Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Case Closed episodes (season 17)/archive2

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 Dabomb87 23:23, 11 May 2010 [1].

List of Case Closed episodes (season 17)[edit]

Nominator(s): DragonZero (talk · contribs) 03:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list so I could use this page as a base for other seasons of the anime. As for the web cite archives, they are currently down since they're changing servers. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 03:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded Dabomb87 (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from haha169 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Support

~~Episode lists generally have Production and Reception sections. Check out this list for FL episode/season lists for which to use as templates. I usually find that helpful.~~
~~Use {{infobox television season}}~~.
~~There should be a bold phrase somewhere in the lead that reiterates the main point of the list.~~
- This isn't a requirement for FLs. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you sure? WP:FL?'s #2 links to WP:LEAD, and that guideline has the bold policy. --haha169 (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I'm quite sure; check recent FLs. When the the title is descriptive a verbatim, bolded repetition of the title is not necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay then. This seems to be a relatively recent development then. Sorry for the confusion. --haha169 (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is something that I tend to have problems with, although it hasn't caused some lists to fail the FL process. But I think that some of the episode descriptions may be too descriptive and on the wordy side of things.--haha169 (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --haha169 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of those are requirements for an anime episode list as seen here List of Bleach episodes (season 10). DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is curious. I'm not much of an anime fan and haven't looked at those lists. But cartoons like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and Avatar all have such information on them, as do sitcoms and other television shows. But since it seems that anime shows don't, I'll strike that out. I have also crossed out the infobox note, since it seems that anime lists don't use that either. I would have thought that all episode lists would be uniform. In any case, the rest of the list seems fine so I'm giving my support.--haha169 (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sources, my word, just one or two third-party sources in English out of 50. This is a problem as it's impossible for 99.9% of us to verify the information in this list.

The series is only in Japanese and thus has only Japanese sources which are the most reliable. This has not impacted whether an anime could be featured list or not. Sides, the Japanese sources mostly consists of episode number, kanji titles, and dates. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FL standards change, so no need to refer to other FLs. How do I verify the synopses? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm uncertain as to how you can use Wikipedia for references 3 to 6 inclusive."

From the anime and manga project group, I learned that the episodes themselves can be used to source the theme music. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can use Wikipedia to verify Wikipedia, regardless of what the project group says. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, I could unlink the links to the episodes,. I'm trying to show that the source is first party from the episode themselves. Other Featured anime lists also follow that. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it really. Whether other lists use this approach or not is not particularly relevant here. What's wrong with a wikilink? Why have a reference that I have to scroll down to find which then takes me back up to the list to an episode? And I find it odd that those references have Detective Conan as the work, some directors mentioned, and yet still link to Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cite episode templates have the directors, the reference have Detective Conan as the work since the English adapation, Case Closed, follow a different numbering than its original counterpart, Detective Conan, and I wanted to avoid original research. I could change it to Case Closed if prefered. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Half the lead talks about theme music. I'd rather know about the series, the characters, the stories etc.
"Notes and References" should be "Notes and references".

Fixed. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before as I can verify the content of the list, I don't really think there's much point in me reviewing the episode synopses because they could be inaccurate.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- This essentially means the large majority of WP:FLs from WP:ANIME should be delisted due to an almost complete lack of of English sources and a general lack of Japanese online sources that come from reliable sources. Disregarding my own personal beliefs in this, am I correct in assuming this? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 18:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well that's for the community to decide. If a list has virtually no English sources, I'd like to know how I can verify its contents. A reasonable request, no? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Get Japanese editors to verify them for you? I realize this is a tad unlikely, but Japanese sources shouldn't outright rejected. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not rejecting anything, outright or not, I'm simply stating that this is English Wikipedia, and to have featured material which is utterly unverifiable to English readers seems a little strange. Also, see WP:RSUE... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Only logical. I'll have to reconsider this myself. Cheers, ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 19:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well the information is unavailable in English. You could go ahead and oppose if you like, I won't be able to fix it. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well please note that I'm not the consensus, just a single person suggesting that a list almost entirely referenced in a foreign language doesn't meet our guidelines. If others are happy and support then so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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