Misplaced Pages

:Featured list candidates/List of Friends episodes/archive1: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:36, 30 April 2012 editMatthewedwards (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users26,826 edits →List of Friends episodes← Previous edit Revision as of 16:30, 30 April 2012 edit undoAussieLegend (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers173,395 edits Reply one - Do I need to invoke Godwin's law?Next edit →
Line 126: Line 126:
:::Well just because it's used in a large number of articles, it doesn't make it right, does it? Templates aren't used because coding isn't understood by most editors, where's the evidence supporting that? Templates are convenient, sure, but their overuse can result in very slow page load times. In any case, as I said, we need our featured lists to meet the manual of style with regard to both visual and non-visual appearance. What goes on behind the scenes is irrelevant to whether this list should be featured; if it meets ] then it should be featured. If someone would fix the template (our resident expert in ACCESS matters, ] should be able to assist with exactly what needs to be fixed) then there'd be no need for the discussion. As it stands, this list now meets the requirements mandated by the MOS, which is correct for Misplaced Pages's finest work. Just because 5,068 other articles don't comply with MOS, I don't see why this one shouldn't. ] (]) 14:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC) :::Well just because it's used in a large number of articles, it doesn't make it right, does it? Templates aren't used because coding isn't understood by most editors, where's the evidence supporting that? Templates are convenient, sure, but their overuse can result in very slow page load times. In any case, as I said, we need our featured lists to meet the manual of style with regard to both visual and non-visual appearance. What goes on behind the scenes is irrelevant to whether this list should be featured; if it meets ] then it should be featured. If someone would fix the template (our resident expert in ACCESS matters, ] should be able to assist with exactly what needs to be fixed) then there'd be no need for the discussion. As it stands, this list now meets the requirements mandated by the MOS, which is correct for Misplaced Pages's finest work. Just because 5,068 other articles don't comply with MOS, I don't see why this one shouldn't. ] (]) 14:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
:::(Edit Conflict) It was standard practice to send Jews to concentration camps. Didn't make it right, even though some people believed it was at the time. Are you seriously saying that the majority of editors don't know how to construct tables? Well if they don't, we have plenty of help pages guiding editors on how to build them. We shouldn't find a workaround for them so that they continue to stay in the dark about it. You keep talking about duplication errors, don't you mean non-duplication errors, because surely the error will only be duplicated when it is transcluded? If there is no transclusion there can be no duplication, so one page will be correct, which is better for readers than having two pages with incorrect information. If you're worried about it, include notes to editors at the top of each editable section in hidden tags <nowiki><!-- like these --></nowiki> that ask editors to make changes at the 'other' page. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 14:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC) :::(Edit Conflict) It was standard practice to send Jews to concentration camps. Didn't make it right, even though some people believed it was at the time. Are you seriously saying that the majority of editors don't know how to construct tables? Well if they don't, we have plenty of help pages guiding editors on how to build them. We shouldn't find a workaround for them so that they continue to stay in the dark about it. You keep talking about duplication errors, don't you mean non-duplication errors, because surely the error will only be duplicated when it is transcluded? If there is no transclusion there can be no duplication, so one page will be correct, which is better for readers than having two pages with incorrect information. If you're worried about it, include notes to editors at the top of each editable section in hidden tags <nowiki><!-- like these --></nowiki> that ask editors to make changes at the 'other' page. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 14:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Templates are certainly convenient, and we use them for because of that, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that most people seem to have difficulty with coding tables. People screw tables up all the time. Most of the table damage I see just happens to be in TV articles. There may be help pages for tables but they're clearly not understood based on the number of basic errors that I've had to fix. Templates simplify table coding enormously. Unless you're Superman, or Mr Data trying to stop a core breach on the USS Enterprise, slow page load times really don't affect most articles. A few milliseconds here or there just isn't noticed by the average human. What goes on behind the scenes is very relevant to featured list discussions. If an article can't be promoted to featured status because it uses standard templates, then there's something wrong with the system. Instead of sticking heads in the sand and altering the article almost completely so that it does comply, the issues with the templates should be addressed so that the article doesn't need a complete rewrite.
