Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Deadwood episodes/Archive 1

List of Deadwood episodes
After expanding the lead, summaries and fair use rationale for each episode I believe this article is a potential featured list. In line with critera it is useful, well laid out in accordance with other featured lists and complete. Qjuad 02:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Oh, yeah. Self nom and support Qjuad 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I like it. I like being able to randomly pick any image and find a fair use rationale for it. I haven't gone through every image, but I've clicked about 10 of them and they had fair use rationales, so I was pleased (it's something that's easily overlooked). But, I didn't find any for the DVD covers. They need them just like the screenshots do. Since those are copyrighted I like all the plot summaries kept to a decent size. The individual episodes seem nothing more than expanded plots, but that doesn't matter here. Also, the last paragraph, that talks about Paramount having ownership of Region 2 DVDs and that being the reason why the extra information from Region 1 isn't on them, that needs a source. It comes across as original research because it appears to be drawing conclusions.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the offending paragraph (outside of a forum post from a cast member, there is no reliable source for it) and updated the fair use rationale for the DVD covers. Qjuad 03:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - I give the article my support. The lead is pretty much straight forward and to the point. I think the only thing that I might tweak would be the line about its pilot. Every show's pilot is called "pilot"; I think it would be fine to just say "The show first aired on ..... in the US". Unless it first aired as a movie, like The Incredible Hulk (1978 TV series) where the pilot was really a 2 hour made-for-TV movie originally, then i don't think it needs mentioning. Other than that, great job.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose excessive fair use images. It is entirely possible to have a Featured List without images for very single episode (e.g. List of Dad's Army episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes). Tom pw (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to object, because it's also possible to have one that has an image for every episode. See List of South Park episodes.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also object; many other featured articles, including the aformentioned List of South Park episodes and List of The Sopranos episodes have images. Qjuad 05:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Qjuad is right. Also, your comparison of this to The Simpsons is inappropriate—it has a separate article for each season, and those have screenshots like this and many other lists of episodes. Cliff smith 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support just as with the List of The Sopranos episodes page which is now Featured Article status, Qjuad has done an excellent job in shaping up and improving the article to FA standards. I give my support fully. Sfufan2005 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support per Sfufan; just like back at the LOE for The Sopranos, yet another job well done. Cliff smith 03:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support This article already does all the things I usually request when I object. Jay32183 02:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: Great job! -- Underneath-it-All 22:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per excessive use of fair use images. Simpsons and South Park are featured lists just because they came way before WP got serious about fair use. There is no need to have more such "offenders". Renata 00:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems you are proceeding with a one person vendetta of opposing any lists of television shows, especially those that have images or colors. But I don't see you bringing the fight to the very small list of featured television shows that are in opposition of your opinion. But that is neither here nor there, as this is a discussion about this list. Every image has a fair use rationale, and there isn't even a remote opportunity to get "free images" for such things as they are screencaptures of episodes. Since this particular list has little synopses of each episode it can be nice to have an image to illustrate the show. If someone has never seen the show (like myself) then it is beneficial to know what it looks like. Since you cannot get "free images" for such a thing, then saying "oppose on the grounds of too many fair use images" should really read "oppose because it has images".   BIGNOLE    (Contact me) 00:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks. Tom pw (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The objection is based on a gross misinterpretation of FUC#3. The limiting of fair use images does not mean there cannot be more than a certain number, it's there can't be multiple unfree images serving the same purpose. Each episode is unique, therefore each image serves a different purpose. Renata has made this objection before, and it has been ignored before. Jay32183 00:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No-one's objections ever get "ignored", and excessive use of fair use images hasbeen a reason to fail a candidate for FL. Further, please refrain from personal attacks. Tom pw
 * Such use of fair use images not only violates WP:FUC #3 & #8, but also Wikimedia Foundation resolution that says: Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to ... complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. Having 50 fair use images on a page is nowhere near "narrow limits." Renata 12:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (#8) is a subjective call. If many editors believe that the use of these "50 fair use" do contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text, then there is nothing wrong. Wikipedia does not provide a set limit to fair use images in an article, especially when dealing with a list of episodes article. Since Wiki doesn't say, "oh you can have 3 FU images, but not 5, maybe you can have 4", then (#3) is also a subjective call. It's based on what the article is illustrating, and how easily one could come across free images for that article. Free images for a television article are probably 100% impossible, unless the owners decide they dont' want the show anymore and released it into the public domain.   BIGNOLE    (Contact me) 12:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My sentiments echo both Jay and Bignole. Qjuad 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Unindent). Yes, each episode is unique, and each image's inclusion is definately be justified in an article on the relevant episode. However, we are dealinf with the *list* of episodes. WP:FUC #8 states "The material must contribute significantly to the article". As there are thirty-six such images, none of them can be held to contribute significantly to the list. Further, #3 states "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". It is possible to have a list of television episodes without screenshots, and still be a featured list. Tom pw (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Once you recognize the case as unique you can't base your argument on a different case. Just because one list doesn't need image does not mean this is the same case. If you have a problem with any particular image though, please bring it up. There is no absolute number that cannot be exceeded though. Jay32183
