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 promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [1].

This has undergone a brief peer review, and the four season it covers (& transcludes are in parts) are all featured. I think it meets all the criteria. Thanks in advance for comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good list, good introduction and well sourced. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment made to all above mentioned users. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have always believed in the philosophy (only when it comes to these types of situations), if you don't have it all then don't list it partially. Viewing figures are nice, but they are not necessary given that (unfortunately) at the moment you have an individual page for each episode, AND a season page. Then again, you're only missing 3, so it's not like you're missing the first couple of seasons, but have the later ones. I have to assume that if they are there for the episodes before, after, and in between these vacant spaces then they must be there for the ones you don't have as well. One thing I would like to ask, where did this production number come from? Production numbers are hard to accurately verify. Please tell me they didn't come from TV.com or IMDb.com (which are virtually the same in their respect in fact that we cannot cite them as sources because of the way they attain a good portion of their content). The reason I mention this is because, not only are they hard to reliably verify, but they really hold not actual value to the article. The average reader won't understand what they are (kind like listing viewership numbers for anything other than the overrall viewership, e.g. 17/60 males...average readers don't understand that in a table). If an episode was filmed out of order, then it's easier to put a star beside it and put a "Notes:" section below the respective table and indicate that said episode was filmed early (but only when you have a reliable source to prove that). You also need a source for those airdates. TVGuide and MSN are some good sources for airdates (see the MSN listing here). Now, I'm going out of town, so I won't be able to respond any any responses/rebuttles to my comments. For the initial reason I was brought here, I have to side with Matthew on this one, because it's clear that the numbers are there for all the other episodes, and why these three cannot be found is odd to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the airdates are referenced, sort of, to the one general reference, however you have to go through and click on each individual episode to see the airdate. Might be better if the nom replaced that general ref with more specific ones for the individual ep pages at same site. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think replacing one encompassing general reference by 92 specific ones is excessive, and as such will leave it as it is, unless further objection is raised. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually meaning that you should place a ref name tag in "Original Airdate" section of each table. That will easily show that each season is referenced.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the others. If all of the figures are not available, it can not be considered to meet "Comprehensiveness" as is. I can not imagine that figures are not available for those few episodes if they are available from all. If those few pages from the ABC Net site are broken, I'd recommend emailing their webmaster and asking them to fix those pages. I also must second the question on those production numbers. If they are from TV.com or IMDB, the column needs to go. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have emailed the webmaster Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming the webmaster doesn't fix this, the missing figures can be calculated from reliably sourced data. Would this be acceptable? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you couldn't do that math yourself. If you don't know the 3 numbers, then they could theoretically be anything. As one number could be higher than you calculated, while another could be lower, and in such case they would offset each other in the average for the season. If you have the original url (I read above about somethinb being "broken"), then have you tried the Internet Archives?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But two of them are not theoretically anything, as they are directly related to the Nielsen Share rating. That leaves one missing, which can be worked out with maths from the average. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why aren't they listed? If you know them, then they should be there. If you have a source for them, then use it. If you don't, then you don't know what they are, and are hypothesizing what they are. Also, the season average is based on the final, official numbers. The numbers you have for each episode are the estimated figures. The official numbers are usually not calculated until about a week later (well, not released until then).