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 Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases[edit]

Nominator(s): Drewcifer (talk), Andrzejbanas
Toolbox

Been working on this and its many sister-articles for some time now, mostly in my sandbox, and then eventually on the page itself. I came across these articles in a bit of haphazard shape, so it's been my goal to organize and streamline the entire series of lists. This is the biggest and most inclusive of them all, so the success of this nom will probably have an affect on the other lists I plan to work on soon afterwards.

I've tried to simplify things, but I am open to any and all formatting and logistical suggestions any of you may have. Specifically, I have one question I wasn't sure about: do you think it's worth noting the upcoming releases in the way that I have? I would say ideally yes, but since the release dates are so staggered, I feel like it's just inviting trouble, and will more often then not be out-of-date. So I was thinking about removing the denomination altogether, but I wanted to ask before I did that. Also, what do you guys think about the box-set table format? Any ideas?

Also, I had a bunch of help from User:Andrzejbanas, so you could consider this a co-nom, if you like. Thanks for taking the time to look. Drewcifer (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fantastic list. I'm a big fan of criterion, and since their website is kind of hard to navigate, I'm sure this list will prove very useful. I haven't checked the details yet, but one thing that strikes me after a first look, is that the directors aren't sorted by last names. Is this because there are japanese names in the list? The Ministry (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. They're alphabetized like that because I don't know how to do it any other way! Anyone know how? Drewcifer (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been taken care of. Drewcifer (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have; the two left are intentional. Take a look at the context and the actual dab pages, and I think you'll agree they're the most fitting links possible. Drewcifer (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, done. Drewcifer (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per WP:COLOR, all colors also need a symbol; this is for those who can't see color. Also, all linkable items in a table should be linked at every mention, not only the first. This is because you don't know how the reader will sort the table, so you don't know what will be on top (I hope that makes sense). Mm40 (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I believe this is being sorted out with the † symbols. Is this what you suggested? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've already added the little cross thingies. As for the repeated links, I'm not so sure about this. WP:LINK says in tables it's at the editor's discretion, and I don't really have a strong opinoin about it, other than the fact that leaving it as is is easier. That said, if it is redone so everything is linked, I'd like to wait until (if) we figure out the last-name sorting thing mentioned above. Doing the two together would save some time/work, I think. Drewcifer (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorting can be done with the sortname template. I think all names should be linked, if you sort by original release for example lots of directors aren't linked on their first appearance. Smetanahue (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right per Wikipedia:LINK#Repeated_links. I've added the sortable names, but some of them have the nolink banner. You want to fix this up drewcifer? I'm out to see a film! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I was actually in the middle of doing the sortname thing just as you did yourself. Good work! I could go either way with the linking every name thing. It seems like there's two people in support of it. Any other opinions on it? I'll take care of that eventually, but I'll wait until (if) there's more opinions on it. Drewcifer (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think the directors should be linked every time. P. S. Burton (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Although not in the two short tables "Merchant Ivory Collection" and "Other releases") P. S. Burton (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've linked all of the director's names. Drewcifer (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they were listed like this before just because of the sheer amount of directors listed to these compilations. I've listed them in there now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe is it pushed out a bit more to make it more apparent that it is separated from the list below. I can't find any information from WP:LIST to say what to do in this situation, so if it is really disliked, we can move the spacing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the dent really needed is the point is what trying to get at, I'm sure people can deduce easily that its a different table. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 17:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not really essential, but personally I like it, since it does visually seperate the two. I don't think there's any guideline/policy or otherwise on this. Really, this is small potatoes, but I'd prefer to keep it. Drewcifer (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Spine No. and LD no. columns does not sort correctly when clicked on several times. To fix this please see m:Help:Sorting. P. S. Burton (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is seriously the most unhelpful help page I've ever seen. Can anyone tell me what to do? Drewcifer (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been fixed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My earlier comments have been resolved. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • No period in the image caption. FIXED
  • " in the Laserdisc format" no real need for "the" there as far as I can see. FIXED
  • That "pioneering" sentence has no reference.
  • "into online distribution, through an online video on " any reason to repeat "online"?
  • "core Criterion Collection catalog" is it "Criterion Collection" or "The Criterion Collection"?
  • Merchant Ivory could be linked. FIXED
  • Interesting that the list is clearly in US-Eng ("catalog") but there's a clear preference for "film" over "movie"... any reason?
  • I don't think the words "film" and "movie" are necessarily american versus british English. I think it's more of a cultural thing. As in non-film buff type people tend to call motion pictures "movies", while the type of people Criterion caters to tends to call them "films". Or am I missing something?
  • Two (French?) movies sort out of order because of an accent grave.
I fixed the French films, but what about titles in determined form? Should they be sorted under "The" and "Le" or the word that comes after? Smetanahue (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original release sorts very oddly for me.
Not sure why, works fine for me. Exactly what's the problem?
First two sorts are incorrect, then subsequent sorts are okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A release not assigned a catalog number." not a complete sentence so why have a period? Check others.
  • External links could use a better description.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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