Really? I don't think either of mine have, titles still have issues (at a glance, 前編 transcribed as 'zenhen', furigana not handled consistantly and so on). No Japanese reference is given either, like say, this (which has the added bonus of listing the key staff for each ep). Oh, and notice that gives ep 51 as the rather spoily ミュンヘン1921, rather than being titleless as the note claims. --zippedmartin 23:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anime News Network had the japanese referances. 日本穣 added a second one practicaly verifying it. Episode 51 did not have a title when it first aired. Pointing problems is nice, but you can also correct them. ;) --Catout 12:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to bother fixing things if Mistamagic keeps reverting my fixes. Episode 51 has an English title as well as a Japanese title. Any explanation about when those titles were received can be left to the page on the episode. ···日本穣? · TalktoNihonjoe 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree. Its trivia and episode 51 aired quite some time ago... 1yr 34wks 5days 10hrs 1min 10secs to be exact as of this click. --Catout 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Pretty much looks exactly like OMG's, don't see why it shouldn't be a FL.--SeizureDog 19:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- decorated with unfree images. Jkelly 19:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a featured list criteria. --Catout 19:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:FLC numbers 1 and 5. It's not Wikipedia's best work if it is not maximally free and reusable, and the images have an inappropriate copyright status because they fail WP:FUC. Jkelly 19:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.
Unfree images are not outlawed. On occasions unfree alternative is not avalible. That is why fair use exist. Very best work can include fair use.
2. The material must be encyclopedic and otherwise meet general Wikipedia content requirements.
Material covered is certainly encyclopedic. I do not see what the problem is. It is sourced, its acurate. Episodes did first air on those dates and the titles were as described.
Copyright status of images are fair use as they are dvd covers. Releasing them with any other license would be a violation of copyrights.
Frankly I do not see the point of your objection. --Catout 20:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that image license is an utterly spurrious opposition reason, as there is no free image whatsoever that could be used to illustrate this. These DVD covers are pertinent (unless you believe the ones in the above List of The Simpsons episodes are also inappropriate?), although I'd favor screenshots myself. Circeus 00:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eposide screenshots had been ruled (on Oh My Goddess! nom) to be an abuse of fair use... --Catout 15:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. According to that discussion the option was given, but Cool Cat did not want to edit the image description pages to include fair use arguments. -- Ned Scott 11:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ya... I just feel it is more informative this way. And we are using fewer fair-use images. So I guess thats a double kill. I really have no reason to insist either way. --Catout 11:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All four featured episode lists have DVD covers somewhere in them. It's fair use. What's the debate here?--SeizureDog 02:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Ugly table: it should at least collapse borders, but I'd frankly recommend outright using the class="wikitable" code.
Intro is weak
Episode summaries should be written in a proper tone, not as hooks (ep. 51's summary is utterly inappropriate for encyclopedic content.)
The second header is inappropriate: the article is not and should not be a "summary of the series". Circeus 00:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also consider removing the first header: that section should be merged with the into.
Ugly table? Thats a criteria? class="wikitable" is ugly. Slightly thicker lines make the table easier to follow. wikitable lines don't stand out well on firefox browser for instance. --Catout 15:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That the article be minimally leasing aesthetically appears to be a pretty basic criterion, if it is supposed to exemplify your "best work", I'd think. And the default table border are terribly ugly, especially when we do have a standardized table styling, which looked just fine in my opinion. I tried a normal "border-collapse", but for some reason, I never managed to get it right (I think it has to do with how complex the table is). I will continue opposing as long as thes ebig borders are there. The style certainly doesn't need to be class="wikitable", but it should address this border issue in some way. Circeus 22:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your taste is not a Featured List criteria. Best Work as in does it work on many (preferably all) browsers and is it easy to follow (aka no neon yellow on white). There is nothing basic about "wikitable" the current format is the wikitable only slightly altered (so we have slightly thicker borders that actualy appear on firefox. I do not see the border issue... --Catout 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of intro are you looking for. I based the format to an existing featured list. I cannot improve it unless you are spesific.