Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes/archive2
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 User:The Rambling Man 07:07, 22 August 2008 [1].
List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes[edit]
Since it was removed from FL status a month back, this list has undergone a huge copyedit and a revision with the table's coloring, as well as a thorough peer review. I believe that it is now up to FLC status. Since I haven't made enough edits to qualify submitting this list, I've contacted User: Rau J and he agrees that the list is ready for FLC. Let the nitpicking begin, then... --haha169 (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - I see major improvements, just a couple of things..
- They are, but how are you to source the credits?--SRX 16:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Same way as we source the plot. We don't. I don't know if there is an exact guideline, but all TV articles do this - no source is really required for the plot section. In the same sense, no source is required for the credits because its already sourced. An off-line source, yes, but it can easily be verified by going to Veoh or iTunes and watching the episode. --haha169 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--SRX 22:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "The following is an episode list for "... don't start this way - FAs don't start "The following is an article..." so Featured Lists shouldn't do either. Tell me as soon as possible in the lead what the series is about before telling me all the broadcast details, for instance.
- The first sentence is supposed to tell you what the article is about, not what the subject is based on. The article is a list of episodes, and as such, states it as soon as possible. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, it's boring. Fix it up. Check some of the other FLCs for inspiration. Why not "List of Avatar: The Last Airbender is a television show which has had x episodes..." - which tells you exactly what the article is about. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be boring. I looked at other FL's for inspiration on this. I randomly clicked on about fifteen and most of them had similar opening statements. And I personally think that "boring" is a POV term, probably not good to use when reviewing an article. Rau's Speak Page 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I said check the FLCs, not FLs. Standards have improved. This isn't a cake walk anymore. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Howabout I base it on what actually passed rather than suggestions. Per both WP:LEAD and WP:LIST this is the adequate way to start an article. WP:LIST actually give examples that say to do it this way. Rau's Speak Page 16:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you've missed the recent discussions. No FLCs are passing when they start so blandly. Point me at a featured article that starts so blandly. Criterion 2 - engaging lead. Which this hasn't got. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article doesn't pass for following the style guidelines, then there is something wrong. But whatever, guidelines were made to be ignored. Howabout "Nickelodeon's animated television series Avatar: The Last Airbender, which first aired on February 21, 2005, with a one-hour series premiere[1] and concluded its run with a two-hour series finale on July 19, 2008,[2] has a total of 61 episodes."? Rau's Speak Page 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like your style... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken a look at an FLC, like you suggested, List of Brotherhood episodes. I see that the lead is formatted slightly different than this list. I'll go fix it - but I seriously don't see a big problem. --haha169 (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like your style... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article doesn't pass for following the style guidelines, then there is something wrong. But whatever, guidelines were made to be ignored. Howabout "Nickelodeon's animated television series Avatar: The Last Airbender, which first aired on February 21, 2005, with a one-hour series premiere[1] and concluded its run with a two-hour series finale on July 19, 2008,[2] has a total of 61 episodes."? Rau's Speak Page 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I said check the FLCs, not FLs. Standards have improved. This isn't a cake walk anymore. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be boring. I looked at other FL's for inspiration on this. I randomly clicked on about fifteen and most of them had similar opening statements. And I personally think that "boring" is a POV term, probably not good to use when reviewing an article. Rau's Speak Page 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, it's boring. Fix it up. Check some of the other FLCs for inspiration. Why not "List of Avatar: The Last Airbender is a television show which has had x episodes..." - which tells you exactly what the article is about. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence is supposed to tell you what the article is about, not what the subject is based on. The article is a list of episodes, and as such, states it as soon as possible. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "first aired " was it just aired in the US or elsewhere on Nickleodeon?
