Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards won by The Simpsons

List of awards won by The Simpsons[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start this off by saying Not every award won by The Simpsons is included here, and this is also noted in the lead. My criteria for including an award was whether or not it was notable enough for its own page. A list of the awards that aren't mentioned can be found here. There are some with their own page that aren't included, and in these cases it's because it's a combination of the fact that the series was only nominated for that award, and that I couldn't find a reliable source.

Either way, the awards that ARE included are fully sourced. Any concerns will be addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support this well-sourced article. Should "Awards" be lowercased in "Other Awards" and "'Choice' Awards?" I am sketchy about the second paragraph in the lead. I would rather see the second paragraph removed with a link to IMDb in the external links. It says "notable" awards in the first sentence, which I think is enough. It would be weird to say "There are no images of the main character Homer on this page because he is copyrighted, and it is believed that the use of fair use images should be limited on Wikipedia." –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will change the two headers to lower case. As for the second paragraph of the lead, I was unsure about that when I added it, because I thought it should be mentioned that not every award was included, but I will remove it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, maybe you should wait for some other Wikipedians' opinions before removing it. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I looked through it, everything looks nice. Nice table, well sourced, everything is good. Good luck! Xihix 17:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments/questions

Why do we say that some of the EMA nominations may be missing? Is it a problem with sourcing? A featured list should present itself as authoritative, so if we think there may be missing information, someone should track it down. (If you tell me what the specific problem is, I'll see if I can help.)
- Because I could only find sources for the winners prior to 2002, so that means that some nominees could be missing. The other option would be to remove the nominees from the table.
Are the "Choice" awards actually related to each other in something other than name? (IE, are they produced/organized by the same people?)
- Nope.
Are prose paragraphs really the best way to present the info in "Other awards"? That section is a chore to read, because of its length and repetitive sentence structures. At least some of that information (like the stuff about the British Comedy Awards) could be shown in regular list format. Zagalejo^^^ 03:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more of a case of being able to find enough sources so that there could be a list. The Simpsons only won a couple of most of the awards in the other awards section, although I guess some like the British Comedy Awards could be included as a table or something. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the whole layout is presentable and the article is fully accurate. Great work Scorpion. ~ Sebi 08:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~
- Links in headers. A classic no-no if there is one Done
- Odd capitalization in places (e.g. under "Environmental Media Awards") Done
- ~~If an individual ceremony article exist, the "year" column should link to it. Done~~
  - I have added links to every year page that exists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Listing "unknowns" is a patent admission of non-comprehensiveness (unless it can be confirmed that no specific episode was actually awarded etc.) Done (All mentions of "unknown" have beenremoved"
- Too many duplicated wikilinks in references, not to mention too many that are already linked in the article to begin with. Done> As an extra comment, the "publisher" is quite clearly the Humane Society of the United States, not "hsus.org" (almost all those links have the same problem).
  - Most links that have been left are still quite redundant.
    - I think I've gotten them all. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos for using {{TOClimit}}, though. Brilliant idea.
Circeus 04:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've addressed all of your concerns. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support. Circeus 19:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]