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].

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Cabinets section could use some introductory text.

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

• 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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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].

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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].

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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].

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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].

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
    • Still would prefer just a list of see also links. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • No, no linked "headings", just a "see also" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh I completely misunderstood you. Ok done.--Harout72 (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Ok Done. Inserted "ntsh" for each, it now works.--Harout72 (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
    • You're missing the point, I'm afraid to say. Bencherlite^Talk 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
    • Use an edit notice, then; don't have editorial instructions in articles. Bencherlite^Talk 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• 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

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].

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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].

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

See Glee (season 1), they contain episode lists as subsections so they become FL not FA. TRLIJC19 (talk) 12:43, 24 May 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.

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].

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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].

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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].

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

wait ... worry ... who cares?

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

• Comments
  • God, I loved this show. It was among the greatest two seasons of TV ever produced. What's that, you say there was a third season? Nonsense.
  • "Millennium starred Lance Henriksen, Megan Gallagher, Klea Scott and Brittany Tiplady; with both Henriksen and Tiplady earning award nominations for their roles." That semicolon looks out of place; I think if you add a serial colon after Scott, you can change the semi to a colon. Also not sure if 'both' is necessary.
    • I think I've seen to this. GRAPPLE X 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
      • Funny thing is, I think "melee" is still preferred with the accent. Oh well. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
      • I can live wit hthis. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • I'm a little sad there's so many blacklinks, but I agree with these not being redlinked.
    • I've been meaning to flesh out production crew articles for 1013 series, so these might get created in due time. I'd not link them until such time though. GRAPPLE X 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly, which is why I came up with the term "blacklink", things that should eventually have articles but don't now, and we don't need redlinks to indicate this, unlike in some lists of more notable items. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Genesis entry is different from the others; the others, even the ones that are only winners, begin 'received x nominations,' but this one starts 'won an award,' which, compared to the rest of the article, leaves out how many noms it got. I know it got one, it's in the table, but the prose stands out in the article by not stating this.
    • Rephrased this a little bit, let me know if it looks alright now. GRAPPLE X 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Still has the factual error of it lasting three seasons. ;) Support. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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].

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

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)[reply]

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

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

• Image review: Nothing to review. No images used. Goodraise 11:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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].

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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

• "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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • All tags resolved. – Lionel ^(talk) 13:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Oppose per POV promoted through inclusion and exclusion of details. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 4 May 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.

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].

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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].

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

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)[reply]