Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl chapters/archive3

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 Matthewedwards 18:04, 8 August 2009 [1].

List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl chapters edit

Nominator(s): 十八 01:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list for the third time because I believe all issues have been addressed since the last time it was at FLC, specifically, that it received a copyedit a couple months back, and I believe all the other criteria have already been satisfied since the last time. Hopefully, third time's the charm.--十八 01:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I count 5 entries in the list, far from the guideline of 10 entries before the list can generally be considered for featured list. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but there is nothing at WP:FL? that states a list must have at least 10 entries before it can become an FL. Not to mention that this is a list of chapters, and there are 35 chapters plus a few extras.--十八 23:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list does not have one entry per chapter, there are not 35 entries there are 5. The rule of thumb, a sort of unwritten guideline for FLC submissions is 10 or it's too short. It's mentioned in a couple of current reviews, check for yourself. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unwritten guideline? Is this really the caliber that Wikipedia has fallen to these days? Honestly, if having 10 entries was so important, then why isn't it a written rule instead of an unwritten one? Why should it be unwritten anyway if misunderstandings like this are just going to serve to clog the candidates page? Why should it be unwritten when that only serves to get people's hopes up that any list of the upmost quality could become an FL? I swear.--十八 07:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just like GAs and FAs do have to have a certain length so do FLs. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        GAs and FAs have no length requirement. FL doesn't have a hard requirement either, but per criterion 3b, lists submitted to FLC are those that could "not reasonably be included as part of a related article". I have always been wary of the ten-item limit, especially since it is "unwritten", but there you go. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As a fourth(?) opinion, the project currently has two other lists at FL status that have less than 10 items: List of FLCL episodes and List of Yotsuba&! chapters. I see no reason why this list wouldn't qualify for FL. Arsonal (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Why can't it be merged into the main article under the Manga section?--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main article is already 50KB in length. I really don't think something of this size (~19KB) should be merged into that article. Therefore I do not believe this list could be "reasonably included" as per criteria 3b.--十八 23:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, but I wanna wait to see what other reviewers think. If people agree that it passes 3b, notify me please. I hope you understand.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I forgot that the only thing that would be merged would be the list itself, which I checked at 14KB, but still, the main article is long enough as it is.--十八 02:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - To be quite honest, I think adding the list itself there wouldn't hurt. But that's my opinion, I rather see what other reviewers think.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The list could be included in the main article a condensed version (e.g. including only the volume list but not the chapters or summary), but my third opinion thinks the separate article is necessary to better differentiate between the manga and anime if both have relatively the same level of notability and contain differences. Arsonal (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two things first the main article has just been re-assessed as GA. Merge the list back there and i guess we will do re-assessment again with the funny possibility of the GA reviewer asking the list to be split back. Second there materials to develop the reception part of the main article even more so Juhachi's 50KB is an underestimation. I think the merged article would eventually hit the 70-80 KB where the WP:SIZE gets more ominous. --KrebMarkt 21:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Going through another GAR so soon just because a list is merged back is excessive and unnecessary, since the addition of a simple list wouldn't cause it to fail GA. I would not agree with merging it back, especially if what you say about exceeding 70KB is plausible.--十八 21:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you checked the main article talk page? There are translations of a full coverage from a French RS website waiting to be copy-edited, digested and integrated into the article. If used as full citation with quotes, it would require the original French text along to its English translation. I agree that an evil way to increase the article size but that MoS requirement. --KrebMarkt 21:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sheer size of that French coverage means all of it couldn't be added as that would add undue weight on a single source, and its not like the main article is lacking in reliable reception anyway. I realize that you personally translated it, and thank you for that, but as I said much of it would have to be left out or greatly summarized.--十八 21:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Weren't you the one complaining about the lack of translation :p Let's discuss in Kashimashi talk page --KrebMarkt 10:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Image needs alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added.--十八 23:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I may be mistaken, but I think this list will have the fewest number of volumes out of all manga FLs, if promoted. And by the way...why are all these manga lists called "list of *** chapters"? All of these lists provide info about volumes rather than chapters. There's no talk about chapter 12, for example, but there's a summary for volume 2. I mean other than the number and the name of these chapters, there's no more info about them. Where are the summaries for each chapter?
I would also like to add that in order to support this list, I'd like to see opinions of a good copy-editor and an uninvolved member of the WikiProject Anime and manga.--Crzy cheetah 06:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been a long, long standing convention to name such manga lists as "List of **** chapters", as chapters are the least common denominator with how manga are divided, similar to how TV shows are divided into episodes. The reason why the volumes are summarized instead of individual chapters is also a long standing convention, and when {{Graphic novel list}} was being developed, it was decided that it would be done this way. Now, if you're thinking that we should just change it to "List of **** volumes", we can't do that, as we already have other manga lists which just list the volumes, such as List of Naruto manga volumes.--十八 10:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the prose is mostly good, and made a few copy-edits here and there. One sentence confused me, and needs recasting: "On the festival's last day, Hazumu tries to meet up with Yasuna and Tomari but keeps missing them." What does "miss" mean in this context? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Ref 11 redirects, see the link checker. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Mainly due to concerns about length. I'm not just talking about the rule-of-thumb 10 entries thing, though I think that does still apply. My concern is it's mergability with the main article, and how the list would change if it was indeed merged. The bulk of this list seems to be plot summaries of each volume. If the list were merged into the main article, all of this would probably be covered within the Plot section, thus making the small list even smaller (ie more mergable). I also have some objections to some of the rest of the content used to fill out this list: chapter lists and cover character specifically. I think the chapter names is not unlike avoiding tracklistings in discographies: unnecessary detail that doesn't really have much relevance to the list as a whole. Or in other words, does the fact that chapter 4 of the first volume is named "Tomari, Confused!" have anything to do with anything? And the latter, the cover characters, just seems entirely trivial to me. I must admit I've always avoided reviewing manga FLCs, so for all I know chapter names and cover characters are a common addition to these lists, so I won't hold that particular part against this candidacy. But all of that combined makes me think that merging the list into the main article is clearly the better option here. Drewcifer (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a little research of current FLs, this does seem to be the norm, so ignore the last bit about chapter names and cover characters. I have brought up the subject here though, if anyone would like to speak up about it. Drewcifer (talk) 21:26, 6 August 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.