--Catout 15:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I adjusted that myself by reinserting the "history" section into it. Circeus 22:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That changes exactly what? it is the same amount of text... --Catout 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See these diffs to understand: 20:05, June 2(User:Nihonjoe removes the "summary section entirely") → 08:51, June 3: I reinserted the deleted section, but within the lead. The global amount of teaxt hasn't changed, just the number of sections ("History" and "Series summary" headers disappeared in the process.) Circeus 13:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. so why havent you said so. You said the lead was short, you might have said something like "how about merging history section and lead". --Catout 20:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "I'd also consider removing the first header: that section should be merged with the into." ;-) It just happened so that I saw Nihonjoe's edits when I moved in to remove the links the headers, and took the opportunity to adjust that myself, and didn't see any reason to come back over it. Circeus 20:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see... nm then :) --Catout 11:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Episode summaries are in a proper tone, This article ment to be a summary of the serries on an episode per episode basis. What else is it supposed to be? --Catout 15:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Episode 51 is the climax of the series. I do not want to spoil a second of it... I dono... --Catout 15:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I do not want to spoil a second of it" This is an encyclopedia, we are not out to protect people from spoilers beyond the use of {{spoiler}}. Beside, the entire article is one big spoiler, and is already enclosed in spoiler tags, making these reticences completely spurrious. Circeus 22:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a section explaining that "efforts have been made to minimise spoilage". The serries should be watchable after reviewing the list, the point of the list is listing episodes, not ruining the show... In any case by clicking the link the reader gets the info he/she/it seeks. --Catout 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any additional info wanted can be found at the episode's respective article. There's no reason to spoil anything in the short couple of lines of the super summary.--SeizureDog 23:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm running Firefox and I think the wikitable looks good. Phoenix2 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably because I "reverted" it back. --Catout 20:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is what it looked like when Cool cat reverted. Getting all the borders to show up in complex tables can be tricky, right now, they only appear after after episode 48 for me. Circeus 22:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be useful, splitting the table somewhere in the middle guarantees that all borders show properly. I don't think it's possible to remove all space between two tables on top of each otehrs, though. Circeus 22:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine to me as is. I do not understand the problem. 'My' version works fine on firefox and IE. --Catout 23:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They look fine... Since they don't break browsers, I do not see a problem. You are just being picky. Two lists have passed into the featured realm with that identical syntax. --Catout 04:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I have no problem with the borders at all. What's so ugly about them? Color? Spacing? I don't see anything wrong in either of the links or the screencap.--SeizureDog 23:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, lots of episode summaries written like advertising copy for a DVD sleeve:
"But can they uncover the mystery of a zombie that has been terrorizing the town?"
"But something is amiss at the Tucker estate..."
"Also, why have so many officers from Central suddenly shown up at East Headquarters?"
"But how can they possibly win when they are each facing a ruthless murderer in the form of an empty suit of armor, just like Al?"
"Who, or what, is this mysterious boy?"
"Can Izumi and Ed rescue him from such a powerful homunculus as Greed?"
"Scar is in Lior and is dragging a large stone behind him, gouging the earth - but for what purpose?"
"With Ed helping the Liorites escape, Scar is the only one that can save Al now - but can he do anything to help?"
"Lyra and Rosé descend a secret staircase in an old church, and what (and who) is at the bottom comes as a shock"
"But is Ed prepared for what is on the other side of the Gate?"
And the most useless summary of all: "All hope is lost... or is it?"
This is an encyclopedia. We're supposed to be presenting as much information as we can, not purposely withholding it—particularly not in such an unpleasantly coy manner.
Also, we have plenty of articles on the people and places mentioned; massive wikification is in order here. Kirill Lokshin 17:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is an encyclopedia and we aren't holding any info. All info is avalible a click away (on pages for individual episodes). If you like you can inprove the sentences and massive wikify, I certainly don't mind that. The summaries have been rewriten about three times now (and as far as I care they are perfect)...
I'll give one explanation on why we are "holding back" info (we really aren't).
"Who, or what, is this mysterious boy?" refers to Wrath who seemingly appeared from nowhere. The entier episode (and the main plot of the series) are a set of events determining the boys identity, nature, and actions. I don't want to spoil episodes in 2 lines.
"All hope is lost... or is it?" refers to how episode 51 appears to the viewer. Throughout the episode things appear grim (and there is random conversation here and there).
The point of the list is to be informative of the series (which has quite a thick and twisted plot) not spoil it in 50 lines.
I don't really agree with you there. The entire article is already in spoiler tags, so I see no real need to avoid revealing plot. In many cases, the information you've omitted is patently obvious from the summary of the next few episodes; leaving it off from the place where it's actually revealed does nothing but aggravate the reader.
