Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of The Simpsons episodes/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates | List of The Simpsons episodes
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 Dabomb87 15:36, 18 August 2012 [1].

List of The Simpsons episodes

edit

List of The Simpsons episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Scorpion0422, Gran2, Rphr1987, Theleftorium, WP:DOH, WP:TV

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe it doesn't currently meet criteria. If issues are addressed, though, I'd be happy to keep at FL. Thanks! TBrandley 18:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Unlink American per WP:OVERLINK
  • IMO animated sitcom should be one link to there rather than two separate links for animated and sitcom
  • I already know, but for the rare reader, make a note that its a television series perhaps
  • The images could dead with an "Alt" for it
  • Unlink society per WP:OVERLINK
  • Unlink television per WP:OVERLINK
  • twenty-second season. Please link it
  • US$ Unlink it as per WP:OVERLINK again
  • Series overview table doesn't reference many DVD release when it should
  • Basic referencing issues in the overview table
  • In the series overview table, To be announced should be N/A using the {{N/a}} (talk) template. Also, for the 24th season
  • No references for any Production codes
  • № and # should not be used as per guidelines
  • US should be U.S.
  • Original airdate should for sure be Original air date
  • In the ratings section, link Fox as it hasn't been linked in the actual article/list yet
  • TV series should be television series. Don't be afraid to write it fully
  • For all of the years in the ratings section, should be 1989–90 rather than 1989–1990 per WP:YEAR. Do also for the rest of the seasons in the years parameter of table
  • Also, link all of the television season years. Example: 2011–2011. Link it
  • Notes in the ratings section, Note. 1: 1996–1997 television season should be 1996–97 television season per WP:YEAR.
  • What makes Ref. 3, 8, 11, 19, 22, or 26 high-quality good sources
    • 3 has been replaced, 8, 11, 19 and 22 are all FoxFlash, which is the Fox official website, so there's nothing wrong with them. 26 is CraveOnline, again a site considered reliable. It could be replaced pretty easily. Gran2 07:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't shout in the Ref. titles as seen in Ref. 19
  • On ref. the "YYYY-MM-DD" method. Is use but on another "MMMM-DD-YYYY" is used. Please choose one
  • Ref. 19: Use another source. There are so many others. I found one for you. Here is the source, etc.
  • Ref. 66: "Full 2011-2012 TV Season Series Rankings" 2011-2012 should be 2011–2012 with an en-dash as per WP:DASH for references
  • Ref. 61: Should be "The Hollywood Reporter" rather than "Hollywood Reporter"
  • Ref. 11 has Fox Flash as publisher, others have it as work
  • Ref. 12 and 13: Has .com on one on the other it doesn't. Please only choose one
  • See also should be before "Notes" and "References".
  • Also, See also isn't even needed
  • Add TV.com to external links
  • Various ref.s are missing publisher. Example: Entertainment Weekly is missing the publisher, which is Time Inc". That's only one. TBrandley 19:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a lot of this stuff you could have fixed yourself. Some of the issues should be addressed by project members, but wouldn't simply fixing things like the overlinking have been quicker than looking for it and typing this out? -- Scorpion0422 20:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Brandley wasted more time posting here than doing the work himself, especially as he has knowledge in TV episodes. Most of the mentioned points are rather nitpicks, and it seems like he did not fully reviewed the prose. The only major issue I see so far are the dead references and those with questionable reliability, but they can be easily fixed within seconds. Regards.--GoPTCN 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took time to write this. As noted by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) before, "Because it's not up to any one person to fix issues in a nomination. Because if we don't help nominators understand where issues need to be fixed, how would we help improve nominations when presented here? The community effort comes from people", "Please don't assume that we're all here to fix issues which we see day in day out, that's not our job. We're all volunteers, but instead of just assuming we'll fix your issues, please know that we'd rather help you understand what needs fixing. "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime"., "[the reviewers] want to help". Please understand that. Thanks for writing here though. TBrandley 20:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"we'd rather help you understand what needs fixing." I take exception to that comment. I don't know about Rphr1987 (I haven't been active in a while), but myself Gran and Lefty all have worked on a wide variety of featured content. Your comment makes it seem like you consider us novices and that you're doing us a great favour by teaching us.
As for your concerns, they can all be fixed rather easily. If one of the others doesn't beat me to it, I'll work on most of them later today. -- Scorpion0422 21:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit late here so I'll help out as much as I can tomorrow! And I kind of agree with what Scorpion has said. Was an FLRC really needed? Most of the issues are really minor. If you would have given the project some kind of warning I would have cleaned up the article in a couple of days. Theleftorium (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll do that next time before/if I ever nominate again. Thanks, TBrandley 21:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we are being a bit hard on you, since all you're trying to do is help. And you did do an extensive review of the article, which should be commended. In the future, if it's mostly prose issues, you should tell the nominator and/or project first. If your concerns are ignored, then take it to FLRC. -- Scorpion0422 21:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, can we split this list into 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s? --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no. Make things way too complicated. TBrandley 21:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley 17:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a huge copy-edit, and attention from members of WP:DOH, I now believe it meets criteria, and, unless more issues can be found, I withdraw this nomination. TBrandley 16:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This does not make sense. Withdraw means that you are still unsatisfied or agree that you made a mistake. You are the nominator so you decide whether it meets the criteria or not. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 07:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He obviously means that he thinks the article meets the criteria now and that the FLRC can be closed. Theleftorium (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_The_Simpsons_episodes/archive1&oldid=1138490019"