Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Black Mirror 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.

Notified: Bilorv, WikiProject Science Fiction, WikiProject Television

This was about to run as Today's Featured List on the mainpage. Three days ago, the following was posted at Errors, with the part in quotation marks from the TFL blurb (which in turn is taken from the article's lead): "Episodes vary in length between 41 and 89 minutes and can be watched in any order" There are three sources cited for this in the article. This one from 2016 supports that a season 3 episode was the longest to that point at 89 minutes, but what about season 4 and 5? Where is the shortest episode length sourced? Lack of Wikipedia:Verifiability is of course an issue. As this didn't get resolved through Errors, I've pulled it and are thus nominating it for featured list removal. Hopefully, it will be easy to provide sources for those claims. Schwede 66 04:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66

I've replaced the Collider article with these: [2] and [3] Covers longest and shortest episodes. Lankyant (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A ping would have been nice as the FL nominator. I had no idea about the WP:ERRORS post and I've not formally been notified of this FLRC, which is an extreme choice of action for an issue with the verifiability of a single sentence that has not been raised on the talk page.

The content in question (and much of the surrounding content) does not need a secondary source because it is routine calculation from the primary sources. The lead provided a number of redundant citations in an abundance of caution. Nonetheless, the sources added by Lankyant verify that "Metalhead" is the shortest episode yet and "Hated in the Nation" is the longest episode yet. Their lengths of 41 and 89 minutes, respectively, are listed in the primary source (which is not cited explicitly per conventions on television and film). — Bilorv (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the ping from Errors. It’s such a high-traffic page that you would not want to have it on your watchlist unless you had a particular interest; it can swamp your watchlist. The only way for that to work would be to have a bot. We’ve just implemented a bot for DYK post-promotion hook changes; it posts to the nomination talk page. For Errors, the tricky bit for the bot will be to identify the target article that is being reported on.

Regarding not having been notified of this FLRC, that’s entirely my fault. I missed the last nomination step. My apologies. Schwede 66 19:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, guidance (at least at DYK) is for the nominator to watchlist WP:ERRORS but I agree that it's too high-traffic to do that. I think it would be simplest for ERRORS instructions to add that you should leave a note at the relevant article/list talk page, but a bot solution might be the ideal.

In any case, I guess we should ask Dumelow if they think the issue has been solved. — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I was surprised to see this at FLC on the basis of my Errors post. I would agree that citations are not necessary where the information is sourced to the film or TV show itself; however in this instance the run times are not listed in the article so the reader cannot make the "routine calculation" without additional knowledge. We should try to make it as easy as possible for the reader to verify the information we provide and the new sources have allowed this - Dumelow (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the sole issue seems to be the specificity of the runtimes, I propose we replace Episodes vary in length between 41 and 89 minutes and can be watched in any order. with Episodes vary in length and can be watched in any order. and close this FLRC (which seemed a bit extreme in the first place). RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe there is anybody currently objecting to the present text, with sources added by Lankyant. The FLRC can be closed regardless as the talk page would be the right place to continue discussion, if any is needed. — Bilorv (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current text is probably fine, but wasn't quite sure if everyone who had been involved in the discussion agreed (particularly Schwede66) and thought the rewording was a simple way to fix it. Regardless, this should be closed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed rewording is fine by me as it achieves verifiabity. Schwede 66 18:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nominator is now fine with the issue, and no one has raised any others, closing this. --Pres N 00:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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