::::"''You keep talking about duplication errors, don't you mean non-duplication errors''" - If the same information is included in two different pages the content should be duplicated exactly on both pages, so the content isn't contradictory. Inevitably though, the information will become out of sync and the information will not be duplicated exactly on both pages. This is what the changes to List of Friends episodes will cause. There is no proposal to remove the episode lists from the individual season pages. That's not part of this nomination.
::::"''If you're worried about it, include notes to editors at the top of each editable section in hidden tags''" - OK, I haven't looked at your profile but I assume from that suggestion that you live in Utopia where nothing ever goes wrong. People ignore hidden comments all the time. Sometimes it's a never-ending battle trying to stop people from ignoring notes. Have a look at the notes in the "{{para|starring}}" field of the infobox at ]. They're always being ignored. Articles on TV programs that have ended constantly have "<foo> is a" changed to "<foo> was a", even when the note is right next to is. "International broadcast" tables that have a note at the beginning of the section saying "please add countries to this list in alphabetical order" are often re-ordered, or added to by somebody to whom the alphabet apparently starts with "azfkewpb".
::::"''It was standard practice to send Jews to concentration camps''" - Now this is getting silly. It was standard practice in Nazi Germany only. It was a practice rejected by the rest of the world. Do I need to invoke ] here? --] (]) 16:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

:"Without transclusion, content is in two places, which doesn't help our readers" Readers don't care that content is in two articles. Lazy editors might, though. Next you'll be saying that we should transclude article content into the lede section (or vica verca) so people don't have to type repeated stuff there too. :"Without transclusion, content is in two places, which doesn't help our readers" Readers don't care that content is in two articles. Lazy editors might, though. Next you'll be saying that we should transclude article content into the lede section (or vica verca) so people don't have to type repeated stuff there too.
:"Removing transclusion and building tables that duplicate what is already in the season articles '''will''' (I've seen it too many times) result in duplication errors." Transcluding from many articles means that when those articles are edited incorrectly or vandalised, both pages display errors. (I've seen it too many times.) I'd rather have one page display an error and another page display the right thing. :"Removing transclusion and building tables that duplicate what is already in the season articles '''will''' (I've seen it too many times) result in duplication errors." Transcluding from many articles means that when those articles are edited incorrectly or vandalised, both pages display errors. (I've seen it too many times.) I'd rather have one page display an error and another page display the right thing.

Revision as of 16:30, 30 April 2012

List of Friends episodes

List of Friends episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this meets the WP:FLC criteria. Apart from prose, my main concern is does the list violate 3b in that season synopses have by and large been obtained from the main article. This was a suggestion from the peer reviewer because articles for many episodes have hardly been created so synopses would be understandable for the reader. The list's overview section and ratings mirror that of List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Family Guy episodes so the requirements might have changed from that of a year or so ago. I welcome any comments, suggestions, criticism, feedback, et al, cheers -- Lemonade51 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments
  • There's no need to wikilink US in the opening sentence, and I know TRM at peer review said to use "US" over "American" but after looking at any FA or FL about songs, episodes, films from the US, they all say "American". In both regular conversation and formal language, for me I think "The US sitcom Friends" jars compared to "American"
    • Done
  • "Friends was broadcast in 236 episodes" in doesn't sound correct here
    • Fixed order
  • "Each episode excluding the season finale has the title which starts with 'The one...' " is incorrect. The pilot is called "The Pilot", and it's the series finale, not season finale, which also doesn't end with "The One..." One needs capitalising, too, as it's a quote of the titles.
    • Fixed
  • That entire sentence is a bit long, and would flow better if it was recast as separate sentences, especially since the topic jumps from titles to length.