- First aired anywhere. We use the first airdates period. Not based on any one country. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who's we? You're addressing a global audience who are interested in where it's shown. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "We" as in those who wrote the article. There is a consensus because certain episodes aired elsewhere in the world first, so we (the writers) agreed to focus globally. It just happens that most of them are US airdates. Two of them are actually DVD release dates. Rau's Speak Page 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who's we? You're addressing a global audience who are interested in where it's shown. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First aired anywhere. We use the first airdates period. Not based on any one country. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who's Aang? You talk about him without telling us anything about him?
- It tells you everything you need to know in a brief summary. It also says as much about Zuko. It's not like we can go into his vegetarianism, monk hood, or pacifism. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't, you talk about Aang in the opening paragraph without saying anything about him. It's confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh... hehe. I forgot he was mentioned there. Will change to "the protagonist". Rau's Speak Page 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't, you talk about Aang in the opening paragraph without saying anything about him. It's confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It tells you everything you need to know in a brief summary. It also says as much about Zuko. It's not like we can go into his vegetarianism, monk hood, or pacifism. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "each comprised of twenty " "each comprised 20" or "each consisted of 20"...
- Done. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The series has been released entirely on region one" I guess you mean "The whole series has been releaesed on region one"?
- Thats what it says. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your English is poor there. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not. The current statement and the one you say mean the same thing, unless the word "entirely" has had its definition changed. Rau's Speak Page 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your version could be read as just region one. My version doesn't can't be misconstrued. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Later in the (now non-existant) paragraph, it said that season one had been released on R2. But, the current version should have no such problem. Rau's Speak Page 16:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your version could be read as just region one. My version doesn't can't be misconstrued. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not. The current statement and the one you say mean the same thing, unless the word "entirely" has had its definition changed. Rau's Speak Page 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your English is poor there. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats what it says. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "region one" "Region two " check capitalisation.
- Done. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Season one was released in five installments with four episodes each, with a sixth release containing everything from the previous sets. Seasons two and three followed a similar format, but with five episodes released in four installments. Season three volume four had six episodes, due to the season being one episode longer than the others. " very dry and boring I'm afraid.
- Creative writing isn't a requirement for FL. Although I did remove mention of the extended S3v4, not really needed in the lead. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, Criterion 1 asks for professional standards of writing. This is just fact listing, like a trivia section just without the bullet points. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it states nothing but facts doesn't make it bad writing. It doesn't say "It features professional standards of writing that are not boring." But, whatever. I changed it and put it in the first paragraph. Rau's Speak Page 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, Criterion 1 asks for professional standards of writing. This is just fact listing, like a trivia section just without the bullet points. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Creative writing isn't a requirement for FL. Although I did remove mention of the extended S3v4, not really needed in the lead. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does element link to bending instead of "bend"?
- Because they are the same thing. Bend in an art, a noun. Bending is the action of that, a verb. If you bend something, you are bending it. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed the point, you link elements not "bend" which is far more appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. My bad. Fixed. Rau's Speak Page 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed the point, you link elements not "bend" which is far more appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they are the same thing. Bend in an art, a noun. Bending is the action of that, a verb. If you bend something, you are bending it. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Link Aang the first time, not the second and third.
- Done Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've only mentioned three elements in the first para and then all four are mentioned in the last para of the lead.
- Thats because the first mention only deals with the three that Aang must master. He has already mastered air. Clarified, better this way? Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heading 2007-2008 should use an en-dash, not a hyphen.
- Done. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason to wikilink the release dates?
- No. Not really. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain (20) etc...
- Done. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The first Avatar: The Last Airbender " should that be in italics?
- Yes. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would avoid the use of small text altogether.
