Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes/archive1

List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes[edit]

Well illustrated, all images contain fair use rationales, contains boxes for easy navigation between seasons, references its episode list sources by seasons and is simply a very complete list. Michaelas10 (T|C) 12:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Every episode description is a one sentence paragraph, and many poorly written. For Chosen, "Buffy decides on a bold plan in this series finale." all I found out was the episode was the last one. The mentions of Angel and Spike in the lead are unnecessary as they have no bearing on this list. The fair use rationales are too "cookie cutter"; They justify use generically, rather than the specific use of that image, and the images do not include a description other than that they are screenshots from Buffy. Jay32183 18:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out to you before here, short summaries of this type are not supposed to summaries the entire episode but only to aid in navigation and identification. I understand that you personally don't like this style, but it is one that was accepted for two previous featured lists, List of South Park episodes and List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. -- Ned Scott 18:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must object to bad writing, regardless of the accepted standard. One sentence paragraphs are bad writing. Jay32183 18:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a list style article, you know. -- Ned Scott 18:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - But when prose is included, the prose needs to be high quality. It's either no prose or good prose, because we can't feature bad prose. Jay32183 05:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        High quality in this context would mean a short summary that is able to identify the episode it comments about. This is no different than identification by color or title. If one is able to identify an episode from only two sentences then it's rather unnecessary to include more detail when the list is just acting for navigation. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        If they were summaries I would agree with you, but these are teasers. Summaries do not identify, they describe. Jay32183 16:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think anything with "hooks", as most teasers have, are good. Summaries describe and identify. I fail to see how they can do one and not the other. I'm not even commenting on these summaries, really, more your assertion that for a summary to be good it must talk about everything that happens and must be of a certain length. -- Ned Scott 18:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        There's a general consensus that one sentence paragraphs are bad. Since the paragraphs cannot be combined they must be expanded. Jay32183 01:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You're taking that out of context. This is a list, not a normal article. -- Ned Scott 01:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        That is not a sound argument. The same standards of writing apply. Changing the format does not entitle us to be lazy about our writing. All featured articles, lists, images, and portals must reflect Wikipedia's best work. Arguing that it is a list rather than an article does not mean it doesn't have to be the best. Good writing is good writing, bad writing is bad writing, calling it a list doesn't change that. Jay32183 02:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Fully written paragraphs for each entry on a list is not always appropriate for a list format. If we were to discuss every element on a list in paragraph form then it would be... an ARTICLE. A short descriptive text is completely appropriate for a list type article. You are comparing apples to oranges. This has nothing to do with the standards of writing. A description is not too short if it describes accurately and can easily identify an episode from other episodes. This is a list, an overview of episodes viewable on a single page. A collection of entries with short descriptions and simply stated facts (like "air date" and "title"). The formating for a list style article is not the same. That does not make it bad writing, it makes it a different (and appropriate) format for the situation. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with the claim that fully written paragraphs are not appropriate for all lists. Many lists have no prose and that is acceptable. But lists with prose need good prose and that means no single sentence paragraphs. As some one who has watched every episode of Buffy, I can tell you these descriptions are bad, not just in writing style. If I had my dvds I would fix it myself, I need them to maintain accuracy. But you still maintain that same faulty argument that will never be true; that formatting justifies quality of writing. If you want prose make it good, I don't care how you format it, make it good. This list has bad prose. You won't change my mind, especially not by syaing this is a list, that does not contradict my claim that the list is bad. Saying this list is bad does contrdict the claim that the list should be featured. Jay32183 04:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I disagree with complaint about "one-sentence paragraphs" within the list. In the lead section and any section introductions (of which this list has none) then such writing is unacceptable and must be improved. However, I'm not aware of any style-guide that says a bullet-point list must contain a full paragraph in each point - and this is a such a list, albeit formatted into a table. Indeed, in certain circumstances, it may be acceptable for list entries to be less than a full sentence (but not here). Have a look at List of vegetable oils, for example. Colin°^Talk 10:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the mention of Angle in the lead, but I kept the mention of Spike, as movies should be mentioned on episode lists, like done in List of South Park episodes. I am in process of changing all the image descriptions to "A screenshot taken from an episode of the American cult television series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer", like done in List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. Michaelas10 (T|C) 19:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - I agreed that there doesn't need to be prose within the list, other than the lead of course. My concern is that this list uses prose that I feel does not reflect Wikipedia's best work. I've given a suggestion on how it can be improved, so the objection is actionable. If you deal with the objection I will drop it. You could ignore my objection and see what happens, but you won't be talking me out of objecting. Jay32183 18:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have done changing all the image descriptions of early seasons, the image descriptions of seasons 4 and beyond don't really need to be fixed. Michaelas10 (T|C) 20:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't find any rule that indicates that fair use rationals have to be targeted seperatly on each image. Besides, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes also provides the same rationale for all its episode pictures. Michaelas10 (T|C) 21:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I checked the Stargate images the very first one spells out the exact