached its highest level" statement. I first read this as "has peaked" but I actually think it means "is still growing". Could we just say "... December 2007, the number of people living with HIV is around 33 million"? Colin°^Talk 09:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That number is derived directly from the source though. To be specific "33.2 million [30.6–36.1 million]". Why should it be a round number when the source itself does not specify a round number? Garion96 (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That range is a confidence interval, though the source doesn't say what level of confidence they used (probably 95%). The value quoted (33.2) is the mean value of their estimates. Outside of a scientific paper, these number aren't particularly interesting and on its own, 33.2 million makes the reader think the confidence interval could be [33.1–33.3 million]. Saying "33 million" or even "over 30 million" is better. It is just an estimate. Colin°^Talk 10:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I know. I just don't like to change a source derived number. Even for something minor as this. Garion96 (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You could ask Eubulides. He knows far more than I do about what is acceptable and correct in this regard. Colin°^Talk 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

We've strayed onto an unexpected issue. There are more things at stake: I'm unwilling to give our readers the idea that the numbers can be calculated to that degree of accuracy, for some of the reasons I've given above. And there's the time problem: the numbers infected are growing at an alarming rate. In a year, how many will be added? 33 point something is very misleading in these circumstances. I'm happy for "well over 30 million". TONY (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The sentence associates the estimate with a precise date, and in any case the growth is perhaps less dramatic than you think - see slide 4 here. UNAIDS have chosen to give three significant figures; why assume we know better? Trezatium (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Eubulides for his learned opinion. Tony, you hint that there are there other aspects of the article that you'd like examined? Colin°^Talk 13:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "Learned"? (Them's fightin' words. :-)

• I faced the same problem in AIDS #Epidemiology and settled for "Globally, an estimated 33.2 million people lived with HIV in 2007, including 2.5 million children." This says "estimated", which tells the reader the number isn't exact. For estimates where the range is quite wide I also gave the range, for example, "An estimated 2.5 million (range 1.8–4.1 million) people were newly infected in 2007, including 420,000 children."
• The ranges are not 95% confidence intervals; they are merely plausibility bounds. Please see Understanding the new UNAIDS estimates, reference 4.
• There is no single right way to present estimates like these; a lot of it depends on the presumed competence (and impatience level) of your readership.
• Unless there are dueling estimates and considerable controversy (which is not the case here) I think it's better not to put the source in the main text, as it clutters up the text; a footnote is plenty.
• I reviewed that paragraph in the lead and found a couple of problems. The cited source does not give the estimate "More than 25 million others have died" (at least, I could not find it anywhere in the cited source). There is also an unsourced claim that AIDS is one of the most destructive pandemics in recorded history.
• The cited source does estimate 2007 deaths, so we can include that. I think it helpful to briefly mention that about 15% are children (this fits into the Ryan White picture) and that the vast majority of deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa (to give a global perspective).
• I made this change to try to address the above problems. Hope it helps.

Eubulides (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps it's because I'm relatively new to FLC that I quail at the potential for POV (in inclusion/exclusion, whether on purpose or by accident) in the selection process for many lists of people. Even more so for lists of, say, alumni of univerisities, where it's impossible for reviewers to tell whether there's a bias in the selection. Adult film actors is a bad term: could be antonym of "child film actors", an unfortunate couplet. At least a hyphen (adult-film actors), or call a spade a spade. Could the title at least be changed to "List of notable HIV-positive people"? TONY (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

But "notable" is different per the dictionary and per WP:N. A reader would think the title refers to the former while it actually refers to the latter. indopug (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, it looks comprehensive and complete enough to me. GreenJoe 00:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The list is admittedly not complete. However, it's impressively comprehensive, and thus meets the FL criteria. My involvement with it began 3 months ago when I added Terry Dolan, who I considered to be a serious omission. After adding him, I spent a little time searching for noteworthy omissions and did not find any.

It would, however, be helpful to add some words to the intro to clarify that the list is limited to notable people (including some who are notable solely in connection with their infection).

In spite of the "rule" that all names on the list must have their own articles, I see at least one name that is on the list without having an article. The former article about Gugu Dlamini (a woman who who was stoned and stabbed to death for admitting she had AIDS) was converted to a redirect to this list article. IMO, it is reasonable for the list to include people who lack articles if they are notable only in connection with their infection status. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: It will never be complete (we're in for a lot of lawsuits if this can't be reliably sourced) but Wikipedia's policy is that it strives for verifiability, not truth. Therefore, verifiable entries only is enough for an FL, it will never be complete as more people are born/diagnosed every second - but what it has is enough...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Delisted

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by User:Matthewedwards 23:54, 19 June 2008 [2].

