Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 17:17, 22 December 2009 [1].

List of awards and nominations received by Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends[edit]

Nominator(s): The Flash {talk} 19:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria. All sources are reliable, every award is referenced, it doesn't come off as a skittlepedia, the prose is sufficient, and it covers all aspects of the topic in a neutral and clear manner. Any concerns will be taken care of as swiftly as I can. Thanks, The Flash {talk} 19:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Support Seems good to me, no dealbreakers I can see. treelo radda 09:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Does the infobox caption need a full stop? Not a complete sentence (no verb) unless I'm wrong.
  • plethora - extreme excess? I don't think so, this is hyperbolic.
  • Agreed, sentence has been reworded. treelo radda 20:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "winning many" this is where you (in my opinion) should be specific.
  • If the "Pulcinella Awards" are notable enough for this list, would you not think that there should be an article for them?
  • "The Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episode "Squeeze the Day"..." don't think we need another repeat of the title of the show here...
  • Edited down to "The episode..." treelo radda 20:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ottawa International Animation Festival" - not in the infobox...
  • "listed Foster's as" - perhaps you need to make it clear somewhere that Foster's is a regular abbreviation of the show title.
  • Usually abbreviations are in the lead if mentioned in the body, now added. treelo radda 20:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • eighty-fifth->85th.
  • "honoring excellence exhibited in the animation industry " - this is a little bit peacocky for me, if it's a quote from their "mission statement" or whatever, then "quote" it.
  • "Craig McCracken as been nominated" - has been?
  • Personally don't like wikilinked "see below", would prefer notes.
  • Like this maybe? I thought it a tiny bit cramped but nothing some judicious column width finagling can't fix. treelo radda 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid bold links.
  • This might be just advice over stating there are bold links. treelo radda 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that was what Rambling Man was referring to. The Flash {talk} 22:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove spaces before references.
  • No hyphens in references where they should be en-dashes per our MOS (e.g. ref 22, ref 30)
  • All hyphens swapped out for en-dashes though I'd argue that the em-dashes should be replaced also. treelo radda 15:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date formats should be consistent within the references, all readable or all ISO, not a mix.
  • Only one incidence of a non-ISO date in one reference, now fixed. treelo radda 15:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from NMajdan
Comments
  • I'd like to see every year in the Year column wikilinked to the corresponding article.
  • Do you mean year articles? (i.e., 1998) If so, that is always frowned upon and not used in WP articles. If not, and you're just referring to linking to the awards page for that year, done. The Flash {talk} 01:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • dont be afraid of redlinks.—NMajdan•talk 04:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dislike that as it seems like overlinking given one link per section to a given article should be sufficient. treelo radda 01:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables are different. Each row in a table should stand on its own.—NMajdan•talk 04:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Says as much in Wikipedia:Linking, stupid exception to make as it is stylistically and UX-wise as dumb as a sack of potatoes but it is there and should be followed. treelo radda 10:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I believe all the names should also be wikilinked (per WP:LINK, each row in a table should be able to stand on its own).
  • Problem is, 90% of the names are not articles. It would be really tacky to have dozens of red links all over the article. The Flash {talk} 01:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might be interested in this discussion. Also, WP:LINKS which states "many red links are perfectly legitimate, serving to point to an article which may exist in the future, and indeed encouraging editors to create such an article."—NMajdan•talk 03:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tacky or not, it seems like it'll have to be done and repeatedly though it is thumbing its nose at WP:OVERLINK in that respect – exception or no – which concerns me more than redlinks. Anyway, that discussion shows the whole redlink issue to be highly contentious and I'm not certain if it should be what decides a pass or fail for FLCs at this moment. treelo radda 10:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2005 Annie: "Graig". Should be Craig?