 * Yes, its true that a list of television episodes can be featured without images; but it is not necessary. Each image highlights an episode and a key moment therein (I honestly don't see how "none of them can be held to contribute"). Until the foundation decrees that television images should not be used, I don't see why they should be removed at all. Qjuad 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I was hardly personally attacking Renata, I was making a personal observation based on their recent edits to other lists of articles and their comments on another users page. I didn't call them a name, nor did I attack their conviction or character. It's about subjectiveness. Saying it doesn't "significantly contribute to an article", is the same as saying it just violates this guideline, or it's unencyclopedic, or not notable. The arguments don't even make sense. Citing FUC, and then saying there are too many FU images, is not the same thing. FUC is the criteria for an image to be classified as fair use, not the criteria for how many images you can have. Almost all of the images are used on both the list page and the individual episode pages. Those that aren't on both are not because the individual episode pages do not exist (here's to praying that never do, most indy ep pages don't support themselves as articles). What constitutes "significant contribution to the article"? According to the bullet, it must "identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text". I don't see too many images that don't illustrate what the little synopses are saying. But I haven't seen the show so I can't verify every single image with the plot, but some are rather obvious. It's a subjective call on whether to include the images or not. If there is a summary of the plots, it may be good to provide an illustration of that, for better clarification. Again, it's my contention that the number of fair use images is a subjective call based on the article.   BIGNOLE    (Contact me) 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Televisions are rarely, if ever, notable enough to be able to support their own article without being nothing more than plots and trivia. Pilot episodes could probably do it, 100th episodes could probably do it, series finale episodes could probably do it, but generally not your run-of-the-mill episode. Any random episode from any series probably could not even remotely defend an AfD, it's just way too time consuming to do one for every episode that deserves it. Aquaman (TV program), for example, is something that a fellow editor and I worked on. You don't know how hard it was just to get relevant information for that 1 show, and it was a show that was never picked up, and had a ton of publicity. Episode 17 of Show X isn't going to have too much publicity, other than a trailer for the regular viewers, unless there is something special about it.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Only easy if you alert every editor that loves this pages of plots and trivia. Not if you find unbiased editors that understand WP:TRIV and not being indiscriminate collection of information. I'm kind of curious as to how easily it would be to defend the existence of an episode article (which, per wikiproject television's centralized discussion is supposed to be a last move), that is nothing more than a blow-by-blow of the episode (I see almost no reason why a 22/42 min episode needs a plot the size of, or sometimes larger then that of a feature length movie), and a plagarism of trivia from IMDb.com. If you've defended the existence of countless episodes, then I say, how many have you promoted to FA stats. Don't say it can't be done, because I know it can. We end up defending the existence of episode articles under the guise that we will get them in a more appropriate format, yet we never do, and they sit there with nothing more than plots that run the length of the show itself, because there is not that much notable information to be added to the article.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Well done!  Everything looks terrific! RyguyMN 04:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, looks good to me.-- Wizardman 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, I find the objections given unconvincing. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 15:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose on grounds that have nothing to with fair use images. The list does not constitute a "group of existing articles", as demanded by WP:WIAFL 1a, because a lot of the episodes do not have articles. Deadwood episodes are clearly notable enough to have their own articles (many do, and are linked to from this list), so this list cannot qualify as "set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the set's members are not notable enough to have individual articles". Tom pw (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And what of the list of Dad's army episodes? None of them have individual articles and yet that is a featured list. Qjuad 01:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I really doubt the individual episodes are notable enough to stand on their own as articles. The current episode articles fail the expectations of WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT #7. Jay32183 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 21 out of 36 episodes have articles of their own, so it seems they *are* notable enough to have their own articles. I cannot see how some episodes could be notable but not others. For example, A Lie Agreed Upon, Part 1 exsists, but not A Lie Agreed Upon, Part 2. (The standard of the articles doesn't affect this list's nomination). Tom pw (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was actually making the claim that none of the episodes are notable enough for their own articles. If there aren't reliable sources for real world context, then the episode isn't notable. Jay32183 22:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In which case, shouldn't they be AFD'd? Tom pw (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the clear points on the WP:Episiode page is that you shouldn't do mass AfDs. It's in the "Dealing with problem articles. It says to merge them in with another page (e.g. either the show, the list of episodes, or the seasonal pages...depending on what the show has available, and what is best for the episode article). AfDs take a lot of time, and we would do nothing but create more backlog for hundreds of articles that should not have been created in the first place.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you PROD one of the articles the closing admins won't have a problem. A problem won't arise until you run into a user who insists that the no AFD recommendation in WP:EPISODE means the articles can't be deleted. It actually says AFDs should be avoided because of the burden it would create. If you felt an AFD were necessary it would not be speedy kept. Jay32183 23:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * So, is this list supposed to be "a group of existing articles" or "a set of items that ... are not notable enough to have individual articles"? At the moment, it's isn't either. Tom pw (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it should have started out as a set of items, and when enough notable information can be found for one of those items then it can become an article. Not every episodes deserves to be an article, but I'm sure some do, and there is no FL requirement that states that you MUST have either all items wikilinked to their own article, or none linked at all. Even a group of existing articles is technically a set of items, but, it should fit #1a(3), because it is a "complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the set's members are not notable enough to have individual articles.". The unfortunate fact is that even though they are not notable enough to have individual articles, that didn't stop their creation. Now, as you pointed out on the Featured List criteria talk page, any problems with daughter articles are not reflected on the mother article. The fact that these indy-ep articles are not notable is irrelevant to this article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually very easy to defend episode pages, I've defended oodles. Matthew 08:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, colours should be changed to ones that blend with Wikipedia's design (Wikipedia errs on the side of brightness) - trying to imitate DVD colours is.. silly. Preferably the LOE should use episode list as well. Matthew 08:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this request. You are opposing because you don't like the DVD colors? There are plenty of other examples of LOE having colors in their article. I'm curious as to where the MOS is that says you shouldn't.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)