Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2007
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 1 support, 1 oppose. There were also several concerns marked as a comment. Fail. Crzycheetah 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have spent a lot of time transforming this list disorganized list full of redlinks into a proper episode list. I have reviewed all other featured episode lists and feel that this one complies with the standards set out by those lists (including the acceptability of redlinks for directors/writers and the lack of episode summaries for series with many episodes). Having said that, I am very willing to implement any suggestions, as I hope I have proven by my work on the article so far. This diff shows the transformation of the article, all of which save for two small edits were mine. Also, I submitted the list for peer review, with minimal results. Cheers, CP 17:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It looks like "bundyology" is a fansite, and generally using fansites as a primary source is discouraged. As well, IMDB usually isn't useable as a source in featured content. -- Scorpion0422 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Response: I suppose it may be considered a fan site, but it's been up on the internet since 1997 and it's the largest collection of Bundy production information on the internet, which means that some information may be impossible to find anywhere else. Having said that, I will try to replace as many of the references as possible with non-Bundyology ones in the next day or so and will update on my progress. I have removed the IMDb reference and used TV Guide to cite that fact instead, so that should no longer be an issue. Also, the episode names, directors, writers and airdates are not taken from Bundyology (unless otherwise noted), but from the cites in the "external links" section. Should I move these ones up to "references" to make this clear? Cheers, CP 18:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, they should be moved. -- Scorpion0422 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Progress update... well there is none. It's difficult to find any of this stuff on non-fansites and, as predicted, most of it isn't available aside from Bundyology or IMDb. I can't even find a reference to her failed pregnancy on a non-fan site (not surprisingly, her own site doesn't discuss this, and even on Katey Sagal, it's an unsourced fact. Then again, maybe I'm misinterpreting what a fan site is... Cheers, CP 02:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I understand the problem, I edit a lot of Simpsons articles, and it really is a pain that I can't use some of the best fansites, like The Simpsons Archive, which qualifies for its own Wikipedia page. I still have some problems with the sourcing. TV.com and epguides.com usually aren't considered good enough for featured quality pages, so that eaves thye TV guide ref, and it seems to only have titles and brief outlines (unless I'm missing something). -- Scorpion0422 16:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Progress update... well there is none. It's difficult to find any of this stuff on non-fansites and, as predicted, most of it isn't available aside from Bundyology or IMDb. I can't even find a reference to her failed pregnancy on a non-fan site (not surprisingly, her own site doesn't discuss this, and even on Katey Sagal, it's an unsourced fact. Then again, maybe I'm misinterpreting what a fan site is... Cheers, CP 02:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, they should be moved. -- Scorpion0422 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Response: I suppose it may be considered a fan site, but it's been up on the internet since 1997 and it's the largest collection of Bundy production information on the internet, which means that some information may be impossible to find anywhere else. Having said that, I will try to replace as many of the references as possible with non-Bundyology ones in the next day or so and will update on my progress. I have removed the IMDb reference and used TV Guide to cite that fact instead, so that should no longer be an issue. Also, the episode names, directors, writers and airdates are not taken from Bundyology (unless otherwise noted), but from the cites in the "external links" section. Should I move these ones up to "references" to make this clear? Cheers, CP 18:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment — While not every FL list of episodes is yet to use the {{episode list}} template, it would be good to get it in use here. Beyond that, it looks well-done. Cliff smith 20:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong oppose The episodes themselves are in superstub class, but apparently it doesn't matter anymore.
- The issue of whether all the items on the list need their own articles has been discussed already on this page. I do agree that with four exceptions, most of the episodes should probably be deleted. Cheers, CP 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Where are the individual descriptions of episodes? Is it out of fashion, too? Are we trying to decrease the quality of our LoEs now?
- Series with large amounts of episodes (see List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Shin Lupin III episodes) don't have individual episode summaries in order to avoid the page from becoming excessively large (at least I think that's the reason). Cheers, CP 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and for that reason the examples you mentioned contain individual articles of each season where the descriptions are present. I don't see any "Season" articles here.--Crzycheetah 22:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I am willing to add episode summaries to every single episode (or do a page for each season) BUT I'm not going to waste my time doing it if Scorpion0422 is right and the sources will prevent this article from rising to FLC anyways. So consider the objection being actively addressed, unless something else will fail it anyways. Cheers, CP 22:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and for that reason the examples you mentioned contain individual articles of each season where the descriptions are present. I don't see any "Season" articles here.--Crzycheetah 22:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- The coloring of each season is in an awful condition right now. Black font on dark colors looks like...hmm, I just can't see it.
