Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends/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 Giants2008 17:17, 22 December 2009.

List of awards and nominations received by Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends

 * Nominator(s):  The Flash  {talk} 19:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria. All sources are reliable, every award is referenced, it doesn't come off as a skittlepedia, the prose is sufficient, and it covers all aspects of the topic in a neutral and clear manner. Any concerns will be taken care of as swiftly as I can. Thanks,  The Flash  {talk} 19:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Seems good to me, no dealbreakers I can see. treelo  radda  09:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I am still a bit concerned about the red links (delinking them would have no effect on this concern). This article is listing awards and nominations (nominees) that this show and various cast and crew have received so those awards and nominees should have minimal red links. However, this is not a big enough concern for me not to support this list for FL. Ideally, in the near future, some additional articles/stubs can be created for these red links.—NMajdan &bull;talk 16:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from KV5
 * "it was nominated for 33 television and animation industry awards and has won 16 of them" - verbs don't agree. Either it was nominated for 33 television and animation industry awards and won 16 of them or it has been nominated for 33 television and animation industry awards and has won 16 of them. The former would be best because it agrees with the rest of the paragraph.
 * done  The Flash  {talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "It received 20 Annie Award nominations, including Best Animated Television Production in 2006, of which it won five" - 20 and five are comparable quantities, so twenty... five or 20... 5.
 * done  The Flash  {talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "one of the imaginary friend main characters from the series" - this wording seems confusing to me.
 * done  The Flash  {talk} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sortability would benefit this list per criterion 4. Once you add sortability, note that all occurrences of a term or name should be linked, because table rows need to be able to stand independently per WP:LINK.
 * What?  The Flash  {talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody put in sortability, but the "nominee" column doesn't sort correctly. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How can I fix it?  The Flash  {talk} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The nominee columns are not worth sorting since there are cells with multiple animators, so I just made them unsortable. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a kludge until I figured how to prevent the name column being sortable, nice of you to fix it. treelo  radda  01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The table uses colors without accompanying symbols. This needs to be changed per WP:COLOR and WP:ACCESS.
 * No clue what you're talking about. Nor do I see the need to add unneeded symbols/legends to a simple table because it has colors.  The Flash  {talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * KV5, the color is accompanied by words ("won" and "nominated"), so blind readers are not missing anything here, I think. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, so that is what KV5 was referring to.  The Flash  {talk} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is indeed what I was referring to, but the text itself was never enough on any prior list I nominated, Dabomb. Has something changed? KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see how the text isn't enough. treelo  radda  01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (to KV5) Not quite. The circumstances under which color is used are different from other lists. For example, 2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings needs symbols because blind readers cannot determine, say, which teams were selected for BCS National Championship Game (only the blue color indicates that information), whereas the green and red in this list complement existing information; in fact, blind readers are not affected by the presence of the color at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still put off by the use of red and green. MOS:COLOR says "try to choose colors that are unambiguous (such as maroon and teal) when viewed by a person with red-green color blindness". KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 02:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That might be a good topic of discussion on WT:FLC, since a whole lot of our Featured lists use those colors. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * True, though I don't think it's nearly as big of an issue when there are symbols. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 02:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a template, colors can not be changed for them. And, again, "symbols" would be utterly useless and complicated. What more needs to be said then "Nominated" means "Nominated" and "Won" means "Won"?  The Flash  {talk} 20:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not refer to attempts to help visually impaired readers of Wikipedia as "useless". WP:ACCESS has an important purpose. As for the colors, just because it's a template doesn't mean anything. What that template does can easily be replicated by simply typing "Won" or "Nominated" and changing the background color of the cell. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the intent which is pointless, it's the rationale for the change itself which is pointless. The cell colours are for making pretty only, even if someone with deuteranopia happens upon it it'll still read "won" and "nominated". I know that if the cell colours are differed slightly so there is a marked difference to colour blind readers it won't improve readability for them anymore than if they were still green and pink. Anyway, the intent is noble, just not required as it doesn't affect meaning directly if the colours can't be interpreted as it's only a visual aid in essence. treelo  <sub style="color:#D2CDC6;">radda  21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * KV5, I am not suggesting that something to help visually impaired readers of Wikipedia; I am simply saying that "Won" and "Nominated" are completely sufficient and adding a table to say that "Won" means "Won" is, essentially, useless, and would not help their understanding.  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also see where Nmajdan is coming from on the redlinks and would like to see some more of them become blue (even if it's just simple stubs) before I support.
 * I do not see the need to do so at all, because there is no information on these people, despite the fact that they were nominated for an award (WP:NOTABLE anybody?)  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If they aren't notable, then perhaps they shouldn't be linked? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A previous reviewer asked for it, but I still do not see the point in them. Shall I remove them?  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would prefer to see nominees who are not notable enough to have an article de-linked. Also, please check to make sure all of your blue links go to the right locations – Mike Moon and Ed Baker link to unrelated articles. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 01:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If they go somewhere else, it's highly probable the persons referred to in the list aren't notable enough for an article which brings us back to the redlink issue some FLC reviewers are really picky about. I'd go without if it helps the article look better. treelo  <sub style="color:#D2CDC6;">radda  01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think being a nominee (and especially a winner) for a major industry award would make one notable. A lot of the red links share a cell with people who do have articles. So its hard to say that one is notable while the other isn't.—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 13:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nmajdan, keep in mind that, as I mentioned above, a lot of those blue links are pointing at the wrong people. However, I do agree with you on this, which is why I mentioned it, but in a source search for some cherry-picked names, I didn't find anything. Not to say that nothing is out there, just that I can't find it. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 13:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delinked false links. Also, I agree that most do not meet notability, which is why I'm smitten on not creating and them and leaning on removing them, if nominators agree.  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 20:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the thing. I do think these individuals are notable. One of the criteria under WP:CREATIVE is "The person's work has won significant critical attention." I believe being nominated for your industry's highest achievement satisfies this criteria.—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 21:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kind of what I was hinting at earlier, but didn't know where the guideline was... KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try and get to creating a few of them soon, but, seriously, there's nothing known about them besides they won/were nominated for an award.  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've created Shannon Tindle, will try and create more soon.  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope these comments help. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 00:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments –
 * An inconsistency in episode titles exists. In the lead, "Good Wilt Hunting" is ended by a question mark, but is not in the tables. Don't know which one is correct, but it should be made consistent one way or the other.
 * done.  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Reference 15 requires an access date.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 21:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * done.  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.