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Production codes are listed at the end of each episodes credits. If you want web verification they cannot all be found in any one place but reliable sources that verfy them include IGN which lists some of the production codes in a summary box next on individual episode pages (like this) and CNBC-e who also list some. (An example) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just confirming that production codes for The O.C. are shown on screen at the end of each episode's credits, so the episodes are the reference for this. I don't know if including them in an episode list is something to be discussed in a FLC. The article is utilizing {{episode list}} which includes the prod code= field. I feel that part of the discussion should be taken up at [[Template talk:Episode list}}. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The production codes appear right at the end of the credits, like this one for the pilot episode - Image:TheOCprodcode.jpg (apologies for the low quality) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with them is over their relevance. What relevance do they hold for the average reader? Does the average reader even know what they mean? Most don't, and if you have to explain that it shows if they were filmed out of order, then you might as well do that in prose and drop the needless columns.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are part of the template, and as Matthew said the validity of their inclusion is not really something for FLC. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If a FLC can determine what needs to be added, then it can determine what should not be included.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 17:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Criterion 6. Visual appeal Give all four tables of the seasons the same column widths so everything aligns
  • Comment. I have considered this, but (using D:TNG as an example) this puts the column headings in strange alignments on the individual season pages (somewhere between left and centre align). IMO this equally in breach of Cr. 6, and as there doesn't seem to be a solution that satisfies both. Surely 1 list with a slight problem is better that 4 with problems. Please let me know your opinion on this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • D:TNG uses {{episode list}}. Any alignment is forced by that template. <shrugs> Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further comment - I know this is by no means justification but in List of Lost episodes, season 3 is not of the same width as the other seasons and the air date wraps onto 2 lines in season 1 & 4, which I guess is also undesirable by Cr. 6 (and probably forced by the template too) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adjust it, it should be completely over. Another issue. Linking. This page is severely overlinked. You should only link a name once, not every instance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've had this discussion with The Rambling Man before about WP:OVERLINK, and it does not apply here. "Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done I have sorted the Cr. 6 Visual appeal and managed to transclude the tables at 99% length, thanks to an edit by Bignole. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Formal oppose. The more I look at this page the more I find things wrong with it. First, there was the fact that all of the tables were linked to the season pages, so you had to go to the season pages just to edit them and even then certain edits would not be reflected here. I have personally fixed this. You should never send someone to another page to edit the one that they are on. Next, why do we ever list the DVDs if you provide no information about them? This page keeps linking everything away. That DVD section should have release dates for Region 1, 2, and 4...given that the lead of the page claims that the DVDs have been released in all of the sections. Counting up the episodes in that section? Pointless really. People can do the math themselves, it isn't hard. People can also see that the show first released a DVD set in 2003 and finally in 2007, they don't need a separate line telling them such. You don't need a link to season 1 and then a link to season 1's DVD section in the same line. Maybe each row should stand alone (which I question, and have sent a request to the guideline page for clarification, as this is the first time I have read such a thing on that page), but not each cell. You don't need need the title "The O.C. - The Complete First Season", as you're presenting it as if it has its own page. Take a page from here. Last (at the moment), where are the writers and directors for those two special episodes? Documentaries DO have writers and directors. There is no need to ignore them just because these are not official "episodes".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  First indented points below are responses from Rambo's Revenge (talk) at 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What! You have just taken (diff) a 11,972 byte page to 100,003 bytes without adding any information. How is that a good idea. Featured episode lists commonly transclude e.g. Lost, D:TNG, The Office etc. Just because "your" Smallville one doesn't, that does not mean it is right! I have added back the transclusion as, thanks to you, I found a way to fix the visual appeal width issue at the same time.