- I suppose I could change it, but the chosen colors are representative of the colours of the DVD box banners (where there's a DVD) or light grey (symbolic for Al's depression? I have no idea what I was thinking). If there are suggestions, however, I am willing to implement them. Cheers, CP 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest to use lighter colors and use different colors for each season.--Crzycheetah 22:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Alright. Is there any particular colours I should use or should I just pick them at my discretion? Cheers, CP 22:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest to use lighter colors and use different colors for each season.--Crzycheetah 22:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Get rid of all red links for the writers and directors. They're just not notable enough to have an article anyway.
- I left the redlinks in for the sake of consistency in linking the first instances of everyone's name (see List of RahXephon media), but if other reviewers agree, I'd be glad to remove them. Cheers, CP 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- "
The Complete Seventh Season" or "Season 8"? Pick one version and go with it.
- "
Done Cheers, CP 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Overall, I suggest to withdraw this nomination because I highly doubt you can add the descriptions during the next ten days. --Crzycheetah 21:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I still support this article, but I do understand yours and especially Scorpion0422's concerns. There's only one day left, I might as well let it run its course. Cheers, CP 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 3 support, 1 oppose. No consensus. Fail. Scorpion0422 02:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this meets the criteria: it's very useful (I've used it a few times :-)), is well-organized, is properly sourced, and it explains everything fairly well. There are no images, but I don't think any are necessary. IMO, it is one of the best lists around, so here we go. --Boricuaeddie 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Excellent article, I must say. I'm sure I'll be referencing it all the time now! A few suggestions:
- The References section should give more than just the titles (ie stuff like publisher, date, etc. See WP:CITE)
- The Notes section and References sections should be swapped (Notes first, then References).
- Most of the entries provide a useful explanation/example, but few of the entries don't (Hay/Straw, Reign/Rein).
Not done I can't seem to find examples for those. Should I remove them? --Boricuaeddie 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say remove them. But it couldn't be that hard to just make up some examples, right?
- It is for me. I don't think they should be removed; this isn't a "List of commonly misused English language phrases and examples of their use" :-) --Boricuaeddie 18:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say remove them. But it couldn't be that hard to just make up some examples, right?
- I'd recommend swapping the first and second PARAGRAPHS around. (edit: I accidentally wrote sentences instead of paragraphs. I've fixed it. Drewcifer)
Done Not sure why it was that way in the first place :-) --Boricuaeddie 23:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- The introduction should be referenced a bit, since that's the only non-list part of the article.
Comment: I removed some info for which I could not find references. Is that enough? --Boricuaeddie 03:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's certainly better, but FA standards to require most statements of fact to be referenced. For example, the following sentences would need citations:
- "It is possible that some of the meanings marked Non-standard will pass into Standard English in the future, but at this time all of the following Non-standard phrases are likely to be marked as incorrect by English teachers or changed by editors if used in a work submitted for publication."
- "The words listed below are consistently used in ways that major English dictionaries do not condone in any definition."
- "There may be regional variations in grammar, spelling and word-use, especially between different English-speaking countries."