—NMajdan•talk 16:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it necessary to have the same image in the article twice?—NMajdan•talk 16:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most likely not, defer to SuperFlash for that decision. treelo radda 16:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently commented out, the alt text is exactly the same as that for the infobox image and if it's sticking about it'll need to be fixed. treelo radda 16:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I am still a bit concerned about the red links (delinking them would have no effect on this concern). This article is listing awards and nominations (nominees) that this show and various cast and crew have received so those awards and nominees should have minimal red links. However, this is not a big enough concern for me not to support this list for FL. Ideally, in the near future, some additional articles/stubs can be created for these red links.—NMajdan•talk 16:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from KV5
  • "it was nominated for 33 television and animation industry awards and has won 16 of them" - verbs don't agree. Either it was nominated for 33 television and animation industry awards and won 16 of them or it has been nominated for 33 television and animation industry awards and has won 16 of them. The former would be best because it agrees with the rest of the paragraph.
  • "It received 20 Annie Award nominations, including Best Animated Television Production in 2006, of which it won five" - 20 and five are comparable quantities, so twenty... five or 20... 5.
  • "one of the imaginary friend main characters from the series" - this wording seems confusing to me.
  • Sortability would benefit this list per criterion 4. Once you add sortability, note that all occurrences of a term or name should be linked, because table rows need to be able to stand independently per WP:LINK.
    • What? The Flash {talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Somebody put in sortability, but the "nominee" column doesn't sort correctly. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • How can I fix it? The Flash {talk} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The nominee columns are not worth sorting since there are cells with multiple animators, so I just made them unsortable. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a kludge until I figured how to prevent the name column being sortable, nice of you to fix it. treelo radda 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table uses colors without accompanying symbols. This needs to be changed per WP:COLOR and WP:ACCESS.
    • No clue what you're talking about. Nor do I see the need to add unneeded symbols/legends to a simple table because it has colors. The Flash {talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • KV5, the color is accompanied by words ("won" and "nominated"), so blind readers are not missing anything here, I think. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, so that is what KV5 was referring to. The Flash {talk} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is indeed what I was referring to, but the text itself was never enough on any prior list I nominated, Dabomb. Has something changed? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I can't see how the text isn't enough. treelo radda 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • (edit conflict) (to KV5) Not quite. The circumstances under which color is used are different from other lists. For example, 2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings needs symbols because blind readers cannot determine, say, which teams were selected for BCS National Championship Game (only the blue color indicates that information), whereas the green and red in this list complement existing information; in fact, blind readers are not affected by the presence of the color at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm still put off by the use of red and green. MOS:COLOR says "try to choose colors that are unambiguous (such as maroon and teal) when viewed by a person with red-green color blindness". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That might be a good topic of discussion on WT:FLC, since a whole lot of our Featured lists use those colors. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • True, though I don't think it's nearly as big of an issue when there are symbols. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • It's a template, colors can not be changed for them. And, again, "symbols" would be utterly useless and complicated. What more needs to be said then "Nominated" means "Nominated" and "Won" means "Won"? The Flash {talk} 20:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Please do not refer to attempts to help visually impaired readers of Wikipedia as "useless". WP:ACCESS has an important purpose. As for the colors, just because it's a template doesn't mean anything. What that template does can easily be replicated by simply typing "Won" or "Nominated" and changing the background color of the cell. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                            • It's not the intent which is pointless, it's the rationale for the change itself which is pointless. The cell colours are for making pretty only, even if someone with deuteranopia happens upon it it'll still read "won" and "nominated". I know that if the cell colours are differed slightly so there is a marked difference to colour blind readers it won't improve readability for them anymore than if they were still green and pink. Anyway, the intent is noble, just not required as it doesn't affect meaning directly if the colours can't be interpreted as it's only a visual aid in essence. treelo radda 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                • KV5, I am not suggesting that something to help visually impaired readers of Wikipedia; I am simply saying that "Won" and "Nominated" are completely sufficient and adding a table to say that "Won" means "Won" is, essentially, useless, and would not help their understanding. The Flash {talk} 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also see where Nmajdan is coming from on the redlinks and would like to see some more of them become blue (even if it's just simple stubs) before I support.
  • I do not see the need to do so at all, because there is no information on these people, despite the fact that they were nominated for an award (WP:NOTABLE anybody?) The Flash {talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they aren't notable, then perhaps they shouldn't be linked? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A previous reviewer asked for it, but I still do not see the point in them. Shall I remove them? The Flash {talk} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would prefer to see nominees who are not notable enough to have an article de-linked. Also, please check to make sure all of your blue links go to the right locations – Mike Moon and Ed Baker link to unrelated articles. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they go somewhere else, it's highly probable the persons referred to in the list aren't notable enough for an article which brings us back to the redlink issue some FLC reviewers are really picky about. I'd go without if it helps the article look better. treelo radda 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think being a nominee (and especially a winner) for a major industry award would make one notable. A lot of the red links share a cell with people who do have articles. So its hard to say that one is notable while the other isn't.—NMajdan•talk 13:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nmajdan, keep in mind that, as I mentioned above, a lot of those blue links are pointing at the wrong people. However, I do agree with you on this, which is why I mentioned it, but in a source search for some cherry-picked names, I didn't find anything. Not to say that nothing is out there, just that I can't find it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delinked false links. Also, I agree that most do not meet notability, which is why I'm smitten on not creating and them and leaning on removing them, if nominators agree. The Flash {talk} 20:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the thing. I do think these individuals are notable. One of the criteria under WP:CREATIVE is "The person's work has won significant critical attention." I believe being nominated for your industry's highest achievement satisfies this criteria.—NMajdan•talk 21:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kind of what I was hinting at earlier, but didn't know where the guideline was... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try and get to creating a few of them soon, but, seriously, there's nothing known about them besides they won/were nominated for an award. The Flash {talk} 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • An inconsistency in episode titles exists. In the lead, "Good Wilt Hunting" is ended by a question mark, but is not in the tables. Don't know which one is correct, but it should be made consistent one way or the other.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Foster%27s_Home_for_Imaginary_Friends/archive1&oldid=1089077860"