Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of The Simpsons episodes

List of The Simpsons episodes
Still a featured list.

Discussion
This page does not deserve to be a featured article for several reasons.

a)there is no screenshot beside each description of episodes

b)there is no description of each episode beside it.

c)the tables are poorly organized, and there was not even alot of discussion during the nomination, so this does not deserve to passRodrigue 16:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see List of The Batman episodes and List of Smallville episodes, two pages that use the same format and were promoted recently. Gran2 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also the indivdual season pages use the formula you have suggested as being "better". Gran2 17:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The list format is completely unchanged from what it was when it was promoted. Also, there are 400 episodes, so are you suggesting we add 400 images to the page? There are individual season pages, so this list just provides a basic overview. -- Scorpion0422 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no reason why they have to use screen captures. Matthew 17:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not an article. --Maitch 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved from Featured article review to Featured list removal candidates. Gimmetrow 18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed this list before. It has hard-coded 700px table widths, which I think is a bad idea for various reasons. However, the table could be fixed easily. As for the images, lists should not be allowed to function as galleries of fair use images. Such lists may look nice on wikipedia, but they limit the freedom of downstream users. Downstream users who cannot or do not want to exploit fair use will be unable to use a list with screenshots, and will either yank out the images or not use the page at all. List of Smallville episodes looks just fine without a single screenshot. Gimmetrow 18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the argument that the images are in the articles for each season, or that images can't be added for some reason, look at the article for list of south park episodes, it has every episode on one page and is a featured article.The page has screenshots for every episode,and a brief description of each one.Also no seperate articles for each season, just for episodes.The one-article format I think is preferableRodrigue 19:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the articles should use the same format just for the sake of consistency anyway, they are both popular long running animated television seires and are both featured, but they have two separate formats. Rodrigue 19:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So? You are suggesting that we add 400 fair use images to one page. That is impractical. As I have already said, List of The Batman episodes and List of Smallville episodes use the same format, and that was not objected against. The fact that we use both formats (images and descriptions on indivdual season pages) and this fomrat, is our choice. I really fail to see your arguement, we use this format becaue it would be to long to use the one you suggest. Gran2 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your not even right about what your saying.The list of the batman episodes does not have seprate article for each season.That means it has no description or images for each episode anywhere at all,so thats 3 different formats now, and all of them are featured articles.My point is all about consistency, that would be less of a big deal if they wer not all featured articles.Maybe it is this article or another that needs to be changed, but the point is it can't be featured unless there is a proper format that it must conform to.Rodrigue 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am right about what I'm saying, I;m saying that they all use the no images or descriptions format. I don't see the point that they have to be consistent. It relies on the length. If this episode had a proper sized description for every episode as well as an images, the page would be huge. If a show hasn't for as long, such as List of The Sopranos episodes it uses the other format. Your failing to see that the individual season pages use the image and description format, and all have the potential to be FL as well. Season 8 is almost ready, and the others can be easily adapted as well. Anyway, why don't we wait to see what other people think, as it is unproductive for us to just keep argueing, as I will always disagree with your view on this matter. Gran2 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 400 fair use images in a single list are impractical. In fact some people don’t want any screenshots on episode lists. --Maitch 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument that other episode page FLs does it is impractical because none of those lists come anywhere close to having as many episodes as The Simpsons has, and adding a description and image for every episode would make the page WAY too long and would make the seperate season pages obsolete. -- Scorpion0422 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No screenshots is a good thing, btw, for legal reasons as well as the fact that WP policy is pretty clear about not having them. (In fact, I think it's ridiculous that South Park/Avatar/OMG are featured lists at all). JuJube 07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well do you see what I am saying.You say that south park should not be a featured list because of its images, but I am saying the opposite about this article and everyone thinks thats not a justification.Anyway it isn't true that the images aren't allowed, the other episode lists have them legitimately, so there is no reason not to have them hear, article size is not really an issue.Rodrigue 12:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Article size is an issue. --Maitch 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And as said, having 400+ images, fair use or not, is massively impractical, whatever you personally think. Gran2 14:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Which of the featured list criteria does this list fails to meet? Tom pw (talk) (review) 15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the season lists have screenshots and plot summaries, this mother list does not need screenshots and plot summaries. It's as easy as that. List of The Batman episodes is a bit more problematic, as you have to flip through each episode article to identify the episode by plot, so I suggest making season articles for this Batman list.--GunnarRene 16:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The only problem I see with this list is the hardcoded 700px widths; setting to between 90% and 100% would be a better way to limit the width of the tables. It might be possible to add more detail, such as writers and directors, but the plot summaries would be too much of a burden for the episode count. Jay32183 19:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Featured list criterion #3 states that lists should have images images "if they are appropriate to the subject". In this case, screenshots for each wouldn't be apropriate because of the size of the list. Tom pw (talk) (review) 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement "if they are appropriate to the subject" could simply mean if it is a non-television episode list, and is just a list of things relating to a different kind of article.In that view, that would mean that since this is a television episode list, the images should in fact be there because images are appropriate for a television episode list.Im not saying that my view on that statement is right, but it does not make itself clear enough so you can'nt use it as an argument.Rodrigue 21:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Other lists don't have them legitimately and they shouldn't be featured. The fact that people closed their eyes to policy for so long doesn't make it okay to ignore it now.  Anyway, this is a debate for another page. JuJube 21:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone has now just decided to vote "yes" or "no" with a bit of rationale.I just hope people dont just start voting on the issue without having a point for their argument, because I dont think this is just a matter of wether or not this article is featured status. Rodrigue 22:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm... this is the "Featured list removal candidates" page. The point of listing pages here is precsiely to deicde whether or not this list should remain featured. Tom pw (talk) (review) 22:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And as for JuJube's comment that it is against policy for images to be added, I think he does not realize that the sub-sections for each season has the images there, so was he saying we should discuss deleting those then, as well as denominate any other episode list that has screenshots on the page?Rodrigue 22:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I get it, you are voting to keep the article, despite your hollow justification for it.But what I was trying to say is that this nomination is at the core issue of wether a featured list should have images or not, and wether it should have sub-pages, and if this article is deleted or is kept, it has ramifications for other articles.Rodrigue 23:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave my reasons above, namely that the list doesn't fail to meet any of the Featured List criteria. I put a short summary with my vote to make things clear. Discussion on whether or not FLs should have images should take place at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria. Tom pw (talk) (review) 23:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like all images on episode lists are going now anyway, see the admin notice board. Gran2 05:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that there seems to be a discussion about removing the images from all episode lists.Was that discussion raised because of the points that I made in nominating this article for deletion?, because it is not a coincidents that it started a day after my nomination is it?Rodrigue 13:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No. The image debate has been going on for a LONG time. Its just a coincidence that that particular post started the day after. -- Scorpion0422 14:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The featured article of list of south park episodes has also removed all its images from its page, and again it happened after I nominated this page for deletion and brought up the image debate.I'm not so sure this is much of a coincidences now, is it.

