Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Supernatural 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.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:03, 22 November 2009.

List of Supernatural episodes

 * Nominator(s): Ophois (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been brought up to FL standards. Ophois (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - FL no longer starts with "The following is a list of episodes ..." anymore. For examples of a more engaging opening sentence, see recently promoted FLs. Also are there any images you can add?— Chris! c / t 01:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What kind of image would you suggest? Ophois (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything pertaining to the show, like images of cast members.— Chris! c / t 01:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would this promo be suitable? If so, I am unable to find it at an official source, so is it still okay to cite it as being from a blog website? Ophois (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also this free image, though it is in real world setting and not in-character.Ophois (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just use the free image. Since in-character images are likely copyrighted, those displaying the actors in real world setting are the only alternative. When you add image, be sure to write alt text. This is now required.— Chris! c / t 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I added the image, and changed the lead. Ophois (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any other issues? Ophois (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

— Chris! c / t 03:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see other series episodes FLs, I believe they need a column that briefly describe the plot
 * The plots are included on the individual season pages. This is a list of the episodes, using the list/sublist template recommended. Ophois (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How are http://www.ezydvd.com and http://www.tvshowsondvd.com reliable sources
 * EzyDVD is a large retailer in Australia, and is opening up store locations. If anything would be reliable source for Region 4 stuff, it would be them. It also has precedence as a RS in other featured articles/lists. More information about it can be found in the article for EzyDVD. Judging by the references used in the article, it is a notable company. TVshowsonDVD has been mentioned by news sources such as USA Today, and is now owned by TV Guide. Ophois (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My comments are resolved, but I am not ready to support yet b/c I am not an expert in these TV lists and would like others take a look first.— Chris! c / t 01:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support — Chris! c / t 05:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - I was initially asked about which images should be used on the page, and in the process I provided additional commentary (personal opinions) about possible improvements to the article on Ophois's talk page. I'm placing them here, per their request (and rightfully so), so that others can see what I'm suggesting and either cross it off their lists or disagree.


 * Well, first off the second image is a non-free image so deciding between a non-free and a free should be easy. :D But, at the same time neither image is really necessary. The page doesn't talk about the actors really. I've never understood why some people feel like they have to have an image there (which, I know wasn't your initial doing, but what someone basically requested at the FAC). That's my onion. FLC doesn't say you have to have an image there to be featured.


