Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Takeo Kimura filmography/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 The Rambling Man 20:18, 10 October 2009 [1].
Takeo Kimura filmography[edit]
- Nominator(s): Doctor Sunshine (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Restarted, old version.
- Note I have restarted this nom, as the page was getting really long, and it was not clear what the consensus was. As a clarification, I have neither failed nor promoted this nom—that is, it is still going—and I will not because I have already supported it. This action is just for maintainence purposes. Can all reviewers please restate their opinions and list whatever concerns they have left? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Because Otis rocks. Also because it meets the FL criteria or whatever. Drewcifer (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. As far as I can tell, all issues have been addressed appropriately. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per 5(a): ...it has a minimal proportion of red links. I'm not a big fan of this clause myself, but it's explicitly in the criteria. There are two solutions, neither amazing (which is part of my distaste for it) - either you make at least nominal articles for each of the red links, or you delink them. I don't really see a way around this, and as I said before, I'm not a fan of it, but the criteria are the criteria. (As far as debating this issue, this should be done on the criteria's talk page, and not here.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I made a pretty good case for removing that clause and I will bring it up on the criteria's talk page once this nomination closes—a touch more precedence can't hurt. In the meantime, minimal is not a definite number nor rough percentile, it's the least possible. And following the WP:REDLINK guideline none of them should be removed as every linked name and title fits the context, is notable and may plausibly be created. Intuitively, "minimal" sounds like it should be less than 300 but what's the minimum number of meals you've eaten in any given year? Unless you were born after September or are Mahatma Gandhi chances are it's never dropped below that number. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I take minimal to uncontroversially mean - at the least - less than 50%. As I said, I'm not a fan of the criteria, but I'm not going to abrogate it either. If you have a bone to pick with regard to this, overt attempts to subvert the criteria via nominations are not the proper venue. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I take "minimal" to mean not a particular number or percentage, but something like "the least amount necessary". Dictionary seems to concurr: "constituting a minimum... the least possible" These are all films produced by major studios with notable personnel involved. They are notable films, and we should have articles on them. Red-linking these notable films is "minimal" and necessary, to show that we still need articles on these films. The Red link may inspire other editors to work on these, while a no-link gives the false impression that this list is a closed portal, i.e., that Wikipedia is "complete" in regards to this list, that it doesn't need articles on these notable films. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Less than 50% is a minority, not a minimum. I know it seems like I'm contorting the spirit of the law, which would appear to be "red link hate" as David Gerard put it, but I believe as it stands the clause is a compromise to keep both sides happy by at least mentioning red links without damning them altogether. If that doesn't work for you I can only suggest WP:IAR—as removing them would be detrimental to the project and writing that many stubs would be detrimental to my mental health and by proxy the project—and we'll let it rest for the moment. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the status of Girolamo's oppose? Has he been asked to revisit? If there are disagreements over a specific criterion, can someone begin a discusson about this at WT:FLC ASAP? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From his contribs, it looks like he's probably been busy or away the past couple days. If he doesn't revisit this by tomorrow or remains unmoved I'll go ahead and start a WT:FLC or WT:FL? discussion on the criteria. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started the red link criteria discussion here. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the status of Girolamo's oppose? Has he been asked to revisit? If there are disagreements over a specific criterion, can someone begin a discusson about this at WT:FLC ASAP? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Less than 50% is a minority, not a minimum. I know it seems like I'm contorting the spirit of the law, which would appear to be "red link hate" as David Gerard put it, but I believe as it stands the clause is a compromise to keep both sides happy by at least mentioning red links without damning them altogether. If that doesn't work for you I can only suggest WP:IAR—as removing them would be detrimental to the project and writing that many stubs would be detrimental to my mental health and by proxy the project—and we'll let it rest for the moment. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I made a pretty good case for removing that clause and I will bring it up on the criteria's talk page once this nomination closes—a touch more precedence can't hurt. In the meantime, minimal is not a definite number nor rough percentile, it's the least possible. And following the WP:REDLINK guideline none of them should be removed as every linked name and title fits the context, is notable and may plausibly be created. Intuitively, "minimal" sounds like it should be less than 300 but what's the minimum number of meals you've eaten in any given year? Unless you were born after September or are Mahatma Gandhi chances are it's never dropped below that number. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Format fine, all info checked out good.
(If I might be allowed to grumble: Red links to notable subjects are a good thing. They show us where more addition of content is needed. As such, I take "minimal" to mean, "the least amount necessary". These are all films produced by major studios with notable personnel involved. They are notable films, and we should have articles on them. Red-linking them is necessary, and "minimal". The fact that we don't have articles on them yet is not a reason to punish this list. If anyone should be punished, it's those who spend all their time here removing rather than adding content, when there is so much more to be added-- Next time you see someone whose only purpose here is to delete articles on a verifiable, real topics, this would be a very good list to point them to for some constructive work. "Blue-link a few of those films." Speaking of which.. I also find it perplexing that "Consensus" at about 51% / 49% is good enough to delete an article, but that one oppose is not enough to promote one...)Anyway, good job, Doc! Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have suspended this nomination while the red link criterion RfC is active. This means that the nomination will be neither promoted nor failed during this period. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'd been meaning to ask about that. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose (5a) it is a sea of redlinks. The RfC was closed after two weeks by our FL director as no-consensus to change. I know Dr Sunshine re-opened it, but that is IMO largely because this FL is hanging on the outcome rather than because the debate is worth continuing. One other less critical point is that since the list is composed from three general references (and, I believe, not capable of being supported by just one -- which is worrying in itself since if they are reliable sources they should also be comprehensive) then a list of this size really must indicate which source was used for which entry. Colin°Talk 16:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin, you don't know me and your track record for guessing my motivations has proven consistently wrong, so, I don't know why you keep doing it. Red links are a tiny issue, I would agree with that, but it's obviously a debate worth continuing as it's been a thorn in FLCs side for some time. Second point, I'd originally considered that but given the small amount of exceptions it's not worth the clutter. Thanks for following me here from the RfC though. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have now two option: Delink most redlinks or create all stub articles with an imdb link and "Is a film released by XX and directed by Takeo Kimura".--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin, you don't know me and your track record for guessing my motivations has proven consistently wrong, so, I don't know why you keep doing it. Red links are a tiny issue, I would agree with that, but it's obviously a debate worth continuing as it's been a thorn in FLCs side for some time. Second point, I'd originally considered that but given the small amount of exceptions it's not worth the clutter. Thanks for following me here from the RfC though. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.