- "Such differences are not seen as incorrect once they have gained widespread acceptance in a particular country."Drewcifer 18:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
That's pretty much it. Drewcifer 06:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support - This could become a strong support with a few things. Inline citations are paradigm, and particularly the items in the list. I know that you're making reference to a handful of sources, but I'd like to know which item refers to which reference. Another matter, and this is more a matter of preference based on discussion, I'd say: are these really "frequently" misused English words? I would rename it as "commonly", rather. Another matter is that some of these are not words so much as misused grammar. I think perhaps that a more suitable title would be "List of common English language grammatical errors", or something to that effect. I just don't think the title is directly accurate of the content of the page. One last thing is that you draw reference to "venal" and "venial" with two examples of use of "venial", though with none for "venal". Maybe one for "Venal" would be appropriate to compensate? Other than these minor gripes (and my agreement with drewcifer's items), I'm a support vote, but still weak support for now. --lincalinca 10:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- I endorse the idea of changing the name, but not to "grammatical errors", as the mistakes are not solely grammatical. Maybe "List of commonly misused English words"? --Boricuaeddie 00:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- What about "List of commonly misused English language phrases"? I think it's implicit taht we use the term "language" as we're not referring to the country, and it's quite susceptible to be perceived as such. Further, I believe "phrase" rather than word is appropriate, as some are not incorrect uses of the words themselves, rather the context of the words used around them (i.e. at times, the other words cause the phrasing issues, rather than the word itself, especially in the case of words lie "I, me, myself" etc). lincalinca 02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's fine. Do I move it now, or do I wait for others to post their opinions? --Boricuaeddie 02:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you agree with the suggestion, then go for it. If you adress that and my other concerns, I'll convert to strong support for it. lincalinca 06:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Page moved. --Boricuaeddie 16:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you agree with the suggestion, then go for it. If you adress that and my other concerns, I'll convert to strong support for it. lincalinca 06:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's fine. Do I move it now, or do I wait for others to post their opinions? --Boricuaeddie 02:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- What about "List of commonly misused English language phrases"? I think it's implicit taht we use the term "language" as we're not referring to the country, and it's quite susceptible to be perceived as such. Further, I believe "phrase" rather than word is appropriate, as some are not incorrect uses of the words themselves, rather the context of the words used around them (i.e. at times, the other words cause the phrasing issues, rather than the word itself, especially in the case of words lie "I, me, myself" etc). lincalinca 02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I endorse the idea of changing the name, but not to "grammatical errors", as the mistakes are not solely grammatical. Maybe "List of commonly misused English words"? --Boricuaeddie 00:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment- thanks for your input. I'm working on addressing your concerns :-) --Boricuaeddie 20:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I think that it should give the origins of the misuses. If most of the misuses have the same general origin (eg similar spelling) then that should be mentioned and the misuses that have a different origin from this (eg meaning divergence, similar sound) should be mentioned somewhere. The sentence about homonyms in the lead appears to do this, but not all examples are homonyms. For example, I heard somewhere that lie/lay is due to someone deciding that one is always intransitive, while the other is always transitive. Basically, the causes of the misuses should be given. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Could you find references for such claims? --Boricuaeddie 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support - I love the list and will use it with some of my students. Other than some of the comments that have already been mentioned, I would recommend a further proofreading for typos. I did notice one in the "comprise" entry, but there could be others. ludahai 魯大海 14:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Maybe I'm missing something, but where are the objective criteria these examples were chosen on?--Pharos 03:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Can you advise how objective criteria can be defined? With a listing like this, it's a matter of "commonness". SHould it become definitive, then it could be defined, but language matters are fickle, to say the least. There may be many items of misuse that are not identified here as they've been identified or considered as too trivial, however the ones used herein are common mispractices. According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and we need to be careful not to be indiscriminate and allow any obscure misuse to be listed and only indicate those as described in the title as being "commonly misused" (which was previoudly "frequently misused"). lincalinca 06:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Firstly, the list should be moved back to "... of words" since it is a list of words. A list of commonly misused phrases would include "begs the question" and other phrases. The examples could be considered original research. The definitions are also on dangerous ground: too close to the source and it is plagiarism, to far and it is original research. It fails WIAFL 1a1 since it (with a couple of exceptions) doesn't link to articles. Instead it links to Wiktionary definitions. In addition, the entry criteria are vague. Who determined these are "consistently misused"? What is a "major English dictionary"? The issue of international differences is fudged. It fails 1b (comprehensive) since I can easily find a missing misused word pair: "which/that". It fails 1c due to the lack of inline citations that are essential for dynamic lists. The lead needs some serious copyediting attention (which is ironic since this list concerns careful English). Some examples of poor, unprofessional or discouraged (on WP) phrases are "meant to include", "so-called", "it is possible that", "at this time", "are likely to be", "words which". The lead discusses "usage writers" and "dictionaries". They can't be treated as equivalent arbiters of English usage. Many dictionaries see their purpose as documenting current usage rather than traditional usage. As such, they will be far more liberal in accepting "poor usage" than someone writing a style guide. This may be a useful resource, but I'm not convinced it belongs on WP. Colin°Talk 13:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- There was a debate a long time ago to see if it was appropriate for Wikipedia; it was determined that it was. The other points, I'll do my best to fix them. --Boricuæddie 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)