---

List of cricket terms

I am nominating this page for removal because it only has two sources and neither of them go directly to a relevant page. One goes to a general news website, while the other just goes to a list of Cricket rules. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose removal This may be a case of outdated links, new references could easily be found, dictionaries of cricket terms are abundant. Here for example is a CricInfo cricket glossary, and CricInfo is the most used source for cricket in wikipedia I should imagine. This pdf by the ECB also serves as a reference, as does this BBC article, and this article from the Sussex CCC, and What is a Googly by Rob Eastaway. SGGH ^speak! 23:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, good. If you're going to add the refs, I suggest checking to make sure every term is covered. Also, the lead could use a little polishing, and it wouldn't hurt to have a lead image. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It is probably a good time to do a cleanup (is Dweller listening ?) I wouldn't bother if terms that are very common aren't sourced, but there are quite a few which are not well-known - for eg, Xavier Tras, Rogers, Pongo, Popper, Mullygrubber etc. We also need to make sure that these have some popularity and are not one-off usage (even if that one use is in BBC). Tintin 02:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• I can do the work yes, but with other things on my plate it may not be for a day or so. SGGH ^speak! 07:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me know if any of the terms aren't covered in your references. I can probably fill in most of any gaps from Barclays World of Cricket, a cricket encyclopaedia which has a glossary section. JH (talk page) 08:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• I have changed my vote to endorse as I have discovered that the article is in fact a near complete copyright violation of this page. Each entry will have to be rewritten and then referenced to that page, which is in fact a good source. SGGH ^speak! 09:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• It is almost certain that Sussex site copied it from Wikipedia and is a copyright violation as they haven't acknowledged the source. If you look at the first entry Agricultural shot - "this is a swing across the line of the ball (resembling a scything motion) played without much technique. Often one that results in a chunk of the pitch being dug up by the bat. A type of a slog. This term is thought to have originated in the city-country games in Australia, where the farmers normally had less technique, but more power than their city rivals."
• The first two lines were added by Hig Hertenfleurst on Aug 6, 2004. The Australian connection was added by an anon on Sep 6, 2005. The scything motion was added by yet another anon of August 25, 2005. What are the chances that all these people separately copied this from the Sussex site, and left everything else there alone ? Tintin 10:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm... perhaps I reacted to hastily. Does this mean that Sussex can't be a source nevertheless? SGGH ^speak! 13:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, we can't use Sussex as a source now. That would be a self-reference. By the bye, should someone contact Sussex County Cricket Club and gently remind them about Wikipedia's licencing requirements? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Okay I will remove that source, however I have added loads of citations using the other three, but still more are needed. SGGH ^speak! 13:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's not a copyvio. I helped write many of the terms. The Internet archiev lists the sussex page since July 9, 2006. [3] =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Back to opposing the removal then, however there are some ommissions which I'll help fill, and more references needed. The massive use of the cricinfo reference has left the notes section rather ugly... SGGH ^speak! 16:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a long process :( SGGH ^speak! 16:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Support removal

• WP:BOLDTITLE states it shouldn't be wikilinked

• fixed SGGH ^speak! 09:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Final sentence of first paragraph needs citing - fixed SGGH ^speak! 09:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Each term needs citing

• Am working on it SGGH ^speak! 09:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Have to wonder if it even belongs in Wikipedia at all, per WP:NOTDICDEF.

• This was discussed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cricket terms/archive1 where a number of users tackled this issue. Hopefully it will defend it to your satisfaction SGGH ^speak! 09:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not really. I don't use Wiktionary the way I do Wikipedia, so don't know if they have Featured content. If they do, this should be Featured there, not here. User:Nichalp's arguments for it staying on Wikipedia don't really inspire me. Sorry. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose removal. Most of the reasons which proponents of removal have given seem readily fixable. As to whether the article belongs in an encyclopaedia, it's surely not unusual for an encyclopaedia concerning a specialist subject to include a glossary, which is what this list is. Indeed, the comprehensive cricket encyclopaedia Barclays World of Cricket includes a glossary section. JH (talk page) 09:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Article needs a lot of referencing work to be due its status, as well as removing OR and tightening up definitions. (I just had a bit of a bash at the "A"s) That said, there's no deadline. I'm very busy with Bradman's article, but there's enough contributors to WP:CRIC to be able to sort this out. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—I'm impressed that the author(s) has used fine judgement in improving on the definitions in the sources (I was all ready to find copyright breaches, but didn't). However, the whole thing needs a good massage for formatting issues. Some bits need copy-editing; there are a few MOS breaches. I hope it's saved, but can't be without significant work. TONY (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal. Wikipedia is not a glossary of terms. GreenJoe 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The FAC disagrees, I don't think that kind of statement can be made without discussion. SGGH ^speak! 10:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by User:Matthewedwards 23:54, 19 June 2008 [4].

---

List of ISS spacewalks

I am nominating this page for removal because it has been tagged for a lack of citations since March (and doesn't appear to have any kind of main reference for the bulk of the list) and its lead is a sum total of one sentence. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal, fails the basic FL criteria concerning verifiability through referencing. The layout is also off putting and I'd believe it has a few MoS violations.Collectonian (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal Shame, I like the idea of this one.. :(
  • Layout of WP:LS is strange with contents table to the right and lead image to the left, and does not adequately introduce the article
  • Fails MOS on WP:BOLDTITLE,
  • No references for any of the spacewalk, which considering there is a notes column, there should be
  • No explanation of what the purple rowspans are supposed to mean (my guess is each different mission, but I'm not supposed to guess)
  • Sections are oddly grouped; a 3 year period, a 1 year period, a 2 year period, and a 4 year period
• In short, it fails WP:WIAFL Cr. 1, 2, 4 and 6, as well as general MOS guidelines -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal Too many MoS breaches like the bold link and the number "6" in the lead, odd layout, and too few references. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Remove due to lack of citations. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Remove due to lack of citations. GreenJoe 00:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by User:Matthewedwards 23:54, 19 June 2008 [5].

