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 The Rambling Man 10:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Satyajit Ray filmography[edit]

Featured list candidates/Satyajit Ray filmography/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): - Vivvt • (Talk) 19:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satyajit Ray is considered among greatest filmmakers of all time and I am planning to get this list to FL status on the centenary celebration of Indian cinema on 3rd May 2013. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe article satisfies FL criteria. It has gone thru a peer review with the comments from User:Tomcat7, User:Another Believer and User:Crisco 1492. - Vivvt • (Talk) 19:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my comments at the PR. Image looks fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Tomcat (7) 11:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments "directed a total of 36 films" no need for "a total of". This was changed per one of PR comments. Well, I don't know why you need "a total of", it's redundant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done A personal preference, but I would like to see the Producer, music etc columns the same width. Done Don't forget in a sortable table, all linked items should be linked every time. I personally don't prefer having sortability for the tables here but changed per one of the PR comments. Also, though all the links should be linked everytime, here it might fall into WP:OVERLINK as table has almost same data. Let me know if its ok to take the sort out. - Vivvt • (Talk) 19:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Well it won't fall foul of over link as it's commonplace to link every item every time in a sortable table. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done - Vivvt • (Talk) 23:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Kanchenjungha ->Kanchenjangha. Done "List of films contributed by Satyajit Ray" -> "List of films contributed to by Satyajit Ray" or "List of films with contributions from Satyajit Ray". Done "List of films credited to Satyajit Ray" not really, more "List of films where Satyajit Ray is credited". Done No reason to have the Note(s) column sortable. Done Note b has no full stop but note c does. No reason for this inconsistency. Done Allmovie -> AllMovie. Done Ref 14 should have an en-dash not a hyphen in the title. Done Refs 7, 8 and 10 need an en-dsah in the page range. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] I have fixed ~~some~~ all of your concerns. - Vivvt • (Talk) 23:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"directed a total of 36 films" no need for "a total of".

This was changed per one of PR comments.

Well, I don't know why you need "a total of", it's redundant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done

A personal preference, but I would like to see the Producer, music etc columns the same width.

Done

Don't forget in a sortable table, all linked items should be linked every time.

I personally don't prefer having sortability for the tables here but changed per one of the PR comments. Also, though all the links should be linked everytime, here it might fall into WP:OVERLINK as table has almost same data. Let me know if its ok to take the sort out. - Vivvt • (Talk) 19:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it won't fall foul of over link as it's commonplace to link every item every time in a sortable table. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Vivvt • (Talk) 23:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchenjungha ->Kanchenjangha.

Done

"List of films contributed by Satyajit Ray" -> "List of films contributed to by Satyajit Ray" or "List of films with contributions from Satyajit Ray".

Done

"List of films credited to Satyajit Ray" not really, more "List of films where Satyajit Ray is credited".

Done

No reason to have the Note(s) column sortable.

Done

Note b has no full stop but note c does. No reason for this inconsistency.

Done

Allmovie -> AllMovie.

Done

Ref 14 should have an en-dash not a hyphen in the title.

Done

Refs 7, 8 and 10 need an en-dsah in the page range.

Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed ~~some~~ all of your concerns. - Vivvt • (Talk) 23:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Appears to meet criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references look a little odd, "general" and specific". I'd rather you use those general ones as citations and all in with the references and then the bibliography underneath.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the references layout per your suggestion. - Vivvt • (Talk) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent job.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In the beginning, Satyajit Ray should be unbolded as this isn't the parent article

Done

The lead is not complete IMO. Apart from Pather Panchali, Apu Trilogy and Ashani Sanket I don't see other films being mentioned. The fact that three of his films submitted by India for Academy Awards (Best Foreign Language Film), the most by any director is not mentioned anywhere.

Three films were just submitted and not even nominated. Again, academy award submission does not add any value to his portfolio. so I don't think it needs any mention here or anywhere else for him. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but still they are important from an Indian perspective. This has more significance than a film being named by a magazine such as TIME. When that fact is included this could well be accommodated. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"His Apu Trilogy (1955–1959) appeared in Time's All-Time 100 Greatest Movies" -> His Apu Trilogy (1955–1959) appeared in Time's All-Time 100 Greatest Movies in 2005. A similar list was released just a few months ago. Also this fact should be come before the last para since the last one talks about awards won by himself.

Done. Changed the flow. Also, can you guide to me to the link for recent listing? Content can be then changed accordingly. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent listing I don't get what you actually mean —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said "A similar list was released just a few months ago." I was considering that as a recent listing. Anyway, 2005 is added to the article for better clarity. - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 1984[23]"; Refs should come after punctuation

I don't see it.