    • Fixed
  • "for a 30-minute timeslot" perhaps clarify by mentioning this is to allow for commercial breaks
    • Done
  • is there an article for "first unit"? It's a bit of a specialised term that many people won't get
    • There isn't, I could only find Second unit. I have rephrased the terminology.
  • Sentences shouldn't begin with "However", just as they shouldn't begin with a But, Although, etc
    • Fixed
  • "filmed in Burbank" vs "Taped in London"
    • Fixed
  • "broadcast on NBC after the first airing of "The One with Joey's New Brain" (February 15, 2001)" ---> "broadcast following "The One with Joey's New Brain" on February 15, 2001"
    • Replaced
  • "Conan O'Brien hosted a light-hearted discussion with the cast from the Central Perk set" needs recasting, it currently sounds like "the cast from the Central Perk set", as opposed to him hosting it on the set
    • Fixed
  • As well as DVDs, have episodes been released on BluRay, or for streaming at Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, etc?
    • Complete series on Blu-ray. Would I need to include a seperate table for that? Blu ray has been confirmed but no release date as of yet.
  • "but Chandler falls in love with her only to break up when he suspects she is cheating on him with a fellow actor." -- "only to break up" what does this mean? You haven't told the reader they got together
  • The season summaries need work. Have they been copy edited? Some of the sentences are a bit run-on or poorly structured in other ways. Some are contradictory, such as "Season five features Monica and Chandler trying to keep their new relationship a secret from their friends." ... "Monica and Chandler go public with their relationship"
  • Season 8's "The One After "I Do"" -- because the template forces "" around the title, you should use single quotes around the I Do to avoid the repetition of ""
  • Were Pheobs, Chandler and Monica absent from season 8?
  • For me, you don't have to have the season plot summaries. It doesn't violate 3b by including them or excluding them. This is a page that just lists the episodes and any further information such as what happens in them can be found by looking at the season specific articles which have summaries for all episodes. There aren't many Featured episode lists that do this anyway -- certainly not the more recently promoted -- and looking through most of them I found only a couple that do. List of Veronica Mars episodes is one, and that has a lot of episode articles anyways so the summaries aren't really necessary. List of Lost episodes is another, but again, each episode has its own article. Those that don't have a lot of episode articles and also don't have summaries include List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes, List of Dexter episodes, List of Numb3rs episodes, List of Gunsmoke television episodes, List of The Unit episodes and List of Smallville episodes so I'm not sure where the precedent is for that request.
    • I decided to exclude the season summaries because they are covered in the seperate season articles (some in detailed length).
  • MOS:HASH says to avoid using "№" and "#". I would name the first two columns "No. in series" and "No. in season" for clarity
    • Fixed
  • The specials don't have numbers, so you don't need those columns in those tables
    • Fixed
  • TRM said in the PR to make sure all tables meet MOS:DTT. Do they?
  • What's the reasoning for the two left Ratings columns to be a different background colour, and why small text for the year ranges?
    • I assume rowscopes are needed to highlight ratings?
  • Titles, writers, directors and production numbers and airdates are still unreferenced, despite being marked as Done in the PR.
    • They come under the 'General' reference, the 15th anniversary DVD which includes the specials.
  • Not all articles lend themselves to images. The FL? doesn't require one to be promoted, it says they're to be included if appropriate for the topic. Here the topic is specifically the list of episodes, and a photo of a couch and coffee table doesn't illustrate a list of episodes even if those episodes did feature that prop.
    • Have removed the image.

Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 11:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose – Lack of reliability in the source department is my biggest concern.
  • "Each episode excluding the series premeire and finale has the title which starts with 'The One...'". Second "the" should be "a".
    • Fixed
  • Might want to let those who haven't seen the show know what "the Central Perk set" means.
    • Added
  • In each table, Prod No. should be Prod no. as the second word is being overcapitalized.
    • Fixed
  • Refs 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, and 28 need publishers (DVD Warehoure in each case).
