Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of programs broadcast by Fox/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 NapHit 17:21, 21 October 2012 [1].

List of programs broadcast by Fox

Featured list candidates/List of programs broadcast by Fox/archive1

Nominator(s): TBr and ley 02:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria. Though an unsual topic (there are no FLs of this kind), I find it interpreting, and hope you enjoy read it. Thank you in advance. Cheers, TBr and ley 02:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Fox currently maintains 19.5 hours of programming per week." -- 'Currently' should never be used; it would be better to say something like As of the 2012 television season, Fox.... TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Anything else? How does it look now? Thanks! TBr and ley 06:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Fox Broadcasting Company, commonly referred as the Fox network or simply Fox, is an American commercial broadcasting television network owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, which is a division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation group; Murdoch co-founded the Fox Broadcasting Company, along with media executive Barry Diller." -- A few problems. First, there should be a 'to' after 'referred'. The sentence is also really long. I recommend splitting it where the semi-colon is.
- Done. TBr and ley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Though it was officially launched in October 9, 1986,[2] Fox began its official prime time setup on April 5, 1987, with the series Married... with Children and The Tracey Ullman Show airing that night." -- Instead of "launched in", it should be "launched on". Also, I'm pretty sure 'primetime' is a compound word, and should not be spaced.
- Done. TBr and ley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Fox had a programming block for children entitled Fox Kids, which ran from September 8, 1990, to September 7, 2002. -- There shouldn't be a comma after '1990'.
- Done. TBr and ley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Unlike the "three larger networks", which aired prime time programming from 8 to 11 pm Mondays to Saturdays and 7 to 11 pm Sundays, Fox has traditionally avoided programming in the 10 pm time interval, leaving that hour to affiliates to program locally" -- Again with 'primetime'. Also, which time zone is this referring to? EST? Please note that.
- Done. TBr and ley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"On April 21, 2012, Fox celebrated its 25th anniversary, with a two-hour television special, featured numerous people related to Fox and its shows." -- "featured" should be "featuring".
- Done. TBr and ley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The networks' animated shows are listed under the Animation Domination banner, which is a Sunday night programming block." -- You're only talking about one network, so it should say " network's " not " networks' ".
- Done. TBr and ley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It is a full member of the North American Broadcasters Association (NABA) and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)." -- What is 'It' referring to? The Animation Domination? This needs to be disambiguated.
- Done. TBr and ley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are some (the majority of) shows on the list not referenced?
- See below. TBr and ley 23:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wait, are you saying the one reference used for some titles supports each show's existence? If so, just list it as a general reference. Picking out random ones is odd. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I didn't. Those were already there when I started working on this (I check to see if it wasn't WP:OR on Google Books), and figured I wouldn't removed them, and there book sources, which people often enjoy seeing. TBr and ley 23:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – All the issues I listed have been resolved. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick and strong oppose