But anyway, I think in addition to having the images on this page we will have to replace most of them with fair use alternatives, as I think people are now realizing that the images aren't justified, and JuJube was right that even the other featured articles like the south park episodes violated the rules and people just looked the other way.Rodrigue 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not re-examining policy solely because of you. They recent passed new rules on fair use images and there has been a lot of image activity as of late.
 * And since you now agree that the images aren't needed, how about withdrawing your complaints? -- Scorpion0422 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What (Rodrigue) are you on about? I really doubt the other episode lists have not had their images removed because you nominated this page for FLRC, its been in discussion for ages and is only now in effect. You have also not nominated this page for deletion, yu have nominated for Featured List Removal Candidates. We have already that we will not be having images or descriptions on this list, you are still the only person who believes that that is a good idea. You say we need replace te images, what images are you talking about? There are none. You say we need to replace them with fair use, they already are fair use images, and as said they are not allowed on episode lists. I take it you mean free use images, but how do you propose that? A free use image of a television is not going to happen. I'm sorry for being this heated (I really am) but I actually don't understand your arguement any more, and your a repeatedly failing to see that your ideas are impractical and are not really going to happen. Gran2 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Gees, such strong language.All I was saying is that the other articles had their images removed around at a similiar time, I didn't say it was all because of me, and if you think it is a coincidence then fine, you have your opinion.