---

List of United States Senate committees

I am nominating this page for removal because it has no citations and no references (criterion 1c, it has an inadequate lead (2a) and according to the page (and page history) it hasn't been updated since 2007. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal, fails multiple FL criteria, most notably/concernably is a seeming complete lack of referencing for the actual list contents. Also agree the lead is inadequate, lacking both context and decent formatting. Collectonian (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal
  • The lead is lacking any kind of useful prose to explain the topic and introduce the list
  • Fails the WP:MOS, specifically WP:WAI for having small text
  • The infobox is located at the bottom of the page for some strange reason
  • The entire list (excepting 3 entries) is totally unverifiable

-- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Agree with Scorpion. Original nominator appears to have abandoned it. Colin°^Talk 20:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support removal due to a lack of citations. GreenJoe 00:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Remove per Scorpion and Matthew. Especially, I don't like the small text that is throughout the table.--Crzycheetah 03:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by User:Gimmetrow 01:07, 13 June 2008 [6].

---

List of The Sopranos episodes

This list fails criteria 1c of the FL criteria in that it can not be claimed to be factually accurate when it is lacking in references. The two general references cover the episode list itself, but the entire lead is unreferenced. It has been tagged for this issue since February, but it has remained unaddressed. At this point, I feel it should be delisted. Collectonian (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• For hour long episodes, the summaries are rather short too.
• TV.com isn't a reliable source, as it is user-edited, just like IMDB
• What does need referencing? I would say the Directors, Writers and airdates. The writers and directors are covered by the HBO website.
• The TVWoP gives airdates, but is it a reliable source? Who are the recappers? Is it a user-edited site, or are they Bravo employees? Perhaps TV Guide's website would be better?
• The lead does need citing; I don't mind doing that. I've found a few relevant references already, though I haven't seen a single episode, so if it needs expanding, I'm not the best person for that job.
  •  Done -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I know parts of TV.com are user edited, but are the actual airdates/episode lists? Good question on TVWoP. The recappers are a set group of people who are paid for their work, and new recappers apparently have to go through an interview process just like any other job (I never knew that until I just looked them up, wow). So that would seem to make them professional reviewers and so I'd say they meet the reliable source requirements. Collectonian (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I tried searching the site for an "About Us" or similar section, but didn't see it. I'm not sure about the airdates and episode lists at TV.com. The recaps and everything else in the "white space" are user-edited. I'm not sure about headers and stuff, but to be safe I think it should be replaced with something solidly reliable. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How does this List stand now? Does it meet the criteria yet? For me, I'd still like to see lengthier episode summaries, but is that a FL requirement. Unfortunately, I can't do them as I haven't seen the show and after today I won't be able to access the internet for a few days anyway. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead is looking better (though 86 needs to be unbolded :P). Proper episode summaries are an FL requirement for an episode list. Unfortunately, I've never watched it either, so I can't tell if they are including relevant plot points and resolutions, or if they are teasers. Guess they can be checked against the excessive episode articles, though, to see. Collectonian (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I left it bold because most of the American drama episode lists have the number bolded. It doesn't bother me which was is correct, as long as there is consistency across the board. I'll leave it for someone else to do the summary checks. I'm moving out of my apartment today and tomorrow, but my new one won't be ready until the 9th because the previous tenants trashed it. I do get new appliances, paint and carpet though! :) Anyway, it means I won't have internet access until about the 12th. :( -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No major changes have been made to this article in the last two weeks. It was brought here based on the fact that it failed the old WP:WIAFL criteria 1c ("Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge.). I think this has been addressed, and now meets the revised criteria.

I am still concerned with the summaries. Are they teasers or summaries? I haven't seen a single episode so I don't know. Are the of an adequate length for an hour long show? Looking at the summaries of Lost (season 3), another hour long show (although it's actually 45 minutes because of commercials), I would say they're too short. But that isn't why it was brought here. The newly revised criteria 3 says "It comprehensively covers the defined scope". It does cover the scope, but does it do it comprehensively? -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal due to a lack of citations. GreenJoe 00:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, I still support its removal. It has improved quite a bit, but I'd have to agree that the summaries are still too short, with several reading like a TV guide teaser summary. I'd recommend the primary editors start discussions on merging back most of the episode pages, which fail WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT, and WP:N for the most part. Their plot summaries are too long, but can be used to fill out the ones here. For the length of the series, though, it would also be good go give the show seasonal pages, ala Lost (with the two part season 6 kept on one page together). There are also a few formatting issues remaining, with the season/series columns being rather big because of their headers, and causing some of the date cells to wrap. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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