Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Friends episodes/archive1

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 [1].

---

List of Friends episodes

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

• Featured list candidates/List of Friends episodes/archive1

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

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)

Resolved comments from Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments There's no need to wikilink US in the opening sentence, and I know TRM at peer review said to use "US" over "American" but after looking at any FA or FL about songs, episodes, films from the US, they all say "American". In both regular conversation and formal language, for me I think "The US sitcom Friends" jars compared to "American" Done "Friends was broadcast in 236 episodes" in doesn't sound correct here Fixed order "Each episode excluding the season finale has the title which starts with 'The one...' " is incorrect. The pilot is called "The Pilot", and it's the series finale, not season finale, which also doesn't end with "The One..." One needs capitalising, too, as it's a quote of the titles. Fixed That entire sentence is a bit long, and would flow better if it was recast as separate sentences, especially since the topic jumps from titles to length. Fixed "for a 30-minute timeslot" perhaps clarify by mentioning this is to allow for commercial breaks Done is there an article for "first unit"? It's a bit of a specialised term that many people won't get There isn't, I could only find Second unit. I have rephrased the terminology. Sentences shouldn't begin with "However", just as they shouldn't begin with a But, Although, etc Fixed "filmed in Burbank" vs "Taped in London" Fixed "broadcast on NBC after the first airing of "The One with Joey's New Brain" (February 15, 2001)" ---> "broadcast following "The One with Joey's New Brain" on February 15, 2001" Replaced "Conan O'Brien hosted a light-hearted discussion with the cast from the Central Perk set" needs recasting, it currently sounds like "the cast from the Central Perk set", as opposed to him hosting it on the set Fixed As well as DVDs, have episodes been released on BluRay, or for streaming at Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, etc? Complete series on Blu-ray. Would I need to include a seperate table for that? Blu ray has been confirmed but no release date as of yet. "but Chandler falls in love with her only to break up when he suspects she is cheating on him with a fellow actor." -- "only to break up" what does this mean? You haven't told the reader they got together The season summaries need work. Have they been copy edited? Some of the sentences are a bit run-on or poorly structured in other ways. Some are contradictory, such as "Season five features Monica and Chandler trying to keep their new relationship a secret from their friends." ... "Monica and Chandler go public with their relationship" Season 8's "The One After "I Do"" -- because the template forces "" around the title, you should use single quotes around the I Do to avoid the repetition of "" Were Pheobs, Chandler and Monica absent from season 8? For me, you don't have to have the season plot summaries. It doesn't violate 3b by including them or excluding them. This is a page that just lists the episodes and any further information such as what happens in them can be found by looking at the season specific articles which have summaries for all episodes. There aren't many Featured episode lists that do this anyway -- certainly not the more recently promoted -- and looking through most of them I found only a couple that do. List of Veronica Mars episodes is one, and that has a lot of episode articles anyways so the summaries aren't really necessary. List of Lost episodes is another, but again, each episode has its own article. Those that don't have a lot of episode articles and also don't have summaries include List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes, List of Dexter episodes, List of Numb3rs episodes, List of Gunsmoke television episodes, List of The Unit episodes and List of Smallville episodes so I'm not sure where the precedent is for that request. I decided to exclude the season summaries because they are covered in the seperate season articles (some in detailed length). MOS:HASH says to avoid using "№" and "#". I would name the first two columns "No. in series" and "No. in season" for clarity Fixed The specials don't have numbers, so you don't need those columns in those tables Fixed TRM said in the PR to make sure all tables meet MOS:DTT. Do they? What's the reasoning for the two left Ratings columns to be a different background colour, and why small text for the year ranges? I assume rowscopes are needed to highlight ratings? Titles, writers, directors and production numbers and airdates are still unreferenced, despite being marked as Done in the PR. They come under the 'General' reference, the 15th anniversary DVD which includes the specials. Not all articles lend themselves to images. The FL? doesn't require one to be promoted, it says they're to be included if appropriate for the topic. Here the topic is specifically the list of episodes, and a photo of a couch and coffee table doesn't illustrate a list of episodes even if those episodes did feature that prop. Have removed the image. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 11:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – Lack of reliability in the source department is my biggest concern. "Each episode excluding the series premeire and finale has the title which starts with 'The One...'". Second "the" should be "a". Fixed Might want to let those who haven't seen the show know what "the Central Perk set" means. Added In each table, Prod No. should be Prod no. as the second word is being overcapitalized. Fixed Refs 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, and 28 need publishers (DVD Warehoure in each case). Fixed Refs 29 and 30 have printed publishers, which should be italicized. For 29, the Chicago Tribune needs cites in addition to The Washington Post. Italicized ref 30, removed Chicago Tribune ref and replaced it with a better one. What makes Dan G's Website (ref 31) a reliable source. It looks like somebody's personal website to me. Removed What makes Classic TV Hits (refs 34 to 38) reliable? Removed and double checked all sources which replaced it. Ref 41 is a Google Groups site, and forums are not reliable sources. I can accept the occasional style defect that can easily be fixed, but when personal websites and forums are being used to cite much of the ratings section, that's where I reach the point where I need to oppose. It's not like reliable publications never wrote about this show and its ratings when it was on the air. I suggest finding some of those publications and using them. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Replaced that ref with a BBC one. Thank you for your review. – Lemonade51 (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC) The general reference and all DVD Warehouse refs need en dashes in their titles to replace the hyphens. Same for ref 42. Fixed General ref still needs two dashes in its title, by the looks of it. Ref 38, a new one, also needs one. Giants2008 (Talk) 11:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Whoops, have fixed them now. – Lemonade51 (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC) The bolded episodes violates WP:MOSBOLD. Note that we tend to bend that guideline a bit when bolding is forced by scopes, but I can't tell whether that's the case as the formatting is on a separate template. Come to think of it, does anyone have a problem with the tables being on separate templates? I'm not too familiar with this type of formatting myself, so I can't say if it violates any guidelines or not. Formatting has been done on the seperate season articles. Similar to the Family Guy list or the ones Matthewedwards has named above. Mostly all episode lists transclude the episode table from season articles, calling on {{episode list}} to do so. If you look through the history of episode list FLC nominations, I have often queried and opposed because of that, because we're basically reviewing content written on other pages not the page in question. There's also issues regarding what happens when bad information gets added at the season page or it's vandalised. Because it automatically gets displayed on the episode page, we have a case of two incorrect articles and those who have the episode list watchlisted might not necessarily watchlist the season pages, so they don't notice that it's been messed with (when I was a FL director I had all FLs watchlisted). However, WP:TRANSCLUSION seems to okay this practice (and I've been told that it's actually okay because at least both articles are the same -- even if they're wrong -- rather than having conflicting information across two pages!!!!), MOS:TV is indifferent, and it felt like I was running a losing battle. As for the bolding, that's set by {{episode list}}, so all episode and season lists automatically display it as bolded, and there's no way to undo it without changing the template, which would require discussion on the template's talk page. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Looks like there's been some discussion about this before. Suggest we try to comply with MOS if possible... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Right, used

