Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Numbers in the Year Zero alternate reality game/archive1

Numbers in the Year Zero alternate reality game 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: 18 days, 1 support, 0 oppose. There is no opposition, but there is also no support, so it is a Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit this is an odd list article, so I'm submitting this with a grain of salt to test the waters a bit. I'll come right out and mention some of the potential issues this article might have in an FLC (as well as some potential arguments against them):

Mostly in-universe, though because of the nature of the numbers there's a fine line between in-universe and real,
Lacks in-line citations, but for the most part the media themselves are the only source one really needs, especially since nothing here is controversial/contentious,
Pretty limited scope, though that's not necessarily a bad thing for a list article.

Any comments and suggestions are welcome. I'm submitting this somewhat to gauge the FLC possibilities of the other Year Zero ARG lists, so general suggestions would also be helpful. Thanks! Drewcifer 10:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page looks good, but I think it might fail FL criteria 1a3: "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". I'm not quite sure if this could be considered a significant topic of study, but I'm not going to oppose yet. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, and it seems like a tricky one to respond to. That particular criteria seems to be wildly up to interpretation (is List of Kylie Minogue concert tours a "significant topic of study"? Howabout List of Formula One fatal accidents?) Shouldn't the main quality needed to pass that particular criteria simply be notability? ie does the article deserve to exist in the first place? If it does, therefore it is a notable field of study. (Replace the word "significant" with "notable," and that's my point in a nutshell). Drewcifer 21:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the two articles you mentioned passed because they met criterion 1a1: most items in the list should have their own article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But that's not actually what 1a1 says at all: "brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria." Each number is representative of a particular piece of media, and although none of those media actually have an article all to themselves, they are discussed more thoroughly in other articles (all of the YZ ARG pages really, bu mainly Websites and phone numbers in the Year Zero alternate reality game, a little bit of Characters and organizations in the Year Zero alternate reality game, and of course Year Zero (alternate reality game)). Drewcifer 04:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've semi-followed this whole Year Zero campaign thing and I'd always hoped that some of the YZARG lists would become good enough for a nomination here. However, I think that a few issues need to be worked out:

The entries to the list itself seem inconsistent in presentation. For example, the additional information for most of the numbers is presented as a continuous paragraph, while 24.4.1 has separate two lines and the second line of 24.24.2's information has an extra indentation.
This may be organized better in a table.
The sole reference doesn't properly link to the news it mentions, which would be housed at an archive here.
Is it just me, or should telephone numbers from the game (currently residing at Websites and phone numbers in the Year Zero alternate reality game) should be merged into this article? It would seem more relevant in a list about numbers than being lumped in with websites.
After looking at the one reference, it contains no information about what it's being cited for, so this article is practically reference-less.

There may be a few more things, but I think that this has potential to be featured. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks for the comments Brandt. I'll try and address/fix your comments:

The reasoning behind 24.4.1 and 24.24.2 being formatted slightly differently are somewhat simple: 24.4.1 was for some reason given to two piece of media. The extra thing in 24.24.2 applies to 24.24.1 and 24.24.2, so I just put it on the second one and said "both lists" instead of putting it under both numbers. That said, those aren't necessarily good reasons for them to be like that. So if you think I should change them that would be easy enough.
I think I tried the table thing out when I first started to make the page, but I'm not sure about that. The only problem I could forsee with it is that there's basically only two columns needed: number and description. In my experience tables tend to look kind of silly with only two columns. But I'd be willing to give it a shot if you think it's a good idea.
Done fixed the citation. Good catch.
I don't think that phone numbers should be included in this list, as it's meant to be kind of a list of the media by their associated number. That said, we can take your point in another light: maybe the article is poorly named? Perhaps "Media of the Year Zero Alternate Reality Game"? Any ideas? That strays from the intention of the article, but in realistic practice all the media has a 24 number, so it might not make a huge difference.
I put that reference in there because hints leading to Exhibit Twenty Four were discovered in some of those multi-track files - but the article doesn't mention anything beyond just the files. Maybe I could reword it, since it does seem a little bit misleading. As far as the referencing goes, that's pretty much the main issue with the article. The problem is two fold: no sources that I've been able to find go into enough detail to be relevant, and the websites/phone numbers/etc kind of act as their own source. If I were to put in an article "Website X has a red background" that wouldn't need a source right? The way I see it, that's no different than saying "The Mailstrom has the numbers "24.1.1" in it." It's kind of an interesting meta-uber-Wiki-question: does Wikipedia require sources simply for the sake of sources? Drewcifer 06:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just merge the entry information together into one paragraph. As for the table, a column for the number, website found on, additional notes, and a footnote to the website on which the number was found could be used. I still think that phone numbers should be included here–from my perspective, it seems as though this list should be more of a collection of all numbers within the YZ ARG than a list of YZ ARG media organized by numbers. You're probably going to want a source for each of the numbers from the website that it originates from, or from a page on the YZ ARG phenomenon such as this; even if the sources aren't really needed, it can't hurt to have them. --Brandt Luke Zorn 08:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Started to turn things into a table (diff). It's lookin pretty good so far. But it does bring up some issues that are ... interesting. Namely, how do you reference a phone number? Howabout a USB drive? Maybe I should just leave those blank? And in some cases would it be appropriate to cite something that mentions the media itself? For instance, 24.4.2 is about the AIR kits. So I put two citations about the kits, but those citations don't actually mention the numbers. Whaddya think? And I imagine that I'll just drop the images on the blank section to the right (I've got more pics coming). Drewcifer 12:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Well, I've vastly changed the article today, and it's looking awesome, I must say. Everything is in a table and is referenced were appropriate. A few issues with references still remain (phone numbers, USB drives, etc), but were possible I've included some images. Speaking of images, I've added a bunch more, and I have a few more coming my way soon. Hopefully everything looks tip-top. Also, does anyone know of a way to center an entire column? The citations look strange left justified, and I'd rather not do the whole <div align="center"></div> in every cell. Drewcifer 03:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Way, way overlinking in the references. Circeus 06:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Strange, I thought I already fixed that. I might have accidentally reverted it since. Anyways, only the first instance of "YZ ARG" "NIN" and "42 Entertainment" are linked in the citations. Drewcifer 13:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You'll want to remove some images. The article currently fails the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. You want to use an absolute minimum of copyrighted images, and since you have 3 free images, the other probably have to go. Circeus 17:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definately agree with you in principle, but some of the fair-use images do seem somewhat important to me. Going through the important ones:

24.1.1 gives the best example of a hidden number on a website, soemthing which is impossible to get from a free-image. It's also the first, so is somewhat significant in that, as opposed to some of the other options.
24.10.4 could probably go.
24.19.1 is an email copyrighted? I honestly wasn't sure how to tag it.
24.24.2.1660 - 24.24.2.1669 seems somewhat important because it a) lists a bunch of numbers as opposed to just one, b) is directly discussed in the prose, and c) there is no free equvalent.

Do these assessments seem fair to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewcifer3000 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can make 24.10.1 free (or more free) license by taking a screenshot from Audacity, although it would still be a derivative work of a presumably copyright recording. A --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way ahead of you: 24.10.1 is a screenshot I took from Adobe Audition. Did I mistag it? Or would a screenshot from Audacity be more free? Drewcifer 13:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It won't make it completely free, but it'll stop it from being a copyright violation on proprietary software. IMO, Image:24-24-2.jpg, Image:24-10-4.jpg and Image:24-19-1.jpg ought to be removed, as they hardly add any information that isn't already presented some other way. --Brandt Luke Zorn 23:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, took out 24.10.4 and 24.24.1. But as for 24.19.1, what exactly is the copyright status of an email? I don't believe letters and general correspondence are copyrighted, so I don't think email would be either. I'm not copyright expert though. I'll see about asking the people at WP:FUC. Drewcifer 00:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]