 * On some other minor notes, glancing at the page: I'd probably move the viewership numbers behind the airdates. In theory, it's a chronological thing. It gets made (which dictates ep number, writer, director), then it gets aired, and then we get viewership. That's just my thoughts on that. You could also simply the Ep # and Series # columns into a single "Ep #" column that sports two numbers (e.g., 25(3)) as the "series #" is still an "episode number" and the average reader can probably look at two columns and easily understand that you're continue to count the overall number of the episode with its place within that respective seasons. IDK, just a way to be more efficient.
 * Done. Ophois (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm gonna have to undo it. Combining the episode numbers like that screws up the formatting for some reason. Ophois (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In the Nielsen rating stuff, "TV season" can be cut. I recently cut that from Smallville's pages because I realized it's redundant to "Season premiere" and "Season finale". We basically tell the reader when the show premieres and ends, and then follow it up with a column that tells them the same thing again. The same with "Originally aired" in the DVD box. Since it's directly below the other, we don't need to repeat that information, because we literally just stated it. Personally, I would also drop "Ratings". The main problem with that figure is that it's a percentage to a number we don't have. 3.14 million is something the reader can understand, but trying to understand 1.4% of households without knowing how many households were watching TV is kind of hard. If you don't know that number, you might assume that it means 1.4% of ALL households in the US, which isn't true. It's largely irrelevant when trying to understand how well the show did. The viewership is really all you need, and the rankings so we know how it compared to other shows on TV.
 * Done. Ophois (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Other than what I list above, that's pretty much all I see. I'll take a look again later, but the page generally looks pretty good.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work. I looked over it some more. I tweaked the lead a bit, and the only other things I saw was the season finale (for the current season) listed at the bottom and linking names. Unless there is a source that says it's going to be May 2010, we cannot assume that because of previous trends that it will be. Anything can happen to change that. It's probably best to leave it as TBD. The linking issue is one of WP:OVERLINK. Some people think you should link once per section. Personally, I think with a page like this, it's so close together the first instance is all that is needed. If you choose once a section, or just the first instance, it doesn't really matter but I saw Kripke's name linked like 5 times in one season's section. The same with other names. I'd go through and see who's been linked too often.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The tables are part of the list/sublist template. The only way to do unlink Kripke and others is to do so on the season pages. Ophois (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. I've fix the season 4 table. Ophois (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't even realize that they were like that...and they really shouldn't be. One page should never dictate another page like that. Should there be an error on season 2's table, or just a minor correction, you're basically restricting the access to the page. It's like a semi-protection without the formality. The reason I say that is because, Wikipedia is designed so that the average reader can read a page and should they find something that needs correcting all they have to do is click "edit" and go and correct it. By hiding the actual code on another page you restrict access to the page to only those people that understand the transclusion you've created. I understand the "easierness" of doing it that way, but it's basically discriminating against general editors that don't understand why when they click "edit" the text they were looking at doesn't actually show up. It kind of goes against the basic principle of Wikipedia.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can just add hidden text explaining to edit the main season page. Ophois (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but one of the other main problems with these setups is that any vandalism or inaccuracies on one page affects this page as well. I think that there have been a few discussions about transcluding large chunks of prose from multiple articles into a single article, and the general consensus has been that it shouldn't be done.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I fixed it. I also combined the episode numbers into one column. Ophois (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: On quick glance, it looks great, but there should be some note that the seasonal average ratings are Live + 7 averages of all broadcasts of the series from that year including repeats. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  05:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are they? I am unable to find any information about the ratings info from ABC Medianet. Do you know where to find that? Ophois (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is something that I have come to realize over the years (and checked with a calculator). – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But that isn't the number the ranking is based on, and if the individual numbers we have are the overnight estimates and not the official numbers then you're going to be wrong.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay, allow me to explain. I am going to be speaking in terms of total viewers, i.e. ignoring 18-49.  These days, the most common numbers that are being tracked are "Live + SD" and "Live + 7".  Live + S(ame) D(ay) counts the number of viewers who watched a given program live or recorded it and watched it before 3 a.m. on the same "night".  Live + 7 tracks those who watched a program live or recorded it and watched it within a week.  The morning after primetime shows air, at close to 9 a.m. Pacific time, preliminary Live + SD ratings become available.  A few hours later, at around 2 p.m. on the day after a show airs, its final Live + SD ratings are released.  These account for overruns (sometimes you get networks bleeding shows over the hour mark, so these finals adjust for that), some areas not airing the program (occasianally, stations opt for local programming instead of what is being broadcast in the rest of the country), etc.  These finals show up again in the weekly rankings, which come out on Tuesdays.  On the Monday two weeks after the week of broadcast, the Live + 7 ratings are released (but these are not as publicly available as Live + SD).  Also on Tuesdays, seasonal average rankings are released.  These use numbers called "Most Current" ratings, which are a mix of "Live + SD" and "Live + 7", i.e. where Live + 7 numbers are available, they are factored in; otherwise, Live + SD are used, further i.e. this average contains Live + 7 numbers except for the last two episodes, for which Live + SD are used.  