Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of 30 Rock episodes/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by NapHit 14:32, 29 October 2012.

List of 30 Rock episodes

 * Notified: WikiProject Television

I am nominating this for featured list removal as it does not met numerous FL criteria.


 * Image is needed
 * Unlink television series per WP:OVERLINK
 * "30 Rock, a situation comedy television series, premiered on October 11, 2006 in the United States on NBC" → "30 Rock is an American comedy television series that premiered on NBC in the United States on October 11, 2006"
 * Then, NBC should be changed to "the National Broadcasting Company (NBC)" in its first mention per MOS:ACRO
 * "2007–2008" remove "20" from "2008", doesn't met WP:YEAR
 * "which premiered on January 12, 2012."
 * The lede is very small, a should be expanded upon, to a preferred three paragraphs with useful details. One sentence paragraph aren't expeactable for FL status.
 * Cleanup and copyedits need for lede
 * "NBC Universal" shouldn't be spaced
 * "Many episodes are named after lines in them ("Everything Sunny All the Time Always", "Emanuelle Goes to Dinosaur Land") that have little relation to their plot." no reference, original research, much stuff like that, etc.
 * Ensure table complies with WP:ACCESS for MOS:DTT i.e. row and col scopes.
 * Add  to series overview table for WP:ACCESS and MOS:BOLD
 * "DVD Release" doesn't met MOS:CAPS
 * References needed for viewership, and production codes in some episode tables
 * How is TV.com a good source for Wikipedia?
 * Don't "shout" in references
 * Ref. 54: TV by the Numbers' publisher isn't same, remove
 * Cleanup needed for references
 * Dead links
 * Too many external links per WP:ELNO
 * Don't use cite web for external links
 * Categories should be sorted in alphebitcal order

TBrandley 23:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments regarding some of the nomination. Cheers, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 16:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Usual practice is not to say "American television series" because it isn't clear whether American refers to the US or the Americas
 * Okay, fair enough. TBrandley 22:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * MOS:ACRO also says that "When not written out in full on the first use on a page, an acronym or initialism should be linked.", so it's not necessary to write "National Broacasting Company" in full
 * Okay, fair enough. TBrandley 22:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally, why is an image needed in a list of episodes? I don't understand the current trend for doing this. WP:FL? says a FL should have images "if appropriate to the topic". There is not usually an image that appropriately illustrates a list of episodes of a particular TV series. A titlecard doesn't; it illustrates the series. A photo of the DVD boxsets doesn't; it illustrates the DVD sets. A cast photo doesn't; it illustrates the cast members.
 * Then, it needs and should have an image though. Perhaps a picture of a DVD set, the title card, maybe personally, or the show's creators, they actually can work. Many, and all others use images somehow, so. Regards, TBrandley 22:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that a photo of a DVD set or titlecard would likely breach non-free content criteria, and that there is no obligation for FLs to have images. We like them very much, but if no appropriate image exists we shouldn't force things. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 18:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delist - While I don't agree with some of TBrandley's comments (for instance, I don't think the number of external links is excessive), this list is not up to FL standards. First off, is it acceptable to add in tables through formatting like, rather than actually having the table present in this list? I thought I had seen someplace else that it wasn't, but I could be wrong. Besides that, issues with WP:ACCESS, reference reliability and formatting, and prose are enough to delist. Dana boomer (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm not sure the correct term to use to say "Don't delist", but most of the issues brought up above are very minor things that can be easily fixed. I don't think it has that many issues since it has been promoted, that warrants delisting.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? No one is fixing the issues for it to again meet criteria. See Dana boomers' comments also. It has dead links, references are needed for viewership and production codes, etc., and, the whole lead needs to be re-written and expanded. Those are the big ones, and they are not minor. It doesn't meet basicly all of the criteria. TBrandley 17:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delist if no-one works on the list, Keep if issues are resolved within the timeframe of this nomination. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 10:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delist too many issues which don't appear to have been addressed by anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delist – This page is a mess, particularly the lead. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:50, 29 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.