Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies/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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies edit
List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 17:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a massive, comprehensive, well-written, fully-sourced and up-to-date list of all the original, high-end production, television films and movie series from Hallmark Channel (HC) and its sister channel Hallmark Movies & Mysteries (HMM). I would also like to add that this list has been continuously edited and built for 10 years now, and has had almost 100,000 page views in just the past month. Thank you for your consideration. Cordially, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 17:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Drive-by comment
- There's a heck of a lot of references, but what is sourcing all the "by year" data from 2000 to 2011? None of that has any refs at all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comment Chris. If you take a closer look you'll see that the 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 seasons DO have references in their sections (plus other sections). 2001 and 2004's are in the intro (corresponding to each channel's launch year respectively), 2003's in the 'Franchise series' section. 2005's in the 'Umbrella series' and 'Franchise series' sections. 2010's in the 'Seasonal programming' section. The list is only missing references for 2000, 2002 and 2011, which should be easy to find. Also, a reminder that the 2000-2014 period produced far less titles than the 2015-2020. No list is perfect, but this one is pretty good. And of course, improvements and polishing are always needed in this list as in all lists. Cheers, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 22:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You say "2001[...]'s are in the intro (corresponding to each channel's launch year respectively)", and that part is certainly true, but what ref covers the fact that "Snow White: The Fairiest Them All" (which, by the way, seems to be spelt incorrectly) was broadcast on October 28, 2001, for example? And given that you've mentioned there that the channel launched in 2001, how can there be nine films listed for 2000 if the channel hadn't started broadcasting? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you again for your input Chris :) I have addressed your above concerns as best as possible, plus I added refs to all the years/seasons that had none (see my changes here). I certainly agree that the 2000-2011 period could include more sources, but all its sub-sections now have at least one or two refs, and again, this is the earlier period that had much fewer movies in it than the latter period when they flourished. Cheers, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 19:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but saying that all sections "have at least one or two refs" isn't really going to cut it at FLC. An FLC is expected to have everything reliably sourced. As it stands, the section on 2005, for example, only cites the existence of one out of 32 films, so regretfully I'm going to have to oppose due to lack of sourcing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- With almost 600 unique references, I hardly think there is "a lack of sourcing" in this massive list. You seem to be asking for a perfect list, and that is unreasonable. I also don't understand why you are so quick to oppose, when you could offer more guidance, solutions, and specifics. If you care about the FLC project I kindly ask you to withhold your vote and allow more time to address its imperfections. The rules/guidelines even indicate that nominations can have up to 1 month to resolve issues. Are you seriously going to deny this nomination the time that everybody else here is getting? Please take into consideration that this list includes almost 1,000 unique film titles. The editors involved in the making of this list did great work and I support them 100%. Thanks, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 21:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I will be more than happy to withdraw my oppose !vote if the issues with the article are resolved (and many nominations stay open for a lot longer than a month, so there's plenty of time). In the case of this list, though, there's just so much uncited content that I think it will be a huge task to bring it up to FL standard within a reasonable timeframe....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- With almost 600 unique references, I hardly think there is "a lack of sourcing" in this massive list. You seem to be asking for a perfect list, and that is unreasonable. I also don't understand why you are so quick to oppose, when you could offer more guidance, solutions, and specifics. If you care about the FLC project I kindly ask you to withhold your vote and allow more time to address its imperfections. The rules/guidelines even indicate that nominations can have up to 1 month to resolve issues. Are you seriously going to deny this nomination the time that everybody else here is getting? Please take into consideration that this list includes almost 1,000 unique film titles. The editors involved in the making of this list did great work and I support them 100%. Thanks, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 21:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but saying that all sections "have at least one or two refs" isn't really going to cut it at FLC. An FLC is expected to have everything reliably sourced. As it stands, the section on 2005, for example, only cites the existence of one out of 32 films, so regretfully I'm going to have to oppose due to lack of sourcing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you again for your input Chris :) I have addressed your above concerns as best as possible, plus I added refs to all the years/seasons that had none (see my changes here). I certainly agree that the 2000-2011 period could include more sources, but all its sub-sections now have at least one or two refs, and again, this is the earlier period that had much fewer movies in it than the latter period when they flourished. Cheers, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 19:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You say "2001[...]'s are in the intro (corresponding to each channel's launch year respectively)", and that part is certainly true, but what ref covers the fact that "Snow White: The Fairiest Them All" (which, by the way, seems to be spelt incorrectly) was broadcast on October 28, 2001, for example? And given that you've mentioned there that the channel launched in 2001, how can there be nine films listed for 2000 if the channel hadn't started broadcasting? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comment Chris. If you take a closer look you'll see that the 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 seasons DO have references in their sections (plus other sections). 2001 and 2004's are in the intro (corresponding to each channel's launch year respectively), 2003's in the 'Franchise series' section. 2005's in the 'Umbrella series' and 'Franchise series' sections. 2010's in the 'Seasonal programming' section. The list is only missing references for 2000, 2002 and 2011, which should be easy to find. Also, a reminder that the 2000-2014 period produced far less titles than the 2015-2020. No list is perfect, but this one is pretty good. And of course, improvements and polishing are always needed in this list as in all lists. Cheers, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 22:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Oppose – There's a lot of issues with this list in its current state.
