Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Toradora! 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 not promoted by Dabomb87 00:53, 11 November 2009.

List of Toradora! episodes

 * Nominator(s): Extremepro (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel this article has met the criteria for featured list. Extremepro (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The summaries still need a major copyediting, especially the latter half where the summaries are twice as long or longer than the average length of the summaries from the earlier episodes.--  十  八  05:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tried to expand the length of the earlier summaries. Extremepro (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant. The latter summaries are far too long.--  十  八  01:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do agree with Juhachi. For example, the final two episode summaries need to be trimmed by at least half. All other summaries must then keep to about that length. As soon as that's done, I can begin copyediting. Arsonal (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought recommended length for episode summaries were between 100-200 words with 150 words as a good average. Extremepro (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The length of episode summaries is related to the complexity of a story. Considering that Toradora! is a slice of life story, a summary of more than 4 to 5 lines (with a maximum of 6) in 1280 screen resolution should rarely occur. One good example is List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes. Regardless, episode 24 boasts an excessive 293 words. Arsonal (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reduced episode summary lengths as much as I could. Extremepro (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment According to the link checker, there is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Deadlink fixed. Extremepro (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Are those the official translations for the theme songs? If not, you should use Nihongo3 template. Except the theme song Orange, I'm pretty sure they meant Orange. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They are official translations. Extremepro (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments I will copyedit the summaries shortly. In the meantime, there are some immediate issues. Arsonal (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to find a web citation for the theme songs?
 * Nope. The websites that do mention the theme songs are not RS. Extremepro (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Be careful when using Google Translate or an online romanization tool as they do a poor job in romanizing Kanji names. I would encourage you to double check the Romaji of production credits. For example, the animation director for episode 1 is Masayoshi Tanaka (田中将賀), not Masahiro Tanaka Kaya, and the screenwriter is Mari Okada (岡田麿里), not Rii Okada. Double check with Anime News Network's people encyclopedia on the Romaji.
 * Changed Masahiro Tanaka Kaya --> Masayoshi Tanaka and Rii Okada --> Mari Okada. Don't know of a good romanizer. Extremepro (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Might need to address this issue another way. As it stands, the list is giving incorrect information. I would not endorse the nomination in its current state. Arsonal (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If all production credits come from one page, it is excessive to use a repeated inline citation for the mention of every single credited crew member. A better option would be to use the inline citation at the column header.
 * Placed reference in column header. Extremepro (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The section lead on DVD releases mentions that all DVDs contain three episodes, but the first volume in the table lists four episodes.
 * Clarified in prose. Extremepro (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is misleading to merge the "Discs" column in the DVD release table. It makes the reader think all volumes are compiled into a single disc. The same goes for the "Episodes" column.
 * Fixed. Extremepro (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * has reverted the table to its merged state saying it is "massively repetitive". I think we should set a standard for this list and other lists with DVD releases with repeated info. Extremepro (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is in no way misleading. Saying something like "it makes them think one thing" is just your opinion. We're all humans, we can obviously understand simple table formatting. Look over featured lists that contain repetitive information; the rows are merged to reduce redundancy, and make the information flow better.--  十  八  02:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I still disagree. It is not my opinion. Merging the cells removes a certain functionality from the table. Specifically, if one were to just look at the "Discs" and "Episodes" columns, both will add up to the total number of discs and episodes that have been produced. For example, look at List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes. If a box set is eventually released, the final row acts as a summation of all the previous rows. It then reads like an Excel document. Arsonal (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which way (for want of a better word) is better so I'm requesting a third opinion. Extremepro (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Airbender example seems very specific, and still is skewed towards a table which separates the individual numbers for no good reason; readers do not need to be told 7 times in a row that a volume contains 3 episodes if once will suffice, especially since a concept of summing the episode numbers is not one of the points of the table. A halfway compromise I'd be willing to employ, however, is the addition of the word 'each' after the numerals.--  十  八  07:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to follow the compromise. My question is: Should this be the standard for all DVD release list that contain repeated fields? Extremepro (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why does this table even exists and the information incorporated into the lead section like all other anime FL? Recent examples include Bleach season 10, One Piece season 5, and Oh My Goddess!. Given how terse the information is, it seems out of place to put it into its own section with a less than helpful table. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I see no point in even having the table at all. The information can be put in the lead in a concise prose form, same as with other featured lists. There really isn't much value in listing the full list of volumes and dates just to note the disc count. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree as well, though I don't like the idea of creating more unwritten "standards". I'd like to say it more gererally: Follow WP:LEAD and WP:LIST. If and only if adequately discussing the release history in the lead would imbalance the lead as a whole, create a release section. If the information presented in table form shows a lot of redundancy, then that suggests that the information it contains can easily be said in prose form. (A "Discs" column containing only "1"s for example translates nicely into the words "each containing one disc".)  Good raise  16:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Added "each" after the number in the merged columns per the compromise above. Extremepro (talk) 06:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from —Farix (t &#124; c)
 * Some episode summaries appear to be too long for the general simplicity of these episodes. This isn't a complicated series after all, so episodes summaries should range between 100 to 150 words or so.
 * Episode summaries are inconsistent in length. There shouldn't be any summaries that are around 120 word in length and another that is over 190 words. This decreases the visual appeal of the list. The only exceptions it this are recap episodes.
 * The two comments above contradict each other. "episodes summaries should range between 100 to 150 words or so" and "there shouldn't be any summaries that are around 120 word in length and another that is over 190 words." Please clarify. Extremepro (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The director field is far too narrow causing some names to wrap. Director names should never wrap, especially when there is more than one episode director. It make it far more difficult to distinguish who from who.
 * Expanded director field. Extremepro (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * DVD release information should be incorporated into the lead like in other anime episode FLs. There is simply too little information to place this into its own section with a table doesn't add anything.
 * Incorporated info into lead. Does this mean the whole DVD release section is to be deleted? Extremepro (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If any episodes ranked into the top 10, it should be noted in the lead.
 * None of the episodes were ranked. Extremepro (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "The 25-episode Toradora! animated television series was based..." This is the tense is wrong. It should be in present tense instead of past tense.
 * Used present tense. Extremepro (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead does not to mention the country of origin.
 * Mentioned. Extremepro (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Side note here - Toradora! is an anime series and should be properly called such, not refereed to as if it were a American cartoon. Anime is a global enough word with a specific meaning that it should be used. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Used "The 25-episode Toradora! Japanese anime". Extremepro (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Added the word television because it is a TV series to distinguish it from OVA series. 陣 内 Jinnai 16:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Have the reviewers been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't think they have been. Extremepro (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then ask them to revisit. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 4 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.