Seasonal averages cound great, right?  Yes, they do, except for one thing: they include ratings for repeats that are broadcast throughout the season.  As some shows play several repeats, their averages fall, while other shows that do not play repeats seem better by comparison, skewing all ranking systems and making the term "seasonal average" a bit misleading, especially on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia mostly uses Live + SD numbers for individual episodes, but Most Current or Live + 7 including repeats for season averages.  Even without plugging all of the numbers into their calculator, someone might look at the season 1 average (3.81 million) and then look at the individual ratings for season 1 and see that only four of the numbers fall below the average.  Plugging the available numbers in, you find that the average for new episodes that season was actually 4.52 million.  Add the fact that DVR ratings were not even tracked until 2007 because they were not a big deal before then and everything gets more confusing.  So, I suggest either a brief note that averages include reruns or simply calculate new averages.  They are easily verifiable, as anyone can plug them into their calculators.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  05:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a note. Ophois (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what LIVE+SD and LIVE+7 means Demon. The fact remains is that not every overnight figure reflects that. It reflects what they've managed to acquire in data when they publish the article. Sometimes that's Live+SD, and sometimes that isn't. If you have Live+SD numbers for each individual episode, but the season average that you have a source for is really Live+7, then averaging the individual numbers will not be reflective of the actual average. Even if you take into account that the season averages include repeats (and that depends on what source your using, because I've seen season averages differ greatly because of the source reporting them), it's still not an accurate representation of how the show compares to others, because you'd have to find a source that does everything you want perfectly.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ophois has done a great job with this "article". All individual episode numbers on the page are final Live + SD, with the exception of the current season.  You say that not every seasonal average includes repeats, but all of the ones that ABC Medianet uses include repeats and that is the source that we are using.  I agree that whatever we use is "still not an accurate representation of how the show compares to others, because you'd have to find a source that does everything you want perfectly", but I have no problem dropping the ranking column or adding a note.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a note to that top of the episode section about viewers. Is it okay? I added a note to the seasonal ratings about reruns. Do you want me to do the same for ranking? Ophois (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it comes from the same source, let's up the reader can understand that the same note applies. As for the "not every source", I'm referring to when places like the Hollywood Reporter, and other news organizations report these figures. I've seen discrepancies in them compared to the original ABC Medianet reportings (which apparently don't find their way to the internet archive all that much, so when the link dies you have find a new source). I think that the news orgs. tend to go straight to Neilsen if they can (and I've seen rankings different because of that...I think it was either season 6 or 7 of Smallville that jumped 4 or 5 rankings up because of the numbers the new source was using after the Medianet link died). I think it's best to just do the note, because you're comparing it to other shows, and in fairness those other shows also have their repeats included as well.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Anyway, all of my original issues were resolved, so I support this page for FLC.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)
 * I had to do some digging with the Wayback Machine, but I managed to find more info on the Region 4 releases, and added them to the table. Does it look okay? Ω  pho  is  23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also updated the Blu-ray section, as I just learned that Blu-ray regions are completely different than DVD's. Ω  pho  is  23:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments: Excellent job! Some comments:
 * On the topic of the main image, if you look at List of Numb3rs episodes has its title card — a free use image — as it's illustrating image. This can work for this list, too. Though the blood-splatter title card from season 5 would not work, something like this falls under the banner of "contains just simple geometric shapes or letters" and can be considered free use. I'd suggest using something like that.
 * Done by another user. Ω  pho  is  12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 — wikilink to MSN.
 * Done. Ω  pho  is  12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 2 — wikilink to USA Today
 * Done. Ω  pho  is  12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 3 — ew.com is the same as Entertainment Weekly, so it'd be best just to use that as the pub.
 * Done. Ω  pho  is  12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 76 — any reason why the second half of the title is crossed out?
 * That is how the article's title is formatted. Ω  pho  is  12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Throughout, wikilink to EzyDVD, TVShowsOnDVD.com, Amazon.com.
 * Done. Ω  pho  is  12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You switch from 09-11-01 to November 01, 2009, a lot throughout. Please stick to one format.
 * Working on it. Ω  pho  is  12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Ω  pho  is  13:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 82 — wikilink to TV Guide
 * Done. Ω  pho  is  12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fix up ref 86 — looks like a bare URL.
 * Working on it. Ω  pho  is  12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Ω  pho  is  13:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's all.  The Flash  {talk} 01:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: Comments and issues resolved now, I believe this list meets FL criteria.  The Flash  {talk} 14:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a dead link; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ω  pho  is  07:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Just one thing: in the sentence, "The brothers first attempt to hunt down Azazel—the demon responsible for their mother's death—and then Lilith—who holds the contract for Dean's soul and attempts to free Lucifer.", should there not be am em dash between "soul" and "and"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedemonhog (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lilith is the one trying to free Lucifer, not the Winchesters. She holds Dean's contract in season 3 and frees Lucifer in season 4. Ω  pho  is  19:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.