- I'm inclined to agree with ChrisTheDude about this article. The sources are very weak and certainly not up to the standards of a featured list. Many movies are missing sources completely, so how do we know they are real in any way? Other movies have a source, but only for the ratings; this does not help to verify the other information in the table, such as DVD availability. Some sources consist of only a link with no formatting instead of a proper citation. As you pointed out, this has a lot of sources, but it's a long list, so it still needs more.
- The accessibility needs improvement. Per featured list criteria 4, there should be table sort functions for the movie titles, casts, and directors.
- The formatting should be more consistent; I think the early years also need to be put into a table. Moreover, every movie should have the same information, so if you're going to include the cast and director, you should do that for every movie.
- Finally, I'm hesitant to make this a featured list even if its formatting is improved solely because it will be significantly updated on a fairly regular basis (at the rate Hallmark makes movies, there would be dozens of movies each year that have to be added with the same level of formatting).
Here's what I would recommend. As this currently stands, the articles is over 400 kB – much too long to be comfortably navigated. I think the list should be broken up by year or into increments of several years (I think 5-year increments would work fairly nicely – so 2000-2004, 2005-2009, etc.). Then, each list would be much easier to manage, and years with plenty of sources would not be held back by years with little to no sources. This would also ensure that past years are included in a stable, unchanging list. I'm not going to propose a split myself, but it's something I think you should consider instead of trying to get this entire list to FL status. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much ChrisTheDude and RunningTiger123 for your interest in this nomination and for taking the time to comment. Let me begin by saying that I (and hopefully other editors willing to help get this list up to FL standards) will try to address as many of the aforementioned points as we can, and as best as we can. But we also need as much time as you are able to give to this nom, given the massive size of the list. I would also like to kindly reiterate that we must all be *realistic*. If we add layer upon layer of requirements to a FLC, tantamount to those expected of the main page's Today's Featured List (TFL), then we will end up with little to no Featured Lists at all, as well as many discouraged editors abandoning their overall participation in the improvement of lists. Ok, that being said here is my latest Update:
- I have now added 200+ new unique references (the list's total of unique refs is now 800+). Almost all of the (40) tables in the list are now 100% sourced, with the exception of (6) that are at about 75% sourced, and (2) that are minimally sourced because these are the harder-to-find pre-Hallmark Channel years. Additionally, according to InternetArchiveBot's most recent scan, requested yesterday, (0) dead links were found in this list (See: here). Several AutoWikiBrowser scans have also found no problems with the list. Cordially, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 04:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really good to see that you're adding sources to the page; from past experience, I know how hard it can be to find old information like this for lists. That being said, the comments that have been made are not adding "layer upon layer of requirements" to an FLC (at least, I certainly think that's the case; I won't speak for ChrisTheDude). Per WP:FLCR:
"A featured list exemplifies our very best work."
One of Wikipedia's core content policies is verifiability, so if a list is to be promoted, it needs to live up to that standard to the fullest by having sources throughout – not just for most items, but for every item. We cannot change the requirements to be "realistic", as that sets a bad precedent and threatens to degrade the quality of future FLs. I'd also like to clarify that there are no additional requirements to be featured at TFL because anything that TFL chooses to display is already vetted by going through the FL nomination process. Again, though, your progress is really encouraging and is putting this list on the right track. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]- RunningTiger123, I agree, and I don't see anything in what I typed above which seemed unreasonable or unrealistic. At the point when I initially commented, whole sections of the article had literally no references at all, and suggesting that these needed to be added is not adding "layer upon layer of requirements", it's simply stating what is expected of any FL. The nominator's response suggested (and apologies if I misrepresent) that he/she felt that because this is such a long list, referencing only some of the content ought to be sufficient for promotion, and that has simply never been true........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think you might be on to something with your suggestion that this monumental list be broken up into articles for different ranges of years, along the lines of, say, Category:England national football team results -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- RunningTiger123, I agree, and I don't see anything in what I typed above which seemed unreasonable or unrealistic. At the point when I initially commented, whole sections of the article had literally no references at all, and suggesting that these needed to be added is not adding "layer upon layer of requirements", it's simply stating what is expected of any FL. The nominator's response suggested (and apologies if I misrepresent) that he/she felt that because this is such a long list, referencing only some of the content ought to be sufficient for promotion, and that has simply never been true........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really good to see that you're adding sources to the page; from past experience, I know how hard it can be to find old information like this for lists. That being said, the comments that have been made are not adding "layer upon layer of requirements" to an FLC (at least, I certainly think that's the case; I won't speak for ChrisTheDude). Per WP:FLCR:
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.