References should come only after punctuation —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the ref [23] should come at the end of the sentence like 1992.[23][24]? - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mind you, last three FAs use that format. - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic Monthly -> The Atlantic or The Atlantic (Monthly)

Done

This being a magazine shouldn't it be in italics —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that. My bad! Done now. - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #9 has no publisher

Done

publisher=''[[The Hindu]]'' is totally wrong. It should be either work=[[The Hindu]] or newspaper=[[The Hindu]]

Done

Ref #19 has no author

Done

Time is a magazine; using ((cite news)) for quoting a material from it seems inappropriate to me

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 19:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Resolved comments from indopug (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Indopug: List of films where Satyajit Ray is credited[a 1][a 2][a 3][a 4][a 5][a 6][a 7][a 8]—credited with doing what? (I don't understand that table at all) It lists all the TV series, documentaries made on his film career and films with acknowledging his film making style. This is my only major concern with the article. I don't think several entries in this table are appropriate; a filmography is a list of works by the person: as an actor, director, writer etc. On the other hand, every time you sit for a brief interview, it shouldn't count as part of your filmography. The same goes for acknowledgements and dedications. For eg: the David Lynch filmography FA has no such table. Done. Got your point now. I agree here and made the necessary changes. - Vivvt (Talk) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] [a 1][a 2][a 3][a 4][a 5][a 6][a 7][a 8]—what is this? Why are there "a"s? Shouldn't The refs they points also have "a"s? Actually No. Please see WP:REFGROUP REFGROUP has a "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet" markup where the refs^[1] are a and b, and the footnotes below also show up as a and b. However, in this article, the refs are "a 1" and "a 2", but they show up below (under Filmography, contributions and credits) as "1" and "2". This gets even more confusing because there already is a ref "1" and a ref "2" in that References section, pointing to something entirely different. Done the column full of "himself" is unnecessary. Done no need to specially highlight or centre-align the unknown director cells. Thats part of Template:Unknown and we have no control over it. Ok, then why use the template at all? An italicised Unknown will do the job, and at the same time avoid attracting undue attention to itself unlike the template. Not required now. try to keep all the Yes columns of same width for neatness. Done The first table is also too wide for mobile/tablet screens. You can remove any two or all three of the writer, narrator and distributor columns and put them in other.—indopug (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC).[reply] Done. Removed "Narrator" and "Distributor" as these were not his known roles. He was prominently known for his writing so kept "Writer" as is. I have worked on some of your concerns and given explanations for rest of them. - Vivvt • (Talk) 15:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] One more thing. The lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article. However, the third paragraph of the lead is about films he didn't make, something not mentioned again in the article. (Not saying you should remove this; just that it's a little unnecessary to me).—indopug (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Added that part specially for Alien which had created a bit of controversy that time. Again, there is no part in the article/list where we can mentioned this as it was not started. Otherwise, it could have been added under "Unfinished/Unreleased projects" like Charlie Chaplin filmography. - Vivvt (Talk) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Let me know if anything else needs to be addressed. - Vivvt (Talk) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from indopug (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indopug:

List of films where Satyajit Ray is credited[a 1][a 2][a 3][a 4][a 5][a 6][a 7][a 8]—credited with doing what? (I don't understand that table at all)

It lists all the TV series, documentaries made on his film career and films with acknowledging his film making style.

This is my only major concern with the article. I don't think several entries in this table are appropriate; a filmography is a list of works by the person: as an actor, director, writer etc. On the other hand, every time you sit for a brief interview, it shouldn't count as part of your filmography. The same goes for acknowledgements and dedications. For eg: the David Lynch filmography FA has no such table.

Done. Got your point now. I agree here and made the necessary changes. - Vivvt (Talk) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[a 1][a 2][a 3][a 4][a 5][a 6][a 7][a 8]—what is this? Why are there "a"s? Shouldn't The refs they points also have "a"s?

Actually No. Please see WP:REFGROUP

REFGROUP has a "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet" markup where the refs^[1] are a and b, and the footnotes below also show up as a and b. However, in this article, the refs are "a 1" and "a 2", but they show up below (under Filmography, contributions and credits) as "1" and "2". This gets even more confusing because there already is a ref "1" and a ref "2" in that References section, pointing to something entirely different.

Done

the column full of "himself" is unnecessary.

Done

no need to specially highlight or centre-align the unknown director cells.

Thats part of Template:Unknown and we have no control over it.

Ok, then why use the template at all? An italicised Unknown will do the job, and at the same time avoid attracting undue attention to itself unlike the template.

Not required now.

try to keep all the Yes columns of same width for neatness.

Done

The first table is also too wide for mobile/tablet screens. You can remove any two or all three of the writer, narrator and distributor columns and put them in other.—indopug (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Done. Removed "Narrator" and "Distributor" as these were not his known roles. He was prominently known for his writing so kept "Writer" as is.

I have worked on some of your concerns and given explanations for rest of them. - Vivvt • (Talk) 15:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. The lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article. However, the third paragraph of the lead is about films he didn't make, something not mentioned again in the article. (Not saying you should remove this; just that it's a little unnecessary to me).—indopug (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added that part specially for Alien which had created a bit of controversy that time. Again, there is no part in the article/list where we can mentioned this as it was not started. Otherwise, it could have been added under "Unfinished/Unreleased projects" like Charlie Chaplin filmography. - Vivvt (Talk) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if anything else needs to be addressed. - Vivvt (Talk) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support all my concerns have been addressed.—indopug (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

My concerns were addressed in the peer review process. Again, I am not terribly familiar with filmography standards, nor am I familiar with the subject, but I see no major problems with this list in terms of style, formatting, spelling, etc. I am not sure the languages need to be linked each time, both because of repetition and because commons languages do not need to be linked. I would support the promotion of this list as long as concerns raised by all other reviews are addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support With all the concerns raised by other users have been resolved, I find no other imperfections in the list. The article meets all the criteria of a FL. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 09:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ these things