- Done. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick question: I'm not the most familiar with lists, but I've never read a style guideline that suggests to avoid the usage of small text on tables or other places. --haha169 (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but why use it? All it does is prejudice against those with visualisation difficulties? --The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't "prejudice" against anyone. But whatever, it's already been changed. No point arguing over it. Rau's Speak Page 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all fine, but what about when the Season articles hit FLC? They also have small text. But they can't be enlarged since the table itself isn't that large anyway. And I also have an understanding that there should be uniformity? Never mind, this discussion can continue later. --haha169 (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't "prejudice" against anyone. But whatever, it's already been changed. No point arguing over it. Rau's Speak Page 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but why use it? All it does is prejudice against those with visualisation difficulties? --The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick question: I'm not the most familiar with lists, but I've never read a style guideline that suggests to avoid the usage of small text on tables or other places. --haha169 (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The following is an episode list for "... don't start this way - FAs don't start "The following is an article..." so Featured Lists shouldn't do either. Tell me as soon as possible in the lead what the series is about before telling me all the broadcast details, for instance.
- Comment how do [4][5] and [6] reference "The shorts were done in a super deformed style."? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do they not? It's obvious in the source material. Rau's Speak Page 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Not written well enough.
- Rau—No, the times when we allowed a straight repetition of the title the reader has just read are over. You might point to existing FLs for "inspiration", but the truth is that in time they will need to be updated to modern standards. It's very irritating to start the main text with what you've just read, and sacrifices the opportunity to engage the reader. See WP:LEAD.
- I find it ironic that both WP:LEAD and WP:LIST fail to mention this new requirement. Rau's Speak Page 02:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, the sentence that has been substituted for the repetition is unsatisfactory: "Nickelodeon's animated television series Avatar: The Last Airbender, which first aired on February 21, 2005, with a one-hour series premiere,[1] and concluded its run with a two-hour series finale on July 19, 2008,[2] has a total of 61 episodes." Try something less clumsy, such as "Nickelodeon's 61-episode animated television series Avatar: The Last Airbender first aired on February 21, 2005, with a one-hour series premiere,[1] and concluded its run with a two-hour series finale on July 19, 2008,[2]." Now, do you realise that this is an international site, not just a US site? I didn't notice that airing on those dates.
- Yes I realize that this is an international site, that is why we use the first release date globally. The tables reflect this. I have implemented the version you suggested. Rau's Speak Page 02:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The rest may have been copy-edited, as claimed, but it's not good enough. The second sentence, for example: " The Avatar franchise refers to each season as a "book", with each episode referred to as a "chapter". Avoid "with" as a connector in formal prose. Try " The Avatar franchise refers to each season as a "book", in which each episode is referred to as a "chapter". Another example: "The entire series has been released on region one DVD, but only the first season has been released on region two." The second "on" is wrong; I'd use "for".
- I've taken care of the instances that you have noted, but as the main author of that text, I'm afraid I can't really improve it much. Rau's Speak Page 02:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now we see what date autoformatting was concealing to us, but not to our readers out there: "31 January 2006" and all of the dates in the bottom table are inconsistent. Can you make it all US formatting in the main text and the tables, please? Tony (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken care of. But I find it odd you say to use US formatting so quickly after stating that this is an international site. Rau's Speak Page 02:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS Opening repetition: there's a bit here and a bit here. Tony (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I think we've already established a fine opening lead with boldface as well as a opening sentence that describes the subject in great detail. If there are any issues with the current one, please say so. But those two links have been taken care of already. --haha169 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Comments
<undent> Haha, I added the citation needed tags. They made all sorts of claims about global release dates that weren't mentioned on any website, so they need citations. I don't really care how they make the table look; I more care about the facts. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)
(←) (Multiple edit conflicts) Because the series is American, you could use Original US Airdates, as long as you state that that is what they are. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a good idea on a FLC page. The closing director may think that they are opposes and supports to the FLC nomination by accident. But I approve of using US dates. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] I support the idea of using US dates. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] I say use US dates as well. Perhaps make a note that some releases were earlier in other territories, but for verification reasons stick to the US dates. Derekloffin (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Obviously I support as well per above mention. --haha169 (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] As do I. And it's already implemented because thats what the season article used. *SIGN* 00:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] |
- Rau J, I don't understand the edits made to {{Episode list/Avatar}} and the need for /Avatar2 and /Avatar3. You could have just used /Avatar on each season page. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We could have, but that would makes the seasons use the same set of colors. This gives each season its own set of colors. Which, like Nuclear said, places emphasis on the differences betweent he seasons by illustrating the Water/Earth/Fire contrast. The reason I changed {{Episode list/Avatar}} is because I was planning on making future changes, and that version was easier to read. I knew what to look for before I even had begun to alter it. I don't even know if the version you placed in it had the option for the color tiles. *SIGN* 01:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, give me five more minutes.... :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Well, this big conversation seemed to finish up. What process is it to get an article to FL anyway? Do we wait for an external reviewer to come by or is Haha/Matt able to mark it as a FL? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I reread the guidelines for updating into a FL
When the director of the FLC feels that all concerns have been addressed, and the article meets the criteria, then it will be promoted. If not, it will not be promoted and this page will be archived. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support making a FL I've been a contributor to this article (not minor or major) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still:
- WP:FL? Criteria 2. Does not follow WP:LEAD, specifically the WP:BOLDTITLE section.