plot moment it is illustrating, not just says it is illustrating something from the episode. Jay32183 05:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - But that's only the first one, I've done exactly the same. Michaelas10 (T|C) 09:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well then, the first one on Stargate is the only one done correctly. Jay32183 16:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The summaries aren't good enough. Some are teasers, and most aren't long enough. They should say (spoil) as much as they can without making the box bigger. Also, because the width of the columns is specified in the table headers, a bunch of the dates are forced to require two lines when there's plenty of room in the title column. - Peregrinefisher 19:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the specified width of all colums from all season boxes, but I don't think it depends on it, but instead on the "Production code" column, are you purposing I should remove it? Also, is there any agreemnt over the description length issue? Michaelas10 (T|C) 19:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if we change Proction Code to Code, that will fix it. - Peregrinefisher 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not, besides, things like that depend on the the text size in the browser and on the screen resolution. Michaelas10 (T|C) 20:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting looks pretty good to me, now. 800x600 and 1024x768 are the two most commonly used resolutions, and all the dates fit at 1024x768 (roughly 60% of all monitors) using Internet Explorer (roughly 80% of the browsers). Now, I think the summaries should be expanded to spoil the main elements of the plot, while not expanding their boxes. It doesn't have to fill the whole box, but it shouldn't be a teaser. Ex. The Angel episode says "Buffy and Angel share their first kiss, and she finds out who he really is." It should at least say "Buffy and Angel share their first kiss, and she finds out that he is a vampire." Or, better yet, something like "Buffy and Angel share their first kiss, and she finds that he is a non-evil vampire who has had his soul restored by a Gypsy curse. Darla attempts to kill buffy and is staked by Angel." - Peregrinefisher 21:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to expand all the episode descriptions in the next few days. Michaelas10 (T|C) 21:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tackle season 1 if you want to start on season 2. - Peregrinefisher 02:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Personally I agree with short summaries that do not spoil the plot, but do identify the episodes to those that have seen them, more detailed summaries are avilable on the episode article pages. A high quality list that continues to improve. -- Paxomen 23:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the lead is horribly choppy with many one or two-sentence paragraphs. The summaries are too short. References are not formated properly (use {{cite web}}). Repeating "Mini-contents" box is annoying. Image fair use rationales are half-baked and should be improved, especially as there is a whole discussion whether fair use images can be used on lists at all. Renata 03:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much expanded.
- Expanding is on process.
- Done.
- Removed.
- How should I fix it? Add more fair use arguments? Change the existing ones? Michaelas10 (T|C) 18:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - After reading a whole more on fair use in the last couple days, I have decided to strongly oppose lists with fair use images. Renata 17:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No non-fair use episode screenshots. Remove all? Michaelas10 (T|C) 18:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't remove the images. Most or all of the successful featured lists had images. There's a huge debate here and here, the upshot being there is no consensus to disallow these images. If Renata doesn't like the images, he can reopen the debate at those places, but removing the images from this list is not the answer. - Peregrinefisher 18:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you don't want to push the issue, then removing the images would be a solution, since images aren't required. Although I don't personally object to the fair use images here, removing them is definitely the safe path, and I will be forced to strike the comment in my objection about the fair use rationales not being specific enough. So basically your options are remove the images or ignore Renata's object. I don't know what will happen if you ignore the objection though. Jay32183 18:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        All images removed. Michaelas10 (T|C) 19:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I support Renata in erring on the side of legal safety whilst the jury is out on this. I'm coming to similar conclusions. And Michaelas10, I'm unlikely to support this list for several reasons, but I appreciate your various efforts to improve the list as a result of feedback. Colin°^Talk 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        What are the reasons? I would like to improve this as much as I'll can. Michaelas10 (T|C) 21:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry Michaelas10, I'm just not inclined to spend the effort/grief at the moment. Some minor suggestions: Move your Sources into the References where they belong and format them correctly. The Amazon search is lazy/inaccurate. Link to the appropriate DVD pages (preferrably not at a shop - is there a cite DVD template?). Drop all the external links, which almost never belong in a List. I'm sure they are repeated on the Buffy articles elsewhere. The last paragraph in the lead doesn't belong in a list of episodes and is speculation. Colin°^Talk 22:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done and added 3 more list/guide sources by seasons.
Currently pending answer from Paxomen on the DVD release date sources.

Added references for regions one and two DVD release dates, pending answer for region four DVD release date.

Done
Removed from both lead and season summary section.

Additional comments:

Ratings graph added to the end of season 6, I have a ratings graph of season 4 as well, but I do not know where to add it. Spoiler-free episode list?
Expanding of all episode descriptions nearly complete, with a little over 2 seasons left. I'm going to do a half of the sixth season today.

Michaelas10 (T|C) 11:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cover arts for all DVDs added.

Michaelas10 (T|C) 15:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The quality of the small summaries is inconsistent, and even moreso once one gets to the later seasons. I have no clue why the Neilson ratings graph is relevant to a list of Buffy episodes. many, many typos and odd sentences throughout. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, this will be completed very soon. I am sorry for the delay.
- Such ratings graph is very relevant, it shows the declining of ratings after the move of the series to the UPN network. It is being used on List of Stargate SG-1 episodes as well.
- All spelling mistakes fixed.
- I do not see what do you mean by odd sentences, I've read everything I wrote very closely; unless you mean the non-expanded episode descriptions, which, as I said, will all be fixed very soon.
- Michaelas10 (T|C) 16:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]