    • Size isn't a problem. The 100k is all code, thus it doesn't meet the idea of the article being too big. Just because others did it doesn't make it right. You should not force editors to have to go to another page just to edit this one. If an anon doesn't know how to actually do that, they will be quite confused as to how to edit this page when they click the "edit" button on each section. You have to remember, this isn't YOUR page, it's everyone's page and it must be designed so that ANY person that comes along and sees a problem can fix it. It should not be designed so that someone has to put in a request to have someone fix the page for them because they cannot figure out that the actual list is on another page and is being mirrored over here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see your point of view, however it doubles the required maintenance and transclusion was requested at the List of The Office (US TV series) episodes FLC I have not reverted your change at the moment, and have requested comment from Gary who brought this up there. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's useful to transclude the tables, because the information in the tables will not change very often. There are no plot summaries, which are typically the parts that receive the most edits. I suggested this format in the other FLC because I saw it used in other episode list FLs, however. Gary King (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's very useful, to people that know how to use it. But, assuming that nothing will change doesn't mean that it won't, and limiting the editors that can edit the page to ones that know how to edit a transcluded section is not what Wikipedia was designed for. It wasn't meant to basically seclude pages from the public. Scrolling reference boxes were nice too, but we discourage them because they forced people to actually have to scroll through to exam sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also, another advantage of using it is so that there isn't two versions of the same information on two pages. Gary King (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's also a pitfall, because if there is something wrong on one page it will be wrong on both pages. If someone comes in and messes up the code on the season three page, it will be noticed on the LOE page but not the season three page (depending on the error). If the error has to do with the transcluding link, people will be wondering where the section went on the LOE page (and if you don't check the page regularly you won't know it is missing because the edit doesn't appear on the LOE page). If you aren't reading carefully into someone's edits on a season page (maybe they made a lot of good edits and accidentally removed one of the code tags in the process)? I've seen this happen and go unnoticed for quite awhile because (as you said), since the LOE page wasn't going do go through any real changes, no one bothered to check to make sure it appeared good on a regular basis.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                •  Done Translcusion is gone, per discussion with Scorpion0422. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added directors for the specials. They have no writers as such, as they are just clips, cast interviews etc.[5][6]
    • That's cool.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The official DVD names are "The O.C. - The Complete ... Season" and as such are named like that, regardless of them not having their own article, and as for take a leaf from Smallville, it sums up episodes, double standards perhaps?
    • No, it lists the number of episodes in the season. I do not believe it actually holds the readers' hands and says "2+2=4". It allows them to add it up themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing you consider as a "DVD table" is a Series overview. The information is all presented elsewhere, what the hell is the point in mindlessly repeating it elsewhere. In fact you have said "what I find to be unnecessary is the repetative issuing of information in each of the [season] pages" at a previous FLC. Now you are arguing for repetition of DVD release dates.
    • A little different in this case, as you're providing an overview of when each season was released on a page that is an overview of the entire series. I didn't say repeat it all, I said add some release dates so that the reader doesn't have to go visit every single damn article just to find out when something was released. Not that hard. Don't get pissed because I'm trying to get you to pull the page up to a higher standard than I have been seeing in FLCs lately. To clarify, my oppositioni on the other FLC was over the huge chunk of repeated information being presented, in this case, the only information I'm saying should be present is the release dates for each region for each season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "not each cell [standing alone]", the rows do not link something that has been linked in the row before, it says rows not columns.
    • There seems to be dissention over at the WP:OVERLINK talk page on this issue. It seems that others are slightly confused as well. I've asked for clarification on linking a name each time it appears when it appears in 3 rows in a row.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as article is easy to follow (works good as a table of contents to other articles) and well verified with multiple references. Good job! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with Bignole that everything should be on the page, not transcluded from somewhere else. Why there are episode summaries when I press the edit button, but they don't show up on the page? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not meant to be there, it was just that Bignole copied the info from the season pages. If you think that they shouldn't transclude i'll get to work on remove the excess stuff that doesn't need to be there (the things that didn't transclude before) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just never really been a big fan of transcluding lists, especially when it comes to FLs. It is confusing for IPs and even veteran users to edit. I'd prefer to see the tables here have some differences from the season tables. Perhaps the production code or ratings could be removed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed the "hidden" episode summaries. Do you think the production codes and ratings should go as well? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's up to you, it doesn't matter to me either way. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would leave the ratings, not sure bout the prodcodes. It would require a new template to be made. (See this) But I will do this if there is enough demand for it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You know my stance on the prod codes, but I would keep the ratings. It's nice to see the transition in ratings as the seasons went on (as opposed to making that season only, in which case you'd have to look at every season page to get an idea of how the ratings increased/decreased over time).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              •  Done, prod codes have gone, ratings have stayed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIs there a reason to use the full month names in the table? Are 3 letter abreviations not considered standard enough to be used? I noticed beacuse some cause entries to be twice as high as others, which attracts the eye. Abbreviating would fix this. Other than that, this looks as good as the other FLs, so i support.Dillypickle (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 letter month abbreviations are not used. WP:MONTH says that months should be expressed as "whole words". Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.