 * Comment Look what just happened to the image on the front of this article, it was removed.I guess I was right to de-nominate this article, because that image seemed to disqualify the article as featured.Well atleast now people can give me some credibility for what I did, especially Scorpion. Rodrigue 21:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it was still a waste of time. --Maitch 22:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What I wanted for this article was for the proper images and descriptions of episodes to be included in the main article, and not sub-sections for each season.But I noticed that some people believed that other episode lists that had images in the main article that were not really validaed, and that they should have other public domain promoional images or not have any at all, but that is not my opinion, I just noticed that people like JuJube feel that way Rodrigue 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: ok, so does no one find a a problem with the images that are in the sub-sections, are they all just fine despite south park having its images replaced and the discussion about family guys images being removed? Rodrigue 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody has mentioned them, so obviously nobody does. There is a difference between 9 images and 400. -- Scorpion0422 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The image at the top was removed because it was not a fair use image, therefore it being there made this article an fraudulent featured article.So the images for many episodes will also have to be removed because they are not fair-use images, just like the images at the featured list for south park episodes.Otherwise this article is indeed not featured status. Rodrigue 14:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the image at the top is a fair use image. It just didn't qualify as being fair use in this article. The fact is that every FEL has now lost its images, this wasn't a "fraudulent" featured list, its just been decied that no images in an episode list are fair use. The images for the individual episodes will not have to be removed, they quite easily qualify as being fair use. And if (which I think you do) mean this list.... then just to reinterate, it didn't have episode images anyway, it doesn't now, and it didn't before. In fact you suggested it should have, and that's the whole reason you nominated it for the pointless FLRC. Gran2 14:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I still believed that the list should have the images and desciptions of episodes on the front, but then after my nomination it was decided that images can't be on the same page as episode lists because they weren't fair-use on those pages .But that decision does support my other point that there be consitency in how episode lists are made, they either all have images or they don't, and at the time most of them did so I thought this should as well.

But I still don't believe in the subsection for each episode.People said before that the reason for the sub-sections was to save article size.But now that images aren't allowed anyway, size is not an issue and the subsections can be gone and there can be a brief discription of each episode on the main list plus a link to each episode.

And plus aren't the images just allowed on episode articles anyway, and not articles for each season? Rodrigue 15:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The are no images on the season pages anymore. Gran2 15:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok good, then it wont too much of a problem to merge it with the main list, because there aren't any images to take up alot of space and the season articles are useless.I suppose that would be my argument now since my other one was defunct since they decided to not allow images on episode lists.But my point is still that this article need to be consitent with other episode lists, like the list of south park episodes which does not have season sub-sections.Are there any other featured episode lists that do? Rodrigue 15:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As said several times above, List of Smallville episodes has the exact same format. And FYI (never thought I would ever use that) the seasn 8 page is now an FLC. We willnot be adopting your idea. Gran2 15:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all please don't speak for other people.And you do realize that the season 8 page is also the only one with a dvd cover image, which I believe is not allowed, so I dont know why it is being nominated, it does not otherwise stand out from the other ones.

