Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of pre-Stonewall American television episodes with LGBT themes/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 18:27, 8 February 2009 [1].

List of pre-Stonewall American television episodes with LGBT themes[edit]

I am nominating this list because I believe it meets all FL criteria. My goal is to bring it and its four sibling lists to FL status in the near future. Many thanks to User:Ruhrfisch for his usual good job in peer reviewing the list. Otto4711 (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN - clearly I am not going to be able to satisfy the nit-pickery without completely stripping out the images and I am unwilling to do so since in my view they are fully and completely and obviously well within even the ridiculously over-restrictive image use policy that is designed to discourage some editors who want to actually improve the project and empower others whose preference is to diminish it by playing image police. Every time I nominate something for featured status it's because I've forgotten the level of petty criticism that's attendant in the process and without fail I'm well reminded of it by the time the process is over. If anyone ever sees my sig on a featured nomination again, please call a psychiatrist because certainly it will mean that I've gone insane. Otto4711 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "prior to"-->before.
  • "These included such programs as"-->These included programs such as
  • "Hurst was praised by early homophile group the Mattachine Society" Comma after this phrase.
  • "A brief break from this formula" So these episodes followed a strict formula?
  • "also appeared on-air" I don't think the hyphen is necessary.
  • "featured anthropologist Margaret Mead discussing homosexuality"-->featured anthropologist Margaret Mead, who discused homosexuality
  • It would be helpful if you explained in the lead what happened during the Stonewall Riots (what were they, what happened)
  • "In the 1960s"-->During the 1960s,
  • Calling the last header "Synopsis" is inaccurate, as not all the descriptions were summaries of the episode.
  • "Carleton Carpenter with Ann Sothern. Ann does not want to hear it!" Why the italics?
  • "In "Shakedown", police track down a blackmail ring targeting"-->In "Shakedown", police track down a blackmail ring that targets
  • Image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods.
  • Why do some TV episodes have citations while others don't?
  • Empty cells should have em dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Ref 4, "TIME magzine"-->Time.
  • Ref 6, make the citation date format the same as that of ref 4.
  • Comma added after "Society".
  • "formula" changed to "pattern".
  • caption punctuation fixed.
  • ref 4 fixed. ref 6 is generated by the template so I can't fix it.
  • em-dashes added.
  • Re citations. Per WP:PSTS the episodes serve as sources for themselves so any entry that is just an ep description doesn't need a separate ref. References are for material that goes beyond what is visible on-screen.
  • Re italics and other word choices, they're just stylistic choices, which I think are reasonable as is. Otto4711 (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struck through issues that I felt were resolved. For bullet point one, "before" is more concise. "prior to" is just misplaced formality. For bullets 6 and 11, the noun + -ing structure is awkward and ungrammatical. What makes http://www.stevecap.com/alternatechannels_net/articles/kudos.htm a reliable source? The image caption with the italics and exclamation point is unencyclopedic. You didn't say anything about changing the header of "Synopsis" or describing the Stonewall riots in more detail. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steven Capsuto is a leading researcher and lecturer on LGBT images in radio and television. His website is an extension of his book and lecture series. He is identified by the media as an expert so I believe his site is reliable. The caption is merely an attempt at injecting a little humor and I don't think it hurts anything. I disagree that gerunds are ungrammatical and "awkward" strikes me as an opinion based on personal preference. Which is fine, I detest the use of "due to" instead of "because", but I wouldn't fail an article on that basis. I really don't care what the column is called. "Synopsis" seems reasonable but if you have a suggestion feel free to implement it. I would rather not go into detail about the Stonewall riots because the riots are not the focus of the article and going into detail about them diverts the focus. Otto4711 (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of an encyclopedic article is to educate, not inject humor or color commentary. For noun + gerund, see User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#A common problem—noun plus -ing. Maybe change "Synopsis" to "Description"? Plain English is better than old-fashioned formal words. Remember, we are catering to all types of English speakers here, and "before" is much better than "prior to" for this purpose. FYI, I am not "opposing" the article's nomination to FL status. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that you're not opposing the listing, but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on these few remaining style points. I'm not wild about "Description" (kind of a boring word) so I'll keep trying to think of something better. Otto4711 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I will concede on the misplaced formality and noun + -ing. I will not back down on the image caption; it is simply not of encyclopedic tone. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fun part of caption deleted ya party pooper ;-) Otto4711 (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images I struck the support above because I just noticed that the article uses four non-free images. Please be more detailed in the fair use rationales than "for illustration and critical commentary". Judging by the consensus on a peer review for a similar article, there should not be so many. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The images in the article are of of critical historical importance to this topic. The first identifiably gay character on television, the first self-identified gay character on television, an image from the first national television program on homosexuality and an image showing the lengths that fear of identification drove interviewees to conceal their identities. I can certainly expand the fair use rationales, although I do not think any such expansion is necessary since all that the licensing template requires is what I've written, but under no circumstances will I agree to the removal of any of these images. Fair use images are perfectly acceptable in featured material and the idea that four images in an article this size is too many is nonsensical. There is no numerical limit on such images per article so "there are too many of them" is not a legitimate reason for opposing the promotion. The point is not how many images there are but whether they comport with the (IMHO far too restrictive and stifling) image policy. These clearly do. Otto4711 (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—on images—true, pure numbers of non-free images is not a reason to oppose based on image criteria. But WP:NFCC has several bits that undermine your defense. First, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". So for example, if you wanted to use File:Tcjones.jpg, File:Tc jones 1965.jpg would be better as it's a free image (you could argue the transvestite thing, but that's a different argument altogether. File:Gayplant.jpg is frankly a crappy image that does zero to increase my understanding of the topic, "significantly" per NFCC or otherwise. The other images are just actors, meaning that it's conceivable free shots would suffice to represent the same content; either way, images of them is not significant to reader understanding, and the FUR are weak. If you had historians talking about how pivotal the role was, and some element of their appearance, then you would have a more defensible case. In addition, there's a lack of citations throughout, leading to blatant original research. Who says "Turnabout Intruder" has LGBT themes? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:PSTS episode content serves as its own sourcing. Content drawn directly from an episode in no way implicates WP:OR and everything else is cited. There is no way that a free image of the characters can be created. The point is not to show what the actors look like. The point is to show how the characters were presented.

Comment Oppose - I have a real problem with the images. Not their rationales, but their placement in the article. They stretch the table horribly and make it look completely unprofessional. Can something be done with them - perhaps merge them into single composite image at the top of the article? Skinny87 (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • After looking at David's comments above and the article again, I have to agree - how I missed that I don't know. The lack of citations is indeed a big concern, and as a Trekkie I'm confused over the two TOS episodes selected. Frankly the Trouble with Tribbles looks tacked on (Tribbles are a reference to LGBT?), and who says the Turnabout Intruder has LGTB themes? Skinny87 (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, yes, when an entire species is described on-screen as "bisexual" then it is a reference to the "B" in LGBT, which stands for "bisexual". When a male is in a female body and vice-versa, that is a reference to the "T" of LGBT, which stands for "transgender". Otto4711 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's OR to note the fact of a species' bisexuality? It's OR to note the fact of a body switch and an actor's altered mannerisms? I do not think "OR" means what you think it does. This is no more original research than any other description of an episode's plot. Otto4711 (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_pre-Stonewall_American_television_episodes_with_LGBT_themes/archive1&oldid=1049172709"