Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Gunsmoke television episodes/archive1

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 01:29, 24 February 2010 [1].

---

List of Gunsmoke television episodes

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Featured list candidates/List of Gunsmoke television episodes/archive1
• Featured list candidates/List of Gunsmoke television episodes/archive2

I am nominating this for featured list because Gunsmoke is a television classic that warrants a good episode list. This is a long one! 635 episodes! Please help improve it if you can. I've already had help from a peer review, now lets "fine tune" it some more.

Two things to note:

• One of the show's producers was named Norman Macdonnell (small "d"), not Norman MacDonnell (side note: the Wikipedia article on him needs to have its title changed. Can we do this?)
  • Sure, you can move the article, although it would be nice if you could cite a reliable source verifying his name was indeed spelled that way. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Episode 554 is titled "P.S. Murry Christmas" and not "P.S. Merry Christmas" Jimknut (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the fair-use image significantly increases readers' understanding of this article. It definitely belongs in the main article Gunsmoke, but nothing here helps out with understanding the episodes as a whole. Most episode lists that have been recently promoted do not include fair-use images for this reason. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 I agree with the assessment of the fair use image given by Dabomb87. Thanks. However, I must confess that I didn't write the assessment. It and the picture where already available by way on the main Gunsmoke article. Actually, I meant that there isn't really a fair use claim for it that would be suitable for this article. It should be removed per the fair use guidelines. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC) "The list below is presented with the title of the episodes, their directors, writers, and original airdates. Unless otherwise cited this information is derived from the books Gunsmoke: An American Institution by Ben Costello and Gunsmoke: A Complete History by SuzAnne Barbaras and Gabor Barbaras." - the first sentence is self-explanatory from the headers of the table cells. The books should be turned into general references instead of mentioned in prose. This has been removed. Remove links from "Season 2" prose to be consistent with other seasons. Removed. Pardon my ignorance, but is there a reason why the episode numbers are listed "43(4)" (without a space) rather than "43 (4)" with a hard space? Also, this notation should be explained in a key, as it's not eminently clear what it is (I would guess from the format that it's overall episode number followed by episode within that season?). Changed. There are now two columns for episode numbers: One for the entire series and the other per season. All tables should be sortable, and each row of a table "should be able to stand on its own" per WP:LINK#Repeated links. I disagree. None of the other featured lists of television episodes have sortable lists, so I see no reason why this one should have them. Also an episode such as #9, "The Hunter", will have to be listed as "Hunter, The", and its director, Charles Marquis Warren as "Warren, Charles Marquis" for the list to sort properly. You don't have to change how the items are viewed; you need to use sorting templates like {{sort}} and {{sortname}}. Sortability is a featured list criterion, and WP:WAX isn't a reason for this list not to conform to the criteria. Keep in mind that other lists that are FLs may have been promoted some time ago, and the criteria are more stringent now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I have upgrade the lists so that they are now sortable except for the airdate column. In this column the dates are already presented in chronological order, so I think a sorting system isn't needed.Jimknut (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC) What makes "ClassicTVHits.com" and Amazon reliable sources? ClassicTVHits is used as a convienient reference since it's easily assessable. The info it contains is identical with the information in the Barbaras book, so it should be reliable. Amazon has been used as a source for other featured lists, so I presume it should be okay for this one. Jimknut (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC) References can't simply be used for "convenience"; they must also be reliable. If the info can be sourced to the book, which is definitely reliable, then it should be changed to the book if the reliability of the website can't be proven. I can't speak to Amazon, so I'll let other reviewers comment on that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC) There should be no problem with Amazon especially since its used to source information about the dvds and Amazon is obviously a well known DVD distributor, if its to much to ask but I would like to hear your opinion as to why it may fail WP:RS. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 21:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC) WP:RS is less about whether a source "fails" it and more about whether it passes it. When it comes to referencing for featured content, the source isn't innocent until proven guilty; reliability must be proven. To determine whether a source is reliable, evidence must be presented that the source has a reputation for fact-checking. "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." If this is truly only used to verify information about a DVD, that's probably a fine use of Amazon, but beyond that is likely a different story. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Well the question would still stand, what'd make it fail passing. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 22:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I just said it: evidence must be presented that the source has a reputation for fact-checking. I see no such evidence. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Yes I understand what you said but I wasn't asking whats in the policy, I was asking what specific about the site would make it fail passing. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 15:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC) We're talking in circles. If evidence can't be presented, it fails. End of story. If evidence can be presented, it should be, and it passes. Another end of story. If you're asking what I personally think about why Amazon may not be a reliable source, it's because it's a marketplace, a business, an entity which exists to promote and not to provide knowledge. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC) There is another website that has been used for DVD charts in Wikipedia TV episode lists. It's called TV Shows on DVD [tvshowsondvd.com]. I could use them as a source as well, but no doubt you will be questioning the reliability of them as well. As a result I have placed the Home released section into a hidden text mode. Jimknut (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Now that the table is sortable, each item with an article should be linked per WP:LINK#Repeated links. I believe I have the links fairly well covered. All linkable names are linked once per table. Per the above linked section, the article should be linked each time they occur, not once per table. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I've changed the links so they're all covered now. Many names, however, remain totally unlinked as there is currently no article for most of the writers and many of the directors of the series. There are a couple of pictures of actors from the show's cast that could be added to the list. There is a picture of Amanda Blake which might be suitable for the lead, since she was a member of the cast for 19 of 20 seasons. Added picture of James Arness. This is a fair-use image, and no rationale can be provided for its inclusion since a free image (the aforementioned picture of Blake) can replace it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC) The picture of Amanda Blake by herself shows her in the movie Stars in My Crown (1951), and not Gunsmoke. I have nonetheless replaced the picture of James Arness with one of him, Blake, and director Charles Marquis Warren on the set of the series in 1955. I think this is better suited overall. The picture is from Wikicommons (by way of Warren's nephew) so it should be okay to use the picture. Jimknut (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Good find on the image. In its current format, this list has my support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments good effort! No images at all? Ugh! First I had no images. Then I was asked (per peer review) to add one, so I did. Then in the initial stages of the FA review I was told that it doesn't add to the article (see above), so I took it out. Now I'm asked again why no images! I've put it back in ... and personally I think it does belong. "which was developed for television " you've just said television so "for television" isn't needed as you go on to say it's based on a radio show. Changed. "All the episodes of the series" no need for the first "the". Changed. "In Great Britain the series..." not the United Kingdom? Changed. black and white appears to need to be hyphenated. Changed. "broadcasted" - weird, I have it in my mind that "broadcast" is the past tense of "broadcast" but I won't argue...! Actually, both are correct. Wiktionary, however, says that "broadcast" is more commom in the United States. You win, it's changed. "Between 1987 and 1994 five televison movies based on the series were aired by CBS." no refs for this? Ref added. "centers around United States" don't you normally "center on" things? Changed. Sortable tables usually link linkable items every time as there's no guarantee which item the reader sees first after a resort. That would be a lot of linking! I think that the way I have it now conforms with WP:LINK#Repeated links. "Season #" is a little misleading in the table heading, it's the Episode of the season # really. I've changed the headings. Tell me what you think and, if you can, please offer any suggestions how to change it. Any reason why airdate isn't sortable? I know you can sort by episode but there's no guarantee that the episodes were necessarily aired in episode order... The episoded are listed in order of airdate (I've added a comment at the top of the list). I've changed the airdate headings in the charts so that they're now sortable. You have "Writer(s)" but "Director" and sometimes there are multiple directors... Changed. "half-hour" but then "one hour" - consistency? Changed. "for a thirteenth season" - but no notes as to how it continued to be made after season 13... Notes are now added at the top of season 13. "Note: "Pike", the two-parter that ended the season, was later developed into a spin-off series entitled Dirty Sally." no ref. And this could easily become a proper footnote. Ref added. For the year ranges, since you don't cross a century, you could easily drop the 19 from the second year in the range, e.g. 1966–67. Changed. Timeslot needs to use en-dash. Changed. If you put the colspan cols before the non-colspan col, you can make that table sortable. I've tried it many different ways, but nothing works. I've anyone else wants to have a go at it, I have no objections. You need to explain what "opposing programs" are. Changed to "Programs airing opposite Gunsmoke" See also needs a bullet point. Added. Footnotes are references really... Changed to one section marked "References" The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• One other item: It seems fairly common in episode lists that have achieved FL status to have a home video release chart. I have one for Gunsmoke but it's currently in a hidden text mode. One of the above commentators objected to using Amazon.com as a reliable reference, although Amazon has been used frequently in the past. Personally, I think that Amazon should be okay, since they're a worldwide business that's been in operation for many years. If Amazon is clearly selling Gunsmoke DVDs and displays them on their website this should be obvious proof that the DVDs exists. As for release dates, number of discs, extra features, etc., I presume that Amazon receives this information from the manufacturer of the DVDs (which in this case would be CBS). That Amazon would list this information inaccurately, while possible, seems (to me at least) to be highly unlikely as accurate descriptions of merchandise is mandatory in any retail business. I'd like to reinstate the Home Video section but I know of no other reliable source (CBS's web page does not give release dates). Any comments? Jimknut (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Well yes, home video releases are usually noted. I (personally) agree with your view of Amazon as a reliable source. I would reinstate the hidden text and see what others have to say... The Rambling Man (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I found three. They're fixed now. Jimknut (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Closing note Even though this FLC garnered a support, I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 3 or 4 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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