And smallville has them?The main article isn't even past the recommended article size yet, so that is strange.And the season 1 article is bigger than the main one itself, none of them are in the proper format for listing of episodes, so that is also a situation.Most articles aren't with the sub-sections anyway, and none that are in the same format as the season articles for the simpsons, smallville uses a format that just takes up more space, if they fiked that they could merge them too,since it is even smaller than this article list it will even be less of a problem.Rodrigue 16:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. If you have a problem with the Smallville page, then mention it over there and not here. Since your suddenly anti-images in list articles, how about withdrawing this FLC and stop wasting our time with it? -- Scorpion0422 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, the only reason I changed my mind about that is because after I nominated this page for removal because it had no images or discriptions, there was an unrelated discussion that decided all images are not allowed on all episode lists for technical reasons, its not that I simply changed my mind,I still think there should be episode descriptions and no sub-sections.And I pointed out the flaws with the smallville page as an example against Grans argument.And not that I have any intention of doing so, but me withdrawing my argument for this page does not do anything.Whether or not you think I'm wating time, the discussion started because but it will only end after a discision is made, whats done is done. Rodrigue 16:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I just want to make it clear that this is no longer a vote wether or not images and discriptions of episodes should be on the main article.Because of another unrelated discussion, it seems episode lists aren't allowed to have images on their article because there not fair-use imagaes.This is a vote for wether or not we should just have episode discriptions on this article and not images, and to get rid of the season sub-sections because no images means size is not a problem. Rodrigue 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't understand the FLR procedure. it is not a vote to decide whether certain content belongs on a page - it is a vote on whether or not the page still meets FL requirements. If you think each episode needs descriptions (which would completely void the need for single season pages) then bring it up on the talk page and not here. -- Scorpion0422 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You know this is pointless.I see that no one shares my views on this topic, so I don't think I want to argue about this page anymore as I see what the outcome is going to be, so if it makes things go faster I withdraw my nomination. Rodrigue 23:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Votes
400 different citations is bit of an exaggeration. Nobody could even be bothered to clean up the "Notes" section for crying out loud and nobody's pointed it out - the fact nobody mentioned it proves that FL's a joke. LuciferMorgan 09:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Still satisfies all the criteria. Tom pw (talk) (review) 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per everything I have said above. Gran2 05:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Still satisfies all FL criteria. -- Scorpion0422 14:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd love to keep this as FL, but in my mind it fails FLC #1 ("well-constructed"), it's mostly well constructed and the colours are mostly good. I don't believe the "# 	Airdate 	Prod. Code 	Title" needs to be coloured though. They're headers, not separators - colours work well, if used right. Matthew 16:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tompw. -- Phoenix  (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The list still meets WP:FL?, and my only concern has been addressed. Jay32183 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the "no picture" argument is complete and total bunk, and everything else is not a big deal. This is still a really well done list. JuJube 04:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove Fails to satisfy verifiability. LuciferMorgan 01:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How so? It is fully sourced at the bottom of the page, with links to the official site for every season. It is much easier than having 400 different citations for every episode. -- Scorpion0422 01:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove Have to agree (somewhat) with LuciferMorgan. There are still several unsourced or weakly sourced bits, especially in the crystal ball area. Note 2 refers to an email, which we can't read — not a reliable source The ref for the DVD releases only seems to have US release dates. So the other regions are unsourced. Ref 3 is a blog. Many of the notes and refs contain anonymous hyperlinks. That is just totally unacceptable on Featured material and LuciferMorgan is right to be critical. The editors behind this list could tidy/resolve these issues in half an hour. Colin°Talk 12:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Right I've replaced some of the refs with better ones, I've left the DVDs in though, for now anyway. The other refs are fully formatted. Do the copyright database refs need access dates? Gran2 16:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything has been fixed except the releases for non-US (or Canada) regions. -- Scorpion0422 16:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The References section still contains 18 anonymous hyperlinks. The U.S. Copyright Records database doesn't seem to allow direct links, but you did find the info online at a certain date, so you should record that. Please don't strike-through my comments. Colin°Talk 16:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 18 Anonymous Hyperlinks? You mean the part where it says:
 * Official episode guide at the Fox website TheSimpsons.com. Retrieved June 7, 2006
 * Season 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
 * It's very clear that they are not anonymous, because if you look at the code, you see: 1, 2, 3 . To make things a little less confusing for you, we can change it so it says Season 1, season 2, season 3, etc, etc. As for the concern about Copyright database dates, I have checked every link and they still work, so I will use todays date as the "date retrieved". -- Scorpion0422 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I got that bit confused. Perhaps if you put the "Retrieved June 7, 2006" bit at the end of the "Season ..." line, and drop the indented bullet, it will make it clearer that this is all one "reference". I wasn't criticising the Copyright datebase bit, just commenting that it was a shame we can't have direct links to a particular page. BTW there is an unwikified ISO date in ref 9. I hope you can find a good source for the international DVD dates. Colin°Talk 13:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)