Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of characters in South Park/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 01:29, 24 February 2010.

List of characters in South Park

 * Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the FL criteria. Nergaal (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think role column should be sortable and incomplete sentences shouldn't have periods. Image also lacks alt text.— Chris! c / t 04:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed both the sorbability and the punctuation. Nergaal (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the image of characters meets WP:FUC. Anyone else have opinions on it? In any case, it'll need a much stronger fair-use rationale, not the same one used for South Park. Mm40 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is "To show the four main characters of the show (present in the foreground), together with a large portion of the characters in South Park." sufficient? Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – eh, this isn't how I normally prefer character lists (see List of Naruto characters, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII for two examples). Where is the creation/conception/development information on the cast and the cast's overall reception? — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 07:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, never mind, saw the sublists. Still don't like it though. Text entries are still better than the tables (have a paragraph or two for the sections with sublists that describes generally the characters in the list), and my point on the lack of overall conception/reception information still stands. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 10:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Th difference is that this list has way more than 20 characters who are important for the series. There are actually almost 60 of them, and having even a short paragraph on each would make this a humongous article. Nergaal (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a short paragraph on all of them; it's a short paragraph on what the general content of the list is. That's far better than having a table per section, and still, the list needs conception/reception information. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 03:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the conception section that I have added sufficient? Nergaal (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks okay, although I'd recommend others to evaluate whether it's comprehensive or not. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 02:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Excuse my inexperience but there are some things I'm questioning. The Alt Text needs to be more generic, blind users would not know who Kenny is. The tables don't seem to be the way to go, even if the list is extremely long. Also the information seems incomplete since Kevin McCormick and Stephen Stotch are missing their voice actors. The separation seems a bit in-universe though such as "South Park Elementary". Some characters seem to be irrelevant such as Mr. Kitty. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The two characters are not important enough for anybody (I have seriously looked for a long time) to declare their voice actors; almost all of the male voices are done by the two creators, Stone and Parker, but putting that in would be wp:or; I was tempted to remove them, but for the sake of consistency in the families section I have kept them in. Mr. Kitty is actually relevant in several episodes. Nergaal (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Creation section. "though he is portrayed to give the impression that the show still utilizes its original technique" Who's he? Also I still feel that the list still needs re-arranging and the tables need to be removed. If I had to suggest, the sections should be made so its "Protagonists or Main Characters" and "Other characters" with level 3 headers for "Students at South Park Elementary", "Staff at South Park Elementary", and "Others"; I suggest the others to contain the families and the supporting cast which are summarized in a paragraph. This would also solve the two characters missing voice actors. I'm inexperienced though and the character lists I've worked on were from anime and video games only. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 09:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I missed this reply somehow. I fixed the "portrayed" part. As for tables vs paragraphs, I still believe tables are better: with so many characters that are actually notable (I think I remover about half how many entries are now for characters that don't make multiple appearances throughout the seasons), it would become just an enumeration of characters with very repetitive prose (four ppl do almost all voices), and with awkward prose to list all the initial appearances. As for unknown voices, four of them doesn't sound too much to appear problematic to me. Nergaal (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I just noticed that some episode names aren't italicized. They should be.— Chris! c / t 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Episode names are not in italics but are enclosed in quotation marks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, then the episode names in the prose should not be italicized. They are inconsistent.— Chris! c / t 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Think I fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Closing note I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, there is no consensus to promote and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Also, there seems to be unresolved issues regarding the format of the list that I think would benefit from a centralized discussion or peer review. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of the backlog. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 5 or 6 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.