Where's the lead?
- The issue is now (at least I think) resolved, per consensus on the article's talk page. TBr and ley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the entries are cited, some aren't.
- Click on the links for them, and their is prove. It is a huge pain referencing every single show on the list.
Suggest you expand upon each entry to describe what kind of broadcast it is.
- Again, there's the link. It already states what type of show it is (as this is a list, not an article). TBr and ley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw the list, and go to peer review, asking what we'd expect from a featured list. This, most certainly, is not. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A user keeps commenting out the lead. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the list is suffering from instability, i.e. edit wars, or content dispute, then it shouldn't be listed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See above. The issue is now (at least I think) resolved, per consensus on the article's talk page. TBr and ley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Bruce Campbell (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* There's been a lot of trouble with user Vjmlhds, who has been repeatedly vandalizing the article, even to the point to his own blocking. He seems to have no idea how featured articles work; he's continuously removed the lead and doesn't seem to understand the concept of how images should be used. One of his versions of the article in particular is a mess, utilizing a total of three non-free media images. There's a discussion occurring currently within the article's talk page, and it appears these unproductive edits need to cease immediately. Otherwise because of instability I would have to oppose. Bruce Campbell (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- See above. The issue is now (at least I think) resolved, per consensus on the article's talk page. TBr and ley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This version of the article I would support however, other than the fact that I can't see why some entries are referenced and why some aren't, in an apparently random manner. The article is lovely when it's not being ravished by unproductive edit wars. Bruce Campbell (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. TBr and ley 22:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. For now I'm going to change the oppose to neutral and I'll support if it the prose comments made by other editors are addressed. The vandalizing seems to have stopped outright. Bruce Campbell (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support at this point. Bruce Campbell (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I would prefer tables to be used instead of bulleted lists, as I think they would be more useful to the reader. For example you could have columns of Title, Years broadcast, Type of show.
- I don't see a problem with the current state of it. TBr and ley 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the reader is receiving hardly any information about the programs. I'm not sure in the current format, this list is the best wikipedia has to offer. NapHit (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned that large parts of the article are not referenced, specifically the Currently broadcast section.
- See above. It is a pain to reference every show, the article link itself proves its existence and run. TBr and ley 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a pain but its necessary. Unless those two general refs cover every item in the list then you will have to source individual programs. Wikipedia can't be used as a reference unto itself, specifically because anyone can edit it therefore the information has the potential to be wrong. As every other list that comes through here is expected to be properly referenced, there is no reason why should make an exception because its a pain to reference. NapHit (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. See List of X-Files episodes. None of the episode titles are referenced, as are all other episode list FLs. Those general references cover former programs. For currently broadcast, I could reference to the official Fox site, however. TBr and ley 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely correct, ref 1 in that list provides all episode titles, so despite the fact they are not directly referenced, they are in effect referenced. The problem here is that those general refs do not cover every item in this list, none of the sports programs are referenced for instance. What proof do I have that Fox only broadcasts certain Formula One races? This is currently a big problem, all programs that started or have new episodes after those general refs were published, will need to be referenced. I still also think tables should be utilised to provide the reader with more info. This list should be able to stand alone and I would expect more info on each program from wikipedia's best work. NapHit (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as there been a lot of edit-warring and discussion over the content of the article recently, it fails criteria 6.
- See above. The issue is now (at least I think) resolved, per consensus on the article's talk page. TBr and ley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Has the edit warring stopped? If so, good.
- Yes (at least I now believe). See above. TBr and ley 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many, if not most, of the entries still need citations.
- See above. It is a pain to reference every show, the article link itself proves its existence and run. TBr and ley 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are some given citations then? This makes it even more confusing.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - See above. Those were already there when I started working on this (I check to see if it wasn't WP:OR on Google Books), and figured I wouldn't removed them, and there book sources, which people often enjoy seeing. TBr and ley 00:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That doesn't make sense. Just remove the individual citations from next to the certain shows, and place it as a general reference at the bottom of the list. Who enjoys seeing book sources? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. TBr and ley 00:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the only immediate issues I see, but they are big ones.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Deux

Also, to be picky, Millennium wasn't an X-Files spin-off, but rather just a show created by the same person.
- Removed. TBr and ley 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For Mike Judge, shouldn't you mention he was co-creator and voice actor, rather than just creator and actor?
- Fixed. TBr and ley 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the images have unsourced claims, like "star of Married...with Children, which was Fox's signature series during the network's early years." I'm not saying it's untrue, but when was it called the signature series?
- Replaced and removed. TBr and ley 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the dates use YYYY-YYYY and others go YYYY-YY. I know the exception is dates like "1999-2000", but I'd pick one and use it.
- See below. TBr and ley 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- --Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am content to Support now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose some quick comments.

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*"It was the highest-rated broadcast network" highest-rated in what sense? Most viewers? Most popular?