In any case, regardless of the extent to which we want to include spoilers, using rhetorical questions in the summaries is a question of inappropriate tone, not inappropriate content. Kirill Lokshin 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions on how to fix it? --Catout 15:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove all the rhetorical questions? Alternately, just go ahead and recast them as statements (e.g. "But can they uncover the mystery of a zombie that has been terrorizing the town?" → "They then uncover the mystery of a zombie that has been terrorizing the town."). Kirill Lokshin 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They do that at the end of the episode... Hmm... They may 'encounter' them --Catout 20:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're this worried about spoilers then maybe it would be a good idea to make a non-spoiler version, like in List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. I think such an idea is great and will probably use it myself in the future. -- Ned Scott 12:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I gotta agree with Circeus's comments, that table is... ugly. And to add something myself: If you're not going to bother with individual images then you probably shouldn't squeeze the DVD images beside the list. It's not the best way to present the information. (horizontal screen space real-estate, etc). Also, although not a requirement and not apart of my reason to oppose, I am also of the opinion that individual episode screenshots would look better on this list. -- Ned Scott 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since wikipedia does not charge per square meter of its horizontal space, I fail to see the problem...
Article is practicaly identical to the two existing featured lists, one that became a featured list weeks ago. I do not understand the point of this constant bashing about how the table looks etc...
Individual images had been declared an abuse of fair use, there is concensus on this which prompted the dvd cover usage. Lets not redebate.
Wikipedia is always evolving, including our level of standards. Just because some lists used to be considered featured doesn't mean that same format will always be seen in that light.
I dont see a waste of space, dvd covers are aligned with the episodes they are from...
Very well, then let me put it this way. Individual screen shots are very useless as it is very hard to tell whats on them most of the time.
Evolution doesn't happen in a week. List of Planetes episodes became a featured list very very recently. It is good practice to use recent featured lists as an example. And I'd hope wikipedia evolves into the "free" direction. (I actualy dislike using fair use images as they are not free, damn copyrights...)
Using past featured lists as examples, that's 50/50 for DVD-based images vs individual episode screen caps. Although, again, this isn't apart of my opposition. (but to comment on their usefulness, I can look at almost every image in List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and know what episode it's from without seeing any episode text). I find tables and templates all the time that are very wide and chunky, and I try to format them to use their space better. While on some screens these tables look fine, they don't always look so good in others. And if Wikipedia gets used in a different media, such as a paper version, space can become even more important. It's not always necessary, but it's a good thing to keep in mind to use space the best you can. The only reason people put images beside episode entries was because there was a screen shot there. If there's not going to be a screen shot there then you might as well make the list use the full width. Is this necessary? no. But you're asking for it to become a featured list, the best of the best. You must think very critically of your work, and ask yourself what all can be done to best present the information at hand. -- Ned Scott 12:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I am keeping the dvd images where they are as thats what I see as 'best of the best'. I disagree, I cant tell what is going on on the tiny screenshots, let alone the epısode. Now once you watch the epısode it is possible to tell the entier episode based on one picture... I do not think it is wise to target such a sellective audiance. --Catout 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I did some rewording in the intro and I believe its just as good as the similar Featured lists. I think it's neat, concise and useful. - Phorque (talk·contribs) 11:45, 09 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an exemplary list. DVD covers have been used in several other features lists, and when coordinated with the included episodes, they show just as much as picking out one random screenshot would. It is well formatted, and has one feature which I feel is the most important of a good list: it is actually a useful article. Most lists I feel are pretty poor, only existing to link to real articles. This list, and the ones like it, are full, fleshed out pages in their own right. -Goldom(t)(Review) 04:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Randomly selected screenshots would be bad in any article. I would hope people would choose eather a screenshot of an important event in the episode or a screenshot that was uniqe to the episode for identification. (I prefer the latter, myself) -- Ned Scott 06:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To throw out a suggestion, this is what I would consider "less chunky" [1]. Maybe not this exactly, but just to give an idea of what I've been talking about. I feel something like this just looks better, for one. I'm still not a big fan DVD images beside the episode text, but it does have it's good points that I can see. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thinner borders are elegant and I would be more than happy to use them if it didnt break the table as a hole. --Catout 11:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
