Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of That '70s Show episodes/Archive 1

List of That '70s Show episodes

I've been working on this list for about a month or so by adding tables, synopses, airdates, and production codes for each season, as well as expanding the heading. The title screenshot used also has fair use rationales. Please give some feedback as to any other improvements that can be made. - Zone46 07:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: you need a proper fair use rationale for use of the logo in this list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• There is a fair use rationale. I said that already. - Zone46 11:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I read it and none of the reasons listed qualify for this list, just for the actual That '70s Show article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You could say the same for the List of The Simpsons episodes. - Zone46 14:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• You do realize, I hope, that somebody else's mistake does not justify yours. In any case I removed the offending image from the article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• My mistake, I misread your statement before. I thought you meant the whole list of episodes in general was only relevant for the That '70s Show article, not the fair use list. I didn't know you were talking about the image. - Zone46 15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• No problem :-) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• References? Renata 11:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• The external links were the references, I just mis-labeled the section (it's fixed now). I got most help from TV.com and the show's official website, as well as watching the episodes (obviously). - Zone46 16:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Although WP:LOE is still getting off the ground, the recommendations there, as well as what's seen on most lists (including the other 6 episode FLs) have the synopses under the row with title, air date, etc. I don't think formatting needs to be exactly the same, but at least that should be done for number 4 on Wikipedia:What is a featured list?. -- Ned Scott 12:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I think there should be some consistent widths for the columns and the tables themselves. -- Ned Scott 15:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Abusing table markup for decoration. HTML is a structural language; structurally, half of this article is made up of empty table cells that serve no purpose. I also find the colors to be distracting and completely unneccesary. If you want to color code it, I think it should only be done in the table header. Punctured Bicycle 14:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, what? There does seem to be an empty cell in each entry, likely where the summary should go as I suggested above. I'm guessing the table code was copied from another list, but not filled out correctly. But even with that, I'm not really sure I understand the comment "abusing table markup for decoration". This isn't far off from what most lists use, including our other 6 featured episode lists. The color separation row is very common, and I really don't see that as a problem (but if I had to nitpick, I'd say lose the pink). -- Ned Scott 15:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Tables are for tabulating data, not for facilitating visual effects. In other words, creating empty data cells for the sole purpose of coloring them in is wrong. That's what CSS is for. See List of The Simpsons episodes for a good model. Punctured Bicycle 15:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think it'd be fair to say that the synopsis of each episode should be written to uniquely identify an episode (in the context of a list such as this). As in, someone who has seen the show should be able to generally know what an episode is based on these short summaries (reasonable that this might not be fool-proof, but should generally yield positive IDs). I have not seen most of the episodes from this show, would anyone more familiar like to comment on how effective they feel the descriptions are? This will help us see if the list passes part 2 of the featured list criteria. -- Ned Scott 15:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• I got a number of synopses from TV.com and the show's official website. Anyone who has seen and knows the show more than I do please feel free to contribute. As for the layout, why can't it be different from the others? Does every TV show FL need to look alike? - Zone46 15:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how you interrupt part 4 on the FL criteria. There is a WikiProject List of Television Episodes, although doesn't have a lot of members, still reflects the common layout seen on TV lists, as well as on the other featured lists of episodes. Without nitpicking, I'd say this at least includes consistent table column widths, summaries under the "title row", basic info (such as original air date, title, and episode number/ prod code), and tables grouped by season or other logical system. You've got two of the four that I've listed there. -- Ned Scott 16:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• How do you make the widths consistent? They turned out the way they did after I made the tables, and it's been bugging me on why they aren't. Also, what do you mean by "basic info (such as original air date, title, and episode number/ prod code), and tables grouped by season or other logical system"? Aren't the production codes, airdate, etc. grouped in their specific seasons? Please expand on what I'm doing wrong. Thanks. - Zone46 16:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, basic info and grouping the seasons are two things you are already doing correctly ;)

As for the table widths, code such as ! Title !! Number of tacos eaten !! Reason for not wearing pants can become  ! width="100" | Title !! width="200" | Number of tacos eaten !! width="200" | Reasons for not wearing pants. I'd recommend not defining the width for title, though, and then at the very top of the wikitable make {| class="wikitable" into {| class="wikitable" width="98%"(You can use 100% if you want, it just helps sometimes to use 98% because of the way some browsers, such as the MSN browser, renders tables. I'm not sure why.) Using a percentage width for the over all table, and then not defining the Title width (or another column), will make the table able to change with the browser window size but still make all the columns line up. An example using your current layout, I would define a width for Title and instead keep Synopsis undefined, shown as:

{| class="wikitable" width="98%" |- ! width="200"| Title !! width="120"|Original air date !! Synopsis !! width="25"|Production code !! width="25"|#

-- Ned Scott 16:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, I've fixed the widths of the tables and it looks much better. - Zone46 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have also deleted the extra row underneath each episode. I really don't feel the need to place the synopses underneath the title, production code, etc. Wouldn't the page get much bigger? - Zone46 17:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I'd call it required for the FLC, but it would help. It might make the page longer, but not significantly. It would be more constant with the style of the other 6 featured episode lists (well, 5, actually, since List of Simpsons episodes doesn't have summaries on that article, but instead on sub articles), and the emerging guidelines of WP:LOE. -- Ned Scott 21:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• So do you suggest changing the format so that the synopses go underneath the other details (ie list of South Park episodes? If that's how it has to be in order to become an FL, fine, but I just think something different wouldn't hurt. - Zone46 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• In the status that the list is in now, I support, since no one else is commenting. If anyone wants to make any other major changes, go right ahead, but I don't know how much longer the list will be up for nomination.- Zone46 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have only been involved in a handful of FLC, but I would think that gaining featured list status wouldn't be based on a lack of opposition, but rather, should be done when there is strong support. It's not that I don't think it's a bad article, it's a lot better than most, but a Featured list is supposed to "Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet." -- Ned Scott 23:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK, well thanks for everyone's input. I tried, failed, and now I can finally focus on something else. (You don't know how many times I've checked this page over the past week). Thanks again. - Zone46 23:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not say that you have failed. You've already improved the list greatly by including it in this process, and I would say it's not far off from FL material. Remember, featured status is something that is supposed to be very challenging, or else everything would be featured. You've done a good job on this, so I hope this FLC isn't a discouragement to you. -- Ned Scott 00:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that. The list has improved greatly during this nomination. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)