- Image still fails NFCC. The image does nothing to the article to help identify the episodes, and according to the caption, "The logo reflects the Asian-influenced the theme of the show", what does this have to do with the episodes? FUR could still be improved, too.
- Criteria 6. "suitable use of colour to achieve visual appeal. Please tell me why the skittle-pedia effect gives it a visual appeal? Colours should be used to identify something, not to make things look pretty for no good reason.
- We have explained our reason for that. If you don't like it, oh well, it isn't against any policy to look like that. And I personally find it visually appealing. Also, Smallville's episodes have seemingly random colors for their tables. And stop citing WP:Color, it is irrelevant in this situation, as is WP:Pretty. *SIGN* 04:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad that the transcluding has happened, and even though the tables aren't "on" this page, they are shown on this page. If this is to "exemplify our very best work" they still need working on. I feel they fail Criteria 5. They do not follow the Manual of Style, in this case, WP:WikiProject Television's WP:MOSTV. The episodes should use the format set down by {{episode list}}, and the order it displays the fields entered. I can't see what the advantage is from straying from this established and accepted template, and editing {{Episode list/Avatar}} by putting the columns in a different order, and which doesn't even use every field that the main template does. Rau J, I asked you for a few minutes to let me edit the tables and templates so that they would work correctly, with the Skittle-pedia colours you want, and before I even got to finish you went reverting me for no reason other than "pleasing to all parties" without waiting to see what it was I was doing. Believe me, it doesn't please me, and it won't please WP:TV if an episode list gets to FL status without following its guidelines. Your reverts to my edits without waiting to see the final effect have really pissed me off.
- I honestly don't care if you're pissed off. I reverted before I saw that you asked for five minutes. When I reverted it looked like you were seeing what your version looked like. You also said it didn't comply with WP:MOSTV without stating how, now that you have I took care of the problem. And it's impossible to please everyone 100%, I did the best I could, and it worked pretty damn well. *SIGN* 04:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're pushing us a little hard here. This list's quality has far surpassed that of most TV episode list FLs, and it certainly fits FL criteria. Anyway, straying from established templates didn't harm Mary Shelly from getting Featured status.See this discussion about whether or not to accept different templates.--haha169 (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, nowhere in MOSTV does it say we have to match the layout set by {{episode list}}. I read and reread the section for lists, then I searched the article for any mention of the template and found none. That makes this request irrelevant. *SIGN* 05:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're pushing us a little hard here. This list's quality has far surpassed that of most TV episode list FLs, and it certainly fits FL criteria. Anyway, straying from established templates didn't harm Mary Shelly from getting Featured status.See this discussion about whether or not to accept different templates.--haha169 (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly don't care if you're pissed off. I reverted before I saw that you asked for five minutes. When I reverted it looked like you were seeing what your version looked like. You also said it didn't comply with WP:MOSTV without stating how, now that you have I took care of the problem. And it's impossible to please everyone 100%, I did the best I could, and it worked pretty damn well. *SIGN* 04:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.