Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Simpsons episodes

List of The Simpsons episodes

3rd-party nomination: This is an excellent list that I don't see why hasn't been made into a featured list already. The only thing that is perhaps truly lacking is references, but I believe that the external links section covers anything that would need to be referenced.--SeizureDog 18:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I like the formatting. — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Several tables that should have similar formatting do not. table 9-16 are different from 17-18. Article should also user proper footnotes instead of asterisks. Circeus 00:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the asterisks to footnotes, but I'm not seeing what you're talking about. The format all looks the same to me. Elaberate?--SeizureDog 02:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table 1 through 8 have special background colors due to the DVDs, I understand that. However, the header cells of the tables for seasons 9 through 16 have no background color, whereas season 17 and 18 do. All these tables should have the same, choose oneor the other (I'd go with colored cells myself.) Circeus 13:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have fixed the background colour issue. The colour I have used is unlikely to be used as a DVD colour since it is the colour of their skin. When a new season DVD is released we can change the colour. I've also added fair use rationale to an image and moved two links up to a references section. I believe that the list now complies with the list of criteria. --Maitch 14:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice choice. Will support now. I'm still a bit iffy about the pseudo-TOC, though. Circeus 20:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, support. —Nightst a llion (?) 17:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I assume it wasn't already featured because it used to be loaded with episode screenshots that made it take forever to load even on a fast connection, and there was a dispute over splitting it off into sub-articles. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot style lists are still there, they've just moved into lists for their respective seasons.--SeizureDog 03:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. DVD covers are not low resolution. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice catch. All of the images were 200 dpi. I have now resized them to 100 dpi and reuploaded them. --Maitch 17:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the original images I uploaded were ~125dpi. If you want them to be 100dpi, they should all be about 550x700, as the original DVD covers measure 5.5" x 7". Ideally, they should be uploaded as 120dpi images for people with larger displays (and thus higher resolution desktop settings), but 100dpi should still be fine for the majority of users. --Kaizersoze 06:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My software said the originals were 200 dpi and then I resized them to 100 dpi in that software. There's no page that need them larger than the current version anyway. --Maitch 06:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm talking about the original images that I got from Fox Home Entertainment's media website. They're print-resolution JPEG's saved with DPI information that tells image editing software that they should be printed at 5.5" x 7" (which is the actual size of the box covers). When I take those and resize them to 100dpi, they become 550x700 images (makes sense; 1 inch = 100 pixels at 100dpi). What your software was telling you isn't correct, because the PNGs I saved don't have any encoded DPI information, so image software (if it's working properly) will tell you they're whatever DPI resolution your desktop is currently set to - most Windows desktops are set to 96dpi, so that's what it should be telling you these images are, regardless of what size they are in relation to the original image (in this case, the original image as it would appear printed on the physical DVD box). And the reason why they should be larger than what's used in these articles is so that people viewing the article can comfortably see them in a larger size if they choose to do so (in fact, the resized versions you uploaded - which turn out to be 63dpi in relation to the original images - looked incredibly tiny on my other monitor). --Kaizersoze 08:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then upload some new versions with sizes in between our two versions. --Maitch 09:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did already - images that are 550px wide, as opposed to 700px before. --Kaizersoze 09:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, does this fix your objection Rune Welsh? --Maitch 09:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be happier with the largest size being only 500px, but I guess this will do for the moment. Also, could you please format the references as in List_of_South_Park_episodes (for instance). Thanks! -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 10:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well constructed. --Chris 18:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice if the lead could be expanded, as in FLs List of South Park episodes and List of Oh My Goddess episodes. CheekyMonkey 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the lead in the style of List of South Park episodes. --Maitch 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ There are no references for the estimates for DVD release dates. At the moment, it looks like it is breaking WP:NOR. --liquidGhoul 05:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kaizersoze has added a reference for the estimates. --Maitch 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, Support. --liquidGhoul 14:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]