    • Fixed
  • Refs 29 and 30 have printed publishers, which should be italicized. For 29, the Chicago Tribune needs cites in addition to The Washington Post.
    • Italicized ref 30, removed Chicago Tribune ref and replaced it with a better one.
  • What makes Dan G's Website (ref 31) a reliable source. It looks like somebody's personal website to me.
    • Removed
  • What makes Classic TV Hits (refs 34 to 38) reliable?
    • Removed and double checked all sources which replaced it.
  • Ref 41 is a Google Groups site, and forums are not reliable sources. I can accept the occasional style defect that can easily be fixed, but when personal websites and forums are being used to cite much of the ratings section, that's where I reach the point where I need to oppose. It's not like reliable publications never wrote about this show and its ratings when it was on the air. I suggest finding some of those publications and using them. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The general reference and all DVD Warehouse refs need en dashes in their titles to replace the hyphens. Same for ref 42.
Whoops, have fixed them now. – Lemonade51 (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The bolded episodes violates WP:MOSBOLD. Note that we tend to bend that guideline a bit when bolding is forced by scopes, but I can't tell whether that's the case as the formatting is on a separate template. Come to think of it, does anyone have a problem with the tables being on separate templates? I'm not too familiar with this type of formatting myself, so I can't say if it violates any guidelines or not.
    • Formatting has been done on the seperate season articles. Similar to the Family Guy list or the ones Matthewedwards has named above.
      • Mostly all episode lists transclude the episode table from season articles, calling on {{episode list}} to do so. If you look through the history of episode list FLC nominations, I have often queried and opposed because of that, because we're basically reviewing content written on other pages not the page in question. There's also issues regarding what happens when bad information gets added at the season page or it's vandalised. Because it automatically gets displayed on the episode page, we have a case of two incorrect articles and those who have the episode list watchlisted might not necessarily watchlist the season pages, so they don't notice that it's been messed with (when I was a FL director I had all FLs watchlisted). However, WP:TRANSCLUSION seems to okay this practice (and I've been told that it's actually okay because at least both articles are the same -- even if they're wrong -- rather than having conflicting information across two pages!!!!), MOS:TV is indifferent, and it felt like I was running a losing battle.
      • As for the bolding, that's set by {{episode list}}, so all episode and season lists automatically display it as bolded, and there's no way to undo it without changing the template, which would require discussion on the template's talk page. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment
I'm not sure if it meets DTT as they aren't wikitables -- it derives from a template: Template:Episode list. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason why it couldn't be made to comply with DTT? I often find User:RexxS can be extremely helpeful with this sort of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:TRANS? Perhaps I could just create tables from scratch, like List of M*A*S*H episodes? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I guess until the episode list template has a consensus to be modified to meet DTT, hand-coding a simple Wiki table would be the best approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Right, tables done. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Cool, will review tomorrow. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Good stuff, but you need to add rowscopes as well, sorry to be a pain. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, have added, cheers! – Lemonade51 (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments
  • A shame there's not even a single image to brighten the lead up. Added, Goodraise or another reviewer may need to double check the image.
  • Shouldn't ten year run have a hyphen somewhere? Done
  • "They are on average 22 minutes " would recommend a comma after are and average. Done
  • You have "Warner Brothers" and "Warner Bros.", suggest consistency here. Fixed
  • Ross' Wedding is Ross's Wedding. Fixed
  • "The One with the Ick Factor has a spare " Fixed
  • Check "The One Where Old Yeller Dies"'s number in series. Fixed
  • Four episodes (all different titles) have (1) or (2) after them, why? -- They are considered two-part episodes because the dialogue continues into the next episode. However, they haven't been coupled in the DVD's so it's removed.