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Looks in good shape, just one concern, do the episode tables meet MOS:DTT, I'm not sure if they do. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure if it meets DTT as they aren't wikitables -- it derives from a template: Template:Episode list. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Is there a reason why it couldn't be made to comply with DTT? I often find User:RexxS can be extremely helpeful with this sort of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC) WP:TRANS? Perhaps I could just create tables from scratch, like List of M*A*S*H episodes? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC) I guess until the episode list template has a consensus to be modified to meet DTT, hand-coding a simple Wiki table would be the best approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Right, tables done. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Cool, will review tomorrow. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Good stuff, but you need to add rowscopes as well, sorry to be a pain. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Whoops, have added, cheers! – Lemonade51 (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments A shame there's not even a single image to brighten the lead up. Added, Goodraise or another reviewer may need to double check the image. Shouldn't ten year run have a hyphen somewhere? Done "They are on average 22 minutes " would recommend a comma after are and average. Done You have "Warner Brothers" and "Warner Bros.", suggest consistency here. Fixed Ross' Wedding is Ross's Wedding. Fixed "The One with the Ick Factor has a spare " Fixed Check "The One Where Old Yeller Dies"'s number in series. Fixed Four episodes (all different titles) have (1) or (2) after them, why? -- They are considered two-part episodes because the dialogue continues into the next episode. However, they haven't been coupled in the DVD's so it's removed. "The One Where They're Going to Party!" are the italics intentional? Fixed "The One with Chandler and Monica's Wedding (1)" our article on the episode has it as Monica and Chandler, not Chandler and Monica. Fixed Don't think you need # in the rank column, it's pretty obvious that what follows is a number... Removed The 1998 A & E Entertainment Almanac has missing info e.g. ISBN. Added Not overly keen on using Amazon and DVD warehouse to reference this, have to see what others think. It's pretty difficult to find any press releases dating back to 2000 regarding the release dates of Friends DVDs. Particularly for Region 4, hence why I used DVD Warehouse, a retailer. Ref 38 should be pp. not p. Fixed The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Thank you for the thorough review. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

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)

Comment: I'm posting the following because Lemonade51 asked me to post my 2 cents here.[2] 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.[3] 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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[4][5] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[6] I have no idea what the new articles are. The toolserver doesn't tell you that. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

(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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

"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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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