Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of programs broadcast by Fox/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 NapHit 17:21, 21 October 2012.

List of programs broadcast by Fox

 * Nominator(s): TBrandley 02:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria. Though an unsual topic (there are no FLs of this kind), I find it interpreting, and hope you enjoy read it. Thank you in advance. Cheers, TBrandley 02:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support – All the issues I listed have been resolved. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support at this point. Bruce Campbell (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose
 * I would prefer tables to be used instead of bulleted lists, as I think they would be more useful to the reader. For example you could have columns of Title, Years broadcast, Type of show.
 * I don't see a problem with the current state of it. TBrandley 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently the reader is receiving hardly any information about the programs. I'm not sure in the current format, this list is the best wikipedia has to offer. NapHit (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Concerned that large parts of the article are not referenced, specifically the Currently broadcast section.
 * See above. It is a pain to reference every show, the article link itself proves its existence and run. TBrandley 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be a pain but its necessary. Unless those two general refs cover every item in the list then you will have to source individual programs. Wikipedia can't be used as a reference unto itself, specifically because anyone can edit it therefore the information has the potential to be wrong. As every other list that comes through here is expected to be properly referenced, there is no reason why should make an exception because its a pain to reference. NapHit (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. See List of X-Files episodes. None of the episode titles are referenced, as are all other episode list FLs. Those general references cover former programs. For currently broadcast, I could reference to the official Fox site, however. TBrandley 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely correct, ref 1 in that list provides all episode titles, so despite the fact they are not directly referenced, they are in effect referenced. The problem here is that those general refs do not cover every item in this list, none of the sports programs are referenced for instance. What proof do I have that Fox only broadcasts certain Formula One races? This is currently a big problem, all programs that started or have new episodes after those general refs were published, will need to be referenced. I still also think tables should be utilised to provide the reader with more info. This list should be able to stand alone and I would expect more info on each program from wikipedia's best work. NapHit (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

NapHit (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as there been a lot of edit-warring and discussion over the content of the article recently, it fails criteria 6.
 * See above. The issue is now (at least I think) resolved, per consensus on the article's talk page. TBrandley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I am content to Support now.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   03:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose some quick comments.


 * "which lead to two future spin-offs Millennium and The Lone Gunmen" surely all spin-offs occur after the original? So no need for future.
 * Done. TBrandley 16:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1990–1992 or 1990–91? Be consistent.
 * For shows that only went for one year, I use the second method, but, to clarify, I used the first one if it went longer. Also, "1999-2000" is like that cause it is a new century. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your logic. Fine, cross-century date ranges do that, but for other year ranges, just two digits for the second year are required. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:YEAR. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Are these dates including re-runs?
 * No. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should note that, because when I checked some of the articles on the shows, the dates you quoted here included re-runs. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Good job. — ΛΧΣ  21™  23:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from  Harrias  talk
 * "As of October 2012, Fox maintains 19.5 hours of programming per week." This is followed by ref #3, which is a newspaper article from 1992. I'm somewhat stumped as to how a 1992 article can support Fox's current schedule.
 * Similarly, a 1992 reference can not really be used to say that the "The Simpsons is one of Fox's most popular shows..", only that "The Simpsons was one of Fox's most popular shows.."
 * Following on from that, your general references are from 1996 and 2007: what is the source for the parts of the main list that are more recent than this? You can't rely on references in other articles, information in this list needs to be referenced in this list.
 * Oppose I understand that some of these questions have been asked already, and I have read the answers to those questions, but I'm not satisfied by them. For that reason, I have to oppose this list.  Harrias  talk 06:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * How about talk-shows and news? Also, the list is heavily lacking on references. Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It has all the programs. The ones you are talking about are local programs, on local stations, not the full channel. It has all of them. TBrandley 19:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, regretfully. The main issue I have is the fact that the information is not in tables. There is some inconsistency in the years. For example, "2001–2003" and "2004–05", in which the latter is correct. Zac (talk &middot; contribs) 16:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I withdraw this nomination, while I work on the list, with above issues raised. I well certainly be bringing this list back to FLC soon, though. TBrandley 16:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.