  • "The One Where They're Going to Party!" are the italics intentional? Fixed
  • "The One with Chandler and Monica's Wedding (1)" our article on the episode has it as Monica and Chandler, not Chandler and Monica. Fixed
  • Don't think you need # in the rank column, it's pretty obvious that what follows is a number... Removed
  • The 1998 A & E Entertainment Almanac has missing info e.g. ISBN. Added
  • Not overly keen on using Amazon and DVD warehouse to reference this, have to see what others think.
It's pretty difficult to find any press releases dating back to 2000 regarding the release dates of Friends DVDs. Particularly for Region 4, hence why I used DVD Warehouse, a retailer.
  • Ref 38 should be pp. not p. Fixed

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough review. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Have added 'PD-textlogo' license. Would that be sufficient on its own? – Lemonade51 (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Remove link of "The One with the Sonogram at the End", as it only redirects to Friends (season 1). Also, what is "Friends: The Stuff You've Never Seen"? I assume it's a behind-the-scenes show, but a summary would help. It is included in Friends (season 7), but as it's not a regular episode a description in this list would be helpful. Glimmer721 01:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Have removed link. A summary of 'Friends: The Stuff You've Never Seen' is in the final paragraph of the lead. Unless you want it in the list itself? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm posting the following because Lemonade51 asked me to post my 2 cents here. Changes made to List of Friends episodes since it was nominated go against standard practices with TV articles and against common sense. {{Episode list}} makes it easy for editors not versed in table construction to easily add content to list articles. ] articles are normally created using {{Episode list}} and built upon. List of Castle episodes is one such article out of many. Once large enough, or when there is extra content beyond just tables listing the episodes, these articles are split in accordance with WP:SPLIT and Template:Episode list#Sublists. The episode lists in the individual season articles are transcluded into the main episode list article, as was the case with List of Friends episodes before it was nominated. Removing transclusion and building tables that duplicate what is already in the season articles will (I've seen it too many times) result in duplication errors. The coding used in the edits since 1 March 2012 has blown the article out from 14,184 to 82,569 bytes with this edit, and that's without any episode summaries for the 236 episodes and 3 specials. This is a phenomenal amount of code compared to other similar articles. Lemonade51 claims that transclusion has been discouraged here. If transclusion is not used, in order to eliminate duplication errors, episode tables will need to be removed from the season articles. This doesn't make sense though. With transclusion, all content related to each season is within the season article. Without transclusion, content is in two places, which doesn't help our readers. Additionally, episode summaries will need to be moved to the list article, blowing it out to an enormous size which will justify a WP:SPLIT. But if we don't transclude, how does that happen? If "Lemonade51's version" of this article reaches FA status there is precedent to make articles for other series' follow suit. Some season articles contain little more and will really not need to exist. Instead, we'll just end up with bloated episode lists. The present system of transcluding the sesson articles seems to work just fine. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if someone can make the template meet the requirements of WP:ACCESS & WP:MOSBOLD then we could reconsider its use. While the code size has increased, I'd be interested to know if the load time has increased because there are significantly fewer templates to load (which are notoriously slow to load). Addition of other episodes is moot here because the series has finished. And as for the complexity of code, I think that's in the eye of the beholder, I personally find intricately coded templates a bind compared with plain table coding. It's a personal thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing to reconsider. The template is used in 5,068 articles. It's standard practice to use it in TV lists. Changing an article to introduce coding that isn't understood by most editors (that's why we have templates) and duplication errors is not the way to fix a problem. Nor is it appropriate to introduce such a problem under the guise of making a list, which is intricately linked to several other articles, a featured list. The correct, and most appropriate, process is to change the template if it's deemed necessary. While addition of new episodes is moot, duplication errors are not. People will edit the episode list and not the season article, or vice versa. If a side effect of making an article featured is causing errors, then not being featured is preferable. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Well just because it's used in a large number of articles, it doesn't make it right, does it? Templates aren't used because coding isn't understood by most editors, where's the evidence supporting that? Templates are convenient, sure, but their overuse can result in very slow page load times. In any case, as I said, we need our featured lists to meet the manual of style with regard to both visual and non-visual appearance. What goes on behind the scenes is irrelevant to whether this list should be featured; if it meets WP:WIAFL then it should be featured. If someone would fix the template (our resident expert in ACCESS matters, User:RexxS should be able to assist with exactly what needs to be fixed) then there'd be no need for the discussion. As it stands, this list now meets the requirements mandated by the MOS, which is correct for Misplaced Pages's finest work. Just because 5,068 other articles don't comply with MOS, I don't see why this one shouldn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) It was standard practice to send Jews to concentration camps. Didn't make it right, even though some people believed it was at the time. Are you seriously saying that the majority of editors don't know how to construct tables? Well if they don't, we have plenty of help pages guiding editors on how to build them. We shouldn't find a workaround for them so that they continue to stay in the dark about it. You keep talking about duplication errors, don't you mean non-duplication errors, because surely the error will only be duplicated when it is transcluded? If there is no transclusion there can be no duplication, so one page will be correct, which is better for readers than having two pages with incorrect information. If you're worried about it, include notes to editors at the top of each editable section in hidden tags <!-- like these --> that ask editors to make changes at the 'other' page. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Templates are certainly convenient, and we use them for because of that, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that most people seem to have difficulty with coding tables. People screw tables up all the time. Most of the table damage I see just happens to be in TV articles. There may be help pages for tables but they're clearly not understood based on the number of basic errors that I've had to fix. Templates simplify table coding enormously. Unless you're Superman, or Mr Data trying to stop a core breach on the USS Enterprise, slow page load times really don't affect most articles. A few milliseconds here or there just isn't noticed by the average human. What goes on behind the scenes is very relevant to featured list discussions. If an article can't be promoted to featured status because it uses standard templates, then there's something wrong with the system. Instead of sticking heads in the sand and altering the article almost completely so that it does comply, the issues with the templates should be addressed so that the article doesn't need a complete rewrite.
"You keep talking about duplication errors, don't you mean non-duplication errors" - If the same information is included in two different pages the content should be duplicated exactly on both pages, so the content isn't contradictory. Inevitably though, the information will become out of sync and the information will not be duplicated exactly on both pages. This is what the changes to List of Friends episodes will cause. There is no proposal to remove the episode lists from the individual season pages. That's not part of this nomination.
"If you're worried about it, include notes to editors at the top of each editable section in hidden tags" - OK, I haven't looked at your profile but I assume from that suggestion that you live in Utopia where nothing ever goes wrong. People ignore hidden comments all the time. Sometimes it's a never-ending battle trying to stop people from ignoring notes. Have a look at the notes in the "|starring=" field of the infobox at The Big Bang Theory. They're always being ignored. Articles on TV programs that have ended constantly have "<foo> is a" changed to "<foo> was a", even when the note is right next to is. "International broadcast" tables that have a note at the beginning of the section saying "please add countries to this list in alphabetical order" are often re-ordered, or added to by somebody to whom the alphabet apparently starts with "azfkewpb".
"It was standard practice to send Jews to concentration camps" - Now this is getting silly. It was standard practice in Nazi Germany only. It was a practice rejected by the rest of the world. Do I need to invoke Godwin's law here? --AussieLegend (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
"Without transclusion, content is in two places, which doesn't help our readers" Readers don't care that content is in two articles. Lazy editors might, though. Next you'll be saying that we should transclude article content into the lede section (or vica verca) so people don't have to type repeated stuff there too.
"Removing transclusion and building tables that duplicate what is already in the season articles will (I've seen it too many times) result in duplication errors." Transcluding from many articles means that when those articles are edited incorrectly or vandalised, both pages display errors. (I've seen it too many times.) I'd rather have one page display an error and another page display the right thing.
Why do the summaries need to be moved to the list just because there's no transcluding? I don't get that. About 4 years ago none of the featured episode lists transcluded from the season pages, and they didn't have the summaries. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of Friends episodes/archive1: Difference between revisions Add topic