- Removed. TBr and ley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that claim referenced?
- Removed. TBr and ley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Fox began its official primetime setup on April 5, 1987" vs "On April 21, 2012, Fox celebrated its 25th anniversary"...
- And? That's when Fox actually celebrated it on television. TBr and ley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"As of October 2012, Fox maintains 19.5 hours of programming per week.[3] " but ref 3 was written in 1992, so how can that ref something from 2012? And that ref says 18 hours in any case.
- Changed "October 2012" to "1992". And, regarding the source information, it says increasing its daily average to 19.5 hours, so that's now fine. TBr and ley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"its original debut" has it had more than one debut?
- Removed. TBr and ley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the longest running sitcom" context, do you mean animated sitcom? Do you mean in the US or worldwide?
- Clarified. TBr and ley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "led to"?
- Done. TBr and ley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Fox had a programming block for children entitled Fox Kids, which ran from September 8, 1990 to September 7, 2002.[8]" seems oddly place, and makes the end of that para read like a list of factoids, not elegant prose.
- Moved. TBr and ley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check image captions, those with incomplete sentences should not have a period.
- Removed. TBr and ley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sports shows don't have dates.
What does "(Mid-season)" mean for upcoming shows?
- They are planned to air in Mid-season. Added a link. TBr and ley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Piggsburg Pigs!" has an exclamation mark.
- Added. TBr and ley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ripping Friends is The Ripping Friends.
- Fixed. TBr and ley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Similar comment for The Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot.
Can you make the Digimon: Digital Monsters link more precise?
- That's the only and best there is in this case. TBr and ley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Link to the correct The Tick article please.
- Corrected. TBr and ley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
D.E.A. doesn't link to a TV show.
- Unlinked.TBr and ley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" Than->than.
- Done. TBr and ley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Super Greed article says it started airing in 1999.
- Done. TBr and ley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Boot Camp article says it started in 2001, not 2000.
- Done. TBr and ley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should check all these articles against the dates you're claiming....?
- Done. TBr and ley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"from which The Simpsons spun off from." grammar fail.
- Removed. TBr and ley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be a colon in Osbournes Reloaded.
- Done. TBr and ley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the second general reference the whole book or specifically pages 1 to 1566? If the former remove the page range, if the latter use an en-dash.
- Done. TBr and ley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Ullman has an e in it.
- Removed. TBr and ley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it should have an e in it, that's what I'm saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oops, sorry, done. Thanks, TBr and ley 16:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"which lead to two future spin-offs Millennium and The Lone Gunmen" surely all spin-offs occur after the original? So no need for future.
- Done. TBr and ley 16:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1990–1992 or 1990–91? Be consistent.
- For shows that only went for one year, I use the second method, but, to clarify, I used the first one if it went longer. Also, "1999-2000" is like that cause it is a new century. TBr and ley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand your logic. Fine, cross-century date ranges do that, but for other year ranges, just two digits for the second year are required. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see WP:YEAR. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are these dates including re-runs?
- No. TBr and ley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you should note that, because when I checked some of the articles on the shows, the dates you quoted here included re-runs. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good job. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

"As of October 2012, Fox maintains 19.5 hours of programming per week." This is followed by ref #3, which is a newspaper article from 1992. I'm somewhat stumped as to how a 1992 article can support Fox's current schedule.
Similarly, a 1992 reference can not really be used to say that the "The Simpsons is one of Fox's most popular shows..", only that "The Simpsons was one of Fox's most popular shows.."
Following on from that, your general references are from 1996 and 2007: what is the source for the parts of the main list that are more recent than this? You can't rely on references in other articles, information in this list needs to be referenced in this list.
Oppose I understand that some of these questions have been asked already, and I have read the answers to those questions, but I'm not satisfied by them. For that reason, I have to oppose this list. Harrias ^talk 06:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about talk-shows and news? Also, the list is heavily lacking on references. Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It has all the programs. The ones you are talking about are local programs, on local stations, not the full channel. It has all of them. TBr and ley 19:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, regretfully. The main issue I have is the fact that the information is not in tables. There is some inconsistency in the years. For example, "2001–2003" and "2004–05", in which the latter is correct. Zac (talk · contribs) 16:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination, while I work on the list, with above issues raised. I well certainly be bringing this list back to FLC soon, though. TBr and ley 16:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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